Earlier European colonies in North Africa

Max Sinister

Banned
IOTL, some European powers (France, Spain, Portugal) had several harbors in North Africa conquered (Oran, Ceuta and others) and kept them, but it took until the 1830ies when France conquered Algeria to establish big colonies there.

I wondered: Is there a way that some European country conquers a big North African colony, and settles some of its people there?

Possible PODs:
- America is discovered waaaay later (I'm talking about some centuries here), and Spain diverts the conquistadores to Morocco / Algeria instead. The Muslims don't want to convert, so they're kicked out into the desert, and the empty cities are settled with Spaniards.
- King Sebastian of Portugal is unexpectedly successful with his crazy crusade.
- Italy is united earlier, but since it can't participate in America (too easy for Spain to guard the pillars of Hercules), they conquer Tunesia / Egypt instead and settle there
- Some French princess is kidnapped by the Algerian pirates, unfortunately dies in captivity, her father goes mad and conquers Algeria, using the liberated Christian slaves and the surviving Christian and Jewish minorities, and new settlers from Southern Europe to rule the rest of the population.

How plausible are those PODs?
 

SteveW

Max Sinister said:
IOTL, some European powers (France, Spain, Portugal) had several harbors in North Africa conquered (Oran, Ceuta and others) and kept them, but it took until the 1830ies when France conquered Algeria to establish big colonies there.

I wondered: Is there a way that some European country conquers a big North African colony, and settles some of its people there?

Possible PODs:
- America is discovered waaaay later (I'm talking about some centuries here), and Spain diverts the conquistadores to Morocco / Algeria instead. The Muslims don't want to convert, so they're kicked out into the desert, and the empty cities are settled with Spaniards.
- King Sebastian of Portugal is unexpectedly successful with his crazy crusade.
- Italy is united earlier, but since it can't participate in America (too easy for Spain to guard the pillars of Hercules), they conquer Tunesia / Egypt instead and settle there
- Some French princess is kidnapped by the Algerian pirates, unfortunately dies in captivity, her father goes mad and conquers Algeria, using the liberated Christian slaves and the surviving Christian and Jewish minorities, and new settlers from Southern Europe to rule the rest of the population.

How plausible are those PODs?
Click to expand...

Not too sure about the first and the last, but maybe the middle ones could work (although tbh I really know nothing about that period of European history). What about if France got frozen out of India right from the start and turned to Algeria about 100 years earliert than in OTL?
 

Max Sinister

Banned
I mentioned Sebastian more for completeness' sake, but he maybe was too crazy... he didn't only want to become emperor of Morocco, but also overthrow the Caliph of Egypt, liberate Constantinople, and of course regain the Holy Land. I think he could only win through dumb luck.
 

Michael B

Max Sinister said:
IOTL, some European powers (France, Spain, Portugal) had several harbors in North Africa conquered (Oran, Ceuta and others) and kept them, but it took until the 1830ies when France conquered Algeria to establish big colonies there.

I wondered: Is there a way that some European country conquers a big North African colony, and settles some of its people there?

Possible PODs:
- America is discovered waaaay later (I'm talking about some centuries here), and Spain diverts the conquistadores to Morocco / Algeria instead. The Muslims don't want to convert, so they're kicked out into the desert, and the empty cities are settled with Spaniards.?
Click to expand...
Even just fifty years later would be enough. It has been suggested that the Spanish movment into America is a logical progression of the Reconquista. If so, then if there were no America to go to, the Spanish could easily drive into North Africa after the Moors.
 

Max Sinister

Banned
OTOH, it took them almost 150 years to take Granada. (Admittedly, there was a civil war and the Black Death between. But still - I'm not sure what took them that long.)
 

Shadow Knight

I was under the impression it took them that long was it had more to do with Granada being weak but paid a handsome tribute to keep the Castillians out.
 

LordKalvan

The best option is likely to be a more successful Spain in the 16th century.
They have also the double option of invading from the west (through Gibraltar) and from Sicily, crossing the channel to Tunis. What Charles V needs is less commitments in the Spanish Netherlands, and in the Germanies.
There is however the need to cope with Suleiman (which is not the easiest thing).
 

Michael B

LordKalvan said:
There is however the need to cope with Suleiman (which is not the easiest thing).
Click to expand...
Naval superiority as the Spanish and the allies joined after the Battle of Lepanto would resolve this. If the Spanish gain control of the Western Med, they could troops into Morocco and Algeria faster than the Ottomans could land them in Tunis and march them along the coast.

Technologically speaking, in 1571 the Christian League didn't have very much that they would not have had a hundred years earlier. If in an earlier Lepanto they can inflict the level of casualties on the Ottomans that they did on OTL, they would win.

Of course it is very likely that the Spanish fleet was paid by American gold. Without that largess, a Christian League armada would be smaller and likely to be higher casualties, may be even defeated. That would then leave Ottoman naval units in the Western Med that could attack Spanish ships supplying their forces in Africa.
 

Condottiero

Max Sinister said:
OTOH, it took them almost 150 years to take Granada. (Admittedly, there was a civil war and the Black Death between. But still - I'm not sure what took them that long.)
Click to expand...

For the castillians the Reconquista was over in the 1300s, there was only left that "tiny" portion around Granada that pledged vassaldom to the Castillians and paid timely their Parias (taxes) to the castillian king. Why would they engage in a costly war to get what they were already having? They had also one big problem they had to populate with christians all the territories gained during the XIII century, it would have been a bit crazy to increase the number of islamic subjects.

Only when Isabel was raised to the Castillian throne, she and his husband Ferdinand of Aragon decided that it was a shame and a dangerous opened door and they took it. But by then the castillian population had recovered the colonization of Andalucia, the Civil Wars and the Black Death and they were ready to occupy it.
 

Condottiero

LordKalvan said:
The best option is likely to be a more successful Spain in the 16th century.
They have also the double option of invading from the west (through Gibraltar) and from Sicily, crossing the channel to Tunis. What Charles V needs is less commitments in the Spanish Netherlands, and in the Germanies.
There is however the need to cope with Suleiman (which is not the easiest thing).
Click to expand...
I fully agree.

You have several possibilities:

* by having Don Miguel, the grandson of Isabel and Fernando and the Portugese king, to be grown up and become the King of Castille, Portugal and Aragon.

* Comuneros victorious and Charles V keeps the HRE but has to cede Spain to his brother Ferdinand.

* When Charles V dies he leaves his son Philip only the Trastamara territories (Spain, the Americas and Italy) and his brother Fedinand the Habsburg legacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top