Reverse colonization: Reasons to colonize Europe?

Here a blond Green eyed mongol girl
0e3b5fe60735adff8da9f947b850e0bf.jpg
Certain phenotypes are also not uncommon among Kalash and Nuristani peoples in Pakistan/ Afghanistan.
 
You mean full of states, empires, confederations, complex economies, and an active set of participants in the global econony- just like Europe was?
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.
 

Deleted member 67076

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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 

Deleted member 67076

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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 

Deleted member 67076

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.
Oh my fucking God.

Where do I even begin? Africas population stagnated from 1700-1800 because of the slave trade plundering so many people. Or the difference in slaveries.

That Europe's economic transformation in the Black Death actually allowed it to become more commercially solvent. And that the lack of currency during the early Middle Ages is what prevented states from centralizing and for innovations to take place.

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.
 
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.

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.

To really summarize where the whole analysis goes wrong: European expansion is the result of an expansive economic system following its logical trajectory and creating positive feedback loops, rather than the result of a supposedly resource-starved area of the world getting lucky and living off plunder. European states without specie and on the receiving end of exploitative trade relations with capitalist Western states were all still expansive and in a completely different league from places like Ethiopia or Kanem.

It's one thing to discuss what could be taken from the continent, it's something completely different to say that the continent had no advantages over anywhere else if not for some lucky events in the 1500s. It's just not true.

Of course, none of these cases was European-style "colonialism". ;)

"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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Maybe Algerians raiding Island not only but thereestablish themselves there ? Maybe a Base for further operations ?
 
As settled farmers and pastoralists neighbouring actual nomads (sami and nogays/bashkirs/kalmycks respectively)?

I wouldn't define even 16th c. Tatars as nomadic.

The Sami wasn't really nomadic either, the reason modern Sami ended up nomadic for a short period is because the sedentary (mostly fishermen) Sami was assimilated.
 
Maybe Algerians raiding Island not only but thereestablish themselves there ? Maybe a Base for further operations ?
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.
 
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.

And the main difference was that these states had been recuperating from all these disasters and kept rebuilding their economy while even now we can hear that agriculture in Iraq (or Iran?) is in a bad shape because its ancient water supply system (left, as I understand, from the pre-Islamic times) had been destroyed by the Mongols. Wasn't there enough time since the XIII century to rebuild it? The 30YW left Germany in ruins and depopulated to such a degree that in some areas the Catholic Church allowed a "fast divorce": if a wife would not give birth to a child in a year, husband divorce her just by saying so. And yet, in less than a century the area was back on its feet again.


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.

Of course, it is often ignored that the main beneficiary of the American "plunder", Spain, remained one of the poorest countries in Europe and that the main opponent of the Hapsburgs, France, had been fighting for more than a century (from the Italian Wars till the Peace of Pyrenees, 1659) and Spain ended up being bankrupt. Ditto for the Spanish-Dutch Wars: if the American gold was such a powerful factor, the Dutch would lose in no time.

Needless to say that by the time when America was discovered, there were numerous European states with a flourishing economy: France, Italian states, the Netherlands (which were presumably producing a greater income to the Hapsburgs then American silver mines), Bohemia, etc. None of them had colonies.

"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.

And yet as we can see even in this thread, the people keep sticking to that model as something universal. It is pretty much the same mentality that existed in Europe circa mid-XIX: a notion of the uniform "European" (advanced, industrious, etc.) and uniform "Asiatic" (everything opposite to the "European") with the specifics being conveniently ignored. But at least it is something more or less clear in the context (if we skip a LOT of differences) and the point was to say that it is not the same thing as "colonization" of some territory.
 
Or just having the Conquistadors decide they dont want to submit to Spain.

One of them actually tried, Aguirre. I would not call his attempt a smashing success. :teary:

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.
 

Deleted member 67076

One of them actually tried, Aguirre. I would not call his attempt a smashing success. :teary:
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.

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.
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.
 
One of them actually tried, Aguirre. I would not call his attempt a smashing success. :teary:

Pizarro's brothers almost succeeded: key word, almost.

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.

Austrian Hapsburgs were sitting on both Tyrol AND Rudne hory AND collected tax from the Netherlands, too, and still managed to struggle with money. I mean I know that the Hapsburgs had massive commitments in the Mediterranean and against the Ottomans, but still, when France, which had a fairly antiquated taxation system compared to say, England, manages to outlast you, it's pretty clear that simply having a pile of silver isn't decisive it itself.

As a very extreme example, North-East Russia went through half of its pre-Mongol and a good chunk of its post-Mongol era without any new coinage at all, and yet Moscow outfought and outlasted Novgorod and Lithuania and the Horde as well. It never solved its starved-of-silver situation either, instead trying several monetary reforms to use copper instead (mostly failing horribly). All of that didn't stop it from casting its own artillery, maintaining a standing army, running a (for a frivolous example) printing press, and settling everything from Arzamas to Okhotsk. Dearth of currency didn't stop it from building an 18th c. navy. It didn't stop factories opening all over the Urals.

Lack of silver didn't even stop it from trading with China directly.
 
Last edited:
Top