AHC: Prevent Imperialism

You challenge is to prevent European colonial expansion into Africa and Asia. No PoD's before the late Middle Ages.
 
I think that this is pretty much impossible. European nations were very expansionist and practically anything couldn't stop European to colonising Africa and Asia. Perhaps much smaller is possible but not stopping. You might have be stronger nations in India, Indochina and Indonesia so Europeans can't colonise them, leastly not so much as in OTL. And perhaps you could keep Northern African states much stronger. And Ethiopia could be too stronger.
 
The Race arrive on Earth that much earlier than in the books.
Fine, I'll revise my statement. European powers are allowed to expand to a limited extent, but only up to say, the area controlled by 1500. So no Philippines, no Dutch East Indies, no partition of Africa, etc.
 
Fine, I'll revise my statement. European powers are allowed to expand to a limited extent, but only up to say, the area controlled by 1500. So no Philippines, no Dutch East Indies, no partition of Africa, etc.

But you still get Imperialism in the Americas?
 
Really unlikely but just about possible scenario

Bartolomé de las Casas views and the New Laws are enforced rigorously by the Spanish Crown, this is extended to Portugal post 1580.

Spain becomes a crusader for native rights (on the basis that if we can't have them neither can you) and the Armada in 1588 is focussed on the British and Dutch colonies leading to the British and Dutch Empires being still-born

Spain still benefits from the native states to some extent but the relationship is more of a protectorate (think relationship between the West and China in OTL)

By the time Spain is militarily and financially exhausted the natives have had time to overcome the disease crisis and are armed and mounted according to European norms (or slightly behind). The second wave of colonisation in the 1700's founders on stronger native resistance coupled with Catholic / Hispanic support to the natives.

By the time Africa is up for exploitation the idea that natives are sub-human and deserving of exploiatation has been debunked by several costly failures by proto-imperialist powers to set up a colonial structure. Africa like the Americas is not an ideal place but the concept of a world empire never takes off and economic exploitation rather than political domination is the rule.
 
Pretty much the only way to do this, IMO, is to massively wank up someone else, probably the Ottomans, so that Europe is too busy fighting to go exploring. This, however, leads to Ottoman colonization of most of Africa and possibly Asia, if they're that strong.

Either that, or have a second Black Death equivalent happen. That will hit everyone, but might well slow European expansion by another century or two.

European oceanic ships and European armies were just too good compared to most places by 1500 or so, and were constantly advancing. And ANY society who is stronger than its neighbours and wants what they have will expand. It's kind of the whole story of human history.

To be fair, European armies didn't get that much better than the best Indian and Chinese ones until well after 1500, but any part of Africa they want they can take. Basically.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Industrial Revolution occurs in the Ming Dynasty, who then proceed to use their already considerable frontrunner status in the global economy and naval capacity to colonize the world before Europe can. Their style will be more like, "hey, pay us regularly and don't mess with out stuff" as opposed to "all your land are belong to us"
 
The easiest way to achieve this would be to keep the rest of the world as advanced as Europe was in the age of exploration. Europe managed to push forward faster with technology than China, the Muslim World, India and the entire African continent. If you find a way to keep them at least a little bit more on level with the European powers then they can potentially avoid vassalization and certainly stand a better chance against invasion and full-on colonization.
 
Best way to do it is to nerf Europe's seafaring tradition somehow IMO. The many seas and waterways made naval advancement assured, and once that happened Europe would gain the ability both to control/redirect trade and project power abroad while keeping insulated. How to nerf? Perhaps a more successful Mongol invasion hits all the way to France, tying Europe more landward.
 
Best way to do it is to nerf Europe's seafaring tradition somehow IMO. The many seas and waterways made naval advancement assured, and once that happened Europe would gain the ability both to control/redirect trade and project power abroad while keeping insulated. How to nerf? Perhaps a more successful Mongol invasion hits all the way to France, tying Europe more landward.
But still leaving England free, and now looking overseas for alternatives to dealing with Mongol Europe?
 
But still leaving England free, and now looking overseas for alternatives to dealing with Mongol Europe?

I'd think that England would be more concerned about a united Europe than overseas colonization. Resources would probably go to defense.

And that's assuming that the Mongols don't try to invade like they tried with Japan.
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
The biggest driver for overseas presence is trade and the establishment of trading posts and overseas warehouses (factories)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Europeans had two distinct advantages over African states. 1. they were able to command far larger armies then most African nations (only Ethiopia was able to field anything remotely comparable, I don't remember the exact figures but I think it was like 100,000 vs. 300,000). But Europeans also had way better taxation systems to support these massive armies then most African states. Meanwhile the Africans themselves still had to deal with corruption, ethnic tensions, warfare, and all that fun stuff.

I think the main cause of the New Imperialism was because of ambitious guys like George Goldie and Lord Carnarvon who had big governments wiling to throw money at them like it's nobody's business. If you could get it into the minds of European leaders that colonizing Africa was going to be nothing like the Americas nor very profitable early on then there would have been a lot more independent African states today. Sure there would be colonies here and there along the coast but maybe Europeans might be content with indirect rule like what Britain had with Zanzibar before carving it up.
 
Europeans had two distinct advantages over African states. 1. they were able to command far larger armies then most African nations (only Ethiopia was able to field anything remotely comparable, I don't remember the exact figures but I think it was like 100,000 vs. 300,000). But Europeans also had way better taxation systems to support these massive armies then most African states. Meanwhile the Africans themselves still had to deal with corruption, ethnic tensions, warfare, and all that fun stuff.

I believe it was actually much more about technology than army size. In fact, European armies were outnumbered in many colonial conflicts. The key was using their far better weaponry to gun down African/Asian opponents. The machine gun in particular gave Europeans a huge advantage.
 
Last edited:
On my honest opinion other than a Second Black Death or somehow Ming China doesn't stop Zhung He's voyages from happening. Still wouldn't prevent some colonization to be honest.
 
I believe it was actually much more about technology than army size. In fact, European armies were outnumbered in many colonial conflicts. The key was using their far better weaponry to gun down African/Asian opponents. The machine gun in particular gave Europeans a huge advantage.

The Gatling was apart of this but the "endless African Hordes" are mostly a myth made by movies and fiction. The truth is most battles involved Europeans outnumbering Africans.
 
The Gatling was apart of this but the "endless African Hordes" are mostly a myth made by movies and fiction. The truth is most battles involved Europeans outnumbering Africans.

Not sure where you get this idea from. Consider French colonial expansion. Here's a few examples of their colonial expeditions:

First Franco-Dahomean War - French forces are outnumbered by a 5-1 margin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Franco-Dahomean_War

Second Franco-Dahomean War - French forces are outnumbered by a 2-1 margin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Franco-Dahomean_War

Tonkin Campaign - French forces are outnumbered by a 4-1 margin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonkin_Campaign

Sino-French War - French forces outnumbered by almost a 2-1 margin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-French_War

These were not battles of attrition. The African campaigns especially were fought on the cheap. Huge advantages in technology were the equalizer. Despite being significantly outnumbered on a regular basis, the French forces inflicted huge casualties when they fought local armies.

This was a huge part of the appeal of imperialism. Vast lands could be conquered relatively easily, enhancing national prestige without too many losses. If the conquest of Africa/Asia had required the kind of massive military investment you describe, it would have been much less popular. (France indeed had a large military at this time, but much of it remained at home. Germany remained the primary military concern.)
 
Last edited:
Top