Why didn't Austria expand overseas?

[Winner]

I was given to believe that the North Sea is part of the Atlantic Ocean, at least technically. Also, you forgot Germany.

Germany suffered a lot because its access to open oceans was dependent on a free movement through the North Sea and the Channel. Once these two routes were blocked by the English navy in WW1, German maritime trade was utterly ruined.

Austria-Hungary was in far worse position, since the Straits of Taranto is much, much easier to block and the Italians hardly had any difficulty keeping the A-H navy at bay during WW1.

 

[Dachs]

Austria-Hungary was in far worse position, since the Straits of Taranto is much, much easier to block and the Italians hardly had any difficulty keeping the A-H navy at bay during WW1.

Actually, they had considerable difficulty, and constantly screamed at the French and British to release naval assets to them because of supposed Austrian superiority over the Italian fleet, with mixed results. The Austro-Hungarian fleet's record, when it actually did venture out of port significantly (frequently it was kept back because of the old fleet-in-being doctrine, yktd), was not half bad at all, especially barring a few accidents.

 

[Vortilex]

One reason is because Austria didn't have a long coastline to do so, and the coastline they did have didn't last very long. I believe they didn't expand through Venice and with all the good areas taken later, they couldn't.

 

[Dachs]

One reason is because Austria didn't have a long coastline to do so, and the coastline they did have didn't last very long. I believe they didn't expand through Venice and with all the good areas taken later, they couldn't.

Austria acquired Venetian Dalmatia as per the terms of the Treaty of Campo Formio, and controlled all of Venetia from that time to 1866 with a single brief interruption.

 

[Vortilex]

But the thing is, they didn't really need a colonial empire because they had so much land already on the Continent to get stuff from. Plus, Africa was pretty much taken up by that time

 

[Yui108]

Holland, Belgium and Scandinavia

Netherlands yes, but Belgium hardly counts, considering it was a country only for the tail end of the colonial era. The Partition of Africa is also sort of different than all previous colonisation too. And of Scandanavia, besides Vinland p) and Denmark's island in the caribbean I can think of no significant examples.

 

[Traitorfish]

And of Scandanavia, besides Vinland p) and Denmark's island in the caribbean I can think of no significant examples.

Sweden maintained a North American colony in the 17th century known by the name of "New Sweden", along the Delaware river, in parts of what are now Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It was conquered by the Dutch and incorporated into New Netherlands, which in turn was taken by the English and by New York.

 

[Dachs]

Denmark-Norway also maintained a small colonial empire in the Indian Ocean during the 18th century, and Sweden had interests in India, Indochina, and Indonesia during the same period.

 

[Vortilex]

Denmark had what is now the US Virgin Islands until the US bought them.

 

[RedRalph]

Sweden had an African colony too, can't remember which one... was it Ghana?

 

[Virote_Considon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Gold_Coast

 

[Racsoviale]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Gold_Coast

 

[Jan H]

Netherlands yes, but Belgium hardly counts

Of course it counts, because it was part of the Austrian empire for most of the 18th century. In the first half, the Ostend East India Company, founded by the Austrian emporer, and mostly made up of merchants from Ostend, Antwep and Ghent, owned two "factories" in India. After the Austrian-British treaty of 1731, the company was disbanded.

 

[Vortilex]

Are we still talking about Austria and colonial expansion? We seem to have moved into other Germanic expansion

 

[Dachs]

Are we still talking about Austria and colonial expansion? We seem to have moved into other Germanic expansion

The original question in the thread was answered some time ago.

 

[Mad Man]

Denmark-Norway also maintained a small colonial empire in the Indian Ocean during the 18th century, and Sweden had interests in India, Indochina, and Indonesia during the same period.

Sweden also had an Island in the Caribbean that they sold to France does anyone know which one I'm talking about?

 

[Dachs]

Sweden also had an Island in the Caribbean that they sold to France does anyone know which one I'm talking about?

Saint-Barthélemy. Sweden also had Guadeloupe for awhile.

 

[say1988]

Another thing might be a lack of seafaring traditions of the Austrian (or Hungarian) people. Yes groups on the coast had history at sea, but the main population groups probably weren't that interested in the sea.

 

[bombshoo]

In the 1870s, the Austrian Consul, in Hong Kong (Von Overbeck) briefly purchased the rights to Northern Borneo (Sabah) from some American who could not get backing from their government to set up a colony. The consul tried to entice Austro-Hungarian government into involvement but similarly could not get support for the idea. He tried to sell it to Italy after that but it eventually went to the British.

 

[Vortilex]

Aww, that means the thread has no point