For the past five centuries, European countries had explored and colonized the world. Today, European languages remain big lingua francas, most countries are former European colonies and Christianity has been spread by Europeans across the world. But is it possible for some other region of the world to dominate and colonize the world the same way Europe did? Which region is the most likely to do so and why?
What other region could dominate the world the way Europe did?
- Thread starter Siberian Tiger
- Start date
North Africa is pretty good choice or even Sub-Saharan Africa but for that you are going to need very early POD, perhaps even prehistoric one so you get quite centralised and strong empires instead some tribal kingdoms and yet motivation to go elsewhere.
East Asia would be another option but location is not really optimal and them yet should are intrested about that instead going isolationism and focusing their neighboring areas.
Southern Asia speciality South-East Asia had historically pretty strong maritime societies but not sure would them have intrest to become dominant regions.
Middle East is bit unlikely IMO. Location is not really great.
East Asia would be another option but location is not really optimal and them yet should are intrested about that instead going isolationism and focusing their neighboring areas.
Southern Asia speciality South-East Asia had historically pretty strong maritime societies but not sure would them have intrest to become dominant regions.
Middle East is bit unlikely IMO. Location is not really great.
I think it will pay to be specific here. Just some thoughts about what domination means, the concept of European domination, and the costs associated for both.
France, what became the UK, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands dominated the world. Russia certainly became a major player in European politics as well as Asia. The reach of Slovenia and even Belgium (despite its big slice of Africa) were nowhere near as wide-reaching as that. Hell, the British Empire's "domination" of the world was only a concrete fact from the 1840s to about the 1950's. Claiming dominion over wilderness and swathes of cultures that you couldn't do anything to or with until 200 years as passed is hardly domination.
Establish perimeters of what you mean by domination. The Spanish Empire was at the top of a convoluted power structure until it collapsed 400 years on from its establishment. The Spanish were not in absolute dominion of their colonies in those times needing protracted wars, negotiation, and power-sharing to keep control well into the establishment of the post-Revolution states across South and Central America. Much is the same of the French and British Empires, their peak of control only lasting about 100 or so years across their vast holdings in the Americas, Africa, and Asia.
500 years of domination is not the history of Europe, let alone the history of the empires that did have massive global impact. If we want to properly define another region pulling off the same, categorising proper achievements (we could work with the spread of religion qualified with how much religious authority is in the Imperial metropole, perhaps trade? flow of wealth? Language spread? Influence contemporaneously?) Empire is an action of continuous mounting struggle that almost always costs more than it did to maintain. It traumatises millions of both oppressors and oppressed for what? Which regions can maintain such an effort?
You could have certainly gotten more regional empires or rather, continental empires. Sprawling land empires alla Russia or Mongolia require a lot of empty land to maintain the fiction of control. Taiga and desert aren't going to contest sovereignty, after all. Maritime empires required initial contact to be largely beneficent in first contact and munificence on the part of those initially contacted.
Asia has been mentioned as a contestant for global dominance, both West and East. However, they would certainly have completely different strategies of expansion, conquest, occupation, and potential settlement (or perhaps decline? Client establishment? vassalage?) As would North African Kingdoms.
Geographically, only North Africa is really in the right position to get to America, Africa, Europe and part of Asia. The barriers then are having the climate and resources to give them enough of a technological and cultural [1] edge to dominate maritime exploration and have enough of a military edge to swing conflicts - whether for self-defence or in alliances to overturn established orders.
Asia has had the resources and technological edge [2], but has the Pacific isolating it from America. America is isolated by the Pacific on one side and by the Atlantic on the other. Ghengis Khan showed that taking most of Asia, Europe and parts of Africa was possible, though whether this could have been held is a different matter.
[1] meaning the organisational structures needed, rather than artistic and musical achievements.
[2] I'm not sure of the validity of the great Chinese Fleet theories, but that would provide the technological edge even if the organisational structures ultimately failed.
Asia has had the resources and technological edge [2], but has the Pacific isolating it from America. America is isolated by the Pacific on one side and by the Atlantic on the other. Ghengis Khan showed that taking most of Asia, Europe and parts of Africa was possible, though whether this could have been held is a different matter.
[1] meaning the organisational structures needed, rather than artistic and musical achievements.
[2] I'm not sure of the validity of the great Chinese Fleet theories, but that would provide the technological edge even if the organisational structures ultimately failed.
Last edited:
If India can stay unified and develop a strong maritime tradition, it could have the power to monopolize the Indian Ocean Trade Network, controlling Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.
And perhaps if it develops a need to crusade and expand Hinduism through militancy and missionaries, it could increase its global influence as well. It also has the population for settler colonialism.
India's biggest problem is that it needs a economic drive to expand. India historically was pretty self sufficient and didn't have a need for new markets.
And perhaps if it develops a need to crusade and expand Hinduism through militancy and missionaries, it could increase its global influence as well. It also has the population for settler colonialism.
India's biggest problem is that it needs a economic drive to expand. India historically was pretty self sufficient and didn't have a need for new markets.
The Middle East is also a good choice.
- Needs access to new markets due to climate limitations.
- Strong maritime tradition (Arabs in otl dominated the Indian Ocean Trade Network and under the Ottomans had a strong Naval presence in the Mediterranean).
- Had a missionary/militant religion that wished to expand.
- Had weaponized gunpowder before Europe.
- Easy to unify.
Perhaps if the Ottomans limit themselves in the Balkans and instead of driving into Hungary, they put more funding and resources into driving the Portuguese out of the Indian Ocean and controlling East Africa and Southeast Asia through proxy (Muslim sultanates recognizing the Ottomans as the Caliphate).
The Middle East's problem is that it lacks the population for settler colonialism.
- Needs access to new markets due to climate limitations.
- Strong maritime tradition (Arabs in otl dominated the Indian Ocean Trade Network and under the Ottomans had a strong Naval presence in the Mediterranean).
- Had a missionary/militant religion that wished to expand.
- Had weaponized gunpowder before Europe.
- Easy to unify.
Perhaps if the Ottomans limit themselves in the Balkans and instead of driving into Hungary, they put more funding and resources into driving the Portuguese out of the Indian Ocean and controlling East Africa and Southeast Asia through proxy (Muslim sultanates recognizing the Ottomans as the Caliphate).
The Middle East's problem is that it lacks the population for settler colonialism.
The obvious one would be China if there's a POD that has them more interested in colonization than in OTL. For most of their history, Imperial China had the manpower and resources needed to dominate much of the world if they wanted to. I remember reading once that if an alien in 1200 had to predict which country would be the world's main superpower in the 21st century, they'd all say China.
A strong Roman successor state based in North Africa could also fill the void that OTL Spain did in colonizing most of the Americas given they're close enough across the Atlantic. You'd probably need to butterfly away Islam for that though, or have the Almoravids or Almohad Caliphate consolidate into one of the Middle Ages' strongest powers.
I think Japan, right up until its isolation period, had similar socioeconomic conditions to contemporary Middle Ages Europe, which could lead it to become more colonialist if it happens upon a mercantilist system. Regarding North Africa, I would say butterflying the Arab conquests could make it a better candidate for a Europe analogue, as I heard that the goats favored by the Arabs really screwed up the environment of that area. It likely would have still gotten somewhat dryer due to the extensive agriculture in the region, but a better climate in the North Africa region could give it a better demographic base to expand overseas from.
Japan is a good one. Historically they were able to put together a good-sized empire and sphere of influence by WWII despite the late entry into the European scramble for colonies. Of course, having the Tokugawa Shogunate expansion in mainland Asia is tricky due to the presence of Qing China right next door, but any power void in China can be exploited by Japan easily as shown in OTL.
China if it had a political, religious or economic motivation. Paul Kennedy in the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers argues that the conservative Confucian bureaucracy during the Ming Dynasty made China a less vigorous and enterprising land than in previous eras like the Song dynasty. Especially around the early 16th century when Europeans were starting to explore and colonise the world, while China turned inward. And China always had a history of being self sufficient and believing it was the centre of the world, therefore had only marginal interest beyond its borders. China has the most potential, but had a lot of long term cultural issues it needed to change to become a European-style expansionist power.
The Ottomans, possibly if they tried to expand for economic reasons and for profit. Kennedy contends they expanded all over the place with little strategic and economic benefit which ended up proving costly, they were over-stretched, and this led to a long decline. Their political system was more centralised than most European autocracies which led to a lack of consensus and poor decision making. Trade was in the hand of foreign merchants. Both are a few of the issues the Ottomans would need to overcome in an ATL
The Ottomans, possibly if they tried to expand for economic reasons and for profit. Kennedy contends they expanded all over the place with little strategic and economic benefit which ended up proving costly, they were over-stretched, and this led to a long decline. Their political system was more centralised than most European autocracies which led to a lack of consensus and poor decision making. Trade was in the hand of foreign merchants. Both are a few of the issues the Ottomans would need to overcome in an ATL
The Middle East is unlikely not because the location isn't great, it had huge agricultural potential which was utilized early on and it could have maintained that inertia until climate change, but because of what is necessary to maintain that potential and power.
The Middle East, for it to maintain a high population and rich agricultural landscapes, would need to maintain large irrigation networks and completely remove if not curb pastoralism. OTL this did not happen since, due to constant conflicts within Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc. that had been occurring since the Bronze Age leading to the disrepair of the canals and irrigation networks necessary to maintain arable land and the norm of pastoralism that became dominant repeatedly (for the longest period being Islamic rule) which desecrated agricultural land in the Middle East. Both of these factors led to desertification which had been progressing in the Middle East since the medieval era at minimum.
One need only look at the various ruins of palaces and monuments in the Middle East which look like they've been built on sand but had actually been built on fertile grasslands. What is necessary for the Middle East to maintain its agricultural production is essentially huge amounts of luck societally and the development of social or productive forces which did not emerge historically in the Middle East. The Middle East has been fought over by hyper-centralized states that sought to centralize further, large pastoralist empires, or centralizing large pastoralist empires with all the failures that come with that.
For an ATL where the Middle East could dominate the world, you need to find a way to develop a social order which would be capable of prioritizing and taking care of the man-made, coordinated irrigation networks necessary to maintain the arable land and, subsequently, high populations of the Middle East. This social order must last enough centuries for pre-modern industrial development to occur and thus the trappings of European domination.
Last edited:
How exactly is that different from the disrepair of Europe’s Roman infrastructure, including waterworks ?(which btw in the middle ages were better maintained in North Afrika and Spain than in other parts of the former West Roman Empire)
The MENA region is not really a region which could compete as an economic center with Europe, it simply didn’t have the population, agricultural production or resources to compete with Europe.
Europe, India and China is the only three old world regions with the demographic and economic potential for dominating the Old World.
Europe, India and China is the only three old world regions with the demographic and economic potential for dominating the Old World.
The difference is that one didn't cause progressive desertification while the other did. Irrigation networks were mandatory for arable land in the Middle East. This was not the case in Europe.
With the advent of the heavy plow, the fertile lands in Central and Western Europe could be better taken advantage of and from there the rise in population base within those areas.
I know very little about Spain but, from what I understand, agriculture in Spain is not as dependent upon irrigation as the Middle East where entire swathes of territory were turned into desert due to lack of irrigation and overgrazing. The Middle East saw the destruction of its arable land due to its dry climate and soil erosion. Spain and most of Western Europe, even when irrigation networks fell apart, did not suffer the same consequences due to differences in climate and geography.
It could've. It had a huge population at times and its population during the ancient and parts of the medieval period were significantly high but this decreased progressively during antiquity and the medieval period. The problem is that the MENA region's success is contingent upon the maintenance of infrastructure which required stable, dedicated social orders. Especially during the Islamic period, rulers lacked the incentive for such maintenance.
Resources-wise, I kind of understand though but if agricultural production and subsequently population base remained high, then it could at least end up in a Japan situation where it could become an early modernizer and constitute a oppositional world order to Europe.
Last edited:
Given how historically rich and advanced the region was, I am going to say Asia.
Frankly when ppl say 'relatively easy to unify' as a plus I have to vehemently disagree. Competition made Europe into what it is rn and the lack of competition is what ultimately made Asia stagnate.
I do think regions like southern India and northern Africa (tbf one might argue for it's identity as part of Europe in scenarios like that) have the potential to dominate the world, as is Southern China and mainland SEA, which have relatively strong maritime traditions and have Island SEA to expand into instead of America. And ofc Japan becoming merchantalist like the rest of Europe probably could have knock-on effects on neighbouring states, especially Korea, who will face their might in mainland Asia the most.
I do think regions like southern India and northern Africa (tbf one might argue for it's identity as part of Europe in scenarios like that) have the potential to dominate the world, as is Southern China and mainland SEA, which have relatively strong maritime traditions and have Island SEA to expand into instead of America. And ofc Japan becoming merchantalist like the rest of Europe probably could have knock-on effects on neighbouring states, especially Korea, who will face their might in mainland Asia the most.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
So they need to adopt Brahmanic Hinduism and a beef taboo, or better yet, no meat from dairy-able animals taboo, or go further and form a veganism habit?
desecrated? That's kind of religious term. Did you mean "degraded" the agricultural land? And I guess that was through overgrazing?