Which German State at the time would be likely to make a colony in North America?

POD would be around after 1607, when Jamestown was founded.

Since Klein-Venedig is in South America, I want to say a proposal for a German colony within the Eastern Seaboard as a counterpart to New Netherland and New Sweden. I know Saxony can't do that since they're landlocked, so perhaps Brandenburg or Brunswick-Luneburg can make a shot to create a counterpart to such colonies?
 
Last edited:
POD would be around after 1607, when Jamestown was founded.

Since Klein-Venedig is in South America, I want to say a proposal for a German colony within the Eastern Seaboard as a counterpart to New Netherland and New Sweden. I know Saxony can't do that since they're landlocked, so perhaps Brandenburg or Brunswick-Luneburg can make a shot to create a counterpart to such colonies?

Maybe a Hanoveranian colony with New Hanover as capital ?

Or a stronger Hanseatic league (well, they officially disbanded after Thirty Year war, but their members were still independant City states) sends a fleet of ships to the Eastcoast, establish trading posts and establish colonies. They may try to seriously maintain good relations with their Indian neighbors. Neu-Hamburg for example.
 
Last edited:
POD would be around after 1607, when Jamestown was founded.

Since Klein-Venedig is in South America, I want to say a proposal for a German colony within the Eastern Seaboard as a counterpart to New Netherland and New Sweden. I know Saxony can't do that since they're landlocked, so perhaps Brandenburg or Brunswick-Luneburg can make a shot to create a counterpart to such colonies?

Brandenburg was the only northern German state to have any official colonies, but on the North American mainland iss difficult - there is not much to gain and no state has a surplus population to send over the sea. Brandenburg the least, unless you completely avoid the 30Y war or stop it right after the Bohemian-Palatinate theater.

Maybe a Hanoveranian colony with New Hanover as capital ?

Or a stronger Hanseatic league (well, they officially disbanded after Thirty Year war, but their members were still independant City states) sends a fleet of ships to the Eastcoast, establish trading posts and establish colonies. They may try to seriously maintain good relations with their Indian neighbors. Neu-Hamburg for example.

Small correction: The Hanseatic League was not disbanded, they just stopped having official and well-attended meetings. Lübeck, Hamburg and Bremen never stopped calling themselves Hanseatidc cities and cooperating in some affairs.
 
I know Saxony can't do that since they're landlocked, so perhaps Brandenburg or Brunswick-Luneburg can make a shot to create a counterpart to such colonies?

Well, being landlocked didn't stop Bavaria from toying with the idea for colonies on the site of present day New York - AFAIK the only thing that stopped that from happening was the death of the elector who had the idea (can't remember if it was Maximilian I or Ferdinand Maria).

Nor did being landlocked stop the king of Württemberg in the 19th century from founding (and being obsessed) with a yacht club and yachting. So, I guess as long as you can find a port willing to deal, you'll find a way.
 
A German colony in this time period is unlikely without major butterflies. There weren't many powerful northern German states that might have sustained a navy. Prussia wasn't developed for another century and didn't have much of a navy until 150 years after that.

It would have to be a German state in personal union with another power like Austria-Hungary with a Slovenian port, or Denmark-Norway-Shleswig-Holstein or Sweden-Pomerania or a Britain-Hanover, the non-German portion always being the less relevant.

Maybe the Germans would be given nominal control as a political gesture. Even this is unlikely given that most of these states (especially the Nordic states) were very autocratic.
 
As others have pointed out, the 17th century is not a good time for German colonisation because of the Thirty Years War. Later, in the 18th century, the window of opportunity has already shut.
So the only chance is earlier, i.e. in the 16th century or the very beginnings of the 17th. At this point in time, the only ones who could be pushed towards establishing some sort of outpost could be the Hanseatic League. Given their very tense relations with England, such a colony would probably not last long, though - unless we change this relationship between them.
 
There were actually a number of early attempts at establishing various German colonies in the New World, but they all ended in failure. Maybe if they had a better start, then a few German speaking parts in the Americas wouldn't be out of the question, including incursions into the north, maybe in Spanish Florida if the Habsburgs are still in charge of Germany and Spain. It would be interesting to see how this affects German nationalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonization_of_the_Americas
 
If some German state of note could do it before the Thirty Years War, they'd be in position to ship war refugees to the New World as well as the Germans who later moved to Russia or elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Maybe Austria could do it with their holdings in the Low Countries.

Since German emigrants would move to places under threat from Central Asian states, I wouldn't put it past them to emigrate to anywhere in the New World, be it North America or South America.
 
Nor did being landlocked stop the king of Württemberg in the 19th century from founding (and being obsessed) with a yacht club and yachting. So, I guess as long as you can find a port willing to deal, you'll find a way.

Eh, while Lake Constance (der Bodensee) is no ocean, it is certainly big enough for yachting, and Friedrichshafen is a Württemberg town - named after the first King of Württemberg, in fact, who founded it. So for yachting, W is not landlocked at all.

A German colony in this time period is unlikely without major butterflies. There weren't many powerful northern German states that might have sustained a navy. Prussia wasn't developed for another century and didn't have much of a navy until 150 years after that.

That is wrong. First, it is rather irrelevant whether the title of "King in Prussia" existed when it comes to the colonies of Brandenburg. And Brandenburg did have a 500-gun-navy of ~30 vessels in 1680.
In fact, with colonies on the Gold Coast, Mauretania and in the Virgin Islands, Brandenburg is by far the best candidate.

It would have to be a German state in personal union with another power like Austria-Hungary with a Slovenian port, or Denmark-Norway-Shleswig-Holstein or Sweden-Pomerania or a Britain-Hanover, the non-German portion always being the less relevant.

Maybe the Germans would be given nominal control as a political gesture. Even this is unlikely given that most of these states (especially the Nordic states) were very autocratic.

I guess you mean "the non-German portion always being the more relevant." But it still seems garbled.
You simply cannot contrast Austria with "a German state". In that time frame, Austria was a German state.

Of Denmark-NO-S-H, only Holstein was part of the HRE and should be called "German". With a PoD in 1607, you can have Christian IV a victor of a shorter 30YW, and translating his important role as War Leader of the Lower Saxon Circle into a permanent position. In 1659 the first attempt at a Danish-owned African trading company was based in Glückstadt in Holstein, a town established in 1617. It should be possible to find a reason why this might officially kept as a Holsteinian enterprise.
Any autocratic Danish absolutism began only under Frederik III. in 1660. so it is certainly not a given.

Having Sweden acquire Bremen-Verden in 1648 as in OTL, but managing to acquire the city of Bremen as well, and somehow basing its collonial efforts there would be very interesting.
BTW, absolutism in Sweden was very much the depowering of the nobility and was generally supported by rural freeholders and urban tradesmen, so autocracy is a bit misleading, IMO.

And Britain-Hanover? AFAIK, Hanover was never governed by a British institution. No more than Canada today is governed by UK officials. If the Elector of H would decide to spent his German possession's money to establish a colony, he might do so.
(Maybe the Kolonie Georgien is established in the 1730s as Hanoverian instead of British attempt?)
 
I would think the location for such a German colony at the time would be in Pennsylvania, like around Philadelphia because of the state's immense German heritage.

What about King Charles II granting the land beyond the Delaware River (ie OTL Pennsylvania and Delaware) to his cousin Prince Rupert of the Rhine? Christened New Palatinate (Neu-Pfalz), it is settled in ~1670 to ~1740 by several waves of German refugees from the greater Palatinate area, fleeing the various French invasions and devastations of the Mosel-Mittelrhein-Main-Neckar area. With guaranteed german-language institutions in the capital of Ruprechtsburg, Neu-Pfalz is a decidedly German-culture state, even if ultimately subject to the British crown.
 
You need a powerful navy or surplus population to have a colony, and no German state had either? Hmmm, let's examine that- 1) Scotland tried having a colony, yes a failed one (but the OP didn't say it had to be successful) so then so can a German state, Scotland had neither a strong navy nor surplus population. The German states though did have surplus population! Those little states could not support the population they had, they needed those people to move on, there's a reason they had surplus military and mercenaries for King George III to use in the ARW. As pointed out many states such as Bavaria toyed with colonies. If we expand the definition of "German state" to include Austria (clearly a German state, can't argue it) then... very easy to see a colony on the East Coast or anywhere else. Austrians get wiff of New Netherland (no there is not an s) and given that Austrians have historical beef with them, they take it, and for good measure New Sweden too. Puritans show up, preemptive strike against the English and take that. If the Austrians are willing to invest even a small strike force, take preemptive action and be diligent they can take Jamestown early, and keep the English out. Austria though will find the rivalry with the Spanish in Florida and the French across the Appalachians. Germans, Magyars, Croats, Slovenes, Poles, Ukrainians all come to the East Coast, so many small German states will have ex-pats in these Austrian colonies along the coast that PERHAPS it gives Austria the prestige it needs to bind them closer and isolate Brandenburg-Prussia. Prussia never rises to a major European power. American Revolution though may occur with Austrian-Americans rising up against taxation and various laws from the mother country financing their wars against France, Prussia, Russia, or the Ottoman Empire. Austria take the place of the English/British in defeating New France. *Americans gain independence (speaking German), this time gaining Quebec or at least Quebec becomes independent or returns to France as reward for France intervening (Austrians wouldn't have been as conciliatory towards French speakers as the British were in OTL). French Revolution still occurs, French debt, wars, dissatisfaction won't be butterflied away. The difference- The British are the big boys they were OTL. They don't have the navy as big and strong since they lost the East Coast in early 1600s, they don't bottle Napoleon in Egypt, he makes it to Baghdad before mutiny a la Alexander the Great forces a return from "the East". In the end though a Russian disaster still occurs and Russians and Austrians still steam roll him. He sells the *Americans the Louisiana territory and the westward movement of Austrian/Americans occurs in rhyming fashion to OTL Manifest Destiny.
 
Top