Why does Britain act like they were so relevant in colonisation of America, when French colonies were much larger, more US states are named in French and it was France who allied with USA in the war for independence and helped them win?
Look at the comparison of French to British colonisation. Even Spain was probably more relevant as they were there first, more states are named in Spanish and the name America is of Spanish origins.
>French is the national language of the US
There were about 3 or 4 french + an alsatian dog in North America. And also there was about 3 or 4 spanish + un perro in Florida+all US southwest.
And it took a 100 years and the best regiments of the British army and the amerimilitias to kick the kick the perro and alsatian out of there.
Brainlet question. But why did Anglo culture and language become dominant when there was a lot of germans,dutch and frenchs in USA?
If anything Germany had more influence than Britain. Bongs BTFO
>France didn't build huge colonies to later become their own republics, united with mother France in their eternal htred of the Northern anglo
>Louisiane didn't take over the other colonies while establishing peaceful relations with natives based on trade, education and alliances to eradicate common hostile tribes
>Canada did not betray Britain to join the beacon of enlightenment that French settlements would be
>No Conquête de l'Extreme-Occident, no Sommets du Nouveau-Monde instead of Rockies, no Brèche des Titans instead of Great Canyon, no Vallée de la Soif, no Camargue Inondée in Florida, no Pyrénées Mexicaines in the South, no Plaines des Boeufs Sauvages, no Mers Intérieures du Nord instead of Great Lakes
Clearly the worst timeline
>and it was France who allied with USA in the war for independence
I don't think it was an option for England to ally with the US in that war.
>+ an alsatian dog
>Deutscher Schäferhund
Der Elsass ist deutsch!
This post gave me the feels.
On the other hand I tried reading all of this in quebecois and the thought of quebecois becoming the world language (like american is today) is unsettling.
You are an idiot. Relevance isn't determined by the names of states and areas. The people who actually colonized the place were British-Yankees, the ideas that formed this new country were British-Yankee ideas, the culture of the people is British-Yankee culture, so fuck off, you French idiot.
Also, I only use "Yankee" to differentiate from other American colonies, nothing against you Dixiebros.
Population of British colonies:
2million
Population of French colonies:
Couple of French fur traders
You underestimate the depths of Perfidious Albion's fuckery.
French settlement was a lot lighter than Anglo settlement, and the Dutch and Germans were able to assimilate into Anglo culture easily.
Pretty embarassing considering the Brits failed to defeat those traders many times, and needed 7 years, during which they lost many times, to finally conquer that territory.
The French tended not to build settlements, they mostly just used their lands for fur trading. The British built cities and towns that mimicked European ones and thus it can be argued they civilized more land. If you want to use that word.
They feared the red warrior
I forgot, who won the seven years' war?
Lmao get fucked frogs
You live in the Anglo timeline
You mad frenchie?
Nice map although incomplete
>Conquer the world
>But can't defeat France, or Germany
>Surrender to the Japanese
Them territories were not all held at the same time though, that's just a map of all the land that at one time or another was ruled by Britain.
Just to put things in perspective, Quebec had around 60,000 people at the time we annexed it - while the English colonies had around two million
France would have never been able to hold on to North America - the Anglo-Americans would have inevitably overwhelmed New France with a constant westward drive for expansion and settlement
>But can't defeat France, or Germany
What is Angevin Empire?. What is Agincourt and Crécy? What is Henry V? What is Seven Years' War? What is Trafalgar and Waterloo? What is WW1 and WW2?
Digits
>Angevin Empire?
You mean when french lords from Anjou ruled over England? Lost at Bouvines.
>Agincourt Crecy
Irrelevant victories, the war was won by the french crown.
>Seven years war
British managed to defeat fur traders after 7 years.
>Waterloo
German victory
>WW1, WW2
British played their part. They didn't win alone and lost their empire in the process.
*English kings "b-but muh normans", power consolidated in England, had been there for over 100 years, wars were fought against (France), last territory of the empire was England "b-but they spoke french n shiet" not an argument, they literally separated from France, It's like claiming Aussies are English. It's like saying the American revolution was a civil war.
>Irrelevant victories
Wow that explains why Henry VI got crown of France and ruled most of northern France and England continued to own Calais until 16th century.
>fur traders
Are you autistic? It was a world war fought in 4 continents and caused France to cede lots of territory. France lost 3 times as many as England
>German victory
Who's heard of Wellington
>deliberately omits trafalgar
Kek
>WW1 and WW2
Except Britain did defeat Germany many times in the wars. WW1 saw Germany BTFO'd by royal navy blockade. Are suggesting Britain lost retard?
So what if Angevin empire was English. France smacked the English in the Hundred years war and went onto be more prominent.
WW1 saw the bongs getting BTFO by a kraut blockade until the US intervened and the bongs became their cuck.
Because France didn't colonize. They just set up forts to trade. They could have done so much more but basically acted like they didn't care to fool with it.
US is bong. We are British. Our upper classes are, anyway, even today.
>implying krauts have a navy large enough to instigate a blockade
>Iran contra affair didn’t happen
Because it’s the thirteen British colonies that rebel, the British ones were far more aggressive in their expansion, the British ones were to give new land to people whilst the French saw it as a way to trade furs
>unrestricted submarine warfare is a blockade
Seeing how many countries it got into the war kind of against Germany and one of the reasons that Germany had its Air Force and navy neutered at Versailles
>the Pacte de Famille didn't survive
>ywn see the blossoming of trade and relations between French North America and Spanish South + Central America
CUT MY LIFE INTO PIECES
>America sans Brazil belonging to anyone but Spain
English colonies has double the population of French colonies. While the Eastern Seaboard had towns and cities, French colonies past Quebec were mostly trading outposts. That's a large part of why most of North America has spoken English since the seven years war
>implying the bongs weren't getting rekt by German U-boats
t. retard
Those are some empty maps there, son. The French Lousiana had perhaps 50 000 to 60 000 denizens in it at all, and the only populated area was the immediate vicinity of Mississippi and St. Lawrence river. Meanwhile, 13 colonies had a population of around 1 500 000.
Germans, Dutch and French only made up around 10% of the population at the eve of independence. Englishmen were around 50%, Scots around 7% and Scots-Irish 8% (and Africans 20%).
>The French Lousiana had perhaps 50 000 to 60 000 denizens in it at all
That was the Spanish Louisiana.French Louisiana had around 6k colonists
Nice anecdotal evidence pal, but a bit of damage inflicted by u-boats doesn't compare to the devastation brought about by the systematic search and destroy instigated by the royal navy in the german navy and the blockade of the entire country.
>win a war
>YEA BUT YOU DIDN'T WIN FAST ENOUGH
Literally (you)
>Napoleonic wars, 100 years war, seven years war
>WWI and WWII
>surrender to the Japs because they were the only relevant ally outside of Europe fighting the Japs
>and they had to cross an ocean
Why do you have such an inferiority complex? It's not you fault Britain cucked your favorite nation dozens of times
largely because the british were the most extensive colonisers and developed the most prosperous and successful colonies, most of that vast French area was empty space at the time they lost it to the british or sold it to the fledgling USA.
and very very few of those French colonies shown on that map were extensive settlements, whereas the british territories included dozens of settlements as large or larger that are not shown.
>more states are named in Spanish and the name America is of Spanish origins.
mostly those states taken from mexico and again they were largely empty.
also amerigo was Italian as was colombus and even then amerigos claim is patchy Richard Amerike is as likely a candidate
simply put the English colonised north America, the French set up a few trading posts.
oh man
feels bad
>Hundread years war
>English victory
Come on, we all know education in the UK is terrible, but please.