Probabilities of World Domination (once we reach Industrial Age)

By the time of the Industrial Age and through to WWII, European nations (including European-derived ones like USA) are dominating the entire world. The Americas are already completely conquered. Much of Africa, Middle East, South Asia and East Asia are under European domination. The only non-European power that escaped European domination and remotely competed was Japan but that was very late and was a distant power compared to the European ones.

Now let us go back to a prehistoric-POD (say 5000BC). From this POD, let's run history forward on a million different worlds. Of these million worlds, what is the likelihood of the following by the Industrial Age?

(To the best of my ability, I'll break down the scenarios and assign a percentage of what happens IMHO in these million worlds.)

1) European domination: Whether its domination by Britain, Iberia, Gaul, some modern Charlemagne or Roman-like Empire or combination thereof, European nations and their descendents outside of Europe dominate the world once we reach the industrial age. (80%)

2) East/Southeast Asian domination: (10%)

3) South Asian Domination: (3%)

4) Middle Eastern/Central Asian Domination: Nations/Empires based in Middle East (ex Ottomans, Persians, etc) or Central Asia (ex Mongols, etc) dominate world. (1%)

5) Americas Domination: By this I mean domination by "native peoples" (think Aztecs, Incas, etc) (almost 0%)

6) African Domination: Africans dominate the world (almost 0%)

7) Multi-polar World: No one region completely dominates (like Europe did IOTL). For example, Europe, South Asia and East Asia all manage to stay independent of each other and industrialize around the same time and prevent one region from dominating. Some regions such as the Americas and Africa might be colonized but no one region dominates the world. (5%)

IMHO, due to geographic advantages, 80% of those million worlds will end up with European domination similar to OTL. It has temperate climate, large coastlines encouraging naval expansion, barriers that facilitate distinct stable competing states, right next to the Americas and is in the center of the land hemisphere. In fact I think it is probably closer to 90% so my 80% is probably generous.

The other possibilities like East Asia and South Asia are remote but somewhat plausible. African domination is almost ASB and Americas is completely impossible because of its very late start. Multi-polar world is also very plausible if also remote IMHO.

Do readers agrees? What probabilities would other readers assign to these seven (or more if someone can think of something else I missed) scenarios instead?
 
Last edited:
I can't comment that much on this, but I would argue one major factor favoring Europe you left out (all those you mentioned are things China has) is an abundance of coal and other industrial resources, especially near good places for cities. There's a reason they industrialized first, which allowed them to dominate.
 
While Europe had a number of geologic and geographic advantages going for it, I would not put its chances of world domination at 80 percent.

Both the middle East, East Asia, and India I think you are giving too short thrift too.

More to the point, I think that there wouldnt be as much world domination as you might think. I would put much more probability on worlds where a place like Europe or China is not the sole hedgemon.
 
European domination: 6%
(For reasons in OP)

East Asian domination: 7%
(Isolation and large plains allowing for economies of scale)

South Asian/Southeast Asian domination: 4%
(Multiple geographic centers of power, but prone to invasion)

Middle Eastern domination: 2%
(Early start, but prone to invasion and rising soil salinity a key problem)

Americas domination: 0%
(Very late start and total isolation)

African domination: 1%
(Late start in areas where wood exists in quantity [i.e. Sub-Sahara])

Multipolar World: 80%

I'd argue that sole domination, Europe or not, is quite implausible. Our history has been very kind to Europe, partly because of a few 'accidents' that aren't likely to repeat in your million-world scenarios. Domination by other regions would also require a similar, if not higher, levels of historical "bias".

A Europe where the Roman Empire survived is not likely to exploit America fully - like China, they would have had powerful enemies to deal with on the frontier (like Persia). Or a Europe that had the Hindu kala pani (crossing seas) taboo - they wouldn't have had the maritime culture that promotes trade, colonization and so forth. Or a Europe that produces an al-Ghazali, convincing everyone that logic and Aristotlean science were useless because God is the cause of everything. Or a Europe that discovered gunpowder but failed to use it meaningfully, like the Maya with the wheel... the same goes for other regions.

Not to mention the tens of times where some invading horde/army could have "destroyed" Europe the same way that the Mongols allegedly "destroyed" Song Chinese or Arab civilizations.

In this vein, I'd also argue that the Middle East was pretty lucky in OTL, benefiting greatly from the black swan event of Islam.

EDIT: Of course one can argue that the reason for many of these "historical accidents" is ultimately geographic in nature, for example India is a largely compact landmass -> that makes kala pani possible. Regardless, I still think that there are important "historical accidents" that can't be explained solely by geography alone (Confucianism and Christianity's adoption as the result of a single decision), or else you'd go down the path of determinism and Europe's sole global dominance would be rated at 100%.
 
Last edited:
Son, if China had its shit together and launched an early industrial revolution centuries before Europe did...yeah. I'd say that a world dominated by China is guaranteed. Your 80% is way too weighted.
 
Son, if China had its shit together and launched an early industrial revolution centuries before Europe did...yeah. I'd say that a world dominated by China is guaranteed. Your 80% is way too weighted.

Please don't say son, it's highly condescending.

Otherwise, EMT is right. The only advantages Europe has over China is A. It's geography lends itself to be divided and competitive and B. There is a shit ton of coal near fertile regions.

What it really comes down to is who industrializes first, for they will control the world.
 
Before Industralization in OTL, the largest economies in the world in the last 1000 years was located in Asia, either China or India.

I would put East Asia/China or South Asia/India at equal terms since it is just a matter of which country is wholly intact and well managed.

Europe would come down to third place after multipolar and south/east asia.
 
Industrialization comes from the breaking of feudalism, which EITHER comes from increase in intellectualism, which comes from a weakening in organized religion, OR a major crop failure, which forces the process along.

If we're looking industrialization,then, wherever the idea of divine right dies first (either from internal of ecological reasons) will dominate the world.
 
Before Industralization in OTL, the largest economies in the world in the last 1000 years was located in Asia, either China or India.

I would put East Asia/China or South Asia/India at equal terms since it is just a matter of which country is wholly intact and well managed.

Europe would come down to third place after multipolar and south/east asia.

But that is fundamentally the problem. Prior to industrialization, South Asia and East Asia have the geography that leads to large economies and even large states. But that is also the thing that hurts them because those places will fall into "high-level equilibrium traps" and then stagnate.

Europe OTOH, is much less likely to fall into a "high-level equilibrium trap" and thus although East Asia and South Asia might be ahead for a time prior to industrialization, they will stagnate and then Europe will forge ahead faster towards industrialization which then leads to world domination. This is especially true due to discovering the New World and all that new wealth which jump starts Europe. (Unfortunately the New World is too far away from Asia so in those million worlds, maybe 5% will go to Asia, 95% will go to Europe).
 
Last edited:
Europe is ranked way too high. A multipolar world is much more likely. If it wasn't for the Mongols, the Middle East could still have been ahead of Europe. Europe has a slight geographic advantage over the Americas and Africa, but the Middle East has an advantage over Africa and Asia and possibly Australia, East Asia has an advantage over the Australia, the Pacific and possibly the Americas, etc.
I do agree an American-dominated world is unlikely. The lack of many Old World animals like horses and cows is a serious disadvantage.
 
The breakdown in feudalism was due to a shortage in labour due to the black death. The intellectual justification for the shift was secondary.

If you go back to 1200 then the odds are on Europe but not by 80%. A prehistoric POD is probably equally split between any area that can support a large population with only some farming the land: East Asia, Europe, South Asia, North America.
 
But that is fundamentally the problem. Prior to industrialization, South Asia and East Asia have the geography that leads to large economies and even large states. But that is also the thing that hurts them because those places will fall into "high-level equilibrium traps" and then stagnate.

Europe OTOH, is much less likely to fall into a "high-level equilibrium trap" and thus although East Asia and South Asia might be ahead for a time prior to industrialization, they will stagnate and then Europe will forge ahead faster towards industrialization which then leads to world domination. This is especially true due to discovering the New World and all that new wealth which jump starts Europe. (Unfortunately the New World is too far away from Asia so in those million worlds, maybe 5% will go to Asia, 95% will go to Europe).

Gosh you just defined what 1 of the million timelines that can happen. Europe isnt assured to industrialize before Asia nor assured to discover the New World. Nor is even assured to have the same level of tech nor political divisions in each of the timelines.

You just told us you are biased leaning towards Europe because thats the only thing you see.

95% European domination of the world in a million timelines is ASB and too biased. O wait I forgot, this is the same site with lots of people that said Europe can curbstomp any Mongol invasion under Subutai.
 
Gosh you just defined what 1 of the million timelines that can happen. Europe isnt assured to industrialize before Asia nor assured to discover the New World. Nor is even assured to have the same level of tech nor political divisions in each of the timelines.

You just told us you are biased leaning towards Europe because thats the only thing you see.

95% European domination of the world in a million timelines is ASB and too biased. O wait I forgot, this is the same site with lots of people that said Europe can curbstomp any Mongol invasion under Subutai.

Indeed. Yeah, Europe has a couple of advantages of (1) being closer to the New World (although that advantage depends on the New World not getting stronger civilizations) and (2) being more geographically broken up than China (but not India). However, those aren't overwhelming advantages. They might nudge Europe a couple percent up, but not by much. We're also putting more weight on them because they helped in OTL. In an ATL where China came out top, we'd probably be looking at other factors that allowed China to succeed and be saying that China was always the most likely to dominate.
 
Its true that with a prehistoric POD of 5000BC or so a LOT could happen. There are things that could happen that setback or propel Europe vs other regions.

The thing to realize though is that European geographical and geopolitical advantage is significant. It not so significant that other regions can't reach world domination first but its significant enough that other regions would dominate only if Europe sets itself back because if Europe doesn't get setback significantly, it will always race ahead.

If we imagine "world domination" to be like a marathon race that lasts, say 2 hours, Europe has about a 10 minute head start based purely on geography. It doesn't mean the race is won of course. I mean if the European didn't train or is out of shape or got sick or got hung over or injured himself during the race, he could still lose. But the thing is that in a "million world" scenario, those things could also happen to the other racers so all in all the 10 minute head start means winning about 80% of the time or so.

Hope this makes sense.
 
Last edited:
95% European domination of the world in a million timelines is ASB and too biased. O wait I forgot, this is the same site with lots of people that said Europe can curbstomp any Mongol invasion under Subutai.

Well I didn't say 95% European domination, only 80%. But I do think that 95% of the time (give or take), Europe is going to discover the Americas first for a variety of reasons.

The major ones are:
1 Europe is just so much more closer and the prevailing winds blow towards the west! So from Asia to the Americas, not only is it 2x as far but it is also traveling against the wind more or less so it might as well be 4x as far as Europe is to the Americas!

2 Europe has the Med, Britain is a big island and Europe has a much bigger coastline/land area ratio, many more ports so will develop a deep sea naval tradition much more easily and quickly than other powers even amongst the Continental Powers. (Its not that China doesn't have a big coastline, its that it is small relative to its land area compared to Europe).

The idea that anyone other than Europe would discover the Americas first is ASB!

Does Europe discovering the Americas first mean domination necessarily? Well possibly not. There are scenarios where Europe discovers the Americas but for some reason don't take full advantage of it. Those scenarios are few and far between.

Of course there is also the VERY REMOTE possibility that other regions, notably East Asia, maybe Japan, discovers the Americas first. Those scenarios, though are very remote.
 
Does Europe discovering the Americas first mean domination necessarily? Well possibly not. There are scenarios where Europe discovers the Americas but for some reason don't take full advantage of it. Those scenarios are few and far between.

I disagree with this a lot. Firstly, you're entirely ignoring the idea of the Americas developing a civilisation relatively close in technology to Europe at the time of discovery. Secondly, if Europe was still locked in feudalism, which is very possible, it will be very difficult for European Kings to project power. Thirdly, how great an advantage was domination of the Americas really? Spain conquered the biggest chunk and did very little conquest elsewhere in the world.
 
Wasn't Europe one of the more backward regions of the world until the 13th century. I seem to remember figures showing that Europe suffered from a shocking lack of urbanization compared to the Middle East, India, China and elsewhere up until the 13th century when cities such as Paris and London began to see significant growth. It seems to me that a Europe where urbanization is even further delayed, or thrown off course by the Mongols may stay relatively backward for quite some time. Seeing as how urban centers seem to be the basis for advancement and what not.
I disagree with this a lot. Firstly, you're entirely ignoring the idea of the Americas developing a civilisation relatively close in technology to Europe at the time of discovery. Secondly, if Europe was still locked in feudalism, which is very possible, it will be very difficult for European Kings to project power. Thirdly, how great an advantage was domination of the Americas really? Spain conquered the biggest chunk and did very little conquest elsewhere in the world.
Remember that in some ways, the Americas were more advanced than Europe. Equals to Tenochtitlan could be found in the Islamic world or in China, but not in Europe. The tricky bit is that the Americas were in the middle of an apocalypse at the time due to Europeans bringing disease.
 
I disagree with this a lot. Firstly, you're entirely ignoring the idea of the Americas developing a civilisation relatively close in technology to Europe at the time of discovery.

The idea of the Americas developing a civilization almost on par with European ones is pretty much ASB. Humans got there much later than elsewhere, the people that got there were pretty isolated from the rest of humanity and geography and lack of various resources and animals meant it would always be held back. Because of late arrival, it also more or less guarantee that it would have less immunity to Old World diseases.

As impressive as the Inca, Maya, Aztec, etc civilization were, they were still Stone Age technology cultures for the most part.

Secondly, if Europe was still locked in feudalism, which is very possible, it will be very difficult for European Kings to project power.
Yes it is possible that Europe gets held back and things go "right" in Asia so that Asia gets to the Americas first. But it would have to be held back a lot and Asia would have to have a lot of things go "right" for it to conquer the Americas first. The reason is simply geography. Due to distance and wind direction, the Americas are effectively 4x as far away from Asia!

Thirdly, how great an advantage was domination of the Americas really? Spain conquered the biggest chunk and did very little conquest elsewhere in the world.
There's a few parts to this. One is the wealth extraction from the Americas itself back to the Old World. Another is the spreading of European civilizations to the New World by building colonies and later independent states that would become powerful in their own right and extend "European" domination.

But a third part is that it jump started European domination of the oceans. This is the key to world domination and is still true today. Once European nations start to colonize the Americas, it start to build bigger and bigger navies for growing oceanic trade and to explore and conquer more lands. And this growing naval power will reach the point that Europeans collectively will be able to project power anywhere on the globe through its navy dominance and make contact with the land powers on their terms (which is exactly what happened IOTL). OTOH the land powers will be "trapped" on land and will not develop the naval forces to project power outward.0

(Also as for Spain, it could have easily become a world hegemon like the British Empire under different culture and leadership. Remember that Spain conquered the Philippines (and named the place after King Philip of Spain!) halfway around the world. People forget about that.)
 
The idea of the Americas developing a civilization almost on par with European ones is pretty much ASB. Humans got there much later than elsewhere, the people that got there were pretty isolated from the rest of humanity and geography and lack of various resources and animals meant it would always be held back. Because of late arrival, it also more or less guarantee that it would have less immunity to Old World diseases.

As impressive as the Inca, Maya, Aztec, etc civilization were, they were still Stone Age technology cultures for the most part.

Because of their habitats. If you get people doing agriculture east of the Mississippi at any time between 10,000 BC they could easily develop as civilisations.

Yes it is possible that Europe gets held back and things go "right" in Asia so that Asia gets to the Americas first. But it would have to be held back a lot and Asia would have to have a lot of things go "right" for it to conquer the Americas first. The reason is simply geography. Due to distance and wind direction, the Americas are effectively 4x as far away from Asia!

Europe just needs to get held back enough that they can't conquer America immediately, and their development after discovery is slow enough that Americans can recover from the disease burden.

There's a few parts to this. One is the wealth extraction from the Americas itself back to the Old World. Another is the spreading of European civilizations to the New World by building colonies and later independent states that would become powerful in their own right and extend "European" domination.

The extraction was largely gold and silver. As these are not anything but mediums of exchange during this period, it doesn't do much for the net wealth of Europe except cause inflation. As for independent states that can project power, only the USA and Canada a bit have done this. If North America had had settled agriculture spread on a big scale, which is very possible, they wouldn't have been able to form these states without having to deal with big ethnic minorities that you need to integrate. See Peru and Mexico for how difficult this is.

But a third part is that it jump started European domination of the oceans.
This is the key to world domination and is still true today. Once European nations start to colonize the Americas, it start to build bigger and bigger navies for growing oceanic trade and to explore and conquer more lands. And this growing naval power will reach the point that Europeans collectively will be able to project power anywhere on the globe through its navy dominance and make contact with the land powers on their terms (which is exactly what happened IOTL). OTOH the land powers will be "trapped" on land and will not develop the naval forces to project power outward.

I agree that naval dominance is huge. But the discovery of North America was the result of the Age of Discovery, not the cause of it. It is very possible that developments in India or China or a hypothetical civilisation in North America could have got the travel bug.

(Also as for Spain, it could have easily become a world hegemon like the British Empire under different culture and leadership. Remember that Spain conquered the Philippines (and named the place after King Philip of Spain!) halfway around the world. People forget about that.)

But the critical thing here is not the American conquest, it's the right political culture and institutions. Sure, that could have developed in Spain. But it could have also happened in the Bengal delta or the Yellow River basin or a bunch of other places. Britain did it with ten million people, so any state in the world getting to a medium population has the resources to do it. It's mainly about stumbling on a constitutional system where the state is limited and can't dominate its merchants before anyone else.
 
In this closely related thread, Somes J summarizes the points exactly!

Somes J said:
Europe does have a lot of irregular coastline, and a relatively favorable position in terms of getting to the Americas. It seems like something that would up the odds of Europe developing a strong seafaring tradition, grabbing the resources of the Americas, and becoming a major maritime trading, military, and colonial power. And that in turn seems like something that would tend to make it wealthier, partly at the expense of other areas, upping the odds of it being the first place to accumulate enough information capital for a technological/economic explosion to really get rolling.

This in a nutshell is why European Domination has IMHO an 80% chance even with a POD as far back as 5000BC.
 
Top