What other parts of the world could be Europeanized/ Westernized post 1700?

When I mean Westernized or Europeanized, I mean like the Americas( mostly Latin America) in that the indigenous cultures are mostly mixed up with European cultures to the point that a European language is spoken by the mass majority of people, regardless of ancestry and various aspects of a European culture are absorbed and practiced by many people.
 
It depends on what exactly you define as Europeanized (Westernized implies technological acceptance, a la Japan). Also, define European: do you include Turkey in it? Are you defining it as the Indo-European People? Something else?

Many parts of the former colonial empires had some remnants of this; your best bet is to focus on a multiethnic region where a common language would be required to unit the various groups. One region that springs to mind is Southeast Asia; Sarawak OTL existed until it was annexed during WW2; if it hadn't, there is a possibility that it would have existed as an independent kingdom through the 21st century. I'm not sure the languages spoken at independence, but currently the region is nearly half Christian, and is the only Christian plurality state in Malaysia.

However, I'm rather sure that Sarawak's success was its flexibility and adaptability in its treatment of its natives, although I can't give you anymore than that. In any case, it may look more like South Korea or Japan (both being extremely westernized, though still speaking their native language)

Other cases could be other, similar kingdoms/republic in Borneo/the Moluccas/Western Papua; though that doesn't seem likely unless the Netherlands keep them as an overseas department.

Perhaps Gabon if they are kept as a department of France? Same with the Republic of Congo. Cabinda did not desire to be placed together with Angola and could stay with Portugal.

If you include Northern Africa? Italy had a ton of trouble with Tripolitania OTL, but that is the only territory that could potentially have enough immigration to make it distinctly European. Any other choices would be small coastal enclaves (think Ceuta & Melilla).

The Western Sahara was about 30% Spanish when Spain pulled out. It certainly is possible to be kept.

At the fall of the Soviet Union, nearly half of Kazakhstan's population was Russian; a better few centuries for Russia might allow a larger portion of Central Asia to remain under their control.

-

Basically, a (but not the only) key thing for any colonial territory to be converted is a lack of a central unitary identity or language. In regions where there is such a prior culture (ex: Korea/Japan), despite the amount of Westernization, they don't adapt a European language as there is an existing linguistic and national identity. Compare that to regions where association is tribal, and a foreign language can easily supplant it and act as a unifying element that is a third party to local interests.

Also, population pressure is important, political realities, general location and ease of access, etc. Despite what Victoria 2 might tell us, just because a low-populated area is brought under an empire's control, it doesn't mean it will automatically become assimilated.
 
It depends on what exactly you define as Europeanized (Westernized implies technological acceptance, a la Japan). Also, define European: do you include Turkey in it? Are you defining it as the Indo-European People? Something else?
Europeanized in that the mass majority of people speak a European language from what is usually defined as Europe, so Turkey is not included.
 
Europeanized in that the mass majority of people speak a European language from what is usually defined as Europe, so Turkey is not included.

Then you can add Thrace, Ionia/Smyrna, and Turkish Aegean/Mamaran littoral. Armenia could be larger as well.

Was there any particular region you had in mind? It is a rather open-ended question.
 
Then you can add Thrace, Ionia/Smyrna, and Turkish Aegean/Mamaran littoral. Armenia could be larger as well.

Was there any particular region you had in mind? It is a rather open-ended question.
Perhaps, North Africa as I looking at another alternate history timeline and North Africa is divided into three nations that speak Spanish, French, and Italian, but the world is so different that I wondered if that was possible without making the world pretty much unrecognizable. I guess Africa and the Middle East in general as I am interested in the concept of having Italian and German become more predominant languages in order to Spanish and English. And I am tired which was why my paragraph is weird and is just st the moment thoughts put down.
 

ben0628

Banned
North African Coast, Southern Africa, Central Asia (Russianized), Anartica, key Islands in Asia.
 
What about Pacific Islands? Hawaii is a great example of one where the indigenous people became a minority, although it's more Asian than white. If you count Asian Americans as Europeanised/Westernised, then more US rule in the Pacific could equal something like what Imperial Japan did in their own Pacific territories, where the Japanese outnumbered the locals. Probably would be like Hawaii but with a higher ratio of Asians compared to whites.

I wonder how European you could get Cape Verde, Sao Tomé, and Bioko? Likewise, same thing with the Mascarenes. Haiti and Jamaica are also good candidates, if you consider the Dominican Republic "white".

Perhaps, North Africa as I looking at another alternate history timeline and North Africa is divided into three nations that speak Spanish, French, and Italian, but the world is so different that I wondered if that was possible without making the world pretty much unrecognizable. I guess Africa and the Middle East in general as I am interested in the concept of having Italian and German become more predominant languages in order to Spanish and English. And I am tired which was why my paragraph is weird and is just st the moment thoughts put down.

A Libya less antagonistic toward the Italians, Tunisia actually ending up Italian instead of French, and Spain taking Morocco could have your three North African nations speaking those languages. They'd need a miracle during decolonisation to avoid something as nasty as what happened in Algeria (and thus the end of a large European community) AND still be independent.

The most European would be the Italian one, since it has sparser population and the European community would be large thanks to the huge Italian diaspora. French Algeria could be made more French than OTL, but realistically it's still gonna be confined to the coast. Spanish Morocco, probably the same. I just don't see wholescale assimilation of North Africans after Islam is firmly established there, but 10-20% European minorities (maybe a bit more) and European languages being the most important is a pretty good result.
 
Australia if it was settled in a different way that OTL; on an earlier, smaller, slower scale where the Europeans rely more on the knowledge and techniques of Aborigines.
 
I think there's a decent chance of the Christians of the Levant, and possibly the Alawites and/or Druze, being Westernized.

Let's take a hypothetical scenario in which the Ottomans collapse early in the 19th century(whether at the hands of Russia or Muhammad Ali or the French themselves). In the scramble for territory that follows the French end up in possession of the Levant as well as/instead of Algeria. They implement a similar policy in Syria as they did OTL in Algeria- it is considered an integral part of France, and citizenship is extended to the native Jews and Christians(and in theory to Muslims who renounce Islamic law and culture, which didn't appeal to many Algerian Muslims. But I could see the Alawites and Druze taking it up, seeing as they're othered by "normal" Islam regardless). Further, the French encourage migration to Syria as they did Algeria, with much of that migration not being from France(many Algerian settlers were actually Italian). So Greater Syria's already sizable Christian population is bolstered by a similar amount of Christian settlement as was recieved OTL, but in addition to that a large number of Jews settle as well(because the French territory includes Israel/Palestine).

Baring in mind that is taking place before the emergence of OTL Arab and Zionist nationalism(and before the revival of the Hebrew language) I could easily the Jews, Christian natives and maybe the Alawites and Druze taking on the French language as their lingua franca, and maybe buying into a French civic nationalist identity.
 
The Philippines under Spain. Technically, America already westernized us (westernization does not at all mean development).
 
I think there's a decent chance of the Christians of the Levant, and possibly the Alawites and/or Druze, being Westernized.

Let's take a hypothetical scenario in which the Ottomans collapse early in the 19th century(whether at the hands of Russia or Muhammad Ali or the French themselves). In the scramble for territory that follows the French end up in possession of the Levant as well as/instead of Algeria. They implement a similar policy in Syria as they did OTL in Algeria- it is considered an integral part of France, and citizenship is extended to the native Jews and Christians(and in theory to Muslims who renounce Islamic law and culture, which didn't appeal to many Algerian Muslims. But I could see the Alawites and Druze taking it up, seeing as they're othered by "normal" Islam regardless). Further, the French encourage migration to Syria as they did Algeria, with much of that migration not being from France(many Algerian settlers were actually Italian). So Greater Syria's already sizable Christian population is bolstered by a similar amount of Christian settlement as was recieved OTL, but in addition to that a large number of Jews settle as well(because the French territory includes Israel/Palestine).

Baring in mind that is taking place before the emergence of OTL Arab and Zionist nationalism(and before the revival of the Hebrew language) I could easily the Jews, Christian natives and maybe the Alawites and Druze taking on the French language as their lingua franca, and maybe buying into a French civic nationalist identity.
Well Liban OTL in some way is westernized even if it remains a "arab nation" (go see the "National Pact" of 1941 if I'm correct). If in 1920, the Liban is really made to welcome all the christians refugees in the Levant (roughly 500 000 at the time) and if you remove all of muslim population in Liban except the druzes ( at the time, this policy was perceived as positive as it would prevent genocide: see the greek-turkish agreement and the Red Cross called it "populations' transfert" and not "ethnic cleansing"): then you create a state who would more heavily rely on a french alliance and, perhaps, the national language would be french since the elites of Liban already spoke the language. But as you can see, it's somewhat of a grim situation, you have to displace around 200 000 muslims (sunni and shias) out of Liban. Again at the time it would be perceived as a "plausible and acceptable" solution but Syria is going to be livid and the revolts probably far more numerous. But it would fit with the french policy of creating a "refuge" for christians minorities after WW1.
 
I think there's a decent chance of the Christians of the Levant, and possibly the Alawites and/or Druze, being Westernized.

Let's take a hypothetical scenario in which the Ottomans collapse early in the 19th century(whether at the hands of Russia or Muhammad Ali or the French themselves). In the scramble for territory that follows the French end up in possession of the Levant as well as/instead of Algeria. They implement a similar policy in Syria as they did OTL in Algeria- it is considered an integral part of France, and citizenship is extended to the native Jews and Christians(and in theory to Muslims who renounce Islamic law and culture, which didn't appeal to many Algerian Muslims. But I could see the Alawites and Druze taking it up, seeing as they're othered by "normal" Islam regardless). Further, the French encourage migration to Syria as they did Algeria, with much of that migration not being from France(many Algerian settlers were actually Italian). So Greater Syria's already sizable Christian population is bolstered by a similar amount of Christian settlement as was recieved OTL, but in addition to that a large number of Jews settle as well(because the French territory includes Israel/Palestine).

Baring in mind that is taking place before the emergence of OTL Arab and Zionist nationalism(and before the revival of the Hebrew language) I could easily the Jews, Christian natives and maybe the Alawites and Druze taking on the French language as their lingua franca, and maybe buying into a French civic nationalist identity.


This seems plausible. Lebanon is also perhaps the easiest of the Arab nations to reverse Arabic and make Romance/Germanic speaking. A similar area of the region, Palestine, was affected in this manner and is essentially Hebrew speaking and Jewish culturally, so I do not find it impossible for Lebanon to become some sort of a Franco-Arab state and likely would become far more French influenced than Algeria who possessed vast empty lands of varying ethnic groups as opposed to the more urban and cosmopolitan Levantine coastline.
 
Areas of the world that would be extremely difficult:

Nejd, Hijaz, Al-Haasa, etc.... These areas are out of the way and not exactly the best areas for settlement. The most you could probably get is a Morocco situation with a European language as the co-official.

Egypt. Too many people and all strategically located around the Nile. You would need to go to perhaps the Middle Ages to achieve anything, perhaps a return to Greek rule and Greek replaces Coptic as the language of Egypt.

Iraq. This one is impossible, without going back to before Roman periods.

Iran. Even more difficult Iraq.

Turkey. Perhaps at some point, but 1700 is perhaps too late without forcible conversion and forced language policies. Russia would be the only state capable of doing this and it is doubtful that they could based on the already large Turkish population and other European powers. However, I can see as a consolation, Constantinople and Izmit becoming western if owned by a European state and after colonization becomes akin to Singapore.

Ethiopia. Very secluded and densely populated.

Yemen. Same as Ethiopia and more hostile than Ethiopia for European settlers.
 
The most European would be the Italian one, since it has sparser population and the European community would be large thanks to the huge Italian diaspora. French Algeria could be made more French than OTL, but realistically it's still gonna be confined to the coast. Spanish Morocco, probably the same. I just don't see wholescale assimilation of North Africans after Islam is firmly established there, but 10-20% European minorities (maybe a bit more) and European languages being the most important is a pretty good result.

Most of the resources, pre-1960, are on the coast.

However, if French demography was more dynamic then I could see more colonists in the cities.
 
Australia if it was settled in a different way that OTL; on an earlier, smaller, slower scale where the Europeans rely more on the knowledge and techniques of Aborigines.

Was the aboriginal population ever significant enough for that to occur, especially in a continent so large?

Areas of the world that would be extremely difficult:

Nejd, Hijaz, Al-Haasa, etc.... These areas are out of the way and not exactly the best areas for settlement. The most you could probably get is a Morocco situation with a European language as the co-official.

Egypt. Too many people and all strategically located around the Nile. You would need to go to perhaps the Middle Ages to achieve anything, perhaps a return to Greek rule and Greek replaces Coptic as the language of Egypt.

Iraq. This one is impossible, without going back to before Roman periods.

Iran. Even more difficult Iraq.

Turkey. Perhaps at some point, but 1700 is perhaps too late without forcible conversion and forced language policies. Russia would be the only state capable of doing this and it is doubtful that they could based on the already large Turkish population and other European powers. However, I can see as a consolation, Constantinople and Izmit becoming western if owned by a European state and after colonization becomes akin to Singapore.

Ethiopia. Very secluded and densely populated.

Yemen. Same as Ethiopia and more hostile than Ethiopia for European settlers.

Agreed on Arabia proper; the only parts of that which might be possibly assimilated would be pieces of the Levantine coast. I wouldn't find it too beyond belief that somewhere like Socotra or one of the Trucial states. ...Perhaps a Bahrain that is torn between the Persian and Arabic worlds and two regional powers (Greater Iran vs a UAR, for example) might take a third option and use the language of another power, colonial or otherwise?

Egypt is too densely populated, certainly. The Sinai might could be, but really, that would only come in conjunction with a Suez canal of some sort. And against a populous Egypt that is even semi-successful, that would be difficult to sustain.

Iraq/Iran, pretty much. Only exception is a possible Assyrian nation (or otherwise) in Upper Iraq that might be placed in the European category by default due to whom they'd rely on.

Disagreement on Anatolia; it has been 250 years since the fall of Constantinople and two hundred years until the Ottoman Empire falls. Considering the remnant Greek/Armenian population at that time (while small), it was spread along the coasts. Constantinople was majority Greek long into Ottoman rule as well (I'm half certain that it was at the end of WW1, until the population exchanges). It is likely that such a population would be at least of the same proportions (the Ottoman Empire was roughly 20-25% Christian at the turn of the 20th Century) two centuries prior. The Austrians had potential to push farther in the Great Turkish War (some aspirations were made at taking Constantinople during that war) but the French did not desire the expansion of Austrian power to such an extent.

Even OTL, the Straits were nearly made an international zone (and, likely, Greek or Russian later) while Ionia was assigned to Greece OTL. I don't think the Anatolian plateau can be converted back to Greek. I wouldn't find it unreasonable that the entire Aegean littoral and the straits region could return to being Greek, or European in general. The Black Sea Littoral is another question (especially if there is a very strong Russia that wants to connect to Tsarigrad), but I don't find it unreasonable. After all, there is still a relatively large Greek population in Trebizond. It nearly became a state before, due to its small size in 1918, it was merged with Wilsonian Armenia.

-

Libya was 12% Italian after 30 years or so under Italian colonial rule. An earlier Italian unification and earlier entrance into Libya might produce a situation where the trend continued for longer. (Who knows how long it would have lasted if Italy hadn't entered WW2 against Britain, for example)
 
I'm wondering whether we might see additional areas being Westernized(whether by genocide or coercion) if the Axis had won. I could easily see them grabbing Kuwait, Al-Haasa, Qatar et al, although that doesn't neccesarily mean Westernizing them. They could certainly do what the British and Americans have done: trust these regimes to manage their territories and keep the oil flowing and in exchange tolerate them taking a cut and serve as a guarantor of their existence.

Let's say they go the other way though- imperialistically minded and without concerns for "human rights" PR, Germany and/or Italy decide that they'd prefer to keep the full sum of oil revenue for themselves. The states of the Gulf were fairly sparsely populated before their recent oil-fed population boom, and hardly militarily formidable, and I'd think the regions environment makes it just about the worst possible place to stage an insurgency.

The climate being what it is, whomever rules the area is likely to rely on third world labour much as the Gulf states have done OTL, though perhaps they'd use slaves rather then guest workers. As for the local Arabs, if they're not eliminated through genocide and exodus they're likely stuck on slave wages or as literal slaves alongside the imported labour.

This isn't exactly a traditional Westernization scenario I'll grant, but if the labour is imported from multiple sources then German or Italian is likely the territory's lingua franca. The regions management and permanently resident elite is likely to be of European origin as well.
 
Was the aboriginal population ever significant enough for that to occur, especially in a continent so large?

Aborigine population was densest in Queensland, probably 1/4 of the entire population was up there. However I was thinking places like the Condah Swamp which because of extensive stone weirs supported several thousand people 9 months of the year in houses with stone bases/lower walls and wood framing. If initial contact was for trade rather than settlement then the locals could adapt many European practices prior to settlement and not get overrun when settlement does occur.
 
I'm wondering whether we might see additional areas being Westernized(whether by genocide or coercion) if the Axis had won. I could easily see them grabbing Kuwait, Al-Haasa, Qatar et al, although that doesn't neccesarily mean Westernizing them. They could certainly do what the British and Americans have done: trust these regimes to manage their territories and keep the oil flowing and in exchange tolerate them taking a cut and serve as a guarantor of their existence.

Let's say they go the other way though- imperialistically minded and without concerns for "human rights" PR, Germany and/or Italy decide that they'd prefer to keep the full sum of oil revenue for themselves. The states of the Gulf were fairly sparsely populated before their recent oil-fed population boom, and hardly militarily formidable, and I'd think the regions environment makes it just about the worst possible place to stage an insurgency.

The climate being what it is, whomever rules the area is likely to rely on third world labour much as the Gulf states have done OTL, though perhaps they'd use slaves rather then guest workers. As for the local Arabs, if they're not eliminated through genocide and exodus they're likely stuck on slave wages or as literal slaves alongside the imported labour.

This isn't exactly a traditional Westernization scenario I'll grant, but if the labour is imported from multiple sources then German or Italian is likely the territory's lingua franca. The regions management and permanently resident elite is likely to be of European origin as well.

Only problem with that is such a PoD requires the Axis to somehow totally defeat Britain and the Soviet Union at the same time if it is anything similar to our WW2; Britain isn't going to hand over vital protectorates so easily (especially when they have a resource so easily demanded by their foes). The most likely case of this working is Turkey also joining such a war... which means a return of former Ottoman territories to Turkey. (Though, if I remember correct, the Arabs were viewed very favorably by the Germans, for as much as such things could last. Considering the sheer scale of the work a victorious Germany would have to perform (repopulating the Central European plain). They don't have the ability to project power that far. It might work for a situation like Man in the High Castle, but I don't see it working overall.

Aborigine population was densest in Queensland, probably 1/4 of the entire population was up there. However I was thinking places like the Condah Swamp which because of extensive stone weirs supported several thousand people 9 months of the year in houses with stone bases/lower walls and wood framing. If initial contact was for trade rather than settlement then the locals could adapt many European practices prior to settlement and not get overrun when settlement does occur.

Fair enough; though I'm not sure what trade could be found in Australia compared to more populous ports in Indonesia.
 
Fair enough; though I'm not sure what trade could be found in Australia compared to more populous ports in Indonesia.

Nothing good, but if a ship is down that way and needs a bit of food or water or a replacement mast or whatever it would be nice to know that there are a couple of places with dense settlement and a bit of a food surplus. Much better than the rest of the country.
 
Top