Alternate scramble for Africa maps
- Thread starter Hades
- Start date
- Status
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Should we pay any attention to history and logic whatsoever, or just put random blocks of color on a map and pretend the Ottoman Empire never existed?
sorry
, but i did not specify the POD, which allows for total ottoman collapse. But i will do so now:the POD must be after 1800.
If the POD is the Berlin Conference, there will be almost no changes in the map, apart from a few small regions.
The scramble for Africa is really poorly understood (or taught!) these days. I confess that I haven't a clue as to how it ended up the way it did, so I've been going on the popular assumption that the signatories almost did just put random blocks of color on a map.
So... what actually happened? Recommend any good books that can be found in your average local library?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
There are no good books that I can think of about the Scramble as a whole - there are only localized studies.
Essentially, the Treaty of Berlin and associated contracts gave Britain Cyprus, and compensated France with a free hand in Tunis, later exercised out of fear of Italian occupation. The British, spurred by business interests fearing loss of their financial control, occupied Egypt, which tied their hands diplomatically in Africa, because French resistance to British control made German cooperation essential - which is how Bismarck was able to get the German colonial empire. Once the ball got rolling, everyone began to seize territory, or at least support seizure by their nationals, because non-British counties tended to close their colonies to free trade.
The Scramble was largely random, driven by individuals, and by governments rescuing their nationals who had run into troubles. Any POD is likely to lead to some fairly major deviations from the historical, although there are existing spheres of influence that will influence where French, British, and Portuguese colonies are in particular.
The Russo-Ottoman War and the British occupation of Egypt are the two largest variables. Change either and the history of Africa will be much different.
Messed about a little, since coincidentally today I was dreaming up how the Scramble would look in my TL, even though its still in the 1850's, the Scramble should start relatively quickly.
Anyhow, here it is, a randomish map, based on OTL borders really. Dont take it as any indication of where the TL is going... Also, I got bugged with the key so critic as much as you want, no key. Basically same as the other map but Boers are brown and US purple.
Anyhow, here it is, a randomish map, based on OTL borders really. Dont take it as any indication of where the TL is going...
Also, I got bugged with the key so critic as much as you want, no key. Basically same as the other map but Boers are brown and US purple.Nobody's written a decent book on the Scramble overall?
No wonder people are still confused about it.If I may, what's a good localized study to read up on, then?
That explains the basic causes of the scramble simply enough, but what about the Berlin conference borders? I can understand why a chain reaction would occur after the Brits, Germans, and French went at it, but how (and why!) would the authorities create borders that appear so arbitrary? There's been plenty of claims that post-colonial Africa has suffered from having very few ethnically homogeneous states, and I can't see why, say, the French and British would agree to drawing a border right through the middle of the Hiepo-fedicle tribe's traditional lands.
The Berlin Conference really didn't do much in the way of establishing borders. Basically what it did was to set ground rules for the exploitation of Africa's population and resources. It recognized what King Leopold of Belgium had been doing in the Congo, and basically said that all the other uncolonized African territories (which, at that time, was the majority of Africa) were legitimately up for grabs by any power which could get the local rulers to agree to a "protectorate" over them, and then maintain a military and economic presence in the region. You couldn't just go in, plant your flag, and say "I claim this land"...you actually had to "possess" the land in the sense of having military posts there and taking steps to economically exploit the region.
That's about all the Berlin Conference actually did. The various borders got settled later as various powers claimed the uncolonized areas. And the borders tended to be based on the various protectorate treaties which the powers obtained from individual local rulers. This explains why the lines sometimes arbitrarily cut through an ethnic group/tribe's territory...the tribe or ethnic group may have been ruled by more than one chieftain, each ruling a different territory, with each chieftain signing agreements with a different power.
Try to find Thomas Pakenham's "The Scramble for Africa". It's simply one of the best.
Looks interesting, but accusations of Anglocentrism pop up in some of the Amazon reviews.
Probably as good a place as any to start, though.
It's not just a general description of the period, therefore the Portuguese/Italians don't deserve more than the few chapters they already have.
Personally, I found it excellent.
Aside from close geographic considerations is it mostly individual opportunism regularly driven by business interests? Anyhow, trying to determine a future scramble in Raptor of Spain which as usual means hints for my plans for the future of that TL. So with a PoD in 730s my Scramble maps can bear near zero relation to OTL. Not sure if this is the final version but there you go. You can wonder how it happened.
Dark Gold = Spain
Purple = Scotia (Norwegian/Scottish/Pictish state)
Light Green = HEE(IN) (an Irish Empire)
Light Blue = France (made up of eastern France and West Germany)
Brown = Native States (Tierra Imaza, Ethiopia, Takrur Empire, Zimbabwe)
Green = Egypt
Orange = Burma
Note: Libya and Tunis area is a contested region between Spain, France and Egypt. Madagascar is also a contested region between Spain and Burma. Finally, Morocco and Western Sahara are both parts of Spain proper, i.e. the people think of themselves as Spaniards.
Dark Gold = Spain
Purple = Scotia (Norwegian/Scottish/Pictish state)
Light Green = HEE(IN) (an Irish Empire)
Light Blue = France (made up of eastern France and West Germany)
Brown = Native States (Tierra Imaza, Ethiopia, Takrur Empire, Zimbabwe)
Green = Egypt
Orange = Burma
Note: Libya and Tunis area is a contested region between Spain, France and Egypt. Madagascar is also a contested region between Spain and Burma. Finally, Morocco and Western Sahara are both parts of Spain proper, i.e. the people think of themselves as Spaniards.
Well, much of the Berlin conferance was indeed European politicians who had never been to Africa drawing lines on a map with straightedges and rulers. There are some significant POD's you can do pretty easily with this. However, there are a few constraints-France and Britain already had major settlement colonies in, respectively, Algeria (witch had been French since 1830) and South Africa. Portugal already controlled Angola and Mozambique (and had for hundreds of years, ever since the 16th century), and Britain controlled Egypt (though it was still technically part of the Ottoman Empire and would remain so until WWI). Any of these colonies winding up with a colonizer other than their OTL one would require a POD before the Berlin conference. Other than that, its probably fair game for this POD.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I've read it and I think it's total crap. It's totally Eurocentric, and doesn't cover at all the perspective of the Africans themselves.
It's totally outdated, and fairly awful as a historical work. It feels like it was written by an imperialist fanboy who glosses over the monstrous atrocities involved in European conquest and takes for granted that there was nothing but barbarism in Africa prior to the light of European civilization anyway.
As for more localized studies, we're talking really localized.
Norman Bennett, Arab Versus European: Diplomacy and War in Nineteenth-Century East Central Africa is quite good as a political history, although it's weak in social and to a lesser extent economic factors.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
It actually did even less than that, although subsequent agreements resulting from it did as you describe below. It mostly dealt with the Congo watershed and free trade. Later the Doctrine of Hinterland developed.
Interestingly, the Ottomans claimed everything to the Chad Basin as the hinterland of Libya, which would have had real force had they still controlled the Sudan.
Interestingly, the Ottomans claimed everything to the Chad Basin as the hinterland of Libya, which would have had real force had they still controlled the Sudan.
- Status