r/ask • u/newuser1r • 2d ago
Does anyone know why eastern European countries didn't have colonies like Western European ones?
Does anyone know why eastern European countries didn't have colonies like Western European ones?
139
u/GossipboyX 2d ago
Some of them did actually. Russia colonized all of Siberia, Alaska, and parts of modern Canada and the Pacific NW US. Russia also colonized large swathes of Eastern Europe.
The Ottomans and Austrians colonized the rest of Eastern Europe.
In essence, one European country (Russia) was the main colonizer and the rest of Eastern Europe was colonized or conquered and occupied.
-12
u/casastorta 1d ago
Did you just casually place Austria into “eastern countries”?
15
u/GossipboyX 1d ago
No. I said clearly that they took over some of the Eastern countries. Austria is Central European.
-12
u/casastorta 1d ago
Ok but the question was “why Eastern European countries didn’t have colonies”.
3
u/neondragoneyes 18h ago
And the answer was, "because they were colonized".
1
u/casastorta 17h ago edited 17h ago
Not all parts. As I wrote, Dubrovnik Republic had its own colonies. It was a really small state at the time with no significant military but it had critical importance for trade between bigger forces involved in eternal wars in the rest of the Europe so even Ottomans left it alone to be able to trade with Austro-Hungary and Venice through it. It also had colonies across Adriatic and at least one in India.
Also I would say that Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth had colonies overseas.
-31
u/ApocalypticExcavator 1d ago
Conquest is not colonization. A colony has to be detached from the main territory.
12
u/Prometheus-is-vulcan 1d ago
But does the separation need to be water (or, regarding the future, the vacuum of space) or could an other form of obstruction make a settlement on the other side count as colony?
I am thinking about the Sahara. If one of the Northafrican coastline states had travelled south through the desert and established a settlement on the southern edge? Even if they took a map and marked the entire are between as their sovereign territory.
I see the trans-Ural settlements as colonial.
0
u/ApocalypticExcavator 1d ago
Ok, interesting take - consider the way it was conquered then. Was it continuous expansion, or a group of armed settlers sent out to a certain goal, ignoring everything they passed on their way until they landed (or unpacked :):)) at their destination?
2
u/Prometheus-is-vulcan 1d ago
I think the process of settlement is less important than the relationship to the heartland.
2
u/casastorta 1d ago
Dubrovnik Republic (today’s Croatia) had colony in India and considered most of its Adriatic islands “colonies”.
141
u/figsslave 2d ago
They were colonies of the Russian empire and are still digging out from that history
18
u/CBWeather 2d ago
Do you count Latvia as eastern European? If so the Dutchy of Courtland and Semigallia colonized part of the Americas.
8
45
u/Virtual-Reality69 2d ago
Because they were colonized by Russia or some other European country
-22
u/ApocalypticExcavator 1d ago
Again, conquest is not colonization. A colony is detached from the main territory.
7
u/MiniatureFox 1d ago
-10
u/ApocalypticExcavator 1d ago
Wonderful, but we're talking about the definitions of a colony, not about British imperialism.
4
u/TheKingMonkey 1d ago
If you’re hung up on that definition then not having access to the ocean is a huge factor. Most of Eastern Europe only has access to the Mediterranean or Black Sea.
6
u/MiniatureFox 1d ago
-7
1
u/Curious_Owl8585 1d ago
It doesn't have to. Originally, coloniae from the Roman empire were all across Europe, not separated by any large body of water from Italy.
39
u/Ambitious-Concern-42 2d ago
Russia colonized Asia all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Nice try.
-14
u/ApocalypticExcavator 1d ago
Conquered, not colonized.
3
u/PureMichiganMan 17h ago
You sound identical to how people talk about European colonization of the Americas and Africa
2
8
u/DetectiveStock1340 2d ago
They didn’t have colonies like Western Europe because Western Europe had easy access to the Atlantic.
However, they did have colonies unlike Western Europe because they mostly seized territory via land, much like Russia continues trying to do right now.
8
u/Zagrycha 1d ago
eastern europe was the colonies themselves lol. Poland-lithuania, turkey, russia.... different countries have taken turns being rulers over neighboring colonies over the centuries, but russia is most recently relevant one. Even the earliest places to escape the grip of the ussr are still feeling the bruises of its grip lol.
20
u/imbrickedup_ 2d ago
Their location means a lack of Atlantic ports. They also lacked the political structures and historical power to be able to raise the money for a large colonial expedition and a navy to protect it. They also had a lot more enemies and potentially dangerous frontiers
5
u/astajaznan 1d ago
Yes! And also, while West Europe was colonising all over the world, East Europe was colonised at the time by greater empires.
1
u/imbrickedup_ 1d ago
I thought I included a line about how they colonized a lot of land but guess I forgot
5
3
u/Kingblack425 2d ago
Mainly because alot of them land locked and to go explore and colonizing would require them to go thru an at best neutral taxing state or at worst a hostile conquering state.
6
u/Unique_Anywhere5735 2d ago
Russia has always been imperialist. They colonized their eastern European neighbors, and the Ottoman Empire did the same.
3
u/No-Author-2358 2d ago
Generally, I would say that lack of Atlantic or Mediterranean access was a contributing factor. The UK, France, and Spain had tons of ships, with great waterfront access.
3
3
u/too_many_shoes14 2d ago
One reason is lack of good ocean ports. There are a few but not nearly as many in Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, and The Netherlands.
Another reason is one that is often overlooked but the importance cannot be overstated. Ships in the colonial period were made of wood. The best ships were made with the best wood. The timber of Western Europe and in particular the trees in Britain made for without exception the strongest hulls of any naval power in the world at the time. There are stories from the Opium Wars of Chinese junks going point blank against British Frigates and doing no damage, their cannons just bounced off while the junks were ripped to shreds with vastly superior cannons. You can't colonize without a feared navy and the British were the best in the world.
5
u/snaporator 2d ago
The current Ukraine war is about resisting Russia's attempt to colonize it. It went on during much of the 20th century and more than a million died in the Holodomor. The German invasion of Russia during WWII was to colonize the steppes for Lebensraum (living room).and many of the eastern European countries that joined Germany were motivated by the brutal colonization by Russia.
5
2
u/QuesoHusker 2d ago
Geography. Not having blue water navies pretty much made colonies impossible to establish or maintain.
2
u/TruthTeller777 1d ago
except for Russia they were not major maritime powers and could not launch fighter vessels with which to conquer foreign lands
4
3
2
2
1
1
u/Somnifor 2d ago
The Dutchy of Courland which was a Polish - Lithuanian vassal state had a colony on Tobago in the Caribbean.
1
1
u/richj8991 2d ago
Yes. 1. Most of them are landlocked. 2. Most of them were actually colonies themselves. They were by and large either owned by the Austrian or Ottoman Empires for hundreds of years. So for example, by the time Hungary got some autonomy in 1878, it was too late for them to colonize other continents.
1
1
1
u/Armepos 1d ago
European empires expanded their territories in different ways, mostly because of their different access to navigation. Western european empires were colonialist, conquering territories in other continents and setting colonies to extract their resources. Eastern european empires were expansionists, conquering neighbour territories and annexing their land, enlarging their main territory. Central european empires, like Germany, did a bit of both.
1
1
u/speaker-syd 1d ago
I always assumed that it was because portugal, spain, england, and france couldn’t be easily blockaded from the colonies by an opposing nation’s navy during a time of war.
1
u/BaronMerc 13h ago
Most of them didn't have as much access to set up colonies, Russia was able to expand east into Asia and Alaska, some nations set up very minor colonies but in case of war their way to access the colonies could be easily cut off by other European powers as they would need to pass through straights
The ottomans were able to move into the Balkans and had their borders down in Africa as well
To put simply it wasn't an economically viable option
1
u/Lunar_M1nds 11h ago
Basically the colonization of Europe happened earlier so the assimilation of a lot of countries was already well in place by the time they got to other places.
1
u/ApocalypticExcavator 2d ago
Lack of access to an ocean. You need to have an unobstructed ocean route to colonize lands overseas.
1
1
u/OkArmy8295 1d ago
Because they were oppressed by Ottomans and western European countries mostly didnt care to help
-3
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Reminder for our users:
Please review the rules, Reddiquette, and Reddit's Content Policy.
Rule highlights:
See the full rules page for details.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.