Asian Colonialism in Europe

Well for the purposes of this, we'll say that Asia will be the India, China and Japan. The Mongols could well be the Russians of this scenario.

And the idea would sort of work like with the British in India. It starts with trading posts, then getting involved in local wars and before you know it your administrating the place.

@Kalan
Your 3) and 4) are the ones I'm aiming at.

The Asians are not in Europe for any specific resources, though amber is desired by the rich folks of China and Northern India. They are in Europe to sell stuff rather than buy.

In that case the closest I could come up with is a further Han Dynasty or Tang Dynasty push west where they establish some trading post somewhere on the Black Sea coast. Perhaps silk for glass. I can't see this limited overland trade being economically sustained. But it would be interesting to see how China and Rome/Byzantine interacts.

By far more likely would be a Mongol settlement in Hungary, if Mongols fit your definition.
 
It's probably more likely that only a part of Asia could colonize Europe, and depending on what the POD it that is either the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, or China/Korea. In any case Europe would probably (again, depending on the POD) be a part of "Asia" while the winning region defines itself as separate from the rest of the continent.
 
As said the problem is Europe has nothing to offer. That's the reason Europe were the ones to explore Asia, not vice-versa. Asia was rich and had all sorts of nice things to offer Europe. Europe had....some money with which to buy the things.
 
By far more likely would be a Mongol settlement in Hungary, if Mongols fit your definition.
Yes I suppose Mongols can be included in this.

As said the problem is Europe has nothing to offer. That's the reason Europe were the ones to explore Asia, not vice-versa. Asia was rich and had all sorts of nice things to offer Europe. Europe had....some money with which to buy the things.
True, Asia has all the nice things. Though rather than Europe beating the crap out of Asia for those nice things, Asia will be going round to Europes house and selling them. Or beating Europe up untill he gives them a few grand for a few bags of tea. Either way works.
 
The Khanate of the Golden Horde is the main example of Asians colonizing Europe I can think of.

The other is humans replacing Neanderthals. :p
 
The Khanate of the Golden Horde is the main example of Asians colonizing Europe I can think of.

The other is humans replacing Neanderthals. :p

Well I don't think that either the Mongols, or indeed the Russians, should be considered colonisers. It just doesn't look like colonialism in the way that I recognise it.

I mean, I wouldn't say that America colonised the the Great Plains, though of course they did, I'd say that they "expanded" into them. It's more of a grammatical thing then a technical thing.
 
Well I don't think that either the Mongols, or indeed the Russians, should be considered colonisers. It just doesn't look like colonialism in the way that I recognise it.

I mean, I wouldn't say that America colonised the the Great Plains, though of course they did, I'd say that they "expanded" into them. It's more of a grammatical thing then a technical thing.

Overland colonialism is still colonialism. The Mongol and Russian Empires simply built theirs overland due to geography where the Atlantic powers had more of a reason to expand overseas. Russia is also very much a *European power colonizing Asia* not an Asian power colonizing Europe.
 
Overland colonialism is still colonialism. The Mongol and Russian Empires simply built theirs overland due to geography where the Atlantic powers had more of a reason to expand overseas. Russia is also very much a *European power colonizing Asia* not an Asian power colonizing Europe.
I know that, it's just the way I view it. I know that overland expansion still counts as colonialism, I just don't really see it in the same light.

And yes, Russian colonialism was definately Europe to Asia, I was just naming it as an empire that I see more as an expander then a coloniser rather than an Asian power colonising Europe.
 
I know that, it's just the way I view it. I know that overland expansion still counts as colonialism, I just don't really see it in the same light.

And yes, Russian colonialism was definately Europe to Asia, I was just naming it as an empire that I see more as an expander then a coloniser rather than an Asian power colonising Europe.

Which is true, as the overland type is much harder to resist. Most of the old Russian empire of the Tsars is still intact in today's Russian Federation and the US heartland will fall apart when either Hell freezes over or the Yellowstone Supervolcano erupts.
 
Which is true, as the overland type is much harder to resist. Most of the old Russian empire of the Tsars is still intact in today's Russian Federation and the US heartland will fall apart when either Hell freezes over or the Yellowstone Supervolcano erupts.
Yes, the US heartland is usually still called "USA" in scenarios when the US falls apart.
Hell it's the one fucntioning part of the USA left in the Resistance series.
 
Well for the purposes of this, we'll say that Asia will be the India, China and Japan. The Mongols could well be the Russians of this scenario.

And the idea would sort of work like with the British in India. It starts with trading posts, then getting involved in local wars and before you know it your administrating the place.

@Kalan
Your 3) and 4) are the ones I'm aiming at.

The Asians are not in Europe for any specific resources, though amber is desired by the rich folks of China and Northern India. They are in Europe to sell stuff rather than buy.

But the problem is that there is no point. By selling the products to the middlemen, or even the Europeans coming directly, the merchants of China or India get their money right away without having to insure the ship or make sure it gets to its proper port of call.

That way, it is the middlemen or Europeans who take the risk of losing the cargo on the way back to Europe or the Middle East. If its lost to sea, pirates, or bandits, its not the producers problem. They get their money guarranteed without the risk involved.

There is also the other problem.

Everyone has stated correctly that the Europeans didn't have really anything Asia wanted. In fact, a major reason the Europeans went searching for Gold from Ghana (through the African Factory system) and the Spanish New World Silver network was that they NEEDED it to trade with the East. The East only wanted Silver and Gold, so the Europeans went out of their way and found it.

The final line is this. Europe could colonise Asia and extort them out of their riches BECAUSE they were rich.

Asia is gonna have a harder time doing this to Europe because a Europe denied African and American colonialism is going to be POOR. Their is only so much they can shove down Europes throat before they can't take it.
 
Unless you demand colonies to be physically separated from heartland you got that, of sorts. Mongols came from Asia and held parts of Europe (that would be west of Urals). Turks did same. Arabs held Iberia. Stretching the point a bit you could say same about East Rome/Byzantium, since their heartland was in Asia (sort of) and expanded into Europe.

Granted those were considered part of their territory and not colonies per se, but hey, France considered Algeria part of their territory and not a colony.
 
Unless you demand colonies to be physically separated from heartland you got that, of sorts. Mongols came from Asia and held parts of Europe (that would be west of Urals). Turks did same. Arabs held Iberia. Stretching the point a bit you could say same about East Rome/Byzantium, since their heartland was in Asia (sort of) and expanded into Europe.

There's also Persia... The Achaemenids held Thrace and Macedon for a time.
 
As said the problem is Europe has nothing to offer. That's the reason Europe were the ones to explore Asia, not vice-versa. Asia was rich and had all sorts of nice things to offer Europe. Europe had....some money with which to buy the things.

I agree with Tyr. I can't really think anything which would make Asians interested in to the colonization of Europe.

Asians, especially Chinese, had also some philosophical views which really didn't help this kind of expansionism. Didn't Chinese think that the Emperor was already the ruler of all under of heaven?
 
Persia defeats the Greeks in the Aegean wars. Pretty early on and crushes the embryonic Western culture, perhaps leavings Persian culture and traditions dominant.

Realistically, unless you consider Mongol-style invasions colonization(which is a reasonable stance, hell Crimea still has a steppe Turk-descended population), it has to come from the Middle East. Russian/Ukranian land is the only access point for China, and why the hell would they want to settle there? Hell, they didn't even bother with Taiwan until rather late.
 
Persia defeats the Greeks in the Aegean wars. Pretty early on and crushes the embryonic Western culture, perhaps leavings Persian culture and traditions dominant.

Realistically, unless you consider Mongol-style invasions colonization(which is a reasonable stance, hell Crimea still has a steppe Turk-descended population), it has to come from the Middle East. Russian/Ukranian land is the only access point for China, and why the hell would they want to settle there? Hell, they didn't even bother with Taiwan until rather late.

Mind you, it took thousands of years for China to get as big as it is now; I believe most of the colonization of the core areas of China was done around the Han dynasty.
 
Mind you, it took thousands of years for China to get as big as it is now; I believe most of the colonization of the core areas of China was done around the Han dynasty.

True, but their was something to entice them into those areas. What would entice them into the semi-tundra of Russia?
 
What do Asian powers need that Europe has that can't be found elsewhere? The problem is that Europe is, essentially a fertile peninsula of Asia but one which doesn't really have many unique resources. Amber is one, but really is that enough to justify an expensive colonial undertaking?

Indeed, all the trade goods Europe produced were either manufactures like glass and such that a more active asia could have produced at home, or the high quality mineral ores that were used to produce said manufactures and would be bloody expensive to sail round the world.
 
Top