AHC: Widespread slave trade of Europeans by Sub-Saharan Africans

Could there have been some sort of inverse in history where there was a widespread slave-trade of Europeans conducted by Sub-Saharan Africans?
 
Not without a PoD that would change much about sub-saharian African history, and really early so.

You'd need not only an important economical or cultural motivation for long-range slavery trade, which implies widespread politicisation of sub-Saharian Africa, but as well a fully develloped naval tradition.

Historically, it lacked both of that, in no small part due to an ancient slave trade along African coasts and Sudanese empires as Ghana, Mali, Nubia, etc. were more often under the thumb of their northern or eastern neighbours than able to pull this.
 
The Kingdom of Kongo had it's own slave plantation - all they needed was a cash crop like sugar, corn or cotton. And a horde of mongols destroying Europe.
 
Not without a PoD that would change much about sub-saharian African history, and really early so.

You'd need not only an important economical or cultural motivation for long-range slavery trade, which implies widespread politicisation of sub-Saharian Africa, but as well a fully develloped naval tradition.

WI there is a significant overland transportation of European slaves over Sahara?
A lot of Europeans were enslaved by Barbary Pirates. WI the kingdoms across Sahara had a significant demand for luxury goods being white slaves, and bought them from Barbary?
 
You need to remove the whole malaria thingy from the Sub-Saharan Africa first.
Exactly, and several other deseases. This is the big problem. There was a reason the Europeans used African slaves. I am certain they would have prefered either Indian or Europeans (it would be easier and cheaper), but they used Africans, sincethe Indians were dieing of deseases and the Europeans couldn't handle the tropical climate. This would be the exact same problem Africans would have with Europeans. They wouldn't be abe to survive the tropical climate, including the deseases.
 
WI there is a significant overland transportation of European slaves over Sahara?
A lot of Europeans were enslaved by Barbary Pirates. WI the kingdoms across Sahara had a significant demand for luxury goods being white slaves, and bought them from Barbary?

Well, regardless the medical issues that other posters mentioned...

Barbary slavery of Europeans was really directed to North African needs (production and ransom), and while a sub-saharian trade is thinkable there's a reason why sub-saharian trade declined in western Africa : European trade having bypassed traditional trade roads and sattelized/raided old empires and chiefdoms, there was not as much incitative for Arabo-Berbers to put as much focus on them. (And the lack of slaves from Guinea provoked itself a need for European slaves)

Basically, European dominated Guinea means less likely ressources for a trans-saharian slave trade on a significant scale AND a probable European backleash witnessing it.
At the contrary, Arabo-Berber trade remaining the dominant one on western Africa, means less need for European slaves.

Altough you can think of a TL where western Europeans are down, where Russian slaves are still largely present in North Africa, around 2 millions, and see some of them on Africano-Islamic empires, I'm not too sure it would fill the OP, as in "widespread", even less on the historical triangular trade.
 
Top