Hanseatic League declined in power - What if the confederation had endeavored expanding in America?

[Jopa79]

Northern Europe during the 1400's. Colored area is the extent of Hanseatic League.

A commercial and defensive union of merchant guilds and market towns, growing from a few North German towns in the 1100's the Hanseatic League came to dominate Baltic maritime trade for three centuries and the League became a "superpower" of the Late Middle Ages. Merchants established the League to protect the guilds' economic interests as well the diplomatic privileges in their home cities and countries, to guard and make secure the trade routes used by the Hansa merchants in land and sea.

The Hanseatic cities had their own legal system and they operated their own armies for mutual protection and aid. However, only a few cities enjoyed of liberties, autonomy or could be called free city-states.

Hansa's decline is dated back to the Age of Discovery, especially to the discovery and exploration of the Americas which meant the global trade concentrating to the Atlantic Ocean. Meanwhile Hansa lost its possession in Baltic maritime trade to Denmark and Sweden, as well in the North Sea for the English and the Dutch. Also, the European convert in religion affected to Hansa's decline. The Catholic Fate disappeared from the Northern Europe - eating meat was not allowed during Lent in the Catholic Europe, but was replaced with fish. Hanseatic League controlled the fish markets in the Baltic, but while the Catholicism tailed off, the League lost an important trade product.

Instead of just watching its sea-might and maritime trade disappearing in the Northern Europe, losing prestige and national score for the other rising Northern European nations, what if the Hanseatic League would had pursued for establishing a confederation of city-states - Hanseatic Confederation? Would it had the resources to fight for its status, join for the race of supermacy in the Americas and Caribbean, establishing herself as a colonial power replacing the lost Baltic trade with the Atlantic trade?

 

[loup99]

Instead of just watching its sea-might and maritime trade disappearing in the Northern Europe, losing prestige and national score for the other rising Northern European nations, what if the Hanseatic League would had pursued for establishing a confederation of city-states - Hanseatic Confederation? Would it had the resources to fight for its status, join for the race of supermacy in the Americas and Caribbean, establishing herself as a colonial power replacing the lost Baltic trade with the Atlantic trade?

How would this confederation have come into existence? What is the exact point of divergence and why does it happen?

You have to keep in mind that Portugal taking the lead in travel is no coincidence, the Portuguese were turned towards the Atlantic and had an economic incentive in trying to find alternative trade routes towards the East Indies to those dominated by Venice and Genoa through the Mamluks. The Castillan and Aragonese Catholic Kings also approved of Colombus' travel after the conquest of Granada and the end of their conflicts. When the Dutch intervene and begin to challenge the Iberian hegemony, especially that of Portugal in South East Asia, it is during the 80 Years War and they have been a part of the Spanish imperial possessions on the continent. Within the United Provinces you have a dynamic which encourages trade abroad and the institution of the VOC and EIC in the case of England also leads to merchants being able to pursue travels.

Launching expeditions to establish new trade routes thus requires proper funding, the technological capacity and a power ready to give enough support. I don't see a small city turned towards the Baltic trade having an interest in competing with its own trade routes by pushing towards the Atlantic, nor do I see it being able to provide the funding for such expeditions.

 

[Jopa79]

How would this confederation have come into existence? What is the exact point of divergence and why does it happen?

Hanseatic City of Lubeck was the capital of Hansa and the far most powerful member over the 40+ proper cities of the Hanseatic League. The Holy Roman Empire declared Lubeck as a Free Imperial City. Hanseatic League and Lubeck fought several wars against Denmark, further adding Lubeck also joining the Schmalkaldic League - this military alliance of Lutheran Princes came to have an invention to replace the HRE and if the other Hansa cities would join the Schmalkaldic League which already had substantial military it might had been an alternative in creating a city-state confederation with a significant army and a seaworthy naval force.

You have to keep in mind that Portugal taking the lead in travel is no coincidence, the Portuguese were turned towards the Atlantic and had an economic incentive in trying to find alternative trade routes towards the East Indies to those dominated by Venice and Genoa through the Mamluks. The Castillan and Aragonese Catholic Kings also approved of Colombus' travel after the conquest of Granada and the end of their conflicts. When the Dutch intervene and begin to challenge the Iberian hegemony, especially that of Portugal in South East Asia, it is during the 80 Years War and they have been a part of the Spanish imperial possessions on the continent. Within the United Provinces you have a dynamic which encourages trade abroad and the institution of the VOC and EIC in the case of England also leads to merchants being able to pursue travels.

Portugal taking the lead in travel still didn't prevent the other rising European maritime nations to take part and compete about the oversea colonies, riches and trade. As well, taking a lead in exploration, discoveries is not an insurance to make national prestige eternal. If the Confederation of Hansa was to be established, why would the status of the Portuguese Empire be an obstacle?

Launching expeditions to establish new trade routes thus requires proper funding, the technological capacity and a power ready to give enough support. I don't see a small city turned towards the Baltic trade having an interest in competing with its own trade routes by pushing towards the Atlantic, nor do I see it being able to provide the funding for such expeditions.

Stated already earlier, not a small city, but a network of Northern European towns with Lubeck its capital, Hanseatic League was a trading and economic union, not a state, but if it would have been succeeded in transforming into one it still had the technological capacity, enough funding and some military might in the 1500's enough for launching expeditions for the New World. In contrast, Hansa wasted its resources for profitless competition in the Baltic- and the North Sea.

 

[loup99]

Hanseatic City of Lubeck was the capital of Hansa and the far most powerful member over the 40+ proper cities of the Hanseatic League. The Holy Roman Empire declared Lubeck as a Free Imperial City. Hanseatic League and Lubeck fought several wars against Denmark, further adding Lubeck also joining the Schmalkaldic League - this military alliance of Lutheran Princes came to have an invention to replace the HRE and if the other Hansa cities would join the Schmalkaldic League which already had substantial military it might had been an alternative in creating a city-state confederation with a significant army and a seaworthy naval force.

My question wasn't about historical details, but the exact point of divergence of your scenario. I don't understand at which point the Schmalkaldic League would be victorious?

Portugal taking the lead in travel still didn't prevent the other rising European maritime nations to take part and compete about the oversea colonies, riches and trade. As well, taking a lead in exploration, discoveries is not an insurance to make national prestige eternal. If the Confederation of Hansa was to be established, why would the status of the Portuguese Empire be an obstacle?

The question isn't the Portuguese Empire being an obstacle, it is to analysis why there were attempts to open new trade routes and of these fit for the cities of the Hansa without any divergence taking place. As for "national prestige" it seems like a vague notion, I don't really get what you mean.

Stated already earlier, not a small city, but a network of Northern European towns with Lubeck its capital, Hanseatic League was a trading and economic union, not a state, but if it would have been succeeded in transforming into one it still had the technological capacity, enough funding and some military might in the 1500's enough for launching expeditions for the New World. In contrast, Hansa wasted its resources for profitless competition in the Baltic- and the North Sea.

You don't address the point. Why would a network which profits from the trade in the Baltic and North Sea encourage the opening of new trade routes that compete with their existing ones? There is no incentive here, to the contrary of for example Portugal, Spain, the United Provinces, England and France. Even if we somehow keep the Schmalkaldic League and it magically transforms into a "state" it just does not compare with the other driving countries behind the opening of such trade routes.

 

[Jopa79]

My question wasn't about historical details, but the exact point of divergence. I don't understand at which point the Schmalkaldic League would be victorious?

How can one estimate the exact point of divergence without knowing the historical details? If the other Hansa cities would join the Schmalkaldic League it might be powerful enough to win the Schmalkaldic War.

You don't address the point. Why would a network which profits from the trade in the Baltic and North Sea encourage the opening of new trade routes that compete with their existing ones? There is no incentive here, to the contrary of Portugal, Spain, the United Provinces, England and France. Even if we somehow keep the Schmalkaldic League and it turns into a "state" it just does not compare with the other driving countries behind the opening of such trade routes.

Hansa didn't anymore take profits from the trade in the Baltic and North Sea because losing maritime trade to England, Denmark, the Dutch and Sweden - there's the economic incentive for Hansa to launch expeditions and establishing new trade routes.

 

[loup99]

How can one estimate the exact point of divergence without knowing the historical details?

Sure, but you only gave historical details without any point of divergence in what I quoted, and not much depth to those details.

If the other Hansa cities would join the Schmalkaldic League it might be powerful enough to win the Schmalkaldic War.

Why would the other Hansa cities be interested in joining the Schmalkaldic League? Disregarding that, I don't see how this would have tipped the balance in favour of the Schmalkaldic League, historically the Imperial forces won very decisively.

Hansa didn't anymore take profits from the trade in the Baltic and North Sea because losing maritime trade to England, Denmark, the Dutch and Sweden - there's the economic incentive for Hansa to launch expeditions and establishing new trade routes.

At that point though the Hansa has already declined to the point that it is too weak to achieve any lasting trade route on its own. I think you have to situate the point of divergence a bit earlier for this to be a plausible scenario.

 

[Jopa79]

Sure, but you only gave historical details without any point of divergence in what I quoted, and not much depth to those details.

Well, thank you, sir. You are doing yourself also well.

Why would the other Hansa cities be interested in joining the Schmalkaldic League? Disregarding that, I don't see how this would have tipped the balance in favour of the Schmalkaldic League, historically the Imperial forces won very decisively.

Now, why would Columbus ever prepare his caravels for an expedition...everyone knows, the world is flat, uncharted waters full of hideous monsters, the ships would fall at the edge of the world. Nothing would ever follow this crazy idea.

At that point though the Hansa has already declined to the point that it is too weak to achieve any lasting trade route on its own. I think you have to situate the point of divergence a bit earlier for this to be a plausible scenario.

I disagree. If you lose the game every time, wouldn't you give up the old methods and try something new.

 

[loup99]

Well, thank you, sir. You are doing yourself also well.

I'm not going to give you the point of divergence of your alternate history scenario, hence why I question what you claim. Any alternate history has to have a clearly defined point of divergence, otherwise we are a bit lost in trying to understand it.

Now, why would Columbus ever prepare his caravels for an expedition...everyone knows, the world is flat, uncharted waters full of hideous monsters, the ships would fall at the edge of the world. Nothing would ever follow this crazy idea.

Except that Columbus was influenced by existing Medieval reasoning, Marco Polo's travel had described Kublai Khan's court and capital, he had seen Toscanelli's map and everyone knew by this time the world wasn't flat and had known that since Antiquity. Colombus was deeply religious and believed in converting China as well as the search for wealth. As for following the idea, Portugal did refuse since Dias had already passed the Cape of Good Hope and the astronomists and cosmographs saw flaws in the mathematical calculations of Colombus but the Catholic Kings accepted given the potential wealth in the new trade route and the power of the Khan, who could be an ally against the Muslims if converted to Christianity. See? This is all situated within a context, it is pertinent to mention. You don't explain any cause for the other cities joining the Schmalkaldic League, nor do you explain any convincing cause for victory in the Schmalkaldic War. Historical events don't just happen.

I disagree. If you lose the game every time, wouldn't you give up the old methods and try something new.

You would if you can afford it and there is interest. When an association was already lose to begin with and is already in terminal decline, the conditions are not present to launch any such expedition, let alone uphold any trade route.

 

[Cavalry]

The League lost its monopoly in the Baltic. Moving trade to the New Word don't give them any monopoly. And the early ships don't allow for trade in America from the Baltic. That's why Spain and Portugal had a dominant advantage here. They are much closer to the New World, starting with the Canary Island off Africa (Only in the south there are trade winds to help ship cross the Atlantic). It took the English a hundred year in ship technology to catch up and reach New World.

 

[loup99]

Note the ships used by the Portuguese and Spanish for the first travels were the caravels and carracks. And while ship techniques developed by the Portuguese and Aragonese were in use, Italian maps and Italian funding was also crucial. This shows the existing links that existed between the Iberian peninsula and the Italian one, within the Mediterranean trade network. The Baltic and North Sea was a separate economic system, even if there were of course ties at a wider scale. If we keep in mind the combination of religious and economic motivations, I don't see why the Hansa would have had the missionary interest which existed on the Iberian peninsula.

 

[Avernite]

I think the bigger deal is that the Hanseatic League started declining too early; the Hollandic-Hanseatic war (2 Dutch counties, Holland and Zeeland, vs the core Hansa) in the 1430's was about inconclusive, but critically it didn't stop the trend of the Dutch provinces slowly being less interested in being with the Hansa, and being less afraid of crossing the Hansa. After all that war had shown the Dutch cities only really had to contend with the Wendish cities (even Bremen tried to sit the whole thing out, preferring trade in peace over trying to smack down the Hollandic competition).

After this there was a whole century of comparative Hanseatic decline (no doubt it wasn't a straight line) before any American adventures become remotely feasible. Kind of too much, in my mind.

 

[LlywelynII]

Instead of just watching its sea-might and maritime trade disappearing in the Northern Europe, losing prestige and national score for the other rising Northern European nations, what if the Hanseatic League would had pursued for establishing a confederation of city-states - Hanseatic Confederation? Would it had the resources to fight for its status, join for the race of supermacy in the Americas and Caribbean, establishing herself as a colonial power replacing the lost Baltic trade with the Atlantic trade?

No.

I mean, everyone here plays Paradox's games basically for the chance to do exactly this: crush Manchuria and colonize Mexico as Ming China; unite England and France under Henry V; unite Christendom under Justinian or Charlemagne or Charles V; unite the world as the Republic of Haiti, the Kingdom of Hawaii, or Universal Imperium of the Welsh... but no it's not reasonable to think that the Baltic merchant princes would be any more inclined to expand into the Atlantic than the Italian merchant princes had been... it's not reasonable to think they could've broken free of Danish, Dutch, British and French control of their trade routes any more than the Italians could've kept the French, Spanish, and Portuguese out of theirs... and, to the extent they did unify their organization and did succeed and did turn some profit, the more they would've been exposed to an attack on their metropole from every direction of the compass.

The historical parallel here was Curland under Jacob Kettler: Under a visionary and wealthy leader, they parlayed their sizeable merchant marine into a fledgling colonial empire in the West Indies and Africa... and swiftly lost the whole thing to the Dutch & the English while their homeland was overrun by the Swedes & the Russians.

Fixing the Hansa wouldn't just involve a series of visionary leaders overcoming local prejudices to remain unified longer than was historically feasible and to diversify away from their own region in a way that seems obvious only in hindsight. It would also require rewriting the entire history of every major country on their borders.

 

[Barsoom]

Eh, the Dutch colonial empire took off from a basis that was quite similar to the Hansa. Baltic trade in grain and wood was fundamental and known as the mother trade (moedernegotie). They financed their first explorations and hostile takeovers by issuing shares, there's no particular reason why the Hansa couldn't have done that. The Dutch were one of the least centralized states in Europe (as that was the whole point of their revolt), suffering from institutional weakness and periodic infighting between Orangists and commercial interests. Lübeck's share of Hansa finances was not as dominant as Holland's 60% of the Republic's but it did have a certain predominance that could have evolved into a kind of hegemony given time and luck. It's entirely possible to imagine a world where the Hansa came out of the early 16th century civil wars in Germany more or less unscathed and developed into a predatory capitalist colonial empire.

@LlywelynII is right that such commercial predominance invites attacks on the homeland but notice that the Dutch suffered those quite frequently during their Golden Age, in fact establishing their trade empire while fighting a defensive war on their own soil. Perhaps they benefited from geographical circumstance, being less extended than the Hansa and protected by rivers and marshes. It is not inconceivable, though, that a victory or even a stalemate by the Schmalkaldic League could have insulated the core of the Hansa for some time. The point of that league, like the union of Dutch provinces, was to fight off a centralizing monarchy. Just as the Dutch trade empire was a byproduct of the revolt against the Habsburgs, so the Hansa might have developed one of its own as a byproduct of a struggle for decentralization in the Holy Roman Empire.

So @Avernite has a good point. Everything the Dutch did the Hansa could have done if the preceding century had been a little kinder to them. But he should have taken it a bit further: that early war between Holland and the Hansa was an early instance of a long, mostly commercial fight, which saw the Dutch eventually break into the Hansa's home trade sphere, establishing their mother trade at the Hanse's cost, in short: wrecking the competition. The Hansa could have perhaps done it in an alternative timeline but when the Dutch maneuvered into position to do it themselves, they at the same time took away the basis for any Hansa attempt.

 

[CarloG]

As we are talking about the Hansa:

Does anyone know a good general history of the Hansa? I looked around but I didn't find much. Usually quite old works with a few more recent but only published in German.
And while my German is usually good enough to get a general understanding of a newspaper article it is certainly not good enough to read a history book...

 

[Cavalry]

that early war between Holland and the Hansa was an early instance of a long, mostly commercial fight, which saw the Dutch eventually break into the Hansa's home trade sphere, establishing their mother trade at the Hanse's cost, in short: wrecking the competition. The Hansa could have perhaps done it in an alternative timeline but when the Dutch maneuvered into position to do it themselves, they at the same time took away the basis for any Hansa attempt.

Well said. World Trade is always backed by gun. Once upon a time the Spanish would shoot down any ship of other nation in the New World.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Eh, the Dutch colonial empire took off from a basis that was quite similar to the Hansa. Baltic trade in grain and wood was fundamental and known as the mother trade (moedernegotie). They financed their first explorations and hostile takeovers by issuing shares, there's no particular reason why the Hansa couldn't have done that. The Dutch were one of the least centralized states in Europe (as that was the whole point of their revolt), suffering from institutional weakness and periodic infighting between Orangists and commercial interests. Lübeck's share of Hansa finances was not as dominant as Holland's 60% of the Republic's but it did have a certain predominance that could have evolved into a kind of hegemony given time and luck. It's entirely possible to imagine a world where the Hansa came out of the early 16th century civil wars in Germany more or less unscathed and developed into a predatory capitalist colonial empire.

@LlywelynII is right that such commercial predominance invites attacks on the homeland but notice that the Dutch suffered those quite frequently during their Golden Age, in fact establishing their trade empire while fighting a defensive war on their own soil. Perhaps they benefited from geographical circumstance, being less extended than the Hansa and protected by rivers and marshes. It is not inconceivable, though, that a victory or even a stalemate by the Schmalkaldic League could have insulated the core of the Hansa for some time. The point of that league, like the union of Dutch provinces, was to fight off a centralizing monarchy. Just as the Dutch trade empire was a byproduct of the revolt against the Habsburgs, so the Hansa might have developed one of its own as a byproduct of a struggle for decentralization in the Holy Roman Empire.

So @Avernite has a good point. Everything the Dutch did the Hansa could have done if the preceding century had been a little kinder to them. But he should have taken it a bit further: that early war between Holland and the Hansa was an early instance of a long, mostly commercial fight, which saw the Dutch eventually break into the Hansa's home trade sphere, establishing their mother trade at the Hanse's cost, in short: wrecking the competition. The Hansa could have perhaps done it in an alternative timeline but when the Dutch maneuvered into position to do it themselves, they at the same time took away the basis for any Hansa attempt.

I generally agree. The Dutch had some good luck (e.g. shift of herring shoals, influx of Antwerp fortunes, etc.) and the Hansa some bad luck, but in principle there is nothing the Dutch did the Hansa couldn't do. That said, the Hansa was an older and more rickety institution, still locked in traditional ways (e.g. clearing in metal cash rather than bills), so I am not sure it would have exploited the situation as well, had the luck run the other way. There are things that maybe required the flexibility and boldness of nouveau riche upstarts.

 

[Kovax]

The other minor detail is that the Dutch were a bit closer to the New World than the Hansa were, and in a good position to interdict Hansa shipping to and from the New World. The Hansa could probably have made some inroads into the New World, but it would have been harder for them than for others, and with them already in decline for some time, the resources just weren't there to make a credible attempt. As pointed out by others, at a time when they were struggling just to maintain their old trade routes in their home waters, it just would have stretched them thinner and left them more vulnerable.

 

[Barsoom]

I generally agree. The Dutch had some good luck (e.g. shift of herring shoals, influx of Antwerp fortunes, etc.) and the Hansa some bad luck, but in principle there is nothing the Dutch did the Hansa couldn't do. That said, the Hansa was an older and more rickety institution, still locked in traditional ways (e.g. clearing in metal cash rather than bills), so I am not sure it would have exploited the situation as well, had the luck run the other way. There are things that maybe required the flexibility and boldness of nouveau riche upstarts.

Or the desperation of refugees starting over while the civil war that drove them from their homes is still going on around them. The nouveau riche part is true enough for the second generation (post 12 year truce) but I don't think it applies to the first (1584-1609).

 

[Avernite]

I generally agree. The Dutch had some good luck (e.g. shift of herring shoals, influx of Antwerp fortunes, etc.) and the Hansa some bad luck, but in principle there is nothing the Dutch did the Hansa couldn't do. That said, the Hansa was an older and more rickety institution, still locked in traditional ways (e.g. clearing in metal cash rather than bills), so I am not sure it would have exploited the situation as well, had the luck run the other way. There are things that maybe required the flexibility and boldness of nouveau riche upstarts.

The Hansa had a handful of cities; the Dutch a country. Now obviously we haven't clearly defined how big the Hansa is, but if we assume the Wendish core plus Hamburg/Bremen it is grossly smaller than the 7 United Netherlands.

Hamburg in 1600 (a bit late) had 40,000 inhabitants, to 100,000 for Amsterdam, 45,000 for Leiden and 40,000 for Haarlem. Lübeck had 20,000 or so, to Rotterdam, Delft, Utrecht and Enkhuizen all at similar numbers. Can't find specifics for Bremen, but I assume it's not bigger than Hamburg. And then the Republic controlled all the towns in between too, not as critical financially but a bonus nonetheless.

Now obviously this won't be critical for trade as such; the Netherlands routinely recruited sailors from all the Hanseatic cities, and the Hanse could do that right back. But the more resources you have yourself, the easier. And obviously as wars got bigger more depth was good, though the Netherlands (depth and all) still found it hard to recover from the 1672 French-Colognian-Munsterian invasion; though I would suspect a Hansa facing such a coalition would simply fail.

And yes, it undoubtedly helped that nearly all of those Dutch cities are cities in Holland, so they didn't just have the Republic (rickety, if innovative for its time) but also the County as a unifying government.

 

[Jopa79]

we haven't clearly defined how big the Hansa is

I suggested earlier: Hansa = 40+cities