Valdemar II
Banned
Mauretius was Dutch from 1638–1710, but failed to truly colonised the island, and at last gave up and left the Island, what if they had succed in colonising Mauritius?
Mauretius was Dutch from 1638–1710, but failed to truly colonised the island, and at last gave up and left the Island, what if they had succed in colonising Mauritius?
It could have boosted dutch position in Asia
When I was back in school I rember arguing with this guy for like 3 years because he wouldn't belive me that Mauritius is in the Indian Ocean and not the Caribbean
When I was back in school I rember arguing with this guy for like 3 years because he wouldn't belive me that Mauritius is in the Indian Ocean and not the Caribbean
Holding Mauritius might enhance the Dutch position for a while, but (assuming they aren't butterflied away) during the Napoleonic Wars Britain would probably still grab it along with the Cape Colony to keep the French from getting it. I doubt the Dutch would get it back afterwards.
Mauritius was an important stopover for the VOC on the way to the East Indies. Sick crew could be unloaded there, fresh victuals could be acquired, and moreover it was a blessed spot of land on the long journey between the Cape and Batavia. Honestly, I'm surprised that the island wasn't colonized more thoroughly by the Dutch.
True, but it would only mean a stronger presence within Indonesia. Maybe that could mean that the Dutch would kick the Portuguese out of Timor and their other colonies their. Or maybe a stronger presence in Malaysi leading to a Dutch Malaysia, but I think that is pushing it. The Netherlands already had Indonesia, it will probably remain Indonesia. No Dutch India or Australia with this POD (although butterflies might mean a Dutch Ceylon, Malyasia or other parts of Asia where the Dutch had been present but had to leave for some reason).A stronger hold on Mauritius would help lower manpower loss on the long journey between Amsterdam and Batavia, and thus probably strengthen the VOC's position in Java and Sumatra. There's a possibility that it could lead to greater Dutch colonization in the Indies (since fewer potential colonists would die on the voyage there), but not so much that it would lead to a Dutch majority on Java or summat.
Bah, the only reason the New Netherlands and the Cape weren't terribly profitable was because the GWIC and VOC were reluctant to encourage Dutch colonization; for the GWIC, it was because the Lords Nineteen weren't as bright as the Lords Seventeen and had utter confidence that the fur trade alone would support the New Netherlands colony, for the VOC it was because of bad experiences with colonization attempts in the East Indies and the fear that expanded colonization would lead to a de facto break on their trade monopoly in the area due to colonist meddling.I suspect that in the end it was more trouble than it was worth. Most Dutch colonies were created to make money, wether it was spices, slaves, sugar or fur (and various other things of course). Basicly the only Dutch colony that wasn't making money in such way was the cape colony (and maybe the New Netherlands, but that us why the Dutch didn't care for it when they lost it). I suspect that there was nothing of interest in Mauritius and that keeping an outpost running there, would cost more than the losses suffered without it.
There is the possibility that a greater Dutch population in Batavia and other VOC outposts would've helped preserve the Indonesian Dutch community moreso than OTL, which has been by-and-large assimilated into a more general Indonesian culture.And no, of course this will not lead to a Dutch majority in Indonesia, at best you get a larger Christian part in Indonesia and I even doubt that.
Why wouldn't they got it back? The British returned most of the Dutch colonies, including the Dutch outposts in India. I suspect the British would hand over the small island to the Dutch, which they would use as a halfway station on route towards Indonesia. This would be so useful wityh the loss of the Cape colony they would probably keep it (as in not sell it to England, like the Indian outposts, Malacca and the goldcoast outposts) and assuming a low butterfly scenario the island would turn into a sort of Netherlands Antilles/Aruba in the Indian ocean.
/snip/
Would not a simple map suffice?
The first Dutch sighting of Australia was because of a screwed-up survey of the New Guinea coastline, when the Duyfken abruptly turned south, passed through the Torres Strait, and stumbled upon the tip of Terra Australis, which the navigator assumed was an uncharted part of New Guinea.(It's also why they spotted Australia first, go too far east and you essentially run into it.)
The first Dutch sighting of Australia was because of a screwed-up survey of the New Guinea coastline, when the Duyfken abruptly turned south, passed through the Torres Strait, and stumbled upon the tip of Terra Australis, which the navigator assumed was an uncharted part of New Guinea. Nothing at all to do with the usual Cape-Batavia trade routes.
Well if they really want an island for that purpose, they just keep Ile Bourbon (Reunion) instead along witht the Seychelles.I speculated that the British wouldn't give it back because they would want it as a way station to their own empire in India. But I don't know anything about the history of the Dutch colonies in the Napoleonic wars: did the Dutch government-in-exile have treaties with the British requiring them to return the colonies unless the British bought them?