Solving the First Conctact dilemma

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by Heyesey


Prophecies of imminent failure and disaster are almost always self-fulfilling. If people expect to lose, they don't try so hard, which means they lose.

Prophecies that say 'Quetzalcoatl will return around such-and-such time and his skin will be pale' are, however, far more impressive in light of the fact that a pale-skinned dude did show up right around when they were expecting...

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by Sonny


Must be Americans. Since Mexico has a culture/language like Central and South America most of us think of Mexico as not belonging to North America. Considering those differences, I too will make Mexico part of Central America when I become king and geography be damned.

Hee! When I'm king, there will just be 'America' and there will be 'Eurasifrica'. No more of these semi-arbitrary divisions between continuous landmasses.

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Sonny


Didn't the Spanish have early settlements in Mexico also?

Sorry, I read the original post and for some reason I was thinking "US" instead of "North America". Had I read more carefully, I would have mentioned that the first modern European settlement in North America was the Spanish settlement of Isabella on Hispanola in 1492.

And settling New Mexico before Mexico is wrong on so many levels, don't you think?

 

[unmerged(5524)]

Re: playing EU2 as Amerindians

Isn't there a Fantasia option in EU2? That would seem to solve the problem of making the Indians "playable."

 

[unmerged(2540)]

Originally posted by Heliumgod


Hee! When I'm king, there will just be 'America' and there will be 'Eurasifrica'. No more of these semi-arbitrary divisions between continuous landmasses.

Wha? When I'm King there'll just be "here" and "there". No continental names at all

 

[unmerged(2540)]

Re: Re: playing EU2 as Amerindians

Originally posted by Cassius Belli
Isn't there a Fantasia option in EU2? That would seem to solve the problem of making the Indians "playable."

Well, there's one in EU, still doesn't do anything. They still can't build, do much of anything. Besides the Fantasia Scenario is horrible, IMHO.

 

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Weidt
Since on topic of European colonization of North America, why is it the English always settle in N.America first? In 1624 the Dutch were first to have a permanent settlement in N.America. They built New Amsterdam and Albany in present-day state of New York. They held that region until 1664 when they were defeated by the Duke of York, thus New Amsterdam became New York.

Amazing how US history books (K-12) never mention the Dutch, or possibly a small blurb about English defeated the Dutch at New York. Ah well, US education system is crap anyway (Detroit schools don't even have books for half their students!).

Josef Weidt

This was pretty thoroughly covered in the public elementary school that I attended - all about Peter Minuet buying Manhatten for $24 worth of beads & "Peg-leg Pete" Styventson, etc... The "Rip Van Winkle" story also draws heavily on the Dutch past in New York. Then there was the bit about the first shipload of African slaves in English North America being brought by a Dutch ship to Mass. (NOT Virginia). All that stuff was in the curriculum. Of course, that was all back in the 1960's - Lord knows what kids get today.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Jiminov
Yes they were technically Norwegian but in the current EU timeframe all of modern Norway is part of Denmark.

Told you I'd learn something - and I did. But I'm still not sure there were any Danes/Norwegians left in Greenland in the EUII time period.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Demetrios


And settling New Mexico before Mexico is wrong on so many levels, don't you think?

Does seem to be the wrong order to do things.

 

[Winkelried]

Re: Re: history

Originally posted by Heliumgod

However, as true as it is that after spring will come summer, after the Europeans encountered the Native Americans for the first time, it was *INEVITABLE* that eventually a massive epidemic would occur among contacted populations. This is partially due to the fact that many Europeans were carriers of the virus and accidental contact occurred and partially (once the United States enters the picture this becomes almost entirely the case) because the Europeans/U.S. encouraged the spread of disease among Native American populations to ease the process of ethnic cleansing.

I read about Europeans giving the Natives clothes and sheets taken from hospitals where pox patients where "treated". Sometimes it's just too easily forgotten that things like biological warfare and ethnic cleansing are not inventions of the 20th century.

 

[unmerged(5639)]

Vikings

Lets the vikings and other nations get the alternativ
to send ships whith explorers.
OK most of them maybe sink but
let all nation gets the possibilety to
fix there maps.

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Re: Re: Re: history

Originally posted by Winkelried


I read about Europeans giving the Natives clothes and sheets taken from hospitals where pox patients where "treated". Sometimes it's just too easily forgotten that things like biological warfare and ethnic cleansing are not inventions of the 20th century.

Yes -- this is true... I touched on this briefly in another post. However, I believe that the United States was the primary abuser of this sort of thing, using this tactic as they spread further west. The Spanish & Portuguese were apparently pretty bad as well. I can't speak for the other colonial nations, but I figure they probably weren't the best neighbors either (although as a Native American of the 1770s, I would have damned sure supported the British against the colonials)...

 

[unmerged(5261)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: history

Originally posted by Heliumgod


although as a Native American of the 1770s, I would have damned sure supported the British against the colonials)...

Cool, that way maybe the US would have continue to be a Brittish colony untill the 20th century, and the germans would have won the Battle of Britain.

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: history

Originally posted by Siegebreaker


Cool, that way maybe the US would have continue to be a Brittish colony untill the 20th century, and the germans would have won the Battle of Britain.

Hey believe me when I tell you that as a modern day American, that's not what I'd want... but as I said, if I'd been a Native American of THAT day, I would certainly have done my best to defeat the colonialists and aid the British. While the British probably would have eventually decided to advance further into the interior, at this time, they had a fairly anti-expansionist policy which the colonialists hated, and they treated the Native Americans with a great deal more sovereign respect than the colonialists.

I'd certainly be a lot more concerned about the welfare of my people in MY time, as opposed to some other bunch of dudes several hundred years down the road.

 

[unmerged(4964)]

There wouldn't have been a battle of Brittain if US did not exist.
Cause with out US WWI would have been a stale mate with a white peace, and there would have been no Hitler.
So US made Hitler

 

[Lethke]

Hmm, Scary realy scary. but then again, Would there have been a WWI?
Without the example of the U.S. the french might have never revolted to become a republic. So it will change more things..

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by wingman
There wouldn't have been a battle of Brittain if US did not exist.
Cause with out US WWI would have been a stale mate with a white peace, and there would have been no Hitler.
So US made Hitler

Without the US, the Germans would have won in WWI in 1918. They had already knocked Russia out of the war and had occupied places like the Baltics, Ukraine, and even Georgia. They then turned all their armies to the West and actually began making some significant progress until the Americans came in and began reinforcing the the lines along the Western Front.

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Originally posted by Demetrios


Without the US, the Germans would have won in WWI in 1918. They had already knocked Russia out of the war and had occupied places like the Baltics, Ukraine, and even Georgia. They then turned all their armies to the West and actually began making some significant progress until the Americans came in and began reinforcing the the lines along the Western Front.

They still can't beat England. They might take all of France, but the British Empire in 1918 was strong enough to see off *anybody* in the long run. Germany would have been starved into submission sooner or later - probably after a Communist revolt, somewhen in the early 1920s.

 

[unmerged(2540)]

Originally posted by Heyesey


They still can't beat England. They might take all of France, but the British Empire in 1918 was strong enough to see off *anybody* in the long run. Germany would have been starved into submission sooner or later - probably after a Communist revolt, somewhen in the early 1920s.

I agree 500% with what you said Heyesey.


fact is, that with the empire Englnd had at the time(why does everyone forget what the Canucks did in that war? Our country was literally born at Vimy Ridge, and yet, it seems like people just write them off.)
But i digress. The fact is, England had the ability to call up many allied forces, in spite of the US. Quite frankly, the last time England had had a successful amphibious landing against it was in 1066. So no, England was in no danger at all.
Control of continental Europe, does not Masters of the Earth make. What? Are they going to conscript the defeated French into their armies? And what about the partisans, in the conquered lands? Are they going to shrug, say "Well we fought the good fight, but Germany controls all of continental Europe. Let's go home, see how dinner is coming?"
To say the Germans would have won in 1918 is naive.. Nothing is certain, especially in war.

****************

Sorry i went off on a tangent, but why someone would assume that Germany would be victorious without the US helping the allies simply infuriates me. I will just finish now.

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Heyesey


They still can't beat England. They might take all of France, but the British Empire in 1918 was strong enough to see off *anybody* in the long run. Germany would have been starved into submission sooner or later - probably after a Communist revolt, somewhen in the early 1920s.

Germany would have starved even though it occupied the Ukraine? The winter of 1917-1918 was the first since the war started that Germany and Austria-Hungary had had a (barely) decent amount of food due to their acquisition of Russia's breadbasket...

England wouldn't have been defeated, but it certainly would have re-thought the whole war with all her allies defeated and the continent almost totally occupied by hostile forces. Then again, they might have hunkered down, Napoleonic War-style. It would have been a rather sterile and boring war for awhile though, with fronts... where? Italy and the Near East?