|
Disinterested posted:I can't really think of anything in the US's behaviour that has ever made me think that it wouldn't have gone utterly hamfistedly in to intercontinental imperialism from day 1 if it had been strong enough. Luckily we waited and gained cultural, economic, and military domination without all the mess of actually having to run colonies.
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
ekuNNN posted:Apart from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines I guess. The Spanish did all the heavy lifting with colonizing the places, we took them off their hands in basically a pointless war.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:If it wasn't for Britain, Spain and France would have colonized North America. What do you mean "would have"? They kinda did, nearly all of it
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That Mexico had heavier settlement in areas that were later conquered by the US doesn't change the fact that Spain had laid claim to massive areas far outside their practical control, or that France had likewise claimed a ton of territory where they had essentially no presence. England didn't do anything more serious than them, dude.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:So? 1750 is like 150 years later after a long rear end time of colonists actually being there, and England having encroached pretty heavily on lands previously controlled by the French and Spanish, let alone swallowing up the Swedish and Dutch colonies whole. Interesting situation for 1750 though: total population of the North American continent excluding Mexico (its full extent, not merely it's size these days) was about 2 million. The 13 colonies made up about 1.2 of that. Latin America including Mexico was 16 million people.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The British were able to encroach on that poo poo because they had actual settlers, instead of forts and a few fur traders. The population disparity was pretty much the same a hundred years earlier. No, dude, that's because Britain won wars against several European states which ended up with them being granted territories often pretty decently settled before they sent much of anyone over. Everyone back then held that alternately France and Spain owning the Louisiana territory was unambiguously belonging to the current owner, for example. You really have to work up some anti-historical logic to declare that France and Spain weren't owning most of the continent.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
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? You don't think seizing the already developed bits of New Sweden and New Netherland helped any? Robust port facilities and trading networks don't grow on trees. Additionally, New France was primarily able to be seized due to France being close to collapsing in Europe, it being a result of the colonial possession swaps that ended that war, rather than overwhelming strength on the North American continent. You might recall that during it the British had been able to successfully blockade much of French shipping, while they themselves could freely travel between continents. That had a lot more to do with anything than raw population numbers. Going by "the native population" you certainly can't say England conquered the continent.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 19:21
|
|