Originally Posted by DGG

I really liked that map of Flanders as a lion.

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Except of course that Mr. hellfigger misrepresented it. It's the Leo Belgicus (Belgian Lion). Mr. hellfigger is a Flemish nationalist. They tend to have a romantic (read : totally wrong) representation of the history of these parts. Flanders, by no stretch of the imagination, ever extended that far north. It's actually a map of the 'Nether Lands', not the current country, but the region thus called back in the 16th century under Spanish rule.
Other editions/versions of this map :
http://dutchrevolt.leidenuniv.nl/Ned...icus%20ubl.htm

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Except of course that Mr. hellfigger misrepresented it. It's the Leo Belgicus (Belgian Lion). Mr. hellfigger is a Flemish nationalist. They tend to have a romantic (read : totally wrong) representation of the history of these parts. Flanders, by no stretch of the imagination, ever extended that far north. It's actually a map of the 'Nether Lands', not the current country, but the region thus called back in the 16th century under Spanish rule.
Other editions/versions of this map :
http://dutchrevolt.leidenuniv.nl/Ned...icus%20ubl.htm

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Except of course that Mr. hellfigger misrepresented it. It's the Leo Belgicus (Belgian Lion). Mr. hellfigger is a Flemish nationalist. They tend to have a romantic (read : totally wrong) representation of the history of these parts. Flanders, by no stretch of the imagination, ever extended that far north. It's actually a map of the 'Nether Lands', not the current country, but the region thus called back in the 16th century under Spanish rule.
Other editions/versions of this map :
http://dutchrevolt.leidenuniv.nl/Ned...icus%20ubl.htm

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Pah! you are an unthankfull bunch of lowlanders anyway. Being so mean against the wise and great Habsburg rule....

Originally Posted by Tim

Originally Posted by Voland

Because at the time when other imperial powers where looking for their "place in the sun" in Africa, Asia and elsewhere Austrians were to busy pushing the Turks back to the Bosporus, which bound most of their ressources ?

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Turkeys star was falling from the battle of Vienna onwards. I would say after the 17th century Turkey was just a a self service shop for its neighbors. And their stand in the European realms was rather weak, apart from eg Bulgaria and some other smaller regions.

But at last from after the Viennese Congress Austria had no need to waste thoughts about a Turkish danger, as it also could relax when looking at its French arch enemy.

No Austria could have had colonies if it really tried to get one, before Germany even existed as an entitity. My guess is that it was simply too costly and risky. Austria lacked the strategic position as mostly continental country and a very bad access to the sea, not to speak about oceans. Austria had no long ocean sailing history like other great powers. And also was the money and power far better invested in intra European issues. Another point is probably that while the German Reich got increasingly powerfull the Austrian empire got more and more into troubles. (in the 19th century)


That is surely correct



I disagree.

A colony is a completely different concept from anything what Austria at any time had. It starts with the fact that colonies are not considered to be integral part. And that they dont serve to rule the people living somewhere but to exploit them. Colonies either were colonized while the native people were more or less "hunted down", or alternatively it served the simple expolitation of resources for the home country.

The Austrian realms were in many aspects totally different. I do not even know where to start.

- They were mostly realms that belonged to the empire for centuries, the heartlands (Bohemia, Austria and Slovenia plus the west of Hungary) allready over half a millennium.

- The duchies and other parts of the empire were administrated by locals by far and large. And they could get up quite high in the hierarchy. Its really an interesting thing in fact. Through being a Beamter those people wherever they came from, could get into the pleassure to become part of the middle class. The language Austria was administrated was German (and later in the Austrian-Hungarian empire also Hungarian), so they built a up a whole new group, German speaking locals, if you like. They were neither real Czechs, nor Germans, they simply were Austrians and all they were they had to thank the empire for. So the empire could relly on not only loyal Beamten but also local administration that new the realm like their own pocket.

-Bohemia was the industrial center of the empire. Show me a single colonie anytime anywhere in world history that was the industrial center of the whole empire.

- if none German realms would have been colonies, where do you find the homeland of that colonial empire? You know that what we call Austria nowadays is an invention of the post WWI time, do you? There existed the inofficial term "Innerösterreich", but with not much if any legal consequences. Before the creation of Austria-Hungary, no dutchy or realm was much privleged over the other, well they where, dutchies, grand-dutchies, kingdoms etc, but if you start to start with that the most privileged realm would have been the kingdom of Hungary.

- all in all Austria was a dominion of the old school. It was a relict of pre nation-state times. Back than "nationality" as concept did not play much of a role on the field of ruling. Or do you really think that Austria treated Milano as colony? As long as it had controll over it?

- towards the end of the WWI, when the empire looked allready quite doomed, the multiethnic Austrian still layed in the trenches and fought for the fatherland. A normal colony would have waited no second and used the chance to tear the empire apart from within. But with all those problems and conflicts the Austrian empire had to face, it did not fall apart before the definite defeat of the war. And even then it was the German speaking realms that left the empire at first.

...

No Austrian realms were no colonies. The sole exception might be Bosnia. But that did not play any important role apart from dooming the empire to fall, of course

WRT, Russia. As I said Russia had realms with a similar situation. But it was very different on other things. It had nearly uninhabited land to the east, it could colonize. That resembles more to the situtation the USA had to fact to then the one of Austria.

Originally Posted by Voland

I was oversimplifying and overgeneralising. I for example did have the Bosnian example in my mind and did not mean to include Bohemia in the same category. I recently read Karl Kraus : "Die letzten Tage der Menschheit" ( last days of mankind) which is a very negative view of the Austro - Hungarian empire but already at the time of its doom.
The concept of a colonial power is a different one and here i stand corrected.
But Austria and the Ottomanian empire as huge supranational empires dating from pre-nationstate times were facing similar problems from the late eigthteenth century on. The concept of nation state and nationality which came up during the enlightment brought not only Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians to become aware of their cultural and other traditions, languages etc. and subsequently led to demands to have states of their own, Austria- Hungary was facing a similar challenge. Uprisings followed , and most were put down, but often bloody.(Hungary 1848 is maybe the most notable example). And from that time the empires grip on the non-german speaking peoples was loosening with the known results. Somewhere here i got my terms confused and was trying to find comparisons to colonial rule which you rightly corrected.