What goes into Colonialism?

[MNP]

Inspired by the cliches thread about tiny countries getting random blocks of land when they shouldn't....

Just what DOES it take to establish a colony? What kind of resources and administrations show up (depending on the era) and what reasons do you go full-on colonial instead of just maintaining a localized city and surrounding area to give yourself a port to trade inland?

I ask because colonies were useful but also expensive and in part a nationalistic pissing match. I want to gain a better understanding of the issue.

 

[Typo]

Economical and commercial viability, in all sorts of ways, for the colonists and the Mother country

Either that or national pride for the money sinkholes

 

[midnight77]

Colonialism? Mustaches and pith helmets.

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

Depends. In the classical era all you needed is some moody male outcasts, some boats and some priitive tribesmen who didn't yet have bronze.

Roman era, well you'd have military colonies, so all you needed is some soldiers who wanted land and then some primitive tribesen you've laready slaughtered, so it doesn't matter if they're annoyed.

 

[Valdemar II]

It depend on the area and timeperiode.

Colonies before the 19th century demanded large monetary resources, but even a private person or company could do it (the Fugges), the problem would be to keep it, of course the problem was to keep it, if you didn't have a strong navy back it up. Most colonies couldn't be expected to give surplus before at the very least a decade had gone by, while a few like settler colonies could take a lot longer, and gave very little back*. For many of the minor colonial powers even a small Caribbian Island was quite major investment. African trading post was cheaper to fund and more secure, so we see Sweden, Brandenburg and Courland invest in those. East and South Asia was one of the hardest place and least safe investments, but seem to have given the most back.

Post 1800 any European coastal state could create a colony, if it could get the other European powers to accept it claims. Gaining control over the area could take decades, but if it was recognised in Europe, other powers tended to keep out of it.

*They was often founded for different reason like gaining control over a strategic territorium, secure a strategic resourc or, sometimes for pure prestige (New Sweden).

 

[Snotter's Dad]

It seems to be a changing progression.
Britain wanted territorial prestige and economic advantage followed by a need to re-locate malcontents followed by international position followed by economics, with no clear boundary. In some cases I don't even think there was a reason other than getting there before someone else die, just in case there was real advantage.
Spain wanted gold, resources was their motivation, eventually growing into international power, expansion and economics.
France seemed to have a hard time figuring out a legitimate purpose, It seemes to have continued to focus on resources throughout it's colonial period. I think the world would be very different if they had actually colonized instead of exploited.
Belgium...Tiny Belgium...enrichment of the throne.

 

[Atom]

It really depends on the nation and the time. Sometimes nations just seem to sort of fall into Colonial Empires, like how much of the Spanish New World was conquered; Spain simply accepted and defended what it's citizens took in small warlike groups. In general however, I would argue that an imbalance of power between the two sides and a powerful desire for expansion is necessary.