Certain phenotypes are also not uncommon among Kalash and Nuristani peoples in Pakistan/ Afghanistan.Here a blond Green eyed mongol girl
![]()
Certain phenotypes are also not uncommon among Kalash and Nuristani peoples in Pakistan/ Afghanistan.Here a blond Green eyed mongol girl
![]()
You could have the civilized states existing in the south but they would have to be behind technologically by a lot. The rest of Europe would have to be equivalent to the Congo, South Africa or other places in Africa. In the end, even West Africa (which compared to Europe was less developed) fell to the Europeans.You mean full of states, empires, confederations, complex economies, and an active set of participants in the global econony- just like Europe was?
That could be done. There wasnt as much of a technological gap between African states and European states as one thinks until probably the mid to late 1700s. The issues are more organizational than anything. Even the Congo had its powerful and organized states.You could have the civilized states existing in the south but they would have to be behind technologically by a lot. The rest of Europe would have to be equivalent to the Congo, South Africa or other places in Africa. In the end, even West Africa (which compared to Europe was less developed) fell to the Europeans.
The Congo might have had organized states but compared to the Europeans, they were an embarrassing affair. India, on the other hand, was a very hard for the British to digest. Though it did happen. Something like the colonization of India could have happened if Europe failed sometime during the medieval era. But for an African style (Sub-Saharan) colonization, Europe would need to fail during antiquity or possibly even earlier.That could be done. There wasnt as much of a technological gap between African states and European states as one thinks until probably the mid to late 1700s. The issues are more organizational than anything. Even the Congo had its powerful and organized states.
That said, India was in every way richer and more organized than Europe and it still got colonized so technology is not really a barrier. Rather having Europe in a parasitical economic situation that erodes its centralization and sovereignty can open up methods for foreign powers to colonize.
Have I got a story for you.(something that the Europeans never did).
One big story, lots of little stories.Only one!!!?
Or just crash and burn due to the influence of parasitical economic functions.The Congo might have had organized states but compared to the Europeans, they were an embarrassing affair. India, on the other hand, was a very hard for the British to digest. Though it did happen. Something like the colonization of India could have happened if Europe failed sometime during the medieval era. But for an African style (Sub-Saharan) colonization, Europe would need to fail during antiquity or possibly even earlier.
The economy failing won't stop technological developments like gunpowder and firearms.Or just crash and burn due to the influence of parasitical economic functions.
There wasnt much of a difference in the Sahel and Europe in 1500 frex, if anything the effects of the slave trade are what caused stagnation.
As I said before, just wreck the continent.
What.Those slaves that ended up in the Americas would have carried on being slaves in Africa.
Chattel slavery in the Americas was a tad bit different from slavery in Africa, plus there definitely was a massive loss of manpower over the centuries of Atlantic slave trade. Even if they would be slaves either way (which is a bit questionable, since enslaving for a massive profit tends to lead to more enslaving than enslaving for more labour), that slave labour would not be used to develop or enrich Africa.The economy failing won't stop technological developments like gunpowder and firearms.
I will disagree with the slave trade causing stagnation. Those slaves that ended up in the Americas would have carried on being slaves in Africa.
The latest POD to wreck Europe would be a super black death that for some reason doesn't wreck neighbouring lands.
Oh my fucking God.The economy failing won't stop technological developments like gunpowder and firearms.
I will disagree with the slave trade causing stagnation. Those slaves that ended up in the Americas would have carried on being slaves in Africa.
No not really. Causing a 30 years war equivalent in the 1500s would do enough damage. Or just having the Conquistadors decide they dont want to submit to Spain. Etc.The latest POD to wreck Europe would be a super black death that for some reason doesn't wreck neighbouring lands.
No not really. Causing a 30 years war equivalent in the 1500s would do enough damage. Or just having the Conquistadors decide they dont want to submit to Spain. Etc.
Of course, none of these cases was European-style "colonialism".![]()
Maybe Algerians raiding Island not only but thereestablish themselves there ? Maybe a Base for further operations ?Say, another region of the world becomes centrepiece and is the one exploring the world. (Most likely East Asia or the Middle East) What would be the reasons to colonize Europe?
Obviously the Americas had land, gold, resources, Asia had luxorious and valuable tradegoods and Africa had slaves. (This is pre 1900 of course)
What has Europe to offer? Sure it has timber, coal and minerals, but essentially it is just a fertile peninsula of Asia.
As settled farmers and pastoralists neighbouring actual nomads (sami and nogays/bashkirs/kalmycks respectively)?
I wouldn't define even 16th c. Tatars as nomadic.
There was several pirate raids on Icelands by Barbary Pirates and other pirates , we remember the successful ones, we don't talk much about the less successful ones, where the Pirates either was discovered in time or wasn't fast enough to get away. But the short point is that even without the Danish crown sending a army to Iceland to slaughter a bunch of pirates setting up shop there, the Icelanders would do it themselves. The Barbary pirates depended on fast raids and getting away fast again.Maybe Algerians raiding Island not only but thereestablish themselves there ? Maybe a Base for further operations ?
I have to say, people constantly demonstrate strange notions about Europe in these kinds of threads. No, Europe wasn't devoid of resources. Its ample resources are what allowed to it get stable and succeed in the first place despite all the neighbours plundering it continuously and the destructive wars the Europeans fought with each other. It was thoroughly wrecked multiple times. Its historical core economic areas were completely overrun by outside civilizations.
Its biggest, richest country was a warzone for a hundred years! Its current economic core was an inefficient patchwork of warring states practicing robber mercantilism. The Black Death impacted manpower on a very different scale than even the Atlantic slave trade. Despite all that, Europe was in a very different situation technologically and politically than the Sahel, not "close", in 1500. No, Europe didn't barely make it, with the plunder from Mexico being the slim difference. The plunder barely registered. No, American specie was not what modernized the European economies. No, no, no, no, no ad infinitum.
"European"-style "colonialism" doesn't have enough data points in it for even the most rudimentary analysis. It's basically "what the British and French did in the long 19th c." and the very picture of a category so narrow it's basically useless.
Or just having the Conquistadors decide they dont want to submit to Spain.
He was successful in my heart. There's probably a fun timeline somewhere on the Conquistador infighting and maverick tendencies having them carve off their independent states somewhere.One of them actually tried, Aguirre. I would not call his attempt a smashing success.![]()
Thats a very valid point, and one I'll concede. Nonetheless I would argue that without the extra bullion (and the captive markets of Mexico for the Spanish) there would be some economic impact that would hurt the development of Southern Europe in the 1500s. Combined with other factors, differing developments in other places, etc.And as far as the colonial gold and silver were involved (besides causing a devaluation with a lot of "interesting" consequences), Charles V and Phillip II tended to get bankrupt much more often than their French counterparts who did not have any colonies.
One of them actually tried, Aguirre. I would not call his attempt a smashing success.![]()
And as far as the colonial gold and silver were involved (besides causing a devaluation with a lot of "interesting" consequences), Charles V and Phillip II tended to get bankrupt much more often than their French counterparts who did not have any colonies.