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

[cmakk1012]

I have already two lying around I would like to finish off before I start another.

Well, keep it on the back burner then lol

I honestly can't see New Sweden along the St. Lawrence River would change much in Europe before sometime in the 18th century. It won't cost Sweden anything significant, but neither would it produce any money for them. It's only after their loss of their empire I could see it having a effect.

I get what you’re saying, but details and stuff could change. Hypothetically no single conclusive battle like Poltava might happen, or Sweden handles the battle better, or other slight changes—no major geopolitical changes though

 

[Makemakean]

I can say the say thing in regards to France as well.New France was highly neglected in terms of being a colony by France.

Well, sure, but France had a population at the time several times that of Sweden, and also had far greater wealth and resources to spend on it. Sweden at the time had to rely on foreign subsidies to be able to fight her war, in essence making the entire nation a mercenary for hire by other European powers. Consequently, what it means for a colony to be a French highly neglected side project and what it means for a colony to be a Swedish highly neglected side project are two very different things.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Biggest problem--Sweden is a land power rather than a naval power, and her ambitions lay in Germany and the Baltic. Sweden will find it difficult to compete with the Dutch, France, and Britain in this regard. But if Sweden is able to devote the resources to maintaining a colony in the Saint Lawrence Valley, then they can get a lot done.

I would expect the Finns to become a key element in this colony, given how a large proportion of New Sweden settlers OTL were Finnish. The land is very similar to the same lands settled by the Forest Finns OTL. There will thus be a large population of Finnish speakers, which in some areas might be very concentrated. They might end up with the same fate as the Canadian Gaelic speakers, being assimilated into the mainstream culture, or there might be pockets of this place where the Finnish language is protected and promoted. As frontiersmen, maybe they're a key element in the fur trade and thus if Sweden can also get the Hudson Bay area under their control, you get a mixed Finnish/Swedish/Cree/Ojibwe creole, an equivalent of the Bungi language.

New Sweden (it may rename itself the Kingdom of Markland or Vinland in the 18th century) will be a popular target for European Lutherans and British American may end up with relative few German immigrants. It will stay Swedish speaking and will like Brazil became the centre of the Portuguese language become the centre of the Swedish language. The dominance of New Sweden may push Danish (and Norwegian if the language become independent) toward a mor Swedish friendly spelling. Of course New Swedish will likely be more archaic than European Swedish, which will keep it closer to other Scandinavian languages.

Their language would probably influenced by Finnish to some degree and thus resemble Finland Swedish, although the Finnish would be Savonian dialects rather than western Finnish dialects.

 

[HolyNicolas]

Well, sure, but France had a population at the time several times that of Sweden, and also had far greater wealth and resources to spend on it. Sweden at the time had to rely on foreign subsidies to be able to fight her war, in essence making the entire nation a mercenary for hire by other European powers. Consequently, what it means for a colony to be a French highly neglected side project and what it means for a colony to be a Swedish highly neglected side project are two very different things.

The problem was france sent the least amount of colonists per capita to their oversea colonies than any other power. Not sure if New Sweden could actually get massive amount of settlers like Britain had! If they could. It would be a completely different project.

 

[rfmcdonald]

French did send relatively few, but New France bears comparison not with New Spain but rather with relatively marginal Spanish territories like the Viceroyalty of La Plata, far from the dense indigenous populations and the old civilizations at the core of Spanish America. In that light, New France did not do badly.

Manpower will indeed be a huge issue for the settlement of New Sweden, in any timeline. I'd imagine that, like the Dutch in the New Netherlands, the Swedish colony will depend heavily on non-Swedish immigrants.

 

[pompejus]

One thing to realise about te New Netherlands in this situation is that the Dutch and French were allies up until and during the second Anglo-Dutch war. This means that the New Netherlandsos not surrounded by enemies like OTL, but even has an ally south of them. I think it is very possible that the New Netherlands could remain Dutch after the second Anglo-Dutch war, especialy if th French decide to help the Dutch against the English. Besides that, without the French north and west of them, New England will find it easier to focus north and west and thus have less interest in the New Netherlands.

The third Anglo-Dutch war though might become a problem, since now England was allied to the French. OTL though the Dutch were far stronger than the English during that war, they even recaptured New Amsterdam. OTL the peace was a status quo ante bellum (wite peace). If this happens in this timeline, the New Netherlands might actualy remain Dutch. At least I doubt the French alone would be able to defeat the Dutch in the colonial wars.

Actualy by splitting the English colonies in two by a Dutch and French colony, with New England being more focussed to the North and a New Sweden around Quebec, we might have a more devided and diverse North America than OTL (which is always more interesting).

 

[Avrorrange]

Well, sure, but France had a population at the time several times that of Sweden, and also had far greater wealth and resources to spend on it. Sweden at the time had to rely on foreign subsidies to be able to fight her war, in essence making the entire nation a mercenary for hire by other European powers. Consequently, what it means for a colony to be a French highly neglected side project and what it means for a colony to be a Swedish highly neglected side project are two very different things.

A large reason behind the small amount of settlers in French colonies was that apart from the neglect,France only allowed Catholics to settle the colonies.Sweden,being a protestant country,would have most likely gotten quite a lot of protestant settlers from other countries in their colonies. Neither France or other countries really spent much resources on their colonies.Most of them grew on their on with few input by their motherland.

 

[The Professor]

Anyone have a rough map so we can visualise their territories?

 

[Jürgen]

One thing to realise about te New Netherlands in this situation is that the Dutch and French were allies up until and during the second Anglo-Dutch war. This means that the New Netherlandsos not surrounded by enemies like OTL, but even has an ally south of them. I think it is very possible that the New Netherlands could remain Dutch after the second Anglo-Dutch war, especialy if th French decide to help the Dutch against the English. Besides that, without the French north and west of them, New England will find it easier to focus north and west and thus have less interest in the New Netherlands.

The third Anglo-Dutch war though might become a problem, since now England was allied to the French. OTL though the Dutch were far stronger than the English during that war, they even recaptured New Amsterdam. OTL the peace was a status quo ante bellum (wite peace). If this happens in this timeline, the New Netherlands might actualy remain Dutch. At least I doubt the French alone would be able to defeat the Dutch in the colonial wars.

Actualy by splitting the English colonies in two by a Dutch and French colony, with New England being more focussed to the North and a New Sweden around Quebec, we might have a more devided and diverse North America than OTL (which is always more interesting).

Pompejus have a very good point here, a New Netherlands which lies so close to a French colony, would likely see more investments in defences and we would likely see a greater influx of settlers (to make the colony more defencible and to pay for the increased military presence).

 

[rfmcdonald]

A large reason behind the small amount of settlers in French colonies was that apart from the neglect,France only allowed Catholics to settle the colonies.Sweden,being a protestant country,would have most likely gotten quite a lot of protestant settlers from other countries in their colonies. Neither France or other countries really spent much resources on their colonies.Most of them grew on their on with few input by their motherland.

The exclusion of Protestants actually was not a major problem for France, since something like more than 90% of its population of 20 million or so at the beginning of the 17th century were Roman Catholic.

 

[Jürgen]

The exclusion of Protestants actually was not a major problem for France, since something like more than 90% of its population of 20 million or so at the beginning of the 17th century were Roman Catholic.

It was a problem because it limited their source of foreign immigrants to New France. Most of t6he French population was too well off to be willing to emigrate to some foreign wasteland, while the Germans jumped on any open land they was allowed to settle in.

 

[rfmcdonald]

It was a problem because it limited their source of foreign immigrants to New France. Most of t6he French population was too well off to be willing to emigrate to some foreign wasteland, while the Germans jumped on any open land they was allowed to settle in.

Did it? Leaving aside the huge domestic population base of France--an advantage definitely not available to the Dutch, and not available as much to the English--there were plenty of foreign Catholics who could be recruited. The Irish, for instance, had a long presence in Acadia. I"m not aware of any substantial German Catholic settlement in New France, but that's not because that demographic did not exist.

 

[Cornelis]

The PoD can only be a French decision, as the French were the first in both areas (Verazzano, 1524). So, in order for New Sweden to be seated on the Saint Lawrence, the French would have settle for more southern colonies before the 1620'. OTL, the French colonization efforts in America were in the 16th c. some settlers colonies, with a strong huguenot component, in Brasil (France Antarctique, 1555-1560) and Florida/Carolina (Floride, 1562-1566), or without protestants, in Canada (Quebec, 1541). Only the trade post of Tadoussac in 1599 managed to survive. A first PoD could to redirect all settling efforts towards "Francesca", as Verazzano called it.

Another PoD could be linked to the 17th c. French colonization. Champlain's efforts, as feeble as they may appeared, were larger than the Dutch's. Owing to the Franco-Dutch alliance (treaty of Compiègne, 1624), the colonization efforts of the region would be reasonably non-concurrential. One important difference is when things would turn sour, in the 1670', the French and the English would partition the Dutch colony. At that time, the religious question would be asked. If the local authorities are unable to sort out a toleration act (at the time, Protestantism was still legal in France itself), the colony would be crushed by the English at the first opportunity. If, on the other hand, Francesca can become a refuge-lite for the Huguenots, it can grow even faster than OTL. In 1685, Louis XIV was persuaded there was almost no protestant left in France after decades of discriminations. The size of the Huguenot population surprised him, but did not change his mind. ITTL, he would know there are hundreds of recently-conquered protestants on the other side of the Atlantic, he could very well postponed his decision, as many advised.

 

[rfmcdonald]

The PoD can only be a French decision, as the French were the first in both areas (Verazzano, 1524). So, in order for New Sweden to be seated on the Saint Lawrence, the French would have settle for more southern colonies before the 1620'. OTL, the French colonization efforts in America were in the 16th c. some settlers colonies, with a strong huguenot component, in Brasil (France Antarctique, 1555-1560) and Florida/Carolina (Floride, 1562-1566), or without protestants, in Canada (Quebec, 1541). Only the trade post of Tadoussac in 1599 managed to survive. A first PoD could to redirect all settling efforts towards "Francesca", as Verazzano called it.

Another PoD could be linked to the 17th c. French colonization. Champlain's efforts, as feeble as they may appeared, were larger than the Dutch's. Owing to the Franco-Dutch alliance (treaty of Compiègne, 1624), the colonization efforts of the region would be reasonably non-concurrential. One important difference is when things would turn sour, in the 1670', the French and the English would partition the Dutch colony. At that time, the religious question would be asked. If the local authorities are unable to sort out a toleration act (at the time, Protestantism was still legal in France itself), the colony would be crushed by the English at the first opportunity. If, on the other hand, Francesca can become a refuge-lite for the Huguenots, it can grow even faster than OTL. In 1685, Louis XIV was persuaded there was almost no protestant left in France after decades of discriminations. The size of the Huguenot population surprised him, but did not change his mind. ITTL, he would know there are hundreds of recently-conquered protestants on the other side of the Atlantic, he could very well postponed his decision, as many advised.

That is interesting, especially since there presumably were a lot of Huguenots in New Netherlands.

 

[Jürgen]

Did it? Leaving aside the huge domestic population base of France--an advantage definitely not available to the Dutch, and not available as much to the English--there were plenty of foreign Catholics who could be recruited. The Irish, for instance, had a long presence in Acadia. I"m not aware of any substantial German Catholic settlement in New France, but that's not because that demographic did not exist.

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.

 

[Knight of the unknow]

But Sweden would have still sided with French during 7 years war? British empire would still be the world naval power later on and Britain would eventually have conquered entire North America.

Sweden only attacked prussia and was not in the war against england

 

[HolyNicolas]

Sweden only attacked prussia and was not in the war against england

I understand this. But Britain would just grab the entire North America regardless who’s in charge. They grabbed Dutch cape colony and french Canada. And. New Sweden would not make any difference for Britain.

 

[ennobee]

The big question is not WHERE Sweden will start its colony but how serious they take their colony-building. Sweden joined the game later than anyone else and with only one real city, their attempts were half-hearted at best. So unless a Swedish settlement on the Saint Laurence for some reason starts a serious economic investment in the New World, the only lasting effect would be that today the old city of Quebec would be called 'The Swedish Quarter'

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I understand this. But Britain would just grab the entire North America regardless who’s in charge. They grabbed Dutch cape colony and french Canada. And. New Sweden would not make any difference for Britain.

Well, strictly speaking they took French Canada as part of broader wars, and the Dutch Cape Colony was seized as part of the Napoleonic Wars as well as the Dutch government in exile asking Britain to manage their colony when the French Republicans rolled into the homeland. But they DID seize New Neatherlands basically just because they could. I imagine New Sweden would face a similar fate as it increasingly becomes little more than an underpopulated wedge between New England and the Hudson Bay settlements.

 

[pompejus]

Well, strictly speaking they took French Canada as part of broader wars, and the Dutch Cape Colony was seized as part of the Napoleonic Wars as well as the Dutch government in exile asking Britain to manage their colony when the French Republicans rolled into the homeland. But they DID seize New Neatherlands basically just because they could.

Also don't forget that the English/British were willing to return both New Netherlands and New France, but the Netherlands and France both prefered more profitable colonies in the Carribean over the North American colonies.