How badly can we Balkanize North America?
- Thread starter Umbral
- Start date
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Have more colonial powers carve up colonies, and no war that leave a huge dominant power in North America (like England OTL).
Ooh, ooh! Warlords Era in America!
HOT DAMN that is a good TL idea.
Also, what the other guy said---probably need to wank Britain's competitors and nerf Britain simultaneously to keep one power from becoming dominant.
SinghKing
Banned
Don't Central America and the Caribbean count as 'North America'? Or even places like Greenland and Bermuda?Well, it actually has ten: Canada, U.S.A., Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama (and, if you count Greenland as basically autonomous from Denmark and as part of North America, 11, but I wouldn't).
But, it can be worse. An upsurge of French colonization of Quebec can cause a Quebecois revolt motivated by the American revolution, cutting the Canadian colonies in half. Combine this with Napoleon successfully putting down the Hatian slave revolt (or, conversely, not reinstating slavery in the first place), and the Louisiana purchase never happens, so manifest destiny is butterflied. If this significantly reduces American nationalism, it couldmake the war of 1812 result in New England and Maritime Independence and unification. However, Napoleon having Louisiana might butterfly 1812, although the Continental System and, therefore, Britain's counter-blockade would probably still be there, so maybe not. Then French Louisiana becomes independent after Napoleon falls, and so does Mexico. Texas probably doesn't secede without American migration, which probably won't happen with Louisiana in the way. The remaining Canadian colonies get the rest of Oregon, and Russia gets Alaska, which probably becomes independent after the Czar is overthrown (yes, the Bolshevik Revolution is likely butterflied, but the Czardom simply can't last.)\
So, we have:
1: The United Provinces of New Britain (New England+Nova Scotia(New Scotland), so New Britain- consists of New England and Maritime Canadian Provinces)
2: The United States of America (New York-Florida, Atlantic-Mississippi)
3: The Republic of Louisiana
4: The Republic of Quebec
5: Canada (Newfoundland+Laborador, Provinces West of Quebec, Oregon Territory)
6: Mexico (OTL 1825 Mexico)
7: Alaska (OTL Alaska)
8: Guatemala
9: Belize
10: El Salvador
11: Honduras
12: Nicaragua
13: Costa Rica
14: Columbia (Notably, the absence of a powerful U.S. likely prevents Panamanian independence, giving Colombia territory in North America.
So, we add New Britain, Quebec, Louisiana, and Alaska, and replace Panama with Columbia. I can't really see it getting any worse, unless Americans migrate through Louisiana to Texas, triggering an Independence movement, but that would likely end with America taking Louisiana, reversing the desired effect.
In this world, no powerful US will form, North America is doomed to decades of suspicion and brinkmanship, and Britain and Germany remain the dominant powers... unless Soviet Russia still rises.
But, it can be worse. An upsurge of French colonization of Quebec can cause a Quebecois revolt motivated by the American revolution, cutting the Canadian colonies in half. Combine this with Napoleon successfully putting down the Hatian slave revolt (or, conversely, not reinstating slavery in the first place), and the Louisiana purchase never happens, so manifest destiny is butterflied. If this significantly reduces American nationalism, it couldmake the war of 1812 result in New England and Maritime Independence and unification. However, Napoleon having Louisiana might butterfly 1812, although the Continental System and, therefore, Britain's counter-blockade would probably still be there, so maybe not. Then French Louisiana becomes independent after Napoleon falls, and so does Mexico. Texas probably doesn't secede without American migration, which probably won't happen with Louisiana in the way. The remaining Canadian colonies get the rest of Oregon, and Russia gets Alaska, which probably becomes independent after the Czar is overthrown (yes, the Bolshevik Revolution is likely butterflied, but the Czardom simply can't last.)\
So, we have:
1: The United Provinces of New Britain (New England+Nova Scotia(New Scotland), so New Britain- consists of New England and Maritime Canadian Provinces)
2: The United States of America (New York-Florida, Atlantic-Mississippi)
3: The Republic of Louisiana
4: The Republic of Quebec
5: Canada (Newfoundland+Laborador, Provinces West of Quebec, Oregon Territory)
6: Mexico (OTL 1825 Mexico)
7: Alaska (OTL Alaska)
8: Guatemala
9: Belize
10: El Salvador
11: Honduras
12: Nicaragua
13: Costa Rica
14: Columbia (Notably, the absence of a powerful U.S. likely prevents Panamanian independence, giving Colombia territory in North America.
So, we add New Britain, Quebec, Louisiana, and Alaska, and replace Panama with Columbia. I can't really see it getting any worse, unless Americans migrate through Louisiana to Texas, triggering an Independence movement, but that would likely end with America taking Louisiana, reversing the desired effect.
In this world, no powerful US will form, North America is doomed to decades of suspicion and brinkmanship, and Britain and Germany remain the dominant powers... unless Soviet Russia still rises.
I always thought of Central America as an entity unto itself. If you need to attach it to one of the continents, I'd argue that it has more in common with South America.
And as for Greenland...how often do we see Denmark listed as one of the largest countries in America?
However, is it possible to balkanize North America down to Central America levels? Even if we allow more colonizers in, that is still a very limited number. French in Louisiana and Qubec, Uk in New England, Sweden and Norway in Maine and Newfoundland, Portugal in Cascadia, Germany somewhere. Probably no more than ten nations althogether. Tthats still going to average bigger nations than in Europe.
Further fragmentation?
And as for Greenland...how often do we see Denmark listed as one of the largest countries in America?
However, is it possible to balkanize North America down to Central America levels? Even if we allow more colonizers in, that is still a very limited number. French in Louisiana and Qubec, Uk in New England, Sweden and Norway in Maine and Newfoundland, Portugal in Cascadia, Germany somewhere. Probably no more than ten nations althogether. Tthats still going to average bigger nations than in Europe.
Further fragmentation?
imrN AlI
Then French Louisiana becomes independent after Napoleon falls, and so does Mexico.
Then French Louisiana becomes independent after Napoleon falls, and so does Mexico.
SinghKing
Banned
The OP was talking about the Continent of North America. And technically, even if we only include nations which are entirely located on the North American Plate, excluding any of them on the Caribbean plate or the Atlantic Ridge (along with Cascadia and California, for that matter) then we can still add Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, the Cayman Islands, Cuba, The Bahamas and the Turks & Caicos Islands to the list of North American nations/territories IOTL.
Have the French not loose so badly during the 7 years war and keep their territories in NA.
Spain possessions devolve in small principalities at the whim of local nobles during the cracks at the end of the Spanish Empire.
German migrants decide to go more to the West and carve their own land.
Irish people get sick of being little more than catholic slaves and do an uprising, helped with the black slaves creating to Catholic Republic of Afrirland.
Due to the competition and squabbles between French territories and US territories, the US doesn't have the power to extend West, crush these rebellions, incorporate more land and exterminate the Indians which create their own countries in the mid-west.
There you go, I think that's quite a few countries already
Spain possessions devolve in small principalities at the whim of local nobles during the cracks at the end of the Spanish Empire.
German migrants decide to go more to the West and carve their own land.
Irish people get sick of being little more than catholic slaves and do an uprising, helped with the black slaves creating to Catholic Republic of Afrirland.
Due to the competition and squabbles between French territories and US territories, the US doesn't have the power to extend West, crush these rebellions, incorporate more land and exterminate the Indians which create their own countries in the mid-west.
There you go, I think that's quite a few countries already
Deleted member 9338
Here is my take on the states,
1. The United Provinces of New Britain (New England+Nova Scotia)
2. The United States of America (Mid Atlantic down to the Carolinas and west to the Mississippi
3. Georgia/Indian State (Buffer to Floridia)
4. Florida
5. The Republic of Louisiana
6. The Republic of Quebec
7. Canada (Eastern Canada)
8. Indian States (Western Canada and North West US)
9. Mexico (OTL 1825 Mexico)
10. Texas
11. Russian Alaska
12. Greater Guatemala
13. Belize
14. El Salvador
15. Honduras
16. Nicaragua
17. Costa Rica
18. Columbia
1. The United Provinces of New Britain (New England+Nova Scotia)
2. The United States of America (Mid Atlantic down to the Carolinas and west to the Mississippi
3. Georgia/Indian State (Buffer to Floridia)
4. Florida
5. The Republic of Louisiana
6. The Republic of Quebec
7. Canada (Eastern Canada)
8. Indian States (Western Canada and North West US)
9. Mexico (OTL 1825 Mexico)
10. Texas
11. Russian Alaska
12. Greater Guatemala
13. Belize
14. El Salvador
15. Honduras
16. Nicaragua
17. Costa Rica
18. Columbia
Well since Umbral was the author of the original post and they wrote of North America as being 'a continent with only 3 nations' I'm assuming that for his/her definition we only have what is modern day Canada, the United States, and Mexico to play with.
I was actually wondering about this a little while back. The general idea was that the British were able to handle things better so that there was no American revolution, or it was at least quashed quickly, so that over time British North America spreads westwards to the Pacific and develops into Canada and a number of separate Dominions of roughly equal population size, about 35-40 million people per, in what is a now the US. At some point Great Britain goes to war with Spain and seizes Mexico which also gets split up but I never got around to seeing how they might be reasonably divided.
I like this idea. If Mexico stays together it can be the Russia of North America, and we have more or less Europe in the New World.
Be right back, I need to work on a TL now.
Yes yes! Throw in a Russia wank for a USA analogue and its golden. Maybe a Russian Cascadia, and a independent south California plus baja.
It is more logical from a geographic viewpoint to put Central America with North America than with South America. The meaning of "North America" might vary. Some people differentiate between North America and Latin America. Then normally Mexico is not considered a part of North America. It is also possible to talk about North, Central- and South-America. Then Mexico is included. If you only differentiate between North- and South-America, Central America belongs to the north. When it comes to the Caribbean, my impression is that it is normally placed with the north, although some of the islands close to South America would be more logically placed with the south.
SinghKing
Banned
If the Caribbean, Greenland, Central America and Hawaii don't count as being part of North America, then technically Cascadia and California shouldn't count as being part of North America either- they're parts of the Farallon and Pacific plates respectively.
This is an idea free for stealing, because i doubt i'll ever get around to the TL.
I've always wondered if perhaps the native American tribes could have had a different legislative fate. From my understanding, it was a chain of events that precipitated one another, not the inevitable wave that most on this board seem to think. (i understand though, because native American history is marginalized/non existent in America, also much if it is lost). Lets say a founding father is kidnapped by Native Americans as a child, a buildings a trusting relationship with the tribe. Then there is a bit more "they are people too" gravity among the founders. This all leads to tribes having the optional access to "autonomous tribe status" that offers protections with agreed upon concessions.
I've always wondered if perhaps the native American tribes could have had a different legislative fate. From my understanding, it was a chain of events that precipitated one another, not the inevitable wave that most on this board seem to think. (i understand though, because native American history is marginalized/non existent in America, also much if it is lost). Lets say a founding father is kidnapped by Native Americans as a child, a buildings a trusting relationship with the tribe. Then there is a bit more "they are people too" gravity among the founders. This all leads to tribes having the optional access to "autonomous tribe status" that offers protections with agreed upon concessions.