PC: Slave trade spreads to Colonial SE Asia

Tell me if this comes off as offensive, I'll ask a mod to take this down.

Is it plausible in the 16th-17th centuries for Spain, Portugal, or any of the colonizers in Asia to bring slavery there or trade Asian slaves? What could have been the possible outcomes or consequences?
 
Well, it did existed : Western Indies and Dutch plantations used Indian slaves or half-slaves (indentured workers) up to the XIXth century.
Having it on a larger scale however, encounter some issues.

It's a bit too far from their productive cores to be really interesting on a much larger scale : Africa is just right there after all, and Indian Ocean slave trade was importantly under Arabo-Indian dominance.

That said Mughal Empire's existence prevented much "exportation" as long it dominated the peninsula : making it fragmenting earlier, and you may have a more important source of slaves and quasi-slaves for Americas meaning possibly a more important Hindu population in Caribbeans (as it exists in Guyana and Suriname)
 
Eh, true slavery was largely inconsequential in China and was declining throughout the late Imperial period as well as being banned from time to time with varying effects. It's not comparable to African slavery, either in Africa or its incarnation in the Americas.
Medieval Korea was probably the only true slave society in East Asia, and even that's arguable. Even in Korea the emancipation of all government-held slaves occurred by the first decade of the 19th century.
 
Well, slavery already existed in numerous Southeast Asian societies since the precolonial era.

In pre-colonial Philippines for example, most especially in the Tagalog-speaking region, there were two kinds of slaves: aliping namamahay and aliping sagigilid. However, the definition of "alipin" in the pre-colonial Philippine society was very different from what was perceived in the West.
 
Last edited:
the arab slave trade was very big in eastern-africa for more than 2 millennia, and cause untold suffering.
could it be plausible they start raiding eastwards also?
Well, it did existed : Western Indies and Dutch plantations used Indian slaves or half-slaves (indentured workers) up to the XIXth century.
Having it on a larger scale however, encounter some issues.

It's a bit too far from their productive cores to be really interesting on a much larger scale : Africa is just right there after all, and Indian Ocean slave trade was importantly under Arabo-Indian dominance.

with regards to the dutch there was the big issue of west-india company and the huge and influential VOC (dutch east-india company), the WIC was only allowed to trade in the americas and west-africa,and engaged in the standard slave trade (although it was only 10% of their actual trade). the VOC on the other hand had one or 2 experiments with slave plantations, but abandoned them. the slavery in the east-indies was more the domestic servant style slavery (like during roman times), plus was limited due to the VOC using all the roman laws with regards to protection of slaves plus some extra (slaves could only be sold on to christians, a slave from VOC territory setting foot in the netherlands would automatically become free etc), these laws pretty much restricted the trade.
And since the VOC was all about the money, i guess they figured extensive slavetrade wasn't worth the hassle.

the indian indentured workers were post WIC (19th century). and the majority only arrived in last 25 years of the 19th century, due to a contract with the british government. don't think this can be scaled up.
 
Last edited:
Huh?


No, it's not plausible. East of Arabia is Persia and India, which is in an extremely different predicament from East Africa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

it is called arab slave trade now, but it was also already happening there in roman and egyptian times (smaller scale though)
i was trying to indicate that this has a very long history in this region

could you tell why this is so different?
coastal trade in that area was already happening, the arabs/ottomans raided as far west/north as the dutch and british coast, if that is possible then i do not think it is impossible for them to raid east all the way to india from the port of aden for example
 
Last edited:
And since the VOC was all about the money, i guess they figured extensive slavetrade wasn't worth the hassle.
Part of the lesser interest, tough, was the presence of the Mughal Empire and the huge obstacle it represented to a cheap and important slave trade, when it fractured IOTL, it gave room to a more significant role of indian slavery and quasi-slavery.

An earlier fractured India would certainly benefit not only Arabo-Indian slave trade, but also the booming colonial plantation economy in S-E Asia.

the indian indentured workers were post WIC (19th century). and the majority only arrived in last 25 years of the 19th century, due to a contract with the british government. don't think this can be scaled up.
Which is why I mentioned and slavery and half-slavery : we do have knowledge about indian slaves and quasi-slaves being deported in West Indies since the XVIIth century, even if geopolitically and geoeconimial situations didn't made it as noticable as western African slavery.
 
could you tell why this is so different?
coastal trade in that area was already happening, the arabs/ottomans raided as far west/north as the dutch and british coast, if that is possible then i do not think it is impossible for them to raid east all the way to india from the port of aden for example
Because India and Persia are occupied by powerful (and later Muslim) states unlike non-lacurine inland East Africa, and because the dynamics of the Indo-Arabian trade and the Arabo-African trade are very different.
 
Part of the lesser interest, tough, was the presence of the Mughal Empire and the huge obstacle it represented to a cheap and important slave trade, when it fractured IOTL, it gave room to a more significant role of indian slavery and quasi-slavery.

An earlier fractured India would certainly benefit not only Arabo-Indian slave trade, but also the booming colonial plantation economy in S-E Asia.

good suggestion, no doubt such a fractioned india would atract all kinds of vultures.

as on cost, i think the WIC is the best illustration, even though they were 'big' on slavery, it only made 10% of their profit, most profit coming from trade in precious metals (80%).
the VOC used a corvee type system or taxation, they seemed to prefer the indirect way, being usually a middleman that got a cut from what others did in the areas they controlled.
 
Top