Genovese or Venetian colonial empires outside the Mediterranean

As the title says, can Genoa or Venice have a colonial empire outside the Mediterranean? What would it look like?
I devised a situation for Venice colonizing in the Caribbean for my TL. In my TL Spain isn't united, and Castile is focused on matters closer to home, and Columbus (who was born before my PoD) finds favor with the Venetians instead of the Castilians because of an earlier discovery of the around Africa route by the Portuguese, which is cutting into their eastern trade monopoly and making them want to discover an even shorter route where not all of the resupply points are owned by the Portuguese. Of course, the colonies are less than a decade old, and not likely to last long, but it's something.

As for what it looks like, sugar plantations, with a mixture of indentured servants and native American slaves, and a central trading post for each island to ship their crops home through. Lots of trade with the natives for food stuffs, though weapon trading is illegal (but not totally unpracticed) and slaves on the islands with colonies, while the islands without colonies are raided for slaves and valuables by opportunistic naval officers and piratical merchants.
 
For a Venetian empire in the Americas some factor are needed:

1. A broader demographic base: Venice has to posses at least all of nortern-east Italy, or southern Italy. - somewhat possible, but with a lot of PODs.

2. A more secure close environment: no lethal rivals in the Italian peninsula, good relations with the Ottomans. - Rather impossible: the Pope, Milan, Florence, Genoa and the French king would never tolerate such a powerful Venice. About the Ottomans: Venice has to accept rather bad terms for her commerce in the East, and the loss of Cyprus and Crete since the beginning of the 16th century, but I doubt they would accept that.

3. Neutralization or diminishing of the Babrbary corsairs. - Rather difficult.

4. A Spain that is not united and powerful.

5. A dramatic shift in the focus of the Venetian commerce: Venice has to shift from slave and spice commerce, meaning a huge cost.

6. A shift on navigation and shipbuilding: the Portuguese and the Spaniards developent vessels more competend for open seas, because they have coast in the Atlantic, and it took them some time to make ships fit for safe nad cheap journeys to the New world. How a mediterranean-centered Venice could achieve that?

In order for a venetian colonial empire in the Americas to happen, all of the above factors must be achieved... Sorry, it seems impossible!
 
For a Venetian empire in the Americas some factor are needed:

1. A broader demographic base: Venice has to posses at least all of nortern-east Italy, or southern Italy. - somewhat possible, but with a lot of PODs.

2. A more secure close environment: no lethal rivals in the Italian peninsula, good relations with the Ottomans. - Rather impossible: the Pope, Milan, Florence, Genoa and the French king would never tolerate such a powerful Venice. About the Ottomans: Venice has to accept rather bad terms for her commerce in the East, and the loss of Cyprus and Crete since the beginning of the 16th century, but I doubt they would accept that.

3. Neutralization or diminishing of the Babrbary corsairs. - Rather difficult.

4. A Spain that is not united and powerful.

5. A dramatic shift in the focus of the Venetian commerce: Venice has to shift from slave and spice commerce, meaning a huge cost.

6. A shift on navigation and shipbuilding: the Portuguese and the Spaniards developent vessels more competend for open seas, because they have coast in the Atlantic, and it took them some time to make ships fit for safe nad cheap journeys to the New world. How a mediterranean-centered Venice could achieve that?

In order for a venetian colonial empire in the Americas to happen, all of the above factors must be achieved... Sorry, it seems impossible!

1. OTL Venetian demographics in 1500 included a population of over 1.5 million in Italy, plus Crete and Cyprus. That is comperable to all of England at that time, so they definitely have the population.

2. If Venice is in the winning alliance during one of the Italian wars than stability could very well happen. In fact they were more often left alone than most by the other Italian powers. If France takes over then there will be trouble, but that very well may not happen. Also, you don't need total stability to found a colony. Spain didn't send out Columbus at a time of perfect internal stability. Also on the Ottomans, your timeline of events is off. Cyprus didn't fall until 1570, and Crete lasted until the 1660s. That leaves Venice with eighty years to colonize before the Ottomans are able to attack them.

3. Why do they need that? The barbary corsairs didn't make traveling in the western Mediterranean impossible, especially for armed ships.

4. That or a Spain that isn't interested in fighting Venice, which is actually pretty easy to get, since they don't have allot of competing strategic objectives.

5. Venice was also big on sugar trading and growing in the Mediterranean, and that would be the primary focus on any Caribbean economy, while the slave trade would supply the workers, so Venice's economy is pretty much perfect for it.

6. Venice could buy ships from an Atlantic nation, or simply copy their technology. They only need a couple of ships for the initial expedition. After that they'd know there was something out there and do whatever it took to get oceangoing ships.
 
The closest you're gonna get to this is a genovese Crimea.

It's not that impossible, IOTL Tuscany sponsored an expedtion to found a colony in what's not French Guiana to further explore the region and export Brazilian wood back to Italy, the only reason it did'nt go through is that in the time between the expedition setting out and returning the Grand Duke had died and the new one had no interest in the project.
 
Suez Canal

I know that at the first decades of 16th century there was a project to build the OTL Suez Canal.
In this case, do You think that Venice could develop a colonial empire to the eastern Indies via Red Sea?
 
I think that the biggest problem is that Venetian and Genoa leadership's aren't that interested in influences/colonies outside the Mediterranean (including the Black sea). As far I know Genoa did had contracts with Spain in somewhere in the 16-17 century for providing slaves to Spanish America. However the Genoans sub-contracted the Dutch for providing slaves.

So first of all I think that Genoa has the best chance for colonial holdings outside the mediterranean. But the problem is that the Mediterranean is one of the wealthiest regions in the world in that time. When you need Slaves, sugar, coffee, spices you just buy it from Arabs and sell it too the rest of Europe for dubbel or triple the price you bought it Arabs.

Of course because of this Europeanen nations begun breaking Genoan and Venetian monoply through going direct to the sources of the sugar, slaves, coffee and spices.

Both of the Genoans and the Venetians where unable to adapt too these changes. As result they slowly lose there wealth. Lack of innovation and lack of enterprise end it.

You need to have leaderships that see these changes and thus tries too reverse these process before it is too large to stop. Thruth is that a few holdings would be likely enough too slow the fall of these republics. Sugar plantations in the Caribean where providing net plus revenue for Colonial powers up to the mid 19th century. And slave trade was profitable atleast to the 18th century(otl).

A few islands in the Caribeanen as Plantations and base to sell slaves to Spanish America. In Africa a few ports too buy slaves and maybe here and there a few port/factories in India.
 
Is it required to limit the republics to Venice and Genoa? I'm thinking Ragusa here, which (until the earthquake) was arguably more dynamic and outward looking than the Italian republics. And the Ottoman Empire would, I think, put fewer objections in the way.

Also, why limit the colonies to Africa or America? At one time both Genoa and Venice (and I think Ragusa too ?) had colonies in the Caucasus.
 
How did they get Caucasian colonies? I have never heard of that.

I think the idea of a couple of sugar islands isn't impossible; after all, Denmark had one, as did Courland.
 
OTL Portugal offered Venice the setting up of warehouses in its territory, but Venice didn't dare offend Egypt as it would put Venetian merchant communities at risk. This has often been criticised as short-sighted as in the end Portuguese trade eclipsed Venetian and led to terminal decline. If Venice had been willing to abandon its communities on the risky venture of going into Portugal's camp it would have placed Venetian trading factories in the Atlantic, and given Venetian traders an incentive to operate there.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I don't think the Italian merchant republics will ever have a colonial empire like the large Atlantic kingdoms. Their potential is really limited to the Black Sea and the African coast.

The mamlukes in Egypt are going to be very controlling of the Red Sea and prevent any Christian powers from having colonies there. However, if Crusader states happen to survive with some outlet to the Red Sea, then it's possible some of the ports or islands south of Egypt could be developed and turned into Venetian colonies. This would be difficult to pull off.

A better route would be colonies off western Africa in line with what the Portuguese and Spanish did. The Canaries, Madeira, and the coast from the western Sahara t the Gulf of Guinea are possibilities.

The Vivaldi brothers of Genoa were supposed to have attempted the circumnavigation of Africa in the 1290s, but were never heard from again. If for some reason they returned with west African gold, it might be enough to stimulate Genoa and other Italian republics to fund colonies in Africa in order to capture this trade. Ivory, gum arabic, kola nuts, and slaves would be among the other commodities that would be useful.

Of course, there are serious navigational and seafaring issues Europe would need to master several centuries earlier to truly have a trade network with Africa, but it's not entirely beyond their means.
 
Genoa had a single colony in Caucasia, specifically in what is now coastal Georgia, it was however more a small trading center and settlement than anything else.


The Codex Parisinus latinus references (apparently) about 20 "stable territories" controlled by Genoa around the Black Sea (including Lo Vati in what is now Georgia, I think). These were in the territories described as 'Tartary' at the time, or the Khanate. Or in the Empire of Trebizond.

Ragusa also had at least three colonies in Tartary, Ancona appears to have had at least one. It is important to bear in mind that until quite recent times, Venice and Genoa were not the hegomonic Mediterranean trading estates which they later became: earlier, they had serious challengers

After the fall of Constantinople, Ragusa was the only Christian state allowed free access to the Black Sea.

There is also record of a Ragusan colony in Goa (India) in the 17th century (large enough to build a church).

These 'colonies' were colonies in the original sense, groups of traders and merchants . But if such proto-colonies could be preserved, it should not be hard for them to separate out as "modern" colonies as the Ottoman Empire decays.

Ragusa also had, perhaps , an advantage in the setting up of remote modern colonies, since Ragusa, to a much greater degree than Venice or Genoa, built ocean going sailing ships rather than galleys or small coasting vessels.

I have seen a number of references in 17th and 18th century works to Ragusan vessels in the Atlantic, though the fact that the sightings warranted mentioning might imply that they were a rarity so far west.But Pepys knew enough of the Ragusan marine to mention them , ranking them on a level with Venice

Ragusa also had a shipbuilding advantage, with local access to excellent oak-woods, and shipwrights considered amongst the best in the world.

Some differences in history , somewhere around the late 15th or 16th centuries, and a Ragusan colonial "empire" does not seem impossible, though given Ragusan preference for diplomacy over militarism, it would likely be some sort of Federation rather than an Empire. And nothing can butterfly away the earthquake.
 
How did they get Caucasian colonies? I have never heard of that.

I think the idea of a couple of sugar islands isn't impossible; after all, Denmark had one, as did Courland.

Denmark has an Atlantic Coast with direct interests in the New World, while Courland's colonies were only under one ruler and were quickly taken away from Courland. By this precendent, we could say that Augsburg/Bavaria could have had colonies because an Augsburg banking family owned Venezuela for a short period.
 
Last edited:
The Codex Parisinus latinus references (apparently) about 20 "stable territories" controlled by Genoa around the Black Sea (including Lo Vati in what is now Georgia, I think). These were in the territories described as 'Tartary' at the time, or the Khanate. Or in the Empire of Trebizond.

Ragusa also had at least three colonies in Tartary, Ancona appears to have had at least one. It is important to bear in mind that until quite recent times, Venice and Genoa were not the hegomonic Mediterranean trading estates which they later became: earlier, they had serious challengers

After the fall of Constantinople, Ragusa was the only Christian state allowed free access to the Black Sea.

There is also record of a Ragusan colony in Goa (India) in the 17th century (large enough to build a church).

These 'colonies' were colonies in the original sense, groups of traders and merchants . But if such proto-colonies could be preserved, it should not be hard for them to separate out as "modern" colonies as the Ottoman Empire decays.

Ragusa also had, perhaps , an advantage in the setting up of remote modern colonies, since Ragusa, to a much greater degree than Venice or Genoa, built ocean going sailing ships rather than galleys or small coasting vessels.

I have seen a number of references in 17th and 18th century works to Ragusan vessels in the Atlantic, though the fact that the sightings warranted mentioning might imply that they were a rarity so far west.But Pepys knew enough of the Ragusan marine to mention them , ranking them on a level with Venice

Ragusa also had a shipbuilding advantage, with local access to excellent oak-woods, and shipwrights considered amongst the best in the world.

Some differences in history , somewhere around the late 15th or 16th centuries, and a Ragusan colonial "empire" does not seem impossible, though given Ragusan preference for diplomacy over militarism, it would likely be some sort of Federation rather than an Empire. And nothing can butterfly away the earthquake.

Okay, I'm expanding it to any of the small Italian states.
 
Denmark has an Atlantic Coast with direct interests in the New World, while Courland's colonies were only under one ruler and were quickly taken away from Courland. By this precendent, we could say that Augsburg/Bavaria could have had colonies because an Augsburg banking family owned Venezuela for a short period.

Does Denmark really have an Atlantic coast? It has to get through the channel or North sea, and its empire existed on British sufferance.
 
Top