Scottish Panama

in 1695 the Scottish Crown emarked on The Darién Scheme which was to plant a Scottish Colony in Panama. However the plan failed for many reasons including disease and refusal of aid by the British. The British promised to support the Scottish but they were at war with France and did not want to antagonize the Spainish for the Spainish of course lay claim to Panama. How would the settlement be a success? Of course it would most definetly need British support.
 
in 1695 the Scottish Crown emarked on The Darién Scheme which was to plant a Scottish Colony in Panama. However the plan failed for many reasons including disease and refusal of aid by the British. The British promised to support the Scottish but they were at war with France and did not want to antagonize the Spainish for the Spainish of course lay claim to Panama. How would the settlement be a success? Of course it would most definetly need British support.

Point of order here. It was the English and not the British who refused help. Britain as a state did not exist. Scotland and England had the same monarch and were supposed to be allies, but that was as far as it went.

On the success of the colony, considering that part of the brief was trade with Africa, it was not very well situated. As for trade with the Indies, whilst it might have generated traffic across the Pacific, I would have said that the amount would not have made it commerically viable.
 
in 1695 the Scottish Crown emarked on The Darién Scheme which was to plant a Scottish Colony in Panama. However the plan failed for many reasons including disease and refusal of aid by the British. The British promised to support the Scottish but they were at war with France and did not want to antagonize the Spainish for the Spainish of course lay claim to Panama. How would the settlement be a success? Of course it would most definetly need British support.
English not British. Seeing as Scotland is part of Great Britain, you can take it there was support from within Britain.
On the success of the colony, considering that part of the brief was trade with Africa, it was not very well situated. As for trade with the Indies, whilst it might have generated traffic across the Pacific, I would have said that the amount would not have made it commerically viable.
That was not the brief of the colony.

The location of the colony was chosen deliberately as it was one of the narrowest points in the Americas between the Pacific and the Carribean. The brief was to create a highway for trade between west and east.

It was a good idea, and was equally considered by the East India Company who as a matter of point never considered it Spanish territory until the Scots settled there and threatened their monopoly of colonial trade in the British Isles. The French tried something similar later on with their panama canal idea, which was only later completed by the Americans. In short the idea was a forerunner of the Panama canal.

It failed for various reasons, principally the Spanish forcing the Scots out twice, poor management by the company and the East India Company, which was determined to strangle the colony at birth.

For success......

1)Allow the English to buy shares in the Company(they did subscribe in otl, but Westminster blocked them from buying shares.)This gives England an interest.
2)Have Westminster support the colony.
3)A slower response from Spain. In OTL the response was quick as they were scared if the Scots became entrenched it would be too difficult to remove them from the colony. A hurricane before the Scots arrive destroying Spanish shipping in Carthegena or something to that effect should suffice.
4)Better planning from the company. In short less bibles, initially women, and wigs, more food, soldiers,carpenters and stone masons.
 
Last edited:
If the English see reason to help the Scottish with their colony, then you'll see a successful Darien and a more united Britain.
 
If the English see reason to help the Scottish with their colony, then you'll see a successful Darien and a more united Britain.
Doesnt automatically go. As I said, a slower response from Spain and better planning from the Scots Company are equally required.
 
For success......

1)Allow the English to buy shares in the Company(they did subscribe in otl, but Westminster blocked them from buying shares.)This gives England an interest.
2)Have Westminster support the colony.
3)A slower response from Spain. In OTL the response was quick as they were scared if the Scots became entrenched it would be too difficult to remove them from the colony. A hurricane before the Scots arrive destroying Spanish shipping in Carthegena or something to that effect should suffice.
4)Better planning from the company. In short less bibles, initially women, and wigs, more food, soldiers,carpenters and stone masons.

But don't forget that Darién was a hole of hot, humidity and diseases back then (and still today, to a certain point), with cannibal nomads wandering around who had no intention at all of being friendly to any Europeans. That's the reason why it was empty when the Scottish came... just because every other attempt to settle the region in the last 200 years was unsuccessful (and there were more than one, by the Spanish and by European pirates). I think that the only way the Darién colony could be successful would be building it in other place.
 
But don't forget that Darién was a hole of hot, humidity and diseases back then (and still today, to a certain point), with cannibal nomads wandering around who had no intention at all of being friendly to any Europeans. That's the reason why it was empty when the Scottish came... just because every other attempt to settle the region in the last 200 years was unsuccessful (and there were more than one, by the Spanish and by European pirates). I think that the only way the Darién colony could be successful would be building it in other place.

Yeah, I think the colony was pretty much doomed. The poor quality of life there, the proximity of overwhelming Spanish forces, and the poor planning make it a nightmare even if one can factor in English support. Think of the difficulty experienced by settlers in Jamestown and Plymouth, and how many of them died, then consider just how much worse the conditions were in Darien....
 
But don't forget that Darién was a hole of hot, humidity and diseases back then (and still today, to a certain point), with cannibal nomads wandering around who had no intention at all of being friendly to any Europeans. That's the reason why it was empty when the Scottish came... just because every other attempt to settle the region in the last 200 years was unsuccessful (and there were more than one, by the Spanish and by European pirates). I think that the only way the Darién colony could be successful would be building it in other place.
Actually, there is documented evidence the local tribes were friendly to the Scots(i believe) and that they wanted to get the Scots to take on the Spanish, who they viewed as oppresers. Why they never viewed the Scots as the same as the Spanish is unclear. In any case, the Scots rejected their offer of taking on Spain....

Considering how badly the French did at a similar idea later on, I have to concur that it was unlikely to succeed though.
 
Last edited:
I actually looked into this before beginning on my project "Scottish Empire." I decided that Darien was really too late a POD for Scotland to have a able colonization.
 
I actually looked into this before beginning on my project "Scottish Empire." I decided that Darien was really too late a POD for Scotland to have a able colonization.

How about the Scots making a better go of Nova Scotia? From my reading of its history, it was lack of commitment from the moneyed classes along with Charles I giving back conquered territory to the French that limited its expansion.
 
How about the Scots making a better go of Nova Scotia? From my reading of its history, it was lack of commitment from the moneyed classes along with Charles I giving back conquered territory to the French that limited its expansion.

You should talk to Dan1988 about that - I believe he was considering writing something on that general theme.
 
English not British. Seeing as Scotland is part of Great Britain, you can take it there was support from within Britain.

That was not the brief of the colony.

The location of the colony was chosen deliberately as it was one of the narrowest points in the Americas between the Pacific and the Carribean. The brief was to create a highway for trade between west and east.

It was a good idea, and was equally considered by the East India Company who as a matter of point never considered it Spanish territory until the Scots settled there and threatened their monopoly of colonial trade in the British Isles. The French tried something similar later on with their panama canal idea, which was only later completed by the Americans. In short the idea was a forerunner of the Panama canal.

It failed for various reasons, principally the Spanish forcing the Scots out twice, poor management by the company and the East India Company, which was determined to strangle the colony at birth.

For success......

1)Allow the English to buy shares in the Company(they did subscribe in otl, but Westminster blocked them from buying shares.)This gives England an interest.
2)Have Westminster support the colony.
3)A slower response from Spain. In OTL the response was quick as they were scared if the Scots became entrenched it would be too difficult to remove them from the colony. A hurricane before the Scots arrive destroying Spanish shipping in Carthegena or something to that effect should suffice.
4)Better planning from the company. In short less bibles, initially women, and wigs, more food, soldiers,carpenters and stone masons.

Actually, the Spanish were so afraid that various governours kept passing responsibility for destroying the colony to each other, and the Scots fared well initally. That said, everything, from concept to planning to execution was a disaster. The concept was drawn from the "imaginative" journals of a ship's doctor. The scots kidnaped him, and he just told them what they wanted to hear. AS you said earlier, the planning was ridiculous. ANd, on departure, the fleet was caught in a gale just a few miles from Edinburgh. The board of directors could have recalled it, but did nothing. By the time they sent out the message boat to recall the fleet, the storm had passed, and the fleet had departed. And while the expedition's leader was able, he had to make joint decisions with a commission of 10 men. This meant nothing could really get done. Then, when the colony sent someone home to tell the Directors just how bad it was, he decided (I can't recall offhand whether the directors convinced him) to make some money by declaring the colony a complete success. A second fleet was sent. Meanwhile, the first colony departs, and for the most part, dies of disease. The second fleet arrived, and only found a barren wasteland. Then the Spanish attack, and they are forced to leave. Repeat the end of the first fleet.

The only really viable way for Darien to succeed would be massive English support. The Spanish hated them, the French and Dutch didn't care, so the English are really the only nearby group who can help. Or, the Spanish decide to help the scots. But given Spanish polices, that is nearly ASB.
 
Top