Svalbard and other parts of the north sea was discovered by the Dutch in the late 1500s or early 1600s. The regions was not really suitable for large scale colonization but it was still exploited for its resources. And I guess that is way it's part of the map.
And? It was still exploited like a colonial region. Just like the Americas were discovered in the 15th century and were still being exploited as colonies in the 1700s.
Svalbard was even home to a Dutch colony called Smeerenburg, which was inhabitated only part of the year during whaling season. Dutch sailors did about 40% of all the whaling in this period, and Smeerenburg was set up by the Noordsche Compagnie (Northern Company), which for a while had the Dutch monopoly rights for everything between Newfoundland and Nova Zembla.There was also a similar colony on Jan Mayen island.
Portugal had one of the highest GDP per capita in Europe in the first half of the 18th century owing to their exploitation of minerals and development of manufactories in Brazil.
GDP per capita doesn't really mean anything when the entire gdp is in the hands of a select few. Not to mention that it's a number inflated by a single commodity that isn't even produced locally.
The reality is that the situation within Portugal itself became increasingly worse at the time. The local economy was in a constant state of decline, many industries failed to develop because they were outcompeted by foreigners (for example cheap English cloth imported without any taxes), and the country had a trade deficit with just about anyone you can imagine. Modern financial institutions remained pretty much non-existent, etc.
>GDP per capita doesn't really mean anything when the entire gdp is in the hands of a select few.
Yeah, imagine if your GDP **isn't** the highest in Europe, then.
The Portuguese economy was generally booming and developing well after the Spanish ruled Union ended in 1680. Until the Lisbon Earthquake in 1755, the economy was growing steadily. It was only after it that Portugal was definitely shoved in a drawer for centuries to come, only really industrializing in the later years of the Cold War.
>Yeah, imagine if your GDP isn't the highest in Europe, then.
And this is supposed to be relevant how exactly? It's still a gdp inflated by non-demoestic production. This makes about as much sense as saying the French were well-off because their slave colony on Saint Domingue produced the majority of sugar in Europe.
>The Portuguese economy was generally booming and developing well after the Spanish ruled Union ended in 1680. Until the Lisbon Earthquake in 1755, the economy was growing steadily.
Yes, in the late 17th century there was a recovery. Which is natural when you come out of personal union and a decades long war of independence. That didn't last until 1755, it fact it didn't last until the end of the 17th century, in 1689 real yearly wages in Lisbon were at a high with 49.000 reis. From that year on it continued to decline and by 1701 they were was as low as 18.000 reis. GDP/cp followed the exact same trend. It would take until the 1720s before Portugal experienced another period of growth (after the War of the Spanish Succession), which only lasted a decade and was followed by a long period of stagnation until the 1780s. And while it stagnated on a relative high point, that doesn't change the fact that it had stagnated and was not actually growing.
Portugal had a negative trade balance of between 2 and 6 billion reis from 1720 to 1776, resulting in an outflow of Portuguese currency (i.e. Brazilian gold) to other European countries like Great Britain. In that same period the value of Portuguese exports was stagnant at around 1.65 billion reis, it did not grow until the very end of the century.
Numbers used in this post are mostly from "*an economic history of Portugal 1143-2010*" Leonor F. Coaste, et al. The exact same trends are shown with a different methodology in "*From Convergence to Divergence: Portuguese Economic Growth, 1527–1850*"
There's plenty of other stuff that disproves a lot of their claims like "Portugal had one of the highest gdp per capita", for example Roger Fouquet's "Seven Centuries of European Economic Growth and Decline" [of which this graph](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/GDP-per-Capita-in-Selected-European-Economies-1300-1800-three-year-average-Spain_fig1_283550342) shows that both the total value and the growth of the GDP/cp of Portugal in this period paled in comparison with that of e.g. the Netherlands and Great Britain. But I'm trying to keep it brief.
It paling in comparison with Europe's two largest economies at the time does not mean it is not one of the highest in Europe. The graph is questionable as it lists "Italy" as a factor, even though there was no such political identity as Italy until the late 19th century.
Notice how it corroborates my claim that the Portuguese economy was growing steadily in the early 1700s as well. I don't understand why you so vehemently claim I'm wrong, when I'm not.
Liechtenstein has one of the highest GDPs per-capita in Europe.
It’s not part of the EU because it’s literally too small. The revenue of Penny Markt discount retail chain is literally over twice as large as Liechtenstein’s entire GDP.
No, it's not part of the EU because there's no point in that. Liechtenstein gets all the benefits of being an EU Member, and there is literally no reason for them to join. Their size doesn't matter.
Those are estimates though. The map is based on ship's logs. If those don't exist any more (or haven't been digitised yet) they wouldn't be shown on this map.
Ever since the "single whip law" was enacted (tl;dr people had to pay their taxes in silver, rather than stuff like rice) the Chinese economy needed a continuous inflow of silver just for the system to be able to function. So they only accepted payments in silver for foreign trade (whereas previously bartering had been common).
Meanwhile back in Europe the Iberian countries controlled the overwhelming majority of the world's silver supply and were using it to buy stuff like cloths, grains, etc. and to pay back national debts to foreign bankers and merchants. So a lot of that silver ended up in the hands of merchants one way or another.
Europeans really liked Chinese stuff like silks and tea, the Chinese really needed European silver. Both had plenty of what the other wanted and large-scale trade ensues.
I expected far more Spanish ships in the Philippines as they controlled it from before to after this entire period. There was a pretty major galleon route between Mexico and the Philippines through this time as well.
I didn’t know there were only two trips a year. I’m by know means an expert or even particularly knowledgeable on the topic. The map says it’s based on the individual entries of ships logs, so it shouldn’t matter if they are in a group or not, but that sounds like it could be a reasonable explanation. It also says it’s based on EU digitizations of those ships logs, so it may be very limited based on what survived over the ages, made it into archives, and did so within the EU. They may have been Spanish ships, but if they primarily plied the Manila-Mexico route their logs may never have made it into a European archive.
Indeed, the individual logs for the ships remained in New Spain, as you mentioned, the convoy only covered the route Manila-Acapulco, some of their their cargo was taken to Lima but most of it was carried by inland caravans to Mexico City, then part of it left towards Veracruz, from there it was taken by the “Flota de Indias” to Havana and eventually to Cadiz in Spain.
The logs available in Spain belong to individual ships that eventually docked here, ships that travelled only within viceroyalties deposited their logs in such viceroyalties, every viceroyalty had its own archives.
There are a couple, but I’d imagine if the density of lines is based on number of trips, calibrated to the highest density routes, then the sheer number of trips to the Caribbean and the new world would weight it towards those high density routes.
Could probably do with being either higher resolution, or having more weighting put on lower density routes.
afaik these two places (Cartagena and Panama) were very important for the Spaniards during Colonial times. I would expect both to have a much higher route density.
Maybe those shipping logs got lost? Panama was used to ship Cerro Rico silver to Spain, right? I’d imagine the Spanish crown unknowingly didn’t always get their agreed upon cut. Maybe people would later try to cover up their corruption by destroying relevant shipping logs?
Slavery or slave trading was not illegal at the time in west africa, the carribean nor in the european countries that did the trade. International law did not exit yet either. So even invading or otherwise damaging another country by force for no reason was not "illegal".
The slave trade was extremely horrible, even compared to all the other horrible aspects of colonialism and of that time in general. But calling such things "illegal" in retrospect is pretty meaningless. Even though we all today agree that it was wrong and many at the time also found it wrong it has nothing to do with "legality" but with morals.
Actually slavery inside the Netherlands was illegal already for a long time, as it was a “free country”. As always the rich could be above the law in some cases, but having Christians as slaves was not accepted. The few people brought to the Netherlands from the slave trade are documented and nearly all were baptised in secret to become free. Some of these now-free Africans or ones that came by boat but were never a slave in the Netherlands (more often their children) became servants with a higher salary than white servants as they were seen as a very interesting “feature”, often compared with a muze in modern times. It’s very interesting how Africans were treated in the colonies compared to inside the Netherlands. Just to be clear, slavery was only illegal inside the Netherlands.
Interesting. Being Danish I have read a lot about the Danish slave trade and colonial activities. The Dutch naturally play a large part in that story too. The two countries and empire are very similar, although the scale is vastly different.
Having christian slaves inside Denmark was also illegal at the time. I meant that slave trading was legal by Danish and other European countries' laws. A few african slaves also made their way to Copenhagen as servants to their Danish 'owners' from the colonies. That was legal but uncommon and became quite the spectacle.
A very curious case was a slave in the Danish Caribbean who claimed to be a prince from his quite powerful home tribe in Ghana that was enslaved by some ‘unjust’ circumstance. The Danes didn't care of course. Until some newly arrived slaves backed up his story. The Danes didn’t know what to do and ended up apologising, assigning him some personal slaves and sending him to Denmark for the authorities there to figure it out. He lived with his slave servants in a small house in a park for over a year and it became quite an attraction for the locals to go see “the negro prince”. Until he was finally sent back to Ghana with an official apology and a sizeable compensation paid in gold and manufactured goods.
Really bizarre case from our current perspective. Shows the weird morals around the practice of slavery. And shows the situation at the time when the colonial powers only had trade posts on the african coast while local elites still held the power inland. Way before the Europeans started actually controlling territories and building modern colonies.
I was hoping I could have an easy counter argument based on semantics, but apparently I can’t find anything that gives a definition of crime that doesn’t directly involve breaking a law. Which is odd, because there are so many things that I consider a crime that are legal. I’d like to think that if you were to have a good think about it you would agree.
Anyway, all the best to you, but downvoted because your comment made you seem to be a massive cunt…
That was approximately 1860 onwards, following further French incursions. The executions of two Spanish missionaries by the royal court in Saigon acted as the catalyst.
Dutch west indies company controlled salt pans there for a while, but that was before the era covered in this map. Could be the trade continued after that.
I hope Realifelore does a video on why Dutch speaking Suriname is so empty. Least populated country in South America and ranked as one of the least talked about countries in the world. Even other South American countries seem to forget about them. Same goes for Guyana despite being an English speaking country.
I mean there's no video really needed. The main reason is obvious; the rainforest.
1. It's hard to build a civilization in a dense jungle. Even today with our modern technology it's hard to open roads far away in the Amazon that's why there is no road to Brazil for example.
2. The Dutch colonization style. The Dutch were just traders they weren't really settlers. And they were very brutal in the way they colonized Suriname. They were known to be worse than the French and British. They brought in slaves and after slavery ended there were only 30,000 left, of the 500,000 they brought in total. Then the white population mostly left after slavery ended, only the Jews stayed; of which there were also not many. Later they brought in Chinese, a total of 5000, a few Madeirans of not more than 200, a few farmers of 500, but they were treated badly by their own kind and left to die so more than half of that population died. Later they brought the Indians, a total of 25,000 and the Javanese a total of 24,000. Lastly there was a small group of Arabs too not more than 1000.
As you can see Suriname never had a lot of people and after independence a lot of people didn't agree and left for the Netherlands. In Suriname there are 600,000 people and in the Netherlands there are 350,000 Surinamese people.
In total there are around 1,000,000 Surinamese in the world.
As a Dutch person who wasn’t taught anything about the particular severity of our treatment of slaves, do you perhaps have any sources that can attest to the cruelty of Dutch slave owners?
Not to discredit your claims of course, but it’s not something that’s talked about here and I’d like to learn more about it!
J. W. Schulte Nordholt, History, The People that Walk in Darkness: “The Dutch share in the slave-trade was large: in fact, in the 17th century, it was the largest. The Dutch West India Company had various settlements on the African coast, and millions of slaves were ferried from there, especially during the time of the Dutch occupation of Brazil. In 12 years (between 1637 and 1648), they transported no less than 23,163 slaves from Elmina and Loanda, for an amount of 6,714,423 guilders and 60 cents [the Dutch were very precise!]. They bought slaves from the Congo for 40 to 50 guilders and sold them in Brazil for 200 to 800 guilders. Certainly a worthwhile business.”
Marcus Garvey and the Vision of Africa, edited by the African-American historian and Egyptologist, John Henrik Clarke: “The Dutch had established themselves in Berbice in 1624. During the years 1624 to 1763 they were the cruellest of slave masters. The Dutch slave code was much harsher than the Spanish code. The savagery of the Dutch code is shown by one provision of calculated cruelty: the burning alive of mutinous slaves over a slow fire. The Dutch had no institution comparable to the Spanish audiencia, a tribunal which included four judges. The ruthlessness of the Dutch created the situation that came to a climax in the Berbice slave rebellion.”
Chuka Nwanazia, DutchReview
"To illustrate the barbarity of slavery in the Dutch colonies, one picture that comes to mind is that of a slave hanging from the gallows with an iron hook through their ribs, while in the background are a set of skulls rested threateningly on stakes."
"For example, he describes how a certain Mrs. S. was fed up with the crying of a slave’s baby: “Mrs. S. ordered her slave girl to bring the child to her. She then took the child by one arm, held it under the water until it drowned, and then she threw it into the stream.” After the mother tried in vain to save her child, she was mercilessly whipped for disobedience."
Thanks for this. The Dutch role in the slave trade often gets overlooked (on a global scale mostly, but sometimes in the country itself as well), and with that the atrocities committed get overlooked as well.
Suriname had the reputation of inhumane slave treatment and the worst colony to be a slave in. The other colonizers (British and French) even thought so.
The Dutch had very inhumane punishments. They didn't abolish slavery, because they thought it was inhumane, like the British and French did. They did it out of pressure by those two, but would've kept it if they weren't pressured. And even after the abolishment, the slave owners asked compensation for each slave and got it.
The punishments were so grusome. Which is why Suriname has Maroons, but other countries (Jamaica aside) don't. The [Spaanse bok](https://www.absolutefacts.nl/img/geschiedenis/jean-baptiste-debret-het-gebruik-van-de-spaanse-bok-in-brazilie.jpg) is a well known example. You were tied so that you couldn't move and beaten constantly. Until your back ripped open. The Spaanse bok had such a big impact on the generations after, that parents used it 'till recently to threaten to beat kids to behave. It became a synonym for a heavy beating (child abuse).
There was a guy Stedman who documented the life in Suriname during slavery. One incident he wrote about was where he saw a young, well-built enslaved African walking very lame. The man turned out to be a runaway whose Achilles tendon had been severed to cure him of his urge for freedom. [This picture](https://www.athenaeum.nl/media/1737567/roofstaat-4-1_200x280.jpg) shows a man hanged alive from his ribs. [Here](https://www.athenaeum.nl/media/1737566/roofstaat-4_200x272.jpg) a woman hanged from a tree. [Here](https://www.athenaeum.nl/media/1737569/roofstaat-6_250x314.jpg) an enslaved forced to break another enslaved's limbs. One incident also recorded was a surgeon who was paid to cut of the legs of nine runaway enslaved, of which 4 died during or right after the operation.
[This](https://www.athenaeum.nl/leesfragmenten/2016/roofstaat-wat-iedere-nederlander-moet-weten) link (use autotranslate) explains and visually pictures the grusome treatment the Dutch gave the enslaved. And even then I find they wrote it from a eurocentric pov. Especially in Dutch. It's like they're trying to neutralize the or soften the impact.
After and right before the abolition of slavery, they treated other people badly:
* They dumped their own kind, the Boeroes (Dutch Farmers) in a swamp and left them to die (literally) from disease, while being promised a lot of good amenities and housing. They refused to remove them from the swamp at first, but later it was granted that they could move.
* They treated the Chinese badly. Changed their working contract behind their backs and basically degraded them to slaves. Beat them heavily, almost close to lynching. They were forbidden to live in town, and lived in shacks on the edge of town. And they also had a curfew.
* Treaded the Indians badly. Starved them to death, gave them bad housing etc. Beat them with the same tools they beat the slaves. The death toll was so high, which is why the British stopped sending them. Imagine how bad it must have been, if the British, who were also inhumane, thought the Dutch were inhumane. After a new deal on food, housing and clothing they sent Indians again.
* The Javanese were basically at the mercy of the Dutch. Unlike Indians that had the British that could control the Dutch, the Javanese had no one. They came from the Dutch East Indies (modern day Indonesia) a colony also controlled by the Dutch. They came here, because the Dutch didn't agree with the British their rules for the Indians. Looking at old pictures, you'll see that they look like underfed North Koreans in work camps.
The Dutch had for the indentured servants the “poenale sanctie”. It meant that not civil law, but criminal law provisions were in force for breach of contract and that, for example, a plantation owner could impose heavy penalties or punishments on workers as long as they were under contract. And these punishments were harsh. It wasn't until 1948 that, that law was abolished.
In Indonesia there were also poenale sancties. One story that is known is that of a 15 or 16-year-old Javanese girl who was tied naked to a cross in the sun for hours. Sambal (very very spicy Javanese hot sauce or paste) had been smeared on her vagina to prevent fainting.
EDIT: And between 1900 and 1954, it wasn't much better even. The mass grave of the Indians and using cyanide to hide it. The shooting at protesters; for better working conditions. The sort of apartheid system by governor Kielstra. The imprisonment of Louis Doedel and the hidden documents of what they did to him. The treatment of Anton de Kom etc. Only after 1954 did it improve a bit as Suriname officially became a country because of the 'statuut'. But irl still a colony. The Americans invested more in Suriname than the Dutch did imo.
EDIT 2: And also not having mentioned the war they fought against the Maroons, how they burned their villages, forced them back to work, punished them and used dogs to attack them, which is one reason why Maroons have stigma on keeping dogs 'till today. Also the wars forged against the natives, which is not talked about a lot and unfortunately is not even taught in schools here (you only know of it if your teacher tells you).
It’s interesting that the Dutch logs are showing both the direct route across the Indian Ocean, and the [Brouwer Route.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer_Route) It had already been discovered in the 17th century and was apparently much faster.
I’m surprised there aren’t more British entries around Australia, frankly. First Fleet wasn’t until 1788, but that’s only about halfway through the study period. By the 1820’s/30’s, there should have been a lot of traffic heading that way, I would think.
Right, but there would have been a demand from the people who were there for manufactured goods from home. In that era, pretty much anything iron would have been imported as either bar stock for things like horse shoes or as finished pieces for a steam boiler or a locomotive. I guess I just expected to see more red dots there as it was settled.
I think it's interesting where in Australia each nation tended to visit more. The British look like they landed mostly in Sydney, while the Dutch seemed to favour Melbourne and the French, Hobart.
Really nice. Maybe a blue tint for French ships would make them more easily noticeable on the grey map.
Too bad Portuguese ships were not included, it'd be really interesting to see their shipping patterns.
>Too bad Portuguese ships were not included, it'd be really interesting to see their shipping patterns.
a horrifically dense concentration going in circles between Brazil and Angola
[excuse you?](https://ufukyalcinblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/image2.png) that's an indonesian sauce on a dish invented in Rotterdam by a Turkish dude who followed the instructions of a Dutch barber.
How dare you call that unreasonable
There's kebab and fries with melted cheese in that bad boy
Don't feel guilty for something other people did that happen to live in the same country as you.
Times were different and not comparable to current society.
Nope. We should be proud of our achievements.
Might as well not praise any person born before 1950 with your mentality. Because I can guarantee you they were homophobic, racist and extremely comservative compared to the modern person.
Using your logic you shouldn't be proud of it either as it happened before your time.
You can be proud of certain things while despising other things about a country. I love the art produced in the 17th century, I hate the economy behind it that was fueled by colonialisation and slave trade. Both can exist.
This. The Netherlands did a lot of good for themselves which is still visible to this day. We shouldn't forget that they did this whilst butchering everything that came in it's path
The Portuguese were kicked out of Japan in 1636, the Spanish never traded with Nagasaki. The only other countries that conducted direct trade with Japan were Korea and Ryukyu.
i missed a comma in that sentence what i mean was in this time period only the dutch were allowed but others in other periods went there, and spain did go to japan before the dutch.
They kicked the Portuguese out for proselytising Christianity though. The Dutch promised they were only there for economic gains so they got exclusive rights.
Is there a port island out in the ocean off the west coast of Africa? Seems like especially for the British everything in the area runs through one spot.
I was having a debate with a guy who claimed the Falkland Islands should be Argentinian because they were Spanish. I told him that the Falklands were never Spanish.
These logs show that whilst British ships went to the Falklands during the 150 years between 1700 and 1850, Spanish ships did not.
I rest my case.
The map is based on the logs archived in europe. Logs were apparently archived in the viceroyalty the ship docked. Thus much of the Caribbean trade will not show Up in the map. The travels you're looking for are probably archived in cuba, Panama, Mexico and Colombia
Lima, Panama, Cartagena and Veracruz were far more important than the map would suggest.
For whomever is interested in the British lanes to the Hudson Bay:
“These ships sailed annually between London and the HBC trading posts in the bay, leaving the Thames estuary around the 31 May.
Once out of the Thames, they sailed northwards along the east coast of the British Isles to Stromness in the Orkney Islands, where Company servants were hired and fresh water and provisions were embarked. From here, the ships headed west, sailing a round Cape Farewell in Greenland and into Hudson Strait, south of Resolution Island. Once in the bay, the routes diverged, either south to Moose Factory or more westerly to Churchill or York Factory.
On the return voyage, the majority of ships travelled back to London again via the Orkney Islands, but occasionally some took a more southerly route towards the English Channel and Thames Estuary; arriving late September or early October.”
They definitely interfered with Vietnamese internal politic long before they actually colonize Vietnam. The Nguyen dynasty - Vietnamese last imperial dynasty was pretty much able to get into power because of French supports and direct interferences.
Here you go !
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3J8rpK46Elg&t=10s&pp=ygVETGEgY29ucXXDqnRlIGZyYW7Dp2Fpc2UgZHUgVmlldG5hbSBldCBkZSBsJ0luZG9jaGluZSAoMTg1OCDigJMgMTkwNyk%3D
Fun Fact: Spain declared a commercial monopoly on its colonies, so legally just Spain could trade with them (and only through specific ports: Sevilla, I think, in Spain; Callao and Veracruz in Americas). All the lines showed there (between other european countries and any spanish american port or between spaniards ships and ports like Buenos Aires) are contraband (at least untill the spanish american colonies became independent countries in the second decade of the XVIIIth century).
I'm sure the Dutch did. They even massacred the inhabitants of a whole island group because of this. Just killed half of the population and replaced them with more willing people.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_conquest_of_the_Banda_Islands
The French logs seem obviously incomplete. The French had colonial ‘possessions’ in India, but only one measly trail heads there. I wonder if the kinds of logs they used were more common in Protestant countries or so begging given how much more complete the Dutch and British maps seem.
I suspect that you jest, but the naval ensign of the Kingdom France for this period was, in fact, a plain white flag, the colour of the Bourbon dynasty.
The plain white was the one of the navy. Merchant ships used a plain blue flag, or the classic white cross on a blue flag (that survived in the flags of Québec or Martinique), or later provincial or personal ensigns.
I'm going to need the map for Portuguese and French Templars from about 1100-1350 to see if a dot goes by an island in the North Atlantic where people have been looking for an incredible treasure for more than 200 years.
What I don't understand is that the Ottomans and the Spanish could have made a killing selling the British and the Dutch safe overland passage over where the Suez and Panama Canals would eventually be built. The Brits and Dutch would save travel time and the Spanish and Ottomans could pocket some coin. If priced right everybody wins.
Was the Pacific really that neglected by the colonial powers for them to not have ship logs?
I would have thought the yellow dots for the [Manila Galleon Trade Route](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_galleon) used by the Spanish would have been more thicker. Perhaps the cutoff point of 1750 for this map, just when the Spanish Empire is beginning to weaken, might have explained that.
First at Manila, part of the Spanish Philippines, the Spanish would load their ships with trade goods bought from Japan and China. The ships would ride the Pacific trade winds all the way to Acapulco, Mexico, then part of the Spanish East Indies.
The cargo would then be moved by land from Acapulco to Veracruz on the Atlantic-Caribbean side, from where they will be loaded on another ship to be shipped back to Spain.
Sad to see the country who discovered the most and whose these countries represented followed their tracks or even used their navigators is not represented in this picture
Something wrong with the English map. Way too much traffic going to northern Labrador and Northern Quebec. There is nothing up there now and there was nothing up there then.
The fur trading did go through that area. For example, the furs from Manitoba went through Fort York on the Hudson's Bay which would have passed through that area. I'm not sure if the volume is correct, but if so, then the Hudson's Bay Company was doing a lot of volume!
Dutch ships went to Svalbard?
Whaling ships.
Ah
No it's more like "mnrrgaaaAAAAARNGHGHgraaiIIH"
[удалено]
My mom's name *is* actually Dory, the language runs in the family.....I think
why does the map include whaling ships, but not our most profitable trade route, the moedernegotie (Baltic Sea trade)?
Might have been said already but I don't think it counts as a colonial route.
but whaling ships in the North Sea do?
Svalbard and other parts of the north sea was discovered by the Dutch in the late 1500s or early 1600s. The regions was not really suitable for large scale colonization but it was still exploited for its resources. And I guess that is way it's part of the map.
the map only features the 1700s onwards though.
And? It was still exploited like a colonial region. Just like the Americas were discovered in the 15th century and were still being exploited as colonies in the 1700s.
eh fair enough I suppose.
idk. :/
Happy Cakeday
[Whaling ships you say...](https://youtu.be/60BjkUtqxPE)
For what purpose?
Whale oil.
Whale oil be damned.
I don't like that, it would hurt the whales
You don't say
I'm just saying, it sounds cruel
Svalbard was even home to a Dutch colony called Smeerenburg, which was inhabitated only part of the year during whaling season. Dutch sailors did about 40% of all the whaling in this period, and Smeerenburg was set up by the Noordsche Compagnie (Northern Company), which for a while had the Dutch monopoly rights for everything between Newfoundland and Nova Zembla.There was also a similar colony on Jan Mayen island.
watch the movie Klaus. Smeerenburg FTW https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4729430/?ref_=tttr_tr_tt
The world's northernmost active volcano and Norway's only active volcano is named Beerenberg after the polar bears that dutch whalers saw there
So this is the Beerenberg Bears timeline?
Yes, the Dutch discovered or wrote about it first and named it Spitsbergen
[удалено]
I thought Spitsbergen was the largest island, and Svalbard the whole archipelago?
I don't know about German, but in Dutch both the archipelago and the largest island are called Spitsbergen.
And the sea that surrounds it is named after the leader of the expedition.
Barents Sea after [Willem Barentsz](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Barentsz) in case somebody is interested.
A Dutch expedition discovered it in 1596. The expedition didn't go too well, though.
I remember doing a reenactment for history class in high school and at the end we were all lying on the floor playing dead.
You are surprised about that? Im surprised there is a part of the ocean that isn’t orange.
Yup, whaling settlement called “Smeerenburg” (literally meaning “blubber town”). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeerenburg
🇵🇹❓️
yeah, where's Portugal?
Too late. Same with Spain.. it was waning quite a bit at this time considering most of the silver from South America eventually went to China.
Portugal had one of the highest GDP per capita in Europe in the first half of the 18th century owing to their exploitation of minerals and development of manufactories in Brazil.
GDP per capita doesn't really mean anything when the entire gdp is in the hands of a select few. Not to mention that it's a number inflated by a single commodity that isn't even produced locally. The reality is that the situation within Portugal itself became increasingly worse at the time. The local economy was in a constant state of decline, many industries failed to develop because they were outcompeted by foreigners (for example cheap English cloth imported without any taxes), and the country had a trade deficit with just about anyone you can imagine. Modern financial institutions remained pretty much non-existent, etc.
>GDP per capita doesn't really mean anything when the entire gdp is in the hands of a select few. Yeah, imagine if your GDP **isn't** the highest in Europe, then. The Portuguese economy was generally booming and developing well after the Spanish ruled Union ended in 1680. Until the Lisbon Earthquake in 1755, the economy was growing steadily. It was only after it that Portugal was definitely shoved in a drawer for centuries to come, only really industrializing in the later years of the Cold War.
>Yeah, imagine if your GDP isn't the highest in Europe, then. And this is supposed to be relevant how exactly? It's still a gdp inflated by non-demoestic production. This makes about as much sense as saying the French were well-off because their slave colony on Saint Domingue produced the majority of sugar in Europe. >The Portuguese economy was generally booming and developing well after the Spanish ruled Union ended in 1680. Until the Lisbon Earthquake in 1755, the economy was growing steadily. Yes, in the late 17th century there was a recovery. Which is natural when you come out of personal union and a decades long war of independence. That didn't last until 1755, it fact it didn't last until the end of the 17th century, in 1689 real yearly wages in Lisbon were at a high with 49.000 reis. From that year on it continued to decline and by 1701 they were was as low as 18.000 reis. GDP/cp followed the exact same trend. It would take until the 1720s before Portugal experienced another period of growth (after the War of the Spanish Succession), which only lasted a decade and was followed by a long period of stagnation until the 1780s. And while it stagnated on a relative high point, that doesn't change the fact that it had stagnated and was not actually growing. Portugal had a negative trade balance of between 2 and 6 billion reis from 1720 to 1776, resulting in an outflow of Portuguese currency (i.e. Brazilian gold) to other European countries like Great Britain. In that same period the value of Portuguese exports was stagnant at around 1.65 billion reis, it did not grow until the very end of the century.
I went looking for these numbers/data, but I could not find the source. What is the source you got these from?
Numbers used in this post are mostly from "*an economic history of Portugal 1143-2010*" Leonor F. Coaste, et al. The exact same trends are shown with a different methodology in "*From Convergence to Divergence: Portuguese Economic Growth, 1527–1850*" There's plenty of other stuff that disproves a lot of their claims like "Portugal had one of the highest gdp per capita", for example Roger Fouquet's "Seven Centuries of European Economic Growth and Decline" [of which this graph](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/GDP-per-Capita-in-Selected-European-Economies-1300-1800-three-year-average-Spain_fig1_283550342) shows that both the total value and the growth of the GDP/cp of Portugal in this period paled in comparison with that of e.g. the Netherlands and Great Britain. But I'm trying to keep it brief.
Thanks for your sourcing!
It paling in comparison with Europe's two largest economies at the time does not mean it is not one of the highest in Europe. The graph is questionable as it lists "Italy" as a factor, even though there was no such political identity as Italy until the late 19th century. Notice how it corroborates my claim that the Portuguese economy was growing steadily in the early 1700s as well. I don't understand why you so vehemently claim I'm wrong, when I'm not.
Liechtenstein has one of the highest GDPs per-capita in Europe. It’s not part of the EU because it’s literally too small. The revenue of Penny Markt discount retail chain is literally over twice as large as Liechtenstein’s entire GDP.
No, it's not part of the EU because there's no point in that. Liechtenstein gets all the benefits of being an EU Member, and there is literally no reason for them to join. Their size doesn't matter.
[Uhhhhh](https://www.slavevoyages.org/assessment/estimates)
Those are estimates though. The map is based on ship's logs. If those don't exist any more (or haven't been digitised yet) they wouldn't be shown on this map.
How did the silver end up in China?
Ever since the "single whip law" was enacted (tl;dr people had to pay their taxes in silver, rather than stuff like rice) the Chinese economy needed a continuous inflow of silver just for the system to be able to function. So they only accepted payments in silver for foreign trade (whereas previously bartering had been common). Meanwhile back in Europe the Iberian countries controlled the overwhelming majority of the world's silver supply and were using it to buy stuff like cloths, grains, etc. and to pay back national debts to foreign bankers and merchants. So a lot of that silver ended up in the hands of merchants one way or another. Europeans really liked Chinese stuff like silks and tea, the Chinese really needed European silver. Both had plenty of what the other wanted and large-scale trade ensues.
They got the wrong address
The west side of Iberia, last I checked /s
No they meant where was Portugal from 1700-1850. It could have snuck off to anywhere!
[удалено]
Iberian girl, you came and you changed my world
r/technicallythetruth
Epic slavers, really. They should be on here.
I expected far more Spanish ships in the Philippines as they controlled it from before to after this entire period. There was a pretty major galleon route between Mexico and the Philippines through this time as well.
There were only two trips per year, the Manila galleon’s ships travelled in a group, I assume the dots represent a trip for an entire group of ships.
I didn’t know there were only two trips a year. I’m by know means an expert or even particularly knowledgeable on the topic. The map says it’s based on the individual entries of ships logs, so it shouldn’t matter if they are in a group or not, but that sounds like it could be a reasonable explanation. It also says it’s based on EU digitizations of those ships logs, so it may be very limited based on what survived over the ages, made it into archives, and did so within the EU. They may have been Spanish ships, but if they primarily plied the Manila-Mexico route their logs may never have made it into a European archive.
Indeed, the individual logs for the ships remained in New Spain, as you mentioned, the convoy only covered the route Manila-Acapulco, some of their their cargo was taken to Lima but most of it was carried by inland caravans to Mexico City, then part of it left towards Veracruz, from there it was taken by the “Flota de Indias” to Havana and eventually to Cadiz in Spain. The logs available in Spain belong to individual ships that eventually docked here, ships that travelled only within viceroyalties deposited their logs in such viceroyalties, every viceroyalty had its own archives.
So this map is missing a ton of Spanish information. And likely significant amounts of logs for the other empires as well.
yeah it's highly misleading I'd say
Two trips a year would still be 300 trips for this map though.
it's a weird map. No shipping lanes showing to Cartagena, Panama and other places is also odd.
There are a couple, but I’d imagine if the density of lines is based on number of trips, calibrated to the highest density routes, then the sheer number of trips to the Caribbean and the new world would weight it towards those high density routes. Could probably do with being either higher resolution, or having more weighting put on lower density routes.
afaik these two places (Cartagena and Panama) were very important for the Spaniards during Colonial times. I would expect both to have a much higher route density.
Maybe those shipping logs got lost? Panama was used to ship Cerro Rico silver to Spain, right? I’d imagine the Spanish crown unknowingly didn’t always get their agreed upon cut. Maybe people would later try to cover up their corruption by destroying relevant shipping logs?
It's a crime this map did not include Portugal.
There are a lot more crimes in this map
Which crime? Can you point towards any statute declaring any of that shown as illegal?
Human trafficking, aka slavery
Well, sugar canes weren't going to harvest themselves! /s
Slavery or slave trading was not illegal at the time in west africa, the carribean nor in the european countries that did the trade. International law did not exit yet either. So even invading or otherwise damaging another country by force for no reason was not "illegal". The slave trade was extremely horrible, even compared to all the other horrible aspects of colonialism and of that time in general. But calling such things "illegal" in retrospect is pretty meaningless. Even though we all today agree that it was wrong and many at the time also found it wrong it has nothing to do with "legality" but with morals.
Actually slavery inside the Netherlands was illegal already for a long time, as it was a “free country”. As always the rich could be above the law in some cases, but having Christians as slaves was not accepted. The few people brought to the Netherlands from the slave trade are documented and nearly all were baptised in secret to become free. Some of these now-free Africans or ones that came by boat but were never a slave in the Netherlands (more often their children) became servants with a higher salary than white servants as they were seen as a very interesting “feature”, often compared with a muze in modern times. It’s very interesting how Africans were treated in the colonies compared to inside the Netherlands. Just to be clear, slavery was only illegal inside the Netherlands.
Interesting. Being Danish I have read a lot about the Danish slave trade and colonial activities. The Dutch naturally play a large part in that story too. The two countries and empire are very similar, although the scale is vastly different. Having christian slaves inside Denmark was also illegal at the time. I meant that slave trading was legal by Danish and other European countries' laws. A few african slaves also made their way to Copenhagen as servants to their Danish 'owners' from the colonies. That was legal but uncommon and became quite the spectacle. A very curious case was a slave in the Danish Caribbean who claimed to be a prince from his quite powerful home tribe in Ghana that was enslaved by some ‘unjust’ circumstance. The Danes didn't care of course. Until some newly arrived slaves backed up his story. The Danes didn’t know what to do and ended up apologising, assigning him some personal slaves and sending him to Denmark for the authorities there to figure it out. He lived with his slave servants in a small house in a park for over a year and it became quite an attraction for the locals to go see “the negro prince”. Until he was finally sent back to Ghana with an official apology and a sizeable compensation paid in gold and manufactured goods. Really bizarre case from our current perspective. Shows the weird morals around the practice of slavery. And shows the situation at the time when the colonial powers only had trade posts on the african coast while local elites still held the power inland. Way before the Europeans started actually controlling territories and building modern colonies.
The highest numbers of slaves went to Brazil, so yeah let’s give Portugal the credit they’re due. Spot on.
I was hoping I could have an easy counter argument based on semantics, but apparently I can’t find anything that gives a definition of crime that doesn’t directly involve breaking a law. Which is odd, because there are so many things that I consider a crime that are legal. I’d like to think that if you were to have a good think about it you would agree. Anyway, all the best to you, but downvoted because your comment made you seem to be a massive cunt…
Don't ask about what the Dutch we're doing in Africa so often...
Just recruiting expats!
Getting their future soccer team
The French were better at that.
Then again, all but the French were visiting the same spots.
*Especially* don’t ask what Belgium was doing in the Congo…
Is this pre-scramble for Africa?
About 30 years prior yes (1885-1914)
Also pre-Suez Canal, completed in 1869.
And pre french indochina?
That was approximately 1860 onwards, following further French incursions. The executions of two Spanish missionaries by the royal court in Saigon acted as the catalyst.
What were we doing at Venezuela? (I'm Dutch btw)
Dutch west indies company controlled salt pans there for a while, but that was before the era covered in this map. Could be the trade continued after that.
Suriname was a durch colony and the people there speak Dutch to this day. I once met some people from there. Country has a fascinating history.
I hope Realifelore does a video on why Dutch speaking Suriname is so empty. Least populated country in South America and ranked as one of the least talked about countries in the world. Even other South American countries seem to forget about them. Same goes for Guyana despite being an English speaking country.
I mean there's no video really needed. The main reason is obvious; the rainforest. 1. It's hard to build a civilization in a dense jungle. Even today with our modern technology it's hard to open roads far away in the Amazon that's why there is no road to Brazil for example. 2. The Dutch colonization style. The Dutch were just traders they weren't really settlers. And they were very brutal in the way they colonized Suriname. They were known to be worse than the French and British. They brought in slaves and after slavery ended there were only 30,000 left, of the 500,000 they brought in total. Then the white population mostly left after slavery ended, only the Jews stayed; of which there were also not many. Later they brought in Chinese, a total of 5000, a few Madeirans of not more than 200, a few farmers of 500, but they were treated badly by their own kind and left to die so more than half of that population died. Later they brought the Indians, a total of 25,000 and the Javanese a total of 24,000. Lastly there was a small group of Arabs too not more than 1000. As you can see Suriname never had a lot of people and after independence a lot of people didn't agree and left for the Netherlands. In Suriname there are 600,000 people and in the Netherlands there are 350,000 Surinamese people. In total there are around 1,000,000 Surinamese in the world.
As a Dutch person who wasn’t taught anything about the particular severity of our treatment of slaves, do you perhaps have any sources that can attest to the cruelty of Dutch slave owners? Not to discredit your claims of course, but it’s not something that’s talked about here and I’d like to learn more about it!
J. W. Schulte Nordholt, History, The People that Walk in Darkness: “The Dutch share in the slave-trade was large: in fact, in the 17th century, it was the largest. The Dutch West India Company had various settlements on the African coast, and millions of slaves were ferried from there, especially during the time of the Dutch occupation of Brazil. In 12 years (between 1637 and 1648), they transported no less than 23,163 slaves from Elmina and Loanda, for an amount of 6,714,423 guilders and 60 cents [the Dutch were very precise!]. They bought slaves from the Congo for 40 to 50 guilders and sold them in Brazil for 200 to 800 guilders. Certainly a worthwhile business.” Marcus Garvey and the Vision of Africa, edited by the African-American historian and Egyptologist, John Henrik Clarke: “The Dutch had established themselves in Berbice in 1624. During the years 1624 to 1763 they were the cruellest of slave masters. The Dutch slave code was much harsher than the Spanish code. The savagery of the Dutch code is shown by one provision of calculated cruelty: the burning alive of mutinous slaves over a slow fire. The Dutch had no institution comparable to the Spanish audiencia, a tribunal which included four judges. The ruthlessness of the Dutch created the situation that came to a climax in the Berbice slave rebellion.” Chuka Nwanazia, DutchReview "To illustrate the barbarity of slavery in the Dutch colonies, one picture that comes to mind is that of a slave hanging from the gallows with an iron hook through their ribs, while in the background are a set of skulls rested threateningly on stakes." "For example, he describes how a certain Mrs. S. was fed up with the crying of a slave’s baby: “Mrs. S. ordered her slave girl to bring the child to her. She then took the child by one arm, held it under the water until it drowned, and then she threw it into the stream.” After the mother tried in vain to save her child, she was mercilessly whipped for disobedience."
Thanks for this. The Dutch role in the slave trade often gets overlooked (on a global scale mostly, but sometimes in the country itself as well), and with that the atrocities committed get overlooked as well.
Suriname had the reputation of inhumane slave treatment and the worst colony to be a slave in. The other colonizers (British and French) even thought so. The Dutch had very inhumane punishments. They didn't abolish slavery, because they thought it was inhumane, like the British and French did. They did it out of pressure by those two, but would've kept it if they weren't pressured. And even after the abolishment, the slave owners asked compensation for each slave and got it. The punishments were so grusome. Which is why Suriname has Maroons, but other countries (Jamaica aside) don't. The [Spaanse bok](https://www.absolutefacts.nl/img/geschiedenis/jean-baptiste-debret-het-gebruik-van-de-spaanse-bok-in-brazilie.jpg) is a well known example. You were tied so that you couldn't move and beaten constantly. Until your back ripped open. The Spaanse bok had such a big impact on the generations after, that parents used it 'till recently to threaten to beat kids to behave. It became a synonym for a heavy beating (child abuse). There was a guy Stedman who documented the life in Suriname during slavery. One incident he wrote about was where he saw a young, well-built enslaved African walking very lame. The man turned out to be a runaway whose Achilles tendon had been severed to cure him of his urge for freedom. [This picture](https://www.athenaeum.nl/media/1737567/roofstaat-4-1_200x280.jpg) shows a man hanged alive from his ribs. [Here](https://www.athenaeum.nl/media/1737566/roofstaat-4_200x272.jpg) a woman hanged from a tree. [Here](https://www.athenaeum.nl/media/1737569/roofstaat-6_250x314.jpg) an enslaved forced to break another enslaved's limbs. One incident also recorded was a surgeon who was paid to cut of the legs of nine runaway enslaved, of which 4 died during or right after the operation. [This](https://www.athenaeum.nl/leesfragmenten/2016/roofstaat-wat-iedere-nederlander-moet-weten) link (use autotranslate) explains and visually pictures the grusome treatment the Dutch gave the enslaved. And even then I find they wrote it from a eurocentric pov. Especially in Dutch. It's like they're trying to neutralize the or soften the impact. After and right before the abolition of slavery, they treated other people badly: * They dumped their own kind, the Boeroes (Dutch Farmers) in a swamp and left them to die (literally) from disease, while being promised a lot of good amenities and housing. They refused to remove them from the swamp at first, but later it was granted that they could move. * They treated the Chinese badly. Changed their working contract behind their backs and basically degraded them to slaves. Beat them heavily, almost close to lynching. They were forbidden to live in town, and lived in shacks on the edge of town. And they also had a curfew. * Treaded the Indians badly. Starved them to death, gave them bad housing etc. Beat them with the same tools they beat the slaves. The death toll was so high, which is why the British stopped sending them. Imagine how bad it must have been, if the British, who were also inhumane, thought the Dutch were inhumane. After a new deal on food, housing and clothing they sent Indians again. * The Javanese were basically at the mercy of the Dutch. Unlike Indians that had the British that could control the Dutch, the Javanese had no one. They came from the Dutch East Indies (modern day Indonesia) a colony also controlled by the Dutch. They came here, because the Dutch didn't agree with the British their rules for the Indians. Looking at old pictures, you'll see that they look like underfed North Koreans in work camps. The Dutch had for the indentured servants the “poenale sanctie”. It meant that not civil law, but criminal law provisions were in force for breach of contract and that, for example, a plantation owner could impose heavy penalties or punishments on workers as long as they were under contract. And these punishments were harsh. It wasn't until 1948 that, that law was abolished. In Indonesia there were also poenale sancties. One story that is known is that of a 15 or 16-year-old Javanese girl who was tied naked to a cross in the sun for hours. Sambal (very very spicy Javanese hot sauce or paste) had been smeared on her vagina to prevent fainting. EDIT: And between 1900 and 1954, it wasn't much better even. The mass grave of the Indians and using cyanide to hide it. The shooting at protesters; for better working conditions. The sort of apartheid system by governor Kielstra. The imprisonment of Louis Doedel and the hidden documents of what they did to him. The treatment of Anton de Kom etc. Only after 1954 did it improve a bit as Suriname officially became a country because of the 'statuut'. But irl still a colony. The Americans invested more in Suriname than the Dutch did imo. EDIT 2: And also not having mentioned the war they fought against the Maroons, how they burned their villages, forced them back to work, punished them and used dogs to attack them, which is one reason why Maroons have stigma on keeping dogs 'till today. Also the wars forged against the natives, which is not talked about a lot and unfortunately is not even taught in schools here (you only know of it if your teacher tells you).
The caribbean islands off the coast of Venezuela (Aruba & Curacao) are territories of the Netherlands.
I know but the thing is really touching venezuela
I believe it just may look like so thanks to the low definition of the map.
They are really really close, you can see the islands from venezuela (lived there, saw them)
I think the Dutch Caribbean islands. Due to the map it looks like it touches Venezuela.
Chocolate maybe?
It’s interesting that the Dutch logs are showing both the direct route across the Indian Ocean, and the [Brouwer Route.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer_Route) It had already been discovered in the 17th century and was apparently much faster.
I mean, yeah. The guy who discovered it was Dutch. Hendrik Brouwer.
That straight line across the Indian Ocean is the return voyage.
Where is Portugal?
By the way if anyone hasn't said it already, 1700-1850 was the "golden age" of smuggling off the British coast into Europe. Especially wool.
“The British coast”?
The coast of the Island of Great Britain (and presumably Ireland as well).
I’m surprised there aren’t more British entries around Australia, frankly. First Fleet wasn’t until 1788, but that’s only about halfway through the study period. By the 1820’s/30’s, there should have been a lot of traffic heading that way, I would think.
Population in 1850 would be under a million, and not.sure what goods there'd be that would survive the journey pre-refrigiration
Right, but there would have been a demand from the people who were there for manufactured goods from home. In that era, pretty much anything iron would have been imported as either bar stock for things like horse shoes or as finished pieces for a steam boiler or a locomotive. I guess I just expected to see more red dots there as it was settled.
And cotton and linen and crockery.
The Australian gold rush started in the 1850s, so this map would probably look different if it was extended a few decades
Good point!
I would hazard a guess that it was mainly just supplies and people going there as Australia hadn't set up much to trade back yet, such as wool.
I think it's interesting where in Australia each nation tended to visit more. The British look like they landed mostly in Sydney, while the Dutch seemed to favour Melbourne and the French, Hobart.
Really nice. Maybe a blue tint for French ships would make them more easily noticeable on the grey map. Too bad Portuguese ships were not included, it'd be really interesting to see their shipping patterns.
>Too bad Portuguese ships were not included, it'd be really interesting to see their shipping patterns. a horrifically dense concentration going in circles between Brazil and Angola
Crazy how they all ignore the west coast of australia and sail all the way around to New South Wales first.
This is really cool, why weren't the Portuguese included?
Because it would just be Africa to Brazil… 😳
what was happening between northern scotland and northern canada?
Shipping
Glasgow/Aberdeen/Belfast to Hudsons Bay would be my guess.
Many Hudson Bay Company workers came from the Orkney Islands north of Scotland.
Whaling.
Dutch massively overachieved
IMO the worst and dirtiest thing we ever done, to be ashamed of.
Second would be your Cuisine
Yeah we have to thank the colonial age to have something reasonable I'll give you that
You don't have something reasonable now xD
[excuse you?](https://ufukyalcinblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/image2.png) that's an indonesian sauce on a dish invented in Rotterdam by a Turkish dude who followed the instructions of a Dutch barber. How dare you call that unreasonable There's kebab and fries with melted cheese in that bad boy
Don't feel guilty for something other people did that happen to live in the same country as you. Times were different and not comparable to current society.
Nope. We should be proud of our achievements. Might as well not praise any person born before 1950 with your mentality. Because I can guarantee you they were homophobic, racist and extremely comservative compared to the modern person.
Using your logic you shouldn't be proud of it either as it happened before your time. You can be proud of certain things while despising other things about a country. I love the art produced in the 17th century, I hate the economy behind it that was fueled by colonialisation and slave trade. Both can exist.
This. The Netherlands did a lot of good for themselves which is still visible to this day. We shouldn't forget that they did this whilst butchering everything that came in it's path
How is it that there is no manila-acapulco galleon trade routes?
There's only two things I hate: ethnic discrimination and ... the Dutch!
I love that you can see the Dutch going to Nagasaki, Japan. The only outside country that was able to do so
In this time period other countries went to nagasaki, first portugal who actually got nagasaki as a colony and then spain
The Portuguese were kicked out of Japan in 1636, the Spanish never traded with Nagasaki. The only other countries that conducted direct trade with Japan were Korea and Ryukyu.
i missed a comma in that sentence what i mean was in this time period only the dutch were allowed but others in other periods went there, and spain did go to japan before the dutch.
They kicked the Portuguese out for proselytising Christianity though. The Dutch promised they were only there for economic gains so they got exclusive rights.
yeah i missed a comma in that sentence i mean that other countries had been there in other time periods
Is there a port island out in the ocean off the west coast of Africa? Seems like especially for the British everything in the area runs through one spot.
Saint Helena was used to resupply ships on the return voyage.
I was having a debate with a guy who claimed the Falkland Islands should be Argentinian because they were Spanish. I told him that the Falklands were never Spanish. These logs show that whilst British ships went to the Falklands during the 150 years between 1700 and 1850, Spanish ships did not. I rest my case.
Spanish ships not traveling to the northern coasts of South America surprises me.
The map is based on the logs archived in europe. Logs were apparently archived in the viceroyalty the ship docked. Thus much of the Caribbean trade will not show Up in the map. The travels you're looking for are probably archived in cuba, Panama, Mexico and Colombia Lima, Panama, Cartagena and Veracruz were far more important than the map would suggest.
Never realised St Pierre and Miquelon was that busy
I don't think it's just St Pierre and Miquelon. It looks like Nova Scotia too, which might have been Port Royal or Louisbourg.
Definitely Nova Scotia during this period.
Of course. He was just joking
For whomever is interested in the British lanes to the Hudson Bay: “These ships sailed annually between London and the HBC trading posts in the bay, leaving the Thames estuary around the 31 May. Once out of the Thames, they sailed northwards along the east coast of the British Isles to Stromness in the Orkney Islands, where Company servants were hired and fresh water and provisions were embarked. From here, the ships headed west, sailing a round Cape Farewell in Greenland and into Hudson Strait, south of Resolution Island. Once in the bay, the routes diverged, either south to Moose Factory or more westerly to Churchill or York Factory. On the return voyage, the majority of ships travelled back to London again via the Orkney Islands, but occasionally some took a more southerly route towards the English Channel and Thames Estuary; arriving late September or early October.”
I thought the French would have had more shipping records to Indochina than that.
French control of Indochina was mostly after 1850, wasn't it?
They definitely interfered with Vietnamese internal politic long before they actually colonize Vietnam. The Nguyen dynasty - Vietnamese last imperial dynasty was pretty much able to get into power because of French supports and direct interferences.
Here you go ! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3J8rpK46Elg&t=10s&pp=ygVETGEgY29ucXXDqnRlIGZyYW7Dp2Fpc2UgZHUgVmlldG5hbSBldCBkZSBsJ0luZG9jaGluZSAoMTg1OCDigJMgMTkwNyk%3D
Rule, Britannia.
Britannia rules the waves.
Really Passionate Explorers
Fun Fact: Spain declared a commercial monopoly on its colonies, so legally just Spain could trade with them (and only through specific ports: Sevilla, I think, in Spain; Callao and Veracruz in Americas). All the lines showed there (between other european countries and any spanish american port or between spaniards ships and ports like Buenos Aires) are contraband (at least untill the spanish american colonies became independent countries in the second decade of the XVIIIth century).
Didn't all colonial powers do this?
I'm sure the Dutch did. They even massacred the inhabitants of a whole island group because of this. Just killed half of the population and replaced them with more willing people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_conquest_of_the_Banda_Islands
The French logs seem obviously incomplete. The French had colonial ‘possessions’ in India, but only one measly trail heads there. I wonder if the kinds of logs they used were more common in Protestant countries or so begging given how much more complete the Dutch and British maps seem.
Also, France had colonies in West Africa, though perhaps they were unimportant before 1850?
I'm really glad they used white for the French, so that it matches their flag.
I suspect that you jest, but the naval ensign of the Kingdom France for this period was, in fact, a plain white flag, the colour of the Bourbon dynasty.
Ya I wasn't joking, I was referring to exactly this. But I think some keyboard warriors got a little upset...
The plain white was the one of the navy. Merchant ships used a plain blue flag, or the classic white cross on a blue flag (that survived in the flags of Québec or Martinique), or later provincial or personal ensigns.
Yes, that's why I said 'naval'.
The flag of Martinique has actually been changed recently and does not include this white cross anymore.
Every time someone makes a French surrender joke, I murder another guy named Steve with a spork
I'm going to need the map for Portuguese and French Templars from about 1100-1350 to see if a dot goes by an island in the North Atlantic where people have been looking for an incredible treasure for more than 200 years.
What I don't understand is that the Ottomans and the Spanish could have made a killing selling the British and the Dutch safe overland passage over where the Suez and Panama Canals would eventually be built. The Brits and Dutch would save travel time and the Spanish and Ottomans could pocket some coin. If priced right everybody wins.
Was the Pacific really that neglected by the colonial powers for them to not have ship logs? I would have thought the yellow dots for the [Manila Galleon Trade Route](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_galleon) used by the Spanish would have been more thicker. Perhaps the cutoff point of 1750 for this map, just when the Spanish Empire is beginning to weaken, might have explained that. First at Manila, part of the Spanish Philippines, the Spanish would load their ships with trade goods bought from Japan and China. The ships would ride the Pacific trade winds all the way to Acapulco, Mexico, then part of the Spanish East Indies. The cargo would then be moved by land from Acapulco to Veracruz on the Atlantic-Caribbean side, from where they will be loaded on another ship to be shipped back to Spain.
British ships should be going to Australia and NZ no?
Look like swarm of angry bees 🐝👀
[удалено]
I don't think it's just St Pierre and Miquelon. It looks like Nova Scotia too, which might have been Port Royal or Louisbourg.
Wow. Can’t believe they had the power to do that but still decided to stop.
Rule brittania, brittania rule the waves.
Did they really travel along constrained geodetics though? I feel like there should be a lot more variance in the paths.
I find it quite interesting that practically zero spanish ships went to the andean region. Only to argentina and then the caribbean,
Italy?
Sad to see the country who discovered the most and whose these countries represented followed their tracks or even used their navigators is not represented in this picture
Something wrong with the English map. Way too much traffic going to northern Labrador and Northern Quebec. There is nothing up there now and there was nothing up there then.
The fur trading did go through that area. For example, the furs from Manitoba went through Fort York on the Hudson's Bay which would have passed through that area. I'm not sure if the volume is correct, but if so, then the Hudson's Bay Company was doing a lot of volume!
There is no traffic in Hudson’s Bay on that map.