Pretty much East Asia. With possible sufficient population growth, maybe the Native Canadians could have pulled it off. Pretty much nobody could pull the same feat that Europe did.
Europe never dominates the world
- Thread starter Siberian Tiger
- Start date
Probably. I think to dominate the planet, a given culture area needs to be colonial and needs a territory to expand into and truly dominate to create a world empire. IMO a sea empire is going to be better for this than a land empire, since as the USSR and Napoleon shows, a land empire will eventually need naval power projection. East Asia had a very good political ideology for stability (Confucianism) and was generally religiously tolerant. Unfortunately, said ideology was not the best for making money since being a merchant was considered low status. But they do have a good geographic position, large population, and a great technological base. One could imagine a sort of five way split--northern China, southern China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam--might produce a lot of the institutions, innovations, and competitions necessary. There's also the interesting factor that an actual "colonisation" attempt could easily be fleeing refugees and thus the state would be defacto independent from day 1.
But I wouldn't count out the Middle East (Persianate/Islamic cultural world). Maybe they could expand into Europe and you'd have a culturally Muslim Europe, maybe the great power contention is some North African state versus some al-Andalus sultanate, maybe some enormous thallasocracy dominating the African coast and ruling through puppet states and chiefs in the era before colonisation becomes practical. That sort of thing.
"Native Canadian" is a huge variety of cultures, all of which would be nigh-unrecognisable if they actually could dominate the world.
Truth be told, I don't think any Native American society ever stood a chance to do so. Not without an earlier peopling of the Americas or some sort of Old World screw (i.e. horses go extinct, less domesticatable plants/animals). I just don't see a feasible way their civilisations could evolve fast enough to not only match, but exceed the institutions of the Old World that let Europe dominate. And everywhere else is even worse. Central America and the rest of South America were a lot simpler, and North America even moreso. There weren't even sedentary cultures prior to 1000 BC or so, and one of those sedentary cultures (the Northwest Coast tribes) would never develop agriculture.
My first TL covered the latter, and even given an extremely generous timeline (and honestly too generous) I can't justify the existence of any civilisation in that region by 1500 that is any more sophisticated or complex than something like Shang Dynasty China or the larger empires of 3rd millennium BC Mesopotamia (i.e. Akkad). I know technology is never a 1-for-1 thing and Postclassic Mesoamerica was quite sophisticated in certain aspects, but they certainly didn't have it all together like 16th century Europe did.
How would they have not fought France? France would not tolerate being surrounded by Habsburg territory.
The only way I can see the two kingdoms not becoming enemies would be for the inheritance of Charles V to be different, with everything north of the Pyrenees given to the Austrian branch. But even then, Spain probably would choose to fight on behalf of their cousins.
The key is naval power and power projection. Europe started planting the first seeds of its eventual dominance as early as the 15th century with maritime voyages and trade missions to India through Africa. The fact that Europe could project power all over the world while other, otherwise wealthier nations in Asia and the Near East couldn't was the first step toward economic and military dominance. In the 1500s it didn't mean much because Indian and Chinese powers would still massively overpower anything the Europeans could send, but this slowly changed over time.
The Portuguese waged a trade and naval war against the Mamluks and the Ottomans in the Indian Ocean during the 16th century and came out on top. By the 17th century Europeans were able to have a strong influence over internal conflicts in Japan, introducing new weapons and Christianity to the region that greatly impacted the Japanese, while East Asian powers were never in the position to send their fleets and merchant up to Paris and London like the Europeans were doing. It's no surprise then that by the 18th century, when the Mughal Empire crumbled in India the British found themselves in an ideal position to fill the power vacuum and become the dominant power in the region. And once industrialization kicked in the European could just steamroll even the Chinese, who had been relying on Europeans to deal with pirates near their waters anyway.
As far as I know, Muslim merchants were also a powerful force in Asia before the Europeans supplanted them, and they're the reason Indonesia is an Islamic country today instead of an Hindu one, however Muslim trade was mostly centered on the Indian Ocean while European oceanic dominance was kickstarted by the discovery of the Americas and the growing interest in having strong navies to support far away colonies and trade outposts. India was always heavily fragmented and eventually mostly fell under the control of Muslim royal houses anyway, while China I feel had the issue that it just never had much of a reason to heavily invest in trade, being almost entirely self-sufficient and all. It just doesn't make much rational sense to finance great foreign expeditions when you have almost everything you need at home and it makes way more sense to invest in keeping your country stable rather than stuff like Zheng He voyages.
So, in order to stop Europeans from dominating the world, I would suggest: keep Al-Andalus alive at all costs, so that the scramble for America can turn from something only Europeans enjoy to something Muslim and Christian powers fight over; this could help Islamic trade network staying competitive against Europeans especially in the Indian Ocean, so things stay competitive and don't lead to the situation where there was no competition to Europe in the world oceans by the 17th century; finally maybe break China's unity for good to potentially boost interest in foreign trade, but China actually went through periods of disunity after 1000AD and I don't think that affected much.
The Portuguese waged a trade and naval war against the Mamluks and the Ottomans in the Indian Ocean during the 16th century and came out on top. By the 17th century Europeans were able to have a strong influence over internal conflicts in Japan, introducing new weapons and Christianity to the region that greatly impacted the Japanese, while East Asian powers were never in the position to send their fleets and merchant up to Paris and London like the Europeans were doing. It's no surprise then that by the 18th century, when the Mughal Empire crumbled in India the British found themselves in an ideal position to fill the power vacuum and become the dominant power in the region. And once industrialization kicked in the European could just steamroll even the Chinese, who had been relying on Europeans to deal with pirates near their waters anyway.
As far as I know, Muslim merchants were also a powerful force in Asia before the Europeans supplanted them, and they're the reason Indonesia is an Islamic country today instead of an Hindu one, however Muslim trade was mostly centered on the Indian Ocean while European oceanic dominance was kickstarted by the discovery of the Americas and the growing interest in having strong navies to support far away colonies and trade outposts. India was always heavily fragmented and eventually mostly fell under the control of Muslim royal houses anyway, while China I feel had the issue that it just never had much of a reason to heavily invest in trade, being almost entirely self-sufficient and all. It just doesn't make much rational sense to finance great foreign expeditions when you have almost everything you need at home and it makes way more sense to invest in keeping your country stable rather than stuff like Zheng He voyages.
So, in order to stop Europeans from dominating the world, I would suggest: keep Al-Andalus alive at all costs, so that the scramble for America can turn from something only Europeans enjoy to something Muslim and Christian powers fight over; this could help Islamic trade network staying competitive against Europeans especially in the Indian Ocean, so things stay competitive and don't lead to the situation where there was no competition to Europe in the world oceans by the 17th century; finally maybe break China's unity for good to potentially boost interest in foreign trade, but China actually went through periods of disunity after 1000AD and I don't think that affected much.
I think a scenario where Japan ( probably after an at least partially successful Mongol invasion) and a surviving Islamic Iberia end up being the primary colonizers of the Americas could be very interesting.
Spain had the huge and unappreciated problem that importing precious metals produced inflation (because more money was chasing the same goods). This affected all of western Europe, but Spain more than anywhere else because that was where the gold and silver were landed. In the short term, it enabled Spain to pay for a larger army, but in the longer term, made Spanish goods uncompetitive, leading to a spiral of decline. But the effects of New World exploration and colonization need to be considered on a European (or at least western European) scale, and in terms of the socio-cultural changes it brought about: the very existence of the Americas showed with absolute clarity that the ancients did not know everything, and that in some ways the (then) moderns had already started to surpass them. Together with the invention of moveable metal type printing around 1450, it greatly stimulated the growth of science by encouraging the investigation and classification of all the new things coming to light; and it churned up the class system, allowing many "new men", often with new ideas, to gain wealth and power. Increasingly, Europeans knew more about non-European societies and states than the latter knew about them - a great advantage, to add to that provided by European naval technology and mapmaking, allowing Europeans to choose, on an informed basis, where there were profitable opportunities for both trade and conquest. That's what underlay the British ability to conquer India, but if it hadn't been Britain it would probably have been another west European power, France.
Last edited:
You guys are all forgetting the commercial revolution which culminated in the development of modern finance that was critically in the colonization of India and East Indies while also laying the ground work for the industrial revolution. Local rulers of India and East Indies didn't have the financial capacity to modernize armies to the level of East India Companies. Commercial Revolution financed the Industrial Revolution.
You need an earlier POD than that because the causes of the rise of the West were just about to start
That story which blindly ignores Black Death in Middle East and Central Asia?
Could a worse Black Death and/or a Mongol conquest of much of Western Europe do the trick?
The latter would not be the case, since it would simply alter the winners and losers within Europe during the 13th/14th centuries. Being directly plugged into the Silk Road and Mongol Empire's trade routes would be beneficial to Europe, although probably still largely in favour of the Italian merchant republics who were the ones who traded at the ports under Mongol domination (i.e. Ayas in Cilician Armenia, Trebizond, and Genoa's Black Sea colonies). Plus likely a faster spread of technology from the Middle East.
The Black Death will affect everyone else as well which will likely leave those areas least affected to become the new major powers. That honestly is just as if not more interesting that Europe not dominating considering how many of said cultures had no real major presence in world history.
A Norse Wank. 878, Guthrum defeats Alfred the alt-Great. Dead Alfred is no longer building monasteries to convert the heathen. English cultural practices, use of runic writing in daily life, dress, intermarriage is all tending Norse, like it was in the Danelaw OTL until the reconquest reversed the trend.
Something, a revolt, a smelly priest, whatever, cause the Norse ruling class to turn decisively against Christianity, killing the Priests in the next 20-30 years. Jesus is increasingly seen as the God of the conquered rather than Conquer as, at the same time, the Norse-Saxons finish the conquest of Ireland, Wales, and Lowland Scotland and the process repeated.
The Norse now have a model of cultural assimilation and transmission and uncontested rule, as well as larger population to draw on, with the Norse-Saxons being part of this growing Pagan world. Writing on Vellum in a Runic-cursive becomes common.
This cultural package, somewhat garbeled and adapted, is transmitted to the trade routes to proto-Russia and the Baltic countries and to Iceland and to a Vinland reinforced by Norse Saxons, which leads to a successful, but more gradual conquest of the Americas. But perhaps little things, like Maize and bigger turkey eggs increasing the nutrition of the Norse but entering the rest of Europe more slowly creates an edge.
The end result is the Baltic, North Sea and Channel being as much a dividing line as culturally as the Mediterranean, a separate Civilization anchored in England and Eastern Europe, with the Christian world petering out somewhere around the Vistula
Europe circa 1400 is smaller, more defensively minded than otl.
Something, a revolt, a smelly priest, whatever, cause the Norse ruling class to turn decisively against Christianity, killing the Priests in the next 20-30 years. Jesus is increasingly seen as the God of the conquered rather than Conquer as, at the same time, the Norse-Saxons finish the conquest of Ireland, Wales, and Lowland Scotland and the process repeated.
The Norse now have a model of cultural assimilation and transmission and uncontested rule, as well as larger population to draw on, with the Norse-Saxons being part of this growing Pagan world. Writing on Vellum in a Runic-cursive becomes common.
This cultural package, somewhat garbeled and adapted, is transmitted to the trade routes to proto-Russia and the Baltic countries and to Iceland and to a Vinland reinforced by Norse Saxons, which leads to a successful, but more gradual conquest of the Americas. But perhaps little things, like Maize and bigger turkey eggs increasing the nutrition of the Norse but entering the rest of Europe more slowly creates an edge.
The end result is the Baltic, North Sea and Channel being as much a dividing line as culturally as the Mediterranean, a separate Civilization anchored in England and Eastern Europe, with the Christian world petering out somewhere around the Vistula
Europe circa 1400 is smaller, more defensively minded than otl.
Black death isn't a isolated event in Europe. It also ravaged Middle East and Central Asia.
This plus a polynesian wank/colonization of the Americas is an interesting scenario.
When do you think is the latest possible POD to prevent the dominace of Europe?
Have Europe undergo a deeper dark age similar to the bronze age collapse the near east saw.
en.wikipedia.org
a possible way to worsen the otl dark age is to wank the east to west nomadic invasions the European plane saw as among the main players of the barbarian invasions that came out of central asia that forced the lesser barbarians west in their wake (the huns/mongols) they were more likely to raze, burn, and conduct wide scale crimes agenst humanity (destroyers vs settlers) of places that resisted them. there are a few points that may have had big effects like attila turning back when he had rome in his sights. if he did better and did not turn around for whatever the reason that he did and rome and the early papacy is put to the sword like Baghdad would later be in the Mongol invasion (or in a less likely but more ironic twist of fate, razed in a similar manner as carthage)
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
With the fall of the western empire soon after and the destruction of Rome and the western papacy the western church might not reestablish itself and in turn opt to see the power of the church return east to Constantinople. At this date its to late to stop Christianity but such a blow will mean the eventually conversion of pagen europe will take longer and also take longer to come out of what is likely now a much deeper dark age a weaker western christian resergance may mean places like iberia stay under islamic control and the dane law persists (while iberia may become islamic the nords will likely convert to christianity weather they maintain control of the region or not)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danelaw#:~:text=The%20Danelaw%20(%2Fˈdeɪ,law%20and%20the%20Mercian%20law.
assuming europes growth is stunted and the largest otl western colonizers are scared (islamic spain, worse viking era britania) by this era i think you may be able to lay the fondation for a world without europian domination even before the otl mongols arive in the 12th century.
Late Bronze Age collapse - Wikipedia
Siege of Baghdad - Wikipedia
Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danelaw#:~:text=The%20Danelaw%20(%2Fˈdeɪ,law%20and%20the%20Mercian%20law.
assuming europes growth is stunted and the largest otl western colonizers are scared (islamic spain, worse viking era britania) by this era i think you may be able to lay the fondation for a world without europian domination even before the otl mongols arive in the 12th century.
First learn about the West before commenting on it
European Dark Ages are a myth
Doesn't change because in those Rome was sacked multiple times anywaya possible way to worsen the otl dark age is to wank the east to west nomadic invasions the European plane saw as among the main players of the barbarian invasions that came out of central asia that forced the lesser barbarians west in their wake (the huns/mongols) they were more likely to raze, burn, and conduct wide scale crimes agenst humanity (destroyers vs settlers) of places that resisted them. there are a few points that may have had big effects like attila turning back when he had rome in his sights. if he did better and did not turn around for whatever the reason that he did and rome and the early papacy is put to the sword like Baghdad would later be in the Mongol invasion (or in a less likely but more ironic twist of fate, razed in a similar manner as carthage)Late Bronze Age collapse - Wikipedia
Atleast read the links you mention. Baghdad already lost it's importance before being sacked whereas Carthage remained important through Roman ruleSiege of Baghdad - Wikipedia
Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War) - Wikipedia
Papacy will never do that because it's power comes from being in Rome and there is already an equivalent in Constantinople the Patriarchate
Conversion of Pagan Europe was started by Charlemagne before his alliance with Papacy
Last edited:
May be have the Caliphate win at Constantinople and Tours resulting in an eventual Islamisation of Europe. Islamic Economics prevent the commercial revolution.