Anaxagoras
Banned
fhaessig said:Flanders ( BTW, what does this cover? historically, some quite different territories have gone by that name )
Flanders is, ITTL, what the Austrian Netherlands were IOTL before the French Revolutionary Wars.
fhaessig said:Flanders ( BTW, what does this cover? historically, some quite different territories have gone by that name )
Anaxagoras said:Flanders is, ITTL, what the Austrian Netherlands were IOTL before the French Revolutionary Wars.
fhaessig said:If that's the case, most of it is french-speaking, at that time, IIRC.
fhaessig said:True, but the way they do it isn't by force, just by making everything official in french only. Thus, french is the language of the town and cities, the aristocracy and bourgeois as well as everyone ambitious. It trickle from there in the countryside and the rest of society ( that' why you still have regional languages spoken in France ). That hasn't led to any trouble in OTL at least until the XXth century ( in which, BTW, they went to a more forceful approach, no coincidence, here ).
Given that OTL, Fflemish nearly gave way to french before enjoying a renaissance ( in the XIXth century, half the population of Antwerpen was french -speking ), I don't think language is going to cause trouble.
Faeelin said:Are you sure about that?
Remember, this is a France with a substantial colonial empire (Santo Domingo is valuable on its own, of course, and you have India), and a large merchant marine.
Meanwhile, England has suffered a French invasion. This can't be good for their industrial growth.
Ah; I was about to ask about Antwerp, actually.
I was going to say it was weird for the Flemish to demand special rights, but then I remembered the aberration that was the United States of Belgium, so it seems plausible to me.
Hmm. I wonder if Tipu in Mysore might not be more successful, in this TL.
fhaessig said:And, in my experience, there's more differences between flemish ( as spoken in Antwerpen, for exemple ) and Dutch as spoken in the netherlands ( i.e. not algeemen ) than between Alsatian and Bavarian ( which is a bit different from hochdeutsch ).
As the influance of the Church wanes, you may be quite right. However, I think you underestimate the power of religious difference. Remember that, in the XIXth century, when belgium separated from Netherland, the Vlaams ( with the exception of Maastricht ) went with the french-speaking catholics rather than with the dutch-speaking protestant.
fhaessig said:And is the majority age the same in both countries? It could be interesting if Louis is considered old enough to rule on his own in Flanders but still require a regency council in France.
benedict XVII said:Good question, Charles V's majority was acknowledged when he was 15 for his Burgundian heritage in the XVIth century. Louis XV's was acknowledged when he turned 18, and effective only in his 20's.
Are Acadia and Newfoundland (Terre-Neuve) considered part of Canada ITTL? I don't believe they were OTL during the French Period, and had their own governors.Anaxagoras said:1788:
At the same time, with a booming population and the possibility of new territory being acquired to the West, it is recognized in Paris that New France is simply too big to be governed as one entity. It is therefore split into two colonies, Canada being ruled from Quebec and Louisiana being ruled from New Orleans. “New France” simply becomes a general term for the French North American colonies.
And Acadia is governed from Louisbourg on Isle Royal? And if France holds Newfoundland, it would be governed from Le Port de Saint Jean (St. John's Harbour), but unfortunately you haven't mentioned Newfoundland's fate at all, so I'm just guessing.Anaxagoras said:New France is divided into separate provinces for administrative purposes. The St. Lawrence River Valley is governed directly from Quebec, while the Ohio River Valley is governed from the town of Montcalm, the upper Mississippi from St. Louis and the lower Mississippi from New Orleans.
They would be provinces wouldn't they? That's what they were called IOTL before the ARW. And the use of "states" implies some level of theoretical legal sovereignty, which is was it chosen during the Articles of Confederation period, correct? Either way I am interested to hear more about how the relations between the three levels of government play out in the future.Each of the thirteen “states” maintains its own state legislature, which handles all local matters. In general, the relationship between the state legislatures and the Dominion Parliament is analogous to the relationship between the Dominion Parliament and the British Parliament.
Sir Isaac Brock said:And Acadia is governed from Louisbourg on Isle Royal? And if France holds Newfoundland, it would be governed from Le Port de Saint Jean (St. John's Harbour), but unfortunately you haven't mentioned Newfoundland's fate at all, so I'm just guessing.
So do the provinces have either own councils or lieutenant governors? If not what function do they serve?
Sir Isaac Brock said:They would be provinces wouldn't they? That's what they were called IOTL before the ARW. And the use of "states" implies some level of theoretical legal sovereignty, which is was it chosen during the Articles of Confederation period, correct? Either way I am interested to hear more about how the relations between the three levels of government play out in the future.
G.Bone said:England isn't following up on it's success in the Restitution War. I would have pressed on - not as McCellan but Grant.
Land, maybe a border at the Mississippi.Anaxagoras said:They got what they wanted- a restoration of British honor and an end to the restrictions of the Treaty of London. What might they have gained from further fighting?
I agree, the Dominion would be wanting the Brits to follow up and gain a bit more land for them (the Maritimes, maybe some of Ohio territory)...Wendell said:Land, maybe a border at the Mississippi.