This is a very highly contested question in American history, but most historians believe that no, the settlers wouldn't have been able to survive since they lacked the skills and knowledge that would have allowed them to properly farm the land and hunt for food.
The Boston Massacre occurred on March 5, 1770
A. Thousands of Cherokees died of disease on a forced march.
In brief:
World War 1 vs World War 2
• WW1 was mainly confined to Europe while WW2 had entire world as its theater.
• Warfare and arms used in WW1 were primitive in nature and the war was mainly fought digging trenches. On the other hand, airpower was heavily used in WW2 with atom bombs dropped in Japan being termed as the Holocaust.
• Radio got invented which was heavily used in WW2 while there were only landline phones in WW1
• Germany suffered defeats in both WW1 and WW2 but while it wisely acknowledged defeat in WW1, Hitler chose to fight till the bitter end in WW2 leading to mass destruction
• WW2 saw 7 times more casualties than WW1
• There was only Mustard gas as WMD in WW2 while Atom bombs were used for the first and last time as WMD in WW2
• League of Nations was born with the end of WW1 while the end of WW2 gave birth to United Nations
• WW1 was based on imperialism while WW2 was a result of the clash of ideologies
Numidia (i.e. western North Africa)
J.Caesar also conquered Gaul (i.e. France/Belgium) but it wasn't added as a province of the Empire at the time.