The only one that comes to mind would be the spread of The Hudson Bay Company in Canada by virtue of expanding fur trade.

3 million square miles
Convinced of the economic potential, on May 2, 1670 - with a stroke of the royal pen - King Charles II created a monopoly over 3 million square miles of land. The Hudson's Bay Company - the Honourable Company of Adventurers - was born.

for reference Europe is 3.9 million square miles

The forts were primarily trading locations but there were some military involvement but not for the purpose of conquest.

https://www.canadashistory.ca/explore/h ... -the-forts

The fur trading companies could not expand without the cooperation of the local indigenes who wanted to trade for goods.

By contrast the US fur and Buffalo trade was largely by non-native trappers and eventually pretty much a genocide aided and abetted by US military.

Canada not without blemish in that regard but the expansion of the fur trade the only example I could think of.

Like the East India Company, the Hudson Bay Company functioned as the de facto government on behalf of Great Britain, and both backed their trading activities with military means whenever deemed necessary. The first ship of the HBC was equipped with six 2-pounder cannons. In those days all trading ships were armed, of course, but I think ignoring the fact that they were armed leads to the misleading impression that these powerful traders would have succeeded without some sort of military facilities, albeit in both cases privately owned and operated ones.

Names of the early settlements the HBC established between 1668 and 1717, such as Fort Albany, Fort Severn and Fort Churchill also indicated that brute force underpinned the enterprise even if it only acted as a threat.

Then there was the Pemmican War, basically armed confrontations between the Hudson Bay Company and the North West Company. It started in 1812 and ended when the latter merged with the former in 1821. Fighting forces were made from members of the Cree, the Métis and at least 300 professional soldiers who had been released from their respective regiments. Numerous exchanges of gun fire took place, sometimes involving cannon as well. Forts were taken, retaken and burnt down. The battle of The Seven Oaks cost the lives of 22 fighters.

re Hudson Bay
Again the was no fur trade in that area without cooperation of the indigenes.
There was an ongoing war between France and Britain which overlaid the commercial aspect and indigenes were drafted, willingly in that for trade goods or revenge on rival tribes.
You don't conquer militarily a place the size of Europe in the 16th century.
Also armed aspects applied to indigenous tribes for their own security and for the trading companies each had it's own para-military ....not sure a handful of ships and a very few king's own qualifies as an invading force.

That said France, Britain and Russia were imperialists and Russia in particular was brutal in its quest for furs ...really to the point of enslaving locals.
But then indigenous tribes enslaved each other. Such a peaceable bunch H Sapiens

Another situation that comes to mind is the migration south and west of the agricultural Bantu in S Africa away from the military pressure of Shaka Zulu to occupy lands lightly traversed by an older hunter gatherer culture the Bushmen who'd been there forever.
Was that a military invasion?
Yes by Shaka Zulu to displace the Bantu who would not be engulfed.
Not sure about the Bantu moving into areas not cultivated.

In Sitchu wrote:I just thought of one example. It's the only one I can think of so far, which is the occupation of Austria by Germany. Technically it did involve their military, but in reality they were welcomed and they just walked right in without any resistance. That would indicate (I'm guessing) that if Hitler had just declared Austria to be part of Germany and if germans had begun coming into Austria, the Austrians would have been like, yeah ok.

You don't seem to have familiarised yourself with any details concerning the Anschluss.

Although support for unification was massive among Austrians, more than 60% of the population was opposed to it in 1933. Hitler himself called the proposed unification an annexation. Austrian Nazis assassinated the Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss during a coup in July 1934. The coup failed after five days. Hitler sent an ultimatum to Dollfuss's successor, Kurt Schuschnigg on 11 March, demanding that he hand over all power to the Austrian Nazis or face an invasion. Schuschnigg sought support from France and Britain, but got none whatsoever. Left to his own devices, he saw the hopelessness of his situation, and resigned. Hitler's Wehrmacht invaded Austria with the Führer himself following close behind. He took no chances, though. His personal bodyguard numbered 4000 men.

After the annexation came the plebiscite. It was rigged, of course. Thousands of voters were disenfranchised first on the grounds of being social democrats Jews or any other reason for which they might be suspected to vote against the annexation. The ballot sheet itself graphically betrays that it was rigged.



Edit: Fixed image link. Thank you, OlivierK.

Macdoc wrote:re Hudson Bay
Again the was no fur trade in that area without cooperation of the indigenes.
There was an ongoing war between France and Britain which overlaid the commercial aspect and indigenes were drafted, willingly in that for trade goods or revenge on rival tribes.
You don't conquer militarily a place the size of Europe in the 16th century.
Also armed aspects applied to indigenous tribes for their own security and for the trading companies each had it's own para-military ....not sure a handful of ships and a very few king's own qualifies as an invading force.

That said France, Britain and Russia were imperialists and Russia in particular was brutal in its quest for furs ...really to the point of enslaving locals.
But then indigenous tribes enslaved each other. Such a peaceable bunch H Sapiens

Another situation that comes to mind is the migration south and west of the agricultural Bantu in S Africa away from the military pressure of Shaka Zulu to occupy lands lightly traversed by an older hunter gatherer culture the Bushmen who'd been there forever.
Was that a military invasion?
Yes by Shaka Zulu to displace the Bantu who would not be engulfed.
Not sure about the Bantu moving into areas not cultivated.

Thanks for listing so many reasons why arms are necessary. I never disputed that. If anything, you are just belabouring the point I already made when I wrote that "ignoring the fact that they were armed leads to the misleading impression that these powerful traders would have succeeded without some sort of military facilities". And yes, there were good reasons aplenty when they were used in anger or merely waved about as a warning of what would happen if the bearers of those arms did not get their way.

Fucking penguins.