Why did the full colonization of Africa took place until the 19th-century? Why not earlier?

Spain and Portugal in the Americas created a whole new race, to begin with

Of all the places you mentioned in *earlier* literally only Americas was the success story.

In the 1500s-1600s, very few Europeans were successful in Southeast Asia. Actually only TWO were: the Spaniards in the Philippines and the Dutch in Indonesia (albeit later on).

Portuguese got BTFO by the Chinese for their dickery in Tunmen and Moluccas and driven from Indonesia by the Dutch.

Even for the "Winners" shit was hard. Southeast Asians were familiar with steel, gunpowder, and maritime tech and posed a danger to the "Winners." At this point, Spanish Philippines was literally just a bunch of forts and allied christianized Filipino tribes who threw their consensual lot with Spain (Spain was, in tribal politics among the Flip tribes, the new hotness. Initially it was the Muslim Flips) whose boots shaked every time China/Japan/Southeast Asian Muslim States were pissed off, and therefore had to include local elites into the lesser Spanish nobility. The Dutch, in turn were removed from Formosa by a rogue Chinese admiral and managed small colonies in Indonesian Islands, and even then had to cooperate with local power brokers to manage there.

They had to invent Machine Guns and research Mission to Civilize because African life rating level is so low.

>Americas

Large chunks of South America are still wilderness inhabited by natives 500+ years after the Spanish arrived and in the US the Indian Wars are still within living memory.

t. liquoria pro

Africa penetrating the inner parts took years to do and even in areas with "claims" in them they had little reach over it until much much later.

Even then Euro powers and companies had to gradually get into good standing with the people they encountered in due to low resources and power which later on once they did get the resources overpower them or befriend then back stab them hard overtime or pull a youtube.com/watch?v=WpE_xMRiCLE.

diseases and shit

Africans were kings back then. They were technologically superior and had flying pyramids until whites tricked them, erased their history, enslaved them and didn't even leave them with a written language or the concept of a wheel.

>Didn't have the technology desu

European could have defeated the stick wielding nignogs in the 12th century if they wanted
The real reason is the Ottoman Empire
In the 19th century, it had became utter shit and no longer posed a threat in the region (so France and Britain stole their North African territories and everyone shared the rest of the continent)

No that's not why the Scramble for Africa occurred and only in the 1800's was there a way to cope with Malaria.

Look at the Portuguese in the Kongo. They were there as early as the 1400s. It wasn't profitable and they ended up getting defeated a bunch.

Though the Kongo adopted Portuguese names, the Latin alphabet and Catholicism. So, cultural victory I guess.

European Empires had cities on the coasts for hundreds of years, but any attempt to travel deeper was a fools errand between resistance from locals and disease/rainforests/deserts in the way.

They could hold cities along the coast mostly due to their cannon mounted ships to keep the area secure, something that was harder to do further inland. But this arrangement was okay so as long as the slave trading posts were still running in the Portuguese/Dutch forts.

Advancements in treatment for malaria helped Europeans to avoid getting sick and dying in mass inside island Africa, and the maxim gun gave them unrivaled firepower to mow down any resistance, as well as advances in mining equipment to allow better methods of taking resources, which was the main reason for expansion into inland Africa in the first place.

1 - malaria and other diseases absolutely decimated the europeans. not until the late 19th century did the europeans develop effective treatments.

2 - although the europeans had firearms, they weren't very effective against the spear-throwing aficans. with the invention of the maxim gun, mowing down natives became much easier.

>could have defeated
yes
>could have maintained and colonized
not yet

Are you fucking retarded?

If that was true then tell me why the Ashantai repeatedly kicked out the Dutch, French, Swedish and Portuguese out of their forts up until the 1770s?

This is an oversimplification 2bh. Relations between the Portuguese and the Kongo Kingdom were pretty cordial until the Portuguese started getting all slave-happy.

An exchange of resources and culture was more realistically attainable and more beneficial than full-on colonisation at this time

I don't think he really has a understanding of the Scramble for Africa and stuff like the Berlin conference.

>waste-soldiers-conquering-hard-to-defend-lands-when-all-your-soldiers-die-from-malaria

why did anything outside of europe happen?

people would rather fight 30 year wars ine urope then be enslaved, see the last 4000 years of european history. but then look elsewhere, beyond, nothing but slave states, subservient mixtures of dna-genetics between the master and its dichotomy; africa - slave empire, americas - slave empires, india, australia, asia - slave empires. apart from that you have the pastoral nomads of the steppe.

growth comes through 4 methods
doing it yourself
technological innovation
enslavement
theft/loot/raid/killing/plundering/ ie steeling

fuck off skaven

>That didn't stop them from doing it earlier at the Americas

Because Africa was full of people. America wasn't, once you gave them the ol' Pox-aroo.