Colonialism under united Europe

Assume that the majority of Europe is under one government when the new world is discovered. How might we see colonial expansion proceed?
 

Mookie

Banned
Assume that the majority of Europe is under one government when the new world is discovered. How might we see colonial expansion proceed?

We wouldnt. It would spend all its resources fighting the Granadans, Barbary States and the Ottomans.
 
It's such an open-ended question. The government type, the basis of society, relative wealth, technology levels, they all add up to how colonialism would go, and if it even would happen at all. You'd need to provide more details of how Europe became united in order to properly answer this question.
 
Plus if Europe is very satisfied in terms of resources, then that incentive to g and explore isn't there.
 
Unified Europe on Middle Ages is quiet implausible, perhaps even ASB. But if that kind of state would be exist, it would has so much resources that it not need new colonies. And probably united European state would has enough doing with its own internal things. There would so much different peoples that Europe would hasn't time get new colonies.
 

Mookie

Banned
Spain fought those a lot but they managed to do some colonization.

Spain fought Granadans for centuries, used navy against Barbary states, but Ottomans were the ones who forced them to look west for riches of India.
Now, if Europe is united it would seek to reach them the old way, by controling the silk road, and conquest of holy land.
I dont think we would see much technological advantage although the new world would be discovered sooner or later, if nothing but by acident
 
Hmm, a lot of European colonialism was spurred on by rivalries between the colonial powers. If this doesn't exist, I'm not sure much colonisation would go on. Unless the federal nature of this United Europe allows different regions to still have their own colonies, or there's a powerful North African/Arabian state, or a China or Japan etc with a huge reach, there might not be much effort put in. Maybe the settlement would be akin to OTL Britain's colonisation of Australia, allowing much greater strength for the Native American nations, and also encouraging the development of new cultures from the settlers (as in South Africa OTL).

This is assuming the nation would be genuinely relatively united, somehow. Roman Empire never dies? Random hyper-zealousness brings everything together under the Holy Rule of Constantinople/Rome/Moscow/Jerusalem? Everybody outside San Marino dies, allowing it to colonise the entire landmass?
 
Colanists could be divided into different groups:
1) Those who sort wealth in the New World (sugar or gold normally)
2) Those who sort religious freedom (Quakers / Maryland Catholics etc.)
3) Those who sent there by the state (Austalian priosoners etc.)
4) Thise who were forced to seek a new life (the Irish during the Potatoe Famine and the Scots after the Clearance).

The wealth seeking will always hold true, but rearly (at least to start with) leads to colonies, how many Spanish went back to Spain after they made it rich?

Depending on what unitied Europe the religion may or may not be a larger driving force than in OTL. If there was a single state the religious minorities would be forced to flee to a New World as there was no state nearer that would be more tolerant.

Prisoners are always a good source of colony fodder, however if Europe was united (and I must admit I can't see this as anything less than ASB) why would the New World be discovered. The Portuguese route via the Cape of Good Hope would be easier, or even overland (assuming that a unitied state would have beaten off the Ottomans).

The last group are not good for settling up colony, but are good at swelling it's numbers once established. However it is far more likely they would move within the super state rather than going overseas.
 
I am of the belief that a united Europe would be less inclined to look for colonial expansion. Instead pushing east against the Russians/Mongols/whoever is there and against the strongest power in the Middle East, the Turks.

I think likely Europe would stagnate and be less determined to look for routes to India for whatever reason. It would likely be focused on holding itself together. A few groups seeking to escape central control could flee to the New World though I suppose.
 
I'm trying to think of ways to unite Europe, and none of them are working all that well. A much more politically aggressive Catholic Church maybe? Then again, the Pope's greatest enemies were often the Catholics rather than infidel. . .(see Charles V troops sacking Rome, feuds with Holy Roman Emperors, Avignon "Captivity", etc.). By 1492, it could well be too late for that option. The Popes of that time were among the most corrupt in history, and the printing press has already been invented, so some religious struggle is going to happen. The Western Schism also hurt the popes' credibility a lot.

A weird chain of inheritances that somehow leads to one king controlling Europe, like an even more extensive version of what happened to Charles V? It wouldn't be united for very long, as Europeans of this time aren't terribly fond of "foreign kings".

Some colonialism will probably happen, since there's always going to be people looking for gold if nothing else. :)
 
Fine, lets come up with a specific scenario, though I wanted this to be open ended and not confined to the particulars of one situation or another:

- Roman Empire, with standard borders.
- Has the shipbuilding and navigation technology necessary.
- Has knowledge of the New World.
 
Top