WI: A Colonizing Dutch?

What would be the effects of a Dutch empire that focuses on colonization?
I know they discover Australia and New Zealand 100 years before the brits colonized them so what if the dutch did in the late 1600s?

And if they colonized New Amsterdam and maybe even conquering Brasil?
Or south africa?
How would this effect the world with a much larger white popuation within the dutch empire?

Well, they did before the British shoved them out, and they still had the East Indies. During the 1600s the Dutch were content making loads of money at home, and there were probably too few Dutchmen to really colonize areas.

Two million or so in 1700. And with very little incentive to leave comfortable home to build a new and less safe and desirable life in places like Australia or North America.

PoeFacedKilla said:

What would be the effects of a Dutch empire that focuses on colonization?
I know they discover Australia and New Zealand 100 years before the brits colonized them so what if the dutch did in the late 1600s?

And if they colonized New Amsterdam and maybe even conquering Brasil?
Or south africa?
How would this effect the world with a much larger white popuation within the dutch empire?

Click to expand...

Not sure exactly what you mean as the Dutch did colonize some of the places you mention. South Africa is the notable example where a large Dutch-speaking population developed, but even in New York many of the established families have Dutch names. I think the Dutch legacy in the US is an often-overlooked aspect of our nation's history. In South Africa, the Afrikaner are one of the major ethnic groups and continue to speak a dutch-derived language.

The Dutch empire always focused on trade over colonization in part because the United Provinces did not have the population to call for large-scale colonization. Even places where they did colonize (Cape Colony, New Amsterdam) they relied on Huguenots and others to add to the primarily Dutch population.

A lasting Dutch empire is difficult because of the size of the country compared to other European powers. The British had a habit of snatching up former dutch colonies and did this for a few hundred years. The Dutch had done the same thing to several portuguese colonies. By the 19th century the Dutch empire was a shell of it's former self. Colonization by this point was unlikely, and they focused on maintaining their most profitable possession in Indonesia. Although there were Dutch settlers there, they were never high in number compared to the locals as was the norm in European colonies in the tropics.

Elfwine said:

Two million or so in 1700. And with very little incentive to leave comfortable home to build a new and less safe and desirable life in places like Australia or North America.

Click to expand...

That could partially be solved by recruiting people from the HRE; and IOTL some of the French Huguenots, which moved to the Republic later went to the colonies.

Another ATL thing which could help if all XVII Netherlands gain independence and not just the VII Northern Netherlands.

I like this scenario, but the British seizing Dutch colonies remains a liability though.

Janprimus said:

That could partially be solved by recruiting people from the HRE; and IOTL some of the French Huguenots, which moved to the Republic later went to the colonies.

Another ATL thing which could help if all XVII Netherlands gain independence and not just the VII Northern Netherlands.

I like this scenario, but the British seizing Dutch colonies remains a liability though.

Click to expand...

Partially, but you still need enough Dutch presence for them to be Dutch colonies. As in, the Dutch are able to have any real control of them.

And the Dutch population (from The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, by the way) is presumably including people moving to the Netherlands, so those Huguenots are counted.

Agreed on the issue of all the Low Countries, though. Not sure how likely that is, or how much it would change on the Netherlands, but . . .

You all say that the Dutch had to few people to really colonise places but i think it should have been posible. Portugal was in the same situation but they still colonised Brasil. I think the only reason that the Dutch did not have setler colonies is that they where just to confortable at home and where invaded and ocupied to many times to have rescurces to really extend their rule.

What if the Burgundian Netherlands, for some reason, were never bequeathed to Philip II of Spain, but remained effectively part of the Holy Roman Empire. While this does eliminate the United Provinces from history, they would be of such value to the HRE that they might relocate their centre of government there and enter the colonial game by the late 1500-early 1600's.

Would the Dutch dialect still become the main language of its government or of its colonial possession?

Lysandros Aikiedes said:

What if the Burgundian Netherlands, for some reason, were never bequeathed to Philip II of Spain, but remained effectively part of the Holy Roman Empire. While this does eliminate the United Provinces from history, they would be of such value to the HRE that they might relocate their centre of government there and enter the colonial game by the late 1500-early 1600's.

Would the Dutch dialect still become the main language of its government or of its colonial possession?

Click to expand...

Um, why would the HRE relocate its center of government there? And given how the HRE worked, what would that even mean? There's precious little "Imperial" government.

The biggest thing needed is an incentive to move. The Netherlands were quite wealthy and despite being rather constrained territorially didn't emigrate much. Portugal on the other hand despite being roughly equal in terms of population did send ;arge numbers of immigrants to the America's and Africa.

Elfwine said:

Um, why would the HRE relocate its center of government there? And given how the HRE worked, what would that even mean? There's precious little "Imperial" government.

Click to expand...

Why couldn't replace Brussels Vienna as the Habsburg (not HRE, maybe only de facto) capitol? That IMHO is doable? Charles V did contemplate on giving the Burgundian Netherlands to his daughter upon her marriage with Maximilian the son of Ferdinand I and her cousin.
OTOH gaining Bohemia and especially the Ottoman threat to Hungary could make Brussels not too practical.

Alternatively, less powerfull, just a union of the Burgundian and Austrian Lands?

Janprimus said:

Why couldn't replace Brussels Vienna as the Habsburg (not HRE, maybe only de facto) capitol? That IMHO is doable? Charles V did contemplate on giving the Burgundian Netherlands to his daughter upon her marriage with Maximilian the son of Ferdinand I and her cousin.
OTOH gaining Bohemia and especially the Ottoman threat to Hungary could make Brussels not to practical.

Alternatively, less powerfull, just a union of the Burgundian and Austrian Lands?

Click to expand...

That I think is at least imaginable, although I think the Bohemia and Hungary factor rule it out. It's the idea of "the HRE" as distinct from the lands of the House of Hapsburg that I think is just plain ridiculous.

And a union of just Austria and the Burgundian Netherlands would be interesting. I know I'd be sorely tempted to give up Vienna in that situation, but I may not be thinking like a Hapsburg.

Elfwine said:

Um, why would the HRE relocate its center of government there? And given how the HRE worked, what would that even mean? There's precious little "Imperial" government.

Click to expand...

The Burgundian Netherlands was active in commerce and manufacturing. It was the preferred home of two major Hapsburg princes such as Philip I of Castile and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. For Charles in particular, it was the place he spent most of his time in.

If his brother Ferdinand came to possess these instead of Philip II of Spain, I was wondering that the Netherlands would become a vital enough province to the Austrian Hapsburgs that they would want to keep a strong presence there and have it change the course of their domestic and foreign policy.

I may have not qualified between "Holy Roman Empire" from strictly "Hapsburgs territories" which I apologise.

Elfwine said:

That I think is at least imaginable, although I think the Bohemia and Hungary factor rule it out. It's the idea of "the HRE" as distinct from the lands of the House of Hapsburg that I think is just plain ridiculous.

And a union of just Austria and the Burgundian Netherlands would be interesting. I know I'd be sorely tempted to give up Vienna in that situation, but I may not be thinking like a Hapsburg.

Click to expand...

Well Philip the Fair and Charles V both were pretty Burgundian first and then Habsburg; maybe more in attitude, they did always have the interest of their dynasty in mind though. Nonetheless these interests can be served at the Koudenberg (Brussels) just as well as the Hofburg (Vienna). (Probably also for both because that the Burgundian Netherlands, including the claim on the duchy was 'home'. And they were raised there in that tradition).

Lysandros Aikiedes said:

The Burgundian Netherlands was active in commerce and manufacturing. It was the preferred home of two major Hapsburg princes such as Philip I of Castile and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. For Charles in particular, it was the place he spent most of his time in.

If his brother Ferdinand came to possess these instead of Philip II of Spain, I was wondering that the Netherlands would become a vital enough province to the Austrian Hapsburgs that they would want to keep a strong presence there and have it change the course of their domestic and foreign policy.

I may have not qualified between "Holy Roman Empire" from strictly "Hapsburgs territories" which I apologise.

Click to expand...

Since there's a pretty significant difference, I think it bears mentioning.

Janprimus: Point. But I'm not sure their heirs would agree - though of course if their heirs are also raised "Dutch" . . .

On the other hand, the title - if not location - for Vienna is more appealing. That's the main thing I can think of, aspects having less to do with preference and more to do with politics.

PoeFacedKilla said:

What would be the effects of a Dutch empire that focuses on colonization?
I know they discover Australia and New Zealand 100 years before the brits colonized them so what if the dutch did in the late 1600s?

And if they colonized New Amsterdam and maybe even conquering Brasil?
Or south africa?
How would this effect the world with a much larger white popuation within the dutch empire?

Click to expand...

The Dutch colonizing New Amsterdam, Brazil, southern Africa, Australia and New Zeeland. Dang, that sounds awefully familiar.

Im just no sure the dutch could really pull off more than small islands, or areas with strong forts, used ruthlessly, with a gift for interfering with local politics...jmo....they just dont have the bodies.

bolhabela said:

You all say that the Dutch had to few people to really colonise places but i think it should have been posible. Portugal was in the same situation but they still colonised Brasil. I think the only reason that the Dutch did not have setler colonies is that they where just to confortable at home and where invaded and ocupied to many times to have rescurces to really extend their rule.

Click to expand...

Portugal had more people; in 1750 the Netherlands had a population of 1.9 million while Portugal had a population of 2.3 million, now aside from that their's the fact Portugal had a higher birthrate as well; in the 20 year period between 1730-1750 the Dutch population only increased by about 38,000 while the Portuguese population increased by 227,000.

The Dutch were a Merchantile society with a significant Urbanization rate while Portugal was still mostly Agrarian with low Urbanization, meaning that the Portuguese had more incentive to go because they had less to lose and a good potential for a somewhat better life and IIRC their were landgrants and incentives provided by the Portuguese government (national and colonial) to get people to move to Brazil.

The Kiat said:

Dang, that sounds awefully familiar.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Is sounds like the main Danish island of Zealand.

Elfwine said:

Since there's a pretty significant difference, I think it bears mentioning.

Janprimus: Point. But I'm not sure their heirs would agree - though of course if their heirs are also raised "Dutch" . . .

On the other hand, the title - if not location - for Vienna is more appealing. That's the main thing I can think of, aspects having less to do with preference and more to do with politics.

Click to expand...

Okay, so even if the Hapsburg court remains in Vienna, any colonial ventures by the Dutch/Burgundian-Netherlanders would be done so in the name of and under the directives of the imperial Hapsburg dynasty. Any overseas colonies would be established for reasons other than to enrich the cities of the Netherlands.

Another question attached to this scenario would be if the Austrian Hapsburgs remain tolerant enough of the Lutherans or other Protestant groups in the region so they wouldn't need it heavily garrisoned.