WI: A Colonizing Dutch?

Okay, so even if the Hapsburg court remains in Vienna, any colonial ventures by the Dutch/Burgundian-Netherlanders would be done so in the name of and under the directives of the imperial Hapsburg dynasty. Any overseas colonies would be established for reasons other than to enrich the cities of the Netherlands.

Another question attached to this scenario would be if the Austrian Hapsburgs remain tolerant enough of the Lutherans or other Protestant groups in the region so they wouldn't need it heavily garrisoned.
Depends. Perhaps there would be some rules about the Hapsburg nobility showing an example by not profiting from the conversion of heathens, so the Dutch would get certain monopolies in exchange for loans and the products of the colonies, as well as a few Austrian administrators.
 
I think you need to neutralize the Brits as an opposing power... This looks like a job for William and Mary. ;)

Flocc wrote a very impressive Anglo-Dutch TL years ago that actually got me hooked on AH to begin with.

More recently, I'm using the same POD and running with it. Not sure if I'll ever post that here, as it may be too similar to Flocc's work. We'll see.
 
i meant keeping them dutch
Keeping South Africa Dutch shouldn't be that hard. Avoid the French revolution or at least the initial militairy succes of the French revolution and avoid the Netherlands being defeated by it and South Africa remains Dutch. Actually the Batavian republic regained South Africa from the British for a while, so a POD there might work too. Avoid Louis Napoleon from becoming king of Holland for example. So a Dutch Cape Colony is rather easy.

Dutch New Netherlands/Amsterdam. Slightly harder but not impossible. After the second Anglo-Dutch war in which the English captured it, they offered to return it to the Netherland after the war, but the Dutch preferered Surinam, which was more profitable. A bigger Dutch victory during the Anglo-Dutch war might do the trick too. The biggest problem here is you need a different policy towards setler colonies. The Dutch basicly colonised for money and the fur trade of North America was less profitable than the sugar trade of the Carribean.

Dutch Brasil also failed because of bad policy. You need some more competent people there to rule it than OTL. Also it probably wouldn't be all of Brasil, merely the parts near Recife and it ouldn't become a settler colony, but more like a Surinam.

Dutch Australia and New Zealand, well the problem there is that there is nothing to gain there, it is out of the way. There really exists no good reason for the Dutch to settle it. Maybe if gold is found in Australia by Dutch explorers. Or west Australia could be used as a halfway station for the voyage towards the Dutch East Indies. I believe the curents the VOC used come close to Western Australia, so that could be a possibility.

The biggest problems with creating Dutch settler colonies is motivation. Dutch colonisation was mainly motivated by making as much money as possible and they were very good at that. For settling colonies you need to switch at least partly towards a different policy.

Another big problem is overextention. The Netherlands is a relatavely small country, it can only colonise so much. Creating a Dutch USA is simply impossible. The Netherlands is too small for that. If the Netherlands included (more of) Flanders and Brabant that could work, just like a more expensionist Netherlands towards Germany. The Netherlands probably could expand slightly into Germany and incorparate areas like East Frisia and Cleve, which were already de facto ruled by the Netherlands. Still you have a small country, certainly smaller than England or France. The Netherlands could use Hugenots, "Belgian" protestants and Germans to populate their countries. I think they would assimilate into the Dutch population.

Basicly I think it is possible for a Dutch colonial empire to consists out of the New Netherlands (New York, New Jersey and Delaware), Dutch west indies (Dutch Antilles and a couple other Carribean islands like Tobago or the Virgin islands), Dutch Guyana (Surinam and British Guyana), New Holland (Brasil around Recife), Dutch Gold coast (Ghana), the Dutch Cape Colony, Dutch East Indies (Indonesia and Malaysia), Ceylon and New Holland II (Western Australia). More than that and the Netherlands gets overextended and even this will be hard to keep.
 
A part of the discussion is the time of the POD. The OTL Dutch Republic might have been slightly more successful, but much more Dutch colonies would require a pod, which keeps more of the Low Countries (maybe even some extra territories in OTL Northern France and Western Germany). However a really early POD will not only lead to differences for the Netherlands, but for all the European colonial empires.

Another possibility would be differences, if it was a Dutch monarchy rather than a Dutch republic.

PS I hope this post isn't too late.
 
The Dutch colonizing New Amsterdam, Brazil, southern Africa, Australia and New Zeeland. Dang, that sounds awefully familiar.

New Amsterdam (OTL became New York), (partially) Dutch Brazil, South Africa, Australia and New Zeeland.

I wonder what the chances of New Amsterdam will be, if like in OTL all neighboring colonies end up in the hands of the same (sometimes rivalling) nation. And if they aren't annexed, what will happen after independence? A Dutch speaking nation in North America or will they enter into a union with their neighbors.

A Dutch Brazil, most likely just around Recife and Natal and not the whole of OTL Brazil, furthermore probably no Dutch Surinam and/or Guyana ITTL.

South Africa, probably an expanded Cape Colony, but some parts of OTL South Africa could end up with a colony of another nation too.

Australia and New Zeeland are interesting, firstly it will require a relatively early settlement in Western Australia as a starting point; and secondly a more complete exploration of the continent. More promising lands will be valued, especially with a different approach towards settler colonies.
As noted before the Dutch attitude towards settler colonies or let me rephrase that a bit the way the Dutch IOTL organized their colonial endeavours, which was dominated by trading companies, needs to be altered a bit, so that establishing settlement colonies will be valued more.
More groups from within the Netherlands (ideally enlarged a bit; XVII Netherlands (all the Low Countres) instead of the VII Netherlands (the northern parts)) want to immigrate or sent to colonies; and also more foreign groups willing to move to Dutch colonies, maybe some of the other nations are less welcoming.
However maybe it will also be stimulated, if New Amsterdam and maybe the Cape Colony are lost. (A foreign take over might even lead to some settlers moving further on (either willingly or forcefully), especially if that colony is already somewhat developed).
 
Partially, but you still need enough Dutch presence for them to be Dutch colonies. As in, the Dutch are able to have any real control of them.

And the Dutch population (from The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, by the way) is presumably including people moving to the Netherlands, so those Huguenots are counted.

Agreed on the issue of all the Low Countries, though. Not sure how likely that is, or how much it would change on the Netherlands, but . . .

Just putting Brabant and Atwerp into the lot would change a lot of things.
Of course, the European BoP from Westafalia to Aachen, which had in the Low Countries a pivotal point, in completely changed.
 
Another point is that early impulse for Dutch colonial activity OTL was strongly tied to the war of independence since Portugal was under the Kings of Spain at the time. Snatching Portuguese colonies had an intrinsic value in denying the enemy at home a source of important revenue.
Not sure what pattern they would follow if they stayed under the Hapsburgs, but they are unlikely to antagonize Iberians in the Far East.
 
Another point is that early impulse for Dutch colonial activity OTL was strongly tied to the war of independence since Portugal was under the Kings of Spain at the time. Snatching Portuguese colonies had an intrinsic value in denying the enemy at home a source of important revenue.
Not sure what pattern they would follow if they stayed under the Hapsburgs, but they are unlikely to antagonize Iberians in the Far East.

Not at first, but depending on the PoD there are some uncertainties. Like the house of Habsburg might not inherit the Spanish kingdoms; or a separate Burgundian branch or alternatively an ATL Austro-Burgundian branch; and the various branches might not always be each others ally either.

Besides not snatching up colonies from the Iberian powers is one thing, but they like the other European powers will want their share of the pie, so they too won't allow the Iberian powers a monopoly either.
So probably no seizing of colonies or trading posts; well if Portugal wants to break free from 'Spain' and the Spanish Habsburgs and a Burgundian/Austro-Burgundian branch or the Habsburgs are allied with a surviving Trastamara Spain, then I can see them grabbing Portuguese colonies (with Spanish consent). However I do see them establishing colonies and trading posts of their own, especially in a non-Habsburg 'Spain' or in a scenario with a separate Burgundian Habsburg branch or if the Burgundian inheritance goes to the Austrian branch (might become known as the Austro-Burgundian branch).
 
While I quite agree that it seems unlikely that NZ would ever be colonised by the Dutch for all sorts of reasons, it would not take much in the way of population to make one stick, as it were.

The North Island of NZ had a large indigenous population of Polynesians who would be interested in trading food / etc for weapons, transport, fabrics etc. They would also be interested in hosting small groups of traders, whalers, etc, for similar reasons as most indigenous peoples hold (an advantage over their neighbours regarding trade, weapons, learning etc). That would be enough to help establish a permanent Dutch presence.

Then, the South Island, south of Christchurch was largely open for settlement. The Maori living there were few in number and not closely associated with any Northern tribes. So Dutch settlers, with the right crops/animals, could easily establish quite large communities of farmers that would be not easily possible in the North Island. Then, once that is done, the South Island can easily be filled up. At that point the Dutch settlers have a firm base and can leverage their strength more directly against the North Island Maori, from their coastal settlements.

That is sort of how it went IOTL

The difference being that the economic case for settlement IOTL is a little different than ATL. IOTL NZ Maori, then later settlers were able to sell directly to NSW and Victoria, which were more established British colonies. Further, shipping, agriculture and mining technology made it easy for the Settlers to get to the European markets. Little of which exists prior to the mid 19th century.

However, potentially one could get a small religious group of several hundred settlers in the southern South Island, who over a few decades gradually grow to several thousand. At that point they would be stronger than almost all the Maori tribes and would also be a proper destination for Dutch trade.
 
Top