One country controls all northeastern America. Does Montreal become the biggest city?

Skallagrim

Banned
An observation made by Shevek23 in response to the latest update of Look To The West got me thinking. The observation was basically about the size of New York in that timeline, compared to "Mount Royal" (LTTW's Montréal). In LTTW, the American revolution is forestalled, keeping those cities in the same country. A mention of New York's size in the latest update then led to this comment:

I seem to recall, way back when the narrative was around the late 18th, turn of the 19th century and the Jacobin wars were raging, that you did not believe NY would dominate, because major immigration as well as trade into the Mississippi Valley would flow up the Saint Lawrence to Mount Royal, which would become the Big....Maple I guess.

This of course refers to the world of LTTW, but Shevek23 then went on to refer to the possibility that...

(...) NYC of OTL was a fluke of chance, nothing deterministic about the Hudson Valley to the Great Lakes being some sort of predetermined optimal regional channel. Rather it only looked that way OTL due to Yankees not having the Saint Lawrence in their borders, so Montreal (OTL spelling) was deprived of its natural flow with most immigration being diverted south of the US/British possessions border, so the second-best channel westward was favored.

Since I'd really like some insights into this, but don't want to clutter up the LTTW-thread with my questions, I've made a new topic for it.

My question really is: if for some reason a singly country controls all of northeastern America, is the Saint Lawrence really the superior channel to the interior, and is Montreal really the more fortunately placed city? Is OTL's supremacy of New York really a fluke?
 
How good of a harbor for ocean-going vessels does Montreal have, compared to New York City? I feel like that will be one of the key aspects in any timeline with European settlement of the East Coast.
 
No, no, no, no regarding "nothing deterministic", the harbor of New York and the gateway that the Hudson and Mohawk valleys afforded. The St Lawrence needs many, many canals around a lot of rapids, it isn't a straightforward, down the St Lawrence we ago; but while yes the Mohawk Valley needed one too, it had the benefit of New York and Albany already had a leg up on Montreal prior to the American Revolution; New York was larger by 4 or 5 times the size of Montreal in 1790 OTL... that's 30 years before the Erie Canal. So... no Revolution... how does that butterfly away NY's starting advantage? In OTL the Federal govt, thanks to Hamilton builds the Federal Dam at Troy early on to allow ship traffic to reach Lansingburgh and Waterford year-round... in 1820s the state of NY (with NO help from the Federal govt) builds the Erie Canal, at the same time the first commercially successful steam railroad in the USA happens (Albany to Schenectady, in order to cut the triangle of the Erie Canal in that area) and the first commercially successful steam boat in the world (Albany to New York); add to that the plank, post, and toll roads leading to thousands of New Englanders moving west through Albany... now, of course in this ATL scenario there's no state of NY, but there are going to be wealthy people such as the Van Rensselaers (wealthiest family in colonial America and one of the largest landowners, Stephen Van Rensselaer III still ranks as the 10th richest American of ALL TIME), Schuyler (wealthier than Jefferson or Washington) and Livingston (financier of Fulton's steamboat) families. No way cold, icy-bound Montreal becomes a shipping threat to NY based on an American loss of the US Revolution without multiple other PODs to make the change, including geographic ASB ones. This isn't realistic, you CAN'T make Montreal bigger than NY.

New England will still be overpopulating and moving west, immigration wasn't a big deal originally and not the reason Albany and New York became gateways to the Midwest; you can't say "oh, immigrants go to Montreal instead". Why? Because they love snow, cold, ice, the fewer months they can actually make it to Montreal from Europe compared to NY? The MUCH smaller city of Montreal compared to NY at the time of the POD? The less diverse population in Montreal compared to NY? NY has already won by the time of the US Revolution, the POD is too late.
 
The St Lawrence needs many, many canals around a lot of rapids,

This... mostly isn't true. There are a few sets of rapids, but the worst section is the portion near the rapids near Montreal, and a canal could be constructed there with relative ease. And if such a canal begins construction around the same time as the Erie canal it will finish sooner simply due to the shorter distance covered.

With a proper canal in place though, even with it starting as far behind New York as it did, it would be poised to grow quickly and be a far better shipping route than the Erie for Great Lakes traffic. You could sail a ship right from Duluth to Montreal without having to transfer cargo.
 
This... mostly isn't true. There are a few sets of rapids, but the worst section is the portion near the rapids near Montreal, and a canal could be constructed there with relative ease. And if such a canal begins construction around the same time as the Erie canal it will finish sooner simply due to the shorter distance covered.

With a proper canal in place though, even with it starting as far behind New York as it did, it would be poised to grow quickly and be a far better shipping route than the Erie for Great Lakes traffic. You could sail a ship right from Duluth to Montreal without having to transfer cargo.
Have you heard of the Niagara Falls? The Erie Canal does not have to worry about them, and you're wrong about the number of canals that the St Lawrence has needed in historical times, there is a reason the Seaway didn't get built until it did. Second- Montreal has many more months of snow and ice and closures, even today Albany (as far north and cold as we think of that city) remains a winter port for material that normally goes through the Seaway in summer months. And as I stated- it is New Englanders, not immigrants, who are populating the Midwest, you can't use as your POD "oh immigrants pick Montreal over NY" because... what immigrants?! Yes, if you keep making POD after POD after POD instead of just one POD of "America loses the Revolutionary War" then yes you can make Montreal bigger, but you're intentionally doing what you have to do to make Montreal "win"; and that's not possible. Yes, NY has too much of a headstart because- Montreal is f'ing COLD! Europe is not sending their people and goods to Montreal; not enough time during the year to make the trip compared to NY; not enough demand compared to the populations of NY and Albany (1st and 10th largest cities in the 13 colonies), the roads along the Mohawk Valley are going to be clear more time of the year, and you have the wealthiest people in British America and who are people who want to invest their money in infrastructure improvements, factories, and want those cities to continuously be better than Montreal, both Albany and NY had economic rivalries with Montreal lasting back to their mutual establishments in the early 1600s; it isn't a coincidence that 1609 found Champlain for the French and Hudson for the Dutch less than 100 miles from each other.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
How good of a harbor for ocean-going vessels does Montreal have, compared to New York City? I feel like that will be one of the key aspects in any timeline with European settlement of the East Coast.

I imagine it's going to be less than spectacular, being considerably further inland and all that. On the other hand, there's the fact that succesful cities don't always need direct access to the sea, as long as they're well positioned along the route to and from the sea. In a way, Montreal has Quebec City to be it's 'port'.

But on the other hand, @Napoleonrules points out that the St Lawrence has quite a few rapids, so that doesn't look promising for the notion of Montreal coming even close to overtaking New York.


No, no, no, no regarding "nothing deterministic", the harbor of New York and the gateway that the Hudson and Mohawk valleys afforded. The St Lawrence needs many, many canals around a lot of rapids, it isn't a straightforward, down the St Lawrence we ago;

Clear. Those rapids pose an obstacle, obviously.


but while yes the Mohawk Valley needed one too, it had the benefit of New York and Albany already had a leg up on Montreal prior to the American Revolution; New York was larger by 4 or 5 times the size of Montreal in 1790 OTL... that's 30 years before the Erie Canal. So... no Revolution... how does that butterfly away NY's starting advantage?

It absolutely doesn't. Not being very well versed on this particular subject, I simply didn't know all this about New York's 'head start' over Montreal. Thanks for pointing it out. This really clears up a lot for me.

I must clarify, however, that I'm mostly interested in the advantages of the respective locations. If we assume for a moment that we are comparing these ceteris paribus, for instance by imagining that a hypothetical colonialist power establishes cities there at roughly the same time. Does the location of the New York analogue, by itself, provide it with a clear advantage?


In OTL the Federal govt, thanks to Hamilton builds the Federal Dam at Troy early on to allow ship traffic to reach Lansingburgh and Waterford year-round... in 1820s the state of NY (with NO help from the Federal govt) builds the Erie Canal, at the same time the first commercially successful steam railroad in the USA happens (Albany to Schenectady, in order to cut the triangle of the Erie Canal in that area) and the first commercially successful steam boat in the world (Albany to New York); add to that the plank, post, and toll roads leading to thousands of New Englanders moving west through Albany... now, of course in this ATL scenario there's no state of NY, but there are going to be wealthy people such as the Van Rensselaers (wealthiest family in colonial America and one of the largest landowners, Stephen Van Rensselaer III still ranks as the 10th richest American of ALL TIME), Schuyler (wealthier than Jefferson or Washington) and Livingston (financier of Fulton's steamboat) families.

All true. On the other hand: part of the reason New York was so keen on promoting such infrastructure was that the competing St Lawrence was outside the USA, and the Federalist idea was to promote American infrastructure, tax foreign trade quite heavily, and thus make an (untaxed or much less intensively taxed) alternative route for trade within the USA much more attractive.

If the St Lawrence is in the same country, regardless of the TL's specifics, does such reasoning still hold up? Will alt-New York bother with such a large investment under those circumstances? I suspect you are correct in your assessment regarding an alt-USA, and I think that New York would still promote the infrastructure (though possibly a bit later than in OTL), because regardless of other factors, it's still going to be profitable.

But imagine for a moment the hypothetical I outlined above, with two cities at those locations getting an 'even start', and being within the same country from day one. You write...

No way cold, icy-bound Montreal becomes a shipping threat to NY based on an American loss of the US Revolution without multiple other PODs to make the change, including geographic ASB ones. This isn't realistic, you CAN'T make Montreal bigger than NY.

...and while I agree with your view regarding a "no American independence"-timeline, would this more drastic hypothetical still require "geographic ASB PODs"? That's really what I'm interested in above all else: is the location of New York intrinsically superior to that of Montreal?

The factors you mention all seem convincing to me, but they are mostly non-intrinsic factors. You point out that NY has already won by the time of the US Revolution, the POD is too late. And piling POD on POD on POD to get the desired outcome is just silly. Clear.

I'm rather curious about the factor location above all else, however. I'd really like to compare the intrinsic advantages of the two locations, all other factors being equal.

I suppose it then comes down to (as you say) "snow, cold, ice, the fewer months [people] can actually make it to Montreal from Europe compared to NY". How much of a factor is that, in the end?

Reading the last posts made by yourself and @The Gunslinger, I'm getting the impression that Montreal has a clear "winter disadvantage", which might very well favour alt-NY even with a drastic POD and an equal starting position for the two competing cities. But I'm getting conflicting reports regarding the amount of canal-digging needed to make the St Lawrence truly useful. How much work was needed there, compared to what was needed in NY?
 
Have you heard of the Niagara Falls? The Erie Canal does not have to worry about them, and you're wrong about the number of canals that the St Lawrence has needed in historical times, there is a reason the Seaway didn't get built until it did.

The reason the Seaway didn't get built when it did was POLITICAL considerations, it had nothing to do with anything else.

The British didn't want to build it because they didn't trust the Americans to close it every time a war scare happened.
America didn't want to build it because then Britain has a military highway to the Great Lakes.
Lower Canada didn't want to build it because they were worried about Anglo domination.

That canal could have been built at any time from 1815 onward if someone had controlled both sides of that river. Montreal may never catch up to new York City, but it could have come far, far closer than it ever did OTL.
 
The reason the Seaway didn't get built when it did was POLITICAL considerations, it had nothing to do with anything else.

The British didn't want to build it because they didn't trust the Americans to close it every time a war scare happened.
America didn't want to build it because then Britain has a military highway to the Great Lakes.
Lower Canada didn't want to build it because they were worried about Anglo domination.

That canal could have been built at any time from 1815 onward if someone had controlled both sides of that river. Montreal may never catch up to new York City, but it could have come far, far closer than it ever did OTL.
No.

And Toronto has surpassed Montreal for the very reason why Toronto will still ATL surpass Montreal and there are political science and urban planning theories (not theories in the vernacular, theories as in Theory of Gravity type of theory) that would preclude Toronto being as big as it is OTL with a Montreal larger than OTL NY.
 
No.

And Toronto has surpassed Montreal for the very reason why Toronto will still ATL surpass Montreal and there are political science and urban planning theories (not theories in the vernacular, theories as in Theory of Gravity type of theory) that would preclude Toronto being as big as it is OTL with a Montreal larger than OTL NY.

...sorry, what urban planning and political science theories mandate this? Urban planning isn't a science the way physics is and there are no theories in the field that have the empirical strength of a "theory of gravity"-type theory. Believe me, it would make my job a lot easier - I work in transport planning.
 
...sorry, what urban planning and political science theories mandate this? Urban planning isn't a science the way physics is and there are no theories in the field that have the empirical strength of a "theory of gravity"-type theory. Believe me, it would make my job a lot easier - I work in transport planning.
Political Science is a science and includes theories and laws.
 
No.

And Toronto has surpassed Montreal for the very reason why Toronto will still ATL surpass Montreal and there are political science and urban planning theories (not theories in the vernacular, theories as in Theory of Gravity type of theory) that would preclude Toronto being as big as it is OTL with a Montreal larger than OTL NY.

Toronto only passed Montreal when Quebec nationalism started to rear it's head and caused a huge flight of knowledge and capital from the city. That's when its position as the hub of finance really accelerated and its growth took off.

If there's a canal in place, there will be much higher growth rates in Montreal and much of what becomes Canada in general. Montreal was the financial hub for much of early Canada's history, and will remain so if it's constructed. The city will also be the destination for all Great Lakes traffic.

A hundred and fifty plus years of additional growth due to be being a political, commercial, financial and shipping hub will cause it's population to be enormously improved over OTL.
 
I think it's possible that Montreal could be the largest city in northeastern North America, but it would require the region to not be controlled by a single country. If places like New York were under some sort of dysfunctional government that caused them to be poor and underdeveloped, while *Canada would be prosperous, thus attracting immigrants, it could happen. But if political conditions are the same in Montreal and New York, why would more immigrants go to the former?
 
One thing I feel may be overlooked is possible trade from the Mississippi River from La Nouvelle Orléans up to Montreal. That should help some, and is an advantage Montréal has over NYC, an interlink from it to Detroit to St.Louis to NO.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I think it's possible that Montreal could be the largest city in northeastern North America, but it would require the region to not be controlled by a single country. If places like New York were under some sort of dysfunctional government that caused them to be poor and underdeveloped, while *Canada would be prosperous, thus attracting immigrants, it could happen. But if political conditions are the same in Montreal and New York, why would more immigrants go to the former?

The impression I'm getting, from the wildly varying but very interesting responses to my questions, is that it's very crucial whether either one of the cities is seen as the best gateway for inland trade and migration. If the St Lawrence is not right on an international border, it would appear, a canal will be established much more easily. That would make Montreal a better candidate for trade etc than it was in OTL. The factor just mentioned by @John7755 يوحنا adds to this.


Anyway, what I'm getting from the discussion thus far is that New York had a significant head start in OTL, but an absence political wrangling over a decent canal for the St Lawrence (due to it not being on an international border) would vastly improve matters for Montreal. By how much...? That remains unclear.

In a scenario with an early POD, where New York has no head start and both cities start out at the same time and as part of the same country... is it realistic to assume that alt-Montreal would take the lead? How much does its more icy climate work against it?
 
The impression I'm getting, from the wildly varying but very interesting responses to my questions, is that it's very crucial whether either one of the cities is seen as the best gateway for inland trade and migration. If the St Lawrence is not right on an international border, it would appear, a canal will be established much more easily. That would make Montreal a better candidate for trade etc than it was in OTL. The factor just mentioned by @John7755 يوحنا adds to this.


Anyway, what I'm getting from the discussion thus far is that New York had a significant head start in OTL, but an absence political wrangling over a decent canal for the St Lawrence (due to it not being on an international border) would vastly improve matters for Montreal. By how much...? That remains unclear.

In a scenario with an early POD, where New York has no head start and both cities start out at the same time and as part of the same country... is it realistic to assume that alt-Montreal would take the lead? How much does its more icy climate work against it?

Also do not forget that this early on, there may be unforeseen consequences of such a canal. There is no guarantee that New Orleans doesn't due to the migration of Haitian migrants remain ahead of Montréal. Which is why, Montréal needs to get massive before then so it can be the main benefactor of such a connection instead of St.Louis or NO.
 
In a scenario with an early POD, where New York has no head start and both cities start out at the same time and as part of the same country... is it realistic to assume that alt-Montreal would take the lead? How much does its more icy climate work against it?

The biggest issue is that New York is simply closer to Europe and thus easier to get to. And the ocean there doesn't freeze like the St. Lawrence does. Assuming the same political conditions in both places, there is no logical reason for Montreal to be larger. That's why I specified the need for them to be in different countries.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Also do not forget that this early on, there may be unforeseen consequences of such a canal. There is no guarantee that New Orleans doesn't due to the migration of Haitian migrants remain ahead of Montréal. Which is why, Montréal needs to get massive before then so it can be the main benefactor of such a connection instead of St.Louis or NO.

Certainly, but of course an early POD - especially if we're only using it to explore the coparative advantages of the two cities' locations - can easily mean that the colonial power holding both alt-Montreal and alt-New York doesn't also hold alt-New Orleans or alt-st. Louis.

In fact, if another colonial power is pressing inland from the south, that's just extra motivation to get a canal in place early on, right?
 
Only if they pick a lot of fights with Britain or another naval power and New York gets burned down and remains at risk.

Or whoever is too their south is an enemy and marches up to attack New York (that depends on where the border is).
 
Certainly, but of course an early POD - especially if we're only using it to explore the coparative advantages of the two cities' locations - can easily mean that the colonial power holding both alt-Montreal and alt-New York doesn't also hold alt-New Orleans or alt-st. Louis.

In fact, if another colonial power is pressing inland from the south, that's just extra motivation to get a canal in place early on, right?

Of course, I just mean that in some cases it is possible to have New Orleans post 1830 be the massive city out of this line of former French cities in America (for a time it was). Or also, you could have both get huge off of this. A key is to find a way to attract constant stream of immigrants to Montréal and possibly by extension the Mississippi River to Canada.
 
Top