Black majority state in Europe

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=312333

I was reading the thread on this topic, from about two years ago. it was really interesting. So I added this post (and then was advised to start a new thread):

Suppose the sub-Saharan Africans traveled north, conquered somewhere in Europe, ruling as a minority elite (like, e.g., the Vikings in various places). Then, some time later--50 years? 100? 150?--there is a mostly successful rebellion against them. (Maybe similar to the Reconquista, but sooner and happening faster.) Not enough time has passed for them to be mestizoed.

Instead of packing up and returning to Africa, they form a garrison state in the mountains, or maybe an island or part of a coastal region, concentrated in a fairly small area, outnumbering the non-African locals.

Another possible factor: What if, before they lose control of the larger territory, something happens to make them doubt the loyalty of the non-African part of their armed forces? (Like a rebellion, or coup attempt or something--even if it's only some of them doing it.) Then the Africans could encourage more people from their tribe/original nation to migrate to Europe--maybe offer good pay, land/mansions, honors, perks like that. So when they lose the rebellion, there's more Africans to form the garrison state.
 
Maybe have the Venetians get in on the whole black slavery bug going around in the 16th century start importing slaves en masse to Crete to grow sugar?
 
As far as I can tell there has only ever been one sub saharan empire to reach the med and europe, and that's the kushite's or the 25th dynasty of egypt who were black sub saharan africans who ruled egypt from the sudan and extended their power into the holy land and also possibly cyprus before being beaten back by the assyrians.

A longer lasting 25th dynasty could perhaps see nubian/kushite rulers in the greek islands, crete, cyprus etc. and thus garrison sub saharan citystates in the same manner as carthage or cyrene.

The other obvious route is the sub saharans taking control of a north african state, whether through conquest or a zanj rebellion and working up from there. In the 1600s Morocco started relying on black soldiers and slaves from the sahel, the famed black guard. If you pushed morocco into further anarchy you could see another mamluk sultanate with them taking control of morocco and ruling it from mali.

And then Moroccan empires have conquered parts of southern europe before. A different, less effective reconquista with muslim states still kicking about and this malian empire might be able to get a foothold in say the baelerics, sicily, sardinia or iberia proper.

Then like you say you get the push back, rebellions, loss of territory, the shipment of new garrisons and families up th atlantic from senegal. And again black majority garrison states controlling small areas of in the med islands.
 
Last edited:

ben0628

Banned
Does the Azores count as part of Europe? If so, have the Portuguese import as many slaves as possible here, and after slavery is abolished, let the Africans remain and become the majority population. Then try to get them to become a fully independent nation instead of just an autonomous region.
 
Lichtenstein starts importing african slaves on a massive scale for farmwork. Over time, Africans start to outnumber whites and by the time slavery is outlawed whites are a distinct minority in Lichtenstein.
 
Wouldn't Sicily be the best bet if the Norman/Byzantine invasion in early 9th century fails to capture it from the Moors. (Side note in 1066 OTL the Normans (different ones of cause) conquered both England & Sicily, the later was considered the prize)
 
Wouldn't Sicily be the best bet if the Norman/Byzantine invasion in early 9th century fails to capture it from the Moors. (Side note in 1066 OTL the Normans (different ones of cause) conquered both England & Sicily, the later was considered the prize)

Moors aren't black sub saharans.

Getting north african majority states in europe is a lot easier.
 
As far as I can tell there has only ever been one sub saharan empire to reach the med and europe, and that's the kushite's or the 25th dynasty of europe who were black sub saharan africans who ruled europe from the sudan and extended their power into the holy land and also possibly cyprus before being beaten back by the assyrians.

A longer lasting 25th dynasty could perhaps see nubian/kushite rulers in the greek islands, crete, cyprus etc. and thus garrison sub saharan citystates in the same manner as carthage or cyrene.

The other obvious route is the sub saharans taking control of a north african state, whether through conquest or a zanj rebellion and working up from there. In the 1600s Morocco started relying on black soldiers and slaves from the sahel, the famed black guard. If you pushed morocco into further anarchy you could see another mamluk sultanate with them taking control of morocco and ruling it from mali.

And then Moroccan empires have conquered parts of southern europe before. A different, less effective reconquista with muslim states still kicking about and this malian empire might be able to get a foothold in say the baelerics, sicily, sardinia or iberia proper.

Then like you say you get the push back, rebellions, loss of territory, the shipment of new garrisons and families up th atlantic from senegal. And again black majority garrison states controlling small areas of in the med islands.

I don't doubt a sub-Saharan African state could do the reverse of what the Moroccans did in their conquest of Timbuktu, even if they'd be at a huge disadvantage. After all, the Moroccans won because they had far more access to modern technology compared to the Songhai who had to rely on the more distant trade routes.

But that ignores their control became nominal in Timbuktu pretty fast, and I think that that would've happened regardless based on the difficulties of holding onto land on the other side of the Sahara. If the Moroccans had to worry about the successor states of the Songhai popping up in that era, than this hypothetical West African kingdom would need to worry about North African states seeking to take advantage of Morocco's misfortune, and possibly Iberian interests in Morocco.

Your point about the Balearics is interesting, and might actually make a majority black state in Europe. Maybe wank a Moroccan state in the early Reconquista era and get trade with Sub-Saharan Africa increased earlier to get their slaves? I'm not sure how you'd do the latter, aside from earlier proliferation of the camel into Africa (which will make huge butterflies on both sides of the Sahara). There was apparently a taifa in that era ran by Slavic slaves, so that probably would mean that demand for African slaves was lower than in the 1600s because there were easier sources to get them from.

What about Nubians moving northwards, then into Greece ?

How so? They'd end up mixing with every group along the way. These Nubian speaking *Greeks probably wouldn't be much darker-skinned than a modern-day Greek or Turk within a few centuries, although maybe with different facial features based on the more recent sub-Saharan African heritage.
 
There's no real reason for any European state to build slave plantations in the Mediterranean. The reason is that there already were many peasants at subsistence living standards.

Of note, Europeans were buying African slaves even before Columbus. Portugal bought slaves beginning in the late 15c, and by 1500, Lisbon was 10% black. Once Spain got into the game, there was slavery in Spain, too, entering the country through Seville. However, there was no real demand for slaves. The fields already had peasants on them, so there was no profit to be made in slave plantations. Slaves in Iberia were typically house slaves - owners liked showing off their wealth by having exotic-looking people in their household - and manumission rates were high. See http://usslave.blogspot.com/2012/11/slaves-in-16th-century-seville.html for a history of slavery within Spain.

In particular, the reason American-style slavery was practiced in the Americas but not in Europe is not moral or political. It's entirely material and economic: Europe had a large preexisting peasant class, the Americas were underpopulated. In similar vein, the European colonial powers that presided over slave plantations in the Americas did no such thing in their Asian colonies. These are not easy to butterfly away with some carefully-chosen POD.
 
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=312333

I was reading the thread on this topic, from about two years ago. it was really interesting. So I added this post (and then was advised to start a new thread):

Maybe a feudal Circassian Ottoman Bey from Egypt-Sudan brings along his subjects who settle there permanently. In Greece there is today still a village with people with suggested Sudanese ancestry.
 
Are you suggesting that somehow, the black population of a European country is going to become the majority?

By 2150 is the often quoted figure by far right nationalists.

Most european countries have seen the percentage of blacks rise over the last 30 years.

It's about 3% in France and the UK and it was about 2% 10 years ago in both.

Keep up that growth rate of doubling as a percentage in just twenty years and blacks will become the majority before the 22nd century.

Of course keep up the growth rate of a puppy and dogs will be the size of cities so..
 
Top