WI: Swedish settle in OTL Quebec instead of OTL new sweden and vice versa?

[funnyhat]

Well for one, if the French settled at the site of Delaware instead of New France, their earlier attempts at founding towns would probably have been more successful do to the more agreeable weather. Thus, we see New France beginning in the latter half of the 1500s... So likely soon after, they found something near OTL Philadelphia. Probably leads to a more lasting French presence in North America.

IOTL France reached Canada in 1534 and made its first attempt at colonizing in 1541. If this colony follows that timeline, it has a lot of time to grow before any other European nation arrives - though if the Wars of Religion happen, it will probably be neglected for most of the latter part of the century. It would be important for the colony to be developed in the 1541-60 period, to be large enough to sustain reduced contact with the home country.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

IOTL France reached Canada in 1534 and made its first attempt at colonizing in 1541. If this colony follows that timeline, it has a lot of time to grow before any other European nation arrives - though if the Wars of Religion happen, it will probably be neglected for most of the latter part of the century. It would be important for the colony to be developed in the 1541-60 period, to be large enough to sustain reduced contact with the home country.

The problem with that is: what's motivating the French state to kick in the initial investment in the colony that early in such a way as to attract a large number of settlers? The thing about state-sponsored colonies vs. corperate/charter ones is that later only sees profits from people moving onto their land (Or, in the case of religious and other dissident colonies, live the way they please outside the direct lands of the mother-country), and so will always benefit from greater colonial migration, where as the State has to weigh the costs and benefits of their subjects just staying at home. The British colonies in the region IOTL had the advantage of being the later as well as coming from state who not only had a generally lower agricultural productivity/land to absorb a growing rural population and much less deeply entrenched serfdom, but also the political/religious chaos in England proper (to say nothing of Ireland and Scotland) to produce a large number of folks who they thought more convenient to just go away of their own accord and create breaks in the ability of local elites to nail the tendents of their land down.

Sure, there's the fur trade, but that dosen't require alot of Frenchmen (In fact, having large numbers of lower-class settlers with large established grain estates is a detriment in that case) and has a pretty hard limit on how throughly you can exploit a particular region of land, nor can it be easily converted into a good with strong local value in the event of neglect/break of contact with the Mother Country (Unlike, say, sugar, which can be refined into Rum which can be traded to the natives). There needs to be some kind of early impetius to give the colonies that initial population "push".

 

[rfmcdonald]

The German Catholic was a smaller group than the Protestant, they got fewer children, and they had the Austrian frontier to settle on, which was far closer to home. The Danubian Swabians was the descendent of this group.

Right. Your argument that the French somehow lacked potential settlers just doesn't make sense: there were plenty in France alone, never mind in Catholic populations elsewhere. Excluding Huguenots who, from the perspective of the French monarchy, were prone to disloyalty was not a significant loss.

The big problem facing New Sweden is the question of where colonists will come from, given the Swedish empire's demographic issues of OTL. Protestants from elsewhere will be important.

 

[Flashman]

Well, if we're assuming history roughly plays out the same besides the colony area switcharoos, we may see *Quebec far easier to assimilate, being both Germanic and Protestant. IE, a New Netherland situation just a century later.

It is worth noting that Dutch culture is vastly more similar to Anglo-Saxon culture than Swedish culture.

 

[Jürgen]

Right. Your argument that the French somehow lacked potential settlers just doesn't make sense: there were plenty in France alone, never mind in Catholic populations elsewhere. Excluding Huguenots who, from the perspective of the French monarchy, were prone to disloyalty was not a significant loss.

There was plenty of people in France, those people was unwilling to leave France, and worth vastly more for the French state to keep in France, where they would give a surplus in taxes, rather than sending them to some American wasteland wher they would be a money loss. It's simple economics.

The big problem facing New Sweden is the question of where colonists will come from, given the Swedish empire's demographic issues of OTL. Protestants from elsewhere will be important.

The Swedish and Finnish peasantry only had a value for the Swedish state in the imperial period as conscripts, it was the Baltic, German and Scanian provinces which paid for the upkeep of the Swedish Empire. As such the Swedish settlers along St. Lawrence will come from the same place as the Swedish colonists on the shore of the Bothnian Bay and Swedish Ingria. Both who received far more settlers than New France.

 

[TruthfulPanda]

I think I'm leaning towards the sentiment already expressed here - "if Quebec was in Swedish hands - a Minor Power, and not French - a Great Power" - would the UK had bothered in taking it at all?

 

[The Professor]

This New Sweden would certainly have more concessions made to New Britain on access across the river and the lakes.
Are New Netherlands and New France, independent, allied, or joined as a sort of New Belgium protectorate under Britain?
What happens with "Archonymia" to the south?

 

[funnyhat]

The problem with that is: what's motivating the French state to kick in the initial investment in the colony that early in such a way as to attract a large number of settlers? The thing about state-sponsored colonies vs. corperate/charter ones is that later only sees profits from people moving onto their land (Or, in the case of religious and other dissident colonies, live the way they please outside the direct lands of the mother-country), and so will always benefit from greater colonial migration, where as the State has to weigh the costs and benefits of their subjects just staying at home. The British colonies in the region IOTL had the advantage of being the later as well as coming from state who not only had a generally lower agricultural productivity/land to absorb a growing rural population and much less deeply entrenched serfdom, but also the political/religious chaos in England proper (to say nothing of Ireland and Scotland) to produce a large number of folks who they thought more convenient to just go away of their own accord and create breaks in the ability of local elites to nail the tendents of their land down.

Sure, there's the fur trade, but that dosen't require alot of Frenchmen (In fact, having large numbers of lower-class settlers with large established grain estates is a detriment in that case) and has a pretty hard limit on how throughly you can exploit a particular region of land, nor can it be easily converted into a good with strong local value in the event of neglect/break of contact with the Mother Country (Unlike, say, sugar, which can be refined into Rum which can be traded to the natives). There needs to be some kind of early impetius to give the colonies that initial population "push".

It's true that the French state was quite ambivalent about mass settlement. It was not just that few French people wanted to move ; the crown was not particularly motivated to recruit and send lots of them, either. There was some recruitment in the 1663-72 period after New France became a royal colony, but then it ended with the Dutch War and never really started again.

My guess is that they would need to discover tobacco, as the English did OTL.

 

[funnyhat]

I think I'm leaning towards the sentiment already expressed here - "if Quebec was in Swedish hands - a Minor Power, and not French - a Great Power" - would the UK had bothered in taking it at all?

If the British eventually control the Great Lakes region, I imagine they would try to acquire the *St Lawrence river (the Swedes being Protestants would not call it that), perhaps by purchase?

Though it's an open question whether the British would still dominate the continent ITTL.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

It is worth noting that Dutch culture is vastly more similar to Anglo-Saxon culture than Swedish culture.

True. It's also worth noting that New Netherlands was hardly a "Little Netherlands". The Dutch West Indies Company wasen't exactly restrective about the ethnic composition of their main settlements, and there were quite a few Germans, Frenchmen, Englishmen, Scots, Jews, ect. mixed in; proporitionaly far more than the non-Franco-Europeans of ITL's New France. That makes the population as a whole easier to assimilate due to the lack of a cohesive identity among themselves... though New Sweden would also likely have fewer locals in need of assimilating. Alot depends on how concentrated the Swedish population stays: concentrated in a number of cultural strongholds along the St. Lawrence (Or whatever they call it), they could retain their distinct identity rather easily. On the flipside, though, it would make it incredibly hard to resist encroachment on their claimed territory by the Hudson Bay Company's agents/forts/settlements in the North, which could lead to a greater chance of friction with the English. They'd need to put in alot of effort to stregthening the native polities to the point they could effectively buffer the Swedo-Finnish "Core", which isen't good for fully assimilating them (in return) in the long run.

I think I'm leaning towards the sentiment already expressed here - "if Quebec was in Swedish hands - a Minor Power, and not French - a Great Power" - would the UK had bothered in taking it at all?

Well, there was a period Sweden would be seriously be considered among the "Great Powers"; during the 1600's they were certainly more than capable of projecting their power and influence to fields near and far and make major strides in administration, proto-industry, the arts, ect. and dominate some key routes and areas of commerce. But they are less likely to naturally gravitate into the kind of long-standing rivalry with Britain due to differing areas of interest (Sweden needs to secure its south and east by nature of its geography to protect its Baltic Sea "core", so Germany, Poland, the Baltic States and Northern Russian affairs will always be prioritized over the Atlantic) so conflicts that would result in such a taking are probably not going to happen.

It's true that the French state was quite ambivalent about mass settlement. It was not just that few French people wanted to move ; the crown was not particularly motivated to recruit and send lots of them, either. There was some recruitment in the 1663-72 period after New France became a royal colony, but then it ended with the Dutch War and never really started again.

My guess is that they would need to discover tobacco, as the English did OTL.

Tobacco would certainly work: if you have a market, it can be a nice and profitable crop the duties of which the French state would see profits from, and can be very efficently produced on small plots that encourage settlement by small groups of laborers (IE: You don't need to develop plantation agriculture, which encourages the adoption of slavery.) However, does that work with the Seigneurial system? Because those French peasent families don't have the money to pay for their own passage, their merchantile class isen't developed enough to sponsor the mass movements themselves (Stronger political control over the economy has its advantages, but dosen't exactly encourage entrepreneurship. France's relative stability and vibrant agriculture/horticulture that strengthened their country nobility shows), and without gurantees of labor/indenture/income (For example, can you mandate the tax on a drying house the same way you could a grist mill? The former is fairly easy to cheat on). France is going to have to put up a pretty hefty initial investment if they want to subsidize the founding of the colony and finance it during its early unprofitable years... without knowing if its going to pay off (Companies like the Virginia Company provided England with her trial balloon, and they went in planning on finding gold for which there is never an uncertainty of a market). And if the project goes bust and the treasury gets stuck holding the empty bag... either the French economy or French budget is going to have to fill it up to everybody in the country's detrement, rather than "scapegoating" the tragedy on merchant companies. The later can and will naturally be replaced, while the former... well, that's rarely a good thing. You'd need to find a way to pay for/justify the granting of land to poor independent settlers for no money down.

 

[Cornelis]

France ´s tries at colonization were supported by traders companies : Compagnie de Rouen (1614), Compagnie de Montmorency (1622), Compagnie des Cent Associés (1627). These companies had a monopoly on the trade fur but had to settle men in Canada. The seigneurial regime is a by-product of the obligations of the companies, not their main purpose. If these companies had a monopoly of trade of a crop, they would have adopted a different system of land organization. OTL, the social and economical structure of the French and English caribbean islands was very similar, because they relied on a trade of similar products. No reason to think a French « Francescana » would be very different from British Virginia.

 

[Jürgen]

France ´s tries at colonization were supported by traders companies : Compagnie de Rouen (1614), Compagnie de Montmorency (1622), Compagnie des Cent Associés (1627). These companies had a monopoly on the trade fur but had to settle men in Canada. The seigneurial regime is a by-product of the obligations of the companies, not their main purpose. If these companies had a monopoly of trade of a crop, they would have adopted a different system of land organization. OTL, the social and economical structure of the French and English caribbean islands was very similar, because they relied on a trade of similar products. No reason to think a French « Francescana » would be very different from British Virginia.

I do in fact agree with this.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Archonymia

Archonymia?

 

[The Professor]

Archonymia?

Land of the Ruler Names.
Since the southern colonies were named after rulers.

 

[rfmcdonald]

There was plenty of people in France, those people was unwilling to leave France, and worth vastly more for the French state to keep in France, where they would give a surplus in taxes, rather than sending them to some American wasteland wher they would be a money loss. It's simple economics.

More to the point, the French model of colonization was not one that involved large immigration flows of settlers. A colony based on trade with indigenous populations is likely to receive fewer immigrants than a colony based on mass agricultural settlement.

Making it possible for the Huguenots to migrate to New France would have had minor effects, at most. Perhaps the Huguenots' integration into trade networks might encourage an intensification of New France's foreign trade, perhaps encouraging more settlement? But there were not so many Huguenots, and from the perspective of the French Crown there was also the demonstrable tendency of the Huguenots to rise up against the French state with foreign support.

The Swedish and Finnish peasantry only had a value for the Swedish state in the imperial period as conscripts, it was the Baltic, German and Scanian provinces which paid for the upkeep of the Swedish Empire. As such the Swedish settlers along St. Lawrence will come from the same place as the Swedish colonists on the shore of the Bothnian Bay and Swedish Ingria. Both who received far more settlers than New France.

Finland and Ingria were much closer to Sweden than New France was to France.

 

[Jürgen]

More to the point, the French model of colonization was not one that involved large immigration flows of settlers. A colony based on trade with indigenous populations is likely to receive fewer immigrants than a colony based on mass agricultural settlement.

Making it possible for the Huguenots to migrate to New France would have had minor effects, at most. Perhaps the Huguenots' integration into trade networks might encourage an intensification of New France's foreign trade, perhaps encouraging more settlement? But there were not so many Huguenots, and from the perspective of the French Crown there was also the demonstrable tendency of the Huguenots to rise up against the French state with foreign support.

The problem would be that Huguenot New France have no reason to stay loyal to France. England could easily settle their Protestant minorities in the New World, as they had a lot of interest in not coming under French, Spanish or even Dutch rule. Bu there's little reason for Huguenot to not support a English or Dutch takeover.

Finland and Ingria were much closer to Sweden than New France was to France.

They had signifiacnt worse climate, poorer soil and honestly it wasn't so much further away in travel time.

 

[FSB]

In the great power phase of Sweden, Finns tended to be taxed for wars, conscripted for wars, quartering troops and occassionally being the battleground. There was also nasty famine.

I could see significant amount of Finns immigrating if the opportunity was there. Well, significant compared to the small population of Finland.

 

[rfmcdonald]

The problem would be that Huguenot New France have no reason to stay loyal to France. England could easily settle their Protestant minorities in the New World, as they had a lot of interest in not coming under French, Spanish or even Dutch rule. Bu there's little reason for Huguenot to not support a English or Dutch takeover.

Even assuming that Huguenots would come to New France in large numbers just because they were Protestant. That remains to be seen. Why would a simple change of religion on the part of a colony's settlers necessarily have any connection to the probability of significant migration to a colony? Northern New England does not seem to have been much more populous than French Canada, say.

 

[HolyNicolas]

Even assuming that Huguenots would come to New France in large numbers just because they were Protestant. That remains to be seen. Why would a simple change of religion on the part of a colony's settlers necessarily have any connection to the probability of significant migration to a colony? Northern New England does not seem to have been much more populous than French Canada, say.

Huguenots were banned from move to New France. That's one of the reason French colonies were so sparsely populated.

 

[HolyNicolas]

In OTL The Swedish South Company was founded in 1626 with a mandate to establish colonies between Florida and Newfoundland for the purposes of trade, particularly along the Delaware River. Its charter included Swedish, Dutch, and German stockholders led by directors of the New Sweden Company, including Samuel Blommaert.
Looks like a huge project. The Canadian one should have far less competitors and more chance to survive.