How Inveitable is European Imperialism?

[Major Crimson]

I'm finally working on a TL thats been on the backburner for like 2 years and one thing I'd like to explore is just how set in stone European imperialism is. I'm of the mindset that this sort of thing could be butterflied considerably later than one might expect.

The TL diverges in the mid-1680s and whilst Imperialism in the Americas is certain by this point I wonder about Africa, Asia and Oceania.

Until the 18th century, imperialism in Asia and Africa tended to manifest as the occupation and annexation of just a few costal cities or regions, sometimes termed "factories" rather than the wholesale annexation of land.

I wonder could this trend continue? Instead of a British Empire annexing huge swathes of Africa and Asia, would we see what are ffectively China-style concession cities on a global scale? Perhaps independent native nations remain in possession of most of the land, with European-owned (perhaps leased) cities along the coasts they use to access resources and enable global trade networks?

More broadly, can we butterfly the culture of imperialism? It's relatively well established that many colonies, particularly in Africa, were an economic burden rather than a boon. If no culture of imperial prestige rises, will Europe bother annexing large swathes of land?

 

[TheMathGuy]

If you butterfly quinine, then the vast majority of Africa and tropical Asia remains broadly independent, with nothing more than trading posts, refueling stations, and exclusive trade rights with particular European powers.

 

[Analytical Engine]

If the Indian states remain stable, sure. Probably requires either a very successful Mughal Empire, or a less ambitious one.

As for Africa, European control could be confined to the coasts in east and west Africa. North Africa could still be subject to anti-Barbary Pirate attacks, though.

 

[JSchafer]

No it was inevitable if things follow history. Unless the Asian and Africa states get a technological and cultural jump they’re doomed

 

[poirot]

I think the Persian Empire is a neglected force. In antiquity it basically fought the Romans to a standstill. But what if their invasion of Greece had been successful? It might have spawned a long-lasting control of south-eastern Europe.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I'm finally working on a TL thats been on the backburner for like 2 years and one thing I'd like to explore is just how set in stone European imperialism is. I'm of the mindset that this sort of thing could be butterflied considerably later than one might expect.

The TL diverges in the mid-1680s and whilst Imperialism in the Americas is certain by this point I wonder about Africa, Asia and Oceania.

Until the 18th century, imperialism in Asia and Africa tended to manifest as the occupation and annexation of just a few costal cities or regions, sometimes termed "factories" rather than the wholesale annexation of land.

I wonder could this trend continue? Instead of a British Empire annexing huge swathes of Africa and Asia, would we see what are ffectively China-style concession cities on a global scale? Perhaps independent native nations remain in possession of most of the land, with European-owned (perhaps leased) cities along the coasts they use to access resources and enable global trade networks?

More broadly, can we butterfly the culture of imperialism? It's relatively well established that many colonies, particularly in Africa, were an economic burden rather than a boon. If no culture of imperial prestige rises, will Europe bother annexing large swathes of land?

I reckon it would be doable, even with a POD as late as the 1870s.

Ironically, this may end up making the European empires last until the present day, since it's generally easier to assimilate and control small islands or city-states (cf. Hong Kong, Ceuta and Melilla, Gibraltar, the Falklands...) than country-sized colonies.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I think the Persian Empire is a neglected force. In antiquity it basically fought the Romans to a standstill. But what if their invasion of Greece had been successful? It might have spawned a long-lasting control of south-eastern Europe.

Wrong thread? Though admittedly, a Persian conquest of Europe might well end up butterflying away European colonialism...

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

No it was inevitable if things follow history. Unless the Asian and Africa states get a technological and cultural jump they’re doomed

A nice casual reminder goes here that for the longest time in human history it was the Europeans who were the mere primitives.

 

[JSchafer]

A nice casual reminder goes here that for the longest time in human history it was the Europeans who were the mere primitives.

Meh. Even so that’s no response at all. Ignoring the falsity of it as well

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

Meh. Even so that’s no response at all. Ignoring the falsity of it as well

It certainly is, in 1492 when Europe was "discovering" the New World the center of the world in terms of progress and technological development was not Europe. No matter how much Eurocentrists which it were so.

 

[poirot]

Wrong thread? Though admittedly, a Persian conquest of Europe might well end up butterflying away European colonialism...

Yes, that's what I meant. If parts of Europe had been colonised it might have made European imperialism more difficult!

 

[Fabius Maximus]

It certainly is, in 1492 when Europe was "discovering" the New World the center of the world in terms of progress and technological development was not Europe. No matter how much Eurocentrists which it were so.

It wasn't the centre of the world, but it wasn't primitive, either.

 

[Rattigan]

A POD as late as the 1860s strikes me as tricky because by that point you're basically looking at the European powers choosing not to do something they were technologically capable doing. My first thought would be a more successful Maratha/Mughal empire managing to confine European control to Bengal, Bombay and Pondicherry in the 18th/19th century, with whatever knock-on effects that has.

My other thought would be to find some way to prevent the European technological advantage from developing by the 19th century. Butterflying away the ending of Zheng He's explorations would be how I'd go about it.

 

[JSchafer]

It certainly is, in 1492 when Europe was "discovering" the New World the center of the world in terms of progress and technological development was not Europe. No matter how much Eurocentrists which it were so.

It doesn’t have to be. Though Italy and renesaince Europe certainly were the world center when it came to development and use of new technologies. China meanwhile stood where it was forever.

 

[HeX]

It doesn’t have to be. Though Italy and renesaince Europe certainly were the world center when it came to development and use of new technologies. China meanwhile stood where it was forever.

That... is without a doubt one of the most Eurocentric things I've ever heard, and also one of the least informed. Not only was Europe a bunch of squabbling kingdoms grasping at the faint memory of the Roman Empire, it most definitely wasn't the "center of the world" before the modern Age of Empires. I'd argue the Muslim world was. After all, they were the people who not only invented most of modern mathematics (there's a reason the numeric system we use are called Arabic numerals, even if the Arabs borrowed them from India), but kept most of the great works of the Greeks and Romans of yore recorded and together. The Renaissance was largely caused by the Europeans accepting Muslim learning (kinda, a bit more complex than that, but in essence, yeah).

Meanwhile, China did not stand still for ever. I assume you're referring to Confucianism and its stifling of any sort of female equality (not to mention foot binding from the 900s to the 1900s), which, admittedly was a bit conservative even for its day. But then again, Christianity and Islam weren't all that better off. And the Chinese were not stagnant. They certainly couldn't "stay the same way forever"--then they'd just be a bunch of hunter-gatherers. Guess who invented paper? The Chinese. Guess who invented gunpowder? The Chinese. Guess who invented the compass, which all those Renaissance "explorers" used to travel to places no European had ever gone before, even if a lot of other people already had? The Chinese. Woodblock printing? Moveable type printing? Paper money? The rudder? The keel? The crossbow? Soccer? The kite? The seismometer? Goddamn toilet paper?

All China.

Read some of this, it may change your worldview.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

That... is without a doubt one of the most Eurocentric things I've ever heard, and also one of the least informed. Not only was Europe a bunch of squabbling kingdoms grasping at the faint memory of the Roman Empire, it most definitely wasn't the "center of the world" before the modern Age of Empires. I'd argue the Muslim world was. After all, they were the people who not only invented most of modern mathematics (there's a reason the numeric system we use are called Arabic numerals, even if the Arabs borrowed them from India), but kept most of the great works of the Greeks and Romans of yore recorded and together. The Renaissance was largely caused by the Europeans accepting Muslim learning (kinda, a bit more complex than that, but in essence, yeah).

The Muslim world was past its heyday by the 14th century. And the Renaissance had nothing to do with Muslim learning: it was primarily an artistic movement; intellectually speaking, the Renaissance didn't see much in the way of change, and what change there was, was usually in the wrong direction (you had a big revival of interest in witchcraft and magic during this period, for example).

 

[AltoRegnant]

I'd say that europe's vast overinvestment in gunpowder compared to the rest of the world and then not being able to trade with china/unwillingness to accept the ottoman tariffs rendered it pretty inevitable.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The Muslim world was past its heyday by the 14th century. And the Renaissance had nothing to do with Muslim learning: it was primarily an artistic movement; intellectually speaking, the Renaissance didn't see much in the way of change, and what change there was, was usually in the wrong direction (you had a big revival of interest in witchcraft and magic during this period, for example).

I should point out, I do agree that the "static China" thing is way overblown. Really I think that's modern (post-18th century) Europeans assuming that the rate of technological advancement in modern Europe is somehow normative, as opposed to the historical aberration it actually is. China was at least as innovative as Europe for most of history. Though I also think there's an unfortunate tendency in these discussions to try and boost the rest of the world by doing down Europe, and dismissing pre-modern Europe as a bunch of backwards savages. In reality, whilst medieval Europe wasn't the centre of the world like modern Europe would be, it was a technologically, artistically and intellectually innovative place, and by the High Middle Ages European civilisation could stand comparison with that of any other part of the world.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

Here's my thinking: Europe got lucky, big time.

Obviously the earlier the POD the less likely European imperialism gets. But not only were they able to exploit the wealth of the Americas after the Columbian Exchange ended in favor of Afro-Eurasia, the other areas of the world saw their hegemonic empires on the decline at the same time the New World was becoming less of an option, conveniently for Europe. And the Scramble for Africa was pretty much a victory lap for European imperialism at this point.

Even so, a few things changed and we don't have a dozen or so countries dividing up the world between them. Conquistadors run into less fortunate situations (Cortes ran into an empire whose neighbors hated them, Pizarro ran into an empire that took the brunt of a civil war caused or exacerbated by disease). A religious reformation that doesn't favor the merchants and burghers as much as OTL's. The Mughals declining right at the same time Britain needed to re-establish their empire. The Qing lacking strong rulers in a time when Europe turned their eyes greedily towards the Middle Kingdom.

And as for "but China couldn't innovate due to Confucianism", this is where I point out that people are more than their belief systems and that implying non-Europeans were held back by their religion and philosophy has rather unfortunate implications, no?

 

[JSchafer]

That... is without a doubt one of the most Eurocentric things I've ever heard, and also one of the least informed. Not only was Europe a bunch of squabbling kingdoms grasping at the faint memory of the Roman Empire, it most definitely wasn't the "center of the world" before the modern Age of Empires. I'd argue the Muslim world was. After all, they were the people who not only invented most of modern mathematics (there's a reason the numeric system we use are called Arabic numerals, even if the Arabs borrowed them from India), but kept most of the great works of the Greeks and Romans of yore recorded and together. The Renaissance was largely caused by the Europeans accepting Muslim learning (kinda, a bit more complex than that, but in essence, yeah).

Meanwhile, China did not stand still for ever. I assume you're referring to Confucianism and its stifling of any sort of female equality (not to mention foot binding from the 900s to the 1900s), which, admittedly was a bit conservative even for its day. But then again, Christianity and Islam weren't all that better off. And the Chinese were not stagnant. They certainly couldn't "stay the same way forever"--then they'd just be a bunch of hunter-gatherers. Guess who invented paper? The Chinese. Guess who invented gunpowder? The Chinese. Guess who invented the compass, which all those Renaissance "explorers" used to travel to places no European had ever gone before, even if a lot of other people already had? The Chinese. Woodblock printing? Moveable type printing? Paper money? The rudder? The keel? The crossbow? Soccer? The kite? The seismometer? Goddamn toilet paper?

All China.

Read some of this, it may change your worldview.

Since the fall of Baghdad Muslim world stagnated and was sidelined.


Sitting on your laurels gave China treaty ports, opium war, millions of death and national humiliation that is felt to this day. I mean whatever dude, think what you wish. Europeans just came out of the caves with imperialism swinging.