|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Wasn't that generally dependent on the actual situation on the ground? Do you think Britain would've been able to run roughshod over New France and declare fait accompli, if New France had a million Frenchmen? For that matter, would the British have wanted to take that territory? No, you're right, the massive population disparity would have meant that it was nearly inevitable that Britain would have been able to conquer New France, unless the American Revolution somehow happened before that, which seems unlikely. In 1760 the population of New France was about 70,000 people, while the British mainland colonies had a population of more than 1.5 million. That meant that the British could invade into New France and besiege the cities as long as they had the money and manpower for it, while trying to march an army through the British 13 colonies to capture the major cities would soon be nigh-impossible for even the ruling authority with a significant number of loyalists on their side. The only thing that could have saved New France was if for some reason the French performed much better in the 7 Years War and could negotiate New France back if it was captured, but after that they'd have to get really really lucky. A Buttery Pastry posted:Does everyone include the native population? Yeah, that's why that argument is kind of stupid. Anyone can stick a flag in the ground somewhere and say "This is for Le Roi" and that mattered to the other European powers, but doesn't mean the land was actually conquered. Now if the local natives' trade all centered around congregating at European forts and they acknowledged the king as their "protector," then it probably does count, so I'd say the French/British actually did rule most of eastern North America, but past the Mississippi 50 miles north or west of New Orleans it was mostly just lines on paper. Sucrose fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Feb 1, 2015 |
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 18:04 |
|