Africa repartitioned

Black Sept · Oct 28, 2012

In what other ways than OTL do you think Africa could have been partitioned, without changing the power balance between the colonial states or the major course of history?

It seems to me that the establishment/expansion of colonies was too often determined by hazard or the personal efforts of a small group/leader and that the whole map could have ended up very differently without any grand-history POD. In other words what is the greatest difference that you can imagine with the smallest POD? Sth. like if there was no Cecil Rhodes than maybe Portugal could have realised its Pink map; or without Leopold being stubborn enough to pursue his colonial dreams there might have been no Congo Free State and other powers could have moved in the area.

Where do you think the ultimate colonisers came closest to being overtaken by an other power?

Falecius · Oct 28, 2012

Black Sept said:
In what other ways than OTL do you think Africa could have been partitioned, without changing the power balance between the colonial states or the major course of history?

It seems to me that the establishment/expansion of colonies was too often determined by hazard or the personal efforts of a small group/leader and that the whole map could have ended up very differently without any grand-history POD. In other words what is the greatest difference that you can imagine with the smallest POD? Sth. like if there was no Cecil Rhodes than maybe Portugal could have realised its Pink map; or without Leopold being stubborn enough to pursue his colonial dreams there might have been no Congo Free State and other powers could have moved in the area.

Where do you think the ultimate colonisers came closest to being overtaken by an other power?

It depends, but in general the Scramble was much about diplomacy, so a different Scramble WILL affect the bigger picture.
Some things are almost warranted, unless you want to change the overall balance: French Algeria, British Egypt (and then along the Nile), Germans somewhere useless around, Portugal more or less starting from TL bases. Without Leopold the picture will be different and the scramble probably less frantic.
A POD may be Bismarck deciding he does not need a colonial craze for internal political contingencies and offering the Luderitz colony to the Cape. I am sure it will impct the rest of the situation significantly.

wolf_brother · Oct 28, 2012

Have the French not blink and Egypt becomes a Franco-British condominium. That'll completely change the Scramble.

EDIT: I knew I'd already written something along those lines.

iori · Oct 28, 2012

About half of West Africa could've turned out differently, the only places with pre-scramble presences being the French in Senegal and British in lower Nigeria.

The Congo Basin could have turned out very differently as well.

pompejus · Oct 28, 2012

Iori said:
About half of West Africa could've turned out differently, the only places with pre-scramble presences being the French in Senegal and British in lower Nigeria.

And the Dutch, Danish and British in Ghana/Gold coast. And the French in Ivory coast or the Portuguese in Guinea Bissau. There was already a European presence in West Africa. It was one of the major places to get slaves (and later other things). Sure, they weren't full blown colonies, like the Cape, but there certainly were European trading posts, for centuries.

Black Sept · Oct 28, 2012

How about a pre-WW1 British Tanzania? Could Germany be compensated elsewhere? How else can the Eastern African lands be partitioned between Britain and Germany? Ex. how about a switch of the two main colonies, Kenya goes to Germany, Tanganyika to Britain, and with Uganda also going British they would have had the full route from the Cape to Cairo painted red already before WW1.

Also, could Zambia/Malawi be colonised from the North instead of the South? The road seems to be much shorter. Is there any geographic reason why that wasn't even attempted by Germans or Belgians (or the Portuguese for that matter) or was it just that Rhodes got there before and Britain was too involved to back down?

Hawkeye · Oct 28, 2012

If the Leopold doesn't go after the Congo like OTL then the Portuguese would get some territory around Leopoldville. But the French and other powers would dominate the rest of the Congo basin.

iori · Oct 28, 2012

pompejus said:
And the Dutch, Danish and British in Ghana/Gold coast. And the French in Ivory coast or the Portuguese in Guinea Bissau. There was already a European presence in West Africa. It was one of the major places to get slaves (and later other things). Sure, they weren't full blown colonies, like the Cape, but there certainly were European trading posts, for centuries.

Well yes their were trading posts and forts, but I was meaning actual penetration and beginnings of colonies, afterall multiple powers had those along the coast and it did'nt lead to them getting the area around their places.

Also the Danish ceded all their outposts to Britain in 1850 and the Dutch did so between 1868-1872.