Would British North America expand into Indian territor

Hello, under the POD that the British defeated George Washington, would they expand further west into the Native Americans' lands. The reason why so many Amerindians joined the British cause was to stop colonial expansion, but how likely is it that the British wouldn't try to expand? In fact, with the Napoleonic Wars coming up, it'd be a good reason to invade the Louisiana territory.

Edit: *territory? And wrong subsection.
 
Well for one, a Napoleonic wars depends on what France does in relation to the American Revolution. Secondly, besides New Orleans, I can't think of any real point to invade the Louisiana Territory; what is there to take? It'd be more an area declared as a British possession by treaty than anything else.

I think they'd expand westward still, just perhaps delayed or more gradually. I have had ideas about the British setting up native allies and puppets like rajahs and having some American Indian independence survive, but I'm not sure how realistic that'd be.
 
Shouldn't this be in pre 1900?

That said, yes. Definitely. I can't see the British suddenly allowing the Spanish and the French to get the rest of continent unopposed.
 
Shouldn't this be in pre 1900?

That said, yes. Definitely. I can't see the British suddenly allowing the Spanish and the French to get the rest of continent unopposed.

Well the colonial borders extended, in theory, straight to the Pacific, so there was certainly an intent to hold that land.
 
Hello, under the POD that the British defeated George Washington, would they expand further west into the Native Americans' lands. The reason why so many Amerindians joined the British cause was to stop colonial expansion, but how likely is it that the British wouldn't try to expand? In fact, with the Napoleonic Wars coming up, it'd be a good reason to invade the Louisiana territory.

Edit: *territory? And wrong subsection.

The British military was already spread well beyond the Proclamation Line by the time of the Revolutionary War. The 1763 line was not a line beyond which no British subject would ever be permitted to settle. No, that line was a line beyond which the Crown would permit no British subject to settle until the Crown had secured treaties with the Indians living beyond it and could be present to manage/be-in-charge-of said settlement. The likelihood that British subjects will be moving into the Trans-Appalachian and Great Lakes (OTL US Northwest Territory & Upper Canada) by the mid-1790s is probable to certain. The movement west will resemble that in OTL Canada rather than OTL United States, as one would expect, but none the less, it will happen.

Oh, regarding the Napoleonic Wars - the altered events in 1770s North America may alter events in the French revolutionary & Napoleonic eras. Maybe Louis XVI keeps his head. Maybe Napoleon's moment to rise to power never comes. Maybe there's a 2nd rebellion in North America?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yep.

It would only be a matter of time. The population was exploding and they needed more room.

Worth remembering that there was a reason the English/British fought multiple wars with the French over North America. It was not to create nation states for the native peoples.

And the numbers were all on Europe's side when it came to dominance over the Western Hemisphere, most especially in temperate climates.

After 1500, "Americans" were going to be English, French, or Spanish-speaking, with some others (Portuguese, notably) around the edges. The 400 years of history between 1500 and 1900 in the Western Hemisphere is the story of that contest...

Best,
progress.gif
 
Worth remembering that there was a reason the English/British fought multiple wars with the French over North America. It was not to create nation states for the native peoples.

And the numbers were all on Europe's side when it came to dominance over the Western Hemisphere, most especially in temperate climates.

After 1500, "Americans" were going to be English, French, or Spanish-speaking, with some others (Portuguese, notably) around the edges. The 400 years of history between 1500 and 1900 in the Western Hemisphere is the story of that contest...

Best,
progress.gif

Two hundred million odd Brazilians would probably object strongly to the notion of their country being the "edge" of anything.
And most of Spanish America was not very Spanish-speaking outside its (admittedly pretty important) elite around 1800. Nor it is entirely now. Quechua, Nahuatl, several Mayan languages, Aymara and Guarani are all well, alive and kicking across Latin America, forming a very significant fraction of the native speakers in many countries.
Of course, Spanish is by far dominant anyway (that's why it's called "Latin" America after all), but still, Quechua, Nahuatl and Guarani in particular very much have kept and keep an important role in the respective societies. No local Native language has ever been so fotunate in the US or Canada.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yes, and all those languages are quite definitely the

Two hundred million odd Brazilians would probably object strongly to the notion of their country being the "edge" of anything.
And most of Spanish America was not very Spanish-speaking outside its (admittedly pretty important) elite around 1800. Nor it is entirely now. Quechua, Nahuatl, several Mayan languages, Aymara and Guarani are all well, alive and kicking across Latin America, forming a very significant fraction of the native speakers in many countries.
Of course, Spanish is by far dominant anyway (that's why it's called "Latin" America after all), but still, Quechua, Nahuatl and Guarani in particular very much have kept and keep an important role in the respective societies. No local Native language has ever been so fotunate in the US or Canada.

Yes, and all those languages are quite definitely the "edges" of lingustic and cultural dominance of the Americas as a hemisphere. The big winners are English and Spanish; French "might" have been one of the two, but lost out. Portuguese was never in the running, given the relative positions of Spain and Portugal in 1500.

The native languages have no impact outside of the nations in which they exist as a second language to Spanish.

Best,
 
While, as has pointed out already, the British already claimed all that territory, that doesn't mean it's impossible for native to do better than OTL. They (unsuccessfully) banned the colonists from moving west IOTL, a fact that actually became one of the aggravations of the settlers.

Surprisingly, a crushed rebellion might not be as useful as poor US/British relations - IOTL, the British actively encouraged natives to act as buffer states against the US.

Now, in terms of their long-term survival, the odds aren't good, because of US expansionism and the British not wanting the Americans (or anyone else, for that matter) to take "their" land, but it's not inconceivable that, without Tecumseh's long-term failures, there could be a temporary series of these nations. I'd expect them to start to fall apart pretty close to the time the western natives did IOTL, though, around the 1890s-1900s on the later ends.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Don't forget that the UK (Britain and Ireland) was a source of

While, as has pointed out already, the British already claimed all that territory, that doesn't mean it's impossible for native to do better than OTL. They (unsuccessfully) banned the colonists from moving west IOTL, a fact that actually became one of the aggravations of the settlers.

Surprisingly, a crushed rebellion might not be as useful as poor US/British relations - IOTL, the British actively encouraged natives to act as buffer states against the US.

Now, in terms of their long-term survival, the odds aren't good, because of US expansionism and the British not wanting the Americans (or anyone else, for that matter) to take "their" land, but it's not inconceivable that, without Tecumseh's long-term failures, there could be a temporary series of these nations. I'd expect them to start to fall apart pretty close to the time the western natives did IOTL, though, around the 1890s-1900s on the later ends.

Don't forget that the UK (Britain and Ireland) was a source of emigrants to the US and Canada throughout the Nineteenth Century, with annual departures ranging from 20,000 in 1801-1810 to more than 250,000 annually in 1881-1890...there's a reason Ireland's population dropped by half (~4 million people) in the 1840s-1850s, after all.

There is no way any European power would forgo the wealth inherent in the interior of North America in the Nineteenth Century, absent the Second Coming...

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yeah, they can get in line behind the Sac and Fox and Paiute

The Navajo language would like to have a word with you

Yeah, they can get in line behind the Sac and Fox and Paiute.

And the Melians, for that matter.

The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must, after all.

Best,
 
It was expanding into Native Lands by 1770

Fort Loundon in eastern Tennessee was already built then burnt then on its way to being rebuilt, Ohio country was being opened up to Native Americans, and the Transylvania Colony was already established if only in framework by 1774. Settlers were already pushing into modern Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida (via West Florida). You might see delayed development if the Crown won the Revolutionary War but settlement, especially of areas of Ohio, southern Indiana, southern Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia, and northern Florida, would be inevitable.
 
Hello, under the POD that the British defeated George Washington, would they expand further west into the Native Americans' lands. The reason why so many Amerindians joined the British cause was to stop colonial expansion, but how likely is it that the British wouldn't try to expand? In fact, with the Napoleonic Wars coming up, it'd be a good reason to invade the Louisiana territory.

Edit: *territory? And wrong subsection.

Yes, the Haudensaunee and the Cherokee did fight for the British. You can ask the Sikhs, the Rajputs, and the Pashtuns, etc. just how much fighting for the British in their colonial wars guarantees your independence.
 
Yes, the Haudensaunee and the Cherokee did fight for the British. You can ask the Sikhs, the Rajputs, and the Pashtuns, etc. just how much fighting for the British in their colonial wars guarantees your independence.

Yup. The best you can hope for is to have your own state structures made subordinate to Britain (as per the Rajputs) or destroyed and then harnessed directly to the Empire (as per the Sikhs).

Arguably, however, this might be a somewhat better deal than, say, the Cherokee got from the US. The question is if Britain (or the North American colonial authorities) will be willing to extend such a deal. India is a bad analogue because no white settlers were involved. Looking at British policy in African and Australian settler colonies, it's much more likely that the locals will simply be exterminated or subjugated. The Maori in New Zealand are a best case scenario but their situation was somewhat unique in that they had access to modern arms from other traders, the white settler population was much smaller and much, much further away from home.
 
Another factor that gave the initial impetous for a westward expansion was the eruption of Mt. Toba in the Dutch East-Indies in 1815 and the following year (1816) known as the "Year without summer" aka "1800 and froze to death".
 
Another factor that gave the initial impetous for a westward expansion was the eruption of Mt. Toba in the Dutch East-Indies in 1815 and the following year (1816) known as the "Year without summer" aka "1800 and froze to death".

Mount Tambora (1815) eruption created 160 km3 of ejecta; Toba (~74000BCE) is estimated at 2800 km3 :eek:; by comparison, St Helens is a paltry 1 km3 firecracker. Tambora is go-west-young-man, Toba is game-over-human-race :D.
 
Top