Discussion:
No Hapsburg Netherlands
(too old to reply)
Alex Milman
2017-07-06 19:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
This is a spinoff of the "No Burgundian Netherlands":

Framework: in the late XIV century Edmund of Langley marries daughter of
Louis II Count of Flanders, Artois, Burgundy, etc. His son inherits mother's
lands and father's possessions in England. The following dynastic marriages
(and whatever other means necessary) allow to expand the holdings to, more or
less, the "Netherlands" which were in OTL controlled by the Burgundian Valois
(give or take few pieces).

However, there is NO DYNASTIC MARRIAGE TO THE HAPSBURGS.

By the XVI century the family possessions in England dwindled to the
insignificant estates (either by passing to one of the junior branches or
by other means) so that there is no vested interest in the English affairs.
By the end of the 100YW the counts assumed a neutral position and managed to
establish a formally friendly relations with France (perhaps getting some
minor land concessions or just confirmation of their ownership of the French
counties). There is no OTL excuse (extinction of the male line of the House of
Burgundy) for Louis XI to start annexations of the French parts of the
Netherlands and he concentrates on the Duchy of Burgundy.

As an option, we can assume an earlier loss of Artois (and Picardy if it was
"in") to the French Crown but County of Flanders stays even if retains for a
while a formal dependency from France (in OTL it was finally removed from
French to Imperial control after the Peace of Madrid in 1526 and the Peace of Ladies in 1529).

This leaves a weak spot of the dynasty: the County of Burgundy
(Loading Image...). The territory is in the HRE but there is no land link to the "Plantagenetian
Netherlands".

There are 2 main options:

#1. The rulers of the Netherlands are trying to create a link by buying and/or
conquering the lands in between (the Duchies of Bar and Lorraine). In OTL this
led Burgundian Valois straight into confrontation with the Swiss and resulting
disaster. Of course, it should be said that the part of the OTL schema was
arrogance of Charles the Bold who, notwithstanding the early experience (when
he was just a heir), treated them with an open scorn. A smarter ruler could
at least try to buy them out (they already had very serious military reputation)
instead of attacking them (Morat and Grandson had been results of Charles'
activities and execution of the Swiss garrison of Grandson was not the smartest
thing to do). But even if the ATL rulers are more intelligent and flexible and
even initially successful, the whole link looks quite tenuous (IMHO) to survive
in a long run.

#2. The rulers of the Netherlands are giving up the County of Burgundy:

2a - They make exchange with France: Burgundy for Flanders (in OTL CoB was
incorporated into France by the Treaty of Nijmegen in 1678) leaving the King of
France to settle the dependency issues with the emperor.

2b. Split in the family: at some point the junior branch receives CoB as an
appanage and in a long run makes it de facto independent.

The Hapsburgs do not get the Netherlands but they are getting everything
else from OTL: Spain with the colonies, Austria, Bohemia, Southern Italy, etc.
There are no (very significant) revenues from the Netherlands but there is no
Dutch Revolution and the following endless war which brought economic collapse
of OTL Spain. Charles V (just for argument sake) still breaks up his empire
but the Spanish Hapsburgs do not need the Spanish Road and their participation
in the events of the HRE is limited (no need to send money and troops to their
Austrian relatives).

Byproducts:

Spain is in a better economic shape (well, there are still debts from Chalres V
and Phillip II).

The Netherlands are not split (so Antwerp is still flourishing and so are the
Southern provinces).

France does not have to deal with Hapsburg Encirclement.

What else?
Pete Barrett
2017-07-08 11:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Spain is in a better economic shape (well, there are still debts from
Chalres V and Phillip II).
Good enough to prevent Portugal from trying to re-establish its
independence? If Spain can avoid the continual wars, dragging an unwilling
Portugal into them, Portugal may not want to break away. If the Portuguese
still wants to break away (for whatever reason), Spain may be able to fight
a successful war (or bribe enough Portuguese politicians) to prevent it. The
continued union of the Iberian peninsula, and the continued union of the
Spanish and Portuguese overseas empires, would be a major effect.
Post by Alex Milman
The Netherlands are not split (so Antwerp is still flourishing and so are
the Southern provinces).
Stronger Dutch presence in the early colonial empires. They have more money
and more people, and are not involved in a struggle for independence. Dutch
North America? At the least, there are 3 more or less equal players in North
American settlement in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Post by Alex Milman
France does not have to deal with Hapsburg Encirclement.
What else?
If Spain, the Netherlands, _and_ France are all better placed to compete
over colonial possessions, that will affect England (and later Britain) who,
without any change to what they themselves are doing, will find themselves
in a noticeably worse position when compared to OTL. It was a big struggle
for Britain to emerge as the dominant colonial power in the later 18th
century OTL; in the ATL, it may take longer, or may not happen.

A more equal division of extra-European colonies between France, UK,
Netherlands, and Iberia should have major effects.
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2017-07-08 19:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Spain is in a better economic shape (well, there are still debts from
Chalres V and Phillip II).
Good enough to prevent Portugal from trying to re-establish its
independence? If Spain can avoid the continual wars, dragging an unwilling
Portugal into them, Portugal may not want to break away. If the Portuguese
still wants to break away (for whatever reason), Spain may be able to fight
a successful war (or bribe enough Portuguese politicians) to prevent it. The
continued union of the Iberian peninsula, and the continued union of the
Spanish and Portuguese overseas empires, would be a major effect.
Post by Alex Milman
The Netherlands are not split (so Antwerp is still flourishing and so are
the Southern provinces).
Stronger Dutch presence in the early colonial empires. They have more money
and more people, and are not involved in a struggle for independence. Dutch
North America? At the least, there are 3 more or less equal players in North
American settlement in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Why North America? In OTL they had much stronger presence in Asia and Africa:
they kicked Portuguese out of all their colonies in India, except Goa,
established control over Indonesia (in modern terms) and ended up being the
only European country allowed to trade with Japan.

In South America (in OTL) they eventually lost to Spain and Portugal and, let's
face it, the settlements in the North America had only a limited attractiveness
unless country had big pool of the potential emigrants.

In OTL, outside the Cape colony, the Dutch "model" was mostly creation of the
trade posts (not quite sure how exactly it worked in Indonesia) as opposite to
capturing and populating the big territories as Spain, Portugal, France and
Britain did. You are proposing a significant change of a pattern. Not that
it could not happen with the greater resources but what would be the
circumstances leading to such a change?
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
France does not have to deal with Hapsburg Encirclement.
What else?
If Spain, the Netherlands, _and_ France are all better placed to compete
over colonial possessions, that will affect England (and later Britain) who,
without any change to what they themselves are doing, will find themselves
in a noticeably worse position when compared to OTL. It was a big struggle
for Britain to emerge as the dominant colonial power in the later 18th
century OTL; in the ATL, it may take longer, or may not happen.
Well, at least some of the problems for Alt-Netherlands remain:

France is still on the Southern border and while the issue of Flanders is
being settled, there is no guarantee of peace if it is ruled by an egomaniac
like Louis XIV.

Of course, economy of the united Alt-Netherlands is in a better shape than in
OTL because the country is united and did not suffer from the decades of
intensive warfare but it is still heavily relying on the imports of raw
materials and has a much smaller population than England, not to mention
France so outcome of the wars with England/Britain is not clear, especially
if the French are attacking as well.
Post by Pete Barrett
A more equal division of extra-European colonies between France, UK,
Netherlands, and Iberia should have major effects.
This scenario changes nothing in the terms of South America. A balance of
colonial powers in Asia is a different story.
kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
2017-07-08 20:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Of course, economy of the united Alt-Netherlands is in a better shape than in
This is going to have considerable effect on Britain. You have probably
got rid of Francis II so no "Field of the cloth of gold" The French would
probably put less effort into regaining Calais. Also without Spanish
troops in the Netherlands the Armada is going to be different. And with
no English troops in the Netherlands Essex is less likely to be exposed
as a military incompetent. This is also going to have effects on Spanish
foreign policy meaning that Philip II may not be as keen on an English
marriage as OTL. It will also have a likely effect on the HRE, where did
the Hapsburgs get the money to bribe electors?
Alex Milman
2017-07-08 22:47:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
Post by Alex Milman
Of course, economy of the united Alt-Netherlands is in a better shape than in
This is going to have considerable effect on Britain. You have probably
got rid of Francis II so no "Field of the cloth of gold"
Not sure when and how I got rid of him and I'm absolutely positive that he
had nothing to do with "Field of the cloth of gold" which involved Henry VIII
and Francis I (grandfather of Francis II). :-)
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
The French would
probably put less effort into regaining Calais.
Why? Regaining it was a significant political event for France and greatly
increased prestige of Francis de Guise being a rare French victory at that
time. Chances are that in the absence of the Hapsburg control over the
Netherlands this would happen sooner rather than later. If Phillip II is
still married to Mary Tudor then the war is going on but the Spanish position
on the Northern border of France is MUCH weaker (at best they have French
Comte) and Battle of St. Quentin is not happening leaving France in a much
better position (of course, it could be argued that having Constable Anne de
Montmorency captured and out of picture was a bonus which compensated the
losses at St. Quentin).
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
Also without Spanish
troops in the Netherlands the Armada is going to be different.
There would be no Armada: demagoguery aside, the practical reason for the
1st Armada (there were 3 of them) was an attempt to stop English help to
the Dutch rebels by changing the English government. In this ATL the root
problem does not exist.

The only potential practical reason for the Spanish attack would be an attempt
to do something about the English piracy and for this purpose Armada would
not be the best tool: in OTL the Spaniards eventually came with the convoy
system and managed to improve their defenses in South America and on the
Caribbean so Drake's last expedition ended up with a disaster. They could also
launch a series of attacks on the English coast for which there was no need
in a monstrosity like Armada.
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
And with
no English troops in the Netherlands Essex is less likely to be exposed
as a military incompetent.
Actually, he distinguished himself at the Battle of Zutphen. The person who
WAS exposed was his stepfather Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester but nothing serious came out of that "exposure" (except the Liz was pissed off with
Robert's wife). Essex failed in Ireland many years later.
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
This is also going to have effects on Spanish
foreign policy meaning that Philip II may not be as keen on an English
marriage as OTL.
Why not? There were not too many queens available for marriage and she was a
relative (which was seemingly an important thing for the Hapsburgs).
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
It will also have a likely effect on the HRE, where did
the Hapsburgs get the money to bribe electors?
From Fuggers who, AFAIK, did not have extensive operations in the Netherlands.
Of course, the revenues from the Netherlands were quite substantial but
extracting them was a fundamental problem: the Spanish attempts to establish an
uniform administration and taxation ended up with you know what.
kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
2017-07-09 09:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Why? Regaining it was a significant political event for France and greatly
increased prestige of Francis de Guise being a rare French victory
England was allied with Hapsburg Spain OTL when Calais was lost mainly
through English incompetence. Without that alliance regaining Calais is
likely to be less urgent. And I do not agree about Philip's marriage more
likely to be an Austrian Hapsburg if there was one of suitable age. Mary
had bigger problems, her heir presumptive was protestant, she was
determined not to marry an Englishman and there were not that many
foreigners of suitable rank. This was urgent as she was getting beyond
child bearing age.

By the way I apologise about the confusion between Francis I and II, I
am working from memory
Alex Milman
2017-07-09 16:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
Post by Alex Milman
Why? Regaining it was a significant political event for France and greatly
increased prestige of Francis de Guise being a rare French victory
England was allied with Hapsburg Spain OTL
Why wouldn't it be allied with Spain in ATL?
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
when Calais was lost mainly
through English incompetence.
Combined with French competence. :-)
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
Without that alliance regaining Calais is
likely to be less urgent.
Two things:

1st, there is no obvious reason for this alliance not to happen.

2nd, Calais was politically important for France as the last English
possession on the French soil (and a base for the potential future landings).
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
And I do not agree about Philip's marriage more
likely to be an Austrian Hapsburg if there was one of suitable age.
With what exactly you do not agree? There was already a Hapsburg-Tudor marriage
and there were marriages in Hapsburg family. There could be other options like
Italian marriages, Lorraine marriages, Bavaria marriages, etc.
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
Mary
had bigger problems, her heir presumptive was protestant, she was
determined not to marry an Englishman and there were not that many
foreigners of suitable rank. This was urgent as she was getting beyond
child bearing age.
AFAIK, it usually takes at least 2 to have a marriage and, besides Mary's
wishes and problems, there should be Phillip's willingness to get married
to her. Actually, I still can't quite figure out why he agreed to such a
marriage: it was clearly stated in the marriage agreement that he would not
have a say in governing, economically England was not an attractive catch,
as far as religion was concerned, it was full of the open and hidden heretics,
as a military ally it was not very helpful (and could be an ally against
France without any marriage), a potential issue will just create new problems
with governing (Spanish Empire was already all over the map), etc.
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
By the way I apologise about the confusion between Francis I and II, I
am working from memory.
It is OK and I guessed so but simply could not resist a temptation. :-)

(If I may give an advice, things like that are really easy to
find in Wiki: you are using computer, anyway)
Pete Barrett
2017-07-09 11:54:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
The Netherlands are not split (so Antwerp is still flourishing and so
are the Southern provinces).
Stronger Dutch presence in the early colonial empires. They have more
money and more people, and are not involved in a struggle for
independence. Dutch North America? At the least, there are 3 more or less
equal players in North American settlement in the 16th and 17th
centuries.
Why North America? In OTL they had much stronger presence in Asia and
Africa: they kicked Portuguese out of all their colonies in India, except
Goa, established control over Indonesia (in modern terms) and ended up
being the only European country allowed to trade with Japan.
The Dutch had possessions in the Caribbean
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Antilles), and the North American
mainland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Netherland). In the early 17th
century, these were as important (measured by amount of trade, geographical
extension, population, or some other measure) as English or French holdings
in the area. So they were certainly interested. OTL, they were unable to
defend them effectively, and lost most of them (and particularly New
Netherland) in the later 17th century. In the ATL, they simply have more
resources, and would be more able to defend them.
Post by Alex Milman
In South America (in OTL) they eventually lost to Spain and Portugal and,
let's face it, the settlements in the North America had only a limited
attractiveness unless country had big pool of the potential emigrants.
In OTL, outside the Cape colony, the Dutch "model" was mostly creation of
the trade posts (not quite sure how exactly it worked in Indonesia) as
opposite to capturing and populating the big territories as Spain,
Portugal, France and Britain did. You are proposing a significant change
of a pattern. Not that it could not happen with the greater resources but
what would be the circumstances leading to such a change?
In the 17th century, outside the Americas, _all_ colonial enterprises were
to do with establishing trading posts. That the Dutch didn't expand much
beyond that, I've assumed was due to their relative lack of resources. With
the greater resources at their disposal in the ATL, they have a better
chance of hanging onto what they have, and even expanding it a little.

Colonies in the Americas _were_ about settlement, and if the Dutch didn't do
too much of that, again, I'm assuming that the reason was a relative lack of
population. But the southern Netherlands will more than double their OTL
population
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1600 -
expand the Iberian Union data to see that the Spanish Netherlands had a
population of 2,000,000, as against the 1,500,000 of the United Provinces).
They're still the smallest of the major colonial powers (next smallest is
the ca. 6,500,000 of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland taken together),
but much closer and more competitive.

Now, in all this I'm assuming that the reason the Dutch colonial empire
didn't become a larger and more aggressive player, is a simple lack of
resources, particularly population. In other words, that what needs
explaining is the relative lack of success of the Dutch OTL, that that
explanation is lack of resources, and that if that constraint is removed,
even partially, in the ATL, the Dutch colonial empire will be
correspondingly more like the British and French ones.

If, as I think you're suggesting, there's something in the structure of the
Dutch state (or perhaps something in the Rhine water <g>) which prevents
them from being as effective colonisers as the British and French, then they
probably will do things much the same as OTL.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
France does not have to deal with Hapsburg Encirclement.
What else?
If Spain, the Netherlands, _and_ France are all better placed to compete
over colonial possessions, that will affect England (and later Britain)
who, without any change to what they themselves are doing, will find
themselves in a noticeably worse position when compared to OTL. It was a
big struggle for Britain to emerge as the dominant colonial power in the
later 18th century OTL; in the ATL, it may take longer, or may not
happen.
France is still on the Southern border and while the issue of Flanders is
being settled, there is no guarantee of peace if it is ruled by an
egomaniac like Louis XIV.
Of course, economy of the united Alt-Netherlands is in a better shape than
in OTL because the country is united and did not suffer from the decades
of intensive warfare but it is still heavily relying on the imports of raw
materials and has a much smaller population than England, not to mention
France so outcome of the wars with England/Britain is not clear,
especially if the French are attacking as well.
Well, without the Habsburg encirclement, France has less _reason_ to attack
its northern neighbour. OTL, the Netherlands and France were on quite
friendly terms, _except_ during the reign of Louis XIV (when France had few
allies).
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
A more equal division of extra-European colonies between France, UK,
Netherlands, and Iberia should have major effects.
This scenario changes nothing in the terms of South America. A balance of
colonial powers in Asia is a different story.
South America was carved up between the Spanish and Portuguese, and no one
else really got a look in OTL, and the ATL won't be any different.
--
Pete BARRETT
kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
2017-07-09 12:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Colonies in the Americas _were_ about settlement, and if the Dutch
didn't do too much of that,
New Amsterdam was established to support Dutch raiding of Spanish
colonies. Cape colony was established to support the Dutch East India
Company (VOC) both were established by private companies without direct
suport from the Dutch government. Not that there was much Dutch
government at the time it was still the United Provinces at the time.
During the Anglo-Dutch wars the Dutch had seven or more separate navies.
Alex Milman
2017-07-09 17:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
The Netherlands are not split (so Antwerp is still flourishing and so
are the Southern provinces).
Stronger Dutch presence in the early colonial empires. They have more
money and more people, and are not involved in a struggle for
independence. Dutch North America? At the least, there are 3 more or less
equal players in North American settlement in the 16th and 17th
centuries.
Why North America? In OTL they had much stronger presence in Asia and
Africa: they kicked Portuguese out of all their colonies in India, except
Goa, established control over Indonesia (in modern terms) and ended up
being the only European country allowed to trade with Japan.
The Dutch had possessions in the Caribbean
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Antilles),
The Caribbean colonies had been seemingly important for all holders. I'd
assume that this was because of the agriculture products (sugar, etc.).
Post by Pete Barrett
and the North American
mainland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Netherland).
Founded mostly for fur trade and was not doing too well, especially in the
terms of a settlement.
Post by Pete Barrett
In the early 17th
century, these were as important (measured by amount of trade, geographical
extension, population, or some other measure) as English or French holdings
in the area.
Well, at that time the English only started. None of the other ended up with
a sizeable population by the time they had been taken over by the English.
Post by Pete Barrett
So they were certainly interested. OTL, they were unable to
defend them effectively, and lost most of them (and particularly New
Netherland) in the later 17th century. In the ATL, they simply have more
resources, and would be more able to defend them.
Yes, IF it would grow big enough to be worthy of spending the military
resources on its defense.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
In South America (in OTL) they eventually lost to Spain and Portugal and,
let's face it, the settlements in the North America had only a limited
attractiveness unless country had big pool of the potential emigrants.
In OTL, outside the Cape colony, the Dutch "model" was mostly creation of
the trade posts (not quite sure how exactly it worked in Indonesia) as
opposite to capturing and populating the big territories as Spain,
Portugal, France and Britain did. You are proposing a significant change
of a pattern. Not that it could not happen with the greater resources but
what would be the circumstances leading to such a change?
In the 17th century, outside the Americas, _all_ colonial enterprises were
to do with establishing trading posts. That the Dutch didn't expand much
beyond that, I've assumed was due to their relative lack of resources. With
the greater resources at their disposal in the ATL, they have a better
chance of hanging onto what they have, and even expanding it a little.
Yes, but isn't it reasonable to assume that these greater resources would be
more probably channeled to the more profitable areas? North America was not
one of those.
Post by Pete Barrett
Colonies in the Americas _were_ about settlement, and if the Dutch didn't do
too much of that, again, I'm assuming that the reason was a relative lack of
population.
Or interest in the resettlement. France had a much greater population than
England (or even Britain) but there were not too many French settlers in
North America. Can it be due to the fact that England was the only place where
the farmers had been actively squeezed off the land?
Post by Pete Barrett
But the southern Netherlands will more than double their OTL
population
They'll also significantly increase the territory but the question remains:
what would stimulate people to go overseas leaving their possessions behind?
Post by Pete Barrett
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1600 -
expand the Iberian Union data to see that the Spanish Netherlands had a
population of 2,000,000, as against the 1,500,000 of the United Provinces).
They're still the smallest of the major colonial powers (next smallest is
the ca. 6,500,000 of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland taken together),
but much closer and more competitive.
As I said, this approach would make France with its greater population into
a #1 "settler" but we know that this was not the case. You have to look into
the reasons, not just the population numbers.

Also, the numbers are somewhat misleading: "Iberian Union" seemingly means
population of not just Spain and Portugal but of their colonies as well and
this produces a seriously skewed picture of their colonial expansion. Spain
at the time of Phillip II was underpopulated to such a degree that at some
point he forbade the future explorations to minimize migration to the new
territories. But in the case of Spain the reasons are also relatively clear:
except for the powerful aristocrats most of the population was in a deep
<youknowwhat>: there was no manufacturing to talk about (they could not even
produce enough culverins for the 1st Armada), agriculture was in a terrible
state, especially after the Moors had been expelled so travelling to the new
lands was an attractive option, providing one could afford it.
Post by Pete Barrett
Now, in all this I'm assuming that the reason the Dutch colonial empire
didn't become a larger and more aggressive player, is a simple lack of
resources, particularly population.
It was a very aggressive player where it mattered: trade in Asia was a very
lucrative business and they did quite well there.
Post by Pete Barrett
In other words, that what needs
explaining is the relative lack of success of the Dutch OTL, that that
explanation is lack of resources, and that if that constraint is removed,
even partially, in the ATL, the Dutch colonial empire will be
correspondingly more like the British and French ones.
If, as I think you're suggesting, there's something in the structure of the
Dutch state (or perhaps something in the Rhine water <g>) which prevents
them from being as effective colonisers as the British and French, then they
probably will do things much the same as OTL.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
France does not have to deal with Hapsburg Encirclement.
What else?
If Spain, the Netherlands, _and_ France are all better placed to compete
over colonial possessions, that will affect England (and later Britain)
who, without any change to what they themselves are doing, will find
themselves in a noticeably worse position when compared to OTL. It was a
big struggle for Britain to emerge as the dominant colonial power in the
later 18th century OTL; in the ATL, it may take longer, or may not
happen.
France is still on the Southern border and while the issue of Flanders is
being settled, there is no guarantee of peace if it is ruled by an
egomaniac like Louis XIV.
Of course, economy of the united Alt-Netherlands is in a better shape than
in OTL because the country is united and did not suffer from the decades
of intensive warfare but it is still heavily relying on the imports of raw
materials and has a much smaller population than England, not to mention
France so outcome of the wars with England/Britain is not clear,
especially if the French are attacking as well.
Well, without the Habsburg encirclement, France has less _reason_ to attack
its northern neighbour. OTL, the Netherlands and France were on quite
friendly terms, _except_ during the reign of Louis XIV (when France had few
allies).
Exactly. Louis had them as the allies, initially, but got upset with their
lack of enthusiasm in supporting his schemas.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
A more equal division of extra-European colonies between France, UK,
Netherlands, and Iberia should have major effects.
This scenario changes nothing in the terms of South America. A balance of
colonial powers in Asia is a different story.
South America was carved up between the Spanish and Portuguese, and no one
else really got a look in OTL, and the ATL won't be any different.
Not exactly. The Dutch were trying to get there but eventually had been
kicked out by the Portuguese. But at that point the coast of Brazil was a
questionable prize which could explain the limited resources dedicated to
that area. OTOH, in Asia they managed to kick the Portuguese out of most of
their possessions and trade posts and retained their positions all the way
to the end of the colonial era.
kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
2017-07-09 18:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
t was a very aggressive player where it mattered: trade in Asia was
a very
lucrative business and they did quite well there.
The VOC were very aggressive to the point of killing an estimated 1400
natives and laying waste one of the spice islands during a war with the
EIC. But the VOC was not the Dutch government. See a book called
"Nathaniel's Nutmeg" for the dispute with the EIC and the Wickpedia
article on Nutmeg for the native deaths. Events "beyond the line" only
featured in European politics when they were convenient for propaganda.
Alex Milman
2017-07-10 16:33:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
Post by Alex Milman
t was a very aggressive player where it mattered: trade in Asia was
a very
lucrative business and they did quite well there.
The VOC were very aggressive to the point of killing an estimated 1400
natives and laying waste one of the spice islands during a war with the
EIC. But the VOC was not the Dutch government.
So what? Neither was EIC and VOC was as much Dutch as EIC British so what's
your point?

BTW, by "aggressive" I meant "aggressively expanding" (for example, squeezing
the Portuguese out of their bases). Doing nasty things to the natives as a
general practice.
Pete Barrett
2017-07-10 19:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
The Netherlands are not split (so Antwerp is still flourishing and
so are the Southern provinces).
Stronger Dutch presence in the early colonial empires. They have more
money and more people, and are not involved in a struggle for
independence. Dutch North America? At the least, there are 3 more or
less equal players in North American settlement in the 16th and 17th
centuries.
Why North America? In OTL they had much stronger presence in Asia and
Africa: they kicked Portuguese out of all their colonies in India,
except Goa, established control over Indonesia (in modern terms) and
ended up being the only European country allowed to trade with Japan.
The Dutch had possessions in the Caribbean
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Antilles),
The Caribbean colonies had been seemingly important for all holders. I'd
assume that this was because of the agriculture products (sugar, etc.).
Post by Pete Barrett
and the North American
mainland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Netherland).
Founded mostly for fur trade and was not doing too well, especially in the
terms of a settlement.
As was Acadia.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
In the early 17th
century, these were as important (measured by amount of trade,
geographical extension, population, or some other measure) as English or
French holdings in the area.
Well, at that time the English only started. None of the other ended up
with a sizeable population by the time they had been taken over by the
English.
They were _all_ just starting. The Dutch colony was comparable to the
British and French colonies up until the mid 17th century. The Spanish had
much larger settlements in the New World, but they'd had an extra century of
growth.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
So they were certainly interested. OTL, they were unable to
defend them effectively, and lost most of them (and particularly New
Netherland) in the later 17th century. In the ATL, they simply have more
resources, and would be more able to defend them.
Yes, IF it would grow big enough to be worthy of spending the military
resources on its defense.
Neither the French nor the British spent a lot of money on the defence of
the North American colonies at first. Defence of the English colonies was by
a local militia; and while the French did provide some soldiers in
Louisiana, there were never a large number.

The Dutch settlement wasn't any different in that regard.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
In South America (in OTL) they eventually lost to Spain and Portugal
and, let's face it, the settlements in the North America had only a
limited attractiveness unless country had big pool of the potential
emigrants.
In OTL, outside the Cape colony, the Dutch "model" was mostly creation
of the trade posts (not quite sure how exactly it worked in Indonesia)
as opposite to capturing and populating the big territories as Spain,
Portugal, France and Britain did. You are proposing a significant
change of a pattern. Not that it could not happen with the greater
resources but what would be the circumstances leading to such a change?
In the 17th century, outside the Americas, _all_ colonial enterprises
were to do with establishing trading posts. That the Dutch didn't expand
much beyond that, I've assumed was due to their relative lack of
resources. With the greater resources at their disposal in the ATL, they
have a better chance of hanging onto what they have, and even expanding
it a little.
Yes, but isn't it reasonable to assume that these greater resources would
be more probably channeled to the more profitable areas? North America was
not one of those.
Only if they're being directed by the central government by some global
policy, and no one was doing that in the early 17th century. France,
Britain, and the Netherlands mainly farmed their activities out to private
trading companies. Those trading companies did whatever they thought would
bring in most profit. In the East Indies, none of them did much more than
establish trading posts. In the West Indies, they established sugar
plantations. In North America they established settlements.

The British _did_ establish more settlements than either the French or the
Dutch, and each of those colonies was run by a different company, which
might have been an advantage. New Netherland and all the other Dutch
activities in the area were under the Dutch West India Company. The French
state ran the North American settlements (and completely neglected them).
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Colonies in the Americas _were_ about settlement, and if the Dutch didn't
do too much of that, again, I'm assuming that the reason was a relative
lack of population.
Or interest in the resettlement. France had a much greater population than
England (or even Britain) but there were not too many French settlers in
North America. Can it be due to the fact that England was the only place
where the farmers had been actively squeezed off the land?
I don't think farmers were being removed from the land in large numbers as
early as the 17th century. The Highland Clearances came later. British
settlement in North America seems to have been driven by religious
differences (Maryland was founded as a refuge for the Catholics, New England
for the Puritans, Pennsylvania for the Quakers) which was quite different to
the what France of the Netherlands were doinmg. France actively discouraged
emigration, and New Netherland seems to have been inhabited only by traders.

The Netherlands of the period have a (not entirely deserved) reputation for
religious tolerance, which may be why Dutch sects were less inclined to go
to the New World. However, if the Dutch can hang on to the area, it might be
populated by some of the smaller Protestant sects from central Europe
(Moravian Brethren, and so on), who in OTL settled in the English colonies.
They might prefer to be under Dutch rule than risking English rule, which
could still be pretty strict on nonconformists.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
But the southern Netherlands will more than double their OTL
population
They'll also significantly increase the territory but the question
remains: what would stimulate people to go overseas leaving their
possessions behind?
Post by Pete Barrett
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1600 -
expand the Iberian Union data to see that the Spanish Netherlands had a
population of 2,000,000, as against the 1,500,000 of the United
Provinces). They're still the smallest of the major colonial powers (next
smallest is the ca. 6,500,000 of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland
taken together), but much closer and more competitive.
As I said, this approach would make France with its greater population
into a #1 "settler" but we know that this was not the case. You have to
look into the reasons, not just the population numbers.
Also, the numbers are somewhat misleading: "Iberian Union" seemingly means
population of not just Spain and Portugal but of their colonies as well
and this produces a seriously skewed picture of their colonial expansion.
Spain at the time of Phillip II was underpopulated to such a degree that
at some point he forbade the future explorations to minimize migration to
the new territories. But in the case of Spain the reasons are also
relatively clear: except for the powerful aristocrats most of the
population was in a deep <youknowwhat>: there was no manufacturing to talk
about (they could not even produce enough culverins for the 1st Armada),
agriculture was in a terrible state, especially after the Moors had been
expelled so travelling to the new lands was an attractive option,
providing one could afford it.
Post by Pete Barrett
Now, in all this I'm assuming that the reason the Dutch colonial empire
didn't become a larger and more aggressive player, is a simple lack of
resources, particularly population.
It was a very aggressive player where it mattered: trade in Asia was a
very lucrative business and they did quite well there.
Post by Pete Barrett
In other words, that what needs
explaining is the relative lack of success of the Dutch OTL, that that
explanation is lack of resources, and that if that constraint is removed,
even partially, in the ATL, the Dutch colonial empire will be
correspondingly more like the British and French ones.
If, as I think you're suggesting, there's something in the structure of
the Dutch state (or perhaps something in the Rhine water <g>) which
prevents them from being as effective colonisers as the British and
French, then they probably will do things much the same as OTL.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
France does not have to deal with Hapsburg Encirclement.
What else?
If Spain, the Netherlands, _and_ France are all better placed to
compete over colonial possessions, that will affect England (and later
Britain) who, without any change to what they themselves are doing,
will find themselves in a noticeably worse position when compared to
OTL. It was a big struggle for Britain to emerge as the dominant
colonial power in the later 18th century OTL; in the ATL, it may take
longer, or may not happen.
France is still on the Southern border and while the issue of Flanders
is being settled, there is no guarantee of peace if it is ruled by an
egomaniac like Louis XIV.
Of course, economy of the united Alt-Netherlands is in a better shape
than in OTL because the country is united and did not suffer from the
decades of intensive warfare but it is still heavily relying on the
imports of raw materials and has a much smaller population than
England, not to mention France so outcome of the wars with
England/Britain is not clear, especially if the French are attacking as
well.
Well, without the Habsburg encirclement, France has less _reason_ to
attack its northern neighbour. OTL, the Netherlands and France were on
quite friendly terms, _except_ during the reign of Louis XIV (when France
had few allies).
Exactly. Louis had them as the allies, initially, but got upset with their
lack of enthusiasm in supporting his schemas.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
A more equal division of extra-European colonies between France, UK,
Netherlands, and Iberia should have major effects.
This scenario changes nothing in the terms of South America. A balance
of colonial powers in Asia is a different story.
South America was carved up between the Spanish and Portuguese, and no
one else really got a look in OTL, and the ATL won't be any different.
Not exactly. The Dutch were trying to get there but eventually had been
kicked out by the Portuguese. But at that point the coast of Brazil was a
questionable prize which could explain the limited resources dedicated to
that area. OTOH, in Asia they managed to kick the Portuguese out of most
of their possessions and trade posts and retained their positions all the
way to the end of the colonial era.
For years, the main areas of Portuguese settlement in Brazil were in the
north. Britain, France, and Holland all got toe holds along the north coast
of South America during the period when Portugal and Spain were in union,
and those areas lasted as colonies until the end of colonialism.
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2017-07-11 19:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
The Netherlands are not split (so Antwerp is still flourishing and
so are the Southern provinces).
Stronger Dutch presence in the early colonial empires. They have more
money and more people, and are not involved in a struggle for
independence. Dutch North America? At the least, there are 3 more or
less equal players in North American settlement in the 16th and 17th
centuries.
Why North America? In OTL they had much stronger presence in Asia and
Africa: they kicked Portuguese out of all their colonies in India,
except Goa, established control over Indonesia (in modern terms) and
ended up being the only European country allowed to trade with Japan.
The Dutch had possessions in the Caribbean
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Antilles),
The Caribbean colonies had been seemingly important for all holders. I'd
assume that this was because of the agriculture products (sugar, etc.).
Post by Pete Barrett
and the North American
mainland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Netherland).
Founded mostly for fur trade and was not doing too well, especially in the
terms of a settlement.
As was Acadia.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
In the early 17th
century, these were as important (measured by amount of trade,
geographical extension, population, or some other measure) as English or
French holdings in the area.
Well, at that time the English only started. None of the other ended up
with a sizeable population by the time they had been taken over by the
English.
They were _all_ just starting. The Dutch colony was comparable to the
British and French colonies up until the mid 17th century.
The point is that France, which had a much greater population than Britain,
never managed to populate its territories even by the mid XVIII. Which means
that country's population is not the only factor in a colonial expansion.
There was a need in a permanent strong stimulus (religious, economic, etc.)
for the big numbers of people to leave their country. What would be such a
stimulus in the reasonably well off Alt-Netherlands?
Post by Pete Barrett
The Spanish had
much larger settlements in the New World, but they'd had an extra century of
growth.
Hardly an argument: none of the Spanish or Portuguese colonies in Americas
had a big European population and their colonial model was quite different
from the British. They were dominating the natives but they were not squeezing
them out as the English settlers, they were (when applicable) even leaving
some native social structures (like "casiques" and, for a while even Incas),
and widely practiced marriages with the natives. At least as far as the
marriages were involved, the French colonies looked similarly but I'm not
aware that such things had been fashionable among the Brits (or the Dutch, to
be fair; does it have something to do with the Protestantism being even more
obnoxious than Catholicism?)
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
So they were certainly interested. OTL, they were unable to
defend them effectively, and lost most of them (and particularly New
Netherland) in the later 17th century. In the ATL, they simply have more
resources, and would be more able to defend them.
Yes, IF it would grow big enough to be worthy of spending the military
resources on its defense.
Neither the French nor the British spent a lot of money on the defence of
the North American colonies at first. Defence of the English colonies was by
a local militia; and while the French did provide some soldiers in
Louisiana, there were never a large number.
And the British Navy....

"In 1664, an English naval expedition ordered by Prince James, Duke of York and of Albany (later King James II & VII) sailed in the harbor at New Amsterdam
[while both countries had been at peace], threatening to attack. Being greatly
outnumbered, Director-General Peter Stuyvesant surrendered after negotiating
favorable articles of capitulation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas#Mainland_In_North_America

At the same time the Dutch had been paying a much greater attention to getting
Suriname from the English (which they got in exchange to New Amsterdam): the
local plantations had been producing coffee, cocoa, sugar cane and cotton.
Post by Pete Barrett
The Dutch settlement wasn't any different in that regard.
Not quite so. At its peak population of New Netherlands amounted to 9K with a
big proportion of the foreigners: "In the end, colonizing was a prohibitively
expensive undertaking, only partly subsidized by the fur trade. This led to a
scaling back of the original plans." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Amsterdam
Unlike English colonization of the North America, the Dutch was under the
strict control of a trade company, which meant that the profit had been main
consideration.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
In South America (in OTL) they eventually lost to Spain and Portugal
and, let's face it, the settlements in the North America had only a
limited attractiveness unless country had big pool of the potential
emigrants.
In OTL, outside the Cape colony, the Dutch "model" was mostly creation
of the trade posts (not quite sure how exactly it worked in Indonesia)
as opposite to capturing and populating the big territories as Spain,
Portugal, France and Britain did. You are proposing a significant
change of a pattern. Not that it could not happen with the greater
resources but what would be the circumstances leading to such a change?
In the 17th century, outside the Americas, _all_ colonial enterprises
were to do with establishing trading posts. That the Dutch didn't expand
much beyond that, I've assumed was due to their relative lack of
resources. With the greater resources at their disposal in the ATL, they
have a better chance of hanging onto what they have, and even expanding
it a little.
Yes, but isn't it reasonable to assume that these greater resources would
be more probably channeled to the more profitable areas? North America was
not one of those.
Only if they're being directed by the central government by some global
policy,
Not at all: the entrepreneurs are routinely looking for profits while the same
does not necessarily apply to the governments.
Post by Pete Barrett
and no one was doing that in the early 17th century.
Actually, Spain was doing it well before XII century: all new colonial
projects had to be approved by the central government.
Post by Pete Barrett
France,
Britain, and the Netherlands mainly farmed their activities out to private
trading companies.
Which means exactly what I said: trade company tends to look for the profitable
projects rather than for the purely prestigious ones.

There were some exceptions:

(a) when company leadership had a long-term strategic vision assuming that the
short-/mid-term financial losses will be compensated by the long-term gains
received from the conquered territory (East India Company).

(b) when company leadership had enough clout in the government to guarantee
permanent subsidies (Russian-American Company).
Post by Pete Barrett
Those trading companies did whatever they thought would
bring in most profit.
Exactly, so what are you arguing against?
Post by Pete Barrett
In the East Indies, none of them did much more than
establish trading posts.
Actually, the Dutch did noticeably more by eventually colonizing the whole
Indonesia but in general getting the most profit did not require the extensive
land possessions and expenses related to their administration. It was enough
to establish the trade posts and to negotiate (with application of force, if
necessary) the favorable terms with the local rulers.
Post by Pete Barrett
In the West Indies, they established sugar
plantations. In North America they established settlements.
This was partially because, unlike Asia, these territories were MUCH behind
in their development and did not have anyone with whom you could meaningfully
negotiate.
Post by Pete Barrett
The British _did_ establish more settlements than either the French or the
Dutch, and each of those colonies was run by a different company, which
might have been an advantage.
This was an initial arrangement but things changed with a big scale migration
from the motherland. Nothing of the kind was happening in French or Dutch
colonies until much later times.
Post by Pete Barrett
New Netherland and all the other Dutch
activities in the area were under the Dutch West India Company. The French
state ran the North American settlements (and completely neglected them).
Neglecting them would be the best policy if there was a natural flow of the
settlers but there was almost none to talk about.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Colonies in the Americas _were_ about settlement, and if the Dutch didn't
do too much of that, again, I'm assuming that the reason was a relative
lack of population.
Or interest in the resettlement. France had a much greater population than
England (or even Britain) but there were not too many French settlers in
North America. Can it be due to the fact that England was the only place
where the farmers had been actively squeezed off the land?
I don't think farmers were being removed from the land in large numbers as
early as the 17th century.
Even at the time of the Tudors England had the homeless beggars in the numbers
that warranted a special legislation. These people had to come from somewhere
and I doubt that all of them came from the cities. Also, IIRC, the big
landowners had been expanding their holding at the expense pf the communal and
personal lands as early as Lyz' reign.
Post by Pete Barrett
The Highland Clearances came later. British
settlement in North America seems to have been driven by religious
differences (Maryland was founded as a refuge for the Catholics, New England
for the Puritans, Pennsylvania for the Quakers) which was quite different to
the what France of the Netherlands were doinmg.
This applies to the initial settlers but what about the later periods?
Post by Pete Barrett
France actively discouraged
emigration, and New Netherland seems to have been inhabited only by traders.
Yes, it was.
Post by Pete Barrett
The Netherlands of the period have a (not entirely deserved) reputation for
religious tolerance, which may be why Dutch sects were less inclined to go
to the New World.
An assumption that religion can be the ONLY reason for mass emigration does
not hold the water. The biggest Irish immigration to the US had been triggered by the Great Irish Famine, the German by introduction of the compulsory
military service, "Between 1864 and 1920, 50,000 Danes emigrated from
Schleswig, Jutland, where the use of Danish language was banned in schools
following the Danish defeat in the Second Schleswig War and Prussia seizing
control.", "due to the famine and cholera in Russia the year of 1881 saw the Russian immigration rate rocket to over 10,000 immigrants in a year. Between 1891–1900 a total of 593,700 Russians emigrated to America. The early 1900's saw numbers rocket even further. In 1901–1910 there were 1.6 million" (with the
numbers like only fraction of the emigrants could be Jews), etc.
Post by Pete Barrett
However, if the Dutch can hang on to the area, it might be
populated by some of the smaller Protestant sects from central Europe
(Moravian Brethren, and so on), who in OTL settled in the English colonies.
They might prefer to be under Dutch rule than risking English rule, which
could still be pretty strict on nonconformists.
You keep compartmentalizing things which has to be considered as a part of a
greater picture. The Dutch simply could not have it all and concentrated on
what was profitable, Suriname, which they got in exchange for the unprofitable New Netherlands. What would be a reason for them to try maintaining the area
into which people were not excessively willing to go? Just to have a safe heaven
for all religious freaks in Europe?
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
But the southern Netherlands will more than double their OTL
population
They'll also significantly increase the territory but the question
remains: what would stimulate people to go overseas leaving their
possessions behind?
Post by Pete Barrett
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1600 -
expand the Iberian Union data to see that the Spanish Netherlands had a
population of 2,000,000, as against the 1,500,000 of the United
Provinces). They're still the smallest of the major colonial powers (next
smallest is the ca. 6,500,000 of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland
taken together), but much closer and more competitive.
As I said, this approach would make France with its greater population
into a #1 "settler" but we know that this was not the case. You have to
look into the reasons, not just the population numbers.
Also, the numbers are somewhat misleading: "Iberian Union" seemingly means
population of not just Spain and Portugal but of their colonies as well
and this produces a seriously skewed picture of their colonial expansion.
Spain at the time of Phillip II was underpopulated to such a degree that
at some point he forbade the future explorations to minimize migration to
the new territories. But in the case of Spain the reasons are also
relatively clear: except for the powerful aristocrats most of the
population was in a deep <youknowwhat>: there was no manufacturing to talk
about (they could not even produce enough culverins for the 1st Armada),
agriculture was in a terrible state, especially after the Moors had been
expelled so travelling to the new lands was an attractive option,
providing one could afford it.
Post by Pete Barrett
Now, in all this I'm assuming that the reason the Dutch colonial empire
didn't become a larger and more aggressive player, is a simple lack of
resources, particularly population.
It was a very aggressive player where it mattered: trade in Asia was a
very lucrative business and they did quite well there.
Post by Pete Barrett
In other words, that what needs
explaining is the relative lack of success of the Dutch OTL, that that
explanation is lack of resources, and that if that constraint is removed,
even partially, in the ATL, the Dutch colonial empire will be
correspondingly more like the British and French ones.
If, as I think you're suggesting, there's something in the structure of
the Dutch state (or perhaps something in the Rhine water <g>) which
prevents them from being as effective colonisers as the British and
French, then they probably will do things much the same as OTL.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
France does not have to deal with Hapsburg Encirclement.
What else?
If Spain, the Netherlands, _and_ France are all better placed to
compete over colonial possessions, that will affect England (and later
Britain) who, without any change to what they themselves are doing,
will find themselves in a noticeably worse position when compared to
OTL. It was a big struggle for Britain to emerge as the dominant
colonial power in the later 18th century OTL; in the ATL, it may take
longer, or may not happen.
France is still on the Southern border and while the issue of Flanders
is being settled, there is no guarantee of peace if it is ruled by an
egomaniac like Louis XIV.
Of course, economy of the united Alt-Netherlands is in a better shape
than in OTL because the country is united and did not suffer from the
decades of intensive warfare but it is still heavily relying on the
imports of raw materials and has a much smaller population than
England, not to mention France so outcome of the wars with
England/Britain is not clear, especially if the French are attacking as
well.
Well, without the Habsburg encirclement, France has less _reason_ to
attack its northern neighbour. OTL, the Netherlands and France were on
quite friendly terms, _except_ during the reign of Louis XIV (when France
had few allies).
Exactly. Louis had them as the allies, initially, but got upset with their
lack of enthusiasm in supporting his schemas.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
A more equal division of extra-European colonies between France, UK,
Netherlands, and Iberia should have major effects.
This scenario changes nothing in the terms of South America. A balance
of colonial powers in Asia is a different story.
South America was carved up between the Spanish and Portuguese, and no
one else really got a look in OTL, and the ATL won't be any different.
Not exactly. The Dutch were trying to get there but eventually had been
kicked out by the Portuguese. But at that point the coast of Brazil was a
questionable prize which could explain the limited resources dedicated to
that area. OTOH, in Asia they managed to kick the Portuguese out of most
of their possessions and trade posts and retained their positions all the
way to the end of the colonial era.
For years, the main areas of Portuguese settlement in Brazil were in the
north. Britain, France, and Holland all got toe holds along the north coast
of South America during the period when Portugal and Spain were in union,
and those areas lasted as colonies until the end of colonialism.
Very small pieces. The Dutch used to have more but had been thrown out by the
Portuguese.
kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
2017-07-11 19:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Even at the time of the Tudors England had the homeless beggars in the numbers
that warranted a special legislation. These people had to come from somewhere
and I doubt that all of them came from the cities
You are correct the enclosure acts started with the Tudors and the
enclosure of common land made a lot of small holdings unviable forcing
people of the land. A lot of these ended up in cities which were so
unhealthy they only grew by immigration.
Pete Barrett
2017-07-12 18:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
The Netherlands are not split (so Antwerp is still flourishing
and so are the Southern provinces).
Stronger Dutch presence in the early colonial empires. They have
more money and more people, and are not involved in a struggle for
independence. Dutch North America? At the least, there are 3 more
or less equal players in North American settlement in the 16th and
17th centuries.
Why North America? In OTL they had much stronger presence in Asia
and Africa: they kicked Portuguese out of all their colonies in
India, except Goa, established control over Indonesia (in modern
terms) and ended up being the only European country allowed to trade
with Japan.
The Dutch had possessions in the Caribbean
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Antilles),
The Caribbean colonies had been seemingly important for all holders.
I'd assume that this was because of the agriculture products (sugar,
etc.).
Post by Pete Barrett
and the North American
mainland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Netherland).
Founded mostly for fur trade and was not doing too well, especially in
the terms of a settlement.
As was Acadia.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
In the early 17th
century, these were as important (measured by amount of trade,
geographical extension, population, or some other measure) as English
or French holdings in the area.
Well, at that time the English only started. None of the other ended up
with a sizeable population by the time they had been taken over by the
English.
They were _all_ just starting. The Dutch colony was comparable to the
British and French colonies up until the mid 17th century.
The point is that France, which had a much greater population than
Britain, never managed to populate its territories even by the mid XVIII.
Which means that country's population is not the only factor in a colonial
expansion. There was a need in a permanent strong stimulus (religious,
economic, etc.) for the big numbers of people to leave their country. What
would be such a stimulus in the reasonably well off Alt-Netherlands?
The French, of course, actively _dis_couraged emigration, so it's no great
surprise that their overseas territories didn't get much in the way of
population.
But in any case, nobody's saying that population was the _only_ factor,
merely that it is _a_ factor - and if the ATL Netherlands has over twice the
population (as well as greater resources in other respects), they'll be in a
better position to hold on to their overseas colonies than the OTL
Netherlands was.

As for a stimulus - perhaps population pressure? Even in the Middle Ages,
the Dutch were reclaiming marshland, and they were finding the need to drain
lakes to provide farmland in the early 17th century
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beemster).
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
The Spanish had
much larger settlements in the New World, but they'd had an extra century
of growth.
Hardly an argument: none of the Spanish or Portuguese colonies in Americas
had a big European population and their colonial model was quite different
from the British. They were dominating the natives but they were not
squeezing them out as the English settlers, they were (when applicable)
even leaving some native social structures (like "casiques" and, for a
while even Incas), and widely practiced marriages with the natives. At
least as far as the marriages were involved, the French colonies looked
similarly but I'm not aware that such things had been fashionable among
the Brits (or the Dutch, to be fair; does it have something to do with the
Protestantism being even more obnoxious than Catholicism?)
Unlikely, since both British and Dutch intermarried in the _East_ Indies.
Probably more to do with the native population of North America being less
dense than in the areas of Spanish colonisation you're thinking of (Peru and
Mexico, as I take it - the valley of Mexico in particular, under the Aztecs
had a population density approaching India or China), so there were fewer
natives to marry, and they were easily swampled dempgraphically by the
interlopers. Argentina had a low population density, too, and it now has a
much higher European component than, say, Peru.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
So they were certainly interested. OTL, they were unable to
defend them effectively, and lost most of them (and particularly New
Netherland) in the later 17th century. In the ATL, they simply have
more resources, and would be more able to defend them.
Yes, IF it would grow big enough to be worthy of spending the military
resources on its defense.
Neither the French nor the British spent a lot of money on the defence of
the North American colonies at first. Defence of the English colonies was
by a local militia; and while the French did provide some soldiers in
Louisiana, there were never a large number.
And the British Navy....
"In 1664, an English naval expedition ordered by Prince James, Duke of
York and of Albany (later King James II & VII) sailed in the harbor at New
Amsterdam
[while both countries had been at peace], threatening to attack. Being
[greatly
outnumbered, Director-General Peter Stuyvesant surrendered after
negotiating favorable articles of capitulation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas#Mainland_In_North_America
Post by Alex Milman
At the same time the Dutch had been paying a much greater attention to
getting Suriname from the English (which they got in exchange to New
Amsterdam): the local plantations had been producing coffee, cocoa, sugar
cane and cotton.
Post by Pete Barrett
The Dutch settlement wasn't any different in that regard.
Not quite so. At its peak population of New Netherlands amounted to 9K
with a big proportion of the foreigners: "In the end, colonizing was a
prohibitively expensive undertaking, only partly subsidized by the fur
trade. This led to a scaling back of the original plans."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Amsterdam Unlike English colonization of
the North America, the Dutch was under the strict control of a trade
company, which meant that the profit had been main consideration.
I think you may be right in pointing to that as the main difference. There's
only so much loss which a trading company will take. The same goes for the
English colonies of course: they were mostly founded in the expectation of
some profit, and a lot of the original companies went bankrupt, but by that
time they had enough population to be self-sustaining, and the English crown
was prepared to take over responsibility.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
In South America (in OTL) they eventually lost to Spain and Portugal
and, let's face it, the settlements in the North America had only a
limited attractiveness unless country had big pool of the potential
emigrants.
In OTL, outside the Cape colony, the Dutch "model" was mostly
creation of the trade posts (not quite sure how exactly it worked in
Indonesia) as opposite to capturing and populating the big
territories as Spain,
Portugal, France and Britain did. You are proposing a significant
change of a pattern. Not that it could not happen with the greater
resources but what would be the circumstances leading to such a change?
In the 17th century, outside the Americas, _all_ colonial enterprises
were to do with establishing trading posts. That the Dutch didn't
expand much beyond that, I've assumed was due to their relative lack
of resources. With the greater resources at their disposal in the ATL,
they have a better chance of hanging onto what they have, and even
expanding it a little.
Yes, but isn't it reasonable to assume that these greater resources
would be more probably channeled to the more profitable areas? North
America was not one of those.
Only if they're being directed by the central government by some global
policy,
Not at all: the entrepreneurs are routinely looking for profits while the
same does not necessarily apply to the governments.
Entrepreneurs look for profits all over the place, and those who find them
survive, while those who don't go under. Channelling resources
preferentially into the areas where profits are greater implies some central
direction. Smith's invisible (and anachronistic) hand won't stop them from
investing in North America, though it might make it look like that in
retrospect, if North Amrican investment doesn't come off (which was the case
OTL).
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
and no one was doing that in the early 17th century.
Actually, Spain was doing it well before XII century: all new colonial
projects had to be approved by the central government.
Post by Pete Barrett
France,
Britain, and the Netherlands mainly farmed their activities out to
private trading companies.
Which means exactly what I said: trade company tends to look for the
profitable projects rather than for the purely prestigious ones.
They look for _expected_ profits, and in the early 17th century people
_were_ expecting profits from the New World. I think you're argument's
getting perilously close to saying that because they made no profits OTL,
they were therefore not expecting any profits OTL, they would therefore not
expect iny profits in the ATL, and would therefore not invest in North
American colonies. Put like that, the argument can't possibly be right.
Post by Alex Milman
(a) when company leadership had a long-term strategic vision assuming that
the short-/mid-term financial losses will be compensated by the long-term
gains received from the conquered territory (East India Company).
(b) when company leadership had enough clout in the government to
guarantee permanent subsidies (Russian-American Company).
Post by Pete Barrett
Those trading companies did whatever they thought would
bring in most profit.
Exactly, so what are you arguing against?
Post by Pete Barrett
In the East Indies, none of them did much more than
establish trading posts.
Actually, the Dutch did noticeably more by eventually colonizing the whole
Indonesia but in general getting the most profit did not require the
extensive land possessions and expenses related to their administration.
It was enough to establish the trade posts and to negotiate (with
application of force, if necessary) the favorable terms with the local
rulers.
Post by Pete Barrett
In the West Indies, they established sugar
plantations. In North America they established settlements.
This was partially because, unlike Asia, these territories were MUCH
behind in their development and did not have anyone with whom you could
meaningfully negotiate.
Post by Pete Barrett
The British _did_ establish more settlements than either the French or
the Dutch, and each of those colonies was run by a different company,
which might have been an advantage.
This was an initial arrangement but things changed with a big scale
migration from the motherland. Nothing of the kind was happening in French
or Dutch colonies until much later times.
Post by Pete Barrett
New Netherland and all the other Dutch
activities in the area were under the Dutch West India Company. The
French state ran the North American settlements (and completely neglected
them).
Neglecting them would be the best policy if there was a natural flow of
the settlers but there was almost none to talk about.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Colonies in the Americas _were_ about settlement, and if the Dutch
didn't do too much of that, again, I'm assuming that the reason was a
relative lack of population.
Or interest in the resettlement. France had a much greater population
than England (or even Britain) but there were not too many French
settlers in North America. Can it be due to the fact that England was
the only place where the farmers had been actively squeezed off the
land?
I don't think farmers were being removed from the land in large numbers
as early as the 17th century.
Even at the time of the Tudors England had the homeless beggars in the
numbers that warranted a special legislation. These people had to come
from somewhere and I doubt that all of them came from the cities. Also,
IIRC, the big landowners had been expanding their holding at the expense
pf the communal and personal lands as early as Lyz' reign.
But these didn't turn up as emigrants to the New World. It was later that
there was large scale emigration by people forced off the land. The
demographics of the early settlers from England are younger sons (who wanted
new land to establish farms of their own), and religious refugees.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
The Highland Clearances came later. British
settlement in North America seems to have been driven by religious
differences (Maryland was founded as a refuge for the Catholics, New
England for the Puritans, Pennsylvania for the Quakers) which was quite
different to the what France of the Netherlands were doinmg.
This applies to the initial settlers but what about the later periods?
I wasn't talking about the later periods. By the 18th century, the North
American colonies were well established, and would attract settlers (whetver
their reasons for wanting to move) whether owned by the British, French, or
Dutch, as long as there's no defnite atttempt to keep them out. It's getting
them started that's at issue, as far as I can see.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
France actively discouraged
emigration, and New Netherland seems to have been inhabited only by traders.
Yes, it was.
Post by Pete Barrett
The Netherlands of the period have a (not entirely deserved) reputation
for religious tolerance, which may be why Dutch sects were less inclined
to go to the New World.
An assumption that religion can be the ONLY reason for mass emigration
does not hold the water. The biggest Irish immigration to the US had been
triggered by the Great Irish Famine, the German by introduction of the
compulsory military service, "Between 1864 and 1920, 50,000 Danes
emigrated from Schleswig, Jutland, where the use of Danish language was
banned in schools following the Danish defeat in the Second Schleswig War
and Prussia seizing control.", "due to the famine and cholera in Russia
the year of 1881 saw the Russian immigration rate rocket to over 10,000
immigrants in a year. Between 1891–1900 a total of 593,700 Russians
emigrated to America. The early 1900's saw numbers rocket even further. In
1901–1910 there were 1.6 million" (with the numbers like only fraction of
the emigrants could be Jews), etc.
All of which isn't the point. At issue is how the North American colonies
got enough population to be self-sustaining, economically and
demographically, which would be done by 1700, or thereabouts. OTL, most of
those immigrants were from the British Isles (discounting the slaves, who
didn't go voluntarily), and went to the British colonies. With greater
Netherlands population, more of them should be Netherlanders, who would go
to the Netherlands colony,as long as it lasts. Can it be self sustaining by
1700? I'm not sure, but it's possible.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
However, if the Dutch can hang on to the area, it might be
populated by some of the smaller Protestant sects from central Europe
(Moravian Brethren, and so on), who in OTL settled in the English
colonies. They might prefer to be under Dutch rule than risking English
rule, which could still be pretty strict on nonconformists.
You keep compartmentalizing things which has to be considered as a part of
a greater picture. The Dutch simply could not have it all and concentrated
on what was profitable, Suriname, which they got in exchange for the
unprofitable New Netherlands. What would be a reason for them to try
maintaining the area into which people were not excessively willing to go?
Just to have a safe heaven for all religious freaks in Europe?
But all these arguments apply equally well to the English, who did hang on
to North America. They certainly weren't trying to get rid of it because of
its unprofitability, then or later. If the English and British were prepared
to keep it, why not the Dutch? Far more likely that, as you say, they didn't
have the resources to do so. In the ATL they have more resources, though
whether they have enough to keep a serious presence in North America, I
don't know.
Post by Alex Milman
........
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2017-07-12 22:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
The Netherlands are not split (so Antwerp is still flourishing
and so are the Southern provinces).
Stronger Dutch presence in the early colonial empires. They have
more money and more people, and are not involved in a struggle for
independence. Dutch North America? At the least, there are 3 more
or less equal players in North American settlement in the 16th and
17th centuries.
Why North America? In OTL they had much stronger presence in Asia
and Africa: they kicked Portuguese out of all their colonies in
India, except Goa, established control over Indonesia (in modern
terms) and ended up being the only European country allowed to trade
with Japan.
The Dutch had possessions in the Caribbean
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Antilles),
The Caribbean colonies had been seemingly important for all holders.
I'd assume that this was because of the agriculture products (sugar,
etc.).
Post by Pete Barrett
and the North American
mainland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Netherland).
Founded mostly for fur trade and was not doing too well, especially in
the terms of a settlement.
As was Acadia.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
In the early 17th
century, these were as important (measured by amount of trade,
geographical extension, population, or some other measure) as English
or French holdings in the area.
Well, at that time the English only started. None of the other ended up
with a sizeable population by the time they had been taken over by the
English.
They were _all_ just starting. The Dutch colony was comparable to the
British and French colonies up until the mid 17th century.
The point is that France, which had a much greater population than
Britain, never managed to populate its territories even by the mid XVIII.
Which means that country's population is not the only factor in a colonial
expansion. There was a need in a permanent strong stimulus (religious,
economic, etc.) for the big numbers of people to leave their country. What
would be such a stimulus in the reasonably well off Alt-Netherlands?
The French, of course, actively _dis_couraged emigration,
so it's no great
surprise that their overseas territories didn't get much in the way of
population.
If this was the case how their colonies in North America had been populated at
all?
Post by Pete Barrett
But in any case, nobody's saying that population was the _only_ factor,
merely that it is _a_ factor - and if the ATL Netherlands has over twice the
population (as well as greater resources in other respects), they'll be in a
better position to hold on to their overseas colonies than the OTL
Netherlands was.
This is not obvious at all: they mat not be very interested in holding all of
them, especially unprofitable ones. After all, with colonial affairs of XVII
century being handled mostly by the trade companies, it was mostly about
a profit and much less about increasing volume of settlement. What profit
would they get from a bigger size of New Netherlands?
Post by Pete Barrett
As for a stimulus - perhaps population pressure? Even in the Middle Ages,
the Dutch were reclaiming marshland, and they were finding the need to drain
lakes to provide farmland in the early 17th century
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beemster).
Now we are getting to the "objective factors" but how big was that pressure?
After all, the Netherlands became "industrialized" (:-)) country early enough
providing (in theory) a lot of openings in non-agricultural activities.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
The Spanish had
much larger settlements in the New World, but they'd had an extra century
of growth.
Hardly an argument: none of the Spanish or Portuguese colonies in Americas
had a big European population and their colonial model was quite different
from the British. They were dominating the natives but they were not
squeezing them out as the English settlers, they were (when applicable)
even leaving some native social structures (like "casiques" and, for a
while even Incas), and widely practiced marriages with the natives. At
least as far as the marriages were involved, the French colonies looked
similarly but I'm not aware that such things had been fashionable among
the Brits (or the Dutch, to be fair; does it have something to do with the
Protestantism being even more obnoxious than Catholicism?)
Unlikely, since both British and Dutch intermarried in the _East_ Indies.
But acceptance of the "byproducts" of these marriages was much lower in
Britain than in France or Spain (can't tell about the Netherlands). They
could be more or less OK in the colonies but not back at home.
Post by Pete Barrett
Probably more to do with the native population of North America being less
dense than in the areas of Spanish colonisation you're thinking of (Peru and
Mexico, as I take it - the valley of Mexico in particular, under the Aztecs
had a population density approaching India or China), so there were fewer
natives to marry, and they were easily swampled dempgraphically by the
interlopers.
Metis was usually not a 100% social equal to the white colonist and neither
was a mulatto but Thomas-Alexandre Dumas was accepted in a high society of
pre-Revolutionary France and was General-in-Chief of the French Army of the Alps during the Revolution. Earlier, Inca Garsilasio de la Vega was easily
accepted in Spain.
Post by Pete Barrett
Argentina had a low population density, too, and it now has a
much higher European component than, say, Peru.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
So they were certainly interested. OTL, they were unable to
defend them effectively, and lost most of them (and particularly New
Netherland) in the later 17th century. In the ATL, they simply have
more resources, and would be more able to defend them.
Yes, IF it would grow big enough to be worthy of spending the military
resources on its defense.
Neither the French nor the British spent a lot of money on the defence of
the North American colonies at first. Defence of the English colonies was
by a local militia; and while the French did provide some soldiers in
Louisiana, there were never a large number.
And the British Navy....
"In 1664, an English naval expedition ordered by Prince James, Duke of
York and of Albany (later King James II & VII) sailed in the harbor at New
Amsterdam
[while both countries had been at peace], threatening to attack. Being
[greatly
outnumbered, Director-General Peter Stuyvesant surrendered after
negotiating favorable articles of capitulation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas#Mainland_In_North_America
Post by Alex Milman
At the same time the Dutch had been paying a much greater attention to
getting Suriname from the English (which they got in exchange to New
Amsterdam): the local plantations had been producing coffee, cocoa, sugar
cane and cotton.
Post by Pete Barrett
The Dutch settlement wasn't any different in that regard.
Not quite so. At its peak population of New Netherlands amounted to 9K
with a big proportion of the foreigners: "In the end, colonizing was a
prohibitively expensive undertaking, only partly subsidized by the fur
trade. This led to a scaling back of the original plans."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Amsterdam Unlike English colonization of
the North America, the Dutch was under the strict control of a trade
company, which meant that the profit had been main consideration.
I think you may be right in pointing to that as the main difference. There's
only so much loss which a trading company will take. The same goes for the
English colonies of course: they were mostly founded in the expectation of
some profit, and a lot of the original companies went bankrupt, but by that
time they had enough population to be self-sustaining, and the English crown
was prepared to take over responsibility.
Indeed.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
In South America (in OTL) they eventually lost to Spain and Portugal
and, let's face it, the settlements in the North America had only a
limited attractiveness unless country had big pool of the potential
emigrants.
In OTL, outside the Cape colony, the Dutch "model" was mostly
creation of the trade posts (not quite sure how exactly it worked in
Indonesia) as opposite to capturing and populating the big
territories as Spain,
Portugal, France and Britain did. You are proposing a significant
change of a pattern. Not that it could not happen with the greater
resources but what would be the circumstances leading to such a change?
In the 17th century, outside the Americas, _all_ colonial enterprises
were to do with establishing trading posts. That the Dutch didn't
expand much beyond that, I've assumed was due to their relative lack
of resources. With the greater resources at their disposal in the ATL,
they have a better chance of hanging onto what they have, and even
expanding it a little.
Yes, but isn't it reasonable to assume that these greater resources
would be more probably channeled to the more profitable areas? North
America was not one of those.
Only if they're being directed by the central government by some global
policy,
Not at all: the entrepreneurs are routinely looking for profits while the
same does not necessarily apply to the governments.
Entrepreneurs look for profits all over the place, and those who find them
survive, while those who don't go under. Channelling resources
preferentially into the areas where profits are greater implies some central
direction.
Or private initiative. :-)
Post by Pete Barrett
Smith's invisible (and anachronistic) hand won't stop them from
investing in North America, though it might make it look like that in
retrospect, if North Amrican investment doesn't come off (which was the case
OTL).
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
and no one was doing that in the early 17th century.
Actually, Spain was doing it well before XII century: all new colonial
projects had to be approved by the central government.
Post by Pete Barrett
France,
Britain, and the Netherlands mainly farmed their activities out to
private trading companies.
Which means exactly what I said: trade company tends to look for the
profitable projects rather than for the purely prestigious ones.
They look for _expected_ profits, and in the early 17th century people
_were_ expecting profits from the New World.
And from the spices of Asia.
Post by Pete Barrett
I think you're argument's
getting perilously close to saying that because they made no profits OTL,
they were therefore not expecting any profits OTL, they would therefore not
expect iny profits in the ATL, and would therefore not invest in North
American colonies. Put like that, the argument can't possibly be right.
No, what I'm saying is that different people had different priorities. Those
of the companies were about profit but individuals could look just for a
piece of their own land and this is how the British America got a greater
population.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
(a) when company leadership had a long-term strategic vision assuming that
the short-/mid-term financial losses will be compensated by the long-term
gains received from the conquered territory (East India Company).
(b) when company leadership had enough clout in the government to
guarantee permanent subsidies (Russian-American Company).
Post by Pete Barrett
Those trading companies did whatever they thought would
bring in most profit.
Exactly, so what are you arguing against?
Post by Pete Barrett
In the East Indies, none of them did much more than
establish trading posts.
Actually, the Dutch did noticeably more by eventually colonizing the whole
Indonesia but in general getting the most profit did not require the
extensive land possessions and expenses related to their administration.
It was enough to establish the trade posts and to negotiate (with
application of force, if necessary) the favorable terms with the local
rulers.
Post by Pete Barrett
In the West Indies, they established sugar
plantations. In North America they established settlements.
This was partially because, unlike Asia, these territories were MUCH
behind in their development and did not have anyone with whom you could
meaningfully negotiate.
Post by Pete Barrett
The British _did_ establish more settlements than either the French or
the Dutch, and each of those colonies was run by a different company,
which might have been an advantage.
This was an initial arrangement but things changed with a big scale
migration from the motherland. Nothing of the kind was happening in French
or Dutch colonies until much later times.
Post by Pete Barrett
New Netherland and all the other Dutch
activities in the area were under the Dutch West India Company. The
French state ran the North American settlements (and completely neglected
them).
Neglecting them would be the best policy if there was a natural flow of
the settlers but there was almost none to talk about.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Colonies in the Americas _were_ about settlement, and if the Dutch
didn't do too much of that, again, I'm assuming that the reason was a
relative lack of population.
Or interest in the resettlement. France had a much greater population
than England (or even Britain) but there were not too many French
settlers in North America. Can it be due to the fact that England was
the only place where the farmers had been actively squeezed off the
land?
I don't think farmers were being removed from the land in large numbers
as early as the 17th century.
Even at the time of the Tudors England had the homeless beggars in the
numbers that warranted a special legislation. These people had to come
from somewhere and I doubt that all of them came from the cities. Also,
IIRC, the big landowners had been expanding their holding at the expense
pf the communal and personal lands as early as Lyz' reign.
But these didn't turn up as emigrants to the New World. It was later that
there was large scale emigration by people forced off the land. The
demographics of the early settlers from England are younger sons (who wanted
new land to establish farms of their own), and religious refugees.
Fine. They were still out of the land. In other countries the lands were
divided between the children and the peasants had been sticking to their
small patches (better than nothing).

Rich Rostrom
2017-07-12 20:26:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
At its peak population of New Netherlands amounted to 9K with a
big proportion of the foreigners...
And yet, over a century later, there was still
a significant Dutch-speaking population in New
York state. Martin Van Buren (born 1782) spoke
Dutch as his first language (the only non-
Anglophone POTUS).

In another forum, David T. mentioned that when
New York adopted gradual emancipation in the 1820s,
the most vehement opponents were Dutch; his source
quoted their heavily accented rhetoric.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Rich Rostrom
2017-07-08 22:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
The Netherlands are not split (so Antwerp is still
flourishing and so are the Southern provinces).
That may depend on the religious situation; OTL,
Flanders, Hainault, and southern Brabant remained
predominantly Catholic, and ultimately remained
with Spain rather than join the Protestants of the
Seven Provinces.

ATL, that could break several different ways from OTL.

The Netherlands "state" might remain Catholic,
anchored by the south.

The Netherlands "state" might adopt a national church
headed by the crown, as England did, which could be
moderate enough that the south goes along willingly.

The Netherlands "state" converts to a Reformed Church,
and the crown enforces the full conversion of the south.

Another question is whether Amsterdam rises to its OTL
position of economic dominance. ISTM that Antwerp would
be the natural capital of Nederland, and would have a
leg up in becoming the trade and financial center.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Loading...