PC: Colonial venture by Germanic Confederation, Zollverein, Austria or Prussia, 1815-1854

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Could Austria, Prussia or any of the German political or economic groupings they led have sponsored a successful colonial venture or ventures in the roughly 40 years after the Napoleonic Wars ended.

On the one hand, the German states were undeveloped navally, so they would have to invest in some capabilities. They were also more continentally focused. Britain was dominant in overseas trade. And colonial enterprise was mostly out of fashion in this part of the 19th century (especially compared with the post-1880 era).

On the other hand: There were small-scale colonial ventures by powers other than Britain, by France for instance at points along the African coast, and a fairly major non-British colonial effort (Algeria). Britain probably would have found a Germanic-based colonial effort more "adorable" than "threatening" given its own overseas lead. Also, internally, prior to 1854, and especially prior to 1848, the German states were at peace with each other, France and Russia were at peace with them, Prussia was generally accepting of Austrian leadership in central Europe, and the Austrians were keeping minority demands in check and not facing the existential crises that it faced from 1866 on. For Prussia's part, they didn't have Bismarck in charge. And France was not under a threatening Bonaparte until the end of the period in question.

Thoughts about what could be accomplished?
 
As the majority of German colonies was settled post this era I don't see why some German state or the confederation shouldn't do so in your era provided it gets the impetous to do so. The internal problems of Germans wanting to be united and revolutions occurring 1820-1830-1848 with the ruling classes had much else on their mind than going on colonial ventures.
You may find some periods of internal peace where ideas of colonialism may surface and come to fruitition. :)
 
I've got a hazy recollection that in the 1840s there was talk of Prussia leasing part of California from Mexico. I don't know how serious it was, though.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Was there a series of 1820 disturbances? 1830 had revolutions in France and Belgium - was there stuff in Germany too? Wasn't anything like the '48 was it?
 
This is quite sketchy:
The romantic period in Germany begins at Leipzig with the Battle of Nations - German Nations! The later part of the Napoleonic Wars in Germany is known as the German Liberation War. That makes for German peoples to want a Germany with a constitution and personal freedom. Saxony-Weimar gets a constitution 1816. By 1817 German studets holds a rally at Schloss Wartburg - the Burschenschaften - where German unity is demanded and non-German books burnded. 1818 more states gets constitutions Baden, Württemberg and Bayern. 1819 a student Karl Sands assassinates a reactionary poet August von Kotzebue; this triggers Metternich into heading a German conference at Karlsbad where the states decide to quell the liberty movements Carlsbader Decree ban the Burschenschaften and dismiss liberal University teachers.
The 1820s revolutions passed Germany but by 1830 unrest were in a number of German states and by 1832 the Burschenschaften re-surfaced following Saxony getting a constitution 1831; at the Hambach Fest 1832 in the Palatinate a unified German republic is demanded as well as freedom and democracy - which of course had Metternich have the German states institute new repressive means. The following year a revolution failed in Frankfurt.
You could say that the German States still had the means to keep the lid on the boiler till 1848 and then it blew off.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Because it was a significant imperial state, I think Austria would have been best positioned to go colonial in terms of bureaucratic capacity. It would have been too busy in 1820, 1830, 1848-49, but periods btwn were more peaceful. The periods of maximum Austrian confidence probably would have been 1850-1853 and in 1857-1858. Overseas colonialism was not too fashionable then but it was not unheard of either at that point.
 
One big hurdle that a European country would have to overcome if they chose to colonize the Americas: the Monroe Doctrine. Maybe an earlier attempt at Africa until said country/kingdom/etc establishes something resembling a navy.

There was one attempt that I found made by the Austrians in the Indian Ocean. The Austrians attempted a colony on the Nicobar Islands in 1778 and were forced to abandon it in 1783 due to lack of support. Also, there was a minor issue with the fact that Denmark-Norway still had a claim on the islands and the fact that the Austrian colonists could not find a suitable fresh water source or food. Maybe the Austrians could look into the colony there once more when they sent researchers in 1857-1858. Not sure how stable things were for the A-H Empire at that time though.
 
If the Austrians wanted the Nicobars in 1857-8 they just had to ask the Danish government to get it. The islands had been abandoned 1848 so it was essentially a question of asking and You shall recieve! :D
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Here's an idea, based on Austrians being the candidate. Perhaps the Austrians seize Tunis in the early 1840s, in imitation of the French in Algeria.

That makes colonialism a "thing" for the Austrians, and at certain moments they set up some posts in Africa and the Indian Ocean. Maybe they gain experience that can somehow be helpful in making their Andaman and Nicobars attempt of 1857-1858 succeed.

With greater interest in the Far East developing, the Austrians send some ships and men to participate alongside the British and French in the Second Opium War, and the Austrians may join with the French and Spanish in avenging Catholic rights in Indochina, maybe gaining a foothold north or south of where the French grab one.

So far none of this gives the Austrians a real settler colony. Maybe a knock on of the ATL's precocious efforts is they get New Caledonia before France claims it, which in time could become a small-scale settler or penal colony.

Presuming Austria has war with Denmark in 1864 and gets smacked around by Prussia in 1866 and needs to compromise with the Hungarians, Austrian colonial efforts would slow for a time. However, once its clear Austria is shut out of Germany and Italy, enlarging into hinterlands of existing colonial outposts (for example Libya) might become attractive as a way to expand without expanding the Slavic population of the Empire. That could make moderate overseas expansion into a thing that Austrians and Hungarians can agree on.
 
Because it was a significant imperial state, I think Austria would have been best positioned to go colonial in terms of bureaucratic capacity. It would have been too busy in 1820, 1830, 1848-49, but periods btwn were more peaceful. The periods of maximum Austrian confidence probably would have been 1850-1853 and in 1857-1858. Overseas colonialism was not too fashionable then but it was not unheard of either at that point.


Best chance for that is if Maximilian becomes Emperor.

He was much more interested in the wider world than his brother, visiting Egypt, Brazil and various other foreign parts before that ill-fated trip to Mexico. As Emperor of Austria (or Greater Germany) I could imagine him subsidising Henry Morton Stanley as Leopold id OTL.
 
A problem but not an insuperable one. Portugal and Belgium weren't significant naval powers, but both had sizeable colonies/
Portugal had theirs a a legacy of the age of exploration and Belgium got theirs from diplomatic shannigans, so for this hypothetical German confederation to get some colonies they need some random event, or a structural reason for getting one
 
Does nobody read Wikipedia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_German_colonies Prussia had quite a few colonies prior to German unification, including the Caribbean and Africa. Austria attempted a few. And I believe somewhere else there is a list of a few minor German states that also attempted colonization, including one that didnt have a coastline. I really wish people understood minor states DID try colonization, it just wasnt successful and it isnt a matter of a PoD to get them to try, it is instead a PoD to get them to be successful. Colonies are a money loser as Adam Smith pointed out.
 
Honestly, in this period, I think the only one of these states that has a chance in establishing any sort of colony is Austria; Prussia is isolated from anything but a few trade outposts along the African coast. All of the possibly American colonies had long been failures, and Prussia was not yet at the point of creating a fleet or an empire to challenge Great Britain or anyone else (they needed Germany before any of that).

I'd imagine that, considering the series of successive wars that the Ottomans underwent in the late 1820s/early 1830s, that Metternich might decide that the Ottomans are the sick man and that they might as well join in; why let the Russians and the French continue to eat at the corners of that empire when they could join in? Perhaps, after a thrust into Bosnia, a small force can be shipped to Tripoli as well? Tunis is likely too big of a bite to take, but the Libyan coast might be just enough. After the war, the Austrians would demand the creation of an 'independent' Bosnia (larger than OTL) as a counterbalance to the Serbs, along with an expanded Montenegro as well. The only actual annexation would be the Libyan coast (Tripolitania/Cyrenaica) and, possibly, Tunis as well (or perhaps Tunis would be a protectorate on the Bosnian model). This way, the sultan saves face by not actually 'losing' much territory aside from the Libyan coast, while Austria manages to create a friendly power to the south in opposition to the Russian-favored Serbs.

There's your casus belli/justification for the war, along with the creation of an African colony as an afterthought (the real objective being, of course, Bosnia). Granted, there must be a reason that would have kept Austria from doing it, but it could be as much as internal decision or fear that the Ottomans would collapse completely under continuous onslaught, which was not wanted by the Austrians.

Note that it is hard for the Austrians, this late in the game, to maintain a colony outside the Mediterranean. Their Indian trade deals were profitable but shut down for political reasons. Not mentioned in the article is the Austrian lease of North Borneo after the original American one lapsed. This was later sold to the British, and became Sabah (the borders were different, though). And any Austrian war would likely make the initial American lease unlikely, considering it was the operation of the Consul that began the lease, not action by the US government.

They might be able to play the prestige game to some point, but in the end any colony must be there to support the homeland. Germany has the excess slack in its economy to take up the prestige colony game; Austria doesn't have the motivation behind it (to create an empire; why would they? they have one), nor do they have a naval tradition. EDIT: To whit: yes, Prussia and later Germany ended up to create one of the largest navies in the world, but that was as a direct result of their empire building. Austria with a few colonies in the Mediterranean will end up having a larger navy by default, and may eventually end up becoming fairly substantial, but it doesn't have the same motivation that Germany had OTL.

I guess the best way to go about this is to have Austria be seen as the preferred competitor in any particular province. The UK might prefer Austria to have so and so corner of Africa or Oceania just so the French don't have it, or the Germans, or etc.

Other than that? You'll have to look earlier. Although, an Austrian Tripolitania & Cyrenaica will inevitably throw fuel on the Austrian/Italian fire later on.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
series of successive wars that the Ottomans underwent in the late 1820s/early 1830
- the Greek and Russian wars and Navarino, right? Muhammad Ali wasn't fighting the central power yet I think.

Perhaps, after a thrust into Bosnia, a small force can be shipped to Tripoli as well? Tunis is likely too big of a bite to take, but the Libyan coast might be just enough.

I like this idea and it is interesting, but what makes you think Tripoli would be an easier target than Tunis at this time? I suppose Tunis is more populous and more built up, and maybe better armed, but later on Tunis seems to have been conquered more easily than Tripoli, leading me to think of the Libyans as a little rougher and tougher than the Tunisians.

Also, I wonder if the Austrians in North Africa could be threatened or beaten by Muhammad Ali...or find themselves becoming his ally.
 
- the Greek and Russian wars and Navarino, right? Muhammad Ali wasn't fighting the central power yet I think.

I like this idea and it is interesting, but what makes you think Tripoli would be an easier target than Tunis at this time? I suppose Tunis is more populous and more built up, and maybe better armed, but later on Tunis seems to have been conquered more easily than Tripoli, leading me to think of the Libyans as a little rougher and tougher than the Tunisians.

Also, I wonder if the Austrians in North Africa could be threatened or beaten by Muhammad Ali...or find themselves becoming his ally.

I think that Ali was occurring roundabout the same time; let me check. Looks like the first began in the early 1830s, while the second Egyptian-Ottoman war was in 1839. So, yes, in the same timeframe, and let's not forget the French subjugation of Algeria began during this time. The Ottoman empire had wars throughout the entire scope of it territory. So, yes, could have a chance.

And I suggest Tripoli primarily because of its lower population; part of the reason for the difficulty in conquering Tripoli is having to subjugate or guard against the Fezzan; the Tripolitanians could retreat farther into the desert and its relative safety and reorganize for further assaults. Tunisia I see as harder to gain, as France is definitely eying it in the future. I suppose both could be placed under colonial rule, but Tripoli is much more likely to remain in the Austrian Empire in the long term.

And Austria aligned with Egypt is interesting... although, historically, they were aligned against them. Although, if Austria goes all in earlier with a Bosnian Protectorate, then perhaps they'll throw caution to the wind.
 
There were some Germanic colonies established early on, but they were sold to or annexed by others;

Brandeburger/Prussian Gold Coast: South-West Ghana, 1682-1720.
Klein-Venedig: Northern Venezuela 1528-1546

While not German per-se (Courland being multiethnic, of which Germans were a major groups) there was also the colonies of the Duchy of Courland, being the island of Tobago (1654-1659 and intermitently 1660-1689) and some bits of what would be coastal Gambia.
 
Duchy of Courland was a Polish-Lithuanian fief, so its' colonies I'd rather consider being Polish or Lithuanian than German.
 
Duchy of Courland was a Polish-Lithuanian fief, so its' colonies I'd rather consider being Polish or Lithuanian than German.

It was a vassal of the PLC yes, but it was ethnically mixed, with Germans being one of the main groups living there and with power.
 
Top