When we think of colonisation we think of GB, Spain, Portugal and France. What are some other nations that tried colonisation in Americas? I read somewhere that Scotland tried it but wasn't successful. Why didn't the Ottomans tried it? Or Austria? Or the Netherlands?
I love to read about the colonization age.
I've never heard of Scotland trying, but I assume they failed because lack of funds. It wasn't easy to start a colony.
I would wager that the Ottomans didn't because they were way too far away from the continent to try. But I'm not sure why the Ottomans didn't try for Africa or maybe even some of the Asian islands.
Austria I'm not sure.
>>805826
Sweden.
Curland is the hipster or colonisation.
>>805826
Netherlands settled in the lesser Antilles, Surinam and tried to grab a piece of Brasil
Russia (Alaska)
Denmark (Virgin Islands)
>>806045
Forgot the dutch also founded NY
The dutch colonized mad time. NY, caribbean, south africa, indonesia.
Scotland tried to start a colony in middle America, but it was an utter failure. The reason why the Ottomans didnt go overseas is that they already had acces to the east and all its resources, which is why Europeans started discovery voyages in the first place.
Latvia(kurland) tried to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couronian_colonization
>>806194
Wouldn't it have been rather likely everyone else just attacked these colonies if they tried to?
They aren't in such a good position to get colonies in the Americas.
>>805826
Texas tried but Mexico and the US had their way.
Colonization of a new world area would have been as expensive comparably with colonizing part of the moon, no joke
Might be a retarded question but why didn't Russia have any colonies in the Americas aside from Alaska?
>>806486
They had a fort in California.
>>806486
They had forts all down the west coast as far south as San Francisco. They even had a fort on Hawaii. The problem was that they were already using a ton of resources/settlers to colonize Siberia, and the New World was far as fuck from St. Petersburg.
Which colonization?
The one where the locals were killed and replaced?
The one where locals were simply enslaved?
>>806546
>sphere of influence
What does this even mean? Iran is it's own thing. Also Afghanistan WAS colonised, so were Nepal and Bhutan, and while Liberia wasn't colonised by Europeans per se, it WAS an American colony.
>>806546
One could argue that the Japanese were indirectly under European control after WWII since the United States started out as European colonies.
>>806546
>Liberia
>never colonized by Europe.
Do we not consider america European?
>>806704
>indirectly
Japan has a bunch of American air bases on it, and Okinawa is effectively an American colony.
>>805826
Apparently some Bavarians tried to settle in modern day Columbia in the 16th century. The colony died out due to several difficult circumstances within a few years.
Germany also colonized many parts of Africa and Oceania/Southeast Asia. German and German creoles are still spoken there today, even after they ceded all the colonies after WWI.
>>805826
A Scotsman tried to start up a colony at Arkansas Post which was a small french fur trading outpost, he had to ask the king of france for permission and just sold off land
>>806908
Sorry forgot to put his name.
His name was John Law. and it was pretty much a failure of a venture
Ottomans and Austria are too landlocked. I mean too far from Atlantic Ocean.
>>806546
>enslaved
If you're talking about the British and French in the Victorian Era, they you're an idiot. Exploited? Certainly. The colonial powers weren't fair to the colonised, but you make it seems as though they were fucking Nazis.
>>806546
That map makes me happy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrNqDfK0uw4&index=9&list=PLHTCDjdrFxSABr-fSzEbGRXZQ9H6zWoBo
>>806967
From the perspective of a subject of a colony, the way you'd describe Nazi's would be 'they're like the British/French/Dutch/Spanish/Portuguese are here; except they are colonizing Europe and ethnically cleansing Europeans'.
>>806997
Why?
Name the place where the colonized people eventually gained the same standard of living as the people who colonized them?
>>807000
>Ethnically cleansing
Ethnically cleansing who?
The only cases I honestly know about any larger amounts of ethnic cleansing is the one that occurred against the Northern American Indians and the occasional slaughter against rebellious tribes.
May you give me any exemples of others?
Honestly curious.
>>807049
There was North America and Australia, almost entirely cleansed and replaced; and like you say
>the occasional slaughter against rebellious tribes
in Africa and Asia.
The places where white people have ever formed a majority in Africa were all ethnically cleansed of native Africans first.
>>806061
Idk how I forgot that- Thanks for a reminder
>>807076
not the last poster.. but you keep sprouting arguments without pointing any facts or sources.
>>805826
>Or the Netherlands?
they tried it, but they were just jelly af. They saw the big bois with new shiny toys and decided they wanted some too. Only when they had them, they didn't know shit of what to do. So, from a certain point, they simply traded and left natives alone. Which is not a bad method per se, but one can hardly call that colonization.
>>805851
>I assume they failed because lack of funds.
the way that the Portuguese crown found to do this as a small country in the beginning was to sign capitães-donatários, wealthy people of aristocratic or burgeoise ascend who applied to be colonists, and then the crown would donate land in the New World to them, and they would take care of it however they saw fit for their own enterprise, following however a set of rules (paying taxes to the crown, converting natives, etc)
As for the Ottoman part. One must not forget that, when colonization started, it had as much of a religious motive as an economic one. Christian kings of the Iberian peninsula were not just trying to get more land and rare goods, they were also trying to spread the one true faith to countries who had their own. Historically, I think that it's right to say that muslims aspired to convert heathens, but didn't get out of their way to do so. Besides, Ottomans already had access to goods that the Western europeans were trying to grab (silk, spices, etc)
>>806859
the idea of two Southeast Asians somewhere in that part of the world speaking a Germanic creole between them brings a smile to my face
>>806546
>Europeans conquer each other
>non-europeans conquer eachother
>europeans conquer non-europeans
>non-europeans conquer europeans
>europe is the evil one because they were successful in doing what any other region would do if it amassed that much of an advantage
nice meme
>>806523
I went there overnight for a field trip in elementary school, it was pretty cool
>>808995
>muslims aspired to convert heathens, but didn't get out of their way to do so
I guess they just dedicated sizeable portions of their holy book to discussing conquest, marched large armies into foreign territory, and "convinced" large swathes of the world to convert... by accident? Much of the same can be said about Christian rulers, but that doesn't change the facts.
>>805851
>I've never heard of Scotland trying, but I assume they failed because lack of funds. It wasn't easy to start a colony
There were two Scottish colonies, the more commonly mentioned Darien scheme in Central America, and the more succesful Nova Scotia
The Darien Scheme was an under disaster, the authorities had failed to realise how difficult the territory would be to colonise (modern day Panama) owing to terrain and climate, the colonists had planned to trade with the natives nut their major failure was bringing sheep's wool to trade with the natives, not realising in such warm weather there was no real need for the natives to buy wool from them, and Spanish reaction was to blockade and seige the colony it was a financial failure and drained the Scottish coffers after the nobility invest so much in, played a roll in the nobility agreeing to the Act of Union forming a single parliament for the majority of domestic and all foreign affairs.
The region of Nova Scotia in Canada (Latin for: New Scotland) was briefly held by Scottish colonists in the early 17th century, until the colonists were defeated by French forces after the French had claimed much of Nova Scotia themselves, the Scottish were defeated; but the French ultimately abandoned mainland Nova Scotia until the 18th century. At this point conflict arose between the Kingdom of France and the new Kingdom of Great Britain (which Scotland was now one of the constituents of) in and around Nova Scotia, leading to the territory falling back into British hands now, the name Nova Scotia was continued to be used, even after Canadian indepdence and on both the province's flag and coat of arms today is the Royal Standard of Scotland, with the Coat of arms also including the National flower (the Thistle), and the National animal (The Unicorn) of Scotland, as well as the flag consisting of a reversed in colour saltire.
>>809017
maybe I expressed myself badly. Their conversions were military-oriented - they were converted by pure strength of arms. After the Crusades, European conversions happened mostly upon natives in the new world and in Africa/Asia, rather than upon people of another Abrahamic religion. I mean, there were Portuguese/Spanish expeditions in Morocco, but disaster seems to be too short of a word for that
I said that they didn't get out of their way to do so because, in my perspective (which can be wrong), they conquered muslims and non-muslims alike. They converted non-muslims by military force, but they were always a military-oriented empire anyway, conversion of other folks wasn't their primary objective.
>>809033
So we attacked our Scottish mates ?
>>806760
Why would we?
>>809049
While I think that distinction lies more in how Christianity views the "religious community" versus how Islam views it, I see what you're saying.
>>809091
yes, the ideology in itself has to have helped shaping the civilizations in that aspect.
By the way, just recalled, yesterday I went to see Hail Cesar with my gf and right at the beginning there's a really cool dialogue between an Orthodox priest, a Catholic priest, a Protestant priest and a Rabbi. I recommend that film, although it is not for everyone
>>809100
I did want to see that actually. What other movie would you compare it to? I couldn't really tell exactly what it was gonna be like from the trailer.
>>805826
Sweden colonized Delaware, Netherlands colonized Manhattan
>>809106
I don't know, it's... different. Like, there is the one main character, but his own story revolves around three or four other stories. And, as most of their films, the greatness is in the subtlety. I don't want to spoil you, though. But I loved the way that Baird Whitlock became all indoctrinated by the godless communists, and the place where he better could express that new-found belief is in the movie he is shooting, by explaining his Roman friend why did he found Jesus divine, only to screw that scene because he forgot the word "faith".
The film has a great cast, but people like Ralph Fiennes and Scarlett Johansson end up doing minor roles. I really liked it, though.
>>809053
If you mean 'we' as in the French? Yes.
Scottish and French relations were non-existent, with the Protestant reformation taking an early hold in Scotland through the work of John Knox, Scotland and Fance as Protestant and Catholic Kingdoms ended their previously close relations, leading to warming of relations between England and Scotland once again as two emerging reformed Kingdoms and much of their grievances being resolved in the Wars of Indepdence 200 years earlier outwith skirmishes on the border, leading to a series of royal marriages culminating in James VI of Scotland inheriting the throne of England after the death of the childless Elizabeth I, putting the two kingdoms under a single monarch. By 1562 the Scots and French had no ties, with the Church of Scotland sending men to Normandy that year to fight alongside the Huguenots.
>>806546
The one where settlers show up, as is the definition of a colony.
>>805826
Dat Polk expansion
>>811073
Based Polk I'm proud he's from the great state of Tennessee
>>806546
>conqueredbychristians.png
>>807007
USA
>>811333
You should be.
>tfw Ohio Presidents are a mixed bag
I love me some Taft though. For the first time since William Howard's father, Alphonso, no member of the Ohio Taft family is serving the government in a major position. I wish Bob had taught his kids to love Ohio ;_;
>>806997
Nah, we don't want to turn out like our dad.
>>806546
If you are going to count China as being colonised due to giving away Treaty Ports Japan should also be colonised on that map due to the trading ports given away
>>811738
It's a shit map. If Ethiopia was colonized then so was Afghanistan, and oddly Somaliland and East Timor are left blank.
>>807007
United States, Canada, Australia, New Zeeland, Hong Kong, Singapore and Rhodesia (was on its way to becoming one).
>>809033
>>805869
The concept of Scotland running the Panama Canal is amusing
I live in the Northwest, and as a kid I was perplexed by all the Spanish names on streets and random islands. Looking into it, the Spanish were actively exploring the North Pacific coast around the same time the British were.
In the end, Britian was the one to assert themselves and colonize the area, but it again brings up an interesting counterfactual: what if Spain was more aggressive with their claims, making the West Coast a Spanish coast
Well, Russia, they colonized Alaska and settled as far south as California, the problem is they didn't have a gigantic fleet and a fuckrich merchant company at their disposal so it would be unsustainable to keep them.
Alaska specifically they sold to the US over the fears that the Brits would just zergrush it from Canada and take it anyway.
>>805826
>Why didn't the Ottomans tried it?
There literally was no reason to do so. The Ottoman expansion was military and commercial; had an interest in areas already consolidated that could offer a consumer market or trade routes. Thus, they expanded through the Mediterranean, and a few protectorates and naval bases in the Indian coast, keeping under the control the routes from Sulu to Morocco.
>Or Austria?
Austrians - or, more precisely, the German Habsburgs - maintained a tacit agreement of non-interference with the Spanish Habsburgs, mutually respecting their jurisdictions. A really crap agreement, indeed. During the reign of Charles V (before dynastic division), was reached rehearsing a commercial concession to the bankers Welser of Augsburg, but after his death, the concession was revoked and settlers were killed or deported. There was no direct interest of HRE at any time thereafter.
>Or the Netherlands?
They tried - and succeeded. In the decades after independence, large trading companies - the United West India Company (VOC) and the Chartered East India Company (GWIC) - received government approval to explore virtually all routes in the world, with full military sponsorship of
United Provinces.
So GWIC invades the Northeast Brazil, then part of the Spanish Empire (which incorporated Portugal in 1581), settling in Mauritsstad after several attempts. They end up being driven by an insurrection of colonists, relocating its operations to a new colony in the north, where founded New Amsterdam. The company goes bankrupt and cedes part of its possessions to England. Nevertheless, some colonies (Antilles, Guyana) remained and still remain under Dutch control.
