Why didn't they participate in colonization?
1. Germany wasn't a nation until the late 1800s.
2. The HREmperor was always busy with internal struggles and most of the states were either landlocked or free cities
3. Look how poorly positioned their ports are for colonization, seriously
4. By the time Germany existed everything was taken.
They did.
>>2572809
By that point the united provinces were out of the HRE and hapsburg domination.
>>2572787
>you need a nation state to participate in colonization
It's the other way around, colonization and the contact with non-europeans shaped the European perception of itself...
In truth the German Bourgeoisie was too divided and weak to start colonial projects which was perpetuated by the result of 1848. Remember that the """usual""" case is flag follows trade i.e. you need merchants. One reason why there was no German/merchant class were the 782 different German tariffs.
So the classic thesis is the following
no nation state->tariffs->no merchants->no Bourgeoisie->no colonies->Hitler
>t.historian
>>2572809
Literally prestige projects without any value except maybe for the Samoan sulfur.
>>2572862
The Dutch Golden Age was a "prestige project"?
>>2572882
Sorry, just saw the thumb and thought it's the post 1900 German colonies.
>>2572762
Why didn't the HRE/Germany centralize earlier like France did?
>>2572762
They colonized Slavic lands as they expanded east.
>>2572862
>One reason why there was no German/merchant class were the 782 different German tariffs.
There was a German merchant class (Hansa, Fugger family, etc). Their relevance declined with the surging overseas trade, similar to what happened to Venice
>t.historian
you seem more like a vulgar marxist
>>2572906
Because the Frogs rallied around their Kings to oust the English from their lands.
They Krouts fought each other for a thousand years and never united until Hitler declared Anschluss, which didn't last.
>what is Klein-Venedig?
>>2572762
3 many princes 4 coherency
>switserland
>austria
>czechia
pretty obvious when you think about it
>>2575332
>Little Venice
>Bigger than Veneto
What did they mean by this
>>2572762
They unified later and got to colonization later. They did colonize part of South Africa that later was taken by Britain post-WWI.
>>2572762
Who says they didn't?
>>2575444
don't forget Western Poland
>>2572906
The HRE kings tried to force the italian states into submission and always had to pay the german princes to support them. This, the election system and the conflict between the popes weakened the kings and strengthened the sovereignity of the Reichsstände
>>2572762
They tried but they could not stop BTFO each other long enough to succeed.
>>2575528
most of that was continuosly settled from the same Germans that lived there since the antique
>>2572762
Because they weren't bloodthirsty savages like other kings in Europe. Living in the HRE meant cooperation, not domination.
>>2575853
Except that's wrong /pol/. Most of the tribes that had been there had moved west in the 3rd-6th centuries, and the Slavs had settled there between the 6th and 12th centuries.
>>2575995
>Most of the tribes that had been there had moved west in the 3rd-6th centuries
wrong. The peasantry and artisians that lived there stayed there. This is about as true as the claim that 90% of Swedes were barbarian searoaming vikings
>Except that's wrong /pol/
very good arguementation
>>2572787
the Dutch colonized and they are literally right beside the HRE. point invalid
>>2575967
>30 years war
>destroyed half of germany because muh pope
germans are so bloodthirsty they would destroy themselves for their bloodlust
>>2576068
>the dutch, that had the best position for colonisation in the entire HRE, and experienced the highest degree of autonomy from it, were able to set up colonial trade posts here and there, thus the arguments as to why HRE states didn't colonise is invalid
oh cmon
>>2572762
They did. Both Brandenburg-Prussia and Austria had colonies abroad. They were unsuccessful, but they existed.
>>2572906
In hindsight, Karl V had the chance to turn it around and use the Reformation to start the centralisation and statemaking process.
>>2576164
>that had the best position for colonisation in the entire HRE
Are you surprised that the part of the Holy Roman Empire that had the best position for colonisation in the entire HRE was the only one that did that? It's no wonder that Bavaria could never get to Indonesia, while the Netherlands basically take up 1/3 of the German coastline
>>2576232
listen friend usually I'd be aggressive and insult you, but I'll just calmly tell you to re-read my post and the one I was replying to instead
>>2572762
Why should they colonise other nations when they haven't even consolidated their people into a single nation state?
>>2576280
>What is Realpolitik
>>2572762
Literally central in the radical transformation of Africa, going from a continent 20% controlled bu Euros to 90% from 1885-1902.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference
Bismarck didn't care much about Africa, he saw it as a playground to play France and Britain off one another (worked desu), although when he asked the UK for Zanzibar, they agreed - even though this interrupted their "cape town to cairo dominion".
Also, Germans are the only real nation to have effectively colonized Europe. Within living memory they turned the great old world powers into rag wearing dindus demanding reparations and the return of their stolen cultural artifacts.
They tried to meso-America America, but ate a dick at it - much like Scotland. Having said this, I don't know how man Americans are of German ancestry or how many place-names in the Americas are Humboldt tier but I'd wager a shit tonne.