The Danish colonies!

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by christianx
Well...intially the Swedish rulers thought that colonisation would lead to no good. They thought it was going to be a short lived trend. Then when they realized its potential it was too late...the world had been claimed by someone else.

This brings to mind what one female Swedish minister said in the early 90s when a new world was introduced: "The Internet will be a very short lived trend..." I am glad no one here listened to her.

Sweden did get some colonies, but lost the american one to the dutch and the african one to the danes (the dutch lost theirs to the english pretty fast but the danes got to keep thier trophy rather long)

 

[Tim O]

Do we really need 20 posts on Danish and Sweedish colonies?

 

[unmerged(14393)]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
Do we really need 20 posts on Danish and Sweedish colonies?

Well...do we really need a thousand posts on the CSA and Harry Turtledove alone?

 

[unmerged(15764)]

yea exactly...
did we have any colonies within this time period then?

 

[unmerged(14393)]

Originally posted by azid
yea exactly...
did we have any colonies within this time period then?

Yes. St. Barthelemey. But in the end the islanders voted they would join France instead. I don´t know when this took place...but who cares. In Victoria Sweden can have as many colonies as she chooses.

 

[unmerged(15764)]

good! and noone is gonna vote themselves to france dammit! Theyre mine! ALL MINE!

 

[Stingray]

St. Barthelemey was given/sold to sweden from the french due to it being such a crappy island, it didn't even have fresh water... It made some money during a war (can't remember which one) when it was used as a resupply base or somwthing like that.

 

[unmerged(15723)]

Originally posted by Nikolai II
Sweden did get some colonies, but lost the american one to the dutch and the african one to the danes (the dutch lost theirs to the english pretty fast but the danes got to keep thier trophy rather long)

The Dutch took New Sweden more or less by force but wasn't it the English that took the colonies/trading posts in West Africa?

I know that they tried anyway (at least one really great fort was built to protect from the English) and I can't see how thay could have failed.

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Aldo
The Dutch took New Sweden more or less by force but wasn't it the English that took the colonies/trading posts in West Africa?

I know that they tried anyway (at least one really great fort was built to protect from the English) and I can't see how thay could have failed.

Who failed? The Swedish built a fort and failed to defend it against the Danes, IIRC. The english didn't mess around much in west africa, as easily evidenced by a colonial map of early 20th century africa


Edit: Ok, some research done upon Cabo Corso.

Cabo Corso, founded on Gold Coast near previous lost dutch and english colonies. English stole some seven ships with cargo citing that they were probably dutch-owned ships (hostile) or english lands anyway. The ships were restored later but then they had already been replaced and a fort (Karlsborg) built.

1656 Gov. Carloffer is replaced and as vengeance he storms and takes the fort in 1658 (with a danish ship crew of 48 + some slaves) and hoists the danish flag. Denmark refuses to pay reparations and return the colony, in some ways leading to Karl X second war against Denmark.

In 1660 Sweden accepts that if Denmark just return the colony then Sweden shall not demand further satisfaction, but it had already been sold to the dutch.

Soon after this the natives took the fort and sold it back to the Swedish in 1660. The last ship sent to the colony in 1661 was taken by the dutch who started to siege the fort in march 31 1662 and took it in april 22 1663! and lost it to the english in may 9 1664

The tale of the colony ends in 1667 when the dutch pay the colonys owners (the Guinea Company) 140.000 riksdaler specie in reparations for all claims present and future.

80.000 would arrive in 1670 and 40.000 in 1716. The delay was through no fault of the dutch, but rather that the Swedish state 'borrowed' the money..

All this for a trading post.. I think EU is a bit limited at times

 

[peo]

Originally posted by christianx
Yes. St. Barthelemey. But in the end the islanders voted they would join France instead. I don´t know when this took place...but who cares. In Victoria Sweden can have as many colonies as she chooses.

We sold the darn place to the French.
So Sweden made a tidy profit on that small island
Got it for free and sold it for some money with almost no cost in the duration

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by azid
good! and noone is gonna vote themselves to france dammit! Theyre mine! ALL MINE!

St. Barthélemy made some good money during the Anglo-American wars during the first years of the 19th century and then during the Spanish wars against it's former colonies, this due to it being a neutral port and thus open to all.

For this reason the king managed to make the island personal property in 1812. From 1830 the colony was no longer self-sufficent, instead needing constant funding leading to the king returning the island to the state in 1844-45. The state then abolished slavery when it recalled that it should, in 1847.

After thirty-some more years of constant drainage of funds (about $10.000 loss every year, since profits from the island was about $1.500 and cost to keep over $11.000) Sweden sold the island back to France for 80.000 francs, that would cover the value of the island and all on it. (The sum can be compared with the 320.000 francs the France also paid, to cover pensions and retirement for those few bureaucrats that would become unemployed by the shift of allegiance)

Further history, island was colonized by France in 1648 and given (as far as I know as a gift) to Sweden in 1784.

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Ighelkott
Wasn't Trancebar sold to the British during the early 19th. century?

1845.

 

[unmerged(9563)]

Sweden did have Delaware... but then I think the Dutch stole it from them, and then the English stole it (and New York, then New Amsterdam) from the Dutch.... (maybe I'm crazy, but I know the Dutch ruled something else besides NY).

 

[unmerged(234)]

Originally posted by KwangTiger
Sweden did have Delaware... but then I think the Dutch stole it from them, and then the English stole it (and New York, then New Amsterdam) from the Dutch.... (maybe I'm crazy, but I know the Dutch ruled something else besides NY).

Yes, New Sweden. The dutch took it to lose it and their own bigger colony to the english soon there after.

 

[unmerged(5588)]

Originally posted by KwangTiger
Sweden did have Delaware... but then I think the Dutch stole it from them, and then the English stole it (and New York, then New Amsterdam) from the Dutch.... (maybe I'm crazy, but I know the Dutch ruled something else besides NY).

The short-lived governor of Swedish New-Sweden in Delaware, was Prinz, who can be found as the only Swedish conquistador in Eu2. The Swedes had reinforcements and supplies underway to their colony, but the ship sunk, and so the neighboring Dutch got the upper hand, conquering the colony.

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Ighelkott
The short-lived governor of Swedish New-Sweden in Delaware, was Prinz, who can be found as the only Swedish conquistador in Eu2. The Swedes had reinforcements and supplies underway to their colony, but the ship sunk, and so the neighboring Dutch got the upper hand, conquering the colony.

IIRC the last ship with reinforcements, which should have arrived about simultaneously with the dutch ship carrying their war-winning reinforcements got delayed, possibly due to bad advice from their guide.. a dutchman