Why didn't Austria expand overseas?

[TheLastOne36]

I think Poland becoming a colonial power was more likely than Austria.

 

[Mad Man]

Your vassal Courland had a small colonial Empire so that's not to farfetched.

 

[Vortilex]

Poland did have sea access, but only through Germany or Russia. Austria would take them the long way around. The Poles weren't independent during the Age of Imperialism.

 

[aronnax]

Poland did have sea access, but only through Germany or Russia. Austria would take them the long way around. The Poles weren't independent during the Age of Imperialism.

No they weren't. They were subjects of it.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Poland did have sea access, but only through Germany or Russia. Austria would take them the long way around. The Poles weren't independent during the Age of Imperialism.

Countries were expanding overseas before the 1800's right?

And we did have colonies. (courland which was sponsored by us anyway) If we took more interest than i'm sure several caribean islands and maybe an african nation or two and an Indonesian island would be speaking a Polish Creole.

 

[RedRalph]

Countries were expanding overseas before the 1800's right?

And we did have colonies. (courland which was sponsored by us anyway) If we took more interest than i'm sure several caribean islands and maybe an african nation or two and an Indonesian island would be speaking a Polish Creole.

You arent serious are you? What makes you believe Poland could do it if Prussia and Russia couldn't?

 

[Dachs]

You arent serious are you? What makes you believe Poland could do it if Prussia and Russia couldn't?

He also thinks Poland could have beaten off the Partitioning Powers, just more jingoism in response to all the trolling etc. You know how it is.

 

[bombshoo]

Poland had the manpower and wealth for it at times. If Russia and Prussia had more to deal with I think Poland could have maybe pulled it off. Still even if you take the partitioning powers out of the equation, keeping a strong fleet with Denmark and Sweden also around would have been a problem I think.

 

[TheLastOne36]

You arent serious are you? What makes you believe Poland could do it if Prussia and Russia couldn't?

Because both didn't take enough interest, and when they could've, most colonies were already taken. Poland had a chance to do it earlier. Also, Prussia and Russia had more important things to do. Also i may be wrong, but I assume that Poland was much richer than Prussia and Russia when the latter two could've contained colonies.

I wonder what will happen to the colonies during the swedish occupation though. And during the partitions, i'm thinking we would sell our colonies to England or something for the extra cash to bribe our own nobles to fight for us instead for Austria/Prussia.

Poland had the manpower and wealth for it at times. If Russia and Prussia had more to deal with I think Poland could have maybe pulled it off. Still even if you take the partitioning powers out of the equation, keeping a strong fleet with Denmark and Sweden also around would have been a problem I think.

Yes, it's amazing how Courland managed to do it in the first place, but it is possible they have proven. I'm not saying we could become a major colonial power but we could've got a couple of Caribbean islands, a small piece of Africa and an Indonesian island or something.

 

[Vortilex]

Wait, are you Polish or Venezuelan? It's just that you said, "we" so I assumed you may be Polish. Prussia eventually had parts of Africa, but they were known as the Deutsches Reich at taht time. Austria was sitting comfortable under Franz-Josef, probably getting raw goods taht are available in Africa out of Austrian European possesions

 

[TheLastOne36]

You need to follow me on OT to understand my family history...

Basically my dad escaped Poland during communist times to Italy, he worked at a Polish camp doing stuff like picking strawberries while getting money to move to Canada. He moved to Canada, starting to go to uni. He took a summer break to Venezuela and met my mom. They went together back to Canada and got married and I came out. When i was 15 i moved to Poland from Canada.

Last December, my family in Venezuela who runs an adventure tourism business (and as you can imaging they are fairly wealthy compared to average Venezuelans) invited me and my parents to come over to Venezuela and start working for them because the business was getting to big to be managed by 2 people basically. So they moved to the camp where we do the rafting in Barinas, while my parents are in Merida working the administration part. I'm helping out with the administration part a bit, and i'm working on becoming a Rafting Guide for the camp.

Hope that clears things up. But it is offtopic...

 

[Vortilex]

Yeah, that clears things up What's OT? Back on topic The Austrian Empire wasn't truly a powerhouse compared to Britain and France. Seeing as all the "good" possessions were taken by them, the Austrians weren't in the position to take them. Now, if WWI hadn't come along, maybe they could have become the next British Empire!

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Austrians discovered Franz Josef land in the Arctic Sea, but this was a privately funded expedition. Most of the patrons were wealthy British subjects who got individual islands named after them.

 

[Vortilex]

I always wondered how Franz Josef land got its name...

 

[Maedis]

We should think about why some nations colonised the world instead of why Austria-Hungary didn't. Spain (and Portugal) began to colonise because of Columbus' discoveries. Then England and France began because they were rivals of Spain and wanted to take part of plundering the treasures of the new world (or even insead of the spanish). Later Holland joined this (because of rivalry against England and their oppressors Spain).
At that time, Austria really had other problems - it's defence against the Ottomans. Later, Austria was Prussia's rival about the leadership of what was remaining of the Holy Roman Empire ater the 30 years war.
On the other side, there was no use for Austria to colonise...
They already were part of an empire where the sun never sets, as Habsburg's Karl V. (or Carlos V.) was both - german kaiser and king of Spain... (kaiser 1519-1556)

 

[Louis XXIV]

Interestingly, by that measure, the Spanish empire was never Spanish, either.

Well, at one point, the Hapsburgs owned Spain (and by extension, the Spanish Empire as it existed at that point).

EDIT: I see the last post in this thread beat me to this point.

 

[Lord Baal]

We should think about why some nations colonised the world instead of why Austria-Hungary didn't. Spain (and Portugal) began to colonise because of Columbus' discoveries.

Actually, both Spain and Portugal - particularly the latter - were establishing colonies in Africa before Columbus discovered America. The discovery of the New World merely gave them a favourable alternative to African colonisation, which was limited by the large populations - in America, disease solved a lot of this problem - the lack of centralised governments and the absolute deathtrap created by African climate and diseases.

Then England and France began because they were rivals of Spain and wanted to take part of plundering the treasures of the new world (or even insead of the spanish). Later Holland joined this (because of rivalry against England and their oppressors Spain).

While this is true enough, it must be noted that many British and French colonies were established were the Spanish and Portuguese weren't, rather than where they were. And the reasons the Spanish and Portuguese weren't in those places - primarily North America and Australia - was because there was no immediate profit to be had in going there. That's also the same reason they never penetrated Africa beyond the coast.

Much early British colonialism was driven by persecution (in America) and crime (Australia and Pitcairn), not a desire for plunder, as there wasn't any. Britain got more plunder from raiding Spanish colonies than establishing their own. It was only after Spain's power collapsed that Britain, France and Holland began establishing colonies in wealth-producing areas, such as India.

At that time, Austria really had other problems - it's defence against the Ottomans. Later, Austria was Prussia's rival about the leadership of what was remaining of the Holy Roman Empire ater the 30 years war.

Austria also had little, if any, coastal land for much of this time. It wasn't until Austria gained control of Venetia that it even had a port of its own, I think. By the time Austria had the prerequisites for overseas expansion - namely, at least one warm-water port, a navy, and relatively secure borders - it was facing considerably internal difficulties. This had nothing to do with its rivalry with Prussia.

On the other side, there was no use for Austria to colonise...

Correct. Austria had no need for overseas colonies, and no means of either gaining them or developing them. Any attempt at overseas expansion would have been swiftly halted by France or Britain, and been prohibitively expensive. Though Austria may have done well to spend more time and money on establishing itself in the Mediterranean.

They already were part of an empire where the sun never sets, as Habsburg's Karl V. (or Carlos V.) was both - german kaiser and king of Spain... (kaiser 1519-1556)

That was one man, and it was a Spanish colonial empire that just happened to have an Austrian - or, let's be honest, more of a Dutch - king. It doesn't count as an Austrian overseas expansion.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Not none, but the majority of soldiers, financiers and generals were from outside the peninsula, or Portugal.

Alternative answer: yes, because there was no such thing as "Spanish" back then.

Actually there was, the Spanish reconquista finished with the final conquest of the Emirate of Grenada (by then just the town) a few months before Columbus set sail, and the state was well established with the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella. The Spanish crown used the American conquests as an excuse to send off the more militarily minded of their subjects from some of the more truculent provinces on the peninsula (especially Extramadura). This policy was later used by the English to set up the (second) British Empire, with the use of Irish and Scots.

 

[Lord Baal]

Actually there was, the Spanish reconquista finished with the final conquest of the Emirate of Grenada (by then just the town) a few months before Columbus set sail, and the state was well established with the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella. The Spanish crown used the American conquests as an excuse to send off the more militarily minded of their subjects from some of the more truculent provinces on the peninsula (especially Extramadura). This policy was later used by the English to set up the (second) British Empire, with the use of Irish and Scots.

Actually, Spain was a collection of different kingdoms under the rule of joint monarchs; Ferdinand and Isabella. It was not a nation in it's own right, but rather a federation of different nations, those being Navarre, Castile, Aragon, etc.. There was no Spanish nation or nationality at this time.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Actually, Spain was a collection of different kingdoms under the rule of joint monarchs; Ferdinand and Isabella. It was not a nation in it's own right, but rather a federation of different nations, those being Navarre, Castile, Aragon, etc.. There was no Spanish nation or nationality at this time.

It was as close as you could get back then, a single court, single army, no semi-independant sub monarch (like the Burgundians in France, or every petty baron in the Holy Roman Empire). In fact the only state more clearly defined in that period was England, and it didn't take much for England to fall apart at the seams in the 30 years just prior to then.

In the modern sense, or even in the "Sun King" sense of a nation Spain wasn't there, but frankly at the time it was as close to a unified nation as you could get back then (excepting China, which is always a special case).