As the tin says, what if the settlement of New France and New Netherlands were swapped with the French ending up in the Hudson River Valley and the Dutch in the Saint Laurence? Would New France have fallen more quickly than it did in OTL? Would the New Netherlands have lasted longer? Would we have seen a Dutch dialect last in North America?
WI: Dutch settle in OTL French Quebec instead of Dutch New Netherlands and vice versa?
- Thread starter Sevarics
- Start date
When I think about it, I guess that the Saint Lawrence area would be better defendable against the English during the second and thirs Anglo-Dutch war, since it would not be surrounded by English colonies. So I guess it is possible that it would remain Dutch after the wars (assuming little butterflies). After the glorious revolution the Dutch and English would become long term allies, so the Dutch colony would remain Dutch and be allowed to grow. I heard, not sure if it is true, that Dutch send more colonists towards Northern America than the French (although far fewer than the English), so it is possible to have a sizable Dutch colony in OTL New France. If we avoid wars with the English, it might even remain Dutch for quite a while.
New France on the other hand is placed right between two English coloniess. They won't last as long as they did OTL. Assuming they survive the second Anglo-Dutch war (during which the french were allied with the Dutch), thye would lose out the next war with England (and the Dutch who would be allied with the English). They probably would lose Louisiana quicker too. I wonder if with Louisiana British, while Quebec remains Dutch, if the English would focus more on the Southern plantation colonies. They would probably make more money than the northern colonies. Kind of like the Carribean islands. And with the threat of France gone earlier, would the Americans revolt earlier? Or maybe just the north, while the south remained British?
New France on the other hand is placed right between two English coloniess. They won't last as long as they did OTL. Assuming they survive the second Anglo-Dutch war (during which the french were allied with the Dutch), thye would lose out the next war with England (and the Dutch who would be allied with the English). They probably would lose Louisiana quicker too. I wonder if with Louisiana British, while Quebec remains Dutch, if the English would focus more on the Southern plantation colonies. They would probably make more money than the northern colonies. Kind of like the Carribean islands. And with the threat of France gone earlier, would the Americans revolt earlier? Or maybe just the north, while the south remained British?
I'd say probably have OTLs Acadian settlements in the early 1600s and 1610s be around New England instead. And when/if they fail, the OTL Quebec settlement is instead in the Hudson.
Then have the Dutch opt for the St Lawrence in the 1610s and 1620s
If New France was established around the Hudson the settlers would have fewer opportunities to trade furs with the First Nations tribes so it would be colony less profitable for France and thus less valuable. So the French probably would try very hard to defend it.
Conversely, a Dutch colony in the St. Lawrence valley (New Netherlands?) would be more profitable, and in the 17th century the Dutch had a stronger navy than the French so they would be more able to defend and supply it, so it might prove stronger than OTL New France and have a larger population.
Conversely, a Dutch colony in the St. Lawrence valley (New Netherlands?) would be more profitable, and in the 17th century the Dutch had a stronger navy than the French so they would be more able to defend and supply it, so it might prove stronger than OTL New France and have a larger population.
What happens with the Iroquois and the Beaver Wars? Does the switching of positions mean that the French ally with the Iroquois who send furs through the Hudson Valley, possibly not creating a conflict with the northern and western tribes? Or do the wars happen and we see a Northern New Netherlands stripped of trading partners and forced to support the Iroqouis giving New France a strong ally against English colonialism in the area?
If memory serves me right, the French made enemies of the Iroquois quite early. So, no.
But that was because the French had become allies with their enemies, the Hurons.
A side-effect might be that New Sweden survives and perhaps even prospers enough to be a viable colony on its own, since the Dutch are not closeby enough to capture it. Once Sweden aligns with the naval powers in the early 1680s, it should be pretty safe from any attempt to capture it.
The question is how a Swedish enclave in the midst of English/British North America will fare. Will the English/British attempt to capture it or maybe buy it? Or will it be left to its own devices?
The question is how a Swedish enclave in the midst of English/British North America will fare. Will the English/British attempt to capture it or maybe buy it? Or will it be left to its own devices?
Why would they? Sweden and France were mostly allies and never at war during this era. Seems improbable that the French would risk their primary ally against the Emperor over New Sweden.
France allies with Poland against Sweden during one of the Polo-Swede wars?
Why should they? France during this era went from fighting Habsburg encroachement and allying the Ottomans and Sweden as partners in this to fight Britain for world/european hegemony. Poland offers nothing for France in these struggles.
I feel it is more likely that England takes New Sweden to secure New England when they take the French colonies and simply compensate Sweden with some money, putting Sweden against a fait accompli.
This, for sure. New Sweden was extremely tiny in both area and population and its loss wouldn't amount much of anything to Sweden.
Yeah, however, more colonists were only weeks away when the colony fell OTL, and if it survives until 1679, it has 21 years of peace AND friendly relations with the Dutch and English to look forward to. By 1700 ot might be a slightly tougher nut to crack.
This is of course assuming that the Swedes still decide to make a colony on the North Atlantic coast
What would be the reason for the Swedes not to do this? Mind you, I know next to nothing about the Swedish colonisation efforts, so I do not know why they decided to start a colony in North America, so I do not know why they wouldn't in this case.
Personaly ilike the idea of a small surviving Swedish colony. The English might even accept the colony since it is no threat to them and since there already exist a Dutch colony around the St Lawrence river*, so they would accept not controling all/most of North America. The colonist might even like the idea of a nearby foreign country for smuggling purposes (which to be fair would be a reason for the English to crack down on the Swedes.
* I think it might have a different name in this timeline. Maybe the Hudson river?
Because there's a POD 30-50 years before the settlement of New Sweden and the location would be right between two warring powers that hated each other. Maybe they settle closer to the Dutch in Canada than in OTL Delaware?
You mean the Maritimes or something? That could work, although than we could have a repeat to OTL in which the Dutch conquer the colony. Well, maybe not if it is far enough away.