AH challenge: Many post-Napoleonic colonial wars

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I'm defining colonial war strictly as one colonial power attacking another's colony, not colonial power versus the natives.

The US actually made the most blatant mugging of another imperial power. All imperial powers stole from the natives, but there seemed to be an etiquette and order to the colonial acquisition process in the 19th century that had been lacking in the 1500s, 1600s and 1700s when the British stole from the Dutch who stole from the Swedes or Portuguese and the British stole from the French who had stolen from the Spanish, etc. In the second half of the 19th century colonial powers didn’t often steal from other colonial powers. The exception was the Japanese stealing from the Russians and the Americans stealing from the Spanish. Countries did not out of the blue seize the colonial territory of another European power or conquer the surviving non-European states like Ethiopia, Siam, Japan, the Nejd, Afghanistan and Liberia. They spent decades building up a context for their territorial seizures. France or Germany or the UK or Japan did not just go grabbing the Nejd or Siam or the Philippines because they woke up and decided they wanted a colony. The Russo-Japanese struggle over Korea was more than just colonial, it was close to home for both, especially Japan. The most whimsical and out-of-context acquisitions in the colonial era were the US acquisitions of Guam and the Philippines, a random side effect of the more long-term hankering to either acquire Cuba or at least take charge of its future. Actually the Belgian Congo almost matches it for randomness. The Boer Wars were blatant aggression but they were not random, the British had ruled the republics decades earlier. Even in Africa, which was carved up like a gameboard, most of the colonies stemmed from decades-old coastal trading posts.

So, the challenge is to have more wars like the Spanish-American war, with colonial powers fighting one on one for a colonial rip-off, and more purchasing and trading of colonies, a la the Alaska purchase.
 

Rockingham

Banned
I'm defining colonial war strictly as one colonial power attacking another's colony, not colonial power versus the natives.

The US actually made the most blatant mugging of another imperial power. All imperial powers stole from the natives, but there seemed to be an etiquette and order to the colonial acquisition process in the 19th century that had been lacking in the 1500s, 1600s and 1700s when the British stole from the Dutch who stole from the Swedes or Portuguese and the British stole from the French who had stolen from the Spanish, etc. In the second half of the 19th century colonial powers didn’t often steal from other colonial powers. The exception was the Japanese stealing from the Russians and the Americans stealing from the Spanish. Countries did not out of the blue seize the colonial territory of another European power or conquer the surviving non-European states like Ethiopia, Siam, Japan, the Nejd, Afghanistan and Liberia. They spent decades building up a context for their territorial seizures. France or Germany or the UK or Japan did not just go grabbing the Nejd or Siam or the Philippines because they woke up and decided they wanted a colony. The Russo-Japanese struggle over Korea was more than just colonial, it was close to home for both, especially Japan. The most whimsical and out-of-context acquisitions in the colonial era were the US acquisitions of Guam and the Philippines, a random side effect of the more long-term hankering to either acquire Cuba or at least take charge of its future. Actually the Belgian Congo almost matches it for randomness. The Boer Wars were blatant aggression but they were not random, the British had ruled the republics decades earlier. Even in Africa, which was carved up like a gameboard, most of the colonies stemmed from decades-old coastal trading posts.

So, the challenge is to have more wars like the Spanish-American war, with colonial powers fighting one on one for a colonial rip-off, and more purchasing and trading of colonies, a la the Alaska purchase.
What about Morroco, Algiers and Tunisia, not to mention Libya, and other Ottoman territories? I think those certainly qualify as random land grabs. Your list of Non-European states is flawed, Afghanistan and Liberia were essentialy protectorates, and it wasn't as if no nation had attempted to take Siam and Abyssnia, said states were merely rebuffed, by Britian and the state itself respectively. Nejd was of almost no worth, and was under nominal Ottoman control.

What about the German conqests? They were nearly as random as the Belgian one(which was arguably not even Belgian).

Still their were very few colonial wars, for 2 main reasons- the outcome of any war was often very clear from the start- the Japanese wars with China and Russia seem a case in point, Japan was succesful in the former because noone suspected it would be victorious, and was rebuffed from much of its gains when it was, while in the latter Britian had a vested interest in defeating Russia. Thus the Darfur incident, the Boer wars, French and British "incidents" with the US and the Morrocan crisis didn't spiral into war-the balance of power was very clearly defined outside of Europe, and in the cases it wasn't, was defined by either the US or Britain.

The second reason-no power could hope to rival Britain outside Europe, and often inside Europe(the Exceptio nbeing the US in much of North America ,and to some extent South America. No nation was prepared to fight a colonial war it would lose, thus Britain was succesful in avoiding any one nation forming naything resembling a counterweight to their own colonies. All of the "colonial power wars" to fought post-Napoleon, had clear cut results, with near certainty of one sides success- the Ottoman-Italian war and Japanese wars in the East were exceptions, the former because the fought over territory was totally worthless, and the latter wars because East Asia was so far away from the main colonial power bases.

Their might have been a chance to retake and gain colonies abroad for the power defeated overseas if it was victorious in Europe, but this only encouraged all nations (except Britian) to settle their conflicts in Europe, and Britain had little capacity to force a conflict to be settled outside Europe. Even in the case that Brtiain wass forced to settle its issues on the European continent, it was victorious.

The same principles can be seen present day- great powers avoid clashes with the US because they have no hope of success in most cases, and in the few exceptions ,the US avoids clashes with the said powers.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
navala hegemony in general

I have a question of naval hegemony. Clearly the circumstances of
Britain at the end of the Napoleonic Wars (and even, to a significant
degree, at the end of the 7 Years War) greatly advantaged Britain.
This had to do with Britain's whole political economy and the fact
that Napoleon's wars broke off the overseas ties of atlantic European
states which were earlier significant naval powers.

Was 19th and 20th century naval terchnology, all by itself, something
that was more conducive to the # 1 naval power having such a crushing
advantage, so much so that there was no point in others trying, so
much so that navies fighting Britain so often psyched themselves out
in advance?


Prior to the Napoleonic Wars, it seemed that it was at least easier to
try and sometimes succeed in quickly changing one's ranking as a naval
power.


Would it have been possible, with the technology of the 1500s, 1600s,
or 1700s for the leading power to have the type of basically
undisputed naval-colonial lead that Britain had in 1815 and
afterward? Possibly if Britain, or maybe France had gotten to the
Americas and its wealth before the Iberians?



-
 

Rockingham

Banned
I have a question of naval hegemony. Clearly the circumstances of
Britain at the end of the Napoleonic Wars (and even, to a significant
degree, at the end of the 7 Years War) greatly advantaged Britain.
This had to do with Britain's whole political economy and the fact
that Napoleon's wars broke off the overseas ties of atlantic European
states which were earlier significant naval powers.

Was 19th and 20th century naval terchnology, all by itself, something
that was more conducive to the # 1 naval power having such a crushing
advantage, so much so that there was no point in others trying, so
much so that navies fighting Britain so often psyched themselves out
in advance?


Prior to the Napoleonic Wars, it seemed that it was at least easier to
try and sometimes succeed in quickly changing one's ranking as a naval
power.


Would it have been possible, with the technology of the 1500s, 1600s,
or 1700s for the leading power to have the type of basically
undisputed naval-colonial lead that Britain had in 1815 and
afterward? Possibly if Britain, or maybe France had gotten to the
Americas and its wealth before the Iberians?



-
Naval lead yes, colonial lead...no, at least not after the first countries to get lucky(Spain and Portugal in OTL) were pushed aside. Firstly, their was a lot more empty space for colonies, so it took far more effort to dominate it all.

Secondly, the world was not nearly as European dominated in those eras, which left space for an inferior naval power to creep in... native powers don't want a singles state to have a monopolyafter all.
 
Top