In one of my AHCOM episodes, somebody mentions a timeline where Britain and the Falklands fight over Argentina. I wonder if this is doable?
Columbus sails for England, which sends John Cabot and others to explore the coasts all the way down to the tip of South America.
From Wikipedia:
The islands are referred to in the English language as "[The] Falkland Islands". This name dates from an expedition led by John Strong in 1690, who named the islands after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland.
Maybe a pirate named Falk or Falkland made his base here and was so successful he could establish a lasting political state. It becomes a legitimate, recognized power and expands into the S. American mainland...
Or the Falklands would be in a different location--those large uninhabited islands off the coast of Argentina would still be there, but they would have a different name.
In the ATL, maybe some explorer named some of the Caribbean islands after a patron, also a Viscount of Falkland. Somebody then establishes plantations and his heirs become wealthy and powerful...
Or a Britisher named Falk, or Falkland, settles in Cuba and starts plantations in Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Santo Domingo, etc. (But those places would have different names as well.) Eventually his heirs control the Amazon river valley and start expanding southward. They get so strong and uppity, they declare their independence from Britain and win their Revolutionary War...
Perhaps Argentina is in a different location as well--Argentina could be named because of silver mines in Mexico or Bolivia.
Is this worth doing, or is it too contrived?
Columbus sails for England, which sends John Cabot and others to explore the coasts all the way down to the tip of South America.
From Wikipedia:
The islands are referred to in the English language as "[The] Falkland Islands". This name dates from an expedition led by John Strong in 1690, who named the islands after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland.
Maybe a pirate named Falk or Falkland made his base here and was so successful he could establish a lasting political state. It becomes a legitimate, recognized power and expands into the S. American mainland...
Or the Falklands would be in a different location--those large uninhabited islands off the coast of Argentina would still be there, but they would have a different name.
In the ATL, maybe some explorer named some of the Caribbean islands after a patron, also a Viscount of Falkland. Somebody then establishes plantations and his heirs become wealthy and powerful...
Or a Britisher named Falk, or Falkland, settles in Cuba and starts plantations in Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Santo Domingo, etc. (But those places would have different names as well.) Eventually his heirs control the Amazon river valley and start expanding southward. They get so strong and uppity, they declare their independence from Britain and win their Revolutionary War...
Perhaps Argentina is in a different location as well--Argentina could be named because of silver mines in Mexico or Bolivia.
Is this worth doing, or is it too contrived?