Atlantic slave trade... But with europeans?

[Dan Handsome]

Most Europeans didn't go in slave raids when they wanted to get slaves, most of them negotiated with the kingdoms in the area for slaves. The only exception are the Portuguese. So I guess the Russian and ottoman governments could sell some slaves to make an extra cash, since they were at war all the time.
Also, don't the boats already come from Europe? So it's easier to make a trip from London to st. Petersburg to new York than to go to west Africa

Point being they couldn't purchase mass amounts of slaves. West African slaves primarily came from other conquered African states.

I don't know the exact logistics, but using London to New York is a bad example as thr majority of slaves were sent to South and Central America. Brazil is particular, which was Portuguese owned and across from the pond from Portuguese dominated West Africa. Much of the same goes for Spain. Ignoring the logistics. West African slaves would most certainly be less expensive than Russian serfs. Of course, the issue is that there was no widespread slave trade in Europe even before the discovery of the America's.

 

[Crazy Boris]

I think that they tried using slaves from Europe very early on, as well as native slaves, but tropical diseases offed the Europeans and old world diseases did the same to the natives, so the logical thing to do was to get your labourers from a place where people had immunity to both, and West Africa fit the bill, and the established slave trade network there made it even easier.

 

[Rafael stahl]

Ok, so let's imagine a scenario where black people don't get enslaved.
Let's say Portugal is much more stronger and gained much more land in the reconquista. Só, mucho of Andalusia, southern Catalonia and bits of Castile are now Portuguese. Also, there are now many holy orders dedicated to "protect Christiandom in the west".
After the kingdom of Granada is conquered by the Portuguese, they go to war with morroco like in OTL. The Muslim kingdoms of northern Africa join together in a coalition against Portugal, fearing that they would conquer Morocco.likewise, the Portuguese form an alliance with Castille, Aragon and States in southern Italy. The Portuguese alliance wins, Morocco becomes a Portuguese colony and the other states in northern Africa are obligated to pay war reparations to the rest of the Portuguese alliance. Said war reparations crippled the north African economy, but when a demand for slaves started to appear from European powers, North African kings started selling slaves to Europe, as a way to revive their economies. But due to its incredible profitability, North African countries continued to sell slaves even after their economies got back on track. The ottoman empire begins selling slaves after they conquer the mamluks, and quickly become the biggest slave exporter.

 

[Abd ar-Rahman II]

Ok, so let's imagine a scenario where black people don't get enslaved.
Let's say Portugal is much more stronger and gained much more land in the reconquista. Só, mucho of Andalusia, southern Catalonia

You mean Valencia or souther .

and bits of Castile are now Portuguese.

Well that far more than a bit it’s the whole of Andalusia and mean Castille doesn’t have Mediterranean coast and probably a Castille more hostile to Portugal because they block their expansion south and having a Mediterranean port . Also how Portugal is supposed to manage to do that with their limited ressource when Castille have obviously more ? You need a massive Castilian screw ‘ a Portugal Leon union ?

Also, there are now many holy orders dedicated to "protect Christiandom in the west".
After the kingdom of Granada is conquered by the Portuguese,

At this point not sure if Nasrid Grenada would exist seeing how different the reconquista is supposed to have happened

they go to war with morroco like in OTL. The Muslim kingdoms of northern Africa join together in a coalition against Portugal, fearing that they would conquer Morocco.likewise, the Portuguese form an alliance with Castille, Aragon and States in southern Italy

Why would Castille and Aragon massively support tentative of Portuguese expansion in Moroccan when the Portuguese block their path to expansion and control of strategic location and ressource especially since they’re have no coast with Morocco . individual mercenary and wanna be crusaders are still likely to join them (they did OTL)

. The Portuguese alliance wins, Morocco becomes a Portuguese colony

If the battle is supposed to be an analogue to the battle of three king then that will end up with the Portuguese propping a king more favorable to them than annexing Morocco which they would have really big difficulty to hol

and the other states in northern Africa are obligated to pay war reparations to the rest of the Portuguese alliance. Said war reparations crippled the north African economy, but when a demand for slaves started to appear from European powers, North African kings started selling slaves to Europe, as a way to revive their economies.

they won’t be paying war reparation big enough to somewhat long term cripple their economy and be forced to sell their own citizen as esclave to Christian when there ottoman fleet nearby that could help especially with how the very tribal society of the Maghreb will make it extremely dangerous and impractical .

But due to its incredible profitability, North African countries continued to sell slaves even after their economies got back on track. The ottoman empire begins selling slaves after they conquer the mamluks, and quickly become the biggest slave exporter.

All of that ain’t happening and in a scale big enough to be a trade and remplace African slavery . Christian and Islamic society just make the whole idea very implausible

 

[Geaux On And On]

Europeans did not have to turn their lower class people into slaves to move them to the Americas to work. They just had to make them criminals and serve their sentences out abroad and never come back. Once in place the age old natural law of don't work don't eat comes into play same as where they came from. Remember you became a criminal locked up for debt pronto and shipped off. The travel accommodations were not much better than slave ships either. Read the case of a white slave in New Orleans who as a child came over on a Dutch ship where half the people died on the voyage. Also cases like Robert Louis Stevenson Kidnapped were not unheard of. Hey well into the 19th century Shanghai ing sailors was not uncommon.

 

[alexmilman]

The more I think about the slave trade the more I think it doesn't make sense. Why would you go to sub-saharan Africa, a continent so dangerous that the life expectancy for whites was 1 year if you have northern Africa? It's closer, they already have some experience with slavery, and they are also resistant to tropical diseases.
Also, why didn't they enslave Europeans? I know that there were European slaves in Russia and the ottoman empire, why not enslave them?
Share your opinions down below, if you think that that's possible, and tell me what would change if they used Caucasian slaves (if anything would change at all)

In the Russian Empire they had serfs, not slaves and, because these serfs had been busy working on land and producing income for their owners, who and why would start selling them to the British or Spanish colonies in the Americas? Especially taking into an account that prior to the XVIII century Russian foreign trade was minuscule (a single port of Archangelsk) and that until the late XIX Russian Empire suffered from the shortage of population and tended to invite the foreign settlers. Anyway, something close to the “slave trade” existed within a very limited scope for just few years during the reign of CII (owner’s right to sell individual serfs without land on a public auction) and then was cancelled: serfs remained subjects of the empire (paid taxes, had been called to the military service).

The European slaves in the Ottoman Empire tended to be “consumed” by the internal market and potential surplus had been minimal.

 

[alexmilman]

Of what are you speaking ? European using other European slave in America and making a slave trade of it ? Or European using northern African ?

European did enslave Maghrebian I know at least the knight of Malta did . And Spain had a strong navy and did raid maghrebian it just that the Maghreb is able to fight back for most of the period and resist Europe action against them it would be hard to change that . Also it will be extremely costly and inefficient to do that there a lot of good reason for the European to prefer enslave pagan Sub Sahara. African than Muslim North African one .

Yes, especially taking into an account that for a big part of the period in question the pirates of the Barbary Coast had been controlling Southern Med capturing the Europeans (and either selling them to the Ottomans or returning for ransom, as was the case with Cervantes) and not other way around. 😜

And, AFAIK, for quite a while in the African slave trade the Europeans did not have to go deep inland because they had often been buying the slaves captured by the local tribes (I’d highly recommend to read “Tanango” by Prosper Merime) or “The major Atlantic slave-trading nations, ordered by trade volume, were the Portuguese, the British, the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, and the Danish. Several had established outposts on the African coast where they purchased slaves from local African leaders.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

 

[alexmilman]

Yes, but in a colonial system is better for the slave to die than the slave master. If Europeans dying was such a problem they wouldn't invent the slavery system since slave masters would be dying willy nilly

Errr... AFAIK, the slavery was not “invented” by the Europeans.

 

[marcinL]

In the Russian Empire they had serfs, not slaves and, because these serfs had been busy working on land and producing income for their owners, who and why would start selling them to the British or Spanish colonies in the Americas? Especially taking into an account that prior to the XVIII century Russian foreign trade was minuscule (a single port of Archangelsk) and that until the late XIX Russian Empire suffered from the shortage of population and tended to invite the foreign settlers. Anyway, something close to the “slave trade” existed within a very limited scope for just few years during the reign of CII (owner’s right to sell individual serfs without land on a public auction) and then was cancelled: serfs remained subjects of the empire (paid taxes, had been called to the military service).

The European slaves in the Ottoman Empire tended to be “consumed” by the internal market and potential surplus had been minimal.

Exactly. And outright slavery was abolished in most European countries well before discovery of America

 

[alexmilman]

Most Europeans didn't go in slave raids when they wanted to get slaves, most of them negotiated with the kingdoms in the area for slaves. The only exception are the Portuguese. So I guess the Russian and ottoman governments could sell some slaves to make an extra cash, since they were at war all the time.
Also, don't the boats already come from Europe? So it's easier to make a trip from London to st. Petersburg to new York than to go to west Africa

Unless this is intended to be a joke (and as such, it is really funny one), the only other conclusion is that you have no idea what you are talking about. T was no slavery in the Russian Empire and the serfs had been subjects of the empire. With the limited rights but nonetheless. And the empire routinely suffered from a shortage of population all the way into the XIX so why would it start making that shortage even greater?

From the economic perspective this idea does not make sense because Russia had a positive trade balance all the way to the XIX selling the goods produced by the serfs and selling them in the big numbers would be counterproductive (even if it was possible).

 

[Viriato]

Many Sub-Saharan Africans (particularly in West Africa) are resistant to malaria, and this made their lifespans longer in tropical regions. The Europeans began to notice that African slaves tended to endure longer than indigenous slaves or European indentured servants in tropical areas, and as a result they were considered a better choice.

 

[Gwrtheyrn Annwn]

This isn't particularly plausible but it occurs to me that the 'best' way to avoid the prevalence of African slavery in the Americas is with a 'More Surviving Native Americans' POD. Be that a biological POD or something like the Europeans being less aggressive on arrival in the Americas to reduce the disease impact/give the native population time to recover and gain immunity. This would then provide a slave work force on hand, just as happened IOTL until the Europeans burned through much of the native population.

As I noted, however, this is probably in ASB territory but I thought I'd mention it as an alternative.

 

[Crazy Boris]

This isn't particularly plausible but it occurs to me that the 'best' way to avoid the prevalence of African slavery in the Americas is with a 'More Surviving Native Americans' POD. Be that a biological POD or something like the Europeans being less aggressive on arrival in the Americas to reduce the disease impact/give the native population time to recover and gain immunity. This would then provide a slave work force on hand, just as happened IOTL until the Europeans burned through much of the native population.

As I noted, however, this is probably in ASB territory but I thought I'd mention it as an alternative.

I've actually had an idea bouncing around in my head for a while where transatlantic contact takes a while to really take off after Columbus, making a lower European presence in the Americas for a while that might give the natives enough time to build up at least some immunity to old world plagues.

 

[Jürgen]

There was a massive slave trade inside Europe, it was just Muslim trading Christian slaves from the Balkans, Central and Eastern Europe to the markets in the Middle East. But it made little sense to use these slaves as field slaves, as the areas useful for cash crops lay in lowland regions with a climate was too hot for them, so they ended up as more specialized slaves, especially because Europe produced more skilled slaves.

European field slaves to the Americas only really make sense in the temperate and colder region, these regions had limited cash crops and produce little which couldn't produced in Europe.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

This isn't particularly plausible but it occurs to me that the 'best' way to avoid the prevalence of African slavery in the Americas is with a 'More Surviving Native Americans' POD. Be that a biological POD or something like the Europeans being less aggressive on arrival in the Americas to reduce the disease impact/give the native population time to recover and gain immunity. This would then provide a slave work force on hand, just as happened IOTL until the Europeans burned through much of the native population.

As I noted, however, this is probably in ASB territory but I thought I'd mention it as an alternative.

There were other reasons they stopped.

The natives had a much *much* easier time running away, at least in North America.

 

[Atterdag]

There was a massive slave trade inside Europe, it was just Muslim trading Christian slaves from the Balkans, Central and Eastern Europe to the markets in the Middle East.

Venice and Genoa also traded Armenians, Circassians and other Christians as slaves. Really it was a Mediterranean slave network.

 

[wcv215]

The idea that African slaves were immune to tropical diseases is racist garbage. They died in numbers just as massive as the Europeans, but the slave masters didn’t care. Europeans were used as effective slaves (ie the indentured servants), but there were far stricter rules regarding these people, and as life expectancy increased it became less economically profitable to exploit people who would be free in a few years. Slaves didn’t have that out.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

The idea that African slaves were immune to tropical diseases is racist garbage. They died in numbers just as massive as the Europeans, but the slave masters didn’t care. Europeans were used as effective slaves (ie the indentured servants), but there were far stricter rules regarding these people, and as life expectancy increased it became less economically profitable to exploit people who would be free in a few years. Slaves didn’t have that out.

Many Africans had at least partial exposure to malaria and yellow fever, which did make a difference in raw numbers but it was mostly racism, yes.

 

[Sol Zagato]

The idea that African slaves were immune to tropical diseases is racist garbage.

That's a strawman AND misinformation in one sentence.

Sickle cell disease - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Sickle cell disease occurs more commonly among people whose ancestors lived in tropical and subtropical sub-Saharan regions where malaria is or was common. Where malaria is common, carrying a single sickle cell allele (trait) confers a heterozygote advantage; humans with one of the two alleles of sickle cell disease show less severe symptoms when infected with malaria.

The idea was that they died at lower rates, not that they were immune. Which was true (the dying at lower rates). Outside of sugar plantations, (mistreated!) African slaves had a natural rate of increase higher than their masters, because they were dying less. I would venture given the same treatment, Euros would die even faster than Africans on sugar plantations.

Besides not having cash crops amenable to plantation organization, African slaves weren't used in colder areas because the differential survival rates reversed.

But yes, another big reason is that it was profitable to make sugar plantations into death holes, and financially and psychologically easier to feed in Africans than Europeans.

 

[Rafael stahl]

Ok ok, fine I surrender