How would England control Mexico ?

  • England would only enact trade policies, no colonisation or conquest

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • England would only grab a port city or two

    Votes: 4 16.0%
  • England would use its experience in Ireland to dominate Mexico

    Votes: 7 28.0%
  • England would try to pit the enemies of the Triple Alliance/Aztecs against Tenochtitlan

    Votes: 8 32.0%
  • England would go with India-esque gradual conquest except with deadly diseases added in

    Votes: 11 44.0%
  • England would place families into Mexico

    Votes: 4 16.0%
  • England would primarily send single men

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • England would create a Dominion of Mexico

    Votes: 2 8.0%
  • England would create a company-ruled Mexico

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • England would create a viceroyalty of Mexico

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • Other choices, please state below

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • England would develop a non-slave-economy Mexico

    Votes: 4 16.0%
  • England would develop an enslaved Mexican economy

    Votes: 4 16.0%

  • Total voters
    25
  • This poll will close: .
It's less what happens to Spain and what does England do that gets it involved in this area in the first place. Sure we have English Columbus, but as I've said before England has problems with Scotland, and Ireland using as a model, at this stage is only viable if the English want to be an authority in name only. Spain benefited from a mostly stable situation at home, that England does not have that luxury, the Tudor dynasty would still be recent there are still problems with the Church down the line, there may not be a reformation as we know but things would have to change with the church and this going to affect England.

Second, English control over the colonies would be weak, they could not even reign in Ireland until after the Earls left and that was in the late 1500's. This is even assuming whatever Conquistador equivalent manages to pull off taking down the triple alliance, but there will not be the same characteristic to it. Other than that the best England can hope for is trading with the various city-states.

First off, how is Scotland that much of a problem ? Every time Scotland sends its armies to the south, its nobles are slaughtered en masse and its king are either killed, captured, or defeated outright. Also, the only reason Scotland ever went to war with England was over England's participation in the Italiano wars. With TTL England pushing for overseas ventures and TTL king being more relunctant to go to war than Henry VIII, then surely England wouldn't have a reason to ever join up in the Italiano wars in the first place. Thus, with the lack of English participation ( an in OTL English participation was only justified by Henry VIII's taste for war ), then certainly Scotland and England can retain peace for the first half of the sixteenth century.

From the premise: No conquistadors. No initial conquest. First trade. Then diseases and war and gradual conquest by the turn of the late 16th century. It takes decades for England to do so. Meanwhile Castille is colonising Canada and France has Virginia (or the other way around. In any case, the OTL US and Canada is split between France and Castilla). Portugal would get both Brasil and the Incas. Is this plausible ? Is any of it out of place ?
 
Last edited:
Top