Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIV

[snowblizz]

Indeed, I was also thinking about the Portuguese, and forgot to include them. I don't think the Spanish were ever in India, were they? They got the Americas in the Treaty of Tordesillas, where the Portuguese got the "east".

The Spanish monarchy controlled Portugal from 1580-1640 so in a sense yes they were.

Interesting point, although I wonder how much training would be required with the lack of robust standardised driving exams like we have now.

Well most cars have a steering wheel, gearshift, accelerator and breaks. So anyone able to drive a car has a basis to learn how to drive military vehicles driving exams or no.

Come to think of it, it is likely a common feature of all thalassocracies from Athens to Srivijaya. Makes absolute sense for maritime Empires and Polities.

I think it is interesting in the Wales example because England at the time was not a thalassocracy.

I would note that all the listed examples are "invaders". There simply exists no other recourse for the mentioned nations to start projecting influence other than by first creating a foothold. The Wales/England thing works on a similar baseline just in a much smaller scale. It's just that for medieaval England the land route to Wales was equally difficult to cross as the oceasn for the 1700s nations.

I'm not sure it's a thalassocracy thing as much as it is a prudent way for any nation with a technological or productive advantage to eschew the hazards of land warfare. A lot goes wrong in land wars, just as a matter of course, and when it does, those advantages can end up meaning very little when it does. On the other hand, it's a lot easier to project that kind of power by sea, so long as you have the productive base required to do so. If you're dealing with enemy territory and you can get your supply lines off of the ground, you don't have much excuse not to.

Exactly. I wouldn't go so far as to say they eschewed land war. It just wasn't an option nor need at the time. We are in a period in the 1500s-1700s when it's enough for most nations to control generation of wealth and that happens primarily through trade. Few places are so naturally endowed they can sit on important land routes and dominate them. E.g. India was domestically powerful enough to resits the invaders until they focused resources and efforts and using the various factions managed to extend influence. It's not really until the 1800s that controlling territory and populations in itself becomes the goal and we see the mad scramble for colonies.

In North America the situation existed with a sort of power vacuum into which colonists moved eventually starting to claim territory. In South America similarly the Spanish found they had the means to control the land and the funds to do so. In contrst to India with relatively powerful indigenous powers. Similarly Africa p

The English East India Company (and Dutch and French ones too) did the same thing in their competing conquests of India. Sea power was their strength, so they put their factories/fortresses on the coast and kept them supplied by sea if need be. They always had a beachhead to re-take territory, no matter what happened in the interior.

It's probably not a conincidence that the initial tradingpost/strongholds were largely commercially organised whereas later on when the states themselves did it it focused more and more on controlling people and places. I woudl say it's largely a question of needs and means. The trading companies were in it for profit and there is only so much wealth you can get before costs become unbearable. The EIC sorta ran into this in India and was subsequently disbanded by the crown.