Questions and ideas; dutch empire

The subject fascinate me somes, its not touched much here as the dutches never landed anywhere close modern Canada, as far I remember, and their presence in modern USA was short-lived...

I wonder if it was possible to make the Empire grow more, or to be at least strenghtened in major possessions... and may have grown in Europe proper; german states of the north, by example..

Could it have won the three wars (is it it?) it had with Britain? Could it have had beaten Britain into the ground, or overtook it, earlier on? (Maybe with an alliance to france, if it never happened? (and is even possible?))
 
The subject fascinate me somes, its not touched much here as the dutches never landed anywhere close modern Canada, as far I remember, and their presence in modern USA was short-lived...
Actually, St. John's on Newfoundland was was conquered and occupied for a while by De Ruyter during the second Anglo-Dutch War.

Regarding the rest of your post, I think the usual suspect have been mentioned many times before on the forum:

1] More control over the Southern Netherlands, which would help because it was a rich and urbanized area during the 17th century. Beware of the direct border with France though!
2] More territory in Germany. Emden had a Dutch garrison for a while in the 17th century and the area around it was considered for incorporation at a time. However, East Friesland doesn't add much in terms of population or wealth. The Rhineland is a better but more difficult to realize option.
3] The main problem with settlement in colonies like New Amsterdam, South Africa etc. was that the Netherlands were the richest state in Europe at the time with a for the time extremely high degree of religious freedom. So why leave?
 
I can see maybe social discontent, civic troubles even maybe... if they have underclasses and all. But I am not sure...

The country was rich. But was there pockets of misery, or 'troublesome groups'? Catholic-protestant troubles?

Specially if they get more territories, like to Germany...


Wild left pitch; could an Alt. Netherlands appears before, way before? and could it gain power around? would it helps a future 'dutch' empire?
 
I can see maybe social discontent, civic troubles even maybe... if they have underclasses and all. But I am not sure...

The country was rich. But was there pockets of misery, or 'troublesome groups'? Catholic-protestant troubles?
Your best bet is probably interprotestant disputes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remonstrants

Wild left pitch; could an Alt. Netherlands appears before, way before? and could it gain power around? would it helps a future 'dutch' empire?
Probably not. Before the Dukes of Burgundy gathered all the duchies and counties in the Low Countries the area was in semi-anarchy (the Northeast), part of France (Southwest) or focussed on internal rivalries (the rest).

Best change then is to keep the House of Valois-Burgundy going beyond 1477, but then (after some dynastic dynamics) you'll can end up with just a lot bigger and richer France.
 
The easiest way for the Dutch to expand would be a more succesful Dutch revolt. If you can add a larger part of Flanders and Brabant to the Netherlands that would make a major difference, especially if you can do it before they were reconverted to catholicism (or if you can make catholics be equal to protestants). These parts had been some of the richest and more populated parts of the Netherlands and would have equal footing to Holland.

Parts of Germany added to the Netherlands is possible, especially parts like East-Frisia, Cleve, Bentheim or Lingen. As the Netherlands was one of the most important countries in the region, most of them basicly were part of the Dutch sphere of influence and often had Dutch (or at least paid by the Dutch) soldiers stationed on them. Maybe at one point the Dutch decide to annex them, either because of some expensionism or because they fear they would fall in the hands of some less then coöperative state (like France or a usual enemy of France). You do need a very different Dutch policies for that, but the addition of an influential Flanders and Brabant could do it, certainly if that would mean the eastern provinces like Gelderland (or maybe even Limburg) would have more influence.

Different Anglo-dutch wars could make a difference, but you have to realise that the Dutch won the second and third one. But the Dutch could in theory have kept their colonies in North America, The English actualy offered them back for Surinam, the Dutch just prefered Surinam over the New Netherlands. The Dutch could also keep the Cape Colony or start a colony in Australia (which they discovered after all, but weren't interested in). The thing is you need a different outlook in the Dutch colonisation policy for that. The Dutch were mainly interested in money, which is why they traded Surinam (sugar plantations) for the New Netherlands (merely people living there) and ignored desertlike Australia.
 
I'm a big History buff,and have thought along the same lines of why was the Dutch Empire in the long run not as successful as the Spanish,English,Portuguese,or even the French (another Empire,that while large,lacked the ability to populate their colonies with Frenchmen to any large degree).
Someone mentioned home country population as a cause.That would be part of it true,Spain and England had larger populations to work with.But Portugal in those days (18th century) only had maybe 3 million people,to the Dutch Republic's around 2.5 million.Yet they were able to send over 400 thousand settlers to Brazil alone in that century,not to count the Portuguese in other parts of their Empire.The French,which at that time had as many people as England and Spain combined,didn't manage to populate their colonies.So population isn't the main reason.As well as the Dutch home population,they had access to Germans and Scandinavians,that always showed themselves ready to immigrate to the Netherlands at the time.
Then it was mentioned that because they were a rich country,maybe people wouldn't immigrate to the colonies.But England,for the period was becoming a rich country as well,yet they were able to send people.And when they needed to,they used resources that would have been even easier for the Dutch to use,ie.German Palatines (most of them went though Holland before shipping to England),and French Huguenots(again,Holland was one of their best refuges).Not to mention,that even rich societies have problems,the late 17th and the whole 18th centuries,where times of economic troubles in the Netherlands,and the many wars,might have convinced a steady stream of people to immigrate to colonies.
So I think that leaves the most valid problem,and I think the crux of the whole matter.The fact that the Dutch leadership showed no long term vision.As someone said,they were only interested in profit.While that was true of all the Colonial powers as well,the others seemed to have a more long term outlook.The Spanish came for gold,but stayed for souls and land.The Portuguese,similar to the Spanish,but also wanted to stop others from freezing them out of the East,and they figured they had to settle to stop them.The English were a mixed bag.They hoped to find gold and silver like the Spanish.And when that failed,there was a feeling among some English that they could make a "New England" in the Americas and that started them coming in numbers.The French had good ideas in the beginning,but weren't able to keep to a consistent policy.So in the long run they failed (too simple an answer I know,but the subject is very complicated,and would take an essay to answer).
Then there were other important factors to consider about settlement colonies.Climate,native populations (large or small),ease of access (shipping),resource base.My theory is that there were 2 types of colonies in the world,settlement colonies and trading colonies.Sometimes they overlapped,and sometimes one was started for one purpose and ended up as the other.Colonies that I consider as settlement colonies are now,the U.S.,Canada,Australia,New Zealand,all the Spanish Latin American colonies (or Kingdoms,as the Spanish thought of them),Brazil,and South Africa.Other colonies would come under the heading of trading colonies.Sure they in time became regular colonies,but were never seriously thought of for mass European settlement.
Climate:
You will notice that all the colonies that made it as settlement colonies had climates that were temperate,sub-tropical,or at least large parts of them were.In the 16th,17th,18th centuries people didn't have the technology to live happily in either extreme cold climates or extreme hot climates (not that people like that today either,lol)Sometimes profit from resources would modify that,but not usually.The areas settled heavily in Canada,were the least cold at first,and in Latin America heavier settlement was away from the hottest areas.The U.S.,Australia,New Zealand and South Africa were not too cold or too hot (except in certain areas).
Native Populations:
In Canada,the U.S.,Australia and New Zealand,the native population wasn't large enough to be a long term hindrance to settlement.Short term yes,but never long term.In the Spanish Latin American colonies within the first century the Indian population was more than halved through disease.Something unintended by the Spanish,but peoples knowledge about disease was so limited then that it was probably unavailable.Between that and the Christianizing of the Indians,most of the heavier Indian population areas were left loyal to the Spanish and open for settlement.Portuguese Brazil was lightly settled by native Indians along the lines of the U.S. or the lightest Indian areas in the Spanish colonies,ie:the North of Mexico,or the Pampas of Argentina,etc. South Africa (which I think ultimately is the subject for this possible ATL on the Dutch Empire)was not heavily populated at that time.In the west of SA,very small native populations,and in the east,while heavier,were not any heavier than that,say of the U.S. Eastern Indian population at the start of settlement.Europeans were never able to settle in numbers in colonies with a population of high civilization similar or superior to their own,ie:India and China,Japan,etc.
Ease of access
We have to remember that in those days the only way to get to your colony was by sea.With the level of technology available then that was quite an effort.I think from England or Spain to the Northern Americas it took over a month on ship to get there,and that was without serious problems popping up.To reach say Argentina(or La Plata as it was known then) and the Cape in SA,was something like 3 or more months.One of the main reasons that the English were so successful and the Spanish starting in the 17th century were having problems in colonial development was the strength of the British Navy,and the weakness of the Spanish Navy.The Portuguese were able to keep up enough shipping and under somewhat of British protection make it work.France,while having a large navy,were in constant turmoil and wars in much of the period,and without profitable colonies didn't use there navies to their best abilities. The Dutch had probably the second (and for a time the first)largest navy of the period and would have been easily able to obtain access.As mentioned earlier their problem,is will,not ability.
Resource Base:
To make a settlement colony successful,you have to have a resource base to support the settlers and bring profit to the home country(even if only long term) or a resource that is hard to get somewhere else.In the U.S. and Canada,the fur trade,to which later was added lumber trade,was enough to keep the home countries interested until settlement could take off (especially in the U.S.),and other resources supplement them.In Spanish Latin America,silver and gold hooked Spain in their desire to hold the colonies until later agriculture,became even more profitable.The Portuguese in Brazil started out with large agricultural profits (sugar) and then in the late 17th and early 18th centuries discovered an "El Dorado" of gold and diamonds to supplement their resource base in the Colony,and almost support the home country as well.In South Africa,part of the Dutch failing was the lack of a resource base.Which again,was the fault of the Dutch powers that be.With a little effort they would have discovered the diamonds and gold that SA is noted for today.The Veld would have provided a paradise for a cattle and sheep industry (as the Spanish and Portuguese made in Mexico,Argentina and Brazil).And the varied climate would have allowed the production of tobacco,sugarcane,cotton,coffee,and various spices which had a ready market in Europe at the time.
Well,while trying to be as short as possible (believe me I was.There is oh so much more I could have said,lol).With this outline I hope I've helped anyone wanting to do an ATL for the Dutch Empire.I will try to post something on possibilities to change things if I have time later.
 
The Dutch had trade ports and settlements in many areas at one point or another, including in South America, the Caribbean, and Africa. You would just need them to stay powerful enough to defend their colonies from the British and other European nations, and have reasons for settlers to go. More land in Germany would be a great way to make the Dutch more powerful, and give a reason for people to leave Europe for the colonies.
 
The subject fascinate me somes, its not touched much here as the dutches never landed anywhere close modern Canada, as far I remember, and their presence in modern USA was short-lived...

I wonder if it was possible to make the Empire grow more, or to be at least strenghtened in major possessions... and may have grown in Europe proper; german states of the north, by example..

Could it have won the three wars (is it it?) it had with Britain? Could it have had beaten Britain into the ground, or overtook it, earlier on? (Maybe with an alliance to france, if it never happened? (and is even possible?))

The biggest problem with the Dutch is geography. It is situated in the middle of the Continent surrounded by powerful and more populous neighbours and where, in the 15th and 16th century, there were religious strife and other troubles going on.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the most successful European colonizers (Spain, Britain, and Portugal) all happen to be situated in the most western part of Western Europe with ready access to the Atlantic Ocean.
 
The biggest problem with the Dutch is geography. It is situated in the middle of the Continent surrounded by powerful and more populous neighbours and where, in the 15th and 16th century, there were religious strife and other troubles going on.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the most successful European colonizers (Spain, Britain, and Portugal) all happen to be situated in the most western part of Western Europe with ready access to the Atlantic Ocean.

Good point, I always though of this... AND France.
 
As for land in Germany to acquire.That is a valid point.The area bordering on the Netherlands was,and in some areas still is Dutch speaking.Language maps on Wikipedia show the areas.They also were mostly Calvinist,which made them even more attractive.The problem was that the Republic never truly made an effort the unite those areas to the Republic.Then by the 19th century rise of nationalism it was too late,many of the people had begun to think of themselves as Germans.Had they been joined with the Netherlands anytime before then it would have worked though.The other and most promising area were the Flemish areas of whats now Belguim (even today many people want to see them united with their Dutch brothers).They had a history of Union with the Dutch in one state,and many Dutch people had immigrated from there at one time.With the Flemish, and the Dutch speaking Germans,a United Netherlands would have almost doubled in population.Though these were very complicated issues,there were several times that had the Dutch leaders shown the will to try it could have been done.

The question of the position of the Netherlands is of minor importance at that time.As several people stated,they had trading colonies all over the world as it was.And for most of the 17th century,the "Dutch Golden Age",they were the number one trading nation in Europe.Even before the Dutch Republic,Antwerp in Brabant surpassed any trading city in Europe.The Dutch Revolt.the so called "Spanish Fury",and the closing of the Schelt,destroyed most of their trade,and with the immigration of most of the Protestant Antwerp merchants to Amsterdam, Amsterdam took the lead and surpassed them.
 
The question of the position of the Netherlands is of minor importance at that time.As several people stated,they had trading colonies all over the world as it was.And for most of the 17th century,the "Dutch Golden Age",they were the number one trading nation in Europe.Even before the Dutch Republic,Antwerp in Brabant surpassed any trading city in Europe.The Dutch Revolt.the so called "Spanish Fury",and the closing of the Schelt,destroyed most of their trade,and with the immigration of most of the Protestant Antwerp merchants to Amsterdam, Amsterdam took the lead and surpassed them.

I still think geography was the main reason. You cannot deny that the European wars in the 17th century weakened the Dutch. The Dutch Golden Age was brief and ended after the wars against France which hampered both nations' ability to establish colonies overseas. Britain, Spain and Portugal were not affected evertime a European war starts up because they are at the outposts of the Continent and could choose to intervene or not. A long European peace in the 16th and 17th century would have helped greatly as the Dutch could concentrate on trade and settlements.

BTW, your post at 02:18PM is thorough and extremely informative. Wow.
 
Thank you Mike for the kind words,I appreciate it.I've been interested in World History since I was a kid,lol.To long ago to think about,ha.I try to not just know what happened,but why,and how it happened.I don't think you can understand history until you can know those things,and mentally think how people thought back then.I think that's what I like about ATL,you have the chance,at least in thought,to correct the mistakes made in the past,lol.

I don't dispute that being in Northwestern Europe,was a disadvantage for building a Dutch Empire.I just believe that as successful as they were anyway,that there were other issues far more important.The Dutch (I mean by this the total Netherlands here,Dutch/Flemish,without much input by the Walloons ,at that time)most scholars believe,led Europe in technology from the end of the 15th century to the end of the 17th century,and some say even to the 1st or 2nd decades of the 18th century.I believe had the political leadership been more united,they would have overcome any problems they needed to,to further the growth of Empire.But the notorious infighting of the factions paralyzed them to think in long term and away from only short term profit.I know that it was hard for them being the only Republic,surrounded by Monarchies,that wanted nothing but that they fail.But since they were able to accomplish so much,even with those problems,just think what they could have done if they were more united.I believe had they based their Empire on SA,as the Portuguese learned to do with Brazil.With the gold and diamonds,among other advantages,they could have build a lasting legacy of Empire,as the British,Spanish and Portuguese did with their settler colonies.The wealth was there,the ships were there,the people were there,or could have been acquired.But what was lacking was the will of the leaders.Most of the successful Empires had problems,ups and downs in building their settler colonies as well.But their leaders were more united in what they wanted,and that made them successful in the long run.

As for France,ah France,lol.Their location was both a help and a hindrance.A long Atlantic coast with experienced seaman,was a great plus for France.But as you said,the constant wars drained them,not so much of wealth though,as of will.The Kings were far more interested in European affairs than in a colonial Empire.And when you had ministers that did push for colonial projects,the wars springing up,undid their plans.It also didn't help that the main area the French had as a colony at that time was Canada.No gold,no silver,no lush farmlands,to entice French farmers.By the time they began to think about Louisiana,it was too late in time to do what other nations had been doing for centuries.Similar to the Dutch,though for totally different reasons.They had the wealth,they had the ships,and unlike the Dutch,they easily had the people.But like the Dutch,their leaders failed them.
I know this is a very summary answer to a very complicated question,but since we are mostly involved with the Dutch I didn't want to go to far with France,lol.
 
The easiest way for the Dutch to expand would be a more succesful Dutch revolt. If you can add a larger part of Flanders and Brabant to the Netherlands that would make a major difference, especially if you can do it before they were reconverted to catholicism (or if you can make catholics be equal to protestants). These parts had been some of the richest and more populated parts of the Netherlands and would have equal footing to Holland.

Parts of Germany added to the Netherlands is possible, especially parts like East-Frisia, Cleve, Bentheim or Lingen. As the Netherlands was one of the most important countries in the region, most of them basicly were part of the Dutch sphere of influence and often had Dutch (or at least paid by the Dutch) soldiers stationed on them. Maybe at one point the Dutch decide to annex them, either because of some expensionism or because they fear they would fall in the hands of some less then coöperative state (like France or a usual enemy of France). You do need a very different Dutch policies for that, but the addition of an influential Flanders and Brabant could do it, certainly if that would mean the eastern provinces like Gelderland (or maybe even Limburg) would have more influence.

Different Anglo-dutch wars could make a difference, but you have to realise that the Dutch won the second and third one. But the Dutch could in theory have kept their colonies in North America, The English actualy offered them back for Surinam, the Dutch just prefered Surinam over the New Netherlands. The Dutch could also keep the Cape Colony or start a colony in Australia (which they discovered after all, but weren't interested in). The thing is you need a different outlook in the Dutch colonisation policy for that. The Dutch were mainly interested in money, which is why they traded Surinam (sugar plantations) for the New Netherlands (merely people living there) and ignored desertlike Australia.

The policy of a United Northern & Southern Netherlands, which could happen from the Burgundian Era (Burgundian Netheralnds) until a successful revolt for the entire Netherlands against their Sovereign Lord and king of 'Spain'.
A larger population and/or more unrest in Europe, could give more settlers just like in OTL were French Huguenots and Germans provided more settlers.
OTOH the position on the continent is a handicap, when compared to Britain; Britain could afford to mainly focus on their nava, whereas continental powers also require a decent army.
Keeping the Cape Colony would help, the Boers might still settle in the OTL areas, but they might do so with Dutch consent.
Regarding Australia, IIRC the Dutch mainly discovered Western Australia and parts of Northern Australia and mostly desertlike areas, a settlement there early enough, might help improve the odds to also discover the South West of Australia, which from a European perspective might look more promising. The Dutch East Indies were the major trade colony of the Netherlands, having settlement colonies in Australia, New Zealand and for provisions in South Africa could work.
 
Last edited:
A larger remaining British involvement in North America and/or just being less interested in Australia and New Zealand; ideally combined with an early Dutch settlement in the 17th century of New Holland (Australia) and eventually New Zealand could work.

Expansion in the Americas would be harder; and the Cape Colony would be even more important for the Dutch.

IMHO the most interesting scenario would be the colonial potential of a United Northern and Southern Netherlands, if they would never have been separated to begin with. Potentially each provincial estate could have a different religious policy (one official and the position of other forms of Christianity); for instance Holland could be more strict than Brabant, especially with regard to tolerance towards catholics, OTOH any catholic province could differ in their tolerance too.
 
Last edited:
A larger remaining British involvement in North America and/or just being less interested in Australia and New Zealand; ideally combined with an early Dutch settlement in the 17th century of New Holland (Australia) and eventually New Zealand could work.

Expansion in the Americas would be harder; and the Cape Colony would be even more important for the Dutch.

IMHO the most interesting scenario would be the colonial potential of a United Northern and Southern Netherlands, if they would never have been separated. Potentially each provincial estate could have a different religious policy.

You are so right,a United Netherlands (at least the Dutch/Flemish part) would add greatly to building the Empire.And also that the Americas would have been too difficult to build a Dutch Empire in.There were too many bigger nations already established there,wanting the same land.Even with the increase in homeland strength,they wouldn't be able to match countries like England,Spain,and France in North America or Spain and Portugal in the South.At best they would be left with crumbs around the edges,similar to what they ended up with in reality.

I think that all the signs are that SA would be the best area to be the "Jewel in the Crown of Empire",lol.They already were there,the land was healthful (mostly),plentiful resources available,native population was sparse in the west and not that large in the east compared to most areas they could settle.For a seafaring nation like the Dutch,it was conveniently located almost half way between Europe and the "Indies" and on the same latitudes as the Spanish in southern S.America,so we know it wasn't too far away to attract European settlers even in those days.They were far enough away from other European settlements in Africa,and those were in unhealthful areas,so didn't attract that many Europeans,for them to have been a threat to the Dutch while they were in the early stages of building up the colony.

I had thought also about Australia as a location for a great Dutch Empire,after all it was close to the Dutch East Indies and so they wouldn't really be going out of the way to get there.But then I looked at the technology of the times to develop Australia,and ran in to problems.Unlike SA,which was 3 to 4 months to get to from Europe,Australia was 6 to 8 months.That was quite a long way for settlers to go in those days.That's why until the 19th century(clipper ship invention)Australia didn't attract many European settlers.The gold rushes in the mid and late 19th century helped Australia to be considered an acceptable home for mass European migration.The Dutch could have build some small settlements there true,but by time technology caught up to make a large take off possible there,I'm afraid some other country (Britain or France)would have snatched it up,or settled and claimed various areas of Australia,which would have been just as bad for building a great Dutch Empire there.

For a Dutch Empire to be successful they would have to populate it with large masses of settlers,ie:the Americas,and later Australia/New Zealand.And for the times (17th,18th,early 19th century)when the Dutch would have the strength to make a success at Empire,before the other great nations were able to control the Empire business and freeze the smaller states out.The Cape/SA was by far their best bet for a settler nation.
 
The Dutch East Indies were the 'Jewel in the crown of the empire', in a similar way that British India was for the British Empire. However as a settler colony SA would definitely fulfill that role.
The later process of decolonization (Dutch East Indies/ Indonesia) after WW2 was rather unpleasant though; which had an effect on the further relationship of the Netherlands with Indonesia up to this day.

South Africa would be vital and initially be the most important; it would even be a help to any colonial ventures in New Holland (Australia) and possibly New Zealand. These ventures could start earlier combined with an exploration of the complete coast, however they won't have priority. At first South Africa would definitely be much more important, but SA is also very strategically located and just as IOTL I expect, that the chance the Netherlands will lose SA is much greater than any colony in Australia.

It furthermore will depend on the size of the Netherlands; is it just the Northern part or the Northern and Southern part. If the latter is the case, the Netherlands would be a medium power, however only Britain and France will probably be too strong in the age of imperialism. OTOH another colonial power and smaller state Portugal also managed to keep a decent empire. Regarding the masses of settlers, they don't all have to be Dutch; once the base population is large enough a gradual flow of newcomers can integrate.
 
Last edited:
one way to have the Netherlands have a better long term policy as well as a reason to gain land in Europe would be by having a King that was not as powerless as the OTL Stadhouder, though this King would still be far more restricted in ruling because of the entire reason for the Dutch Revolt.


Keeping SA could have been done, even in OTL
 
It could be everything from a surviving Burgundy-Burgundian Netherlands, the Habsburgs don't gain 'Spain' or a completely succesful Dutch revolt, to keep the Northern and Southern Netherlands united. If early enough, then even the prospects in the Americas could be a bit better. Expansion in Europe would at best be bits of the HRE; the scale would be determined by the size, since Burgundy and the Habsburgs could have more means.

The Stadtholder (stadhouder in Dutch) wasn't a king, but originally the representative of the sovereign lord and later the Provincial Estates.

I'm not saying that keeping SA can't be done, but that other colonial powers will be most interested in this possession and much less in any settlement colonies in New Holland (Australia).
 
Last edited:
The Dutch East Indies were the 'Jewel in the crown of the empire', in a similar way that British India was for the British Empire. However as a settler colony SA would definitely fulfill that role.
The later process of decolonization (Dutch East Indies/ Indonesia) after WW2 was rather unpleasant though; which had an effect on the further relationship of the Netherlands with Indonesia up to this day.

South Africa would be vital and initially be the most important; it would even be a help to any colonial ventures in New Holland (Australia) and possibly New Zealand. These ventures could start earlier combined with an exploration of the complete coast, however they won't have priority. At first South Africa would definitely be much more important, but SA is also very strategically located and just as IOTL I expect, that the chance the Netherlands will lose SA is much greater than any colony in Australia.

It furthermore will depend on the size of the Netherlands; is it just the Northern part or the Northern and Southern part. If the latter is the case, the Netherlands would be a medium power, however only Britain and France will probably be too strong in the age of imperialism. OTOH another colonial power and smaller state Portugal also managed to keep a decent empire. Regarding the masses of settlers, they don't all have to be Dutch; once the base population is large enough a gradual flow of newcomers can integrate.

Yes,after the middle of the 19th century Indonesia became the full and almost the only really important colony the Netherlands had.But until the British returned it to the Dutch in 1814-1815 period except for Java and a few smaller islands all the Dutch controlled in the other parts of that huge chain of islands were a few trade posts/forts.After then they slowly began to take over total control.But the climate was so bad and there was such a huge native population that there was no serious thought of founding a "New Netherlands" settler homeland there.

My point was and is that SA was perfect (as much as any new land is perfect for settlement) for that purpose.As well as,with a bit more government encouragement the Diamonds and Gold that were discovered in the 19th century would have been discovered in the 17th century.That was a time when the Dutch were the foremost naval power in Europe.I foresee a Brazil type situation there.The wealth would bring settlers from the Netherlands (both parts),Germany,etc,pouring in,thus building up the colony,and (little Portugal sent around 400 thousand setters to Brazil during the 18th century gold rush there) still sending great wealth to the homeland strengthening them (as Brazil did for Portugal).

As for the other powers seizing SA.That is a concern,but the only one's that would have been any kind of threat were England and France.During the period we're talking about,at various times in the period one or the other of them were allied to the Dutch,so that would leave only one at a time to worry about.There were no good bases in the 17th century anywhere close for those countries to use to attack the Dutch in SA.During the period from 1652-1795 no other country make a serious attack on the Cape.The British were only able to seize it in 1795 because the Dutch had so small a presence there.Had there been a serious Dutch settler presence,I believe the results for the British would have been the same as when they tried to take over La Plata (Argentina) in 1806 and were driven out by the local militia.Armies in those times were small compared to later.The British seized the Cape with I believe 5-6 thousand,and tried to seize La Plata with 6-7 thousand.The one succeeded and the other failed because of the amount of resistance they were offered.
 
Well nothing too serious, but I just made ALT 'best case' (United) Dutch Colonial Empire map, so it's quite optimistic without IMHO exaggerating too much.

Edit: I've removed Dutch (Belgian) Congo and Dutch Hainan and added Dutch Malacca.

NLGrColEmp2.GIF
 
Last edited:
Top