Dutch North America

King of the Uzbeks

King of the Uzbeks

One thing I've noticed about Pre-1900 AH is that without fail The Netherlands ALWAYS gives up New Amsterdam (OTL New York) to the British.
ASBniss aside what would the world look like if they didn't?
 
Simon

Simon

What was the difference in population between England and the Dutch Republic like during the period? Even if the Dutch manage to hold on to New Amsterdam I don't believe they would have people needed to settle the region heavily so best guess it becomes a small exclave on the coast, a bit like French Pondichery or Portuguese Goa in British India. The real problem is going to be if an American revolution breaks out in this timeline, considering how the US acted in our timeline I just can't see them not annexing the place in fairly short order.
 

katchen

Banned
The Dutch had the highest standard of living in Europe in the 17th Century and no land enclosure for sheep grazing the way the Brits did. The Dutch didn't need a lot of land. Just commercial opportunities to get "treasure". Of course if the Dutch had Belgium, they might have wanted more sheep grazing land for Flemish weavers to compete with the Brits. And industrialization might have happened in the Netherlands simautaeneously with the UK.
 

HeavyWeaponsGuy

Banned
Brady Kj said:
It could be a Dutch-ruled colony populated mostly by British and German immigrants, couldn't it?
Click to expand...

Though I would think there would be some concern that said colonists would be loyal to other powers than the Dutch. Especially given that the English (unlike the fragmented German states) would be in the running to challenge Dutch control over their colonies.
 
Iori

Iori

Simon said:
What was the difference in population between England and the Dutch Republic like during the period?
Click to expand...

In the mid-17th century England had a population of about 5.2 million while the Netherlands had a population of around 1.5 million.
 

Brady Kj

So, New Amsterdam fell because few people were Dutch. What if New Amsterdam falls by having a revolution against the Dutch and becoming a separate country? I think that would be a very plausible result, and fascinating. Challenging for the settlers to overcome their differences, but they'll have advantages at least of sharing a northern European, mostly protestant heritage, and having room to expand. T No matter how you slice it, this would lead to a very different modern America. The worst case (meaning most OTL-like) scenario would be if this new country gets conquered by force by the British, and a century later this area and the other British colonies fight another war for independence, and eventually most of the area in the country will speak English. And even if that happens, we'll have a country with a very different set of legal and cultural traditions.
 

Georgie Porgie

If New Amsterdam become a seperate country which side would it be on in the Seven Year War?

If it sided with France then it's lost in the same way that Canada is. If it sides with Britain then it's safe for a while. But given the Dutch in India it may well be the Brits took the independant state anyway.

Again the ARW would be difficult for the new state, if it sided with the Brits then they have problems and if they don't they have worse problems.

Given that New York was the british capital in the US, where would be be in this TL?
 
King of the Uzbeks

King of the Uzbeks

Georgie Porgie said:
If New Amsterdam become a seperate country which side would it be on in the Seven Year War?

If it sided with France then it's lost in the same way that Canada is. If it sides with Britain then it's safe for a while. But given the Dutch in India it may well be the Brits took the independant state anyway.

Again the ARW would be difficult for the new state, if it sided with the Brits then they have problems and if they don't they have worse problems.

Given that New York was the british capital in the US, where would be be in this TL?
Click to expand...

Boston or Philly
 

Opunium

Brady Kj said:
It could be a Dutch-ruled colony populated mostly by British and German immigrants, couldn't it?
Click to expand...

Germans only, the Dutch used Germans to colonise loads of places (South Africa i.e.). So the Dutch could send German to colonise New Amsterdam, they would eventually assilimate and I could also see some possible Flemish immigration because of escaping Spanish rule. Because many of those would be catholics there would rapid natural population growth (families with like 10 kids werent strange for Catholics in the Netherlands untill WW2) and thus you could have a steady Dutch New Amsterdam and surrounding lands.
 

maidros

katchen said:
The Dutch had the highest standard of living in Europe in the 17th Century and no land enclosure for sheep grazing the way the Brits did. The Dutch didn't need a lot of land. Just commercial opportunities to get "treasure". Of course if the Dutch had Belgium, they might have wanted more sheep grazing land for Flemish weavers to compete with the Brits. And industrialization might have happened in the Netherlands simautaeneously with the UK.
Click to expand...

IOTL, the main problem the Dutch did not more territory was because they and Louis XIV could not agree about the division of Spanish Netherlands. Also, the Dutch preferred the declining Spain as a neighbour, rather than the strong France. But, suppose, ITTL, the Dutch and the French agree on the division of Spanish Netherlands (with no sense of dogmatism, let us say, the County of Hainaut, and Brugge for France, and duchy of Brabant, the duchy of Limburg, and Gent for the Dutch), how would it affect the Franco-Dutch relations? And if the French and the Dutch remain allied, would they be able to curtail the British colonisation efforts?
 

Janprimus

Opunium said:
Germans only, the Dutch used Germans to colonise loads of places (South Africa i.e.). So the Dutch could send German to colonise New Amsterdam, they would eventually assilimate and I could also see some possible Flemish immigration because of escaping Spanish rule. Because many of those would be catholics there would rapid natural population growth (families with like 10 kids werent strange for Catholics in the Netherlands untill WW2) and thus you could have a steady Dutch New Amsterdam and surrounding lands.
Click to expand...

Yes, large families were common among Catholics, but so were large families for protestants. Though in the Netherlands that remained more common for Catholics longer, because of a variety of reasons, but one common one was the Emancipation of the Roman Catholics in the Netherlands (only finished mid twentieth century).

Still, back on topic, colonists from various origins shouldn't be a problem. IIRC another large portion of the settlers in South Africa were from French Huguenot origin (which were like most Dutch protestants Calvinists).
 

Westphalian

In 1610, you have a German calvinist population in the Rhenish Palatinate, the Upper Palatinate (northern Bavaria), Ansbach-Bayreuth in Franconia, Hesse-Cassel, Nassau, Cleve-Marck at the Lower Rhine and nominally in Brandenburg. Plus many smaller territories.

If the imperial side wins in a Not-nearly-30-years-war, then there might be a substantial emigration of protestants, especially calvinists to the Netherlands and further to America.
 

Blackfox5

The problem is the same as that of NEw France. The settler colonies - while of long term significance - just did not have the short term economic importance of the Caribbean plantation islands. Holland could probably have held onto New Amsterdam for a very long time, but they didn't think it was that important. They would rather translate their victories in the early Anglo-Dutch Wars into other concessions than take back the city. By the 18th century, Dutch power was eclipsed and couldn't reverse it even if they tried.

You either need to make New Amsterdam a much more lucrative colony, or make it that the English were never able to capture it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top