Question on strategic straits in the age of sail

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Was it routine for local powers controlling one or more sides of a major strait to block or charge tolls on foreign shipping before the highly effective British blockades of the Napoleonic Wars and 7 Years War?

For example, I think I've heard the most specific stuff about the Danes charging a "sound toll" through the Danish straits, where they charged non-Danish shipping passing through. Nevertheless, they did not block foreign shipping from crossing the straits. For instance the Swedes were able to conduct Atlantic trade and establish colonial outposts beyond the Baltic, and the Dutch who were from outside the Baltic were able to dominate Baltic commerce.

Did England or France ever try to block or tax foreign shipping passing through the straits of Dover?

Did Spain or Morocco ever try to block or tax foreign shipping passing through the straits of Gibraltar?

What about the Neapolitans/Sicilians and the straits of Messina? Or the Normans during the periods they controlled Sicily and Tunis?

Piracy has long been a thing in the Bad al-Mandeb, straits of Hormuz and Straits of Molucca, but did it ever make those waters impassable in the age of sail?

If they did try to block others, did they succeed?

If they did not try it, why didn't they?

I ask this because in what ifs on the age of exploration, being an Atlantic state is considered a great advantage, and being on the wrong (eastern) side of the Danish straits or Gibraltar straits is considered a dealbreaker for any sustained colonial efforts by Courland, other Baltic states, or the Italian city-states.

I just don't know though how practical really was to block foreign shipping through straits (other than the very tight Bosporus and Dardanelles most of the time. I suspect that some of the arguments that "of course any Italian colonizers would be cut off at the straits of Gibraltar" or "you would have to fragment and nerf Spain for any Italian colonial enterprise to succeed", are based on an anachronistic, backward projection of what the British were able, and willing, to do under the uncommon circumstances of the Napoleonic Wars, WWI and WWII.

Your thoughts?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
For instance, the Genoese participated in the early development of Macaronesian isles. I don't see why the straits would be an insuperable obstacle to their continued activity in this direction and down the African coast or west to Brazil or the Caribbean. I don't think it would literally be easy to block the straits. Now, local governments in Iberia could deny the use of repair facilities or confiscate ships that lay in at their ports, which would add to the costs and risks of Genoese expeditions into the Atlantic, but that is a double-edged sword that could leave said Iberian states subject to economic retaliation by Genoa and reciprocal harassment of their Mediterranean commerce.

Tuscany in OTL tried a brief, failed colonial experiment in Guyana. To be sure, it failed, as did many other expeditions by Spanish, English and French colonists, but is there any record that a blockade of the straits was a factor in Tuscany's failure?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Why didn't the Danes stop the Dutch from dominating the Baltic trade for instance? If we think of straits as effective checkpoints, you would think they would have excluded competition and taken over the Baltic grain and timber trades for themselves.
 
Why didn't the Danes stop the Dutch from dominating the Baltic trade for instance? If we think of straits as effective checkpoints, you would think they would have excluded competition and taken over the Baltic grain and timber trades for themselves.
To the Dutch merchants, who decided the republics policy, the Sontpassage was crucial. They put a constant diplomatic and if necessary militairy effort to keep that way open and to pressure the Danish not to raise the tolls (too much). This made the Dutch Republic for Denmark an important ally against Sweden. Denmark would have been overwhelmed by that country without the Dutch support IMO, and they knew that.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
To the Dutch merchants, who decided the republics policy, the Sontpassage was crucial. They put a constant diplomatic and if necessary militairy effort to keep that way open and to pressure the Danish not to raise the tolls (too much). This made the Dutch Republic for Denmark an important ally against Sweden. Denmark would have been overwhelmed by that country without the Dutch support IMO, and they knew that.

Thanks for that! - What are your thoughts on the more general question, of the viability of commerce by Baltic-shore only powers conducting commerce through the Channel or North Sea, or the viability of commerce by Mediterranean shore only powers through the straits of Gibraltar?
 
Depends on when you mean. Various waters had tolls ( formal and "protection" payments ) placed on them at various times. The main way of taxing foreign ships however tended to be port fees outside the Danish Sound tolls.
The issue for a long time to Mediterranean powers was that ships built for the Mediterranean tended to be not so good in the Atlantic ( best design for each was not the same till at least the 1600's ) and their sailors not experienced in Atlantic conditions ( far rougher than the Med ). Add in existing trade routes that, in terms of profit, pointed mainly East not West, and a lack of focus on expansion outside the Mediterranean could be expected.
Similarly the Atlantic powers tended to be blocked from the Eastern Mediterranean so had reasons to look for new routes and had ships/sailors designed/experienced for open ocean travel.
 
Thanks for that! - What are your thoughts on the more general question, of the viability of commerce by Baltic-shore only powers conducting commerce through the Channel or North Sea, or the viability of commerce by Mediterranean shore only powers through the straits of Gibraltar?
Well there is a geographic difference. The Sont is much more narrow than the other straits (Channel, Gibraltar) That makes it easier controlable from land, and gives the possibility for a toll at the strait. Most others solved the problem by demanding a porttax. Also the excellent remark of @pjmidd must be taken in account. The Dutch had their own general shiptype, the fluit, but they used specialized versions of this type in different trading zones. F.i. they made the decks of the fluits destined for the Baltics as small as possible, because that determined the taxation at the Sont. Any concurrent must make ships that are capable of functioning in different sea conditions.

Edit: As for the channel, that area was avoided during times of war with Britain
 
Top