AHC: A Spanish, British, Neapolitan, Piedmontese, Austrian colonized Algeria?

Deleted member 97083

While I find this idea interesting, I doubt Muslim Arabs would appreciate Christians of Sub-Saharan African descent being brought to their borders any more than they would Europeans. Plus, this is before the technology advantage of the West was as massive as it would be 50 or so years later, where the Algerians couldn't really fight back that effectively.
The French colony started in 1830, so it's possible. The US was producing a surplus of arms which it could sell at discounted prices to Liberia-in-Algeria to help them conquer the mountains. This would be favorable because then the US would never have to worry about Barbary pirates again.

As for how the French are okay with it? They don't have to be okay with it, they can be distracted in the Rhine Crisis or something similar.
 
This might be less easy than one thinks, but I'll bite. A note: I always postulate coastal occupations as this is what makes the most sense - occupation of the interior can, and rather will, happen later.

British Algeria: Napoleon goes through with his planned conquest of Algeria which however never gets far from the coast; after his eventual defeat, the British lobby for and obtain said strip as part of their Mediterranean focus.
Spanish Algeria: after the crumbling of the South American colonies, Spain decides to get involved in the Mediterranean to regain some face. They target Morocco, rather than Algeria, but it gets caught up in the conflict (seen as rather existential, after the defeats of the two Barbary Wars), and ends up occupied along the coast too.
Neapolitan Algeria: this one is trickier. One way is to have the Neapolitans throw their full might behind the First Barbary War instead of just allowing logistic support; this leads to greater involvement and participation in the 2nd Barbary War, even if just nominal. Eventually, an incident occurs, providing an outlet for some kind of Algerian occupation which is eventually backed by the British in opposition to any French claim - but it is hard. The other, is the Napoleonic route - have Murat timely switch sides to the Grand Coalition. This saves his Neapolitan half of the Kingdom, and leads to a more mercantilist Neapolitan Kingdom; it then actively partakes in the 2nd Barbary War, as a way to build support and legitimacy, ending up with some kind of vague promise of protection over his subject's rights; those get promprly ignored, eventually leading to a more sustained effort which can seize small parts of coastal Algeria.
Piedmontese Algeria: the only feasible way is a earlier start of the coral fishing business, which attracted many Italians, centered in Bône. Assuming you can find a pretext early enough, you can have some kind of limited penetration which, coupled with a better resolution of the wheat purchase affair, leads to Italian ascendance. But it really is a long, long shot.
Austrian Algeria: frankly, I can't see this happening, so I'll have to move further up to find a way. Let's say that, for some reason, the Austrians and the Venetians come to blow in the late XVIII century; the weakness of the Serenissima is laid bare, and it quickly is overrun before the French Revolution. Thus, as Napoleon is eventually defeated much in the same way, the Austrians are already enjoying some kind of Mediterranean presence - which suits Venice just fine, as it reduces the role of Trieste as a competing port. Austrian flag navies are active, and end up embroiled in a fight with what little strength the Barbary States can still muster; they move in quickly, seizing many outposts which are later on vindicated for colonial use.

That said, there is very little to no way that any Barbary State nation could have withstood the Scramble for Africa; if it wasn't France, Spain or even unitary Italy would have gotten a bigger share.
Lastly, it is not hard for France to end up with a mere protectorate; OTL course of events led to annexation of territories almost by chance, and then it just happened the colons fought well to entrench themselves, which led to the grant of Département status. Change any of this, and while French control still is the likeliest by far, it might lead to a less profound penetration.
 
My opinion:
  • Austria is a no go. Too many problems at home, and they have the Ottomans as neighbors. Expanding in the Balkans seems more logical than expanding overseas (especially without a adequate navy for such an endeavor). Austria wasn't all that successful in encouraging settlers in its military frontiers, so I don't see them being good at it in Algeria either.
  • Britain has the strength to do it, but I doubt they would invest much to make it a successful settler colony. They have so many colonies that are better for settlement and more profitable. They might just keep it as a protectorate.
  • Naples & Piedmont on their own are also a no go. I don't think they are strong enough for such an undertaking. A united Italy on the other hand would definitely be a good contender. They were pretty successful with colonizing Libya in OTL (allegedly were on route to become majority by the 60's had WW2 not happened) and a large percentage of settlers in French Algeria were of Italian descent.
  • Spain like Italy would also be a good contender. In French Algeria they were the largest European settler group, so obviously the Spaniards were willing to emigrate to North Africa. The Spanish are more conservative then the French and would allow proselytizing of natives. If they don't introduce western medicine and sanitation to the natives (like the French did in their "civilizing" mission) the muslim population won't explode as in OTL and with a constant influx of settlers they just might become majority in the costal region.
How about a German Algeria? Bismarck wasn't a fan of colonies, but eventually warmed up to the idea.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
So Spain wasn't too much of a loser in the 19th century to take over Algeria to the degree the French did in 1830?
 
Top