Absence of Britain in North America

Is there any way Britain coulda been prevented from expanding so far into north america? Like what if besides 13 colonies there were only 3? What affect would that have? Also what if Britain gave up canadian colonization as a lost cause?
 
Quite many ways. The most obvious being an other or several other countries starting colonization of the place in the 16th century before England. Be It France, a kind of unified Italy, the United Provinces, ... etc.
 
Quite many ways. The most obvious being an other or several other countries starting colonization of the place in the 16th century before England. Be It France, a kind of unified Italy, the United Provinces, ... etc.
Portugal, Prussia, Saxony, Sweden, hell there was a country called Curland that is in Lithuania had colonies in Nigeria and the Carribean
 
Quite many ways. The most obvious being an other or several other countries starting colonization of the place in the 16th century before England. Be It France, a kind of unified Italy, the United Provinces, ... etc.
Portugal, Prussia, Saxony, Sweden, hell there was a country called Curland that is in Lithuania had colonies in Nigeria and the Carribean
Which would be the most likely to expand and which could economically aquire and hold the most land in North America?
 
Would France go the Colony route like Britainand would they be or less hostile to Natives? Also with more French influence would any french colonies rebel like the british ones did and a French version of the usa form?

I think It would be somewhere between the british way of colonizing north America and the spanish '/portuguese way of colonizing latin America : less intermixing (because north America north of Mexico was fat less densely populated than OTL Mexico and Andine south America) but less apartheid and ethnic cleansing. But a certain degree of violence is unavoidable.
 
Would France go the Colony route like Britainand would they be or less hostile to Natives? Also with more French influence would any french colonies rebel like the british ones did and a French version of the usa form?
Depends on how much colonists France gets.A lot of French were quite reluctant to leave their country.
 
What if religious situation of England and France is revrsed-Catholic England that banned non-Catholics from settling in colonies and Gallican France with religious mess and large groups of dissidents.
 
I think It would be somewhere between the british way of colonizing north America and the spanish '/portuguese way of colonizing latin America : less intermixing (because north America north of Mexico was fat less densely populated than OTL Mexico and Andine south America) but less apartheid and ethnic cleansing. But a certain degree of violence is unavoidable.
Do you think under the influence of France any native ameican tribe or alliance would be able to keep a large area of land and have autonomy? Lets say 4 tribes form an alliance and decide to keep and area the size of.....Utah. Would that work?
 
Do you think under the influence of France any native ameican tribe or alliance would be able to keep a large area of land and have autonomy? Lets say 4 tribes form an alliance and decide to keep and area the size of.....Utah. Would that work?

No. I think that in the end, the whole of America would still be colonized by europeans. The technological gap was too wide (the amerindians basically had 2,000 years of delay) and the amerindians in today's US and Canada were to few to resist.

And the french favoured assimilation. So as in Mexico, you would have many ethnic amerindians or french-amerindian metis who would all speak french.
 
Say the Reformation goes a little differently. POD is this: Calvin doesn't read a certain text one day and never goes down the trajectory he does, because he got sick, stubbed his toe, ate the wrong thing, dies, meets the right girl, whatever. This causes there to be no Calvinism, so the Netherlands are more easily and successfully pacified by Spain and the Huguenots butterflied away. Even so, France gains part of the Spanish Netherlands via some sort of war (less Huguenots means more stability).

The Valois Kings begin colonizing the Mid-Atlantic and Newfoundland earlier. England is in the throes of religious civil war due to both French and Spanish support for the Catholic nobles and peasants. There are no Puritans, but the English are in no position to establish colonies. The French Kings are able to send some of their Flemish subjects to go, including nobles. There is wholesale colonization by French barons who desire to build large and self-sufficient colonies. They are able to also recruit settlers from other places, too, including Catholics from the British Isles, including Scots, Welsh, and Irishmen. Maybe Navarrese, too.

The Valois and even Henri IV (who here would probably be butterflied away from becoming King) were far more supportive of large scale colonization.

By the time the English situation stabilizes (1610s?), probably with a Catholic King, most of the good land would probably already be taken. Basically, give the English their civil war period earlier and take away the French religious wars and you would have a totally different America.

The other way to do it would be a successful Spanish Armada. I guess my general point is, civil strife and less Puritans and other religious dissidents would make English colonies in America less likely.
 
Top