New answers tagged

0

I would venture that one reason is the alternatingly dominating fleets of the Spanish, English, French and the Dutch over the centuries. They would simply not want this to happen and had the means to stop it. They all have much better access to the Atlantic and are ideally positioned to project naval power. Given the geography and politics, it is very easy ...


2

Yes. The evidence that the British relied upon the support of Princes and land-owners is to be found in profusion in the recorded speeches and official communications of every single Governor General or Viceroy every single Secretary of State for India However, there were periods when the policy on the ground was to annex Princedoms without an heir (the ...


6

Short Answer: There was a sum of factors: War Weather Population Willingness Long Answer: Population, as highlighted in the comments, is part of the answer. But only a part, because the Netherlands and Portugal had not a big population, and still they developed quite extended colonial empires. Their small population played a more important role, when they ...


2

You might want to look into the reasons why the Roman empire did not expand (much) beyond the Rhine and Donau rivers. Or did not conquer Scotland. Certainly the area between the Rhine and Vistula rivers (most of today's Germany and a good part of Poland) would have made a nice addition to the imperium, and there actually were military threats from that area, ...


0

Harsh Siberia and even harsher Cossacks When we talk about Siberia, first thing we notice is that this huge area is very sparsely populated, both today and in history. This is not without the reason. Climate in Siberia is harsh, with relatively short summers and long, cold winters. As a result, classical agriculture with grain is almost impossible. Thus, it ...


0

Reading Thucydides and in VDH's lectures on the Pelopponesian War the impression I have is that the colonies were not self sufficient at the outset but rather went on to develop self sufficiency to the point of repudiating their founding city. This independence then became a source of contention. The colonies were designed to be a source of income rather ...


3

I note that in the 1600s Russia and the Qing dynasty fought over territory in north eastern Asia (and thus in Siberia) and that the Qing won, and kept that area until Russia captured it in the 19th or 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Russian_border_conflicts[1] Siberia is named after the Siberian Khanate in western Siberia. The modern usage ...


8

The Russian expansion east is really interesting. It is covered in depth by "China and Russia: The Great Game" by O Edmund Clubb. Basically, there were many parties vying for control of the land. Qing China and Russia both had a huge interest in controlling Siberia, as they were well aware of the threat from nomadic steppe peoples. For example, the ...


2

China ? Would have been the number one but: costs ? why ? our farmers can grow a lot of food which we then can tax The barbars is towards the north, so costs ? Why create trouble with them ? This is basically the reasons why the chinese bureaucrazy killed of the seagoing merchant fleets (which were done in an unnecessary expensive way.) China could have ...


Top 50 recent answers are included