Reverse colonization: Reasons to colonize Europe?

[SealTheRealDeal]

The difference between colonialism and conquest is mentality. Conquest sees the newly conquered territories as legitimate provinces of the empire and thus warrants development. Colonization sees newly conquered territories as peripheries to the main core of the empire; whose resources are to be exploited as opposed to cultivated.

So in colonies resources are used, where as in provinces resources are used?

Also, this notion would imply that colonies aren't developed by their colonizers. So, does this mean that Angola was not a colony of Portugal? Was New France not colonized by the French? The British literally dredged India's largest city off the bottom of the ocean, so India must have been part of the British metropole.

It's almost like patterns of resource extraction and investment aren't the definitive guide to what is and what isn't a colony.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

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

Incidentally, how was Russia able to do all that without currency inflows? When the lack of currency happened to say, Ethiopia during the Oromo migrations/Ottoman blockading of its coast, it almost collapsed in a mess of feudalism and skills shortages.

 

[RGB]

Incidentally, how was Russia able to do all that without currency inflows? When the lack of currency happened to say, Ethiopia during the Oromo migrations/Ottoman blockading of its coast, it almost collapsed in a mess of feudalism and skills shortages.

Well. It's a two part answer. It did break up into feudalism and it did lag Western Europe and for some time also the Islamic states. But it also could manage its affairs through tallying nominal money on paper accounts and pay talent in furs and goods and land grants. Salaries in early Siberia were paid in things like flour salt and tea. It also basically enserfed the majority of the population to keep trading with more advanced economies. But what that shows is that even peripheral European states had enough agricultural potential and human capital to survive absolutely ridiculous situations such as having no coinage snd no ports and no sensible succession system while having neighbours who extract tribute and raid you for slaves every year and occasionally burn your capital (compare the long term aftermath of Timbuktu being wrecked in the 16th c. with Moscow being repeatedly wrecked from 1240 to 1612).

 

[Aviennca's Pupil]

@SealTheRealDeal

I use cultivated in a very broad term. Cultivating basically means utilizing a areas potential and letting it grow. The British de-industrialized India which is the opposite of that. There is a clear difference between the way Britain dealt with London than it did with India. The British also sought to centralize it's colonies due to it's nature of being a unitary state while most empires didn't do this.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

I use cultivated in a very broad term. Cultivating basically means utilizing a areas potential and letting it grow. The British de-industrialized India which is the opposite of that.

Where as exploit means to use something to its full potential. In a way de-industrializing India was likewise the opposite of that.

There is a clear difference between the way Britain dealt with London than it did with India.

Yes, and that difference amounted to a lot more than any balance of resource extraction vs investment.

The British also sought to centralize it's colonies due to it's nature of being a unitary state while most empires didn't do this.

Given the number of protectorates, princely states, self governing colonies, and dominions within the British Empire at its height, I somehow doubt this.

 

[alexmilman]

He was successful in my heart.

Which is probably the only place where he was successful (if you are talking about Lope de Aguirre).

QUOTE="Soverihn, post: 17622976, member: 67076"]There's probably a fun timeline somewhere on the Conquistador infighting and maverick tendencies having them carve off their independent states somewhere. [/QUOTE]

They were seemingly having a lot of fun time in Peru soon after the conquest. Not in the terms of an independence but still a lot of it ....

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.

Well, almost anything has some impact on something else but it seems that Southern Europe, especially Italy, was doing just fine even before Columbus. OTOH, Spain with all colonial resources it possessed remained a backward country which was going from one bankruptcy to another.

But why only Southern Europe? It can be argued that availability of the precious metals was just as important for, say, the Netherlands: they were selling a lot of things and price of gold and silver did matter. OTOH, in the places with a historically fixed payment for the rent of the land (IIRC, this was situation in England), the lower price of gold meant lesser income for a landowner who would try to compensate the loss by other measures.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

But why only Southern Europe? It can be argued that availability of the precious metals was just as important for, say, the Netherlands:

The honest answer was is that it was what immediately came to mind given what I remember of Spanish troops recruitment and how Seville depended on external trade for most of its cash but youre right with the Netherlands (and by proxy, Western Germany that depended on Benelux ports). Most Spanish silver IIRC ended up flowing into Antwerp anyway.

 

[Aviennca's Pupil]

@SealTheRealDeal

Where as exploit means to use something to its full potential. In a way de-industrializing India was likewise the opposite of that.

De-industrialization is the opposite of letting an area grow i.e. domestically develop since it hinder domestic development.

Yes, and that difference amounted to a lot more than any balance of resource extraction vs investment.

You're right. It was about mindset and perspective as well.

Given the number of protectorates, princely states, self governing colonies, and dominions within the British Empire at its height, I somehow doubt this.

Except that most of these governors were placed there by the British government. Furthermore, colonies were designated as fundamentally different polities than princely states, protectorates, and princely states.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

De-industrialization is the opposite of letting an area grow i.e. domestically develop since it hinder domestic development.

I.e. they weren't doing a good job at the whole exploiting thing. In fact I'm pretty sure the Raj made a net loss on many years.

You're right. It was about mindset and perspective as well.

Everything is a matter of mindset and perspective. Saying that something was dependent on them is as redundant as stating that an army on the march also needs air to breath.

Rather I would say that the manner with which the British ruled India hinged on power dynamics constructed around race and culture and enforced through military might.

Except that most of these governors were placed there by the British government.

That's nearly ubiquitous to imperialism in general and not unique to the British in anyway.

Furthermore, colonies were designated as fundamentally different polities than princely states, protectorates, and princely states.

Yes colonies specifically denoted areas open to settlement. You specifically spoke of economic exploitation so I included other parts of the British Empire open to identical exploitation.

 

[leopard9]

I'd think timber and coal would be strong reasons to colonize Europe. Europe used to have huge forests and if a tropical empire wanted timber but knew enough about the effects of deforestation on a tropical environment to avoid doing at home, they might look to Europe for trade.

Tropical areas also tend to be coal poor, so Europe's store of coal might also be a reason if a tropical power such as India is looking to industrialize.

Europe's soils also tend to be very fertile, so a middle eastern power might colonize it and implement forced plantation style labor to produce grains and fruits as well as cash crops for export.

 

[oca2073]

@SealTheRealDeal

I use cultivated in a very broad term. Cultivating basically means utilizing a areas potential and letting it grow. The British de-industrialized India which is the opposite of that. There is a clear difference between the way Britain dealt with London than it did with India. The British also sought to centralize it's colonies due to it's nature of being a unitary state while most empires didn't do this.

In many cases the economies of European colonies would not have seen nearly as much growth without European rule, yet we consider that to be colonialism nonetheless. Take for example Hong Kong.

Also the British did not "deindustrialize India." India's GDP for 1820 is estimated at 111,417,000,000 in 1990 PPP dollars, in 1870 it was 134,882,000,000 and in 1913 (204,242,000,000) and in 1950 (222,222,000,000). You can argue they hindered India's growth but not that they "de-industrialized" it. No colonial power would deindustrialize a colony, cause that would make it unprofitable.

Also the conquest of the west by the USA is taken to be colonization, despite the fact that the US "cultivated" it. Clearly the USA intended for its western territories to eventually be treated the same as its states (and even for native americans to become citizens of the republic) but was that not colonization nonetheless?

 

[MrKrabsWorstNightmare]

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.

I’d say most of the colonization of Europe would happen after an Asian or African Industrial Revolution, kind of what the Europeans did to China.

I don’t think Europe can be colonized extensively before the Industrial Revolution, maybe trading ports here and there.

 

[The Undead Martyr]

In terms of goods and rewards?
Amber, timber, gold, slaves, grain, iron, coal, oil, wool, prestige, a captive market...
IIRC Sardinia and Corsica had coral and pearl fisheries which India and China desired.

It depends on the context, a Roman style empire has different priorities from a Portuguese early modern empire, which has different priorities from a Victorian England empire.

The Phoenecians, Greeks, Arabs, Berbers, Romans, and Magyars all colonized parts of Europe OTL, I would argue the Germans, slavs, and Turks/Ottomans did as well though the first two were more "internal" by a fairly arbitrary distinction (then again continents are pretty arbitrary). If the Aechemenid or Sassanid Empires or Rashidun caliphate move into the Balkans or Italy they could end up colonizing.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Tropical areas also tend to be coal poor, so Europe's store of coal might also be a reason if a tropical power such as India is looking to industrialize.

India and Nigeria (among other examples) both have substantial amounts of coal. Jharkhand/West Bengal/Damodar River area is especially nice since it has high-quality reserves of iron, coal, and hydropower in close proximity and has been exploited since the 1700s.