Your challenge is pretty much what the title says: have more of Africa not be colonized. The POD must be after 1750.
King Leopold II doesn't "purchase" the Congo (and thus millions of Congolese don't either die or get their limbs chopped off). That's what started the Scramble For Africa IIRC, remove that and it'd be more limited IMO.
 
You could easily have Sokoto, Mali or any other of the West African Empires be a bit stronger and dominate the West African trade, and be strong enough to play the Europeans against each other, which means West Africa remains a few European ports at the coast and the interior completely controlled by the native Empires.

You could delay the development of quinine by Pasteur in 1853 - without it, malaria and other tropical diseases will keep Europeans out of Central Africa for quite some time.

If the Ottomans win against Russia 1877 and are then strong enought to re-integrate the Khedive of Egypt in the late 1870s and early 1880s, of course respecting the Suez canal etc., the British won't be taking over Egypt in 1886, which was what triggered the Berlin Conference and the scramble for Africa - if the Brits could grab what they wanted, so could everyone else.
 
Several events:
- no French conquest of Algeria (1830)
- Ottoman victory in 1877 so it remains stable and stronger to reintegrate Egypt thus avoiding British Rule (1878)
- British back down from attacking the Boers (1890s)

Avoid these and you'd have large parts of Africa under native rule.
 
We could make a lot of changes in 1884-5. Most of the European territory wasn't effectively controlled for decades after it was assigned to them, maybe in an ATL Conference of Berlin they invite a few Africans so they can undercut and create buffers against other Europeans.
 
As others said if Ottomans avoids or win Russo-Turkish war of 1877/78 there was a high chance that Egypt, Sudan, Eritrae could have stayed defacto independent but nominally under Ottomans or Ottomans could have reintegrated them during Urabi crisis. Tunis is hard, maybe Ottomans reintegrated it thanks to Franco-Italian rivalry and British support or Tunis could have "pull a Siam"

IOTL Kanem, Bornu, Wadai, Darfur, Somalian Statelets were still independent in 1903 and despite weakness of Ottomans after 1878, they supported Saharan statelets and I can say that there was kind of a "great game" between France and Turkey until 1911
So if Urabi revolt or British invasion of Egypt were avoided these statelets could have kept European imperialism away via Turkish-Egyptian aid. Also refinance of Egyptian debt like Ottomans did could have relieved them significantly too.

Also between 1871 and WWI France and Germany came to edge of war a few times. If one of them turns into a war, French colonialism slows down significantly.

Morocco, Sokoto, Zanzibar and East Africa could have kept their independence with Ottoman or Egypt support but these requires pre-1875 POD. I think best ones are revolves around Egypt and Ottomans. Here my toughts.

First(1840), if Muhammed Ali realizes French wouldn't come to help them againist Anglo-Austrian-Ottoman block, he could have negotiate the terms of Convention of London and he could have get away with better terms like keeping his 100k army and maintain monopoly over trade. Thus prevents Oriental Crisis of 1840 and Convention of London. (OTL Convention stripped of Muhammed Ali's army and opened Egpytian market to Europen goods thus any chance of industrialization eliminated. Also lifting state monopoly over external trade and lowering customs significantly decreased revenues of state and opended the debt way.)
If ATL Egypt wouldn't have stupid things after these, by 1880 Egypt could have been second rate great power thus kept most of Muslim Africa(except Algeria because it requires pre-1830 pod) from European imperialism.

Second(1848), if Muhammed Ali's son İbrahim lives longer Egypt could have made better progress under his governership. Unfourtunately he died before his father. Muhammed Ali's other successors weren't brilliant governers. Said was good but he died early too. Others were mediocre at best. İsmail was singleheadedly caused downfall of Egypt under British hand. Lavishness of İsmail and his entourage, war with Ethiopia and his financial stupidity bankrupted state then finances of country fallen under European hands. These caused Urabi revolt and British intervention.

Third(1854), Crimean War POD. Crimean War has a lot of critical moments that could have change the course of war. Allies could have easily took Sevastopol before 1855 thus ended the war. If Crimean War ends one year early these would be blessing for Ottomans and probably prevents or significantly lessens financial diffucilties caused by Crimean War. Then we could have seen stronger Ottoman Empire after 1856.

Fourth(1853), just avoid Crimean War. Despite Ottoman victory Crimean War caused more harm than good for Ottomans. Historian Candan Badem writes: "Victory in this war did not bring any significant material gain, not even a war indemnity. On the other hand, the Ottoman treasury was nearly bankrupted due to war expenses". Badem adds that the Ottomans achieved no significant territorial gains, lost the right to a navy in the Black Sea, and lost its status as a great power. Further, the war gave impetus to the union of the Danubian principalities and ultimately to their independence."
Regarding last two PODs, as long as Ottomans did not stupid things after 1853/55, Ottomans could have kept most of Muslim Africa from European hands.
Before 1840 anything is possible with courtesy of butterflies.
 
Last edited:
Top