German colonization

Whatever, it's clear you have plenty of sources to draw on regarding British suckiness in the face of teh MIGHTY SPANISH ARMY (by the way, I didn't say the army was obsolete, I said the tercio as a tactical formation, the backbone of the Spanish Army up until that point, was obsolete on Line Two, Word Eight of my response, which resulted in said army adjusting their tactics...if you're gonna take somebody to task over niggles, you might wanna practice reading comprehension).

Well, Tercio is the backbone of Spanish Army... if you say Tercio is obsolete, I understand the army was absolete... But that Army won the Frenchmen in Valenciennes (after Rocroi). (Note: The Own Rocroi fell into Spanish Hands after the Battle). The battle symbol of Spanish Tercio decadence is not Rocroi but Dunes in 1658)... and even long after the Dunes, the Spanish army would remain an excellent machine and overseas, almost unbeatable.


For example, number disparity on the British side means exactly nothing if they can't land said troops in the FIRST PLACE (which I admitted they couldn't in Paragraph One, Sentence Seven in my reply) without getting spotted and preempted. Amphibious operations, such as they were, were and remain tricky business if you don't wanna see your troops cut off by the defense in the absence of good fire support (the Brits had this at Gibraltar, not so much for aforementioned reasons at San Juan). And while your third response is largely word salad (ARW/Cape Town/Egypt don't count as "overseas" since...?), I can name a battle with 32,000 British troops: Long Island. I can admit I'm wrong on Manila thanks to your Eulogio B. Rodriguez quote, although I've heard of worse odds personally. However, I wouldn't call Spain's record as anything associated "many British defeats" (I'm particularly fond of THIS source in terms of Spain's successes and not-successes during the Imperial era).

But It is funny against Dutch and French, British amphibious operations were successful, and against the Spaniards not so much...What I wanted to say Its in Puerto Rico, British Army had more soldiers than in Quebec (1759) or Cape Town (1806) or Alexandria (1801) british victories...but in Puerto Rico the mighty British Army and Royal Navy failed. And It wasn´t a alone defeat...In the same year, Nelson failed in Tenerife (and later in Cadis). And in 1800 Warren & Pulteney in Brion.
THIS is pure british propaganda not history. Not even the author of the page knows how finished the Falkland crisis..
You know enough about history and historical possibilities, I'm sure you know that the Falklands Crisis was resolved in favor of Spain. Britain withdrew and Spain established a permanent garrison in Falklands ...Till Wikipedia knows Falklands were Spanish and here you have the list of the 32 Spanish Falklands Governors.
No, Spain wasn´t expelled from Falklands by Britain...Consequence of the Peninsular War and the Rise of Uruguay ... Spain evacuated the garrison on February 13, 1811, letting a plate:
Esta isla con sus Puertos, Edificios, Dependencias y cuanto contiene pertenece a la Soberanía del Sr. D. Fernando VII Rey de España y sus Indias, Soledad de Malvinas 7 de febrero de 1811 siendo gobernador Pablo Guillén.

The bottom line is, nobody claimed that *Germany could or would beat Spain in a straight up fight overseas during its Imperial age, I've never said as such (although I did point out British/Dutch operations, which may not have always been victories, but did establish the ability for others to contest Spanish might abroad to make a point about their anwield's fragility, which is due mostly to issues of mismanagement than anything else). Somebody commented that "Spain didn't kick ass and take names", which is inaccurate to a degree but also sorta true in a way (Spain didn't OFFENSIVELY conquer much territory from other colonial powers and make it last besides Brazil...temporarily, and IMO that's really where such a phrase is appropriate in usage). So it really depends on your point of view over using "kick ass and take names", and to whom you apply it.


You are right, Spain didn´t offensively conquer much territory from other colonial powers.. barely conquered and barely lost. It expelled the Dutch from Brazil and British from central america.. But Spain didn´t need to do offensive operations... why? It was the first country to arrive there.. and conquered what wanted..British arrived later and wanted the Spanish dominions.. In fact, when it was necessary to attack... jus did it. It defeated the French in Florida and British in Florida and Trans-Mississippi. It attacked Newfoundland in 1735 and Roatan and Bahamas in 1782


I think it's pretty well been established that the best way for a German presence (instead of the boring Hispano-Brazilian majority of OTL, this was an alternate history website the last time I checked after all) is not a confrontation with Spain, but rather see a neutral German state (I like Prussia thus far, or Hamburg if Napoleon doesn't destroy the HRE) arise that doesn't get drawn into the various sea conflicts of the time OR have a German colony get established after the Napoleonic Wars are done and over with. Even your idea of coopting the Spanish and/or Anglo-Spanish fleets in establishing a Klein Venedig-ish colony (given Hapsburg ties to the former and Hanoverian links in the latter) could well work, if that Welser issue can get straightened out or have hired hands do the "El Dorado" searching inland while consolidating Neu-Augsburg for further German settlement (hopefully without PO'ing the Spaniards too much in the process).


I agree with you. Prussia could be in the Lesser Antilles, such as Austria, for Austria woul have been better in XVI-XVII centuries... but lacked of ships, so, Austria needed the Spanish Habsburgs support. I think Virgin islands would have been a good choice. Near Puerto Rico and the supplies networks.
For Prussia woul have been better in XVIII century...Prussia would have needed the British or Dutch support and also the Colonization area would have been the Lesser Antilles... maybe Dominica or Martinique.. after British and Prussian small land contingent drove out French...

Venezuela after the revocation of the Act... I do not see any chance for the German states. But lesser Antilles was plausible.
 
[1] Well, Tercio is the backbone of Spanish Army... if you say Tercio is obsolete, I understand the army was absolete... But that Army won the Frenchmen in Valenciennes (after Rocroi). (Note: The Own Rocroi fell into Spanish Hands after the Battle). The battle symbol of Spanish Tercio decadence is not Rocroi but Dunes in 1658)... and even long after the Dunes, the Spanish army would remain an excellent machine and overseas, almost unbeatable.




[2] But It is funny against Dutch and French, British amphibious operations were successful, and against the Spaniards not so much...What I wanted to say Its in Puerto Rico, British Army had more soldiers than in Quebec (1759) or Cape Town (1806) or Alexandria (1801) british victories...but in Puerto Rico the mighty British Army and Royal Navy failed. And It wasn´t a alone defeat...In the same year, Nelson failed in Tenerife (and later in Cadis). And in 1800 Warren & Pulteney in Brion.
THIS is pure british propaganda not history. Not even the author of the page knows how finished the Falkland crisis..
You know enough about history and historical possibilities, I'm sure you know that the Falklands Crisis was resolved in favor of Spain. Britain withdrew and Spain established a permanent garrison in Falklands ...Till Wikipedia knows Falklands were Spanish and here you have the list of the 32 Spanish Falklands Governors.
No, Spain wasn´t expelled from Falklands by Britain...Consequence of the Peninsular War and the Rise of Uruguay ... Spain evacuated the garrison on February 13, 1811, letting a plate:
Esta isla con sus Puertos, Edificios, Dependencias y cuanto contiene pertenece a la Soberanía del Sr. D. Fernando VII Rey de España y sus Indias, Soledad de Malvinas 7 de febrero de 1811 siendo gobernador Pablo Guillén.




[3] You are right, Spain didn´t offensively conquer much territory from other colonial powers.. barely conquered and barely lost. It expelled the Dutch from Brazil and British from central america.. But Spain didn´t need to do offensive operations... why? It was the first country to arrive there.. and conquered what wanted..British arrived later and wanted the Spanish dominions.. In fact, when it was necessary to attack... jus did it. It defeated the French in Florida and British in Florida and Trans-Mississippi. It attacked Newfoundland in 1735 and Roatan and Bahamas in 1782





[4] I agree with you. Prussia could be in the Lesser Antilles, such as Austria, for Austria woul have been better in XVI-XVII centuries... but lacked of ships, so, Austria needed the Spanish Habsburgs support. I think Virgin islands would have been a good choice. Near Puerto Rico and the supplies networks.
For Prussia woul have been better in XVIII century...Prussia would have needed the British or Dutch support and also the Colonization area would have been the Lesser Antilles... maybe Dominica or Martinique.. after British and Prussian small land contingent drove out French...

Venezuela after the revocation of the Act... I do not see any chance for the German states. But lesser Antilles was plausible.

1. Ah, so you used "tercio" as a synonym for the Army in the same way the Romans used the word "Legion". Just to be clear, I wasn't using it that way, but rather as the exact tactical unit of field maneuver by manpower and gear sorting, like companies/battalions/etc. The Spanish Army was still good quality once they adjusted to the need for more muzzles and less swords 'n bucklers in stand-up fights, I just meant to point out that the tactical formation itself that won Spain the bulk of the New World was obsolete by then (not the organization as a whole).

2. Got it, although there has been at least one other battle abroad bigger that I mentioned (to be fair, that was to get territory they thought rightfully theirs in the first place). As for your source (the one I used was as a shake-up, instead of lazily resorting to Wikipedia and its dubious credibility like I and many others tend to do), lucky for you porque yo puedo hablar y leer las paginas en español sin la traducción debilucha de Google :p. Y yo puedo entender las posiciónes de este sitio y estoy de acuerdo con los datos escritos allá (tener más recursos siempre es una buena cosa), pero yo diciera que tenga cuidado en hablar sobre propaganda de algien; este sitio fue fundado por los "jornalistas-red"/privadas en Argentina, y ellos (por lo general, en la experiencia mía con los argentinos) habían predispuestos, o tal vez tenían ganas, de reconquistar las Malvinas de los británicos hace desde la guerra y la epoca antes. No digo que el sitio es incorrecto (necesariamente al menos, yo vio a mí mismo como al menos comprensivo en creer tales fuentes), pero hay que tener en cuenta los motivos del escritor. No obstante, es claro que necesito no usar ese sitio previo.

3. Well, Britain's answer (for me, anyway) to Spain's presence in the New World was "we're not gonna get anywhere with those lands without a harsh blood-letting, let's just look elsewhere beyond the Americas" which led to their own global empire...so in a way, I guess Spain's partly to thank for the Pax Brittanica. And part of my point was in pointing out that empires don't last; Spain's heyday was in the 16th. Century to the first quarter of the 17th. in my opinion (wherein they couldn't be seriously dealt with directly), but became even with France, Britain and the Netherlands by the end of the 17th. and into the 18th. By the 19th. Century, all Spain had left was a few islands in the Caribe and the Philippines. Britain had a similar trajectory post-Victorian Era, since their empire pretty much couldn't survive long past the First World War.

4. But what if the Act itself (with a butterfly going back to before the Welsers make their proposal) isn't revoked? That's why I brought up Klein-Venedig as an option again, with the caveat that better management and interaction with the territory's leasers (Spain) is needed for it to have even a hope of working. However, the Lesser Antilles can still work for the OP, it's just a matter of getting the place settled if the gains aren't to be mere window-dressing (i.e. get local government set up, move people there, proceed to make money off of trade and commerce). It wouldn't be easy, but then again it wasn't initially for the Spaniards/French/Dutch/etc.
 
Last edited:
Would an expanded Couland colonial Empire count?

You need to have either a different ending to the Northern War, or Kurland somehow avoids being attacked and occupied by Sweden as it was in otl from 1655 - 1660. In spite of this, apparently the Duchy's colony of Tabago (Neu Kurland) survived and thrived. Later, during the same war, the Dutch overwhelmed the native Kurlanders with Dutch colonists. After the War Tobago was returned to the Duchy but by 1666 the last Kurlanders had left the island. There were a number of factors involved: most of the Duchy's merchant fleet and the factories (for processing sugar and spices) had been destroyed. There were buccaneers who terrorized the inhabitants as they sought a base from which to plunder Spanish vessels, and finally the Spanish themselves interfered with the Duchy's efforts to re - establish control.
 
Wow that was alot to read...
So,I was reading for any other places to find after I looked at what you all put,And apparently,The portugese charted and claimed newfoundland,So could a german state potentially get newfoundland from them and use it as a base?
Anyways if this is a terrible idea,Just disregard it and do what you were doing
 
Top