When did the powers of Europe begin to expand and create colonies in the other continents? Does anyone know of a map showing the expansion of say... Great Britain or Spain?
Printable View
When did the powers of Europe begin to expand and create colonies in the other continents? Does anyone know of a map showing the expansion of say... Great Britain or Spain?
Money. Trade and therefore money, basically, including the acquisition of resources like gold from the Americas and spices and silk from the far east. England and the Netherlands in particular were moving from agriculture to trade throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. And of course with money comes power and influence and eventually an Imperialist mindset, add to that the commonly held European view that it was 'the white man's destiny', God must have wanted it that way and you get an Imperial power like the Victorian British Empire or the Spanish under the Hapsburgs.
www.britishempire.co.uk provides good information on the Territories of the British Empire.
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/images/worldmap.jpg
The highlighted land is all the territories of the British Empire. Red is the Empire after WW1. The Pink is the 13 colonies.
They got started right soon after Columbus and others had done some sailing. The Portugese may have been setting up small pockets of semi-permanent presence around India even earlier to serve as trading-posts and supply bases, but I don't really know about that.
However, aside from the Americas and the Caribbean most of the colonies stayed pretty small before the 1800s, really more trade enclaves and places to dump undesirables from home into than what is usually though of as "colonies". The natives usually could, and occasionally did, sweept them into the sea if they got sufficiently pissed off. But the pesky whiteys always came back if they had a motivation to - or another bunch of pesky whiteys would come instead to take over the trade.
Spain had most of South America, quite a large chunk of Central America, and I think even some of North America. They also had the Philippines, Cuba and some other colonies.
France had at least half of Africa, at one stage had some American states until Napoleon sold them, and that should be about it.
They all wanted money. Rare resources in Europe were common in other areas, which is why they were major money makers. The rare goods could be obtained cheaply from colonies, processed and made into goods, and then sold for a very high profit elsewhere. Also, all the important people, such as the monarchs, would want more power. Power corrupts.
Answer for France.
The process took roughly 480 years.
France started the exploration quite soon, under Francois the 1st (Francis the 1st, in English): From Jacques Cartier in 1543 who explored Terra Nova, followed by Champlain (Canada), Cavelier de la Salle (Louisiana & Mississippi) to de La Vérendrye who will go to the Rockies (1738), France will extend her expansion until Louis XV lost them to the British.
The French controlled territories were (more or less): Canada, Mississippi and Missouri basins and the Great Lakes.
Don’t forget the French Guyana in South America. And some islands in the Caribbean.
You can add India, half of the territory until the lost to the English except 5 towns. Louis the XV wasn’t the best Statesman of his time.
The next wave of the French expansion took place in the 19th Century after the Franco-Prussian War:
North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia),
West Africa (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali –French Sudan-, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Togo),
Equatorial Africa (Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Gabon, Republic of Congo),
Indian Ocean: Comoros, Madagascar, , Mayotte, Reunion, and few islands
Red Sea: Djibouti and Yemen (Cheik-Saïd peninsula).
East Asia: Cambodia, China (leased territory of Kwan-Chou-Wan), French concessions (Shangai, Guangzhou, Tianjian and Hankou), Laos and Vietnam.
You can add various Protectorates and other little things in the Middle East, Lebanon, Syria and a part of Turkey (Sandjak of Alexandretta).
It is a summary.
Didnt Britain control 1/3 of all the land of the world at one time. I heard that somewhere.
I think it's closer to a quarter, but yes, the British Empire was pretty large indeed. A quarter of the world's population lived in the empire as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Csar
God Gold Glory
Add Spices and Territory, and we'll have the most accurate and concise list ever complied. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
God Spices Gold Territory Glory!
Huzzah for the British Empire
Its another feet, that the British Empire managed to do it with a relatively small (but supremely elite) military.
Some would say it started with the Phoenicians who it is claimed by some had colonies in the Americas a thousand years or more before Columbus.
The Vikings seem to have had a colony on the North East bit of North America at some time.
There are maps that predate Columbus which show bits of the East coast of the Americas.
Then there are all the Greek colonies that Alexander founded...
They didn't really need the military, they just won over the natives I heard.
The Phoenicans did have some famous explorers such as Hanno, but I doubt that they could reach America with the ships of the dark ages. The Vikings did have a colony, but they got driven off by natives. (was it in Canada?)
The Chinese had also sailed to America long before Colombus, but they never bothered to have colonies. They just never had any wish to make an Empire.
The Vikings spent at least a couple of seasons in Newfoundland and possibly further south. The remains of a typical Norse settlement have been excavated in Newfoundland at L'Anse aux Meadows. The site had typical Norse ember pits and longhouses, as well as obvious Norse tools such as a soapstone spindle whorl and bronze pins. They didn't get along with the natives, however; and soon left. They called the natives skraelings in the sagas about Vinland. The sagas tell of Lief Erikson's brother Thorvald being killed by a skraeling arrow in Vinland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
On the subject of the Chinese exploration, Chinese admiral Zheng He is believed by some to have reached the west coast of the Americas; but there is no supportable evidence of such. He certainly sailed much of the Southwest Pacific and Indian Oceans and went as far as Africa in exploratory missions for the Chinese emperor. It's the sailing east to the Americas that is controversial.
The Phoenicians making it to America is more controversial still. Any storied Phoenician exploration of the Americas is pure supposition. They did manage to visit the British Isles, certainly; and possibly went down the west coast of Africa. In their ships, which were coastal traders, making an Atlantic crossing would be improbable at best.
Indeed, it is the largest Empire in HistoryQuote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
I always had the impression that the Russian Empire was the largest in Size... just not in terms of population and economics. That honor goes to the British Empire.
looks like those Mongols just pipped us for size, but we certainly have the honours in numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_largest_empires. The puny Russians are only just over 50% as big.
Why improbable? The ancient polynesians could sail 4,000 miles from their South Pacific Islands to the Easter Island and Hawaii. So why couldn't the Phoenicians, with how much better ship technology they had, sail the two thousand miles from the edges of their empire in Africa to, say, Brazil. How is that improbable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Siberia doesn't quite count though.. since it was empty. It's like claiming that the Antarctic is part of your Empire. Even if everyone agrees, it won't matter, because nobody lives there and it's not useful land in any way (at least not in any obvious way). It just serves to make the empire appear larger on a map.
Another funny thing about the Mongol Empire: because Kublai Khan lived in Beijing, the capital, many Chinese claim that the Mongolian Empire as their Empire. So, applying that logic elsewhere, does that mean that the Roman Empire suddenly became the Ravennan Empire when it changed its capital temporarily?
Hmm... The British Empire entry says it is the largest with over 37 million, and the Mongol Empire entry says it is the largest with under 38 million, so they both had above 37 million but below 38 millionQuote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
And the land mass seems to fluctuate as one goes down the different list. Britain goes from 37 million to 36 million, and Mongols go from 38 million to 35 million...
The matter is quite moot, it seems...
Due to the nature of the wind systems as one rounds the Bight of Benin (i.e. leaving the Trade Winds route) as well as the Atlantic currents, I would surmise that it would probably have been easier for the Carthaginians to cross the ocean to Central or South America than it was to round Africa, which is a far more difficult enterprise. I'm sceptical about the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
BTW, I'm not saying that they did cross the Atlantic!
So you're suggesting that they travelled close to either of the Poles or sailed around the large African-Asian-European landmass and then crossed the Pacific? Remember that the Phoenicans came from warm climes..
Sorry, don't understand you! What's all this talk of the Pacific? I was only saying that it was possibly easier for the Carthaginians to cross the Atlantic than to sail round Africa, a claim which some make for the semi-mythical Hanno.
We know they got to the Canary Isles (Isles of the Blessed), which are fairly easy to reach as one exits into the Atlantic through the Pillars of Hercules. Natural Trade Winds and Atlantic currents can then take a ship relatively speedily to South America. However, fighting down the West Coast of Africa against contrary winds (or no winds!) is a whole different prospect. It took the Portuguese a long time by incremental steps, in far superior ships, to pull that achievement off.
Bah we still had the best empire, and will again:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
I hate colonialism. Thanks a lot you European ********.:furious3:
I didn't say it was impossible, just improbable. Yes, the Pacific islanders managed great feats of navigation - in an entirely different kind of vessel, and their expansion across the Pacific was almost entirely one-way. The Phoenicians used shore-hugging coastal vessels which are entirely unsuited to crossing the Atlantic. The earliest ocean-going vessels capable of sucyh large ocean crossings were the Viking longships and the Polynesian large outriggers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
I don't know if you've ever been on the North Atlantic in a ship. It's nothing like coastal sailing. Even in the summer, during fair weather, swells can easily top 20 feet in mid-ocean. When I experienced it for the first time, I was in a 535 foot long ship - a big vessel. We still had 20-30 degree rolls in the middle of May. In August it was only slightly better, and then you face tropical storms.
The Phoenicians might have managed it - barely - going one way, if the north equatorial current and the northeast trade winds were perfectly favorable and they encountered no storms (tropical storms are likely in the summer, worse weather in the winter). They couldn't then get back. Not cross-current. Not without better ocean-going technology than they had in their coastal traders.
So, that's why I say it's improbable. Possible but unlikely.
I agree with you completely Aenlic. I was trying to assert that a trip around Africa would have probably been even more difficult for the Phoenicians.
Oy. Sorry about that. Quoted the wrong person in my reply. You're absolutely correct about rounding Africa. The Cape of Good Hope is very badly named. The Benguela current on the Atlantic side runs smack into the Agulhas current on the Indian Ocean side in opposite directions before the former turns north up the western coast and the later turns south toward Antarctica. The opposing currents make a huge mess of the seas. Add in seasonal bad weather and the trade winds which flow in the opposite direction of the Agulhas current heading east from Cape Elizabeth and things are just plain nasty there. The Portuguese sailors did a phenomenal thing making that crossing. I suspect that the conditions at that point may have been what kept Zheng He's fleet from making the crossing going the opposite way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
And to get back on topic...
I read somewhere that the major impetus for Germany's late 19th century colonial efforts was a desperate need for raw materials, for things like fertilizer. It was also one of the minor and often forgotten reasons for WWI, Germany being squeezed out of the global race for raw materials from colonies. Colonial aspirations were certainly the main reason for the Spanish-American War. How many other conflicts between European powers resulted from colonial beginnings? Or were colonial conflicts just the excuse used?
Most conflicts result from a number of different factors, not just one.
I'm not sure what to make of this response. My hope is that you're simply being informative, or perhaps tongue-in-cheek. I don't recall saying that conflicts have only one reason. As a matter of fact, I specifically used the phrase "one of" in my post. That phrase implies more than one. If the above was meant simply as a statement of fact without suggesting that I'd be so stupid as to believe otherwise, then I wholeheartedly agree. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Really? Of course, without it you would not be where you are now... either you would be in the Mother Country or you would be in a Native American tribe or you would be in an African tribe (although since the slaves were bought off of other African tribes you might well be elsewhere in the world or dead)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
The Dutch never really actively colonized until the 19th century, but that's 'cause we didn't do it ourselves, as a state, like the rest -- we let the world's first multinational handle the conquest, instead. A result was that our long-term possessions, those in what is now Indonesia (richest colony in the world resource-wise; yes, richer than India), held very small amounts of colonists and in identity were more akin to the later colonies in Africa than anything else. The VOC (Dutch East India Company) was, after all, more interested in profit than spreading the proverbial good word of the Lord or shouldering the equally proverbial "white man's burden".
Dutch colonial empire
Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (the guys who dominated Indonesia)
West-Indische Compagnie (the guys that founded New York, took the Dutch Antilles, and held Brazil for half a century)
The Dutch Seaborne Empire 1600 - 1800
Oh, and, for you British nuts: the Spanish Empire was larger in useful bits (that means no Canadian tundras or Siberian ice sheets). Pwnd. You did ace them in population, though -- however, Canada gave you that edge in pure map pixels, but it was useless to the UK throughout its history. The resources there (like Siberia, very profitable for the modern age) only became truly profitable in the 20th century when the British Empire had already been dismantled.
Colonialism is a very intriguing thing. It's very interesting, especially if you study it. Of course, there are many bad parts about it, but, a small country can take up a country as 2 or 3 times as she was(to control it).
Look at the Dutch and their West Indies Company.
The Worlds biggest super power wouldnt exsist without, so really you americans shouldnt be condeming it but should be thanking us same for the aussies and canadians.....
Thanks:bow:
You're very much welcome. Last I checked, I never personally stuck the union jack into anyone elses' land, however.
Eh? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by King Ragnar
Settling your people in land you deem "yours" was never really an new concept, was it? You can't go poking the finger solely at Europeans for it either, can you? And I take it therefore that you mean Imperialism, in which case don't be daft.. afterall didn't the US pretty much start it's own expansion thing shortly after gaining independance?Quote:
I hate colonialism. Thanks a lot you European ********.
I don't think he was addressing you directly.. dunno.Quote:
Eh?
Alexander: you're half Indian right? Indians formed their own empires, with the Mughals, Mauryans and all. And you wouldn't be who you are today if it wasn't for colonialism.
Is this productive discussion? "You wouldn't be who you are without colonialism." Honestly, how do you know? That's right. You don't.
Uh yeah we do its quite simple.
Thats like saying, it deosn't matter if we had evolved from snakes, we would still be the same people we are today.
Absurd.
Of course we do, because say if people didnt start to colonise america until 50 years ago, most likely non of the americans on here would be posting:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Wasnt naval power what helped with that? I mean without good ships you would be atacked more often
Edit:
Upon further, and more full, review, i've decided that this thread has served its purpose. The current course of discussion doesn't seem to be moving in a positive direction, therefore..
Locked.
If you have a problem feel free to pm me.