Roman Style Assimilation Adopted by 1900s European Powers

[jerseyguy]

This could work if there is enough international tension to produce a "We Have always been at War with Eastasia" effect that holds the empires together in an anti-Russian/British/French, etc. feeling. Oceania, Eurasia, and East Asia are all massive diverse empires vulnerable to national tensions, but the oligarchical collectivists can unify their subjects through a hatred of the other two powers.
I don't know how long 1914 vintage arms races could last once nuclear weapons become feasible.

 

[bernardz]

I was thinking Europeans keep their colonies into the 60s or longer due to lack of a world war which sees Europeans consider racism and racial science as outdated concepts by the second half of the century but instead of adopting multiculturalism and decolonization policies instead adopts assimilation and integration policies. Someone here did mention civilizing missions but people should know propaganda and actions don't always match. What Europeans or any leader tells their people don't always match their actions.

Look at the numbers, any European Empire that started a program would be overwhelmed by the number of natives, for example, Great Britain today would be largely India and somewhat Middle Eastern and African.

Note on the exception that almost pulled it off was Russia, where it still did not work.

The reason it worked for Rome is that it was run by Emperors and not democracies.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

Look at the numbers, any European Empire that started a program would be overwhelmed by the number of natives, for example, Great Britain today would be largely India and somewhat Middle Eastern and African.

Note on the exception that almost pulled it off was Russia, where it still did not work.

The reason it worked for Rome is that it was run by Emperors and not democracies.

I imagine empires would be hybrid regimes or semi democratic. They would probably only be democratic at a local level or democratic in one place and not the other. Also even under one empire millions of Indians and Africans will not all go to the British isles. That is still a long trip over seas and that would probably make the uk overcrowded. They might make up between 10 to 18 percent minorities at most within the UK. Additionally, a influx of immigration from India within the empire might be good. Imagine having Indians making up large minorities in UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa(bigger then currently). Also imagine them flooding into some Africa colonies. They could maybe become a majority in some part of Africa or a large minority there too. Indians in Africa were much more loyal to the empire and this large immigration of Indians from India probably helps India deal with a lot of over population, pollution, and over crowding issues. It's also worth noting colonies birthrates might drop to similar levels as European ones or at least be lower if modernization and industrialization efforts of these regions go well. That helps out a lot especially if birthrates across Europe drops at a slower and more steady rate

 

[bernardz]

I imagine empires would be hybrid regimes or semi democratic. They would probably only be democratic at a local level or democratic in one place and not the other. Also even under one empire millions of Indians and Africans will not all go to the British isles. That is still a long trip over seas and that would probably make the uk overcrowded. They might make up between 10 to 18 percent minorities at most within the UK. Additionally, a influx of immigration from India within the empire might be good. Imagine having Indians making up large minorities in UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa(bigger then currently). Also imagine them flooding into some Africa colonies. They could maybe become a majority in some part of Africa or a large minority there too. Indians in Africa were much more loyal to the empire and this large immigration of Indians from India probably helps India deal with a lot of over population, pollution, and over crowding issues. It's also worth noting colonies birthrates might drop to similar levels as European ones or at least be lower if modernization and industrialization efforts of these regions go well. That helps out a lot especially if birthrates across Europe drops at a slower and more steady rate

In any hybrid regimes or semi-democratic regime, if numbers have relevance. The British Commonwealth today has about 2,418,964,000 people, the UK has 66,000,000 or 2.7%. Plus it is not willing people there are refugees too that would need to be resettled eg India alone has had tens of millions of refugees looking for homes in the past. Africa and the M.E. many millions more. I would be stunned if it is only 10 to 18 percent.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

In any hybrid regimes or semi-democratic regime, if numbers have relevance. The British Commonwealth today has about 2,418,964,000 people, the UK has 66,000,000 or 2.7%. Plus it is not willing people there are refugees too that would need to be resettled eg India alone has had tens of millions of refugees looking for homes in the past. Africa and the M.E. many millions more. I would be stunned if it is only 10 to 18 percent.

UK is probably going to stay one of the more expensive parts of the empire to live in. This will probably be done somewhat intentionally to prevent the poor masses from flooding into the isles. Also the UK probably can't physically handle that many people living in that small of an area. Furthermore, Africa is closer and probably has a bunch of cheap or open land the British can redirect poor masses or refugees to. Modern empires that are not connected by land will not work like a Mongol empire. The U.K. and other areas will keep the price of coming over and living in their part of the empire too expensive for most African and Indians to go over there. How much is a boat or plane ticket from India to England? Could the average Indian afford that? The same goes for Nigeria and Kenya. Masses of people will only flood other areas if there is open cheap land that don't already have large existing populations. UK has none of that. Look at the remigration currently happening within the United States within the black community. They aren't immigrating to California or New York even those they are arguably nicer then the south but they are moving south because the land is cheaper and there is more of it. The same would apply to British Empire. UK is already well established and develop in regards to population and infrastructure. This naturally makes the place much more expensive to live and harder to demographically change. People will only go to places they can afford even if it isn't as nice.

 

[edgeworthy]

The British arguably tried this with Ireland?

It did not turn out well!

 

[bernardz]

UK is probably going to stay one of the more expensive parts of the empire to live in.

With high salaries, it sort of cancels out this problem.


(a)

This will probably be done somewhat intentionally to prevent the poor masses from flooding into the isles.

This would be hard to enforce in a democracy? Why only dark-skinned people affected?

Also the UK probably can't physically handle that many people living in that small of an area.

Looking at this, the UK population density is not particularly high
http://m.statisticstimes.com/demographics/countries-by-population-density.php

So I doubt the citizens in this Empire would see it like this and unlike many countries most of the UK is inhabitable.

Some parts of the empire with large population densities and populations today.

Bangladesh 1,252 people per square kilometre
Hong Kong 6,690 persons per square kilometre

Furthermore, Africa is closer and probably has a bunch of cheap or open land the British can redirect poor masses or refugees to. Modern empires that are not connected by land will not work like a Mongol empire.

This will be tried. The locals there will be trying to stop it too which might help make a principal of restriction of movement.

The U.K. and other areas will keep the price of coming over and living in their part of the empire too expensive for most African and Indians to go over there. How much is a boat or plane ticket from India to England? Could the average Indian afford that? The same goes for Nigeria and Kenya. Masses of people will only flood other areas if there is open cheap land that don't already have large existing populations. UK has none of that.

Large-scale migration to the UK from SE Asia started in 1947, the cost of movement did not stop it but government action. With today's cheap airfares and transport, cost would not be much of a problem. When I did a search on google, I found aeroplanes price from New Delhi to London for about $1,500. Many Indians and Black Africans can afford this one off fee.

Look at the remigration currently happening within the United States within the black community. They aren't immigrating to California or New York even those they are arguably nicer then the south but they are moving south because the land is cheaper and there is more of it. The same would apply to British Empire. UK is already well established and develop in regards to population and infrastructure. This naturally makes the place much more expensive to live and harder to demographically change. People will only go to places they can afford even if it isn't as nice.

It would work both ways, people living in England might go to these places soon.

Also, it conflicts with what you said at (a) above.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

With high salaries, it sort of cancels out this problem.


(a)



This would be hard to enforce in a democracy? Why only dark-skinned people affected?





Looking at this, the UK population density is not particularly high
http://m.statisticstimes.com/demographics/countries-by-population-density.php

So I doubt the citizens in this Empire would see it like this and unlike many countries most of the UK is inhabitable.

Some parts of the empire with large population densities and populations today.

Bangladesh 1,252 people per square kilometre
Hong Kong 6,690 persons per square kilometre




This will be tried. The locals there will be trying to stop it too which might help make a principal of restriction of movement.



Large-scale migration to the UK from SE Asia started in 1947, the cost of movement did not stop it but government action. With today's cheap airfares and transport, cost would not be much of a problem. When I did a search on google, I found aeroplanes price from New Delhi to London for about $1,500. Many Indians and Black Africans can afford this one off fee.



It would work both ways, people living in England might go to these places soon.

Also, it conflicts with what you said at (a) above.

The majority of people still would not be able to afford that. As American I can't just move to New York or California because of the cost of living. It is better to be poor in a cheap area then a high priced one. America is a great example of how a democratic country can use laws to force out or discourage poor groups from an area without it being considered discrimination even if it is. Zoning laws, taxes, and regulations can be easily used to keep poor people out of regions or drive them out. Also the empire will probably do public projects and works in these areas so less people immigrate from them. A good number of upper class Indians and Africans will go to the UK and some laborers too but that's about it. The population will be a minority between 10 to 18 for Indians. Maybe 10 percent for Africans at most.

 

[Samsara123]

The Roman’s mindset is: how do we make these dirty smelly tribesmen into productive citizens of the republic/empire which went with two routes: Military service(as an Auxiliary) or being enslaved and made a freeman, the military route promised a pension or a plot of land along with Citizenship upon finishing their tour of duty would be settled around where they were stationed as Auxiliaries their children being eligible to join the Legionaries proper or attempt to run for a government position, next is enslavement, which is very patchy, those slaves taken in by rich families are often trained as skilled workers(scribes, accountants etc) and can even receive a salary from their master and eventually buying their own freedom with assistance from their former masters can even start a business, once a slave is freed he becomes something like a permanent resident in modern terms,but their children arr Automatically roman Citizens with its benefits and responsibilities

 

[Modern Imperialism]

The Roman’s mindset is: how do we make these dirty smelly tribesmen into productive citizens of the republic/empire which went with two routes: Military service(as an Auxiliary) or being enslaved and made a freeman, the military route promised a pension or a plot of land along with Citizenship upon finishing their tour of duty would be settled around where they were stationed as Auxiliaries their children being eligible to join the Legionaries proper or attempt to run for a government position, next is enslavement, which is very patchy, those slaves taken in by rich families are often trained as skilled workers(scribes, accountants etc) and can even receive a salary from their master and eventually buying their own freedom with assistance from their former masters can even start a business, once a slave is freed he becomes something like a permanent resident in modern terms,but their children arr Automatically roman Citizens with its benefits and responsibilities

I was thinking a similar mindset and system, minus the enslavement, forms in the mid to late 1900s in a world where the European powers stay strong. France already has a foreign legion who are similar to auxiliaries in background. I was thinking Europe develops a concept along the lines "we use to be dirty tribals and savages before the Romans civilized us. We should now bring civilization to the rest of the world like the Romans did for us."

 

[sarahz]

What about the United States who have assimilated people pretty fast and of a variety of different groups? United States shows us a great example of people becoming more accepted when they become "Americanized" enough to be considered acceptable to the general American population. At one time some Italians were not even considered white by some people. Many even considered Irish as not far off from Africans on the social hierarchy at one point. If their standing could change why can't that not happen in other places.

really the USA has perhaps the largest percentage of racially segregated neighbourhoods in the developed world and I am fairly sure scores relatively poorly for both inter racial marriage and even inter racial friendships.

 

[bernardz]

.. I think I covered this in my previous post.

As it is now the UK is a fast-growing multi-racial population but if the empire had continued this would be much bigger, I suggest.

A good number of upper class Indians and Africans will go to the UK and some laborers too but that's about it. The population will be a minority between 10 to 18 for Indians. Maybe 10 percent for Africans at most.

Say 14% Indian, 10% African and now you need to add Middle Eastern as the British Empire included much of this area. Then we have the Carribean and the Pacific not many there compared to India but these people are generally half casts and it would be much harder to stop them coming. Now add to this mix Eastern European refugees

I suggest looking through this list

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations_by_population

Also, there are many places such as Myanmar, Afghanistan, Israel, Gaza, West Bank, Egypt, Iraq, Malaysia, Kenya, Nigeria and Yemen which were attached to the Empire.

 

[bernardz]

The Roman’s mindset is: how do we make these dirty smelly tribesmen into productive citizens of the republic/empire which went with two routes: Military service(as an Auxiliary) or being enslaved and made a freeman, the military route promised a pension or a plot of land along with Citizenship upon finishing their tour of duty would be settled around where they were stationed as Auxiliaries their children being eligible to join the Legionaries proper or attempt to run for a government position, next is enslavement, which is very patchy, those slaves taken in by rich families are often trained as skilled workers(scribes, accountants etc) and can even receive a salary from their master and eventually buying their own freedom with assistance from their former masters can even start a business, once a slave is freed he becomes something like a permanent resident in modern terms,but their children arr Automatically roman Citizens with its benefits and responsibilities

In missionary work, they often use a term that someone has a religion eg Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Hindu etc and such people are very hard to reach.

The Romans faced early one such religion Jews with disastrous results, three major wars and heaps of rebellions and once Judaism was beaten, it mutilated into Christianity which brought up new problems. The ancient Roman pagan was changed into something else. Now any European power that tried to turn the natives into something like the Romans did would face a problem that the locals will not change in real time nor will they change easily.

With some sort of democracy, the British empire would have a Hindu majority, France and Dutch Empires would be Muslim, Russia, if its Empire continued, would be Muslim, etc.

 

[bernardz]

I am fairly sure scores relatively poorly for both inter racial marriage and even inter racial friendships.

Compared to who?

These figures are quite high
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/05/18/1-trends-and-patterns-in-intermarriage/

 

[The Undead Martyr]

In missionary work, they often use a term that someone has a religion eg Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Hindu etc and such people are very hard to reach.

The Romans faced early one such religion Jews with disastrous results, three major wars and heaps of rebellions and once Judaism was beaten, it mutilated into Christianity which brought up new problems. The ancient Roman pagan was changed into something else. Now any European power that tried to turn the natives into something like the Romans did would face a problem that the locals will not change in real time nor will they change easily.

With some sort of democracy, the British empire would have a Hindu majority, France and Dutch Empires would be Muslim, Russia, if its Empire continued, would be Muslim, etc.

Would it? The Russian Empire includes Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Georgia, and the Baltic states, plus Russia itself.

 

[bernardz]

Would it? The Russian Empire includes Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Georgia, and the Baltic states, plus Russia itself.

Poland is a bit dubious here and fair enough who knows future growth rates Future demographic studies are often wrong.

But what we do know is that six of the 15 republics that made the USSR had Muslim majorities which I am sure is part of the reason they were created.

Muslims growth rates were and much higher than non-muslims.
Here is an article from the period.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12264357

Another discussing the current situation.
http://www.danielpipes.org/206/the-problem-of-soviet-muslims

 

[Modern Imperialism]

Poland is a bit dubious here and fair enough who knows future growth rates Future demographic studies are often wrong.

But what we do know is that six of the 15 republics that made the USSR had Muslim majorities which I am sure is part of the reason they were created.

Muslims growth rates were and much higher than non-muslims.
Here is an article from the period.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12264357

Another discussing the current situation.
http://www.danielpipes.org/206/the-problem-of-soviet-muslims

Ethnic Russians and other Slavs in Russia had a very high birthrate before world wars and communism. This is not considering how many Russians died in the conflicts and issues between 1914 to 1945. Russian Empire was a lot more traditional socially then the rest of Europe. I think the Muslims actually lose ground demographically within Russia in this world. I see much of Central Asia being more Russian and majority Russian in some areas. Women will be kept in more traditional roles in a surviving Russian Empire and will have as high or higher birthrates then the Muslim population.

 

[bernardz]

Ethnic Russians and other Slavs in Russia had a very high birthrate before world wars and communism. This is not considering how many Russians died in the conflicts and issues between 1914 to 1945. Russian Empire was a lot more traditional socially then the rest of Europe. I think the Muslims actually lose ground demographically within Russia in this world. I see much of Central Asia being more Russian and majority Russian in some areas. Women will be kept in more traditional roles in a surviving Russian Empire and will have as high or higher birthrates then the Muslim population.

We would have to assume then that this POD starts much earlier to avoid WW1 and the Russian revolution. Having said that I still think its fair to say that Muslim growth rates will be higher in Russia then non-Muslim ones.

 

[The Undead Martyr]

We would have to assume then that this POD starts much earlier to avoid WW1 and the Russian revolution. Having said that I still think its fair to say that Muslim growth rates will be higher in Russia then non-Muslim ones.

I disagree, I don't think you can assume that. Russia's colonialism took a very clear settler pattern, similar to the U.S.. if any empire could have survived I think it would habe been theirs IMHO.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

We would have to assume then that this POD starts much earlier to avoid WW1 and the Russian revolution. Having said that I still think its fair to say that Muslim growth rates will be higher in Russia then non-Muslim ones.

I disagree, I don't think you can assume that. Russia's colonialism took a very clear settler pattern, similar to the U.S.. if any empire could have survived I think it would habe been theirs IMHO.

I agree with undead for the most part. I don't think the tsar will survive but I see Russians and Slavs in general being much larger in numbers without the world wars, famines, or a bloody revolution. Russians already made up near half of the population in some Central Asian republics. I see everything east of the Urals being much more Russian if not majority Russian. Russians and Muslims had similar birthrates before ww1 but Russians have a over population advantage. Communism lead to a big drop in birthrates. Also I think ww1 can be avoided right up to 1914. What happened with assassination is easily avoidable and you can have a near conflict situation until all powers are less war seeking. I also could see a Russian regime whatever it might be imposing population checks or measures directly or indirectly on certain groups to lower their growth. The Soviets did impose strict secularization on Muslims communities too. This is why much of the Muslim population from the Soviet Union are less religious and have lower birthrates then their Middle East counterparts. Your birthrate point is more of a modern trend. Europeans still had very high birthrates up until the wars and much of the Muslim world lacked the population boom of industrialization.