Caesar Australis
Banned
Read this in another thread, from Abdul Hadi Pasha:https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=190343&page=3
Got me thinking, could the European imperialism of the last few centuries have been based on "normal" imperial practices rather colonial/metropolist ones? Or did the massive geographic separation by sea make exploitation style imperialism inevitiable?
Also, my rants against imperialism are specifically targeted at colonial empires, not empires in general. A colonial empire conquers lands to exploit for the good of the metropole, i.e. the French Empire was built to benefit France, not the empire.
A "normal" empire is not. What was the metropole that the Ottoman Empire was built to benefit? Anatolia? The poorest part of the empire. The Turks? The least privileged people of the empire. It was a unified whole in which all parts and peoples were equal - at first all Muslims, and after the Hatt-ı Hümâyûn of 1839 all peoples of all faiths.
Likewise, the Habsburg Empire was not structured to especially benefit anyone, although the Dual Monarchy made Hungary a sub-empire that was the bad kind of imperialist.
Got me thinking, could the European imperialism of the last few centuries have been based on "normal" imperial practices rather colonial/metropolist ones? Or did the massive geographic separation by sea make exploitation style imperialism inevitiable?
Last edited: