Is there a way to delay the Europeans from creating colonies and occupying territories in India and South East Asia until 1600 AD.
I think a Castile-Portugal union would be better for that scenario and a war between France and Aragon where in Castile-Portugal is dragged into and a resurgent Marinid Morrocco that converts the rulers of Congo to Islam.The two major ways as I see it are thus;
1. Have the route around Africa and eventually to India take a little longer to be discovered, you could'nt prevent it from being so for a really long time, the Europeans were very keen on finding a new route to India afterall, but it could be prevented a decade or two.
2. Have more wars in Western Europe causing England, Portugal and Spain to be distracted, busy and financially pressed to fund exploration; again this would'nt prevent it forever, but it could buy you a few decades.
The question is how it would happen?Have Portugal-Spain contest Venetian/Genoa trade monopolies on Med Trade.
The question is how it would happen?
Delay the defeat of the Muslim armies in Spain and Portugaul. The Christians were not going any where until they got the Muslims out. Essentually you have to give the Ottoman Empire a reason to assist them while making it advantagous to do so. The need to help the Ilberian Muslims needs to be larger than the need to conquer Constantinople. How you do that, I do not know.
This means a christian defeat in the Las Navas de Tolosa.Delay the defeat of the Muslim armies in Spain and Portugaul. The Christians were not going any where until they got the Muslims out. Essentually you have to give the Ottoman Empire a reason to assist them while making it advantagous to do so. The need to help the Ilberian Muslims needs to be larger than the need to conquer Constantinople. How you do that, I do not know.
The best way to slow things down is not to allow perminant settlements, as the Chinese did before the Opium wars. All non-Chinese had to leave Canton after the trading season was over.
If this was extended to other Asia states then empire would have been more expensive and slower.
Actually, I was asking is to prevent the Europeans from colonizing/occupying any Asian territory not just Europeans having bases in Asia.The best way to slow things down is not to allow perminant settlements, as the Chinese did before the Opium wars. All non-Chinese had to leave Canton after the trading season was over.
If this was extended to other Asia states then empire would have been more expensive and slower.
I think only a resurgent, colonizing Japan or strong refugee Koxinga-Taiwan State could keep that happening. And then Luzon would belong to THEM as THEIR colony.
It's hard to win.
True. If the Europeans are delayed long enough, the Ming remnants become a bigger factor in Southeast Asia.And if the Ch'ing don't have a Dutch fleet to carry them to Taiwan, the Ming Remnant is likely to stay a factor in Southeast Asia for a lot longer.
Well, most of those trading agreements involved did involve a bit of force on the side of the Europeans and, at least for the smaller principalities, unfavourable conditions for the locals. But yeah, it was more along the lines of heavy-handed economic agreements (with a bit of subjugation involved to dominate the trade of specific resources like nutmeg) than out-right conquest. The reasons the Dutch replaced the Portuguese in the East Indies post 1600 was because the Dutch got help from the natives who were thoroughly unpleased with their trade agreements, although the Dutch quite quickly turned out to not be much better. Quite a bit worse most of the time, in fact.It depends what you mean by "imperialism". Initially it was as if the Europeans were on a par with the local regimes and fighting for essentially equal rights to trade, access etc. For this they needed trading stations, but this is not imperialism in the 19th century fashion.