AHC: Colonial subjects "take over" a colonial empire

Metropolitan France is taken over by some sort of revolution, the government that's being revolutioned against evacuates to Algeria and secures all the French colonies. Then the Arabs (who probably won't be allowed to vote, if democracy is preserved) overthrow that government. The French Empire becomes the Algerian Empire.

But I'm not sure if Algerian rebels would be able to hold on to (or want to hold on to) all that territory.
 
Metropolitan France is taken over by some sort of revolution, the government that's being revolutioned against evacuates to Algeria and secures all the French colonies. Then the Arabs (who probably won't be allowed to vote, if democracy is preserved) overthrow that government. The French Empire becomes the Algerian Empire.

But I'm not sure if Algerian rebels would be able to hold on to (or want to hold on to) all that territory.

The Algerians would just secure their independence and let the rest of the French Empire fall apart as it may.

They have no ties to it, nor any incentive to do really anything other than look out for number one.
 
Ah, I figured as such.

Yeah, I think the main underpinning with this scenario is a fundamental problem of a lot of the colonized peoples have neither the infrastructure, not the incentive to pull off the sort of colonial empires that their motherland did.

Brazil had what it had because the Portuguese actually evacuated their entire government to Brazil during the Iberian Campaign, their reasoning was to basically remake Portugal in Brazil in light of the fact that Portugal itself was under Napoleonic rule. They relocated their court, they moved the navy, they moved basically everything of value that they could get to Brazil and fully saw Brazil as simply another chapter in Portuguese imperial history.

Somewhere like India isn't developed like Brazil was. There never was, and never could have been a parallel to the situation with Brazil with British India. British rule in India was always an imposition on the Indians. Britain also treated the place like an extraction colony for its resources, and carefully played up religious and regional tensions to assure that the Indians remained divided and not cooperative in the slightest against the machine of British imperial rule.

In short, this was a terrible place to trust as a replacement for the British Isles as the ruler of the British Empire. And ultimately as soon as any India-centric state becomes independent they'll be in no position to assume the mantle of ruler of the empire, nor would they want to.
 
Alexander IV (aged 13) is not assasinated by Cassander's man Glaucias. Instead, he kills Cassander, sets himslef up as regent, and is himslef killed by the young boy a few years later, who takes control of his (much reduced) kingdom. (this is so that you have a continuity of the "legitimate" government)

Years and year later, in a world where the rise of Rome is butterflied away, the native Egyptians revolt against the Ptolemies and the upper crust of Greek colonists and win. Years after that, an Egyptian expedition in Greece manages, together with local greek allies, to conquer Pella and the entire depopulated Kingdom of Macedon. The Egyptian pharao also assumes the title of King of Macedonia and King of Kings.

Between one and thirty years later, the province rebels for good.

Or, alternatively, just have the Ptolemies (or the Seleucids) conquer Macedonia instead.
 
If we ignore OTL Portugal/Brazil then your best bet, as has been said is a democratic Imperial Federation which includes India.
 
Top