Alternative locations for the United States

[ronaldo]

I have always thought that a country similar to the modern US could emerge somewhere other than North America. Here are some features of the US that I'm looking for:

- founded by European settlers at the expense of the native population

- Geographic isolation (the rest of the world did not know the existence of the land before being colonized)

- Freedom of religion and thought

- Started as a smaller nation, but became a superpower in the 20th century

- a Democratic nation, to a certain extent. Being a monarchy or republic

- current population of over 50 million to 500 million and with a great diversity of skin color

- Territorial area between the 7 largest countries in the world today, coast to two more oceans or more (Arctic and Antarctic oceans are not worth, only the Atlantic ocean or Indian Ocean or pacific ocean.)

-climate varied with dry and hot areas (desert or savannah) and cold and humid areas (mountain chain or tropical forest)

-This nation may include parts of the United States homeland without overdoing it

This nation may coexist with the United States but it must have equal or superior power to the United States

POD can be in any period, but preferably after 1400. I'm not asking you to write a timeline - I just want to have a discussion if a nation like US can exist outside the North American region. Since it has to start as a colony, it would probably have to be out of the old world. It should not be situated in the same place as the actual US but anywhere else in the world is fine. Even Canada and Mexico are ok. Probable candidates, I think, would be Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Canada, Gran Colombia, Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania (Australia), Northern Asia (asian Russia), There are endless possibilities. The colonizer does not even have to be from Western Europe. It could be a powerful empire of northern Europe, Eastern Europe or even of the Mediterranean asia by the Byzantine Empire or ottoman Empire.

Have fun. I look forward to reading your answers.

 

[ronaldo]

Nations that have emerged from eastern empires such as china or japan or india are also worth

 

[Arkenfolm]

South Africa, without a doubt. And I mean hyper South Africa, with everything south of the Zambezi River. OTL, the most probable colonialist nation to create this state is Portugal, so it may well include Angola and Mozambique and even modern Zambia. That's basically the majority of the land which is good for Europeans in Africa outside of North Africa.

- founded by European settlers at the expense of the native population

Yeah, obviously. With lots and lots of slavery, of course, because this is Europeans in Africa after all.

- Geographic isolation (the rest of the world did not know the existence of the land before being colonized)

Debatable, but I don't think the Cape would be at the forefront of non-African minds when the land is colonised. Parts of it (like the lands in nowadays Mozambique) would've been better integrated.

- Freedom of religion and thought

Is a running theme with neo-colonial nations all over the Americas and indeed in much of postcolonial Africa.

- Started as a smaller nation, but became a superpower in the 20th century

Like Brazil OTL expanded, South Africa (during the colonial era) would push northwards, no doubt in a comparable way to the bandeirantes of Brazil.

- a Democratic nation, to a certain extent. Being a monarchy or republic

Easily doable. Although I do compare a Portuguese South Africa to Brazil, and that would mean periods of dictatorship. But with an economy based on slavery and resource extraction, it's difficult not to evolve in a comparable way to Latin America. But perhaps this South Africa evolves along lines similar to late 19th/early 20th century Argentina without the unfortunate years which followed.

- current population of over 50 million to 500 million and with a great diversity of skin color

It would mostly be a Cape Coloured wank, with your average South African TTL looking like OTL's Cape Coloured, but it would range from extremely dark-skinned Africans (not to mention unique sub-populations of Africans like the "Khoisanid"/"Capoid" peoples like the San) to blond-hair, blue-eyed European peoples, and not to mention plenty of Indian, Chinese, and other Asian peoples. Diverse doesn't even begin to describe this. I'd add bonus points if we can get immigration from Brazil (with people of indigenous American background) and if Portugal colonises Australia (and other Pacific areas), so we can perhaps get Australian Aboriginals, Melanesians, Polynesians, etc.

Population in the 21st century could easily be 100 million.

- Territorial area between the 7 largest countries in the world today, coast to two more oceans or more (Arctic and Antarctic oceans are not worth, only the Atlantic ocean or Indian Ocean or pacific ocean.)

It would be #7 (after Australia, but ahead of India) in land, and border the Indian and Atlantic Ocean, as well as of course the Southern Ocean, where no doubt South Africa would take an interest in Antarctica.

-climate varied with dry and hot areas (desert or savannah) and cold and humid areas (mountain chain or tropical forest)

That's a given, southern Africa doesn't need describing in terms of geographic diversity. Should annex the *Prince Edward Islands of the Southern Ocean, or even Kerguelen and modern French and Southern Antarctic Lands for an extra bit of diversity in climate which wouldn't run afoul of any ATL Antarctic Treaties.

-This nation may include parts of the United States homeland without overdoing it

Can't get that, sadly.

This nation may coexist with the United States but it must have equal or superior power to the United States

Here's where we get into issues, because though my version of South Africa is solidly a great power (at weakest modern Argentina, at strongest a modern German Empire with 1914 borders and then a few small adjustments from the Great War), it isn't a superpower/hyperpower like the United States. Not that many nations in history ever had the chance, but the United States had a very specific gift that only North America really provides, and Eastern North America especially because it doesn't have the Rockies blocking the way to the Mississippi valley, which is an issue for any colonial state on Western North America. It is plausible with Latin America to make a state as strong as the US, but it seems much more difficult with the terrain, let alone getting into the historical factors which can easily hold a Latin American nation back.

Although I said Portuguese, this could apply to any similar approach to South Africa which treats a South African colony as if it were Latin America. Maybe Spanish South Africa, in some world with an alt-Tordesillas Treaty? If you have a POD far enough back, an alt-Christian North Africa (say Mauretania) colonising South Africa in a similar way is always cool, given the heavy Punic influence on Roman North Africa and the theories of Carthage circumnavigating Africa.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Lampiao]

USSR? (Just kidding... maybe)

 

[ramones1986]

Well, my idea of an alternate United States is that it would retain its location in the eastern coast of North America; the only difference is the northern border of this ATL United States (or should I call it Virginia) is the Mason-Dixon Line as well as Delaware River, as I thought that Pennsylvania should be settled by German-speaking Quakers while New Jersey (actually central-southern part of the OTL state) should be settled by the English-speaking Quakers.

For such scenario, think of a combination of different PoDs: a successful Roanoke Colony and Puritans arrived in Delmarva Peninsula (adequate supplies and planning in the Mayflower) instead of Massachusetts Bay like in OTL.

 

[Arkenfolm]

USSR? (Just kidding... maybe)

The only power to ever seriously contend against the United States, although in large part thanks to how godawful China had it in the past 150 years or so.

Well, my idea of an alternate United States is that it would retain its location in the eastern coast of North America; the only difference is the northern border of this ATL United States (or should I call it Virginia) is the Mason-Dixon Line as well as Delaware River, as I thought that Pennsylvania should be settled by German-speaking Quakers while New Jersey (actually central-southern part of the OTL state) should be settled by the English-speaking Quakers.

For such scenario, think of a combination of different PoDs: a successful Roanoke Colony and Puritans arrived in Delmarva Peninsula (adequate supplies and planning in the Mayflower) instead of Massachusetts Bay like in OTL.

That's just a weaker version of the United States, though, especially since it is divided.

 

[Indicus]

I've had this fucked-up idea of a Royal France-in-Exile in India for a long time. I may as well see if it checks off the criteria

- founded by European settlers at the expense of the native population

Check.

- Geographic isolation (the rest of the world did not know the existence of the land before being colonized)

Nope, that's a missing point. The rest of the world has known about India for millennia.

- Freedom of religion and thought

At first, this country would be a theocracy as OTL Royal France was. However, being situated in a "pagan" and "Mohammedan" country would moderate that, as would intermarriage, which would likely occur in accordance with the French colonization model.

- a Democratic nation, to a certain extent. Being a monarchy or republic

Over time, it could evolve from an absolute monarchy, but this is very much a missing point.

- current population of over 50 million to 500 million and with a great diversity of skin color

Assuming this country uses India's coal resources in Bengal, Punjab, and later Jharkand, an early industrialization would reduce the population of India by the modern day, though it may still surpass the maximum specified.

And, of course, OTL India already has a great diversity of skin colour.

- Territorial area between the 7 largest countries in the world today, coast to two more oceans or more (Arctic and Antarctic oceans are not worth, only the Atlantic ocean or Indian Ocean or pacific ocean.)

It would be seventh in the world. It misses the "two oceans" requirement.

-climate varied with dry and hot areas (desert or savannah) and cold and humid areas (mountain chain or tropical forest)

That's fulfilled.

-This nation may include parts of the United States homeland without overdoing it

That cannot occur at all in this scenario.

 

[ramones1986]

That's just a weaker version of the United States, though, especially since it is divided.

So some adjustments were needed, isn't it?

 

[Arkenfolm]

I've had this fucked-up idea of a Royal France-in-Exile in India for a long time. I may as well see if it checks off the criteria

The King/Emperor/President/Whatever of France as Emperor of India? But how many European settlers can you actually get? Especially since places like Batavia on Java were graveyards of Europeans where they would repeatedly fall victim to plagues, assuming they didn't die of scurvy and such on the way there.

So some adjustments were needed, isn't it?

If you split up the Thirteen Colonies to any degree in a way you can't unite them later on, you'll get a weaker US. Especially for the South, which will ride its plantation economy into decay like Latin America (even in the 1700s pre-independence the US South was compared to the Caribbean and Latin America) if it doesn't have a North to help it out. The North likewise is losing something too, even if comes out on top. It isn't like the South (Old South or New South) contributed nothing to the national economy.

 

[Indicus]

The King/Emperor/President/Whatever of France as Emperor of India? But how many European settlers can you actually get? Especially since places like Batavia on Java were graveyards of Europeans where they would repeatedly fall victim to plagues, assuming they didn't die of scurvy and such on the way there.

The French colonization model tended to support many traders coming in and marrying locals, and this would be true here in India as well. In regards to the plagues and such else, India has much more temperate regions. France could potentially have control of Bengal and the northern Deccan by the time of the revolution, which would be quite a bit more temperate than Batavia. And eventually, France-in-exile would have control over cities like Shimla and Srinagar, where it is so temperate that it snows.

 

[Arkenfolm]

The French colonization model tended to support many traders coming in and marrying locals, and this would be true here in India as well. In regards to the plagues and such else, India has much more temperate regions. France could potentially have control of Bengal and the northern Deccan by the time of the revolution, which would be quite a bit more temperate than Batavia. And eventually, France-in-exile would have control over cities like Shimla and Srinagar, where it is so temperate that it snows.

That's only a fraction of India, and the very idea of getting India with any significant European minority seems ridiculous without a lot of European genocide (through warfare and famine, of course).

 

[Lampiao]

It isn't like the South (Old South or New South) contributed nothing to the national economy.

Even if we assume that the South didn't contribute at all with the US, the control of the entire Mississipi watershed was essential to the development of the American economy.

I have also two other ideas that might work:

- United Spanish America is a pretty obvious choice;

- I have also this crazy idea of the Dutch effectively colonizing/converting native Indonesians and settling Australia creating a strong maritime empire stretching from Malaysia to New Zealand.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Even if we assume that the South didn't contribute at all with the US, the control of the entire Mississipi watershed was essential to the development of the American economy.

I have also two other ideas that might work:

- United Spanish America is a pretty obvious choice;

- I have also this crazy idea of the Dutch effectively colonizing/converting native Indonesians and settling Australia creating a strong maritime empire stretching from Malaysia to New Zealand.

Definitely, the Mississippi watershed was essential to OTL American strength. If France or another power focused on Louisiana and kept the British/United States hemmed behind the Appalachians, they would secure control over a region with extreme potential, once they kicked out the Spanish from Texas, and of course subdued the indigenous people who'd they be frequently be betraying. After conquering the Mississippi watershed, they could easily push behind the Rockies and conquer at least a portion of the coast (probably Oregon/Washington). Whoever controls the Mississippi basin is in good position to rule North America. Even if the Thirteen Colonies ITTL would still be a significant power, they'd still be a second-rate great power on the level on the level of Italy or Japan.

Australia is always a good option, if it can find a way to sustain 50 million people outside of Lands of Red and Gold-style agriculture.

 

[Indicus]

That's only a fraction of India, and the very idea of getting India with any significant European minority seems ridiculous without a lot of European genocide (through warfare and famine, of course).

Depends. What do you consider significant? IOTL, there are half a million Anglo-Indians even with official policy discouraging intermarriage. France, of course, was much more amenable to mixed-race people, so there would be a few million mixed-race people by the present day. That doesn't even scratch 1% of the Indian population, but that's still quite a sizeable number of people as the elite of India.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Depends. What do you consider significant? IOTL, there are half a million Anglo-Indians even with official policy discouraging intermarriage. France, of course, was much more amenable to mixed-race people, so there would be a few million mixed-race people by the present day. That doesn't even scratch 1% of the Indian population, but that's still quite a sizeable number of people as the elite of India.

Even Rhodesia had more white or mixed-race people, though. I'd say a significant European minority should be at least 5-10% of the population, as in Rhodesia. And it's always worth mentioning that a France in the position of Britain isn't exactly going to have the "friendly" racial policies OTL France did. Historically mixed-race people were often cast aside as soon as they weren't needed (like the descendents of fur traders, etc. in the American West).

 

[Tripledot]

Perhaps a Chinese-colonized Philippines?

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

The only power to ever seriously contend against the United States

Oh, I think that Britain held worldwide supremacy between 1815 and 1914, and contested American domination between 1918 and 1939. Only after the second world war they gave up and the USSR took Great Britain's role as contender for world power.

 

[moxn]

Have fun. I look forward to reading your answers.

I think there are only a few potential areas that could meet all or most of your requirements.

Latin America - A very powerful Mexico or Argentina/United Provinces would probably be the best choices. Mexico especially if it can keep its northern frontier, where vast amount of mineral and agricultural wealth will come from, denying them to the United States. Brazil could be powerful, but I don't think could meet your requirement of touching two oceans, since I don't see it projecting much power across the Andes for very long. Of course, a more united Spanish America would also easily be a major competitor to the US, if it can stay together (*ahem*...)

South Africa - Probably one of my favorites. I have always tried to toy with the idea of a South African analogue to the United States and work out ways it could have happened. To do this, though, you need to get bigger settler population, earlier. In OTL the Cape was very underpopulated and a bit neglected. But if this solid base can be made, it will be able to spread out east and northward, and get control over some of the most mineral rich areas of the world. Improved wealth would attract more settlers, which would make it easier to conquer more areas, in a positive feedback loop. Before the modern era, they're going to hit a fairly hard wall of disease, though. If the nation is more sane on the matter of race and has no quandaries on intermarriage, conquering further north will be a bit easier. I'd imagine some super-state with its northern boundaries in Katanga and the East African highlands, acting as a sort of alt-Draka that isn't given handwavium and doesn't go out of its way to be edgy and grimdark.

Australia - Again get more settlers, earlier, but it will be hard for them to sustain a big enough population. Find a way to bring New Zealand into the country from the start, and over time expand into New Guinea, Fiji, and other islands. Maybe acquire Portuguese East Timor somehow, I know OTL the country considered joining Australia to protect itself from Indonesia. The country will have a big size and economy, and could easily fit in the lower end of your population window.

Edit: Asian bonus round.

China - Might be the hardest one to do. Various dynasties spread from the Pacific to Central Asia, and perhaps if one of these dynasties were the first to industrialize they would be able to secure these lands and push further north into Siberia. You'd have to change the requirements to let the Arctic Ocean count, though.

India - If world history was quite different, the industrial revolution could have begun in South Asia instead. Would probably require a pretty a POD pretty far back in history. Some Indian states could not only resist colonization, but be colonizers themselves and set up territory in various oceans. Alternatively, have European colonization be even more successful in South Asia, and come independence a huge new state stretching from India to the Pacific coat is created. The eastern portions would be filled with Indian settlers, not Europeans, of course.

Japan - The easiest of the three, I think. End Japanese isolation earlier, or at least make it at least a little less extreme. Begin the reforms towards modernization earlier as well, regardless of whether that means restoring Imperial power or not. In OTL it already colonized Taiwan, Korea, Hokkaido, Sakhalin and the Kurils. Have it expand earlier, and I could see Japan grabbing a hold of a whole lot more. Historically the islands had a problem with surplus population, so it would be able to swamp out areas with much smaller native populations like the Philippines or much of Manchuria and Siberia. Again, would require counting the Arctic Ocean in the requirements.

 

[ronaldo]

South Africa, without a doubt. And I mean hyper South Africa, with everything south of the Zambezi River. OTL, the most probable colonialist nation to create this state is Portugal, so it may well include Angola and Mozambique and even modern Zambia. That's basically the majority of the land which is good for Europeans in Africa outside of North Africa.



Yeah, obviously. With lots and lots of slavery, of course, because this is Europeans in Africa after all.



Debatable, but I don't think the Cape would be at the forefront of non-African minds when the land is colonised. Parts of it (like the lands in nowadays Mozambique) would've been better integrated.



Is a running theme with neo-colonial nations all over the Americas and indeed in much of postcolonial Africa.



Like Brazil OTL expanded, South Africa (during the colonial era) would push northwards, no doubt in a comparable way to the bandeirantes of Brazil.



Easily doable. Although I do compare a Portuguese South Africa to Brazil, and that would mean periods of dictatorship. But with an economy based on slavery and resource extraction, it's difficult not to evolve in a comparable way to Latin America. But perhaps this South Africa evolves along lines similar to late 19th/early 20th century Argentina without the unfortunate years which followed.



It would mostly be a Cape Coloured wank, with your average South African TTL looking like OTL's Cape Coloured, but it would range from extremely dark-skinned Africans (not to mention unique sub-populations of Africans like the "Khoisanid"/"Capoid" peoples like the San) to blond-hair, blue-eyed European peoples, and not to mention plenty of Indian, Chinese, and other Asian peoples. Diverse doesn't even begin to describe this. I'd add bonus points if we can get immigration from Brazil (with people of indigenous American background) and if Portugal colonises Australia (and other Pacific areas), so we can perhaps get Australian Aboriginals, Melanesians, Polynesians, etc.

Population in the 21st century could easily be 100 million.



It would be #7 (after Australia, but ahead of India) in land, and border the Indian and Atlantic Ocean, as well as of course the Southern Ocean, where no doubt South Africa would take an interest in Antarctica.



That's a given, southern Africa doesn't need describing in terms of geographic diversity. Should annex the *Prince Edward Islands of the Southern Ocean, or even Kerguelen and modern French and Southern Antarctic Lands for an extra bit of diversity in climate which wouldn't run afoul of any ATL Antarctic Treaties.



Can't get that, sadly.



Here's where we get into issues, because though my version of South Africa is solidly a great power (at weakest modern Argentina, at strongest a modern German Empire with 1914 borders and then a few small adjustments from the Great War), it isn't a superpower/hyperpower like the United States. Not that many nations in history ever had the chance, but the United States had a very specific gift that only North America really provides, and Eastern North America especially because it doesn't have the Rockies blocking the way to the Mississippi valley, which is an issue for any colonial state on Western North America. It is plausible with Latin America to make a state as strong as the US, but it seems much more difficult with the terrain, let alone getting into the historical factors which can easily hold a Latin American nation back.

Although I said Portuguese, this could apply to any similar approach to South Africa which treats a South African colony as if it were Latin America. Maybe Spanish South Africa, in some world with an alt-Tordesillas Treaty? If you have a POD far enough back, an alt-Christian North Africa (say Mauretania) colonising South Africa in a similar way is always cool, given the heavy Punic influence on Roman North Africa and the theories of Carthage circumnavigating Africa.

[/quote][/QUOTE]




What would be the most probable territory of this '' hyper-southern Africa '' could expand from that of the south to the Congo and perhaps Kenya to Ethiopia?

 

[ronaldo]

I think there are only a few potential areas that could meet all or most of your requirements.

Latin America - A very powerful Mexico or Argentina/United Provinces would probably be the best choices. Mexico especially if it can keep its northern frontier, where vast amount of mineral and agricultural wealth will come from, denying them to the United States. Brazil could be powerful, but I don't think could meet your requirement of touching two oceans, since I don't see it projecting much power across the Andes for very long. Of course, a more united Spanish America would also easily be a major competitor to the US, if it can stay together (*ahem*...)

South Africa - Probably one of my favorites. I have always tried to toy with the idea of a South African analogue to the United States and work out ways it could have happened. To do this, though, you need to get bigger settler population, earlier. In OTL the Cape was very underpopulated and a bit neglected. But if this solid base can be made, it will be able to spread out east and northward, and get control over some of the most mineral rich areas of the world. Improved wealth would attract more settlers, which would make it easier to conquer more areas, in a positive feedback loop. Before the modern era, they're going to hit a fairly hard wall of disease, though. If the nation is more sane on the matter of race and has no quandaries on intermarriage, conquering further north will be a bit easier. I'd imagine some super-state with its northern boundaries in Katanga and the East African highlands, acting as a sort of alt-Draka that isn't given handwavium and doesn't go out of its way to be edgy and grimdark.

Australia - Again get more settlers, earlier, but it will be hard for them to sustain a big enough population. Find a way to bring New Zealand into the country from the start, and over time expand into New Guinea, Fiji, and other islands. Maybe acquire Portuguese East Timor somehow, I know OTL the country considered joining Australia to protect itself from Indonesia. The country will have a big size and economy, and could easily fit in the lower end of your population window.

Edit: Asian bonus round.

China - Might be the hardest one to do. Various dynasties spread from the Pacific to Central Asia, and perhaps if one of these dynasties were the first to industrialize they would be able to secure these lands and push further north into Siberia. You'd have to change the requirements to let the Arctic Ocean count, though.

India - If world history was quite different, the industrial revolution could have begun in South Asia instead. Would probably require a pretty a POD pretty far back in history. Some Indian states could not only resist colonization, but be colonizers themselves and set up territory in various oceans. Alternatively, have European colonization be even more successful in South Asia, and come independence a huge new state stretching from India to the Pacific coat is created. The eastern portions would be filled with Indian settlers, not Europeans, of course.

Japan - The easiest of the three, I think. End Japanese isolation earlier, or at least make it at least a little less extreme. Begin the reforms towards modernization earlier as well, regardless of whether that means restoring Imperial power or not. In OTL it already colonized Taiwan, Korea, Hokkaido, Sakhalin and the Kurils. Have it expand earlier, and I could see Japan grabbing a hold of a whole lot more. Historically the islands had a problem with surplus population, so it would be able to swamp out areas with much smaller native populations like the Philippines or much of Manchuria and Siberia. Again, would require counting the Arctic Ocean in the requirements.

A probable unification of australia and indonesia?
Maybe even a nation with all of South East Asia and (oceania) autralia?