European expansion of a non-colonial nature?

Read this in another thread, from Abdul Hadi Pasha:https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=190343&page=3

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:
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?

It didn't make it inevitable by any means - what made it inevitable was the attitude that the "colonies" were there for the good of the "real" part of the state.

If you want, for instance, the British Empire to be run as a "normal" empire, you need to have the colonists treated as equal with the subjects of the home islands, and for the conquered subjects to have a similar status.

This requires a change of attitudes, though. Taking the lands for their resources is one thing - every empire of either sort does that - but its what you do once you've done that makes the difference.

Where is the post you're responding to from (link requested)?
 
It didn't make it inevitable by any means - what made it inevitable was the attitude that the "colonies" were there for the good of the "real" part of the state.

If you want, for instance, the British Empire to be run as a "normal" empire, you need to have the colonists treated as equal with the subjects of the home islands, and for the conquered subjects to have a similar status.

This requires a change of attitudes, though.

Well racism didn't exist until some time after the colonial era got started, so it's not so much changing attitudes as preventing new ones from emerging.

Here's an idea-having the union of Castile and Aragon pick up Portugal as well, then moving South and conquering Morocco. Then when the Iberian merchants start charting the African coast, these new coastal territories just get hefted on an expansion of their Southern frontier rather then holding colonial status- and they also conquer Songhai in pursuit of the (exaggerated) wealth of Mali. So we have much of West Africa holding the same status as the Iberian territories in the Hapsburg monarchy -which means you see alot inquisition and forced conversion to Christianity, but probably substantial undermining of racism.
 
Well racism didn't exist until some time after the colonial era got started, so it's not so much changing attitudes as preventing new ones from emerging.

I should have been clearer - change from OTL. Racism is only part of the problem - see the so-called colonies that became the United States.

Here's an idea-having the union of Castile and Aragon pick up Portugal as well, then moving South and conquering Morocco. Then when the Iberian merchants start charting the African coast, these new coastal territories just get hefted on an expansion of their Southern frontier rather then holding inferior status- and they also conquer Songhai in pursuit of the (exaggerated) wealth of Mali. So we have much of West Africa holding the same status as the Iberian territories in the Hapsburg monarchy -which means you see alot inquisition and forced conversion to Christianity, but probably substantial undermining of racism.

Not sure if this would lead there - I mean, it could, but I'm not sure that the first leads to the second.
 
I should have been clearer - change from OTL. Racism is only part of the problem - see the so-called colonies that became the United States.



Not sure if this would lead there - I mean, it could, but I'm not sure that the first leads to the second.
I'm just thinking the Iberians and the Catholic Church will be less willing to proclaim blacks inferior if you have Hispanicized Catholicized territories in West Africa holding kingdom status and with a substantial co-opted African elite.

As for the attitude even towards white colonies such as the United States, this is true enough. I don't know how yo uovercome that.
 
I'm just thinking the Iberians and the Catholic Church will be less willing to proclaim blacks inferior if you have Hispanicized Catholicized territories in West Africa holding kingdom status and with a substantial co-opted African elite.

True. But Indians (either sort) may still be branded inferior.

As for the attitude even towards white colonies such as the United States, this is true enough. I don't know how yo uovercome that.

Probably by having the idea that the colonists are Englishmen too. How that gets started I'm not sure, but somehow the idea had to occur to people that they weren't somehow, so...
 
Well racism didn't exist until some time after the colonial era got started, so it's not so much changing attitudes as preventing new ones from emerging.

Here's an idea-having the union of Castile and Aragon pick up Portugal as well, then moving South and conquering Morocco. Then when the Iberian merchants start charting the African coast, these new coastal territories just get hefted on an expansion of their Southern frontier rather then holding colonial status- and they also conquer Songhai in pursuit of the (exaggerated) wealth of Mali. So we have much of West Africa holding the same status as the Iberian territories in the Hapsburg monarchy -which means you see alot inquisition and forced conversion to Christianity, but probably substantial undermining of racism.
You gave me an idea for my Lancastrian TL..hehehehehe.

True. But Indians (either sort) may still be branded inferior.
yep.
 
Top