Why didn't they participate in colonization?
Why didn't they participate in colonization?
Gabriel Perry
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Adam Thompson
1. Germany wasn't a nation until the late 1800s.
2. The HREmperor was always busy with internal struggles and most of the states were either landlocked or free cities
3. Look how poorly positioned their ports are for colonization, seriously
4. By the time Germany existed everything was taken.
Eli Lee
They did.
Daniel Gonzalez
By that point the united provinces were out of the HRE and hapsburg domination.
Adam Gutierrez
>you need a nation state to participate in colonization
It's the other way around, colonization and the contact with non-europeans shaped the European perception of itself...
In truth the German Bourgeoisie was too divided and weak to start colonial projects which was perpetuated by the result of 1848. Remember that the """usual""" case is flag follows trade i.e. you need merchants. One reason why there was no German/merchant class were the 782 different German tariffs.
So the classic thesis is the following
no nation state->tariffs->no merchants->no Bourgeoisie->no colonies->Hitler
>t.historian
Literally prestige projects without any value except maybe for the Samoan sulfur.
Jack Scott
The Dutch Golden Age was a "prestige project"?
Michael Rogers
Sorry, just saw the thumb and thought it's the post 1900 German colonies.
Brandon Harris
Why didn't the HRE/Germany centralize earlier like France did?
Jeremiah Flores
They colonized Slavic lands as they expanded east.
Wyatt Roberts
>One reason why there was no German/merchant class were the 782 different German tariffs.
There was a German merchant class (Hansa, Fugger family, etc). Their relevance declined with the surging overseas trade, similar to what happened to Venice
>t.historian
you seem more like a vulgar marxist
Levi Torres
Because the Frogs rallied around their Kings to oust the English from their lands.
They Krouts fought each other for a thousand years and never united until Hitler declared Anschluss, which didn't last.
Camden Carter
>what is Klein-Venedig?
Robert Myers
3 many princes 4 coherency
Cameron Evans
>switserland
>austria
>czechia
pretty obvious when you think about it
Chase Smith
>Little Venice
>Bigger than Veneto
What did they mean by this
Dominic Hill
They unified later and got to colonization later. They did colonize part of South Africa that later was taken by Britain post-WWI.
Angel Williams
Who says they didn't?
Dylan Nelson
don't forget Western Poland
Robert Campbell
The HRE kings tried to force the italian states into submission and always had to pay the german princes to support them. This, the election system and the conflict between the popes weakened the kings and strengthened the sovereignity of the Reichsstände
Levi Adams
They tried but they could not stop BTFO each other long enough to succeed.
Jordan Nguyen
most of that was continuosly settled from the same Germans that lived there since the antique
Alexander Hall
Because they weren't bloodthirsty savages like other kings in Europe. Living in the HRE meant cooperation, not domination.
Dominic Bailey
Except that's wrong /pol/. Most of the tribes that had been there had moved west in the 3rd-6th centuries, and the Slavs had settled there between the 6th and 12th centuries.
Henry Baker
>Most of the tribes that had been there had moved west in the 3rd-6th centuries
wrong. The peasantry and artisians that lived there stayed there. This is about as true as the claim that 90% of Swedes were barbarian searoaming vikings
>Except that's wrong /pol/
very good arguementation
Tyler Wright
the Dutch colonized and they are literally right beside the HRE. point invalid
Wyatt Gonzalez
>30 years war
>destroyed half of germany because muh pope
germans are so bloodthirsty they would destroy themselves for their bloodlust
Jeremiah Myers
>the dutch, that had the best position for colonisation in the entire HRE, and experienced the highest degree of autonomy from it, were able to set up colonial trade posts here and there, thus the arguments as to why HRE states didn't colonise is invalid
oh cmon
Connor Rogers
They did. Both Brandenburg-Prussia and Austria had colonies abroad. They were unsuccessful, but they existed.
Ethan Sanchez
In hindsight, Karl V had the chance to turn it around and use the Reformation to start the centralisation and statemaking process.
Carson Morales
>that had the best position for colonisation in the entire HRE
Are you surprised that the part of the Holy Roman Empire that had the best position for colonisation in the entire HRE was the only one that did that? It's no wonder that Bavaria could never get to Indonesia, while the Netherlands basically take up 1/3 of the German coastline
Cooper Nelson
listen friend usually I'd be aggressive and insult you, but I'll just calmly tell you to re-read my post and the one I was replying to instead
Cooper Baker
Why should they colonise other nations when they haven't even consolidated their people into a single nation state?
Landon Campbell
>What is Realpolitik
Eli Green
Literally central in the radical transformation of Africa, going from a continent 20% controlled bu Euros to 90% from 1885-1902.
en.wikipedia.org
Bismarck didn't care much about Africa, he saw it as a playground to play France and Britain off one another (worked desu), although when he asked the UK for Zanzibar, they agreed - even though this interrupted their "cape town to cairo dominion".
Also, Germans are the only real nation to have effectively colonized Europe. Within living memory they turned the great old world powers into rag wearing dindus demanding reparations and the return of their stolen cultural artifacts.
They tried to meso-America America, but ate a dick at it - much like Scotland. Having said this, I don't know how man Americans are of German ancestry or how many place-names in the Americas are Humboldt tier but I'd wager a shit tonne.
Jaxon Torres
Look at OPs picture: