Talk:For Want of Bad Weather

Montcalm
Montcalm wasn't the major turning point in the war. New France was mostly lost by the time he fell and France had been soundly defeated everywhere else as well which crippled their navy which was why the Canadiens weren't able to retake Quebec afterwards. The french were outmanned and outgunned. If you want to explore a north america that maintains the french holdings, its more plausible to go with the french retaining louisiana and canada in exchange for their caribbean colonies, and with the natives turning theirbacks on them at the end of the war, louis opens up native land for settlement attracting immigrants to the colonies.Oerwinde 07:37, December 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a very good point. Perhaps the win would influence Canadians for France to cede the Caribbean islands instead of New France. I'll keep playing around with the POD until it works. ChrisL123 18:40, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

South America
What happen in south america is this history?--DarthKaedus 16:19, December 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no clue, to be honest. I've just started the timeline and I tried asking around but I didn't have a definite answer. Do you have any knowledge of South America, as that could help a lot. ChrisL123 18:40, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Effects on the American Revolution
Since the Proclamation of 1763 won't have happened as well as the Quebec act, this may have delayed the American revolution as well as reducing its support in the colonies. Also, with no northern bases from which to launch their assault on the Americans, the British may have focused on the south, which may mean only part of the colonies achieve independence. And with no Quebec the Loyalists will have to relocate elsewhere, likely to the British held south creating a largely British loyal Florida along with possibly any territory maintained from the end of the revolutionary war, likely at most Georgia and South Carolina.

Would create an indteresting dynamic and a very interesting War of 1812.Oerwinde 20:26, December 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know that's entirely true. I'm sure the British would introduce taxes to pay for the war and to help pay for troops stationed in North America (like in OTL). Even if it started later, though, I'm sure the French would still help the patriots, maybe to spite the British, so they'd still get enough support to help gain independence for all of the Thirteen Colonies. You do have a good point about the Floridas, however I'm sure the US will annex the area eventually. ChrisL123 20:50, December 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying they wouldn't have enough support, just that building the support enough for revolution might take a little longer, delaying the beginning of the revolution, and that there would be more loyalists, meaning more colonial troops for the British to draw from. Also, with the addition of the rich French caribbean colonies, these may make up for some, though not all, of the British debts from the Seven Years War. Also my point with the Brits maintaining some of the south is if they don't have to divide their forces they can focus their entire assault on the south. It had nothing to do with the amount of support the Americans have, just the logistics of maintaining two armies instead of one. Plus the majority of the American victories I believe were in the North, where the unusual tactics such as attacking during winter were to the Americans advantage. In the south where winter weather isn't as much of an issue, this shock advantage is gone.


 * As to the US annexing the area, that is about as likely as them annexing Newfoundland and Nova Scotia OTL. Largely populated by British loyalists, after the war of 1812(or its equivalent) neither party wants to antagonize the other. With New France controlling the majority of land to the west the US doesn't have the vast areas of open land that attracted the mass migration that led to their explosive population growth so they don't have the people or industrial base to openly attack Britain. And with the influx of loyalist population they will have to find something to make money, likely growing cotton, spices, and fruit, making Florida much more productive than OTL and therefore more valuable to the British.Oerwinde 21:41, December 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the southern area ("British Florida") might have remained a British colony for a few decades, but I was thinking the War of 1812 would have resulted in its annexation, (as well as the French annexation of "Upper Country", the disputed area of Rupert's Land, as can be seen here). Plus, the New York-area would probably serve as the US's industrialized area. ChrisL123 22:01, December 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * The War of 1812 also really depends on whether it happens in 1812 or not. A delayed american revolution, may delay the war of 1812. The reason the Brits didn't mop the floor with the Americans was because the bulk of their forces were tied up fighting Napoleon. If the Brits weren't fighting Napoleon due to a delayed War of 1812, the Brits could come over and just annihilate the Americans with sheer numbers. Also, New French involvement in the war would depend on whether they side with the British against Napoleon, or with the Americans against the British. They may even want to stay completely out of it depending on how powerful they are at the time. The Brits might just come in and conquer them again and you have New France as a British puppet state. I don't see the British losing any territory in North America. They're just too powerful at the time.Oerwinde 22:24, December 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. The British would still attack the Americans the same year for having trade with France. Plus, I doubt the Canadians would side with the British after years of torment and attacks on the colony. I'm sure they would remain neutral for a while until the British attack the Canadians (which is bound to happen.) The only reason they were powerful is because of the amount of land they had. If they lose the majority of their colonies they're not going to be a major power in TTL. ChrisL123 22:38, December 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * The British didn't attack the Americans in the war of 1812, the Americans declared war on the Brits due to the British maintaining a policy of "Those Yankees aren't a real country and are still our people" and pressing americans into British military service and other such insults, along with an american desire to kick the British out of North America and "liberate" their Canadian brothers. The war of 1812 depends entirely on when the Americans decide to declare war.Oerwinde 23:02, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

New France and the French Revolution
I could see New France being a place that French monarchists would flee to during the revolution, and possibly the royal family as well, leading to a Bourbon ruled Kingdom of New France, or Kingdom of Quebec or somesuch. The Americans having received aid from the King in the revolution would have welcomed the monarchs in North America and likely aided any Monarchist forces in New France repel any Revolutionary forces. Would create stronger ties between New France and the US allowing for NF intervention in the War of 1812.Oerwinde 20:26, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Also, would the Orleanists and Bonapartists also go there? Would there still be a July Monarchy and/or French Empire? Fed (talk) 20:34, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't see much being all that different back on mainland France. The Orleansists likely wouldn't exist if the Bourbons still lived back in North America.Oerwinde 21:41, December 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * There is always the possibility that the French colonies might side with the republicans. Lets not also forget that Nappie got Louisiana back from Spain with the hope of recreating the French Empire in North America.  If it never fell...would he try to make it larger?  Would he go after Mexico like Aaron Burr wanted or decide the young United States was a better option?
 * Also with an alternate end to the Seven Years War and the American Revolution still resulting in the United States, would the French Revolution play out as it did OTL? With a slighty better history for pre-revolutionary France perhaps the Revolution is less violent allowing for a relatively easy transition into a constitutional monarchy.  Just some thoughts.  Mitro 22:13, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

West Coast Development
Without the possibility of US migration to the west, would the Brits maintain control of the entire Columbia territory, or would they be competing with the French? Would Alaska remain under Russian control, or would the Brits take it? Would California remain independent, join New France, or be reconquered by Mexico? Would Texas even declare independence with no American settlers? Or would it attract French settlers and either become independent or join New France?

The lack of western settlement by the US makes for a LOT of differences to North American development.Oerwinde 21:41, December 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me answer these as best as I can.


 * I doubt the Brits would even be close to that area. I was thinking that after the American Revolution the Brits would be exiled to the Floridas and less to their remains of Rupert's Land. They'd try to colonize as much land in the Rupert's Land area but efforts would be useless because of the conditions and the lack of resources. I doubt they'd even get close to Oregon. Even if they do, the competition would be greatly outnumbered (the scarcity of Brits against Mexico, Alaska and France). I figured the Alaskans would gain the area and borders would be changed with Canada and Mexico.
 * Without a major, powerful settlement in the area (they went up against Canada in OTL), I figured the Russians would be less reluctant to give up their colony for money, since in TTL their biggest settlement would be northern Nunavut. The Russians would probably continue to colonize, finding gold earlier and making use of the colony.
 * I didn't really think about California, I figured they would just stay with Mexico.
 * Texas would most likely try to become independent but fail and remain with Mexico.


 * ChrisL123 21:50, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would Texas fail to become independent? It seems you are assuming that the area will receive Anglo (or maybe even Franco) immigration, hence why you thought they would try for independence in the first place. What would be so different that the Revolution would fail?
 * Speaking of Texas, look at the borders of the map posted on the main article page. Notice how the borders of 1750 Texas are different from present day? OTL, one of the ways the US legitimized their actions in Texas was because they honestly believed that the Louisiana Purchase gave them claim to the area (though they stretched that claim past implausibility when they wanted their border on the Rio Grande, but now I am getting off-topic). Seems that New France might act the same way, yet the present day map shows OTL Texas borders...why?
 * On a general note, intiguing idea for a TL, but you use the space-filling empires trope in North America, most caused by unnatural unions of people. This is a weakness of the TL. Also consider that the biggest problem the French had (and Russians for that matter) was finding settlers to fill their colonies. This alternate French North America is going to have a lot of land only sparsely settled by Europeans. They may sell some of that land to the US or allow autonomous/independent Native American states to act as buffer to foreign expansion. Mitro 22:04, December 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * British settlement of the area was handled by the Hudson's Bay Company and they and the Northwest company(later merged with the HBC) were the only real presence in the Columbia District. After the Nootka Crisis in 1788 Spain renounced their claims to the area leaving the British as sole claimant to the area. The Russians had pretty much given up on the area, the height of Russian settlement saw 700 settlers in the entirety of Russian America. The reason they sold it to the Americans was because they had pretty much written it off and they didn't want the Brits to get it. Most likely it would end up as a British territory.


 * To Mitro's point, I'm thinking settlers would end up coming the same way it happened with the US, though not to the same extent. The Bourbon Exiles reform their government so as to avoid another revolution and open up the land to settlers. Royalists in France along with various peasant rabble from Europe come to take part in the vast open spaces. The native abandonment of the French in Quebec likely would see them just stripping them of their lands for new French settlers, while in Louisiana you might see the creation of some native buffer states.
 * Also, Texas if it doesn't receive the american settlers it did OTL likely wouldn't even declare independence, and remain with Mexico, if it receives French settlers, thats a different story.Oerwinde 22:18, December 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that I think about it makes sense that they do become independent and the French wouldn't bother to settle in Texas (like you said, lack of settlement in the area). If that's the case, the Mexicans would probably just annex Texas again and reabsorb it.


 * Concerning the map, there was a reason I changed the borders like that. After the Napoleonic Wars the French need some way of getting reparation money. I figured the French would sell that general area, changing the borders between Canada and Mexico, and the rest would come from either India profits or selling African colonies (if the Canadians make more settlements Louisiana, they won't be willing to give it up, especially for a war caused by the French.)


 * Now to Oerwinde, the only reason the Nootka Crisis happened was because of the British. Without a major British settlement in the area they wouldn't cause the crisis and it would probably be the Russians instead. Alaska gave up on it because they didn't have many settlers in the area, if the Russians find gold earlier (coupled with the fact they didn't fear a British takeover), a gold rush will mean more Russians will settle in Alaska and there will be more of them in that area. ChrisL123 22:27, December 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * The thing is that the British are already in that area. They are the largest naval power in the world and hungry for land, especially with the loss of the 13 colonies. The HBC is already moving into the area and the Russians have no chance of holding it. As of the Nootka Crisis there were no major settlements in the pacific northwest. There was a small spanish outpost on Vancouver Island, the British moved some ships in there and the outpost attacked. The Spanish then basically were like "Oh fuck, we can't fight the British" and just gave up their rights to the area and pulled out in exchange for the British not killing them.


 * As for Texas, the reason they declared independence was because it was largely populated by American settlers after the Mexican government opened it up to settlers so they could develop the area. Then the settlers basically said "HA jokes on them, teach them to give free stuff to Americans, we don't wanna live by their rules!" If there are no american settlers, there is no independent texas.Oerwinde 22:58, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

(Not indenting anymore, to save space) Aha, so they did. My apologies, I didn't know Vancouver found that area that early. That changes things. Alright, well with the British discovering Puget Sound early on they're definitely going to rush to that area. It'll be their only chance at a new viable colony (since TTL Rupert's Land, OTL Nunavut is basically a frozen wasteland). This will mean there probably won't be an Oregon dispute at all and just a British colony there.

As for Texas: That's true. ChrisL123 23:10, December 28, 2011 (UTC)