If the Moors weren't pushed out of Iberia, meaning Columbus couldn't "discover" America, and the Ottoman Empire continued Westward into Europe.
Would the Muslims treat the Native Americans any different than Christians?
>>1293097
They wouldn't, lol.
I don't think Ottomans ever really had the technology or drive for transoceanic voyages. The Chinese or Brits would've probably been the first discoverers in that case.
>>1293126
I believe they did, but the Spaniards cock blocked them
>>1293097
>meaning Columbus couldn't "discover" America
Why would that be true?
>>1293097
But Kristufar Al-Colombid did discover America OP, Erdogan said so.
>>1293097
The Ottomans had no need to sail across the ocean as they had access to spices from the east already.
>>1293097
pagans are enslaved.
>>1293126
What about all the corsairs who raided South American colonies?
>>1293097
At what point would the Turks have had any need to embark on such a voyage?
>>1293097
Which ones? If we are talking about Ottomans, well, they didn't oblige everyone to convert as a start. It's just that you had a higher legal and economical standing in the empire if you did (milet system). This would mostly mean a slight difference in South and Central America. But obviously they would have conquered the whole shit through wars just like everyone else.
>>1293677
The natives absolutely would've been converted. What you're talking about only apllies to Christians and Jews.
>>1293668
They raided colonies because they knew the colonies were there and there were trade route. Pirates don't go out of their way to explore unknown places because it doesn't turn a profit.
they might not have used the conquistador and encomienda systems which would have made their rule somewhat less brutal.
imported diseases would be devastating to american populations in any case though.
slave trade would still be there probably but maybe less race based.
>>1293782
Blacks weren't enslaved for being black, but for convenience.
The African Kingdoms were straight across from the Americas, and African slaves fetched a fair price.
I wasn't after a few hundred years did people realize: "Hey all of our slaves are niggers, maybe it is because they were destined to be slaves."
The Ottomans most likely would have developed something similar eventually.
>>1293377
underrated
The Ottomans couldn't even hold onto the Western portion of North Africa, what makes you think they'd be able to establish a caliphate into Europe proper without massively decentralizing or giving up the Middle East? Why would the Iberians just LET the Ottomans move westward as well? Muslims fought each other over secular issues all the time.
Likewise, why would the Ottomans even go west at all? The whole point was to get around the Ottoman strangehold on Silk Road. If the Ottomans were to swallow up Europe they would not only own the passage out of India but the destination as well, making Atlantic voyaging a moot point.
If anything it'd probably end in China finally industrializing and moving East (In which case it's a massive genocide) or Britain alone doing the colonizing (In which case it's also a massive genocide but not as large as the Chinese one).
>>1293097
>If the Moors weren't pushed out of Iberia
Which ones? They were not a single political entity. In the centuries of muslim presence in Iberia you have three big dynasties and a shitload of petty and not-so-petty kingdoms.
They had different attitudes, with north african dynasties being generally more zealous and the local ones being more chill.
>>1293126
>the technology or drive for transoceanic voyages
they had the tech but not the drive or the ports to do so. it was never really economically beneficial anyways.
they "colonized" indonesia; had protectorates/vassals such as Aceh
>>1293704
Yet look at India.
>>1294383
China would need a Middle Class to start an Industrial Revolution
