I knew it. Bloodthirsty savages! The French in North America never resorted to such barbarism, btw. Wich undoubtedly proves the moral superiority of the French nation of North America. You can start worshipping me and Grey Fox, now, guys. :showoff: :worthy:
Jamestown colonists were cannibals (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130501-jamestown-cannibalism-archeology-science/)
Quote
Archaeologists have discovered the first physical evidence of cannibalism by desperate English colonists driven by hunger during the Starving Time of 1609-1610 at Jamestown, Virginia (map) (http://maps.nationalgeographic.com/map-machine#s=r&c=37.20744498342197,%20-76.76325988769533&z=13)—the first permanent English settlement in the New World.
The announcement was made by a team of researchers from the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, Historic Jamestowne, and the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation at a press conference May 1 in Washington, D.C.
There are five historical accounts written by or about Jamestown colonists that reference cannibalism, but this is the first time it's been proven, said William Kelso, director of archeology at Historic Jamestowne (http://historicjamestowne.org/index.php).
"This is a very rare find," said James Horn, vice president of research for the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (http://www.history.org/). "It is the only artifactual evidence of cannibalism by Europeans at any European colony—Spanish, French, English, or Dutch—throughout the colonial period from about 1500 to 1800."
Portions of the butchered skull and shinbone of a 14-year-old girl from England, dubbed "Jane" by researchers, were unearthed by Jamestown archaeologists last year. They found the remains about 2.5 feet (0.8 meters) down in a 17th century trash deposit in the cellar of a building built in 1608 inside the James Fort site.
Kelso then asked Doug Owsley, head of physical anthropology at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History (http://anthropology.si.edu/index.html), to examine the remains and determine if she was killed or cannibalized.
Kelso said he hadn't believed previous historical accounts regarding cannibalism. He thought they were politically motivated, intended to discredit the Virginia Company—the stockholders who provisioned and financed the settlement.
"Now, I know the accounts are true," he said.
Since the excavation of James Fort began in 1994, the discovery is second only to the discovery of the fort, he added.
The findings answer a longstanding question among historians about the occurrence of cannibalism at the settlement during the winter of 1609, when about 80 percent of the colonists died. (Read about the real story of Jamestown in (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/05/jamestown/charles-mann-text)National Geographic (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/05/jamestown/charles-mann-text) magazine. (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/05/jamestown/charles-mann-text))
Hesitation
Owsley described multiple chop and cut marks on the girl's skull that were made by one or more assailants after she died. "They were clearly interested in cheek meat, muscles of the face, tongue, and brain," he said. Jane's hair was not removed.
One of the foremost forensic anthropologists in the world, Owsley has analyzed numerous skeletal remains of prehistoric people who were victims of cannibalism. Their bones were similar to Jane's in that they had cut marks and were splintered and fragmented, he said.
Four closely spaced chop marks in her forehead indicated a failed attempt to split her skull open, Owsley said. The close proximity of the unsuccessful blows indicates that she was already dead, or they would have been more haphazard, he explained.
The back of her skull was then cracked open by a series of chops by a light weight axe or cleaver, he said.
Cleaver blades and knives excavated from the Jamestown site were compared to the blows, and Owsley said he thinks a cleaver was used.
There were also numerous cuts, saw marks, and gouges along her lower jaw made by the tip of a knife to get to the meat, and to remove throat tissue and the tongue, he said.
Owsley said the cutting was not done by an experienced butcher, except possibly the chops to the shinbone. "There is a hesitancy, trial, and tentativeness in the marks that is not seen in animal butchery," he said.
"The desperation and overwhelming circumstances faced by the James Fort colonists during the winter of 1609-1610 are reflected in the postmortem treatment of this girl's body," Owsley added.
Although only part of the skull is still intact, researchers were able to produce a facial reconstruction of Jane by digitally creating a 3-D skull.
Historic Jamestowne's Kelso said that settling Jamestown was "a very dark undertaking." This evidence of cannibalism "almost puts you in the time," he added. (Learn about the harsh realities of life in Jamestown. (http://anthropology.si.edu/writteninbone/harsh_proof.html))
Backstory
Since only ten percent of Jane's skeleton has been recovered, researchers have not been able to tell much about her story, but they do know by examining her shinbone that she was 14 years old.
Based on isotope studies of her third molar, the high nitrogen content meant Jane may have been from a high-status family or served as their maid.
Elevated nitrogen levels indicate that she ate a lot of protein, which was scarce and expensive, said Kari Bruwlheide (http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/scientist/bruwelheide.html), a physical anthropologist at the Smithsonian who works with Owsley.
Researchers also know that she was probably from the southern coast of England, based on a comparison of oxygen isotopes in her tooth and oxygen isotopes found in groundwater samples from the area. The water she consumed while her permanent teeth were forming during infancy helps to pinpoint where she was born.
A study of the carbon isotopes in her bones indicated she was eating a mostly European diet, which means that Jane had not been in Jamestown for long before her death, Bruwelheide said.
A Desperate Situation
According to Horn, of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Jane probably arrived at Jamestown in August of 1609 on one of six ships from England that straggled into the fort after surviving a hurricane during their crossing.
The new arrivals' food stores were spoiled or depleted—most of their provisions were lost when the flagship Sea Venture shipwrecked during the storm—and many of them were in poor health, he said.
The Jamestown colonists were already starving when the 300 new settlers arrived, having suffered from diseases and food shortages.
Increasing demands for food from nearby Indian tribes, coupled with severe drought conditions, caused relationships with the Powhatan Indians—a powerful chiefdom that extended across much of Virginia's coastal region—to deteriorate.
The colony's leader, Captain John Smith, who had been wounded in an explosion, left with the fleet on its return trip to England, leaving Jamestown rudderless.
By November, the Powhatans launched a war against the English, laying siege to Jamestown and cutting the colonists off from outside help. "Conditions became increasingly desperate," Horn said.
At first the settlers ate their horses, then their dogs and cats. Jamestown residents also ate rats, mice, and snakes, according to a firsthand account by George Percy, who became the colony's temporary leader after John Smith left.
Percy writes that some colonists ate their boots, shoes, and any other leather they could find. Others left the fort to search for roots in the woods, but were killed by Powhatan warriors.
"Nothing Was Spared"
As the siege continued into the winter, Percy wrote in an eyewitness account: "And now famine beginning to look ghastly and pale in every face that nothing was spared to maintain life and to do those things which seem incredible, as to dig up dead corpse out of graves and to eat them, and some have licked up the blood which hath fallen from their weak fellows."
According to several colonists, one man killed his pregnant wife and chopped her into pieces, which he then salted and ate for food. He was executed for murder.
"Only in the most desperate of circumstances would the English have turned to cannibalism," Horn said. He believed the accounts because he said there was no reason for Percy to write falsely about something that would reflect poorly on his leadership.
By spring of 1610, only about 60 people living at the fort had survived, according to Kelso's calculations. How many of the dead were cannibalized is unknown, but Jane was not an isolated case, according to historical accounts.
The colony was saved that spring by the arrival of settlers who had been shipwrecked with the Sea Venture in Bermuda—they had built themselves a new boat—who brought in much-needed supplies. They were followed soon after by Lord de la Warr, Jamestown's first governor, who brought in additional supplies—a year's worth—and even more colonists.
Upon his arrival, De la Warr ordered a clean up of the fort. Trash, including Jane's remains, were deposited in cellars and pits throughout the settlement.
Jamestown endured and colonists kept coming. "They kept their foothold and kept the Spanish from claiming all of North America," Horn said.
"This discovery underlines the incredible challenges each colonist faced in establishing European settlements in the New World. There were scores that never lasted more than 6 to 12 months."
A public exhibition about the discovery and investigation of Jane's remains, along with the evidence of cannibalism, her facial reconstruction, and the circumstances that led to the Starving Time will open at the Archaearium at Historic Jamestowne, on Jamestown Island, on May 3.
You better hope there are no lean times then, or you might get eaten.
They still spoke English.
Catholics eat Jesus.
Quote from: Jacob on January 12, 2014, 12:27:28 PM
You better hope there are no lean times then, or you might get eaten.
Nah, it won't happen. They've been partly civilized by French influence throughout the continent since then, and they have developped better culinary tastes ;)
Wow. It's only the first of May, 2013 in Quebec?
Greetings from the future, Quebecois.
Unless I missed it, they don't say how she dies, just that she was cut up and eaten after dying. So, she wasn't necessarily murdered.
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2014, 06:04:44 PM
Wow. It's only the first of May, 2013 in Quebec?
Greetings from the future, Quebecois.
Nah, translation just takes a while.
Viper reads it in french & then searches for a english article to post it here.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2014, 09:45:37 PM
Nah, translation just takes a while.
Viper reads it in french & then searches for a english article to post it here.
... and neglects to mention that the story is old and covered here on languish previously.
Some more interesting reading on Jamestown. I find it odd that according to the article the first settlers weren't very agriculturally inclined. I guess at first they expected to survive with resupply from England, but given the long travel times and hazards of sea travel from England that seems less than ideal to be counting on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown,_Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown,_Virginia)
In December I saw Jamestown from the James River but didn't actually go there. :Embarrass: :frusty:
I was in Richmond visiting my brother and my parents decided at the last minute to butt in on the trip. That day we had planned to go to Jamestown, Williamsburg, etc. my parents INSISTED on going to some diner they saw on The Food Network that took THREE HOURS to get to (it was like most of the way to Norfolk) and just had soul food. It was good, but my Yankee parents don't understand that in a southern city like Richmond there are tons of places you can get good soul food at. As such there was no time to actually do anything meaningful that day.
I. HATE. OLD. PEOPLE.
Quote from: Caliga on January 13, 2014, 07:59:50 AM
In December I saw Jamestown from the James River but didn't actually go there. :Embarrass: :frusty:
I was in Richmond visiting my brother and my parents decided at the last minute to butt in on the trip. That day we had planned to go to Jamestown, Williamsburg, etc. my parents INSISTED on going to some diner they saw on The Food Network that took THREE HOURS to get to (it was like most of the way to Norfolk) and just had soul food. It was good, but my Yankee parents don't understand that in a southern city like Richmond there are tons of places you can get good soul food at. As such there was no time to actually do anything meaningful that day.
I. HATE. OLD. PEOPLE.
Guy Fieri eats poop
Quote from: Caliga on January 13, 2014, 07:59:50 AM
In December I saw Jamestown from the James River but didn't actually go there. :Embarrass: :frusty:
I was in Richmond visiting my brother and my parents decided at the last minute to butt in on the trip. That day we had planned to go to Jamestown, Williamsburg, etc. my parents INSISTED on going to some diner they saw on The Food Network that took THREE HOURS to get to (it was like most of the way to Norfolk) and just had soul food. It was good, but my Yankee parents don't understand that in a southern city like Richmond there are tons of places you can get good soul food at. As such there was no time to actually do anything meaningful that day.
I. HATE. OLD. PEOPLE.
It takes you three hours to get to "most of the way to Norfolk" from Richmond? You drive like old people fuck.
HEY!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlfAv63Z.jpg&hash=aba61660537f11f9993c32b52a6fdfc4c8935252)
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2014, 10:37:12 AM
It takes you three hours to get to "most of the way to Norfolk" from Richmond? You drive like old people fuck.
I didn't drive. He insisted on doing that, too, and his route was to take 64 from Richmond to Williamsburg, get on some side road, and then take a ferry across the James.
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2014, 10:37:12 AM
Quote from: Caliga on January 13, 2014, 07:59:50 AM
In December I saw Jamestown from the James River but didn't actually go there. :Embarrass: :frusty:
I was in Richmond visiting my brother and my parents decided at the last minute to butt in on the trip. That day we had planned to go to Jamestown, Williamsburg, etc. my parents INSISTED on going to some diner they saw on The Food Network that took THREE HOURS to get to (it was like most of the way to Norfolk) and just had soul food. It was good, but my Yankee parents don't understand that in a southern city like Richmond there are tons of places you can get good soul food at. As such there was no time to actually do anything meaningful that day.
I. HATE. OLD. PEOPLE.
It takes you three hours to get to "most of the way to Norfolk" from Richmond? You drive like old people fuck.
In an experienced manner? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on January 13, 2014, 10:46:17 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2014, 10:37:12 AM
It takes you three hours to get to "most of the way to Norfolk" from Richmond? You drive like old people fuck.
I didn't drive. He insisted on doing that, too, and his route was to take 64 from Richmond to Williamsburg, get on some side road, and then take a ferry across the James.
He was just trying to spend some quality time with his kid. Give the man a break.
Quote from: Caliga on January 13, 2014, 10:46:17 AM
I didn't drive. He insisted on doing that, too, and his route was to take 64 from Richmond to Williamsburg, get on some side road, and then take a ferry across the James.
Sounds to me like you need to step up and be the man.
Quote from: Caliga on January 13, 2014, 10:46:17 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2014, 10:37:12 AM
It takes you three hours to get to "most of the way to Norfolk" from Richmond? You drive like old people fuck.
I didn't drive. He insisted on doing that, too, and his route was to take 64 from Richmond to Williamsburg, get on some side road, and then take a ferry across the James.
How many times did you check your oil on that trip? :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2014, 01:33:29 PM
Sounds to me like you need to step up and be the man.
You're probably right, but I didn't have my car with me when I was in Richmond so that's my excuse this time. :cool:
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2014, 01:57:46 PM
How many times did you check your oil on that trip? :hmm:
We were in his Honda Odyssey and according to him the Odyssey is perfect so I'm assuming it changes its own oil somehow.
Quote from: Caliga on January 13, 2014, 03:19:19 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2014, 01:33:29 PM
Sounds to me like you need to step up and be the man.
You're probably right, but I didn't have my car with me when I was in Richmond so that's my excuse this time. :cool:
Well, I suppose we can excuse you, just this once. :P
Alt-Hist: The French wins the French-Indian War, the whole of North America becomes French speaking.
What would have been different in that timeline?
The Revolutionary War? Would the French colonists side with the monarchy during the French revolution? Napoleon?
WW1 and 2?
War on Terror?
Would Hollywood speak French? Would French be the new Lingua Franca? ????
:hmm: Why would the English Colonists stop speaking English? They still speak French in Quebec, dude. :)
Quote from: Caliga on January 13, 2014, 08:11:10 PM
:hmm: Why would the English Colonists stop speaking English? They still speak French in Quebec, dude. :)
Hey, I made this scenario. It is MINE.
My precious.
Quote from: Caliga on January 13, 2014, 08:11:10 PM
:hmm: Why would the English Colonists stop speaking English? They still speak French in Quebec, dude. :)
The French aren't as tolerant as the English.
:lol: 20 years of nuns smacking us with rulers for speaking English in class would do the trick.
Quote from: Maximus on January 13, 2014, 08:18:05 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 13, 2014, 08:11:10 PM
:hmm: Why would the English Colonists stop speaking English? They still speak French in Quebec, dude. :)
The French aren't as tolerant as the English.
But the French have a terrible record of colonial population expansion compared to the English and English as a language (well, its' predecessor Old English anyway) has a history of not being absorbed by the language of a conqueror even when a complete elite replacement occurs. What's more the suppression of dialects in France itself didn't occur until the late nineteenth century and the era of universal conscription so I find it hard to believe that the French could launch a successful campaign against the English language in North America in the late eighteenth century.
I think Siege's "Alt-Hist" is going to see the French kicked out of the east coast by a general Anglo revolt, and that within only a few years.
What happens after that, since the French should be able to hold on to the Mississippi river and surrounding regions is the interesting question.
Do the French finally manage to get their act together and export enough people to the area to balance the Anglos.?
Or does the area become the French equivalent of "Mexican" Texas and California due to immigration from the Engish speaking part of North America? With similar results?
So, colonial population expansion is the answer why French, Spanish, and Portuguese ex-colonies are so poor today as compare to the British's?
Is there a source comparing colonial population expansion?
I can't find one in google.
Quote from: Siege on January 13, 2014, 08:08:55 PM
Alt-Hist: The French wins the French-Indian War, the whole of North America becomes French speaking.
What would have been different in that timeline?
The Revolutionary War? Would the French colonists side with the monarchy during the French revolution? Napoleon?
WW1 and 2?
War on Terror?
Would Hollywood speak French? Would French be the new Lingua Franca? ????
The British colonists outnumbered the French ten to one or more. A French win in that war simply means that Quebec stays controlled by France and on paper the Ohio valley still belongs to the French.
The British colonists will stay loyal due to the French threat and eventually roll over the Appalachians in a demographic tidal wave. All those things you mentioned are butterflied away, with the exception of an eventual French Revolution, whose particulars in this case will be much different.
Quote from: Siege on January 14, 2014, 08:27:36 AM
So, colonial population expansion is the answer why French, Spanish, and Portuguese ex-colonies are so poor today as compare to the British's?
Is there a source comparing colonial population expansion?
I can't find one in google.
Well, no, since Portuguese and Spanish demographic expansion in the colonies far outstripped France's as well. Part of the issue is that in absolute numbers far less French people went to the Colonies than from Britain or Spain (and possibly even Portugal.) Part of the issue may be the early and general slowdown in the expansion of the French population that became pronounced in the nineteenth century but that may have begun long before that period.
For example, France started colonising the Americas at roughly the same time as England (1607/1608); it took 30 years for Quebec city's population to rise to more than 300 people. That's about the same number as the third of Jamestown's colonists killed about 15 years after settlement. Now you could argue that Quebec's climate is not as benign as Jamestown's but since Jamestown still managed to kill over 40% of the colonists who arrived in the first 15 years of settlement the argument doesn't hold a huge amount of weight.
Fundamentally, the average Frenchman was much less likely than the average Englishman to emigrate to the colonies; when you consider that the likelihood for the average Frenchwoman to emigrate was even worse combined with the fact that the French Caribbean possessions attracted a disproportionate amount of the colonists available then there's little question as to why by the time of the French and Indian War the British colonies outweighed the French by at least 10:1 as Tim has said.
That's the problem with your alt hist. suggestion. Yes, given colonies were traded in peace treaties it is possible for a realistic scenario to exist where the French win and gain all of North America (probably due to a successful cross channel invasion leaving them holding London.) But there's no way they could extinguish the English language in the former English colonies. And almost no way that they could hold their possessions long term. I'd give them 10 years or so before they piss the Colonists off enough to revolt myself at the most.
Quote from: Agelastus on January 14, 2014, 05:59:44 AM
Do the French finally manage to get their act together and export enough people to the area to balance the Anglos.?
It would require them to adopt similar policies of toleration the English government did. That would by ideological impossible for the Royal government.
Remember a huge percentage of those 'Anglos' weren't Anglos at all but Germans and other scum. The British just let anybody settle in their colonies.
Yay for Germans. And Scots-Irish.
No war of 1812 :(
Quote from: Agelastus on January 14, 2014, 05:59:44 AM
Quote from: Maximus on January 13, 2014, 08:18:05 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 13, 2014, 08:11:10 PM
:hmm: Why would the English Colonists stop speaking English? They still speak French in Quebec, dude. :)
The French aren't as tolerant as the English.
But the French have a terrible record of colonial population expansion compared to the English and English as a language (well, its' predecessor Old English anyway) has a history of not being absorbed by the language of a conqueror even when a complete elite replacement occurs. What's more the suppression of dialects in France itself didn't occur until the late nineteenth century and the era of universal conscription so I find it hard to believe that the French could launch a successful campaign against the English language in North America in the late eighteenth century.
I think Siege's "Alt-Hist" is going to see the French kicked out of the east coast by a general Anglo revolt, and that within only a few years.
What happens after that, since the French should be able to hold on to the Mississippi river and surrounding regions is the interesting question.
Do the French finally manage to get their act together and export enough people to the area to balance the Anglos.?
Or does the area become the French equivalent of "Mexican" Texas and California due to immigration from the Engish speaking part of North America? With similar results?
The French weren't even that interested in North America anyway. Louis the XV would probably just give it all back. He was dumb like that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
No war of 1812 :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F1%2F14%2FJohnny_Horton_New_Orleans_single.jpg&hash=4e3cc8804d3307eb26216eec97000228ddd08b5e)
Quote from: Agelastus on January 14, 2014, 10:16:04 AM
Well, no, since Portuguese and Spanish demographic expansion in the colonies far outstripped France's as well. Part of the issue is that in absolute numbers far less French people went to the Colonies than from Britain or Spain (and possibly even Portugal.) Part of the issue may be the early and general slowdown in the expansion of the French population that became pronounced in the nineteenth century but that may have begun long before that period.
For example, France started colonising the Americas at roughly the same time as England (1607/1608); it took 30 years for Quebec city's population to rise to more than 300 people. That's about the same number as the third of Jamestown's colonists killed about 15 years after settlement. Now you could argue that Quebec's climate is not as benign as Jamestown's but since Jamestown still managed to kill over 40% of the colonists who arrived in the first 15 years of settlement the argument doesn't hold a huge amount of weight.
Fundamentally, the average Frenchman was much less likely than the average Englishman to emigrate to the colonies; when you consider that the likelihood for the average Frenchwoman to emigrate was even worse combined with the fact that the French Caribbean possessions attracted a disproportionate amount of the colonists available then there's little question as to why by the time of the French and Indian War the British colonies outweighed the French by at least 10:1 as Tim has said.
That's the problem with your alt hist. suggestion. Yes, given colonies were traded in peace treaties it is possible for a realistic scenario to exist where the French win and gain all of North America (probably due to a successful cross channel invasion leaving them holding London.) But there's no way they could extinguish the English language in the former English colonies. And almost no way that they could hold their possessions long term. I'd give them 10 years or so before they piss the Colonists off enough to revolt myself at the most.
Just to add on this:
- lots of "anglo" immigration in the Colonies were non english protestants, like Dutch and French protestants booted out of France or persecuted through various conflicts. To become a colonist in New France, you needed to be of good reputation and be a good Catholic.
- Until Louis XIV, the Colony was managed by private interests, whose interests were fur trade, not active colonization and certainly not the immigration of women. Only when the State took matters in hand did it change (early steps in socialism ;) ).
- Les Filles du Roi. Lots of orphaned women, fit for bearing children and working the land were imported from France, mostly under intendant Jean Talon. Again, people of good repute only.
- Once Jean Talon was sent back to France and Louis XIV started pissing off half of Europe, New France was once again left mostly alone.
- Louis XV was a bad king, simply put. He won the Austrian war of succession but gave back all his conquests in the hopes of avoiding another war. The British weren't as generous, obviously.
Explains why modern Quebecois are all of such good character. ^_^
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2014, 02:55:26 PM
Explains why modern Quebecois are all of such good character. ^_^
They certainly have a lot of it.
Quote from: Agelastus on January 14, 2014, 10:16:04 AM
That's the problem with your alt hist. suggestion. Yes, given colonies were traded in peace treaties it is possible for a realistic scenario to exist where the French win and gain all of North America (probably due to a successful cross channel invasion leaving them holding London.) But there's no way they could extinguish the English language in the former English colonies. And almost no way that they could hold their possessions long term. I'd give them 10 years or so before they piss the Colonists off enough to revolt myself at the most.
Why wouldn't the Crown just flee to America and carry on the fight like the Portuguese did later on?
Quote from: KRonn on January 13, 2014, 07:54:43 AM
Some more interesting reading on Jamestown. I find it odd that according to the article the first settlers weren't very agriculturally inclined. I guess at first they expected to survive with resupply from England, but given the long travel times and hazards of sea travel from England that seems less than ideal to be counting on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown,_Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown,_Virginia)
They expected to find gold. Probably figured if they had gold, sending ships out to them would be a priority.
Quote from: AgelastusNow you could argue that Quebec's climate is not as benign as Jamestown's but since Jamestown still managed to kill over 40% of the colonists who arrived in the first 15 years of settlement the argument doesn't hold a huge amount of weight.
The opposite was basically true anyway. Sure, Quebec had harsher winters, but Jamestown was built on what was essentially an island in a malarial swamp.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 14, 2014, 09:49:50 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on January 14, 2014, 10:16:04 AM
That's the problem with your alt hist. suggestion. Yes, given colonies were traded in peace treaties it is possible for a realistic scenario to exist where the French win and gain all of North America (probably due to a successful cross channel invasion leaving them holding London.) But there's no way they could extinguish the English language in the former English colonies. And almost no way that they could hold their possessions long term. I'd give them 10 years or so before they piss the Colonists off enough to revolt myself at the most.
Why wouldn't the Crown just flee to America and carry on the fight like the Portuguese did later on?
Three reasons, mainly.
Firstly, the Portuguese crown had strong allies at its side that propped it up financially and militarily (in particular Britain) when it continued the fight; assuming as Siege suggested the POD is during the conflicts of 1754-63, who is on Britain's side that could perform the same role? Britain was propping up Prussia already, for example.
Secondly, the Colonial militias of the time, from which new armies to continue the fight would have to be improvised, had a truly terrible military reputation (at least, when called to serve outside the colony they were raised in.) There's quite a lot of historical precedent in the Eighteenth century for the poor showing of American militias in 1812.
Thirdly, the Royal Navy could not be maintained without a good supply of timber, particularly that suitable for masts. The American sources the RN developed post 1763 are held by the French at this time, and the loss of Britain and its bases leaves the French a free run at blocking the Baltic timber trade (already affected by the Russian involvement against Prussia.
---------------------------
I suppose it could make an interesting Alt. Hist. though. A Hannoverian Kingdom in British North America and a restored Stuart Kingdom in the British Isles. It would be especially interesting to see which way the East India Company went.
Two explicitly British Empires in 1900!!! Rather than one British Empire and one British descended Empire-scale state of otl...
*takes a drink*
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 15, 2014, 08:37:18 AM
*takes a drink*
What an excellent idea; I shall have one with lunch.
Ed is such a lush.
Now I'm going to drive.
I thought that was a given in that part of the country. :unsure:
Quote from: Agelastus on January 15, 2014, 07:06:53 AM
the poor showing of American militias in 1812.
Pakenham might disagree with that.
QuoteIn 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2014, 09:43:03 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on January 15, 2014, 07:06:53 AM
the poor showing of American militias in 1812.
Pakenham might disagree with that.
QuoteIn 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.
ENOUGH WITH THAT STUPID SONG
Nawlins was (IIRC), 8,000 Brits advancing across marshy ground to attack 14,000 Americans entrenched with artillery. Jackson chose his position well, and Packenham was stupid to attack, but I wouldn't call it a great feat of arms. More of a turkey shoot.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2014, 10:24:32 AM
Nawlins was (IIRC), 8,000 Brits advancing across marshy ground to attack 14,000 Americans entrenched with artillery. Jackson chose his position well, and Packenham was stupid to attack, but I wouldn't call it a great feat of arms. More of a turkey shoot.
You do not remember correctly.
Please elaborate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2014, 10:49:47 AM
Please elaborate.
11,000 Brits attacking 4,000-some Americans.
No way.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2014, 09:43:03 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on January 15, 2014, 07:06:53 AM
the poor showing of American militias in 1812.
Pakenham might disagree with that.
QuoteIn 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.
As the song itself notes, that battle wasn't in 1812. ;)
The war opened, in 1812, with a series of defeats of US forces (including militia).
*takes a drink*
Quote from: Malthus on January 15, 2014, 10:58:05 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2014, 09:43:03 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on January 15, 2014, 07:06:53 AM
the poor showing of American militias in 1812.
Pakenham might disagree with that.
QuoteIn 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.
As the song itself notes, that battle wasn't in 1812. ;)
The war opened, in 1812, with a series of defeats of US forces (including militia).
Figured he was talking about the war.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2014, 09:43:03 AM
Pakenham might disagree with that.
Well obviously you have to exclude those under Jackson. They were pretty badass but they also did not really behave like militia (going home after a few months and so forth). But in general the war exposed the militia system as a joke, it would never be relied on again in a war.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2014, 09:43:03 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on January 15, 2014, 07:06:53 AM
the poor showing of American militias in 1812.
Pakenham might disagree with that.
QuoteIn 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.
I did specify "1812", not the "War of 1812", for a reason. :contract:
Although even if they were operating away from their home state, the Militia at New Orleans were technically still within the USA; I assume a chunk of them were raised locally as well, although I haven't studied that particular OoB.
Besides, as has been pointed out, New Orleans is more of a study in the quality of leadership than of the soldiers involved. [ :glare: at Pakenham]
Quote from: Agelastus on January 15, 2014, 11:32:50 AM
Although even if they were operating away from their home state, the Militia at New Orleans were technically still within the USA; I assume a chunk of them were raised locally as well, although I haven't studied that particular OoB.
Besides, as has been pointed out, New Orleans is more of a study in the quality of leadership than of the soldiers involved. [ :glare: at Pakenham]
The war in the South pretty much went like this:
The militias would attack the Native Americans and they would keep losing until Jackson would show up and win.
Quote from: Agelastus on January 15, 2014, 11:32:50 AM
I did specify "1812", not the "War of 1812", for a reason. :contract:
Thought it might be one of those Brit-speak things where you omit certain words.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2014, 10:51:13 AM
11,000 Brits attacking 4,000-some Americans.
I'll be damned. You right, I wrong.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2014, 11:44:16 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2014, 10:51:13 AM
11,000 Brits attacking 4,000-some Americans.
I'll be damned. You right, I wrong.
Yeah, the Americans were badly outnumbered, but Jackson had chosen an excellant defensive position. He basically couldn't be outflanked, so the British either had to launch a frontal assault or give up on advancing.
Yip fails. :weep:
:weep:
Quote from: katmai on January 15, 2014, 09:48:59 PM
Yip fails. :weep:
Weep for the fact that he didn't make a bet before he found out he was wrong. :D
The meatloaf stuffed with popcorn chicken and covered with hot sauce sounds good.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2014, 10:24:32 AM
Nawlins was (IIRC), 8,000 Brits advancing across marshy ground to attack 14,000 Americans entrenched with artillery. Jackson chose his position well, and Packenham was stupid to attack, but I wouldn't call it a great feat of arms. More of a turkey shoot.
Everything you describe is a great feat of arms. Assembling superior numbers, choosing a good defensible position, and getting the enemy to attack you despite the marshy terrain they had to cross, walking themselves into the wrong end of a turkey shoot, is exactly the definition of a great feat of arms in my book.
By the way, where does the turkey shoot reference comes from? Did anybody massacred a lot of janissaries or something?
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2014, 10:51:13 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2014, 10:49:47 AM
Please elaborate.
11,000 Brits attacking 4,000-some Americans.
Near 1 to 3 odds? Perfect ambush.
Only retards believe in Sun Tzu.
Quote from: Siege on January 17, 2014, 01:16:01 AM
By the way, where does the turkey shoot reference comes from? Did anybody massacred a lot of janissaries or something?
My guess is it comes from the old American rural practice of staging shooting competitions in which the person who shot a turkey tied to the ground got to take the turkey home.
See the movie "Sergeant York" for an example.
Welcome to America. :P
Hindusight is 20/20.
Quote from: Siege on January 17, 2014, 01:16:01 AM
Everything you describe is a great feat of arms. Assembling superior numbers, choosing a good defensible position, and getting the enemy to attack you despite the marshy terrain they had to cross, walking themselves into the wrong end of a turkey shoot, is exactly the definition of a great feat of arms in my book.
That seems reasonable. After all, you come from a force that fancies itself heroic while raining fire down on helpless men from miles away.