Kaiphranos
Donor
I think some of the western coastal bits of "Unsettled Africa" are both more accessible and more valuable than some chunks of the interior which already weekend to be claimed, which is a little odd.
Quite unique and almost impossible, or at least unlikely. The Dutch part is fine. I could easily see that. South West Australia is very close to the Dutch trade routes towards Indonesia. So a settlement couls easily be made and used as a supply station towards Batavia. Outside the south west there isn't realy much use of Australia for the Dutch, but I could see them claim the coastal areas, even if they don't settle it or settle it very lightly.
The British have the best part of Australia. They settled basicly all the good parts. I do have a slight problem though. Without a big British India, it seems to me that the British would have very little interest in the region. Still it is not unlikely they'll settle it and they do have two smaller colonies close by.
The French realy have ended up with the short end of the stick. A very large majority of their Australia is desert and basicly worthless. Only the part near Brisbane is realy habitable and I see no reason why the French would want all that desertt. Probably because neither the Dutch or British wanted it.
Finally Portuguese Australia. Poor Portuguese, they ended up with the most worthless part. I see no reason why this part of Australia would end up Portuguese. They can't use it and it is too far from the other Portuguese colonies. I could see it maybe as an Aragonese colony, but not Portuguese.
As a stylistic complaint, the Floridas are infested with a grocers apostrophe.
I agree. I think you should give Portuguese Africa to France and The Aragonese East Indies to Britain.
I would give Papua New Guinea to the British, seems like the need for holdings anyways![]()
You need one bigger butterfly and much earlier. Aragon suffered a lot from the Black Death, they simply did not have manpower to defy Castille (even in combination with Portugal): they needed castillian troops to take Naples.
The POD you're proposing would probably mean a different Spain. Instead of Spain=Castille+Aragon, you would get Spain=Castille+Portugal (note that portuguese kings claimed against the use of Spain by Isabel and Fernando).
An independent Aragon would follow a similar path to that of Venice: centered in the Mediterranean, slow decay and being absorbed either by France or *Spain. Most probably by *Spain.
I Suppose I can think of a few suggestions for Borealia.
1. Three words: Hudson's Bay Company,
2. New France. They'll follow the fur trade.
3. Russia. Same motives as France and Britain.
Regarding Baja, I changed my mind a little and I guess I could see it. I just don't think many Japanese would want to move there...
That is one unique Australia.
I think some of the western coastal bits of "Unsettled Africa" are both more accessible and more valuable than some chunks of the interior which already weekend to be claimed, which is a little odd.
To be fair France already has the largest portion of Africa out of any colonial power, its a little much to give them more. As for the Aragonese east indies I want to give them to a power not already in the region but ill consider Britain with its bad luck and all.
Though, it's also the shittiest part, and even with the addition of the Portuguese area, it'd still be the shittiest.
As far as wanting as all powers represented in the various colonial theaters, sometimes that's just not realistic. Seriously, I highly doubt the Aragornese has the resources to maintain such a distant holding. Not to mention, it's prime location, and stronger powers wouldn't let some nation run it if they can take it for themselves.
The British in Bengal makes sense, that was a good move. But I think giving them New Guinea and Melanesia would possibly create interesting possibilities in the region, and greater balance abroad.
Another question, how have the Basques allow themselves to be so split?Any particular time period's border you would suggest? This one is from 1803 I believe. Also as for Ethiopia why would you have it unified, just curious.
Portugal and Aragon purposely deprived Castile of her links to the ocean in order to permanently eliminate the threat of castilian maritime aggression. Castile modernly is probably a very dismal place ruled by an illegitimate nobility directly controlled by Portugal/Aragon.
1) How does Castille have overseas possessions when it doesn't have a coastline?
2) Japanese expansion to the Sugarcane Islands, let alone Hantau, seems unlikely?
3) How does Russia have the resources to expand to the Pacific and into Central Asia, but not pick off anything in Eastern Europe?
4) Mesopotamia? Seems a very unlikely name for what would probably be a Turkic state.
[FONT="]5) Considering how fragmented Europe is, the size of their overseas possessions seem rather large.[/FONT]
1) Delhi Confederacy doesn't even include Delhi
2) Persia's going to have to go a long way to integrate Kashmir and Panjab. Especially Panjab.
3) Portuguese Mysore would have been a disaster. Portugal would have needed a proper base to conquer them, and it didn't build up enough influence in the area.
It looks like a majority of OTL Basque is in Aragon id imagine they would be getting autonomy from Aragon rather than Spain ITTLAnother question, how have the Basques allow themselves to be so split?
Interesting. Off the top of my head, no Ottoman Empire. Does that mean Egypt is a stagnant backwater, or have they thrown out the Mamluks and made a real nation-state of themselves? Is there any chance that they could project into the Indian Ocean a little?
I do love independant Aragon, and to all of the people saying Aragon shouldn't be capable of having a large colonial empire, I have one word: Portugal. Aragon was larger and stronger than Portugal, and with Southern Italy and the Islands it is not even a contest. Aragon here is probably has a European population equal to that of OTL Spain, if not greater, so the only question relevant to their projection capacity is how well integrated their Italian (including Sicily and Sardinia) lands are.
Edit: What is the deal with Mesopotamia? Is it a Turkish state, or is it Georgian in nature?
I like a prosperous Egypt personally but it could go either way, Egypt in the Indian ocean is interesting might you expand on that? Id imagine the Ottoman empire was around but got broken up not unlike OTL (but not by world war of course). Sicily and Sardinia are likely not integrated too heavily since the aragonese conquest of the area would have to come much later without the help of castile. Mesopotamia is likely Turkish, but im open to either option, a name suggestion would be appreciated if Mesopotamian is too out of left field.
On Egypt, it really depends on when and how they become independant. Early on and we could see them with some choice trading posts in southeasetern India and Eastern Africa, while with a later independance they would most likely be going for a prestige colony to prove that they are a relevant power.
On Aragon, actually Aragon owned Sicily and southern Italy before uniting with Castile. Admittedly during the first portion of Ferdinand's reign Southern Italy was under the control of his cousin, but if memory serves he had Aragon proper, Southern Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia all under the crown of Aragon's control again by his death, meaning before it was absorbed by Castile. So, Aragon will have controlled Sicily continuously for over half a milennium and southern Italy for a similar amount of time, so feel free to think of those areas to Aragon being as Scotland is to England in the U.K.
As for Mesopotamia, it really depends on who founds the state there as to what it would be called. I imagine a Georgian state would continue to call it Georgia, while the powerful Turkmen groups I'm less sure of. It could also be a kind of mega Armenia, claiming all of the lands of the ancient Kingdom of Armenia as its rightful heritage.