Which was the more valuable colony, India or Indonesia?

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

As we know, the East Indies played an enormous role in human history. Columbus tried to find a western route to it and stumbled upon the New World. Control over the East Indies along with the Americas allowed the Europeans to surpass the Ottomans in wealth, which allowed it to produce manufactured goods on a larger scale and eventually dominate the world. Also coffee... Coffee from the East Indies may have inadvertently triggered the enlightenment.

Now the two most valuable colonies in this region, India and Indonesia, were controlled by the British East India and the Dutch East India companies respectively, but which one was more valuable in terms of resources and impact on the globe, in general?

I'm Indonesian so my choice is biased, but I pick Indonesia because that's where most of the spices, coffee, and other raw materials came from. I'm of the knowledge that India was valuable because of the cotton and textiles it produced.

What do you guys think and why? And why did British power increase while Dutch power declined, although it was arguably the most technologically and economically developed state in the world during the 16th century?

[Slaytaninc]

As we know, the East Indies played an enormous role in human history. Columbus tried to find a western route to it and stumbled upon the New World. Control over the East Indies along with the Americas allowed the Europeans to surpass the Ottomans in wealth, which allowed it to produce manufactured goods on a larger scale and eventually dominate the world. Also coffee... Coffee from the East Indies may have inadvertently triggered the enlightenment.

Now the two most valuable colonies in this region, India and Indonesia, were controlled by the British East India and the Dutch East India companies respectively, but which one was more valuable in terms of resources and impact on the globe, in general?

I'm Indonesian so my choice is biased, but I pick Indonesia because that's where most of the spices, coffee, and other raw materials came from. I'm of the knowledge that India was valuable because of the cotton and textiles it produced.

What do you guys think and why? And why did British power increase while Dutch power declined, although it was arguably the most technologically and economically developed state in the world during the 16th century?

India. It had many more people by far. Parts of Indonesia were rich at the start of the colonial era, but India had a lot more people, and thus a lot more wealth. Per capita isn't as important, it's in absolute terms that it counts.

[hellheaven1987]

China.

[Condottiere 40K]

Tea?

[hellheaven1987]

Tea?

Tea, gold, silver. To put a side note Europeans were eagerly exploited the world because they wanted to find the shortest route to China so they could trade with Chinese. How did European even learn the existence of China was probably more because of Mongol and Italian merchants.

[Slaytaninc]

Tea, gold, silver. To put a side note Europeans were eagerly exploited the world because they wanted to find the shortest route to China so they could trade with Chinese. How did European even learn the existence of China was probably more because of Mongol and Italian merchants.

Europeans had long known of the Chinese, even if most probably forgot.

It's obviously ancient history, but the Romans actually dominated the sea trade with China, with Roman trade communities in India dominating many of the ports.

[hellheaven1987]

It's obviously ancient history, but the Romans actually dominated the sea trade with China, with Roman trade communities in India dominating many of the ports.

That was during Roman time; although Byzantium did have trade relation with China early on (afterall, the silk production technology was came from Chinese) it seems they were anxiously guarded the secret and ultimately lose contact sometimes around 11th Century. The arrive of Mongol was really what opened up the communication again. Still, when European did reach China they found out they could not actually compete effectively in Chinese market until 19th Century.

[♔Oggie♔]

Now the two most valuable colonies in this region, India and Indonesia, were controlled by the British East India and the Dutch East India companies respectively, but which one was more valuable in terms of resources and impact on the globe, in general?

I'm Indonesian so my choice is biased, but I pick Indonesia because that's where most of the spices, coffee, and other raw materials came from. I'm of the knowledge that India was valuable because of the cotton and textiles it produced.

One must not forget that in the 17th century the Dutch were more powerful in India than the East India Company.
The VOC controlled territories in Ceylon, Malabar, Bengal, Coromandel and Suratte. The strict hierarchy of the VOC made it possible to build this giant network in Asia and fund it with lots of gold/silver profit from the inter-Asian trade which they controlled. The English however did not and were less succesful than the VOC in their trading.

You are quite right that India was very valuable for its cotton and textiles, but one must not forget that Ceylon was the source of the world's best cinnamon, also indigo came from areas around Agra.
At the same time the Mughal empire was at the hight of its power en probably the wealthiest and most powerfull state in the world at the time. Trading with them was highly profitable.
Indeed Java and some small islands were very important for their spices and the VOC tried to monopolise the spice trade in and from Asia. This was ultimately their downfall.

What do you guys think and why? And why did British power increase while Dutch power declined, although it was arguably the most technologically and economically developed state in the world during the 16th century?

Well as I said above the Dutch tried to monopolise the spice trade. This made the English search for alternative trade products and they found it in the Indian cotton and textiles.
Around 1700 the prices of spices went down which caused the VOC to have smaller profits. At the same time their inter-Asian trade network changed negatively. The VOC had always relied on gold and silver from Japan to fund their Asian empire. Japan however forbade the export of gold and silver. Now the Dutch had to sail these noble metals from Europe. Costs rose and profits fell.

So while prices of spices fell and costs for the VOC to sustain their empire rose the textile prices grew. Since the English controlled this market their profits grew and eventually they became larger and more succesfull than the VOC.

To answer your first question I think that India was more influential on the world stage. Even though as a Dutchman this is hard for me to acknoweledge
All this btw is just the Early Modern period, but in the 19th and 20th century India will undoubtly be bigger than Indonesia on the world stage as the main posession (and sustainer) of the British Empire.

[Condottiere 40K]

If gross profit depended on absolute monopoly, the danger was always an alternate source.

The Dutch monopoly on nutmeg and mace was destroyed by the transfer of nutmeg trees to Ceylon, Grenada, Singapore and other British colonies in 1817, after the capture of the main island, Bandalontor, in 1810 by Captain Cole, leading to the decline of the Dutch supremacy in the spice trade.

[hellheaven1987]

Ya, although Dutch power was technically destroyed in late 17th Century thanks to... Louis XIV.

[Ludicus]

The VOC had always relied on gold and silver from Japan to fund their Asian empire.

Citation needed. The Dutch played a role in the Japanese-Chinese trade of silver only after 1639/1640, and Japan was China´s primary source of silver in the late 16th and early 17th century.

I think that India was more influential on the world stage

No. China, obviously. The economic impact of China on the west was far greater than any European influence on Asia in the early modern period. (Fliin & Giraldez: Silver and World Trade, page 218)

[♔Oggie♔]

Citation needed. The Dutch played a role in the Japanese-Chinese trade of silver only after 1639/1640, and Japan was China´s primary source of silver in the late 16th and early 17th century.

Allright. According to P. Emmer & J. Gommans,De Geschiedenis van Nederland Overzee. Rijk aan de rand van de Wereld 1600-1800 (Amsterdam 2012) Japan had plenty of silver.
This was written by Dirk Gerritsz. (also known as Dirk China) and Jan Huygen van Linschoten. These men initially worked for the Portugese during their encounter with Japan.
These men learned that the only way to deal with China was with hard cash, in those days gold or silver. To transport silver all the way from Europe was too costly. (page 417)
In 1606 Jacob Jansz. Quaeckernaeck negotiated a permanent trade-contract between the VOC and the Japanese shogun. For the VOC this meant silver, for Japan this meant breaking the Chinese embargo against Japan (since 1547).

So the Dutch were active much earlier than 1640 in the silver-silk trade. I think what you mean is that the Dutch monopoly on Japan was established around the 1640's since the Portugese were still active until 1639.
In that year the Shogun forbade the Portugese to trade with Japan and relied completely on the VOC and Chinese for foreign trade.For the VOC this was indeed a boost in their Japanese trade, but as I said, they were active for already 30 years.

The import by the VOC of Japanese silver and gold came to an end respectively in1668 and 1752. So noble metals had to be transported from Europe to Asia which created huge costs for the VOC.

No. China, obviously. The economic impact of China on the west was far greater than any European influence on Asia in the early modern period. (Fliin & Giraldez: Silver and World Trade, page 218)

I only gave my answer on his question regarding India or Indonesia.
China was of course the largest economy in the world, but trade was very much restricted by the imperial government (In 1522-1566 overseas trade was even completely outlawed) by creating some areas (Canton being the largest) where trade was tolerated. Outside these areas trade was alltogether forbidden. P. Emmer & J. Gommans,De Geschiedenis van Nederland Overzee. Rijk aan de rand van de Wereld 1600-1800 (Amsterdam 2012) 399. Also J. Darwin, After Tamerlane. The Rise and Fall of Global Empires 1400-2000​ (London 2008).

[Condottiere 40K]

1. The Dutch East India Company in 1637
Value then: 78 million Dutch Guilders // Adjusted to 2012 dollars: $7.4 trillion

HOW IT GOT SO BIG: Founded in 1602, the world’s first publicly traded company on the world’s first stock exchange started off as a spice trader. Its competitive edge: The largest fleet shipping goods between Europe and Asia. In the 17th century, it grew tremendously thanks to rampant speculation on the value of tulip bulbs. The so-called tulipmania craze foreshadowed the Internet dot.com bubble, and, like its modern equivalent, it eventually burst. But not before making the company the most valuable in world history.

WHAT HAPPENED: When tulipmania crashed in 1637, the company went back to its spice trading roots. It ceased operations in 1800.

[Cyclops]

IIRC The Dutch got a huge load of wealth out of the spice islands for centuries. The English tried to crack that market and had their arses handed to them by the better dutch sailors, and went for India as a second choice. In the 19th century the English took control of pretty much all long distance world trade so a lot of the Dutch colonial wealth was drained to England anyway.

I do think India was a wealthier are, enormous population and market for selling goods into, and eventually porodiuced masses of raw material for the British empire too. It did require enormous resources to control though.

My guess is that the Dutch got more out of Indonesia than they put in, and for a longer period than the English were in India for. The wealth was principally in small cargoes of extremely high value, and the population was smaller and less organised than India.

India as a region is far wealthier and more populous. I took a huge organisation just to administer the place, and pinching all the wealth was slower and required more investment.

So my guess is Indonesia gave a massively multiplied return for less investment than India did. India is of course (and always has been) more wealthy and populous than Indonesia, but it took more to get the wealth out.

[Ludicus]

Cyclops

but as I said, they were active for already 30 years.

the Japanese silver? Not too much. Not enough to "fund their Asian empire". Fundamentally, the european silver. (read below). By the way, the heyday of of Japan´s overseas silver trade was 1615 to 1625.The Japanese silver exports fell off dramatically in the second half of the 17th century.
No, it was the spice monopoly, principally purchased with "European/South American" silver, and particularly effective in Indonesia and other places (Bandas, Amboina, Moloccas), enforced by Van Damien and the Heeren XVII. The Dutch constructed a good part of their monopoly around the goods that had dominated the European market in the 16th and early 17th centuries, principally spices. (as a result, the VOC became the predominant mercantil power in the world) The Dutch managed to ship a record cargo to Amsterdam in 1670 of 9.2 million pounds of black pepper and 134,000 pounds of white pepper, the largest of the century. Despite some problems at home (particularly from 1660-1700) the VOC remained a powerful force in the Asian trade down to mid-18th century.

India? India is a slightly different case -citation, "The Dutch Empire in Asia", Glenn J. Ames, page 112,

" During the first years of the VOC there had been no intention to monopolize the Malabar coast pepper trade.
By the mid-1630s, however,the VOC was so strong in the East Indies that Van Damien decided to extend the Company´s monopoly to these additional spices and concurrently to take the offensive to the very heart of the Portuguese empire. His years as governor-general witnessed almost continual warfare with the Estado da India. Van Damien strategy was simple: use the superior fleet of the VOC and the large numbers of Dutch troops and Asian retainers at his disposal to attack the Portuguese whenever possible. One facet of this campaign was to erect the blockade of Goa during the traditional sailing season from September through June. Van Damien believed that depriving Lisbon of the flow of spices carried by ships of the Carreira da India and interdicting the arrival of fresh troops and money from Portugal would cripple the Estado. In 1635, a large VOC fleet departed from Batavia for Persia with orders to begin the blockade of Goa.
For the next eight years, the blockade of Goa continued with periodic battles at the mouth of the Mandovi.The VOC never captured Goa.
The Portuguese, during these lean years, shifted their trade to other possessions on the west coast of India, such as Cochin,and a link was maintained with Lisbon. The last of Van Damien´s blockading fleets departed from Batavia in late 1643. The following year, orders arrived with Johan Maetsuycker mandating a truce with the Portuguese"

Portugese were still active until 1639.

"still active" is an euphemism. The Portuguese had an almost-monopoly of Japanese commerce until 1639, except a brief interval,

a-"The Economic Aspects of the History of the Civilization of Japan", book, by Yosaburo Takekoshi, page 131:

“The Portuguese thus driven out of the country, foreign trade almost altogether declined. In the 14th year of Keicho (1609) Dutch and English came to Nagasaki, but they were not as familiar with Oriental trade as the Portuguese and their goods did not satisfy the needs of Japanese people.

Whereupon, Iyeyasu ordered the Governor of Nagasaki to address a letter to the Catholic missionaries in China, requesting them to use their influence to induce the Portuguese to send their merchants vessels to Japan again for reopening trade. They did it, and made Hirado and Nagasaki their headquarters. In August, the 16th year of Keicho (1611) Hasekawa Fujihiro, Governor of Nagasaki, reported to Shogun to his great satisfaction that the trade was prosperous. Ieyasu was very much delighted to hear the report”

b- In 1637 an English fleet anchored in Macao. Aboard one of the ships was Peter Mundy. From Mundy’s journal in 1637:
"The monopoly of the Portuguese trade with Japan had been supported by the former shogun, regardless of the fact that the Dutch had a Factory there and not the Portuguese”


c- " Silver...First the Portuguese, in competition with Chinese junks and Japanese red-seal ships-and then (after 1639) the Dutch played the roles of intermdiaries in this crucial Sino-Japanese trade" ( Journal of World History, fall 1995, "China: the world´s Silver Sink")


--
That said, regarding the silver from the New World, read below, (1,2). More than the market for any other commodity, the silver market explains the emergence of world trade. China was the dominant buyer of silver. All the silver markets in both hemispheres ( Mexico/Peru/Japan) sold ultimately to China. China was the origin of world trade, thats my point.

"Massive amounts of sliver tranversed the Atlantic. After it reached European soil, the (1) Portuguese in the 16th century and (2) the Dutch in the 17th century became dominant distributors of silver by a multitude of routes into Asia. Attman conservatively estimates that 150 tons of silver passed through Europe into Asia on an annual basis... the bulk of the precious metals required for Asian trade came from Europe around the Cape" (Attman, 1986, page 6)

(1) the Portuguese swapped huge numbers of African slaves for New World silver via the Rio de La Plata in Brazil - 15% to 30 % of the silver output of Potosi ( Cross, 1983, page 414)
(1) The silver that the Spanish mined and sent to European market.

[Rinan]

Your question is rather vague, because it really depends on what time you're referring to. In the 17th century Indonesia would've been definitely more important than India, because the Brits didn't really have much business with India yet at all, while the Dutch had founded Batavia (Jakarta) and conquered a few islands such as Ambon. The Brits only got seriously involved with India late 18th century. Whether India was more profitable than Indonesia in the 19th century, I don't know. But you should realise that it wasn't until the twentieth century until the Netherlands actually owned all of what is now Indonesia. In 1850 they really only had Java and a few small islands.

In the end, you could wonder whether the colonies were that profitable at all. The VOC was only responsible for a few percent of Dutch national income. By contrast, Dutch trade with the Baltic sea earned the Dutch a lot more cash. In the 20th century, the general opinion was that when Indonesia would be lost, the Netherlands would surely enter a grave economical crisis. ("Indië verloren, rampspoed geboren"). Funny enough, after you guys got your independence this never really happened. Dutch economy climbed upwards steadily in the 50s.

I don't really know about the economical gains of India. Surely, they didn't have spices like Indonesia did, but you should remember that the East-Indian trade wasn't dominated by spices anymore after 1800 (Which is basically from the moment the Brits are in India). After 1800 spices were only a marginal product; coffee and tea was way more important. Besides that the Brits grew opium in India, which they luctratively traded with China (After a couple of jolly wars). I think that must've been profitable. Besides that Europeans needed an export market for their industrial goods after the industrial revolution. I can see India being a better consumer than Indonesia in that respect.

As for why Dutch power declined in the 17th century: It was bound to be. The Netherlands is a tiny little dwarf compared to her neighbours. It's amazing that she could've had such a huge headstart for those hundred years of 'Golden Age'. This really was a combination of Dutch innovations, which other countries like Britain later copied, and the fact that their neighbours were in a pretty damn miserable state in the 17th century. Civil wars, the thirty years war, revolts, etc. Things got tough when France stabilised under Louis XIV. But then again, do you really think about 3 million people in a small dwarf country could've kept hegemonial status for hundreds of years?