|
Any native empires that might count?
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 14:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
Acute Grill posted:Basically. There was very little Spanish colonization in the area so it was mostly native land. Mexican government let Americans settle in the area. Americans decided to take the land for themselves because Mexico was limiting their use of slaves Also, becaise a liberal Mexican Serb Freemason was really angry about newspaper censorship. I wish I were joking
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:England and Scottland should count as independent colonising entities. Also Leopold II had his own private country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 15:01
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Portugal had many islands all over the world (including Macao), Brazil and Angola. Neither of them ever controlled any land in what's now the US, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 15:52
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Neither of them ever controlled any land in what's now the US, though. Yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 16:16
|
|
|
If you get your history from Thomas Nast cartoons, the Pope colonized America with his henchmen the Irish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
You could also possibly consider some of the many, many immigrant communities in America colonies, although they lacked the facade of sovereignty that proper colonies have.Acute Grill posted:Basically. There was very little Spanish colonization in the area so it was mostly native land. Mexican government let Americans settle in the area. Americans decided to take the land for themselves because Mexico was limiting their use of slaves Specifically, the Comanche were operating in the region. Their territory wasn't absolute, since they were nomadic/migratory, and they made a whole industry out of raiding Mexico in the south, so unclear borders wound up serving them in that respect. The hope of Mexico was that American immigrants would help make a buffer, but most of the Americans stayed eastward while the Comanches kept their raiding focus southwards (and over west, New Mexico had become a sort of tributary state). And I think while it is important to note that slavery was part of the Texans' demands, it's also important to keep in mind that Mexico was initial much more tolerant of the immigrants' slavery and non-catholicism, and the exact catalyst for the rebellion and secession was the fact that Santa Anna was drastically reforming the Mexican government trying to centralize, and Tejas wasn't even the only part of Mexico that rebelled after the constitution was repealled, it was just the most successful.  Alta California went mostly independent later and Nuevo Mexico had already drifted from Mexico's sphere of influence, so the US just took all of it in the Mexican-American war, along with some extra slices of northern Mexico. Not pictured here is how Coahuila and Tejas were for some reason a single administrative unit under Mexican rule.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 17:06
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:. Not pictured here is how Coahuila and Tejas were for some reason a single administrative unit under Mexican rule. Basically, neither Coahuila or Tejas had enough of a population to become a state. The representative from Coahuila convinced Tejas leaders to agree to a merger of the provinces as a single state, because if they were territories, Mexico City would control the public lands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:You could also possibly consider some of the many, many immigrant communities in America colonies, although they lacked the facade of sovereignty that proper colonies have. Part of Santa Anna's cracking down on the anglos was the hope that they'd stop coming over, as they were just settling farmland instead of fighting Comanche. This plan did not go as intended.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
I was wondering what the salterns on this map looked like so I dug up some reconstructions: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
This is certainly relevant: Iran has the population of these states combined  And the land area of these states combined 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 07:43
|
|
|
Wait, how can Roman era anything be called "industrial" ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 08:23
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:This is certainly relevant: I’m Block Island, off the coast of South Carolina.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 08:55
|
|
|
Kobal2 posted:Wait, how can Roman era anything be called "industrial" ? Industry existed before it was revolutionized by steam power. Thanks for the saltern diagrams Squalid!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 09:14
|
|
|
Roman industrial mining owned. It would create vast fields of acidic gas that would melt your flesh if you walked through it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 09:26
|
|
|
Read Pliny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 09:39
|
|
|
Kobal2 posted:Wait, how can Roman era anything be called "industrial" ? I mean, this is a sketch of a roman water mill, I would say this is an industry by most definitions. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 10:59
|
|
|
Zedhe Khoja posted:Roman industrial mining owned. It would create vast fields of acidic gas that would melt your flesh if you walked through it. They literally cut the top off of mountains.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 12:35
|
|
|
Acute Grill posted:Basically any nation with enough cash up front, and easy access to the Atlantic tried their hand at the colonization game. I think this is very unfairly nice to Japan and china but I guess that depends on what counts as colonization
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 12:50
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:If you get your history from Thomas Nast cartoons, the Pope colonized America with his henchmen the Irish. Mechanical gators they were
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 13:12
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I’m Legendary Island, off the coast of South Carolina.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
Kobal2 posted:Wait, how can Roman era anything be called "industrial" ? Romans took mining very seriously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_M%C3%A9dulas As I recall they were also real big about steel production (even if the quality did not match Indian steel) and glass making.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 19:45
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Zedhe Khoja posted:Roman industrial mining owned. It would create vast fields of acidic gas that would melt your flesh if you walked through it. it certainly owned the heck out of the slaves forced to work in it
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
Also it created detectable pollution in arctic glaciers. Who needs a steam engine when you have infinite slaves?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:I think this is very unfairly nice to Japan and china but I guess that depends on what counts as colonization You're right, it wasn't phrased well. I didn't mean to imply they were the only colonizers, just that a lot of Europeans got in on it, not just the four or five big colonial empires.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
yikes! posted:it certainly owned the heck out of the slaves forced to work in it Well yes, it owns in the "this would make a good industrial metal album cover" way. Obviously it was horrific on a societal and environmental level. They also did industrial level farming in North Africa and permanently hosed it's farmland up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 22:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
Zedhe Khoja posted:They also did industrial level farming in North Africa and permanently hosed it's farmland up. Oh, I hadn’t heard about that part before. Got an article or a book or something I could read on the subject?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:Oh, I hadn’t heard about that part before. Got an article or a book or something I could read on the subject? "A tale of two deserts: contrasting desertification histories on Rome’s desert frontiers" https://www.researchgate.net/profil...t-frontiers.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
map of historically navigable rivers and canals in France and adjacent areas. France used to have an extensive canal system, but by 1955 many of its canals had closed or silted up. Did Germany have a lot of canals in the 19th century? Everybody post maps of your country's inland waterways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Everybody post maps of your country's inland waterways.  Scotland also has a canal, unfairly missed off of the main map because there's no way between the two without a seagoing narrowboat  
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 01:20
|
|
|
Squalid posted:map of historically navigable rivers and canals in France and adjacent areas.  Canals were huge in the 19th century in the US, both as a means of shaping the path of commerce and as routes of immigration and internal migration. And then railroads happened and boom, no more canals. Except that many major railroads bought canals so they could run their rails on the towpaths! So several of the canals shown as defunct on this map still exist to some degree, and there are occasional pushes to restore one of them, as happened to the Erie Canal a couple of decades or so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 01:21
|
|
|
An' you try and tell the young people of today that, they won't believe you!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 01:27
|
|
|
 (Above is a lower scale version because the full image is ultra high res) Map of Florida waterways ca. 1930 https://www.floridamemory.com/onlineclassroom/primarysourcesets/water/documents/canalmap1930/ Florida being such a waterlogged state, it was harder to keep the water out, than getting it in. Lost of preexisting waterways also made it easier to make a network of canals. Most of these are not in heavy use to my knowledge anymore however as rail just got better and moving stuff to the major ports like Miami for high volume shipping became easier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:I mean, this is a sketch of a roman water mill, I would say this is an industry by most definitions. PittTheElder posted:Romans took mining very seriously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_M%C3%A9dulas That's cool, thanks for the larnin' ! I knew about their extensive farming (I remember having to sketch a hog "farm" that might as well have been a giant hangar owned by some modern agrobusiness) ; but I figured they just threw infinite slaves at most production/material sourcing issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
Kobal2 posted:That's cool, thanks for the larnin' ! I knew about their extensive farming (I remember having to sketch a hog "farm" that might as well have been a giant hangar owned by some modern agrobusiness) ; but I figured they just threw infinite slaves at most production/material sourcing issues. I mean they did, they just had the slaves operate those factories. Being simple machines and pre-steam or electric means that the work was extremely dangerous and exhausting
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 02:28
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Everybody post maps of your country's inland waterways. Nice try Putin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 02:59
|
|
|
Quorum posted:
I always wondered why they canaled all the way to lake Erie, like parallel to lake Ontario. Why not just canal to lake Ontario and then a smaller canal to Erie? A lot less work. That’s how the canal systems worked further in the great lakes
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 04:43
|
|
|
Delthalaz posted:I always wondered why they canaled all the way to lake Erie, like parallel to lake Ontario. Why not just canal to lake Ontario and then a smaller canal to Erie? A lot less work. That’s how the canal systems worked further in the great lakes The British had a strong naval presence on Lake Ontario, that might have factored in. Montréal and Québéc were of far more concern than future Toronto or points on Erie, and Kingston had a large garrison, fort, and naval base by North American standards so Erie would be less of an issue. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jan 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
Delthalaz posted:I always wondered why they canaled all the way to lake Erie, like parallel to lake Ontario. Why not just canal to lake Ontario and then a smaller canal to Erie? A lot less work. That’s how the canal systems worked further in the great lakes See that stretch of river between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie? That’s where the Niagra Falls are. The lakes are a hundred metres apart in elevation. Connecting the two was a greater engineering challenging than paralleling Lake Ontario. The proof of that is that the Canadians did it, it took more time and money than the Erie Canal, and that’s without connecting all the way to the Hudson. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Jan 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 05:00
|
|