Reverse colonization: Reasons to colonize Europe?

Let's assume that Europe is a backwater like Africa and thus Berbers, Steppe nomads and Middle Easterners are the ones who will be colonizing. Berber merchants set up trading posts along the southern and western coast from where they raided the populace for slaves. I can see northern Europe becoming a major point of slave collection since blonde hair, blue eyes and fair skin were popular amongst the Berbers (who looked like southern Europeans with their own fair share of blondes and blue eyes) but more so amongst the Arabs. Thus I can see Berber colonial states formed in northern Europe who started getting slaves and later on began cutting down forests for the vast amounts of wood. There is also lots of tin in Britain which can be exported.

Middle Easterners would likely do the same thing as the Berbers but due to their distance from northern Europe, they would be mostly operating in the southeast and centre. There is lots of copper I believe in the Carpathians and thus it could be a profitable location. The steppe nomads meanwhile could be trading slaves from eastern Europe to other locations in Asia and to have further control over their slave-producing region, seize the north European plains getting into conflicts with the Berber slave traders and woodcutters in the region.

Just my two cents on the topic.
 
@Halagaz

I had no idea. I was under the impression that Africa was a far more valuable source of slaves than the Balkans.

However, from my own research, I did not find such information.

Much of the Balkans was under Ottoman rule throughout the Early modern period. Ottoman rule was long, lasting from the 14th century up until the early 20th in some territories. The Ottoman Empire was religiously, linguistically and ethnically diverse, and, at times, a much more tolerant place for religious practices when compared to other parts of the world.[23][24] The different groups in the empire were organised along confessional lines, in the so-called the Millet system. Among the Orthodox Christians of the empire (the Rum Millet) a common identity was forged based on a shared sense of time defined by the ecclesiastical calendar, saint's days and feasts.[25]

The social structure of the Balkans in the late 18th century was complex. The Ottoman rulers exercised control chiefly in indirect ways.[26] In Albania and Montenegro, for example, local leaders paid nominal tribute to the Empire and otherwise had little contact. The Republic of Ragusa paid an annual tribute but otherwise was free to pursue its rivalry with the Republic of Venice. The two Romance-speaking principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia had their own nobility, but were ruled by Greek families chosen by the Sultan. In Greece, the elite comprised clergymen and scholars, but there was scarcely any Greek aristocracy. A million or more Turks had settled in the Balkans, typically in smaller urban centers where they were garrison troops, civil servants, and craftsmen and merchants. There were also important communities of Jewish and Greek merchants. The Turks and Jews were not to be found in the countryside, so there was a very sharp social differentiation between the cities and their surrounding region in terms of language, religion and ethnicity. The Ottoman Empire collected taxes at about the 10% rate but there was no forced labor and the workers and peasants were not especially oppressed by the Empire. The Sultan favoured and protected the Orthodox clergy, primarily as a protection against the missionary zeal of Roman Catholics.[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Balkans#Ottoman_Empire

It is from this information that I came to this conclusion.

Furthermore, you stated that they weren't allowed self-rule yet also state that there was little supervision from the central government. This seems to indicate that they were allowed self-rule and autonomy. Furthermore, I doubt that the central government was always weak which begs the question of exactly how the Ottoman administration functioned normally in times of peace and little tension.

@alexmilman

This makes no sense in context of your argument that Ottomans conquered or colonized the Balkans for the sake of it's slaves. Most colonizing nations centralized the exploitation of the resources of the areas they took. If the slave economy of the Balkans wasn't controlled by the state then this would make the argument that the Ottomans conquered the Balkans for slaves ridiculous. Furthermore, the Ottomans monopolized the production of gunpowder and guns so the argument that they couldn't centralize the Balkans slave trade is moot. There is literally nothing of worth in Europe that can't be acquired anywhere else. You need a TL for a period beyond the Ottoman era for a plausible European colonization. Furthermore, Europe simply being used as a slave center is kind of boring.

Considering that you yourself considered the appointing of governors as an aspect of "direct control" in your original argument that kind of makes your own argument moot don't you think? You also deemed drawing subdivision borders and having a capital as being examples of "direct control" although I find that questionable.
 
@Augustine Sedira

The Caliphate already ruled over the Caucasus and parts of Russia which have their fair share of fair skinned and blue eyed slaves. While they were expensive, they were relatively abundant. Furthermore, there was nothing stopping them from merely raiding the coasts of Europe and obtaining such slaves (and they often did so). It'll take more than mere slaves to motivate the widespread colonization of Europe. Slaves weren't nearly as valuable to Muslims as they were to European colonizers.
 
This makes no sense in context of your argument that Ottomans conquered or colonized the Balkans for the sake of it's slaves.

How so? They conquered it for its mines, its tax base, estates for its gentry and settlers, control of Constantinople, and yes, slaves. If you think that makes it categorically different from "colonization", what do you suppose people conquered Algeria or Virginia for, anyway?

There is literally nothing of worth in Europe that can't be acquired anywhere else. You need a TL for a period beyond the Ottoman era for a plausible European colonization. Furthermore, Europe simply being used as a slave center is kind of boring.

By that same measure, there's nothing unique about the Caribbean or Macaronesia either (everything worthwhile that was grown there came from the Old World). Same thing about Canada. Or Australia, or the Cape. I wonder why people bothered :p

Of course, other people did point out: iron, tin. Cheaper and more abundant than almost anywhere else, far closer to the coast than the stuff in Appalachia. Coal. Silver, salt, flax and rope specifically. Furs. And two great cash crops in grapes and olives.
 
The Ottomans, at least the Early Modern Ottomans, were not a colonial empire.

Let's take nineteenth-century Britain, for example. There's an unbridgeable gap between the way the British elite governed England and the way they governed India. Or consider the Habsburg Empire: the way they ruled Peru and the way they ruled their European dominions are hugely different. There's a fundamental distinction between the metropole and the periphery.

The Ottomans did not govern non-Turkic, non-Muslim territories in any significantly different way from their Turkic or Muslim territories, nor did they try to reshape non-Turkish economies to benefit Turkish areas. Indeed, what historians identify as the "core lands of the Ottoman empire" and where Ottoman central efforts at economic investment were focused, the Balkans and western Anatolia, were far less Muslim than the empire as a whole.

Indeed, the Ottomans didn't even have a concept for "metropole" and "periphery." From the perspective of the Spanish or British government, their empire was "the Spaniards" or "the Britons" ruling over the "Indians." But from the perspective of the Ottoman government, their empire was "the Osmanli," a term referring to all the elites who served the Padishah in Constantinople, whether they were Turkish or Albanian or Greek or Bosnian, ruling over "the Re'aya," a term referring to all commoners everywhere, whether Christian or Jewish or Muslim, whether Turkish or Arab or Slavic.
 
@RGB

Colonization, in my opinion, is a perspective and this perspective permeates throughout how they deal with their territories.

Yes, but not just slaves. Slaves were not the impetus for Ottoman conquests of the Balkans. This is what I am arguing. You can't simply say that the Ottomans or the Caliphate would conquer Europe for slaves and that's how European colonization will happen since not only did Muslims not conquer Europe solely for those reasons, but they already had access to such slaves. This can't work as an impetus for the colonization of Europe solely because it isn't a good enough motivation.

Europe as a whole was falling behind economically, began to increasingly rely on the Ottomans to obtain necessary resources, and was starting to gain a huge population that had no place to go. Europe sought to cut the middle man and obtain the resources they needed from somewhere else. That jumpstarted European colonization, not needing African slaves.

EDIT: I'm not saying that Muslims won't engage in slavery. I'm saying that slavery can't be the sole motivation since slaves are in abundance in the Islamic world and more of them is a bonus, not an impetus, to colonization.
 
Colonization of Europe would probably resemble economic hegemony over the region rather than direct administration of particular places. Like think Senegal before direct colonization: The economic interest of the colonizer taking precedent over domestic concerns. In Senegal's case, many people turned away from food production and turned to get rich off of ground nuts sold to the French, weakening the local kingdom's abilities to orchestrate economic affairs right before conquest. It's not hard to imagine a stronger Morocco, frex, creating pressure in France or England for food exports, with petty nobles and serfs turning away from a manor system designed to feed the king, but instead turning a profit selling mutton, grain, etc. to Moroccans coming knocking. As more and more people can independently get wealth away from the state, the ability of the state to control economic affairs lessens. Thus the independent state is undermined by a system favoring the new modes of wealth. And since that wealth is being created by a foreign power's interest in the country, the country becomes dependent on the whims of another.

Military intervention (if it occurs) will be to secure those interests. A captive market, certain minerals, etc. as we've exhausted in the rest of the thread. We're probably not going to see much invasion and conquest ala The Ottomans to the Balkans, but something similar to US-Latin America or China-SE Asia relations.
 
What about Carthage? They had colonies in Iberia, the Balearics, Sicily and Sardinia, right?

And even though they were European themselves, the Greeks and Romans made colonies in Europe.

Then later on you had the Carolingian marches, and later still the Crusader states, which were motivated by religion, and the merchant republic colonies motivated by trade routes.
 
The way the conquered territory is treated. Also the distance of the homeland. Or you could say things like Germany colonised Alsace-Lorraine. Or France colonised the Freche Compte. That is very different from the colonisation of the America's by Spain or Britain. Or the colonisation of India and Indonesia. I would say that the Ottomans conquering SE Europe was far closer to France trying to gain the Rhine Border than France trying to gain Indo-China.
I would personally define Colonialism as

- Conquering/settling a location and not giving its inhabitants same rights as your citizens
 
@Augustine Sedira

The Caliphate already ruled over the Caucasus and parts of Russia which have their fair share of fair skinned and blue eyed slaves. While they were expensive, they were relatively abundant. Furthermore, there was nothing stopping them from merely raiding the coasts of Europe and obtaining such slaves (and they often did so). It'll take more than mere slaves to motivate the widespread colonization of Europe. Slaves weren't nearly as valuable to Muslims as they were to European colonizers.
That's why I said that colonies will start to be formed by slavers who notice the ability to exploit the natural resources e.g the vast amounts of trees in northern Europe as well as tin in Britain. The POD allowing for a backward Europe would mean the Caliphate doesn't exist.
 

Vuu

Banned
Only possible with a pretty early PoD that would make a VERY peripheral area the center of development, like sub-saharan Africa, Australia or the Americas. In that case it would probably be used akin to North America - dumping ground for surplus population, as we don't have any extremely notable resources, apart from manpower, and that would be changed with the PoD, with population densities of Asia plummeting too
 
Assuming that in this scenario, Europe is undeveloped and sparsely populated, then the resources available for enticing colonizers are plenty.

Lots of fertile soil, much of which doesn't even need to be flooded to be useful for years on out. The steppes in Carpathia and southeastern Europe alone have some of the most fertile soils on the planet. Add to that the large proliferation of fish in the North Atlantic and you have a potential breadbasket of the planet here if Asian and African empires exploit it correctly.

This fertile soil also means a large population for slaves.

And contrary to popular belief, Europe is far from shabby in natural resources, either. It's just that in our world, Europeans exploited their resources for millenia - in a world with a less developed Europe, these resources are left untapped and ripe for taking by colonial powers. Substantial coal, iron, zinc, copper, chromium, titanium reserves, North Sea oil, and lots of silver in the Alps and Central Europe.
 
Assuming that in this scenario, Europe is undeveloped and sparsely populated, then the resources available for enticing colonizers are plenty.

Lots of fertile soil, much of which doesn't even need to be flooded to be useful for years on out. The steppes in Carpathia and southeastern Europe alone have some of the most fertile soils on the planet. Add to that the large proliferation of fish in the North Atlantic and you have a potential breadbasket of the planet here if Asian and African empires exploit it correctly.

This fertile soil also means a large population for slaves.

And contrary to popular belief, Europe is far from shabby in natural resources, either. It's just that in our world, Europeans exploited their resources for millenia - in a world with a less developed Europe, these resources are left untapped and ripe for taking by colonial powers. Substantial coal, iron, zinc, copper, chromium, titanium reserves, North Sea oil, and lots of silver in the Alps and Central Europe.
I really don't think Europe can be really sparsely populated, lower population sure but I mean it's not like Indian population stopped the region from being colonized.
 
Only possible with a pretty early PoD that would make a VERY peripheral area the center of development, like sub-saharan Africa, Australia or the Americas. In that case it would probably be used akin to North America - dumping ground for surplus population, as we don't have any extremely notable resources, apart from manpower, and that would be changed with the PoD, with population densities of Asia plummeting too

If your vision of colonization resembles that of the experience of the Americas, maybe.

Otherwise, I wouldn't say that. Even as late as the 1800s, its possible. Given say Bengal or Egypt a little luck or rather, spare them some of the tragedies, it's not unquestionable to see colonization of Europe in domination of markets and reorientation of society towards a new metropole.

Imagine if someone besides the Qing got a hold of the Mandate of Heaven in the 1640s. China was hitting stride in a serious way, with economic dynamism, an expanding population, risk-spreading financial techniques, and the development of wage labor were appearing. Or Egypt being a sly more fiscally responsible and maybe not wasted money in wars in Sudan. Keep the British on their back foot in India and Bengal or Mysore could have more breathing room. These are with PODs after 1600 which create economic cores on a competitive level with European powers. Though there were places in say 1750 in Europe that were unlikely not to be economic cores, a lot of places were still semiperipheral economically, and in some places refeudalizing/becoming less developed like Poland, the Balkans, and parts of Italy. The latter two might be of great importance to an Egypt converting from a primarily subsistence agrarian economy to an industrial economy. Such a growing market may be irresistible to land-owners outside of Thessalonika or in Sicily, who can get some stable income selling food product to Alexandria.

iOTL European states wishing to trade with China sent tribute, often submitting (at least initially) to stringent conditions, and always under threat from Chinese armed forces not inexperienced with ejecting large populations from their territory. Imagine a sea-focused, boisterous China looking to expand its market rather than a cautious, land-focused Empire obsessed with stability. iOTL moderately sized Chinese forces were enough to eject Europeans from major strongholds like Formosa and Penghu, and as late as 1886 were patrolling all under heaven, and could give the Japanese a bloody nose. A China willing to assert global power would be just that, a global power. Access to upwards of 17% of the global economy is a pretty good incentive to roll over for the hegemon, which is why so many states gave tribute to trade.

There are indeed even useful things beyond human labor and markets. If you, as many societies have done in the pursuit of wealth, ignore knock on effects ecologically, hydrologically, etc. then there are quite a number of useful crops that grow well in Yurp. Hemp/Cannabis, Cotton, Tobacco, Tomatoes, Potatoes, Opium, Sugarbeets, Okra, Peanuts, Sorghum, Corn, Wheat, and many more. If society were oriented away from domestic consumption, there's no telling how abstractly monstrous the cultivation of anyone of these plants could become. There's fisheries so abundant it took industrialization to start localized extinction events, as well as whaling, and other seafood (Sea Cucumbers among other aquaculture could be quite lucrative, I mean the sea cucumber trade was lucrative enough to link Fiji to China and help create an entirely new system of slavery). On top of that, there's minable and sea salt, one of the main ingredients for humans. Silver, coal, and zinc deposits aren't negligible either. Silver in particular was a very popular.

Also prestige/missionary work.

With PoDs much further back you can have much more explicitly unequal and unambiguously colonial relations between an European and a Non-European state.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Balkans#Ottoman_Empire

It is from this information that I came to this conclusion.

Furthermore, you stated that they weren't allowed self-rule yet also state that there was little supervision from the central government. This seems to indicate that they were allowed self-rule and autonomy. Furthermore, I doubt that the central government was always weak which begs the question of exactly how the Ottoman administration functioned normally in times of peace and little tension.

@alexmilman

This makes no sense in context of your argument that Ottomans conquered or colonized the Balkans for the sake of it's slaves. Most colonizing nations centralized the exploitation of the resources of the areas they took. If the slave economy of the Balkans wasn't controlled by the state then this would make the argument that the Ottomans conquered the Balkans for slaves ridiculous. Furthermore, the Ottomans monopolized the production of gunpowder and guns so the argument that they couldn't centralize the Balkans slave trade is moot. There is literally nothing of worth in Europe that can't be acquired anywhere else. You need a TL for a period beyond the Ottoman era for a plausible European colonization. Furthermore, Europe simply being used as a slave center is kind of boring.

Considering that you yourself considered the appointing of governors as an aspect of "direct control" in your original argument that kind of makes your own argument moot don't you think? You also deemed drawing subdivision borders and having a capital as being examples of "direct control" although I find that questionable.

I could not find the quote you attributed to me in any of my posts in this thread and it seemingly has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Please provide a number of my post from which you are quoting.

Needless to say that I have no idea what is your "conclusion".

Furthermore, I did not talk about "self-rule" in any of my posts and said that function of the central government was not limited to the appointment of the governors. Please do something about your quoting habits and your seemingly over-developed imagination.:mad:
 
@Augustine Sedira

The Caliphate already ruled over the Caucasus and parts of Russia which have their fair share of fair skinned and blue eyed slaves. While they were expensive, they were relatively abundant. Furthermore, there was nothing stopping them from merely raiding the coasts of Europe and obtaining such slaves (and they often did so). It'll take more than mere slaves to motivate the widespread colonization of Europe. Slaves weren't nearly as valuable to Muslims as they were to European colonizers.

Which parts of then non-existing "Russia" had been ruled by Caliphate?

Then, of course, since when Georgians, Armenians, Circassians, Chechens, etc. are known for being fair skinned and blue eyed? BTW, the fair skinned, blue eyed thingy is not quite typical for the population of most of the European "coast" (aka, Mediterranean and Black Sea).

Then, goes a question about the slaves being or not being valuable. If they were not valuable, how come that up to 70% of the population in the Khanate of Crimea had been slaves (including the former slaves)? Probably all these raids had been just for fun .... Why the slave trade existed in the Muslim world well after it ceased to exist in the European colonies and America?

Of course, Europe could offer much more than just the slaves but this does not improve your argument.

93261-004-A24F0844.jpg
 
@alexmilman

Which parts of then non-existing "Russia" had been ruled by Caliphate?

I know it was non-existent at the time. I just used the term Russia out of sheer habit and it was supposed to denote modern-day Russia's borders. In that case, the answer to your question is that small piece of land above Armenia.

Then, of course, since when Georgians, Armenians, Circassians, Chechens, etc. are known for being fair skinned and blue eyed? BTW, the fair skinned, blue eyed thingy is not quite typical for the population of most of the European "coast" (aka, Mediterranean and Black Sea).

Yes. I don't see how they aren't. At the time, They, as well as Caucasians, were know to have had blue eyes, fair skin, and blond hair and given their beauty, Europeans adopted the term to refer to themselves. Furthermore, the Caliphate certainly had a access to the Caspian sea which means that they did have access to blond, fair skinned, and blue eyed slaves. Modern Georgians, Armenians, Circassians, Chechens, etc. aren't often blue-eyed, fair-skinned, and blond due to mixing with other ethnicities but there are still people in those ethnicities who are blue-eyed, fair-skinned, and blond.

Then, goes a question about the slaves being or not being valuable. If they were not valuable, how come that up to 70% of the population in the Khanate of Crimea had been slaves (including the former slaves)? Probably all these raids had been just for fun .... Why the slave trade existed in the Muslim world well after it ceased to exist in the European colonies and America?

My point isn't that slaves aren't valuable, just that they aren't an impetus for colonization. You need much greater motivations than just slaves for colonization. Like you said, if they ever run out of slaves some how, they can always go raiding for more. Raiding isn't colonization since colonization is a fundamentally different perspective than conquering or raiding. No one here is arguing that slavery wasn't a part of Islamic society, just that it won't motivate such a society to colonize Europe. Why put the effort and time into developing and cultivating colonies for slaves that you could just get otherwise by raiding or buying them? What's the point?

Of course, Europe could offer much more than just the slaves but this does not improve your argument.

You haven't addressed my argument in the first place. Europe offer more valuable things than just slaves but Muslims don't know about that. They need something to motivate them to get more of Europe and see at as something to exploit or as a periphery like @Intransigent Southerner has stated. Slaves are valuable but they aren't rare or so valuable that the Muslims simply need a stable source of them that they can't get anywhere else. Slaves aren't an impetus for European colonization. Hell, if you think the Ottomans were colonizers of Europe, look at their motivations? Was the sole impetus of Ottoman conquests slaves? Of course not! Ottomans didn't need slaves, they already had tons of them. What they wanted was prestige first and foremost. The idea of conquering Constantinople was the biggest motivator, not slaves.
 
@alexmilman

I could not find the quote you attributed to me in any of my posts in this thread and it seemingly has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Please provide a number of my post from which you are quoting.

I was talking to Halagaz, not you. :oops:

That's why on the top, it is as @Halagaz

Needless to say that I have no idea what is your "conclusion".

The conclusion is that European slaves can't be used as an impetus for Ottoman or Islamic colonization. Slaves were valuable but they were abundant valuables. You need a better motivation than that.

Furthermore, I did not talk about "self-rule" in any of my posts and said that function of the central government was not limited to the appointment of the governors. Please do something about your quoting habits and your seemingly over-developed imagination.:mad:

Listen, I apologize if I offended you in anyway, but I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to a completely different person.
 
So the Arabs colonized North Africa eventhough they have little to no genetic impact on the inhabitants?

I actually see absolutely no reason to interpret the current Arab world as anything but the aftermath of an extensive, long-running, very violent but most of all very successful colonial effort on par with anything the Romans or 19th c. British did. If the definition of colonialism manages to exclude the Romans or the Caliphates it's a useless definition.
 
Last edited:
Top