WI: Europe was Black

"Dark" skin doesn't mean black skin. It means that mass of European population was issued from Middle-Easter migrants, having probably the same skin than still have mediterranean population in Europe nowadays. (Such as Greeks in Antiquity or today aren't exactly looking as Norwegians). What a shock : "black" and "white" aren't relevant distinctions.
 
The only rapid paced migration I know of was the Mongols and that was because Geography favored the crap out of them. I don't think so in Africa what with the much more varied geography.

I can see them instead pushing for the Spice Coast of East Africa along the bottom of the Red Sea and the Horn first and then after sometime getting a naval tradition and then spreading northward Into Arabia Felix and Egypt by sea.

Sounds more plausible to me. I must admit my strategic decision for direction of migration was based on a topographical map of Africa in relation to the Congo Nucleus.
 
Might Mali make it?

OTL Mali had a massive population base, a great number of educational institutions. and an entirely unbelivable amount of gold. And apparently were still challenged by nations to its southeast.

What Mali lacks is a strong seafaring tradition. Which would have allowed more impulses and ideas from outside. The coastline grants limited rewards for developing seafaring tech.

If their solid base could be pointed in a slightly different direction, (and there seems to be room for an even stronger powerbase than OTL) I could at least see them in control of Iberia.
 
The whole of Europe would have to be further back, but a significantly more African south and west is remotely possible.

Probably a moor ASB suggestion, but what if the first Muslims were never allowed back into Arabia from the Hijjra and instead became based in east Africa? Perhaps Muhammed loses his influence among the Quraish and the alliances between the pagan and Abrahamic tribes in the area are stronger.

I'm thinking Bilal as a rashidun khalif, Ethopians and Nubians slowly becoming the dominant culture in Islam and Egypt, before expanding out across the Med. So, though some form of Arabic language is used, the settling cultures in the islands and former Roman lands are hierarchically different. With Abysinnisation rather than Arabisation, Egypt, Cyraenica and part of the Levant start to look very different.

I still think Spain is the best chance to start this. The muslims in Hispania complete the conquest of the peninsula subjugating Galicia, Leon, and Aragon. Then something else happens that lets the Muslims hold on to Septimania and Euskonia, however tenuously - do the Carolingian generals flunk it or die?

Perhaps a Malinese dynasty rises to power in the Maghreb later on instead of the Almohads. The Berbers are pressured to become darker rather than lighter to avoid racism from their comrades. All of these influences lead to a darker North Africa and a darker South/Western Europe. Unless the eastern Muslim empire can topple Rhome before the Turks arrive, I don't see any serious prospects for Eastern Europe, and Northern Europe would require our winged extraterrestrial friends.
 
I still think Spain is the best chance to start this. The muslims in Hispania complete the conquest of the peninsula subjugating Galicia, Leon, and Aragon. Then something else happens that lets the Muslims hold on to Septimania and Euskonia, however tenuously - do the Carolingian generals flunk it or die?

Giving that the bulk of the Islamic troops IOTL were Berbers, and not Arabs, I don't see how it would be any different there, as was the limited numbers. (It could argued that such PoD could efficiently butterfly away the conquista to begin with).
Even if such thing was possible (it wasn't for different reasons, but that's another topic. Let's say the deep disunity among Muslims in face of a unified Francia isn't going to allow that), it wouldn't have resulted in a "Black Spain" unless self-indulging in the stereotyped depiction of Moors= Black (that is essentially coming from slavery classification in the XVIth century, so *maybe* not that trustworthy)

Given the huge racism towards Blacks (slaves or not) from Berbers, having mixing on an equal base would already be wonderful.
 

SinghKing

Banned
For an alternate approach to pull off this challenge- while it may sound counter-intuitive at first, what if we were to make Europe richer, more populous and more united, from an earlier stage in history? I'm thinking along the lines of The Carolingian/ Holy Roman Empire ITTL paralleling the development of the Mughal Empire IOTL. With the relatively poorer, less politically unified, but still more militarily advanced Africans ITTL having already turned their attentions to sending naval trade expeditions between Europe, India and the Far East, after having been largely cut off from the Silk Road (by the Muslim Conquests, which still happen ITTL, but are significantly less successful in Africa than they were IOTL. Even so, the Islamic conquests are still sufficient for the Islamic Caliphate to seize control of the primary Silk Road trading routes between China, India, Central Asia- and ITTL, all the way through the Balkans into Central Europe, due to Europe's increased wealth and trade importance), African state-backed merchant conglomerates begin to establish critical trading ports with the Carolingian rulers of most of Europe (ITTL, due to the greater extent of its integration with the rest of Eurasia, Europe is perceived to be a sub-continental region of Eurasia rather than a continent in its own right, in the same way that India is IOTL).

Expanding commerce during Holy Roman Imperial rule gives rise to new European commercial and political elites, along the coasts of southern (Mediterranean) and eastern (Balkans & Black Sea) Europe. As the Holy Roman empire eventually disintegrates ITTL, in a manner akin to the decline and eventual disintegration of the Mughal Empire IOTL, many among these elites are able to seek and control their own affairs, and break away to form independent kingdoms- with the respective African trading companies' control of the seas, greater resources, and more advanced military training and technology making the allegiance of their fledgling nations with the African trading companies become increasingly attractive to a portion of the European elite. This proves to be critical to allowing the African companies to gain control by proxy over critical regions, such as the Spanish and Italian archipelagos - and their further access to the riches of these regions, and the subsequent increased strength and size of the African trading companies' armies eventually enable them to annex or subdue virtually all of of Europe.

Does that sound more feasible?
 

SinghKing

Banned
Does it end with the Zulus colonising Croatia? ;)

Well, you never know. Since the Zulus hail from one of the coolest (climatologically) regions in Africa, perhaps you could increase the poetic irony by ending it with the Zulus colonising the British Isles instead? :D
 
Last edited:
Well, you never know. Since the Zulus hail from one of the coolest (climatologically) regions in Africa, perhaps you could increase the poetic irony by ending it with the Zulus colonising the British Isles instead? :D

"We left Africa for this?! I'm going to Italy, this is bullshit man..."

I wonder how the Fulani would do in the Russian steppe?
 

SinghKing

Banned
"We left Africa for this?! I'm going to Italy, this is bullshit man..."

I wonder how the Fulani would do in the Russian steppe?

Not a clue. In such a TL, the African colonialists would probably just leave Russia to the Turks (/Islamic North-East Africans).
 

Beer

Banned
"We left Africa for this?! I'm going to Italy, this is bullshit man..."
I wonder how the Fulani would do in the Russian steppe?
Hi!

LOL!
You are humouristical on another point why the OP cannot function. Climate and biology. Europe and Northern Asia did not become "white"/"lightly tanned" just out of fun. It was an evolutionary advantage under the climates there.
Europe "bleached out" within a few generations, insanely fast on the evolutionary scale. This shows the evolutionary pressure by the climate. Any long-term invaders would be under the same pressure and the adapted native Europeans would have this advantage. In the Iron Age, which this OP plays in, such advantages count really big.
 
Last edited:

SinghKing

Banned
Hi!

LOL!
You are humouristical on another point why the OP cannot function. Climate and biology. Europe and Northern Asia did not become "white"/"lightly tanned" just out of fun. It was an evolutionary advantage under the climates there.
Europe "bleached out" within a few generations, insanely fast on the evolutionary scale. This shows the evolutionary pressure by the climate.

So, you're saying that 'the OP cannot function'- effectively, that Africans were inherently incapable of colonising Europe and Northern Asia- due to climate and biology? Really,

Dark skin, high levels of melanin, was an even bigger evolutionary advantage under the climates of Sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, India, Australia- need I go on? But did 'Climate and biology' prevent the Europeans from colonising those regions. No. Don't those Europeans in these regions, subject to the evolutionary pressure of their climates, still remain "white"/"lightly tanned" after doing so? Of course they do. Have they "blackened out" within a few generations? I can't see it myself...
 

Beer

Banned
So, you're saying that 'the OP cannot function'- effectively, that Africans were inherently incapable of colonising Europe and Northern Asia- due to climate and biology? Really,

Dark skin, high levels of melanin, was an even bigger evolutionary advantage under the climates of Sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, India, Australia- need I go on? But did 'Climate and biology' prevent the Europeans from colonising those regions. No. Don't those Europeans in these regions, subject to the evolutionary pressure of their climates, still remain "white"/"lightly tanned" after doing so? Of course they do. Have they "blackened out" within a few generations? I can't see it myself...
Hi!

Read it correctly, man. ONE of the factors!! In the Iron Age, where this scenario plays, you do not have the perks the later colonisers have. Even if the Black-Africans win, over time they will get lighter skin. Not white, but definitely not black anymore.
Read some of yearly health reports the European governments make. The really dark-skinned persons living in Europe are adviced to add more mineral foods and additives to their diet, because many have too low levels of several vitamins and minerals. Today and say 200 years back, this is a problem you can tackle, but in the Iron Age with very different levels of food and other things, the number of warriors born with rickles and all that plays a role.

Oh, and for the typical colonisers in Central America or Australia: You can block the sun out artificial with stuff, but you cannot produce more vitamins all by yourself if your body does not allow it. Totally different situation. If the European colonisers came during the Iron Age to Africa, Australia, they would darken too. as seen with the Indians, who for Caucasians have rather dark skin.
 
Last edited:
The problem is more than subsaharian Africa was fairly isolated from Mediterranean basin, the big desertic area efficiently separating it from it (at the notable exception of Nil basin and Red Sea), and the tropical forest area representating a problem to exploit the hinterland.

Doesn't mean that Africa was essentially unable to take on Europe, but that it begins with some disadvantages with Europe on this regard : the major West-Africa/Mediterranean basin relations really begins in the VIIIth CE, thanks to the Arabo-Islamic political and economical continuum.

There, an earlier appearance of strong African powers would help : Nok culture producing a Ghana-like Empire, earlier Niger and Chadian entities, maintained Nubian takeover of Egypt,etc.
That alone wouldn't allow a takeover (would it be only for demographical difference), but would probably allow Sub-saharian political entities to be able to deal with a more or less equal ground with Mediterranean entities (including taking over some of them)
 

SinghKing

Banned
Hi!

Read it correctly, man. ONE of the factors!! In the Iron Age, where this scenario plays, you do not have the perks the later colonisers have. Even if the Black-Africans win, over time they will get lighter skin. Not white, but definitely not black anymore.
Read some of yearly health reports the European governments make. The really dark-skinned persons living in Europe are adviced to add more mineral foods and additives to their diet, because many have too low levels of several vitamins and minerals. Today and say 200 years back, this is a problem you can tackle, but in the Iron Age with very different levels of food and other things, the number of warriors born with rickles and all that plays a role.

Nah- the Iron Age was where such a scenario would start- when the proposed POD would be. The proposed colonisation of Europe by the Africans ITTL would only really start to take off at a later stage, after the collapse of the aforementioned larger, wealthier and 'more powerful' Holy Roman Empire (with OTL's Crusader mentality focused inwards ITTL; with its far greater territorial extent and far larger populace ITTL, the increase in the HRE's religious conservatism and intolerance undermines the more tenuous stability of their empire to a far greater extent, with earlier, more militant faiths, akin to amalgams between Protestantism and Sikhism, coming into being in response to the increasing brutality of the empire and its rulers) into a multitude of newly established breakaway independent kingdoms.- i.r.o 1300CE.
 
of the aforementioned larger, wealthier and 'more powerful' Holy Roman Empire

Such thing wouldn't work for an awful long list of reasons. The first of which was that the "H"RE (Holy only appeared later) wasn't some kind of unified behemoth to begin with, but a really fragmentated political entity to begin with. Structurally speaking, it couldn't expand much importantly that it did IOTL without crumbling immediatly.

Giving the aformentioned factors (relative isolation, late appearance of strong political entities), the PoD must be in early African protohistory.
 

SinghKing

Banned
Such thing wouldn't work for an awful long list of reasons. The first of which was that the "H"RE (Holy only appeared later) wasn't some kind of unified behemoth to begin with, but a really fragmentated political entity to begin with. Structurally speaking, it couldn't expand much importantly that it did IOTL without crumbling immediatly.

Giving the aformentioned factors (relative isolation, late appearance of strong political entities), the PoD must be in early African protohistory.

Well, it wouldn't be the same entity as OTL's HRE- obviously enough, given the early POD. But knowledge transfer happens- and the African bloom furnace tech to produce carbon-steel will eventually make its way into Europe. How? Most likely, via the (original) Roman Empire. This would strengthen their military capabilities to a far greater extent than the rest of Europe, and they'd stand a far greater chance of unifying a larger portion of the European continent for a longer duration than they did IOTL- politically, socially, culturally and religiously. This serves as a more solid framework for the Roman Empire's eventual successors, who claims their mantle. And assuming that Christianity still comes into being ITTL, and is still eventually adopted as the state faith, using the nomer 'Holy Roman Empire' for the similarly-natured Empire which takes its place ITTL, during the same time period as OTL's HRE, isn't that much of a stretch.
 

Beer

Banned
Such thing wouldn't work for an awful long list of reasons. The first of which was that the "H"RE (Holy only appeared later) wasn't some kind of unified behemoth to begin with, but a really fragmentated political entity to begin with. Structurally speaking, it couldn't expand much importantly that it did IOTL without crumbling immediatly.

Giving the aformentioned factors (relative isolation, late appearance of strong political entities), the PoD must be in early African protohistory.
Hi!

I agree with your general stance on this, but the real fragmentation of the HRE came only later. The early HRE until around 1300 was a mighty nation.
 
How? Most likely, via the (original) Roman Empire.
The very same empire that demonstrated a deep desinterest in sub-saharian Africa (arguably, you had nothing of interest to them but sand, and some really early tribal confederacies in Niger, that had the huge disadvantage to not being on trade roads (the only trans-african "international" trade road being along the Red Sea at this point)?

You'd need a reason why they would want to go there in first place, namely by an earlier protohistoric/historic development of Africa as described above (and it's a PoD that have the huge advantage, at least for me, to be an afrocentric PoD, rather than "Let's make Africa a more European entity to have some hope to them to take over")

I agree with your general stance on this, but the real fragmentation of the HRE came only later. The early HRE until around 1300 was a mighty nation.
Wasn't. It was an unified feudal entity, with all the benefit it holds, but still was hugely divided politically and territorialy as most of feudal entities in their time. The dynastical struggles, and regular revolts against an important imperial hegemony inside the Empire point that.

Even Ottonian dynasty, that did remarkably well, had still to deal with and was eventually unable to takeover regions they tried (such as Poland in early XIth century, that was more or less included into the Empire or Danemark). It managed to get Italy and Burgundy precisely because these entities were hugely divided and without real unified authority (not that Ottonians really managed to impose their authority there as well).
It's not about to downplay the imperial hegemony over their empire, but it doesn't make it less fragmented.
 
Last edited:
Top