Is it possible for the Dutch to take over all Portuguese possesions in India, Indonesia and China?
Not if they don't also snag the ports and allies the Portuguese had in Africa.Is it possible for the Dutch to take over all Portuguese possesions in India, Indonesia and China?
Is it possible for the Dutch to take over all Portuguese possesions in India, Indonesia and China?
Seems this will lead the Portuguese to focus on America and Africa earlier. Perhaps this leads to a more Africa-focused Portugal?
a relatively small population which could not provide a continuous replenishment of colonists due to disease and the like.
Before starting the TL I had done extensive studies of demographics in settler societies, comparing English (later British), French, Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish possessions around the globe. I used these to try to formulate a timeline that would be plausible. What I meant by a "small" number is when one compares the numbers of Portuguese heading for the East Indies during the 16th century (around 300-350,000). Here a net of around 15,000 Europeans settle the territory during the 16th century. However, due to a much shorter voyage, and proximity to home (the Azores), death rates are somewhat lower, but they are high during the first decades of settlement.
Climatically speaking this region of North America possessed qualities allowing it to be relatively free from diseases plaguing the tropical and even subtropical climates well into the 19th century. Because most are most familiar with the English colonies, it is important to look at them during their early period of colonisation. To illustrate the point, below are three separate regions being colonised by the English between with the net migration of Europeans for the 1630-1680 period shown below:
NET MIGRATION OF EUROPEANS 1630-1680
New England 28,000
Southern Colonies 75,000
West Indies 141,000
WHITE POPULATION IN 1630
New England 2,300
Southern Colonies 11,000
West Indies 4,800
WHITE POPULATION IN 1680
New England 68,000
Southern Colonies 63,000
West Indies 43,000
What the above illustrates is that New England had a far higher rate of natural growth, than the Southern Colonies and especially the West Indies, despite receiving a far smaller portion of immigrants. During the earliest years, New England's small settler population struggled during its first decade, that is during the 1620s, experiencing a high mortality rate. However, once the population reached 2,000, the colonies there were somewhat self sufficient and able to support incoming new arrivals so that during the 1630s, the population's natural growth jumped to 0.5% per annum, then to 2.1% per annum during the 1640s and 2.6% per annum in the 1650s and 1660s. Finally reaching and impressive rate of 2.7% per annum during the 1670s, remaining there until the 1750s. This pattern is not dissimilar to the one found in other settler colonies in areas which were climatically amenable to Europeans. In New France, the natural growth rates were 2.5-2.7% per annum during the colonial period and remained at that rate for a century longer than in New England. The difference is that in 1650, New France's stage of colonisation was where New England had been a generation earlier. When a large contingent of Europeans arrived in the 1660s, the population growth began to mimic that of New England almost exactly. In Dutch South Africa too, a mere 2,000 Europeans settled and despite initial hardships, they too enjoyed a natural growth rate of around 2.7% per annum throughout the 18th century. What this shows is that there was a pattern in demographic growth applicable to the settler frontier societies, despite the difference in nationality or religion.
On the other hand the southern colonies, despite receiving far more European immigrants between 1630-1680, and far more until the end of colonial rule were hampered by early settlement of Europeans along coastal marshes susceptible to mosquito-borne diseases resulting in far higher mortality rates, and as a result lower natural growth. This was especially true along the Cheasapeake Bay and later along the Carolinas coast and Georgia. Only once settlers begin moving further inland did mortality rates for the colonies as a whole subside somewhat. Despite this, the Southern Colonies had a negative natural growth rate of 3.5% per annum during the 1630s, 1.3% annum during the 1640s and 1660s, falling to -0.7% during the 1670s and -0.1% per annum during the 1680s. It would only be during the 1690s that a positive natural growth rate of 0.5% per annum occurred. Despite this, the mortality rate for whites in the region remained much lower than both New England or New France even during the end of colonial rule.
For the West Indies, the negative natural growth rate was much higher. Only mass European immigration there kept the white population from experiencing a decline. Epidemics, such as yellow fever were prevalent with outbreaks in 1647, 1648, 1649, 1655, the killing 16% of the white population of Barbados in a single year. Despite this, the islands remained more attractive than both New England or the Southern colonies. The principal reason was the attraction of the wealth brought about by sugar, coupled with the relative ignorance of disease. This was not dissimilar to both the French and Dutch West Indies or Guiana where larger numbers of Europeans settled when compared with New France or New Netherland, but also experienced much higher mortality rates.
The Portuguese had colonised both Madeira and the Azores during the 15th centuries, and by 1600, the population in Madeira was around 80,000 and in the Azores reaching around 100,000. They had become overcrowded, and by the mid 16th century bouts of the plague along with measles, and smallpox were beginning to spread to the now crowded villages of the Azores. This is especially due to the population density, and in contrast to the high rate of growth experienced by the initial settlers when land was plentiful.
I also took into account early output of grains in Acadia and New France during the 17th century, to make a hypothesis of what output would have been a century earlier. What I found was that the farms were productive and could have easily sustained large families, as the output far exceeded the subsistence level. This coupled with relatively abundant fishing stocks and the ability to replicate a dairy industry similar to the one in the Azores should make natural growth of the population take off fairly quickly. Even a small founding population of 1,500 to 2,000 with no additional settlers should have grown to 15 to 20,000 by the close of the century, if growth rates of 2.5% to 2.7% per annum are achieved by within two decades of initial settlement. That number seems a bit small, which is why I chose a higher one, particularly due to the fact that Northern Brazil had some 27,000 Europeans brought in by the crown during the 17th century and the much smaller Azores were settled by some 5,000 settlers during the first-half of the 15th century.
I'd think not particularly. Ceylon, the Indies and Malacca were all bigger prizes. Macau would still unlock an extra bonus for the Dutch (provided they are not, as in Taiwan, kicked out by the Chinese), but the big bucks were in the intra-Asian trade (controlled from Malacca/Batavia and Ceylon, though Goa could substitute for Ceylon) and spices (Indies+Malacca).To be fair, Macau and Goa were the super-big prizes and so possible for Portugal to begin clawing stuff back (as they did OTL).