Share.

    19 Kommentare

    1. Retrolord008 on

      Super interesting! Question…I know York factory but those towns on the eastern side of Hudson’s bay/ St James bay…. Were those actual villages with English residents? Because afaik it’s all Cree/ Inuit there currently

    2. previousinnovation on

      Very cool, although I think a different color for the Russians would be preferable.

    3. Hefty_Anywhere_8537 on

      That’s actually great, it’s not realistic when you see maps of gigantic areas of control when it really wohld have only been a few spots.

    4. Themasterofgoats on

      Mexico is quite incorrect on this map- by the 1750 Spanish control over Mexico proper had integrated indigenous peoples into the empire in a centralized system, not counting that here is excluding most of the population really

    5. This map is not just “approximate”, it is conceptually misleading.

      It mixes three very different things under the same visual language: settlement, military presence, and influence, and by doing so it ends up telling a distorted story of colonial control in North America circa 1750.
      The problem is the choice of markers. By privileging forts, trading posts, and coastal enclaves, the map implicitly adopts an Anglo-French frontier logic and then applies it wholesale to Spain, where it simply does not work.

      Spanish America was not organized around thin military dots projecting influence into empty space. It was organized around cities, towns, parishes, roads, land grants, and indigenous communities fully integrated into imperial administration. Large parts of what this map renders as weak or diffuse “Spanish presence” were, in reality, densely populated, tax-paying, legally incorporated regions with functioning civil government, courts, and economic systems.

      Depicting Spain mainly through presidios while ignoring the interior urban network of New Spain fundamentally misrepresents Spanish territorial control. Indigenous populations in Spanish America were not external allies operating at arm’s length, as in much of the French case; they were subjects of the Crown, embedded in the demographic, political, and economic core of the empire. Leaving them out is not a neutral omission, it erases the very mechanism by which Spanish rule functioned.

      As a result, the map visually overstates English control, roughly captures French influence, and drastically understates Spanish power. It presents colonization as a coastal or frontier phenomenon everywhere, when in reality only some empires operated that way.
      This isn’t just a cartographic simplification. It’s a narrative choice that reshapes history by omission.

    6. Really illustrates why the “California/Florida used to be part of Mexico/Spain” takes are so braindead

    7. I don’t know, it rubs me the wrong way how the map shows the British colonies as much more stable, when they were the first to get independence. And the West of Mexico looks too empty.

    8. Excellent map, and thank you for sharing! I’m doing an alternate history of France post 1763, and this map will definitely help.

    9. Why was the west coast so sparsely occupied by the spanish when it is such a fertile and habitable climate? Was it just lack of trade options or something else? The hudson bay and Alaskan coastline had more colonial control than California?

    10. Cool to see Kaskaskia on a map since I’ve been able to trace lineage through there. Along the way, I found some great uncles who crossed the great plains and made their way to Santa Fe 70 years before Lewis and Clark headed west from St. Louis.

    11. those colonies had mostly assimilated back then and thats why there was demand for union like united states, tho britain was against that and wanted there to still be british territory that would later be known as canada

    12. Dry_Okra_4839 on

      Never knew that Kaskaskia (now in Illinois) was a major outpost in French America.

    Leave A Reply