How would technological progression be affected if European colonialism never happened?

One question I've asked myself recently is How would the progression of science and technology be affected globally without European colonialism?

Would technology progress slower then it did in OTL, or would the lack of colonialism allow for native cultures to progress faster scientifically and technologically?

How would Europe be affected by the absence of resources they gained from colonialism in the Americas like corn, potato's, and precious metals like gold and silver?

Would the Industrial Revolution ever happen?

I don't have any specific POD in mind for the scenario so go buckwild with your ideas, I would love to read the unique PODs you guys can come up with.

But one thing I'd like to lay out is that I'm not asking for any PODs like The Years of Rice and Salt, I'm not asking for the absolute destruction of Europe, I still want Europe to exist in a meaningful way, just that they never colonize the world.
 
One question I've asked myself recently is How would the progression of science and technology be affected globally without European colonialism?

Would technology progress slower then it did in OTL, or would the lack of colonialism allow for native cultures to progress faster scientifically and technologically?

How would Europe be affected by the absence of resources they gained from colonialism in the Americas like corn, potato's, and precious metals like gold and silver?

Would the Industrial Revolution ever happen?

I don't have any specific POD in mind for the scenario so go buckwild with your ideas, I would love to read the unique PODs you guys can come up with.

But one thing I'd like to lay out is that I'm not asking for any PODs like The Years of Rice and Salt, I'm not asking for the absolute destruction of Europe, I still want Europe to exist in a meaningful way, just that they never colonize the world.
According to the The Oriental Institute Youtube lecture "Why the West Rules -- For Now", China was developing at a fast rate up until the 19th century. Now that makes you question how did it get surpassed by Europe then? Well Europe was developing at exponential speed compared to China's already fast rate of development. China arguably had the world's greatest economy from ~700-1700 CE. European dominance of the world's economy (discounting Ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, and Egypt) has only been 300 years in comparison, ending in 2000 when a resurgent China has arguably reached an equilibrium with Europe and America in terms of economic industrial output).

According to the Gresham College Youtube lecture "Why Did Europe’s Economies Diverge from Asia?" mentioned that it was Europe's protection of its local wool industries that made incentives for them to technologically progress above Asia. I guess this means that protecting industry was more essential than government supremacy over industry (something in which China failed to get over, although as I said above, China was developing at a fast rate while Europe developed at an exponential rate, by 1700).

With the importance of guns (an argument of Jared Diamond's), while guns allowed Europe to take over the Americas, Africa, Australia, and eventually Asia, it was arguably because of Europe's forever wars between each other that caused each major European power to compete in an arms race to see who can develop the best militaries to outcompete one another. China was united for much of its history and therefore did not meet this same inter-regional competition (it was the undisputed Asian economic and military power for a millennia after all). I would therefore say that Europe was technologically superior than China by 1400, well before it's conquest of the Americas and gunpower technology being the undisputedly dominant weaponry for European armies.

P.S. You do also see a high level of inter-regional competition elsewhere, primary example being that of 18th century Mainland and Maritime Southeast Asia. Independent Malay sultanates were able to develop superior muskets to the Europeans at some points, while the conflict between Burma and Siam in the late 1700s effectively propelled an economically-based, no military Siam in 1750 into the greatest regional military power in 1800, both Siam and Burma developing their own unique gunpowder tactics adapted from the Europeans (Victor Lieberman).

I've also heard from a Thersites the Historian video that the New Zealand Maori were very efficient in adapting British muskets and tactics in fighting against the British in the Musket Wars.
 
Last edited:
Top