What's the story here? What was stopping the Europeans from conquering this land earlier...

The Portuguese attempted to invade Morocco and got BTFO hard.

That was before Europe became a thing.

Too busy fighting themselves in europe.

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

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

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.

The habsburgs were the cause

>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

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.

t. buttmad medshit

*they were bored

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

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.

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?

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.

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"

>I mean, who did the Romans have more in common with
>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

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

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

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

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.