- This topic has 6 voices and 12 replies.
-
Posts
-
If you had to pick only one, which would you say was the reason Britain and France dominated in colonization?I pick wealth because the Dutch and Portuguese had the technology to travel the seas, but they did not have the wealth to make them a dominant global force.
Good start, add that the competition level between England and France drove them more than the others.
I would agree with wealth, but why would you think that France “dominated” in colonization? It seems to me that Portugal did pretty well for itself colonizing South America…for a country of its relatively small size, I imagine it may have outperformed the French on a per capita basis.
Well, Britain eventually won out over most everyone. I say the French dominated more than Portugal because they lasted longer. Even though Portugal had S.A., how lucrative was it compared to what the French and Brits had?I think another factor could be social stability, but then again, that has to do with wealth. British society and government was more stable then 18th century French society, was it not?
Which French colonies are you thinking of, exactly? Yes, the Louisiana Territory, perhaps part of Canada, though I'm not sure how much colonizing was actually done in these territories. But having half of South America is quite a feat as well. I guess when I think of comparing colonies, comparing the size of the colonizing nations is in order. For a city-state like Venice to control trade in the eastern Mediterranean for hundreds of years is more impressive, in my mind, than had Spain been able to do this.Now that I think of it, how are you defining success here? All the nations - France, Britain, Portugal, etc. lost their holdings eventually. Britain had control over America for less than 200 years. Could success be defined by the nation that earns the most income per capita through its colonies?
Could success be defined by the nation that earns the most income per capita through its colonies?
Yes, because that is what financed their ventures and, through taxation, help build up their government.
I would say it is a combination of the two. Their wealth enabled them to develop or exploit new technologies. It was the technology and its use that let them dominate other peoples and territories. Obviously, England was the more successful of the two, mainly because she was a sea power and did not have to finance and maintain a large land army to guard the home country. Armies are expensive. 🙁
Could success be defined by the nation that earns the most income per capita through its colonies?
Yes, because that is what financed their ventures and, through taxation, help build up their government.
And this defines the fall of France; ran out of money backing US against England and had to resort to higher taxes to float the whole boat... led to the Rev.As I pointed oput to my students, France backed US not because they wanted to see us grow but they couldn't stand missing a chance to stick it to England. This drove much of their common history, neither passing on a chance to give the other a black eye. ;D
Could success be defined by the nation that earns the most income per capita through its colonies?
Yes, because that is what financed their ventures and, through taxation, help build up their government.
And this defines the fall of France; ran out of money backing US against England and had to resort to higher taxes to float the whole boat... led to the Rev.As I pointed oput to my students, France backed US not because they wanted to see us grow but they couldn't stand missing a chance to stick it to England. This drove much of their common history, neither passing on a chance to give the other a black eye. ;D
Take a bow 🙂
If you had to pick only one, which would you say was the reason Britain and France dominated in colonization?I pick wealth because the Dutch and Portuguese had the technology to travel the seas, but they did not have the wealth to make them a dominant global force.
I'd say that the main reason why Dutch, Portuguese and, in a less extend, Spanish colonies didn't prevail, is that these countries were no longer dominant forces IN Europe. The best example would be Spain : they got gold, spices, and sea dominance but after the Invincible Armada failure, the Spanish influence started to decrease worldwide. It's the "home-based" strength that allowed England and France to become dominant in colonisation.
It's the "home-based" strength that allowed England and France to become dominant in colonisation.
Yes. They both had fairly sound situations at home... easier to get colonies when less dependent on getting colonies.
A good counter-factual to consider is how well Germany would have fared for colonies if they had unified after the 30 years-war and not in 1871. I would guess that they would have garnered more colonies but there probably would have been more Great Power struggles in Europe as well.
A good counter-factual to consider is how well Germany would have fared for colonies if they had unified after the 30 years-war and not in 1871. I would guess that they would have garnered more colonies but there probably would have been more Great Power struggles in Europe as well.
I doubt the Germans would have been able to build a navy big enough to rival Britain though, which is what it would have required to amass oversea colonies. Germany was destined to be a Continental power.
A good counter-factual to consider is how well Germany would have fared for colonies if they had unified after the 30 years-war and not in 1871. I would guess that they would have garnered more colonies but there probably would have been more Great Power struggles in Europe as well.
I doubt the Germans would have been able to build a navy big enough to rival Britain though, which is what it would have required to amass oversea colonies. Germany was destined to be a Continental power.
Perhaps true. But if Germany had united sooner they may very well have overun the United Provinces and would have then had access to a good navy as well. Remember, the Anglo-Dutch Wars were a close-run thing. Only luck allowed England to win them. We are used to thinking of England as being THE maritime power, but she only truly controlled the world's oceans for a little over a century from 1805 to around 1920 or so.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
