A Crack at Draka: ME's Attempt at a Better TL
- Thread starter Municipal Engines
- Start date
It would be interesting to see what the populations were as time moves on in list form every few hundred years for this timeline.
Based on this table, the population of the Thirteen Colonies was roughly 50 thousand in 1650, which more than doubled within twenty years to almost 112 thousand and in 1700 reached a quarter of a million.
Drakesland had a twenty year head-start on the American Colonies, but is also marred by several factors: distance, arable land being more plentiful in America (though perhaps this is not a common knowledge) and the presence of African diseases. A couple of factors the colony has going for it are the positive advertisement of the colony to the European public and the active attempts to recruit settlers.
I'll try and figure out a population growth rate and work from a figure of 20-25 thousand in 1620, although this rate would likely change from time to time as significant waves of settlers come over (such as migrations of the religiously discriminated - Puritans, Calvinists et all).
Also to take in mind would be the diversion of immigration from North America to South Africa, which would likely be significant in changing the face of the continent as there is a likely chance of many of the Founding Fathers never being born or instead being born in Drakia.
As for Suid-Afrika, I'll post an update in regards to the colony and how they're doing in a while.
The American colonies had that size in the 1650s thanks to the colossal injection of New England Puritans - 20 thousand in the 1630s. Without something similar for Drakesland they will be much lower.
Also having anything like the North American growth rate and health is silly, the Afrikaans didn't for a number of reasons ALL of which equally apply to Drakesland
1) The Americans were coming from Northern Europe to an identical climate, all their skills apply 100% rather than having to learn new things in a cliamte that isn't as productive.
2) There were plenty of First Nations around with agricultural skills to crib off.
3) The disease burden in America was virtually nil as there were no native diseases, the Cape is going to catch things from the Africans even out of the malarial zones, and if there is lots of passing trade from Asia they'll get sick from that (several pandemics ripped through the OTL Cape), the New Englander small village economy also helped limit spread, which isn't something the Draka will employ with the trade aspects of their economy.
The southern colonies suffered severely from disease, and South Africa won't be any different.
4) The insect burden is much much lower in the Americas as the Cape doesn't get significant frosts, so you have insect vectors for illness and much less productive farmland and food storage.
5) North America is just a massively more fertile and well watered place than the cape, giving higher calorie returns per unit labour (not that the Draka won't get really rich off trade and mining, but food will be much more expensive)
20 thousand in 1620 is five times the american colonies at that time, which seems very unlikely.
Given these OTL rates of on year natural increase for the period:
Quebec 2.5%
New England 2%
Appalachians Frontier 2%
Middle Colonies 1.5%
Southern Colonies 1%
Boer Cape 0.5-1%
I think a 1.5% estimate is very generous and means 20k in 1620 will go to 90k in 1700. Immigration will hike it up but I do think 20k is rather high for 1620. Something more reasonable like 15k will give 45k in 1700.
With Drakesland being the sole English settler colony until the OTL establishment of Plymouth Colony, many Puritans will perhaps opt for heading there rather than have to establish a completely new society from scratch. I know that a significant number of them wished to escape religious persecution by creating a "Nation of Saints", but many still simply wanted to get away from England, and there is already a colony in existence with an infrastructure and economy they may find appealing and be willing to endure the longer journey to get to.
Good points, some I didn't think of considering. While a high population for the Draka is preferable, this is supposed to be somewhat realistic, so constraints on that population will have to be defined.
Where did you get these from? They seem very useful.
1) The Americans were coming from Northern Europe to an identical climate, all their skills apply 100% rather than having to learn new things in a cliamte that isn't as productive.
Within the immediate Cape zone we are talking Mediterranean-style farming conditions which the OTL Dutch and their French cohorts (also northern Europeans) seem to cope with quite well. Outside the Cape zone you have stock farming territory which was easily adapted by the OTL Dutch (despite only minimal support from the VOC)
2) There were plenty of First Nations around with agricultural skills to crib off.
The OTL Dutch had easy enough time "convincing" the Khoikhoi to work for them as farmhands, herders and the like. The Khoikhoi were stone-agers with no farming skills but the Dutch farmers had no problems adapting to local conditions. The reason for the slow growth of the colony was the small number of initial migrants; the minimal support (and occasional obstructionism) the colonists received from the VOC; and the fact that there was little enthusiasm on the part of the Dutch to send colonists to South Africa (or any other colony) and little enthusiasm on the part of the colonial authorities to encourage more colonists to come down.
The British latter had problems with planting colonists in South Africa but there chosen target area was the heavily contested (at the time anyway) Eastern Cape which was harder to settle for a number of reasons.
3) The disease burden in America was virtually nil as there were no native diseases, the Cape is going to catch things from the Africans even out of the malarial zones, and if there is lots of passing trade from Asia they'll get sick from that (several pandemics ripped through the OTL Cape), the New Englander small village economy also helped limit spread, which isn't something the Draka will employ with the trade aspects of their economy.
The Cape Zone is not Western Africa. Nor is malarial like small poxes. Europeans are going to have relatively little trouble with the disease environment until they reach northern KwaZulu-Natal, Limpipo and Mpumalanga. In fact the reverse is true: the Khoikhoi had no native resistance to European diseases and were mostly wiped out following their introduction (with those surviving being "half-breeds" as the racists say). This is one reason you would not get a big slave trade in the Khoikhoi.
One of the things that will happen in this timeline should be the mass import of slaves into the Cape Colony: the disease environment wiped out too many of the Khoikhoi to make them useful as a slave population (also the Khoikhoi made bad slaves in general); the Xhosa and the Bantu-speaking groups of the north were too far away to be enslaved as yet and you couldn't buy slaves from them because they (1) had no tradition of slavery; and (2) lack an economy sophisticated enough to want to engage in the slave trade. So most of these slaves will come either from Mozambique (big time slave exporters OTL) and East Asia (like OTL).
Within the immediate Cape zone we are talking Mediterranean-style farming conditions which the OTL Dutch and their French cohorts (also northern Europeans) seem to cope with quite well. Outside the Cape zone you have stock farming territory which was easily adapted by the OTL Dutch (despite only minimal support from the VOC)
2) There were plenty of First Nations around with agricultural skills to crib off.
The OTL Dutch had easy enough time "convincing" the Khoikhoi to work for them as farmhands, herders and the like. The Khoikhoi were stone-agers with no farming skills but the Dutch farmers had no problems adapting to local conditions. The reason for the slow growth of the colony was the small number of initial migrants; the minimal support (and occasional obstructionism) the colonists received from the VOC; and the fact that there was little enthusiasm on the part of the Dutch to send colonists to South Africa (or any other colony) and little enthusiasm on the part of the colonial authorities to encourage more colonists to come down.
The British latter had problems with planting colonists in South Africa but there chosen target area was the heavily contested (at the time anyway) Eastern Cape which was harder to settle for a number of reasons.
3) The disease burden in America was virtually nil as there were no native diseases, the Cape is going to catch things from the Africans even out of the malarial zones, and if there is lots of passing trade from Asia they'll get sick from that (several pandemics ripped through the OTL Cape), the New Englander small village economy also helped limit spread, which isn't something the Draka will employ with the trade aspects of their economy.
The Cape Zone is not Western Africa. Nor is malarial like small poxes. Europeans are going to have relatively little trouble with the disease environment until they reach northern KwaZulu-Natal, Limpipo and Mpumalanga. In fact the reverse is true: the Khoikhoi had no native resistance to European diseases and were mostly wiped out following their introduction (with those surviving being "half-breeds" as the racists say). This is one reason you would not get a big slave trade in the Khoikhoi.
One of the things that will happen in this timeline should be the mass import of slaves into the Cape Colony: the disease environment wiped out too many of the Khoikhoi to make them useful as a slave population (also the Khoikhoi made bad slaves in general); the Xhosa and the Bantu-speaking groups of the north were too far away to be enslaved as yet and you couldn't buy slaves from them because they (1) had no tradition of slavery; and (2) lack an economy sophisticated enough to want to engage in the slave trade. So most of these slaves will come either from Mozambique (big time slave exporters OTL) and East Asia (like OTL).
You seem to misunderstand my points steven24gordon, its not that the Drake colony won't do those things you mention, but that they are going to be less productive and thus drive less population growth than the north american colonies.
The Trekboers were very successful stock handlers and produced significant goods for sale, and there was still only a few tens of thousands of them after a century because that's all that could be supported. Meanwhile New France went from seven thousand to seventy thousand in under a century.
Also the Dutch imported vast amounts of African and Malay labourers in the OTL (another component of the Cape Coloureds ancestry), not sure what your point there is - most forms of slavery produce negative population growth among the slaves.
The Trekboers were very successful stock handlers and produced significant goods for sale, and there was still only a few tens of thousands of them after a century because that's all that could be supported. Meanwhile New France went from seven thousand to seventy thousand in under a century.
Also the Dutch imported vast amounts of African and Malay labourers in the OTL (another component of the Cape Coloureds ancestry), not sure what your point there is - most forms of slavery produce negative population growth among the slaves.
Not to mention that, ITTL, the Drakians have expanded quicker and further than the Afrikaners IOTL and have enslaved many of the tribes that come across their jurisdiction.
I think, though, whilst natural population growth will certainly be inhibited by the factors Nugax has mentioned, there can be a head-start with waves of immigrants enticed to the colony in the 18th Century. Many Puritans will prefer to head for somewhere already civilised and built-up rather than trying to start out from scratch. Throughout the 1630s, the "Great Migration" saw 20,000 Puritans head to England's American colonies, but here there is also the opportunity to go for South Africa - which will already have an established Puritan community from the thirty previous years of its existence.
Though I expect the majority may head to America because it's closer, but even that may not happen. It's really down to what they would prefer - a place where the trip to it isn't comparatively as long, or a place that already has towns and thriving Puritan communities.
As for the Cape Coloureds, I expect they would be significantly less than IOTL (if existing in any large enough number at all) because the settlers have with them women and families.
Quick question: How many free blacks and Khoisan are there in Drakia?
You've made mentions about how many or most of the defeated Africans are sold into slavery, but I don't think all of them were.
Aracnid's "A Different Dragon" had some really interesting explorations of the Draka free underclass--which was made up of both Africans and Irish--and that could be an interesting idea to borrow.
You've made mentions about how many or most of the defeated Africans are sold into slavery, but I don't think all of them were.
Aracnid's "A Different Dragon" had some really interesting explorations of the Draka free underclass--which was made up of both Africans and Irish--and that could be an interesting idea to borrow.
http://accordingtoquinn.blogspot.com/2011/11/two-interesting-alternate-history.html
I posted a link to your scenario on my blog.
I posted a link to your scenario on my blog.
I remain suspicious of anything that puts the notoriously stagnant population of Canada ahead of the booming Thirteen Colonies, unless that is not counting immigration.
Also, Nugax's population figures look like they didn't use the formula for compound interest.
Besides, these are only figures taking into account natural population rise, not immigration.
True. There is likely some 'tame' tribes that are too pants-shittingly scared of being slaughtered or enslaved and struck up deals with the Drakians to remain free and alive.
Notoriously stagnant what the fuck? Cart before horse you got there. Canada had a huge internal growth, rather higher than the 13 colonies (especially the southern ones), it just had much less immigration and later immigration. But they bred like rabbits with a tenfold natural increase in under a century.
Maybe you mean economically stagnant?
No I modelled it numerically to allow a variable year-based immigration flow matching the flow to North America
. You don't tend to use straight up compound interest in demography due to the stratification of population and heterogeneity of inputs and outputs.Oh misread and missed the 'not', yes those are all natural increase on year percentages as it says above. Yeah its amusing if Richleau had gotten those 4000 settlers he wanted (rather than the few hundred who went) Quebec would have had triple the residents come the wars with the British colonies.
Okay, I thought that was what natural increase meant, but I wasn't sure, so I wanted to check.
No I modelled it numerically to allow a variable year-based immigration flow matching the flow to North America
Are you a statistician? You seem like one.
And I don't think I understood much of that sentence. I'm not good at such subjects.