>>536945 the english would have took it. >:^( and if they didn't you would have gotten new new holland which didn't murder natives and get a mixed culture of cherokee and dutch, but racism got high and apartheid might got to be a thing there
I don't know if it's a 100% lock the English/"Americans" would take it. Was the orginal reason for colonising America by the English for products like Tobacco, Sugar and Cotton? The elites were all drawn to Virginia and the Carolinas.
Wasn't the colonisation of New England more or less just a way to dump unhappy religious minorities out of England and keep them quiet?
If New Holland gets past the 1600s it might have expanded North slightly with the English concentrating on the South, where they perceive "the money" to be. I doubt the English envisioned the eventually factories of the North when they sat to form the colonies.
>>539179 the problem with New Holland was that the Dutch had great difficulty growing it beyond a trading post at the mouth of the Hudson. Most people who went there only used it as an outpost before going to trap beaver upcountry for a couple of years then went back to the netherlands rich as fuck, its permanent population was always minuscule compared to the English settlements which were filled with people who just wanted to gtfo of europe.
>>539179 Don't underestimate the importance of Manhattan. Controlling the Hudson River was immensely lucrative.
Would there have been anyway for the Dutch to overcome this manpower problem?
Better co-operation with Amerindians? A reputation for religious tolerance that could attract settlers from Germany and Nordics?
Again, let's say New Holland survives the 1600s and so the English concentrate on Plantation economic, and thus keep South of them; if New Holland gained their own version of "the Pilgrims", or hell, welcomed the actual Pilgrims into New Holland (or some of them anyway), could that help partially mend their manpower troubles?
Other than landgrants and some religious strife in France, how did the French manage to fill up Quebec?
>>539296 >ther than landgrants and some religious strife in France, how did the French manage to fill up Quebec? by having a massively larger population and a more focused colonial empire. France, like England, at the time was overpopulated so emigration to the colonies was ideal for many. But even with its significant population and the mouth of the St. Lawrence being a defenders dream (seriously, if you've never been to Quebec City its unbelievable what a natural fortress it is) they STILL lost it to the Brits.
So I don't really see a way they could have held onto it, Manhattan is in a pretty poor position defensively as well. Prior to the construction of Fort Schuyler it would have been a simple matter to encircle the city by approaching from the long island sound.
>>540097 They were offered to take it back as part of a favourable peace term after England lost the second anglo-dutch war, but the Dutch Republic decided they wanted an Island in the east Indies more badly
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.