European Settler colonies in parts of Asia

[Metaverse]

How feasible are European Settler colonies established by the Colonial Empires in the sparsely populated regions of Asia?

For example, British ruled India, which is a heavily populated region, in the mainland. Could they annex Afghanistan, for example and establish thriving settler colonies like in Australia, in those regions that are sparsely populated, like the Afghanistan and Western/Northwestern parts of then India and now Pakistan? Eventually, some could then be established in the Mainland Undivided India, too, without harming the areas settled already by the natives. Could this happen in an alternate scenario?

 

[Thon Taddeo]

Maybe the Dutch defeat Koxinga and manage to conquer all of Taiwan. By 2019, the majority of the population is mixed European/Aboriginal, but there is a European minority.

 

[NiGHTS]

Maybe the Dutch defeat Koxinga and manage to conquer all of Taiwan. By 2019, the majority of the population is mixed European/Aboriginal, but there is a European minority.

You'd have better luck with the Spanish doing that as based on Indonesia and the Philippines, the Dutch really didn't like intermarrying with the natives and held a strict point of keeping the natives down, while the Spanish were more encouraging of intermarriage, in order to make the probability of rebellion much lower. After all, the Spanish did have a foothold in Taiwan, at least for a while.

Also, OP you should use the search function, as there are four in-depth threads of this type already.
AHC: Make a European/East Asian hybrid culture/people. | Alternate History Discussion
AHC: European settler state in Asia | Alternate History Discussion
AHC/WI: European Settlers Flock To European Colonies In Asia | Alternate History Discussion
AHC: European Region in Asia | Alternate History Discussion

 

[Metaverse]

I actually meant to focus on the more sparsely populated regions in Asia and hence I took the example of Afghanistan and Northwest frontier of Undivided India.

 

[NiGHTS]

I actually meant to focus on the more sparsely populated regions in Asia and hence I took the example of Afghanistan and Northwest frontier of Undivided India.

The thing is, is that the reason those places are sparsely populated is because very few actually want to live there. Those areas are usually barren or desert-like and there not really a tempting place to go to compared to the Americas, Africa, Australasia, etc. And in regards to Afghanistan itself, neither Russia or Britain would want to settle that area because it acts as a nice buffer between their empires and for any one power to expand in any form to that area would be to invite the rage of the other. And even Australia, which received large amounts of European immigration, is still sparsely populated because so much of it is just not that good for living in a sedentary-style mode of living.

 

[Metaverse]

Hmm. I see.

Afghanistan and NWF Undivided India do actually have good water resources which, if utilized with good planning and management, would help in supporting good number of Settler colonies in those regions. There are tons of Mountain fed rivers in Afghanistan and coming to the other drier parts in NWF India, these too have good Mountain fed rivers that could be used well for irrigating and supplying settler colonies built there, with well engineered Reservoirs and Canals laid out along these rivers. Different from the case of Australia. A lot different, I would say.

Coming to the buffer state, why would that matter? Russia wanted to expand into Afghanistan only later and why a British settlement of Afghanistan wouldn't be prevented by the Russian Empire if you offer them good trade and transport agreements along with a share of land.

 

[Magnum]

Hokkaido

 

[new statesman]

If you ignore the Russian empire.!! Coughing Siberia!

Then pehaps a heavy migration of Spanish to the Philippines. Or spanish then dutch controlled Taiwan. And definitely an anglo dutch celon. Not a majority but a large minority.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Tajikistan in 1989 was almost 8% Russian (and Central Asian birth rates in the late Soviet period were higher than Russian birth rates) so that has to count for something.

Hmm. I see.

Afghanistan and NWF Undivided India do actually have good water resources which, if utilized with good planning and management, would help in supporting good number of Settler colonies in those regions. There are tons of Mountain fed rivers in Afghanistan and coming to the other drier parts in NWF India, these too have good Mountain fed rivers that could be used well for irrigating and supplying settler colonies built there, with well engineered Reservoirs and Canals laid out along these rivers. Different from the case of Australia. A lot different, I would say.

Coming to the buffer state, why would that matter? Russia wanted to expand into Afghanistan only later and why a British settlement of Afghanistan wouldn't be prevented by the Russian Empire if you offer them good trade and transport agreements along with a share of land.

It's also very remote from Europe and full of extremely hostile native tribes who were much better armed, organized, and numerous than any Australian Aboriginal or American Indian group in the 19th century. They gave the British a headache numerous times. There's basically no reason to subdue the place and send white settlers when the British can easily get enough of what they want out of it while keeping it peaceful and the white settlers have much better land in Australia and Canada to go to.

 

[Bookmark1995]

What determined the ability of a territory to be settled were these things:

1. Climate.

2. Technology.

3. Medicine.

4. Geography.

There is a reason why the Sunbelt only started growing recently: the invention of the air-conditioner.

In the 19th century, only the hardiest souls would be willing to live in a desert. The development of air conditioning suddenly turned desert into prime real-estate.

In Kenya, much of the land wasn't useful for colonization, except for the White Highlands because the climate was suitable for Europeans more used for temperate weather. That's why Zionists balked at settling in Kenya.

 

[Metaverse]

It's also very remote from Europe and full of extremely hostile native tribes who were much better armed, organized, and numerous than any Australian Aboriginal or American Indian group in the 19th century. They gave the British a headache numerous times. There's basically no reason to subdue the place and send white settlers when the British can easily get enough of what they want out of it while keeping it peaceful and the white settlers have much better land in Australia and Canada to go to.

Remote from Europe but it's very strategic. It provides connection from India to the ME, Eastern Europe(through Russia and to Russia, too) and as I said, has rich natural resources and could provide the British and the West a good base in Asia in the future. A 50%+ Westerner majority state formed out of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India(exploiting all the sparsely populated land) could yield an excellent ally in the future and also a strong and a stable rich colony.

The Pashtuns were hostile and warlike but they could be negotiated with after being subdued. And only few parts of Afghanistan are densely populated. What do you say?

 

[Arkenfolm]

Remote from Europe but it's very strategic. It provides connection from India to the ME, Eastern Europe(through Russia and to Russia, too) and as I said, has rich natural resources and could provide the British and the West a good base in Asia in the future. A 50%+ Westerner majority state formed out of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India(exploiting all the sparsely populated land) could yield an excellent ally in the future and also a strong and a stable rich colony.

They already had what they needed out of it though. And it isn't like an empire which controls 25% of the world's land area, is the undisputed world naval power with control over Suez and Egypt and the Horn of Africa and a ton of other key straits, and controls countries rich in natural resources like Canada, South Africa, and Australia is really hurting for natural resources. Most of Afghanistan's resources were not developed then and still aren't (not too sure what it exported in the 19th century and if it was critical for its neighbors). So that just leaves a settler colony as the motive, in which there is none because why piss off the Pashtuns and why would anyone want to settle there and not the White Dominions? It isn't even that great a place to make money for a British expat compared to the US or Latin America.

The Pashtuns were hostile and warlike but they could be negotiated with after being subdued. And only few parts of Afghanistan are densely populated. What do you say?

It's the cost of subduing them that's the problem. And negotiating with Afghan tribes just means another group rises up against you, ask the USSR or the US.

 

[Metaverse]

It's the cost of subduing them that's the problem. And negotiating with Afghan tribes just means another group rises up against you, ask the USSR or the US.

You got this spot on! I agree. A vary major aspect of late 20th and 21st Century has been related with subduing the Afghans.

But what do you mean by "another group" here? Do you mean others in Afghanistan like Nuristanis and Tajiks? Or other people in the Undivided India or an another Empire or a power?