File talk:Noram-1750.png

From IBWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

FK territory

I've cut what *here* was the british colonies into scottish, english and cambrian bits (as the federation had not happened yet). In the NAL talk page, it is said that pensylvania was settled by both cambrian and english settlers so I have assumed that the province was created later using lands from both colonies.

2 things I'm not sure:

  • What about what *here* is NewFoundland ? *here* there were a few settlements by both english and french, would it be the same *there* ? (with the addition of a few MS villages).
I think that would probably be the same. I think there were also some Welsh settlements *here* in the area. One of them is connected to the Calvert family, who would later found Maryland. I see no reason whatsoever to evict the French speakers. Obviously, *here*'s NF has become NAL territory. I suspect it became British by 1763, along with the other French claimed lands in the area.
It's probably safe to assume that there were a few small villages or trading posts of various powers scattered around the Newfoundland coast; the interior, though, was solidly Muevasefaradí, i.e. Iberian refugees and Natives, with the Iberians centered on Santa Ester and the Native Beothuk centered nearby at Lago Beátiko (Red Indian Lake). Mueva Sefarad only entered into official contact with the rest of the world in 1816, although they probably started asserting their authority on the entire island a few decades before that. MS then 'annexed' its mainland foothold upon joining the NAL. Steg a.k.a. Boroparkpyro 07:12, 31 March 2006 (PST)
  • To what kingdom does the Hudson Bay Company belongs to ? I would assume England.
There were actually several Companies early on that operated north of the French claimed lands. The Hudson's Bay Company was indeed English. They operated all the way to the Pacific, and it is pretty plain that from their westernmost territories, the country of Oregon was born (being English speaking and all). Though there must have been some kind of falling out, as Oregon has not sought regular membership within the Commonwealth and all in all, they seem to be a bit of a black sheep in the English fold.
North of HBC lands were the Cambrian Arctic Exploration Company. Their territories are named on the main map as "Prince Constantines Land" and "New Cambria". HBC lands are Labrador (now jointly administered with the Province of Nunavik), Coast of New Cornwall and the remainder of the UT to the west and northwest.
There are other companies (of the ecotourism sort, mostly) that have smaller tracts up there; there are several personal fiefdoms (several of the far northern islands) as well. A number of Native tribal governments have self-governing fiefs as well (I don't have borders worked out for any of these yet). None of this should affect New France or the history of French claimed lands in America at all. Elemtilas 17:34, 18 January 2006 (PST)
I put a map of the UT at the main maps page. Elemtilas 21:02, 18 January 2006 (PST)

French Territory

The french territory is the same as was *here* at that period altough the "St-Lawrence Islands" is a fictional creation. *Here* after the treaty of utrecht, the province of acadia lost its mainland component but kept Royal Island, St-John Island and the settlement of Plaisance (on what *here* is newfoundland) which came to be known as Acadie-Plaisance. Even though *there* France never officialy claimed Acadia (which was settled without charter by french huguenots), the kingdom would have still been interested in both protecting the entry to the St-Lawrence and having easy access to the fishing banks.

For those reasons, I propose that the French goverment would have created a maritime province (starting at the same time as *here* they were settled) which would have also included St-Piere-et-Miquelon, the Magdalene Islands and Anticosti (the last 2 *here* belong to Quebec). The Islands would have stayed French province until the french revolution when they would have been occupied by New Francy to prevent a landing by republican forces.

At some point in the early 19th century (and after the Covenant), there would have been talks made to settle various territorial dispute between NAL and New Francy (as good neighbours do). New francy would have accepted to renounce any claims on the pays-d'en-haut in exchange for a land bridge to the hudson bay and free right of passage on the great lake and down the mississipi. In addition, they would have ceded Isle-Royal and Isle-St-Jean (but kept Anticosti and the Magdalenes) to New Scotland in exchange for contiguous lands in the north-west part of the province and a certain monetary amount. On the Neofrancian side, this would diminished cost in term of defence and maintaince while ensuring that the new owner would not be too Republican friendly. On the NAL side, this increased its territory without having to go through the trouble of fighting for it.

I think the wishes of New France should not pose a problem. The above would simply explain why it is that the Labrador region of North America is isolated from the rest of British America. Naturally, the NAL would also have free right of passage along the St. Laurence River (and, once the NAL and New France construct the Seaway in the early XX century, both would have advantage of the improved movement of shipping along the waters). Transport from the Great Lakes and along the Mississippi to St. Louis (after which point the Miss. river becomes international waters) would be handled by some kind of trade treaty between NAL and New France.
The south-eastern border of New France I have a question about. The straight line from Cornwall to a point in the mountains is OK (it's the border between NY, VT, NH and QC *here*). The question is how the border between *here*'s Maine and QC got changed *there*. I'm assuming it's part of the above Agreement Between Good Neighbours, but I might be missing some detail. Elemtilas 17:18, 18 January 2006 (PST)
How then did French claims later extend to the whole Missouri=Mississippi drainage basin? That's what was sold as the Louisiana Purchase *here*.
How was the Ohio drainage and the upper Mississippi get divided between New Francy, LA and NAL? BoArthur 16:47, 18 January 2006 (PST)
Sometime between 1750 and 1763, everything that wásn't either Louisianne or New France became British (what would become the Northwestern Territories). Possibly due to the very close relationship between the British and the Natives. The French might have been driven out. Elemtilas 17:18, 18 January 2006 (PST)

Castillan Territory

I have assumed that all the spanish land *here* belonged *there* to castille but I'm wondering if some might not be aragonese.

Some maps I have seen show the territory as here with a few settlements along the coast, is this right ?

Scandiavian territory

Was it limited at the time to New Sweden and the Cruzan islands ? (Not sure of the exact date but Seem to remeber that New Iceland was later)

--Marc Pasquin 15:37, 18 January 2006 (PST)

What would become the province of Nja Island happened in the 19th or 20th centuries...I thought. BoArthur
Correct. This is not to say that Icelanders hadn't already lived in the area, but provincehood didn't happen til very late. With provincehood came a simultaneous relationship with the SR. Before that time, it was Company land pure and simple. Elemtilas 17:20, 18 January 2006 (PST)

1763

I know we were discussing this somewhere else on the interweb, but didn't the changing of territory between England and France *here* come because of the end of the French-and-Indian War which is part of the larger global conflict between the two? What plausible events would happen *there* to facilitate the changing of hands of so much territory? BoArthur Wikipedia:Treaty of Paris (1763); Louisianne didn't go to the hands of Spain; when was Florida ceded? What made it so that New Francy and Louisianne remained French? Was it that they didn't lose quite so badly?

It was mentioned before that the seven years war didn't happen and so the territories of New France stayed french. It then desintegrated during the years following the french revolution. A quick search on the list brought up this thread: [1]

--Marc Pasquin 14:51, 19 January 2006 (PST)

Something helpful

These maps might be of some help:

--Sikulu 06:25, 19 January 2006 (PST)
As well as these:

--Sikulu 06:37, 19 January 2006 (PST)

Alyaska

Shouldn't Alyaska also feature on this map too? --Sikulu 06:47, 19 January 2006 (PST)

Yes. I added Russian territories to the map. Marc, if the colours don't look right, please feel free to alter them! Elemtilas 09:47, 19 January 2006 (PST)
There do seem to be many colours on Alayska. --Sikulu 06:10, 24 February 2006 (PST)

Florida

Shouldn't Florida be English by this point *there*? --Sikulu 03:54, 13 May 2006 (PDT)

*Here* it happened in 1763 (following the seven years war). Is there a particular reson to have a different date *there* ? (considering it was a trade and not a conquest, the date and reason could stay the same) --Marc Pasquin 09:00, 13 May 2006 (PDT)
It says in this article that Florida was captured by the English in 1705 down to the 29th parallel. It was recaptured by Castile in 1803. --Sikulu 00:32, 15 May 2006 (PDT)

New Version

I've uploaded a new version of the map based on comments made and some research. Of note is the fact that on maps of the era, the known territory did not extent all the way to the northwest. It is only trough the exploration of the North-West Company (found in the 1790s) that the map was finished.

Another thing, the Labrador territory never belonged to HBC *here* and after the conquest, was part of the province of quebec until it was transfered to Newfoundland. I have assumed then that it was a disputed territory up until the mueva sepharadim revealed themselves rendering the dispute moot.

Any news regarding the florida issue ?

--Marc Pasquin 18:18, 17 July 2006 (PDT)

You have done well Marc. By the looks of things, the southern part of the Labrador territory goes to Mueva Sefarad, and the northern bit is swaped by NF for access to the Hudson Bay. As for Florida, it says quite clearly in the article:
> In 1705, England acquired Florida down to the 29th parallel from Castile, as a result of 
> England having captured Pensacola and San Augustín. England divided Florida into two halves, 
> West Florida and East Florida. Castile founded a settlement in the Tampa Bay area in 1708, 
> and named the southern penninsula la Florida del Sur (South Florida).
(P.S. unless you plan to list every major city on your map, I'd remove the reference to Montrei if I where you.)
(P.P.S. A few more lakes are visible at the resolution this particular map is at (see here)) --Sikulu 06:50, 18 July 2006 (PDT)
Also, I'm wandering if the Kingdom of the Mosquito Coast shouldn't be on this map (see here) --Sikulu 08:21, 18 July 2006 (PDT)
Done. Regarding Montrei, I included it simply because it later became a sovereign country and so someone looking at the history might want to see it in regard to other colonial posession. --Marc Pasquin 20:15, 20 July 2006 (PDT)
Very good. Perhaps (I'm not quite sure though) that Belice should be included. Also, maybe the borders between each colony should be shown more clearly like what you did with East and West Florida. Shouldn't Pennsylvaania be shown as hashed (red and green) to show its joint Anglo-Kemrese heritage? Finally, Tenisi wasn't a fully-established colony in 1750. Otherwise, keep up the good work. --Sikulu 06:38, 21 July 2006 (PDT)
As to your points:
- As far as I can tell, Belize wasn't a colony until later.
- Colonial borders are for the most represented if I found a precise, accepted border for it. Especialy in regard to New France, internal borders were a bit fluid.
- It was my understanding that modern Pennsylvaania was actualy a combination of formaly separate english and cambrian colonies.
- Similarly, I thought that tenisi was originaly a much smaller cambrian colony which annexed some territory after the colapse of New France. --Marc Pasquin 08:06, 21 July 2006 (PDT)
1) Belize was settled in the late 1630's; it became a Crown Colony in 1862
2) I meant the borders between the English and Kemrese colonies
3) The article on Pennsylvaania isn't really clear about that; I always assumed that it was an early Anglo-Kemrese Condominium
4) According to the article (which I wrote, by the way), Tenisi was setted by Kemrese (and some English) prior to the 1755 War; it was never acctually a colony (it was admitted as a province of the NAL in 1812), but it was a part of Carolina from 1763-1812.
Cheers--Sikulu 08:35, 21 July 2006 (PDT)
1- do you have a map on how big it covered ?
2- they're not in the same colour. What do you mean by "more clearly" ?
3- guess its up to the parties concern to decide then.
4- the problem with that is that the 1755 war proposal conflict with other established facts (namely that New France's territory was only gobbled up after the french revolution). Something else to be resolved by the party concerned. My only suggestion would be for the future tenisians to have begun "squatting" on french land before that date. --Marc Pasquin 08:56, 21 July 2006 (PDT)
1) These are ones, but some other ones I've found a bit conflicting: 1, 2
2) Sorry, should have been more clear. I meant the borders between the individual colonies (like what you did for East and West Florida)
--Sikulu 09:01, 21 July 2006 (PDT)
1- After reading about it online, there wasn't a british colony per say at the time. What you had was the spanish crown granting *loggin rights* to england with the later having established semi-permanent logging camps. So in the end, belize shouldn't be included yet at that date.
2- which one are those you think are not clear enough ? I'm thinking that I might have combined colonies which you think should be separate. --Marc Pasquin 09:28, 21 July 2006 (PDT)
2) Yes. You have Virginia, Carolina and Jacobia (and possibly the Cherokee State (which might be a protected state (not a protectorate)))) merged as "Carolinas"; Mass, Conn, and NH are merged as "New England"; NC, TM and Kemrese Pennsylvaania are merged as "New Castreleon"; English Pensylvaania, Kent and Oxbridge are merged as "Sylvania". Are all these Deliberate? --Sikulu 01:59, 22 July 2006 (PDT)

Becoming too indented so here goes: I grouped some together (based on motherland) mostly because I wasn't sure of their specific status at that specific time and/or their borders. Looking at there respective articles:

- Jacobia: according to the article, only became a crown colony in 1752 (I take it to mean it wasn't separate before).

- Virgina: What would be its border then ? (kentucky is said to have been split from it in 1805 and some of its modern land was then part of New France)

- cherokee state: I doubt it would be separate, rather more like a subnational district.

- all the rest: would their borders be as now (except for what is part of New France) ?

--Marc Pasquin 08:59, 22 July 2006 (PDT)

Try:
- Carolina as depicted here, with adjustments as required for East and West Florida
- Virginia as the area above it
- Perhaps straighten Ter Mair so that it looks like it does now over *there*
- Kent and Oxbridge as they are they are *there*
- The New England colonies as they are *there* plus the area ceeded to NF later on
- New Sweden should be a part of Pennsylvaania
- Perhaps include Tenisi as part of Carolina, or adjust the borders of the respective colonies to look more like here(with the disputed area highlighted?)
- Perhaps include Cherokee as part of Carolina
Keep up the good work.--Sikulu 07:46, 24 July 2006 (PDT)
P.S. Something's got to be done about Pennsylvaania. --Sikulu 08:47, 24 July 2006 (PDT)

New Sweden

New Sweden should be listed as Swedish, and the Cruzans as Danish. Also, some more red and pink for the Antilles with appropriate labels. --Sikulu 06:37, 22 November 2006 (PST)

about the antilles, which bit pink, which bit red ? --Marc Pasquin 16:44, 23 November 2006 (PST)
See also under East Caribbean Province. I.e.:
  • Scotish - Anguila, Antigua, Barbuda
  • English - Montserat, Nevis, St Kitts
--Sikulu 01:24, 24 November 2006 (PST)
P.S. Rhode Island is Scottish, and you forgot to label the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Cayman Islands as Kemrese. --Sikulu 01:27, 24 November 2006 (PST)
I'll update it --Marc Pasquin 07:30, 24 November 2006 (PST)

New Navarre?

Why New Navarre? Shouldn't it be New Leon? --Sikulu 01:28, 24 November 2006 (PST)

Good point regarding Navarre, considering it's part of IB's France. That being said, there already is a New Leon (*here* anyway) so maybe a different name might be in order. --Marc Pasquin 07:30, 24 November 2006 (PST)
That New Leon is a state of Mexico *here*. Perhaps New Castile might be a slightly better name for the Viceroyality? Or perhaps calling *here's* New Leon State as "New Extremadura" or something? --Sikulu 08:04, 24 November 2006 (PST)
There's no accounting for place names, I have to say. Strange, those immigrants. BoArthur 14:51, 25 November 2006 (PST)

Prince Constantine's Land

Shouldn't that area be labled as Kemrese? --Sikulu 06:33, 31 January 2007 (PST)

I don't know that one, where is it ? --Marc Pasquin 17:04, 31 January 2007 (PST)
That's the problem, it hasn't been properly defined, and the one map which I could find of it, which used to be here, has vanished. Fortunatly, I have a copy at home, but I don't think that it was a final draft. You'll have to ask whoever aranged the Unincorporated Territories (I forget who). --Sikulu 03:36, 1 February 2007 (PST)
Retrieved from "http://ib.frath.net/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Noram-1750.png&oldid=44316"