They could have, if they hadn't shut themselves off from the world. Tokugawa had a trove of European knowledge in William Adams that he could have exploited. Adams knew how to build a ship, how to sail a ship, how to cross the Pacific, and he knew where the Americas were. If Tokugawa had been so inclined, he could have made use of all this knowledge and started putting Japanese colonies in California at right about the same time England was starting to put colonies in Virginia.
Alternate North American colonizers?
- Thread starter Zioneer
- Start date
They could have, if they hadn't shut themselves off from the world. Tokugawa had a trove of European knowledge in William Adams that he could have exploited. Adams knew how to build a ship, how to sail a ship, how to cross the Pacific, and he knew where the Americas were. If Tokugawa had been so inclined, he could have made use of all this knowledge and started putting Japanese colonies in California at right about the same time England was starting to put colonies in Virginia.
I will agree that population doesn't really matter.
Just look at the size of typical colonies- a few hundred people maximum. Anyone can handle that, its all about whether they have the funding and the political situation to allow it.
But then its all pretty irrelevant really. United Scandinavia is united Sweden-Denmark. Norway is just along for the ride by default.
Just look at the size of typical colonies- a few hundred people maximum. Anyone can handle that, its all about whether they have the funding and the political situation to allow it.
Nah, Norway is pretty unimportant here I think. I'd imagine a united Scandinavia would launch its fleets to the Americas from Copenhagen or Gothenburg (or some Danish port) even if Norway is there with Bergen in third. Norway is just too remote and out of the way with all its mountains. Southern Sweden/Denmark meanwhile would be the centre of population and wealth in such a country.
But then its all pretty irrelevant really. United Scandinavia is united Sweden-Denmark. Norway is just along for the ride by default.
Last edited:
Valdemar II
Banned
Yes a united Scandinavia are a lot more powerful than Netherlands, but if power and population was what counted in the colonial race, we would have this conversion in French. In OTL Denmark-Norway had around the same population size as Netherlands from the loss of Scania in 1657* to the loss of Norway in 1814, while Sweden had around the double in the same periode. But Netherlands still ended up with a giant empire, while Denmark got a few factories, a small town in india, some slave forts and three Caribbian Isles. While Sweden got less than that. It wasn't because Denmark or Sweden didn't have large navies until the middle of 18th century they could compete with France and England in navy size. But just as the Mediterranean demand a specific kind of vessels, so does the baltic, Danish and Swedish vessel tend to have a smaller keel and have fewer cannons, than the vessels outside the Baltic, at such they was useful to use in the Baltic Sea, but was inferior on the high seas. That's a element which doesn't lend itself to naval dominance outside the Baltic. Another elemnt are the fact that Netherland was much more urbanised than Scandinavia and was centuries ahead in agricultural advancement (literal), while having one of the world highest GDPs per capita and was at the forefront of technological development. In early colonisation one of most important elements are urban population, whom can fund the expeditions and lean their expertise to them, it's no accident that the growing (relative) importance in the 18th century of Danish traders followed the explosion of Copenhagen in size.
*And before 1645 Denmark was bigger in population than Netherland and had almost completely control with the Baltic trade, which resulted in Netherlands and Sweden bitchslapping Denmark around.
I once say a large word map made in Portugal in the XVI century. It had the Spanish coat of arms in Perú, Mexico and Cuba (IIRC). It had the Portuguese coat of arms in Brazil, India, Western Africa and... Canada. I never understood why until now.
Last edited:
I'm not sure a unified Italy is really achievable so early on, but I've always thought that if Venice had been able to maintain its power into the Age of Discovery, it could have made a viable attempt at colonization. They probably wouldn't have ended up conquering a sprawling empire and filling the land with vast numbers of Venetians, but I could see them taking a Netherlands-like approach and establishing moderately sized towns in, say, the Antilles, solely for the purposes of trade.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Hey maybe the Florentines establish a swathe of trading colonies in the New World? 
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Norway is necessary geographically/strategically, not for its economy or population. A power further West can pretty easily cut off Sweden & Denmark from the Atlantic.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Well, I didn't say it would be easy...
But if the Scandinavian countries were all united instead of devoting so much of their efforts against each other, they do have certain advantages - for instance, obviously surplus population that could colonize - this is one of the main reasons why France didn't have an empire - would you really prefer to live in Minnesota over Cannes? (<-- exaggeration, but France was rich and not overpopulated). Control over the Baltic trade provides a great deal of leverage, as in this period it was a large proportion of Britain's and Holland's trade.
The ship tech you mentioned is an issue, but it could clearly be overcome, because all the Scandinavian powers were able to operate in distant seas. There's also the advantage of an established "Northern Route" with bases & settlements in Iceland & Greenland.
Yes.
(Okay, so it was built to a Spanish design. Nevertheless...)
EDIT: Also, there's always the possibility of expanded French colonization. As noted earlier, they have a much bigger home base than any of the other colonial states, but a combination of poor land and non-colonial policies made that advantage worthless. It's always possible they decide to go for it, especially in Asia, or start colonizing more favorable areas.
Last edited:
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I think you probably just pissed off a lot of Canadians.
That's a little too late for the Japanese - over a century after Spain grabbed everything.
Hardly. I specifically mentioned California in my post above precisely because the Spanish hadn't gone that far north yet. They had explored the area, but they didn't start founding settlements there until the 18th century. In the opening decades of the 17th century, California (and Oregon and Washington and British Columbia) were still up for grabs. With help from qualified Europeans like William Adams (whom I also mentioned above), a determined shogun could have snatched it up for Japan.
Zioneer
Banned
Speaking of that, you need to remove the "..." in the link to your TL in your sig. The link won't work otherwise.
As for Venetian trading posts, hmm.... Maybe.
But what about Breton colonization? Say, Brittany remains independent, but can't push back the French enough to gain a foothold outside of it's normal borders, and are forced to take to the seas?
Scandinavia as a colonial power has a few problems that need to be overcome.
First of all, you need Norway for it to happen. Why? The rest of Scandinavia has seasonal navies only. The Baltic freezes over in winter and all ocean-going ships are laid up or de-armed and de-rigged with cuts in the ice to make sure the ice do not crush the hull. Norway is the only Scandinavian country which has a navy and economic interests in the water year around and experience with the real salt sea.
The problem is that Norway ended up under Denmark, a country which was locked into its power struggle with the Hansaetic Legue and then some of the North German states and Sweden. Denmark needed a powerful navy to keep Sweden down and maintain contact between Denmark and Norway and Denmark proper and Scania. It will by definition be a coastal and Baltic navy, because that is the primary need.
Even if you have a united Scandinavian state, it will most likely be locked into combat in northern Germany and against Novgorod and Muscowy and later Russia and Poland-Lithuania. The Baltic will be the transport place for the Scandinavian Empire and its Mare Nostrum to focus on.
Best chance for a Scandinavian power to colonise in America is Norway. If you can make the Black Death not hit Norway as hard and keep them out of under Denmarks thumb (goes with the Black Death, that was the main reason Norway were unable to fend of increased Danish centralisation), they will be a fishing and trade nation with a large seagoing merchant and war navy. They will probably keep contact with Greenland, discover the fishing waters outside Canada and build from that.
Second best bet is probably Sweden during the age of mercantilism. Sweden was in ascension. Get the ships the Spanish captured to get to Nya Sverige and the Dutch infiltration might very well fail - as long as the British tolerate Nya Sverige, it might very well prosper and a system of indentured servants or a system of forced labour as punishment for crimes might send larger amounts of Swedes and Finns to Nya Sverige, enough for it to spread and become a viable colony on its own.
First of all, you need Norway for it to happen. Why? The rest of Scandinavia has seasonal navies only. The Baltic freezes over in winter and all ocean-going ships are laid up or de-armed and de-rigged with cuts in the ice to make sure the ice do not crush the hull. Norway is the only Scandinavian country which has a navy and economic interests in the water year around and experience with the real salt sea.
The problem is that Norway ended up under Denmark, a country which was locked into its power struggle with the Hansaetic Legue and then some of the North German states and Sweden. Denmark needed a powerful navy to keep Sweden down and maintain contact between Denmark and Norway and Denmark proper and Scania. It will by definition be a coastal and Baltic navy, because that is the primary need.
Even if you have a united Scandinavian state, it will most likely be locked into combat in northern Germany and against Novgorod and Muscowy and later Russia and Poland-Lithuania. The Baltic will be the transport place for the Scandinavian Empire and its Mare Nostrum to focus on.
Best chance for a Scandinavian power to colonise in America is Norway. If you can make the Black Death not hit Norway as hard and keep them out of under Denmarks thumb (goes with the Black Death, that was the main reason Norway were unable to fend of increased Danish centralisation), they will be a fishing and trade nation with a large seagoing merchant and war navy. They will probably keep contact with Greenland, discover the fishing waters outside Canada and build from that.
Second best bet is probably Sweden during the age of mercantilism. Sweden was in ascension. Get the ships the Spanish captured to get to Nya Sverige and the Dutch infiltration might very well fail - as long as the British tolerate Nya Sverige, it might very well prosper and a system of indentured servants or a system of forced labour as punishment for crimes might send larger amounts of Swedes and Finns to Nya Sverige, enough for it to spread and become a viable colony on its own.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
This is pretty much totally in line with what I was saying. Any of the Scandinavian countries had the ability to establish colonies, and they all did. The problem is having the power to hold them. For a lasting Scandinavian presence in the New World, you are probably going to need a united Scandinavia.
I think you may be understating what a large difference it would make to have a united Scandinavia. Sure, you'd have conflicts with the Hanseatic states, Russia, Poland-Lithuania, etc., but that doesn't mean that 100% of effort has to be locked into all that; all the colonial powers had more important things going on - Spain was locked in a death-struggle with the Ottoman Empire when it colonized the New World.
Uh, yes. I don't think it's the reaching America part thats the problem, and certainly early Ming vessels and probably other Asian vessels could have, after all it's Heyerdahl showed that pretty much even the ancient Egyptians _could_ have reached America. it's much, much more a matter of why would they? Create an incentive for those Asian powers to sail east and they could have. But there was none.
I could bring up Zheng He, as people always do; and I know that he was pretty much just cruising along the coastline in well-known routes. But I haven't seen any evidence that Asian vessels couldn't, physically, get to America, though correct me if I'm wrong.
I think there is an opportunity for the Japanese, and they were going the right way with the Red Seal ships (built admittedly with European help), which could and did reach the Americas. As mentioned earlier, California was up for grabs at that stage. All that is really necessary would be to create a compelling reason for the Japanese (or the Chinese or Koreans, or Koxinga's pirates, or whoever) to do so, and that's the hard part IMO, more than deficiencies in nautical technology.