Reverse colonization: Reasons to colonize Europe?

[alexmilman]

The line between colonizing and mere dominating gets blurred.

That's the point.

India was definitely a colony of the British Empire,

After it was a territory owned by a publicly held company.

since Indians were never even nominally represented at Westminster and were governed by the Raj acting under the Colonial Office and not the Home Office.

Well, none of the conquests of the Muscovite state (Great Princedom/Tsardom/Empire) was nominally represented anywhere until 1905 just due to the absence of any representative body. Does this mean that the Baltic Provinces and Ukraine had been Russian colonies?

Then, when the US had been expanding, does this approach mean that all the new territories which did not, yet, made it into the states were "American colonies" just because they were not represented in Congress? Should we call Puerto Rico a colony instead of "unincorporated territory"?

You can't convincingly extend a British-based model to the rest of the world. Absence of a "Colonial Office" is not a good criteria either because the colony can be ruled by viceroy or governor directly subordinated to the central government.

 

[EternalCynic]

Well, none of the conquests of the Muscovite state (Great Princedom/Tsardom/Empire) was nominally represented anywhere until 1905 just due to the absence of any representative body. Does this mean that the Baltic Provinces and Ukraine had been Russian colonies?

The key question: did the Tsar view the Ukraine and Estonia as an equal part of his realm as say Novgorod or Voronezh?

Then, when the US had been expanding, does this approach mean that all the new territories which did not, yet, made it into the states were "American colonies" just because they were not represented in Congress? Should we call Puerto Rico a colony instead of "unincorporated territory"?

Again it depends whether Washington viewed these territories as equally part of the US as say New Hampshire or Virginia. Puerto Rico could be considered a colony, since it is legally treated differently than Colorado or Florida, and Congress does unilaterally impose laws on it, that it cannot do to states.

Back to the thread's discussion: did the Sultan treat Serbia in an inferior way to say Syria?

 

[Aviennca's Pupil]

@alexmilman

"Resources" is a very vague word. One may consider slaves as a valuable resource and, anyway, government should mostly care about the taxes: state's control over the mineral resources is anything but an universal idea. In the case of the GH, approximately half of it territory (the Blue Horde) was in Europe and I'm not talking about the tributary states. The Mongols settled among the indigenous population and established their own administration. Why did they settle there? Because they were interested in the area's "resources": good pastures, a lot of fish, important trade routes passing through it, etc. Even in the case of the "colonies" (Russian princedoms), the natural and human resources were an important factor: you need stone and timber and a lot of skilled artisans to build the cities. Then, of course, interest in the "resources" is directly linked to the tribute/taxation: you need to know which valuables the area has to arrange for a proper taxation (most of which was not in coin).

You don't seem to directly disagree with me outside of the argument that slaves can be considered an exploitable resource which doesn't address the point that, outside of the Janissaires (which were taken for administrative purposes), slavery in the Balkans wasn't as prominent as it was in Africa.

Except that Eyalet of Rumeli was a first-level province (beylerbeylik or eyalet) of the Ottoman Empire encompassing most of the Balkans. It had its own capital, administrative subdivisions (sanjakbeys ) and governors appointed by the central government.

Excuse me but specifically which time period did the Ottoman Empire directly control the Eyalet of Rumeli? Furthermore, the Eyalet of Rumeli cannot be comparable to the entirety of the balkans and, given the knowledge we have of Ottoman administration, these governors were likely local rulers.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

Back to the thread's discussion: did the Sultan treat Serbia in an inferior way to say Syria?

That's an interesting comparison, as Syria is a predominantly Arab nation with some Kurds and Christians. The Sultan was Turk.

Serbia was a mainly Orthodox Christian country with a mostly south Slavic population. Neither of them have the same language or ethnicity as the sultan.

 

[Aviennca's Pupil]

@Byzantine fanatic

From my limited understanding of the Ottoman Empire, usually Christians were allowed to govern themselves with more valuable provinces being indirectly ruled by the Ottomans through backing a specific influential family. AFAIK the Ottomans were masters of preserving local rule and tying local rulers to the Ottoman administration.

 

[alexmilman]

The key question: did the Tsar view the Ukraine and Estonia as an equal part of his realm as say Novgorod or Voronezh?

Well, Estonia had been immediately incorporated into the Russian state and the same goes for the part of Ukraine that went under the direct jurisdiction of the central government. For a while Hetmanate part remained a formal vassal of the Russian Empire but during the reign of Catherine II it was fully incorporated into the Russian administrative structure. However, none of them had any representatives in the Russian "parliament" because there was none until 1905.

Again it depends whether Washington viewed these territories as equally part of the US as say New Hampshire or Virginia. Puerto Rico could be considered a colony, since it is legally treated differently than Colorado or Florida, and Congress does unilaterally impose laws on it, that it cannot do to states.

We are talking strictly about the proposed definition according to which as long as there is no representation in some kind of a central parliament the area is a colony. How it is "viewed" is irrelevant,

Back to the thread's discussion: did the Sultan treat Serbia in an inferior way to say Syria?

Irrelevant as long as it was covered by the general administrative structure of the Ottoman Empire. Which is covered by a 2nd "option" of proposed definition: colony is governed by a special "colonial office" of a central government.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

If we are speaking of goods, one can imagine a scenario wherein a nation seeks amber and establishes colonies in Europe to acquire amber, slaves, etc...

 

[alexmilman]

@alexmilman

You don't seem to directly disagree with me outside of the argument that slaves can be considered an exploitable resource which doesn't address the point that, outside of the Janissaires (which were taken for administrative purposes), slavery in the Balkans wasn't as prominent as it was in Africa.

I have no idea why are you getting fixated on the Janissary: they did not represent a significant portion of the slaves even initially and later they were not slaves at all. As for the slaves being a resource, I'm afraid that you are somewhat confused about what was said: they were a valuable resource not to use locally but to sell outside their native territory.

Excuse me but specifically which time period did the Ottoman Empire directly control the Eyalet of Rumeli?

From 1365 till 1867. Of course, an issue of a "direct control" is pretty much meaningless outside government's ability to appoint the governors and define administrative structure and subdivisions.

Furthermore, the Eyalet of Rumeli cannot be comparable to the entirety of the balkans and, given the knowledge we have of Ottoman administration, these governors were likely local rulers.

None of these objections makes a slightest sense as far as the definition is involved. Who said that it should be covering the whole Balkans? It is quite enough that it was covering considerable part of the region and ethnic origin of the administrators is absolutely irrelevant as long as they had been appointed by the central government.

 

[RGB]

Africa had slaves. (This is pre 1900 of course)

What has Europe to offer?

Slaves, same as OTL. Europe north of the Mediterranean (and Mediterranean Europe too) was extensively exploited and looted of its manpower from antiquity until the late 18th c., and many European states themselves arose around the control of export-oriented slave trade. For where those export markets were, you don't need to look further than the Greeks and Phoenicians, the Romans and their successors, the Caliphate and its successors especially in Spain, the North African states, the Mongols and their successors, and of course the Ottomans.

Other than that, silver, iron, tin, agricultural products like grain, flax, honey etc; furs, too, before fur animal were hunted to below commercial viability. Once the salt mines get going, salt and stockfish as well as preserved fruit could be prime trade goods for the medium range. Once distillation is discovered, wine-derived high-alcohol drinks could be a great export good. Once people learn to add sulphur and to use cork instead of cloth seals for pots and bottles, wine itself could travel very long distances.

Specialty luxuries could be included too: corals and sponges, which were mostly hunted in the Mediterranean itself, amber, northern ivory.

Slave plantation economies in Europe proper included sugar, rice, oranges and olives, exactly the same as those in Iraq, Egypt, and later the areas the Europeans themselves conquered.

 

[Aviennca's Pupil]

@alexmilman

I was fixated on the Janissaries because they are the only instance, to my knowledge, of wide-spread slavery of the populous of the Balkans. If there are any other instances of widespread slavery of Europeans outside of Janissaries and wives (of which weren't a large motivator or major resource for conquering and utilizing the Balkans due to the abundance of such resources else where) please inform me of them. Furthermore, it seems you agree with me on Janissaries given that I have stated that Janissaries weren't really slaves earlier. I would also like to know how large the slave market outside the Ottoman Empire was as I am curious.

I mean, "appointing governors" is the closest thing to direct control you can get with the Ottomans given the emphasis on delegation of power.

It does matter given the nature of Ottoman administration itself. Most Ottoman territories, prior to centralization, were near autonomous and the fact that respected and socially influential people within that territory's community were given governorship does not portray a sense of utter dominance over the Balkans that you are implying but one of negotiation and incentivization.

@RGB

On the topic of European slavery, could we see a sort of European Cuba arise or a major slave revolt like the Zanj Rebellion. I like to side with the slaves and always want to see them independent and free from their shackles.

Although, depending on the colonizer, I don't think we'll see plantations.

 

[RGB]

On the topic of European slavery, could we see a sort of European Cuba arise or a major slave revolt like the Zanj Rebellion. I like to side with the slaves and always want to see them independent and free from their shackles.

Although, depending on the colonizer, I don't think we'll see plantations.

I mean...yeah, I could potentially see rebellions in say Morocco or something, but OTL the European states simply ended slavery against their own people by conquering their neighbours or at least driving them out. Your scenario would depend on who does the colonization and when and from where and what other territory do they own.

 

[Aviennca's Pupil]

@RGB

Then you make sure that European states are in no position to conquer their neighbors. Africa certainly didn't drive out Europeans and this was the case with the Middle East as well.

As to your second statement, let's say that China or the Umayyad Caliphate (given that the conquest of Spain is the closest thing to an Islamic colonization effort in it's history) attempt to colonize the entirety of Europe. Would a European Cuba be possible?

 

[EMT]

People have mostly hit the big notes. A large domestic market to sell goods to, abundant coal and iron, temperate weather, good source of grains.

 

[Halagaz]

@alexmilman

I was fixated on the Janissaries because they are the only instance, to my knowledge, of wide-spread slavery of the populous of the Balkans.

The Ottoman conquest and re-conquests of the Balkans did involve enslavement on a medium to large scale. The Janissaries (which definitely were slaves) were not that numerous, and represent a smaller part of overall Ottoman slavery.

It does matter given the nature of Ottoman administration itself. Most Ottoman territories, prior to centralization, were near autonomous and the fact that respected and socially influential people within that territory's community were given governorship does not portray a sense of utter dominance over the Balkans that you are implying but one of negotiation and incentivization.

Ottoman governors in the Balkans were not local rulers. I guess you could say that most Ottoman territories were autonomous during a certain (relatively narrow) period of time before the Tanzimat, but this "autonomy" generally did not mean any kind of self-rule. Generally, it meant that certain warlords/strongmen - who were created by the Ottoman system, and in many cases even appointed from elsewhere - were able to govern with very little supervision from the central government; due to the central government's temporary weakness.

 

[Brunaburh]

A massive captive market to sell goods too. Oil, coal, timber, and mercury. Cash crop areas in the Mediterranean. Etc.

Really, theres a ton we can extract from Europe if we're willing to wreck it like the French did West Africa

Slaves, including many cold-adapted ones.

 

[Brunaburh]

Re Slavery in the Balkan Ottoman Empire which was a massive thing:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10835-006-9018-z
Deals with the widespread presence of Slavic female slaves in Jewish households in Ottoman Istanbul.

https://bham.rl.talis.com/items/F56755FE-BC35-B72B-9BD1-2D055AC46F35.html
The household economy of slavery including a great deal detailing the different situation of European and African slaves.

Slavery of Europeans in Ottoman North Africa is so well documented as to be pointless to narrate here, but there were hundreds of thousands of people enslaved on both sides of the Med. In Italy there was free trade in Moors and Slavs more or less up to the fall of Malta to the French, it only became impossible to trade Europeans in Africa when the French took Algeria.

 

[Max Sinister]

France has a massive amount of arable land, so lebensraum is a decent reason for conquest if you want to displace the indigenous population.

But in practice, China never decided "Let's conquer France and turn it into rice paddies!"

 

[alexmilman]

@alexmilman

I was fixated on the Janissaries because they are the only instance, to my knowledge, of wide-spread slavery of the populous of the Balkans.

It seems that you keep missing/ignoring the point: slaves as a "natural resource" does not necessarily mean that the people are being used as the slaves in their native area. The Ottomans and Crimean Tatars had been capturing people and then selling them on the slave markets with the "point of destination" being any place in the Ottoman Empire or even outside it.

"Sixteenth- and 17th-century customs statistics suggest that Istanbul's additional slave import from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire

I mean, "appointing governors" is the closest thing to direct control you can get with the Ottomans given the emphasis on delegation of power.

Which is an absolutely irrelevant argument as far as colonization issue is involved. Not to mention that it is plain wrong because control was not limited to the appointment of the governors.

 

[BellaGerant]

But in practice, China never decided "Let's conquer France and turn it into rice paddies!"

Well, this thread seems to be more 'why would anyone bother to colonise Europe given the chance' than 'why would anyone PRIORITIZE colonising Europe over the rest of the World.'

 

[alexmilman]

Well, this thread seems to be more 'why would anyone bother to colonise Europe given the chance' than 'why would anyone PRIORITIZE colonising Europe over the rest of the World.'

Well, (I'm skipping Khazars) there were at least 3 OTL colonization efforts if by colonization we mean combination of (a) permanent physical presence and (b) some kind of administration:
1st, the Muslims (Arabs and Berbers) - Spain, Southern France, Sicily.
2nd, the Mongols: territory from Ural to the Danube plus the tributary states.
3rd, the Ottomans: Constantinople, part of the Balkans, footholds along the Black Sea/Sea of Azov, plus tributary states.

Economic development in these 3 cases was different and region-specific so 'why' clearly has more than one answer. Obviously for each of these cases the conquered territory had some attractions (especially comparing to the piece of Sahara Desert ), which could be region-specific. An idea that medieval Europe was just a worthless wasteland can be convincingly supported.

As for prioritizing, in none of these 3 cases the conquest started with Europe so the priority was probably a subject to the numerous factors starting with geography.