"The Bloody Man"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm slightly confused. You mentioned that the New Netherlands only had about 100 colonists, yet they have multiple "towns". Are most of these like two or three homesteads together? Or is there a significant native minority living happily with them?

Other than that bit having me confused it is a very nice update. Far better writing than I can manage.
 
I'm slightly confused. You mentioned that the New Netherlands only had about 100 colonists, yet they have multiple "towns". Are most of these like two or three homesteads together? Or is there a significant native minority living happily with them?

It says that the settlement of New Amsterdam has about 100 colonists, as opposed to the wider New Netherlands. The population of the whole colony at this point is hard to judge, but IOTL in 1647 Peter Stuyvesant estimated the colony had about 250-300 men capable of bearing arms, including the English residents. This probably comes out at about 700-800 people overall- there was a bit of a population explosion in the 1650s, but at this point the number of Dutch settlers compared to English ones was pretty tiny.

Irritatingly there doesn't seem to be a good source out there detailing what proportion of the New Netherlands was of English descent, but I reckon it's probably about a third. The population was more urban than in New England, mainly because of the impact the recent Indian war had in destroying a lot of the tiny homesteads you mention; the majority of settlers were driven back to the more defensible, larger settlements.
 
Last edited:
Looks like, with the attack by a united New English army, New Amsterdam is a bit damned.

I apologise for the horrible joke.

All joking aside, it seems that we are seeing the beginning of a common New England identity if this succeeds and New Amsterdam is taken over, nothing bring Britons together like attacking Johnny Foreigner as we have seen with the foreign mercenaries involvement in the Civil War.
 
It says that the settlement of New Amsterdam has about 100 colonists, as opposed to the wider New Netherlands. The population of the whole colony at this point is hard to judge, but IOTL in 1647 Peter Stuyvesant estimated the colony had about 250-300 men capable of bearing arms, including the English residents. This probably comes out at about 700-800 people overall- there was a bit of a population explosion in the 1650s, but at this point the number of Dutch settlers compared to English ones was pretty tiny.

Irritatingly there doesn't seem to be a good source out there detailing what proportion of the New Netherlands was of English descent, but I reckon it's probably about a third. The population was more urban than in New England, mainly because of the impact the recent Indian war had in destroying a lot of the tiny homesteads you mention; the majority of settlers were driven back to the more defensible, larger settlements.

Ah, thank you for clarifying my misreading. My brain must have thought New Amsterdam was a synonym of New Holland for some reason.:eek:

I also like Cromwell thinking he's had more influence by being away from England.
 
All joking aside, it seems that we are seeing the beginning of a common New England identity if this succeeds and New Amsterdam is taken over, nothing bring Britons together like attacking Johnny Foreigner as we have seen with the foreign mercenaries involvement in the Civil War.

True, although it's worth remembering that the New England Commonwealth has twice already sent military expeditions abroad ITTL, once in 1643 to intervene in the Arcadian civil war, and once in 1645 to assist the Dutch fend off native attack. Both these efforts involved men hailing from all four colonies, as did the Narragansett War.

However, both previous expeditions have technically been under foreign command; this is the first time that New Englanders under the auspices of the Confederation have gone to war outside their borders and led by one of their own. This will definitely have an impact on the concept of New England as a defined political unit, as will the views of all those New Englanders currently fighting alongside the New Model Army when they finally get home.

Ah, thank you for clarifying my misreading. My brain must have thought New Amsterdam was a synonym of New Holland for some reason.:eek:

Easily done! Glad I was able to clarify.


I also like Cromwell thinking he's had more influence by being away from England.

Yes, I thought that was a nice idea. By 1647 ITTL Cromwell is corresponding with some quite important people; compared to his obscurity in the early 1630s it must really feel to him like he's gone up in the world. Of course, compared to OTL...
 
I wonder how a Saybrugian seizure of New Amsterdam might affect the larger picture of Dutch-English relations. It's been a while, but I believe that the Dutch ruling faction was more or less a Parliamentary ally - would this still be the case if New Englanders alied with Parliament start pinching Dutch colonies?

Great to see this back, BTW.
 
I wonder how a Saybrugian seizure of New Amsterdam might affect the larger picture of Dutch-English relations. It's been a while, but I believe that the Dutch ruling faction was more or less a Parliamentary ally - would this still be the case if New Englanders alied with Parliament start pinching Dutch colonies?

Well, we'll find out soon enough; the next chapter will continue events in the New Netherlands, before the one after that takes us back to Europe to look at what's happening in France and the United Provinces in the Autumn and winter of 1647.

Anglo-Dutch relations in the period are going to get very interesting, very quickly (if nothing else, if the English attitude towards the Dutch is anything like OTL, it'll be highly entertaining); as of late September 1647 ITTL, civil war has just broken out between the Stadtholder William II, who has intervened in England on the side of the King, and the States General, which was always partial to Parliament but finds the New Model Army rather terrifying.

By the time news gets back to Europe of Cromwell's venture it's unlikely that either side will be in a position to do much about it for the time being. The States, obviously, are not going to like a New English move on their colony, but they have a powerful interest in keeping quiet, as they want English troops to turn up to fight their civil war for them. The Stadtholder, for his part, will be furious. William was a keen proponent of colonial expansion, and always held a grudge. But then beyond swearing revenge, there's not much he can do either, until he subdues his rebellious subjects.

A lot will depend, of course, on which faction the West India Company decides to support; if the big shareholders go for the States, as seems likely, then they'll be highly vocal in calling for reprisals.


Great to see this back, BTW.

Thanks- it's nice to be writing again, and there should be more soon. Wish I could post as regularly as you do!
 
Great to see this return and a fascinating update. I never realised that New Holland was so dependent on English settlers, makes you doubt all those "what if New Amsterdam had survived?" tl's.
 

The Sandman

Banned
From the looks of that map, it seems poor Roger Williams is going to have to relocate again and found New New Providence sooner rather than later.

On the other hand, assuming he heads to the Delaware, he might give New Sweden a shot in the arm it desperately needs.
 
EdT, you've read the Island in the Center of the World, right?

Actually, I’m painfully aware that I haven’t, and need to- I’ve mostly been going off various journal articles for my info. Have to say that I find the New Netherlands a fascinating place; the settlers are certainly much more appealing to modern sensibilities than their New England counterparts.


Great to see this return and a fascinating update. I never realised that New Holland was so dependent on English settlers, makes you doubt all those "what if New Amsterdam had survived?" tl's.

That’s a very good point. To be fair, IOTL 1645 or thereabouts was probably the nadir of Dutch fortunes in the New Netherlands; Peter Stuyvesant did a very good job turning things round, and by the time the English captured the place the colony had around 9000 settlers, more than ten times the population of fifteen years earlier. Yet even in the 1660s, only around half the inhabitants were actually Dutch, and about 20% were English. I think that a surviving New Amsterdam scenario is possible, but only as an adjunct to a much larger and more powerful New England, and not extending very far up the Hudson; there were too many English settlers, and it was too tempting a target. None of this means that the Dutch couldn’t continue to hold the place for a lot longer than they managed OTL, but eventually, just as with Acadia and the rest of New France, an English/British occupation will stick.


From the looks of that map, it seems poor Roger Williams is going to have to relocate again and found New New Providence sooner rather than later.

On the other hand, assuming he heads to the Delaware, he might give New Sweden a shot in the arm it desperately needs.

Well, Roger Williams has abandoned the whole colonial thing and is currently back in London with the Agitators- we’ll see more of him later. But the former Rhode Islanders aren’t likely to be too thrilled at the prospect of New England expanding into the New Netherlands. A lot will depend, assuming Cromwell is able to occupy the colony and make it stick, what approach he takes to its governance. This is not 1664, and Cromwell doesn’t have the same resources to draw on that the English did IOTL. New Providence is a lot further away from Broughton than Old Providence, and Cromwell always objected less to the settlers’ religious beliefs than the fact that they were in his way. Samuel Gorton doesn’t necessary appreciate all this however; and as you say, if he does decide to decamp to the Delaware, that’s likely to make a big difference to New Sweden, should they be willing to have him.
 

Thande

Donor
Good to see this back. It's fascinating how some of these early colonies had such few people involved at critical times: you get the impression that one good Indian attack, bad winter and/or bout of plague could have wiped out New Netherland altogether...
 

Faeelin

Banned
Good to see this back. It's fascinating how some of these early colonies had such few people involved at critical times: you get the impression that one good Indian attack, bad winter and/or bout of plague could have wiped out New Netherland altogether...

Which is why Vinland would never be viable!


Actually, I’m painfully aware that I haven’t, and need to- I’ve mostly been going off various journal articles for my info. Have to say that I find the New Netherlands a fascinating place; the settlers are certainly much more appealing to modern sensibilities than their New England counterparts.

It's a great book, and I agree it's more appealing. My favorite data point is that the city had more taverns than houses at one point. Granted, people were probably living in them, but it does say a lot...

A surviving New Netherlands has always been an interesting idea to me, but it's not like the colonists, or their ethos, vanished.


None of this means that the Dutch couldn’t continue to hold the place for a lot longer than they managed OTL, but eventually, just as with Acadia and the rest of New France, an English/British occupation will stick.

Well, posit a netherlands that keeps it until 1689. Now it's part of the Anglo-Dutch Union. Will the English seize it then? Nah.

New Amsterdam as a free port amidst the English colonies. Hrm.


Why is Cromwell persecuting the people of Providence, exactly? Doesn't seem to be how he acted in England...
 
So we might see a surviving New Sweden? This TL just gained a level in awesomeness. :cool:

Wait and see! Certainly the New Netherlands isn't going to be in a good position to quash the place, as it did IOTL.


Good to see this back. It's fascinating how some of these early colonies had such few people involved at critical times: you get the impression that one good Indian attack, bad winter and/or bout of plague could have wiped out New Netherland altogether...

Oh, completely. Death rates were quite often horrendous, and even when the main colonies just about survived, smaller ones frequently failed. It took the Dutch about three goes to successfully get a settlement going on Staten Island, for example, let alone all the attempts to settle Maine that never quite got off the ground. As late as King Philip's war in the 1680s, there was a non-trivial risk that New England could have been reduced to a handful of coastal pockets, and the colonists were acutely aware of this; their letters home are constantly fretting about their settlements being surrounded by enemies, starving and on the brink of extinction, and most of the time they weren't exagerating for effect.


It's a great book, and I agree it's more appealing. My favorite data point is that the city had more taverns than houses at one point. Granted, people were probably living in them, but it does say a lot...

Oh, completely- and the diversity of the population was astonishing to go with it.


Well, posit a netherlands that keeps it until 1689. Now it's part of the Anglo-Dutch Union. Will the English seize it then? Nah.

New Amsterdam as a free port amidst the English colonies. Hrm.

They might not sieze it per se, but when the Union splits, are the Dutch guaranteed to get their colony back?

I also wonder about the survival of the New Netherlands compared to its northern neighbour. The English/Scots/British ended up taking, and subsequently returning, Acadia five or six times before they made the conquest stick. And New Amsterdam is of considerably more strategic and commercial importance than Port Royal, and had been on New England's 'to do' list since at least the late 1640s.

Seems to me that a surviving New Netherlands is dependent on repeatedly dodging the same bullet over a considerable period. I'm not saying it's impossible- I could certainly see a surviving New Amsterdam, stripped of everything upriver of Yonkers and acting as a sort of North American Goa (which would be fascinating)- but it seems to me that much more than that gets a bit difficult to engineer.


Why is Cromwell persecuting the people of Providence, exactly? Doesn't seem to be how he acted in England...

Well it's gone into in Chapters 11 and 12, but ITTL Rhode Island, as a non-chartered colony full of troublesome freethinkers, was sat on fairly firmly by the New England Commonwealth in the early 1640s. For a lot of the more hardline puritans, like John Endicott, this was for doctrinal reasons, but as you say, that wasn't Cromwell's style. Indeed, given his later sympathy for the early Quakers ("I would rather have Mohammedanism permitted, than that one of God's children should be persecuted"), it's difficult to imagine that he would have any genuine theological issue with the Rhode Islanders.

In fact, as usual, Cromwell's considerations are based on a need for control. Saybrook claims the western two thirds of Narragansett Bay, and Cromwell wants to evict the settlers already there and open the region to Saybrugian settlement. He's quite happy to exploit the fears of more orthodox colonies like New Haven and Massachusetts about the Providence Plantation becoming a breeding ground for Heresy etc. In fact, ITTL a good half of the colonists in the region stick around when it becomes part of Saybrook; it's only the determined sectaries like Samuel Gorton who emigrate to found New Providence.

For this reason, if he ends up in control of the New Netherlands Cromwell is unlikely to persecute the Gortonites; he has enough on his plate as it is, and the sectaries are safely on the other side of Raritan Bay in a pestilential marshland nobody wants (New Providence will eventually move to better ground a couple of miles to the east). If they dare to cause trouble or get in Cromwell's way though...
 
IOTL a much better defended and populated New-Amsterdam gave up without a fight, however now New-Amsterdam doesn't have the good defenses it had it has less population and an idiot in charge.

hopefully the citizens manage to surrender before the bad stuff happens
 
IOTL a much better defended and populated New-Amsterdam gave up without a fight, however now New-Amsterdam doesn't have the good defenses it had it has less population and an idiot in charge.

hopefully the citizens manage to surrender before the bad stuff happens

It's a little unfair to call Banckert an 'idiot', although he is rather pig-headed; he just faces an impossible task. Everyone hated Peter Stuyvesant most of the time too; frankly, given the complete lack of overlap between how the settlers and the Company wanted the New Netherlands run, any Director is going to have his work cut out for him.

As for the course of any campaign for New Amsterdam, the Dutch are going to be at a severe disadvantage, and everyone knows this. The argument will be between those, like many of the Nine, who would rather just surrender and have done with it, and those, like Banckert, who would rather hang on grimly in the hope that something will turn up. And of course, it might- Cromwell won't be able to keep an army of such a large size (for the New World, at least) in the field indefinitely. None of the New Englanders want to spend the winter freezing outside the stockade of Fort Amsterdam, but if they're sufficiently determined the Dutch might be able to make a direct attack quite costly.

There's also the element of supernatural warfare, of course. But more of that in the next chapter ;)
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top