What if?

mkloby · 12-22-2006, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

mkloby:

That's interesting. I'll have to read up on Mexico's defeat. But what do you think would have been the result? Maybe the U.S would have assaulted Mexico anyway in it's bid for expansion?

I was thinking that - there may have been war anyway due to America's westward expansion. But, if Mexico did hold those territories, the share of power between the US and Mexico would be quite different. Texas (southeast) is a strange place. I just got stationed here about 6 weeks ago. It has a very high population of Mexicans. I have noticed, though, that the everyday Mexican I run into down here is much more polite and courteous than the regular Joe American. That upsets me.

lesofprimus · 12-22-2006, 07:34 AM

This thread is making my head spin, especially with the discussion on the Mongol Hordes...

Nonskimmer · 12-22-2006, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

NS: I was thinking more about the Canada question. Would it be possible that Canada become LESS of nation without the population that it did have with French and British?

I'm not exactly sure how you mean. I don't think we'd have failed to achieve nation status, through the long road of Responsible Government, Confederation (the BNA Act), the Statute of Westminster, etc. Our ties to the British Crown today would be even stronger than they already are I'm sure, and the Canada Act of 1982 may yet to have occurred, but Canada would still have become, for all intents and purposes, an independant country. It is very possible that we'd continue to view ourselves as being more dependant on the UK to this day, but I think that doubtful. It certainly hasn't been the case with Australia, but then they have their own unique history and circumstances as well. They way I view this is that we'd either have managed to form a stronger, more uniculturaled identity with a more focused national agenda, or we'd have gone in the opposite direction, remaining a more divided collection of provinces, and have been gradually (or maybe not so gradually) absorbed into the United States. On the other hand, that may well have happened even if we were united in our cause. The US casts a powerful shadow over Canada. It's unavoidable. They're an extremely powerful and influential neighbour, and have forged ahead aggressively since their creation. In that light, maybe it's very likely that Canada would have been more susceptible to the American influence very early on, without the loud French voice in Québec to make us stop and think about our identity.

If it's culture you're speaking of, then we'd definitely have less to look back upon. Assuming we were in fact still the country of Canada, we'd be more Americanized than we already are, and there's really not much difference as it is already. I for one don't see that as necessarily being a bad thing, there's nothing at all wrong with the American culture, it's just a point to consider. Many people in today's Canada view that with fear, but I don't see why. As long as you can call yourself Canadian, then what the hell are you afraid of? Culture and politics should never be viewed as being one and the same, and I think that's where people get confused. Ok, so we're a lot like them. Here's the thing people: We're not them. Just relax and enjoy being Canuck.

Nah, I don't think Canada would necessarily have become any less of a nation without the French. We just wouldn't have developed half the charm.

mkloby · 12-22-2006, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

This thread is making my head spin, especially with the discussion on the Mongol Hordes...

plan_D · 12-22-2006, 09:44 AM

What I meant with Canada was, the French populace provided people to breed. With them expelled would Canada have the population to become what it is? I don't doubt that Canada would have achieved it's indepedance eventually, but would Canada have the manpower to lend support in 1812, 1914 or 1939?

Matt308 · 12-22-2006, 01:27 PM

[quote=plan_D;209644]Wow, those last two were pointless.

QUOTE]

Eeexxxaaccttly. This thread is entirely too intellectual. With the likelihood that I will shortly have a beer in my hand I will be further handicapped this holiday weekend. I think I'll sit this one out, gents.

Nonskimmer · 12-23-2006, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

What I meant with Canada was, the French populace provided people to breed. With them expelled would Canada have the population to become what it is? I don't doubt that Canada would have achieved it's indepedance eventually, but would Canada have the manpower to lend support in 1812, 1914 or 1939?

Ah, gotcha. Hmmm, good point to consider, actually. Well, if we'd somehow still managed to remain free from an American takeover in the War of 1812, I think we'd still have developed, just with a much smaller population. We'd still have lent what support we could during the wars, but I don't have any idea how effective the support would have really been or what difference it would have made. That's a very good point to consider though, about the population.

As a much more sparsley populated frontier like that (and it was already pretty sparse), I think it likely that the western areas of present day Alberta, Saskatchewan, etc. would have eventually been taken by the US. Maybe even as far east as north-western Ontario. All assuming that it wasn't simply annexed outright, of course.

plan_D · 12-23-2006, 10:58 AM

To be honest, I reckon the U.S would have aimed to conquer Canada out-right. And in 1812, Great Britain was more concerned with Napoleon than the Americas. Without a larger Canadian population protecting the borders, the U.S might have made 1812 another victory over the British.

Or, could the English government have forced the "Iron Duke" to go to Canada (as they requested in reality) which would have been a turning point in that war. After all, one man can change history...

pbfoot · 12-23-2006, 11:14 AM

What would've happened if Thomas Edison was correct and Nikolai Tesla was wrong and alternating current was impossible meaning electricity could not be moved long distances

plan_D · 12-23-2006, 02:32 PM

I think it should be made clear that these "what ifs" should be plausible. The fact that AC does exist cannot be altered. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Things like; what if Alexander the Greats bodyguard was a second later? (he saved the life of the king from a second axe blow from a Persian in the first great battle).

Or what if Varus was a competant commander, and the day autumn was dry in 9 A.D?