No European colonies in Africa and Asia

[Fabius Maximus]

Just restrict European colonialism to costal ports and trade forts.

Step 1: Either the Mughals manage to keep themselves together, or they get replaced quickly, without a long period of instability. Consequently the BEIC never takes control of the Subcontinent.

Step 2: European colonisation in the Western Hemisphere happens much as IOTL, with the American Revolution and Spanish American Wars of Independence. The lesson drawn from these conflicts is that trying to keep control of a country-sized colony on the other side of the world is ultimately a losing game, and it's much more sustainable to limit direct control to individual forts or trading outposts, and for the rest, just to focus on getting advantageous alliances or trading rights for local powers.

This would probably fulfil the OP, I think. With the exception of British India, European colonisation in Africa and Asia pretty much was limited to coastal ports and trading forts until the later 19th century, and if the European powers decide by that date that extra expansion will just result in overextension, you could probably keep this situation going more or less indefinitely.

 

[Siberian Tiger]

This would probably fulfil the OP, I think. With the exception of British India, European colonisation in Africa and Asia pretty much was limited to coastal ports and trading forts until the later 19th century, and if the European powers decide by that date that extra expansion will just result in overextension, you could probably keep this situation going more or less indefinitely.

The Philippines was already colonized.

 

[holycookie]

The Philippines was already colonized.

The Philippines was a spanish trade port to acesse the chinese market.

 

[anotherlurker]

Just restrict European colonialism to costal ports and trade forts.

They're called "factories", places where Europeans and Natives do trade. It could go on indefinitely, but Europeans soon ralized that that they can run plantations and mines much more efficiently and profitably than the Natives did so they began conquering places.

 

[Siberian Tiger]

As a bonus, is it possible to prevent European colonization of Oceania too?

 

[Legalize Crack]

POD in the 600s, no Islam, due to some adaptations Christianity spreads quite far. There will be plenty of tributary states, but no Christian nation will colonize another Christian area nation on any large scale.

 

[holycookie]

As a bonus, is it possible to prevent European colonization of Oceania too?

The colonization of Oceania (in general) only occurred after the most interesting parts of Asia had already been colonized, but certain small islands had already been colonized by the Spanish. In general, I would say no, the region does not have real power. But first, the colonization of India/Indonesia (and other areas of Asia that have more value) has to be discussed.

but no Christian nation will colonize another Christian area nation on any large scale.

Yes they will, we see each other several times in Europe. The dispute between Poland and Russia over Eastern Europe, for example. The migration and colonization of part of central Europe by Germans. The colonization of England by the Normans.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

No discovery of Quinine (the discovery of which was accidental).

Without it Europeans can never access the interior of Africa in large numbers outside of certain areas (The Cape).

Edit: As for Asia, Song Dynasty manages to get past proto industrialism and Asia reaches a level of technological development far above Europe.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Another option is a Indian empire with a navy strong enough to monopolize the Indian Ocean trade network and keep the Portuguese from exploring/expanding East.

 

[Legalize Crack]

Yes they will, we see each other several times in Europe. The dispute between Poland and Russia over Eastern Europe, for example. The migration and colonization of part of central Europe by Germans. The colonization of England by the Normans.

We can use the same word, but the colonization there is extremely different to what's meant by the OP. Colonization of Asia and Africa were crazy different from the Time of Troubles and the Migration Period and the Norman Conquest.

 

[holycookie]

and the Norman Conquest.

This is very wrong, the colonization of Africa in the 20th century was different. But in Asia, most pre-20th century colonizations were very similar in behavior. Just look at the brutality of the Normans who colonized England, for example.

 

[Legalize Crack]

This is very wrong, the colonization of Africa in the 20th century was different. But in Asia, most pre-20th century colonizations were very similar in behavior. Just look at the brutality of the Normans who colonized England, for example.

The Normans literally carried the Papal banner with them and claimed to be installing the God-given rightful king of England. They weren't atypically brutal.

 

[holycookie]

The Normans literally carried the Papal banner with them

just like the Spanish

They weren't atypically brutal.

If they are not atypical in cruelty in burning the entire north of England, the Spanish and other colonizers are normal too. If we compare them to the Mongols, they are all calm and sweet.

 

[Legalize Crack]

just like the Spanish

If they are not atypical in cruelty in burning the entire north of England, the Spanish and other colonizers are normal too. If we compare them to the Mongols, they are all calm and sweet.

You're correct, the Spanish weren't atypically brutal either. That's not a parameter to determine whether it was this kind of colonialism....