What's the story here? What was stopping the Europeans from

WE

>>3083475
WUZ

>>3083478
slaves...

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

>>3083466
St king Louis wanted to crusade Tunis but most of his men fell ill and died from disease before he did too. Spain wanted to continue the reconquista to morocco and Algeria but they didn't for some reason. Normans settled the coast of Tunis and had contact with the last remaining catholic Berbers but never made an attempt at invading North Africa.

>>3083466
No, they were just busy killing each other, Who would go after an arid wasteland when there is a province an enemy, lets say the frogs own (And you are spain) would you go after some shit in a wasteland similar to fallout? Or sacrifice your men for some good wine or iron?

>>3083506

Spain wanted to continue the reconquista (Isabel I and Cisneros wanted it) but:
>America
>Charles I didn't care about that, he focused entirenly in >Holy >Roman >Empire
>Philip II was only focused in Flandes, and in Portugal when chance came

>>3083466
Between the Ottomans claiming a lot of it and the Europeans interested in the Americas, there just wasn't anyone who gave a shit about North Africa from 1500-1800.

>>3083506
>Spain wanted to continue the reconquista to morocco and Algeria but they didn't for some reason.

Literally everyone became jelly of american richness and started gangbanging Spain and her allies. Charles V did more than one campaign in North Africa (some succesful, some not so much) and would've done more if not for fucking Luther. Even a century later spaniards were planning an invasion of North Africa, but it was interrupted by the 30 years war.

>>3083466
>What was stopping the Europeans from conquering this land earlier
>earlier
Rome owned everything in that picture that wasn't a shitty desert 2000 years ago you donut.

File: ksar.jpg (90KB, 723x531px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 723x531px

The Portuguese attempted to invade Morocco and got BTFO hard.

>>3085898
That was before Europe became a thing.

>>3083466
Too busy fighting themselves in europe.

>>3084133
Charles conquered Tunis and attacked Algiers (although not succesfully). He personally lead both expeditions personally, risking his life. He did care about North Africa.

>>3085922
Rome WAS Europe
there was nothing else which could be called singular Europe afterwards, all the way until late 200th century

>>3085983
How it was Europe when its Northern borders went along Rhine and Danube? How it was Europe when it held huge chunks of land in North Africa, Egypt and Asia? How it was Europe if Egypt was more important / integral part of the Empire than most of its holdings in what we now call Europe?

Europe only became a thing after Arab invasions.

>>3083466
The habsburgs were the cause

File: 1459210483368.jpg (193KB, 1377x675px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1377x675px

>>3086008
>How it was Europe when its Northern borders went along Rhine and Danube?
Because past those rivers were shit eating huns and germans who shouldn't even exist today

>>3083466

For what purpose when you can go to America or East Asia? The only interventions there were to remove the berbery pirates and/or capture ports to prevent the turks from operating in the west med.

The Portuguese did try to conquer Morocco though but that was because they were after winning the Internet in East Asia and didn't know what to do next.

>>3086068
t. buttmad medshit

>>3086082

*they were bored

>>3083466
North African states were strong compared to what Europeans faced in America/Asia and they had a very strong ally in the ottoman
Only after the battle of Navarino was conquering the Barbary states feasable and that is exactly what happened

Barbary states history was very interesting
>Each country had constant internal political intrigue between different factions(Turks, Natives, Mamelukes...) for power
>Had to play a careful diplomatic game between swearing allegiance to the Ottomans while maintaining their independence and profiting off piracy while avoiding European retaliation
>All while constantly fighting other states for hegemony in the region
It was as cutthroat and merciless as you'd expect a pirate nation to be

>>3086478

Most of East Asia wasn't militarily conquered until the XIX as well. The European Empires there held small clay and were dependant on local allies by siding with some/against others and promoting internal rivalries and luring some local elites with trade benefits, especially in the case of India.

The Berbery States were not any stronger than the Indians, Indonesians or Chinese ones. If anything, way less. By the XVIII several European powers could have tried to, and from a military pov could have succeed if willing to foot the bill of the huge expenses and very little profit expected in return. They were unconquered for the most part because

a) It would have been a waste of resources. Beyond taking some relevant coastal towns, it's pointless conquering clay inland.
b) At the earliest, except for the Spanish Tercios, there were no 24/7 standing armies in Europe. A campaign to conquer not just this or that coastal town but the whole country would require significant power projection and standing armies.
c) The Turks were nominally sovereigns of all those Berbery States.
d) The only state with such power projection capabilities to embark in such a campaign would have Spain, and it was always embroiled in a dozen other areas. Plus the berbery states and turks made natural allies of the french and protestants against Spain and the HRE, so drawing some sort of divisive line between "Europe" and North Africa is retarded. North Africa and the Ottomans were not a separate world but another actor in "European" geopolitics, one which the french and protestants owe probably their very own existance.

>>3085983

Considering Greece and Itraly jet out into the Mediterranean and the Roman provinces on Africa and the middle-east were far more developed than, say Gaul. You could very well make the case that Rome and Greece were more middle-easterners or North-African than European.

I mean, who did the Romans have more in common with, the Punic's in Syria and North Africa, or some back-water nobodies in Ireland?

>>3086720

Or maybe because there was no such ideologically charged division back then between 'Europe' and 'Africa' (and 'Asia') to throw around like memes. The ideologically charged word was Mediterranean. Beyond there, to the north or to the south, barbarians.

>>3086683
The Barbary states were easily stronger than the Indian and Indonesian ones, they score numerous victories against European powers both on sea and on land and didnt have 2 Oceans protecting them
Very few Europeans powers had to means to conquer north africa in the XVIII century, the only one I can think off is Spain and maybe France but the former actually tried multiple times and failed

The Allied Barbary and Ottoman navy was still a very real threat in that period and European technology wasnt ahead enough to even have a substantial advantage on land if they were to land
And no a country having to bankrupt itself to be able to conquer something doesnt make that conquest "feasable"

>>3086720
>I mean, who did the Romans have more in common with
>>3086720
>the Punic
whom they wished simply obliterated since time immemorial
or
>or some back-water nobodies in Ireland?
whom they never established contact with so your argument is irrelevant but still

File: alberto.png (90KB, 265x258px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 265x258px

>>3085917
>portugal intervenes in a moroccan civil war
>king of portugal and both claimants to the moroccan throne are killed in the same battle

>>3083522
It was Spain's duty to bring Christendom back to our brothers in all the lands, but they turned away from their destiny.

>>3086008
Because Egyptians And Phoenicians are more European than Germans ever will be.

>>3087448
England and France wanted nothing but for the other to get the fuck off this plane of existence and yet they're some of the most closely related people on Europe.