AHC: Native African 'Great Power' by 1900?

ben0628

Banned
No Ethiopia did not do it. Ethiopia was conquered by Italy and the only reason it was freed was WWII undid it. The only reason it lasted that long was due to being Christian. And that's the only reason. And it still had plenty of interference from the Portuguese and later the Italians. Look at the rest of Africa's history.

Are you serious? Go back several decades before that and you'll see a Ethiopian army kicking Italy's ass. And the annexation of Ethiopia pre ww2 was the act of Mussolini's policies (something that can easily be butterflied away). By the way, poison gas was the only thing that allowed the Italians to win. Religion had very little to do with Ethiopian survival. 19th century imperialistic European powers don't give a damn about religion when colonizing, only the potential profits. Ethiopia survived because most Europeans realized an invasion of the country is unprofitable.
 
There is some fascinating stuff in this thread; thanks.

Iyasu the Great, who began his reign in the mid-1680s, sent an embassy to Louis XIV. Is tehre a reason for Louis to use Abyssinia to maybe trump another Great Power? let's say he avoids one of his massive wars and is able financially to encourage Iyasu to import the ideas like the French Academy of Sciences, the printing press, etc., and then Iyasu avoids the problem that caused him to be overthrown and then likely killed. If he reigns another ten years and thus Abyssinia avoids the troubles afterhis reign before some more stable emperors, obviously Abyssinia wouldn't suddenly be on the level of other European powers, but if the French can get a port on the coast and then work with them, could Iyasu (or a butterflied son) pull a Meiji? It'd be a lot easier to pull a Meiji and modernize in the early 1700s than it was the mid-1800s, after all.

(I am actually doing a "...Reap the Whirlwins-style Print On Demand book where a time traveler enters Louis XIV's body the starts more modern banking, the agricultural revolution, etc., and thus has mroe contact, but that obviously is ASB; knowing how much could happen in real life shows me how far this Fleming/harris type can go, though.)
 
No Ethiopia did not do it. Ethiopia was conquered by Italy and the only reason it was freed was WWII undid it. The only reason it lasted that long was due to being Christian. And that's the only reason. And it still had plenty of interference from the Portuguese and later the Italians. Look at the rest of Africa's history.

Ethiopia as well was used for its almost entire history as slave stock for Islamic states. A state like this, that is pushed out of any trade by Islamic powers and made seriously backward due to it, is not the best candidate for any real war against a European power. They were even further dependent on Russia in their first war with Italy.
 
Are you serious? Go back several decades before that and you'll see a Ethiopian army kicking Italy's ass. And the annexation of Ethiopia pre ww2 was the act of Mussolini's policies (something that can easily be butterflied away). By the way, poison gas was the only thing that allowed the Italians to win. Religion had very little to do with Ethiopian survival. 19th century imperialistic European powers don't give a damn about religion when colonizing, only the potential profits. Ethiopia survived because most Europeans realized an invasion of the country is unprofitable.

They defeated the Italians with assistance from Russia and every other European state rooting for them. Ethiopia was left alone for much of its history partly due to its terrain and the difficulty in invading their land. However, their manpower has been stripped for generation upon generation by successive Islamic states who rather than conquer, take slaves from the land. Ethiopia benefitted from Europe, as this ended their torment from the Islamic neighbors around them.


But to say that an old mountain kingdom of cattle for Islamic states is a potential world power, is somewhat silly.
 

ben0628

Banned
They defeated the Italians with assistance from Russia and every other European state rooting for them. Ethiopia was left alone for much of its history partly due to its terrain and the difficulty in invading their land. However, their manpower has been stripped for generation upon generation by successive Islamic states who rather than conquer, take slaves from the land. Ethiopia benefitted from Europe, as this ended their torment from the Islamic neighbors around them.


But to say that an old mountain kingdom of cattle for Islamic states is a potential world power, is somewhat silly.

Obviously Ethiopia in its otl form couldn't become a great power. But makes some changes to history and it's a possibility.

As for the Russians helping Ethiopia by giving them weapons, so what? Many of us who believe there is potential for a great power in Africa have already conceded that modern weapons would have to be traded for, at least at first. All that matters is that they defeated a European power and survived colonization.

I'm still making the argument though that industrialization is less important than manpower and military strength (give an African state these things and they can resist as proven). Survive the colonization era, then focus on industrialization. That is how you get a great African power.
 
Obviously Ethiopia in its otl form couldn't become a great power. But makes some changes to history and it's a possibility.

As for the Russians helping Ethiopia by giving them weapons, so what? Many of us who believe there is potential for a great power in Africa have already conceded that modern weapons would have to be traded for, at least at first. All that matters is that they defeated a European power and survived colonization.

I'm still making the argument though that industrialization is less important than manpower and military strength (give an African state these things and they can resist as proven). Survive the colonization era, then focus on industrialization. That is how you get a great African power.

Sure. My argument is that actual intellectual changes in the fabrics of society must be made or the equivalent. Qing had factories and sufficient manpower to fight anyone, but fell far behind, as did Iran, Afghan states, Panjab, etc...

Also did Japan have to fight anyone for its modernization?
 
Last edited:
I think a major POD towards ensuring a more interconnected Africa that is more likely to be fertile for a Great Power to arise would be to avoid the breakdown of trade between the Sahel and the Mediterranean due to a religious divide and the threat of piracy. The easiest way to do so without changing too much would be to have a more mercantile Ottoman Empire; IMO the best way to go about doing that would be to have the Ottomans conquer Venice into vassalage; in exchange for access to the Venetian Arsenal and a yearly tribute, the Ottomans could have granted the Venetians equivalent trading rights throughout their realm and protection from piracy. As a result, Northern Italy, the Adriatic, and Venice in particular quickly begin to become the great artery of trade for goods from Muslim Asia and Africa with the Venetians as middlemen, able to trade with the Christians of Europe and in Ottoman ports with minimal restrictions.

Genoa quickly declines in trading importance as the Venetians seize their possessions, establish trade posts and banking houses from Algiers to Basra, from the Crimea to Aden making record profits. In particular, the Venetians are ardent supporters of Ottoman expansion into the Indian Ocean due to a strong commercial rivalry with the Portuguese; as a result it's Venetian sailors that lead the Ottoman charge into the Swahili city states becoming vassals in order to break the Portuguese monopoly in West Africa. The strong commercial rivalry between the two states intensifies over time as a result of their competing area of interest(the Indian Ocean and Africa), goods(ivory, salt, spices), and declining profits due to each state attempting to undercut the other.

On the Spanish seizure of Portugal after the death of Sebastian I, Ottoman reliance on the Venetians intensifies as a combined Berber-Venetian fleet sails for Malta, decisively crushing the Spanish, conquering the islands of Sicily, Malta, and establishing the nominal vassalage of Morocco while in turn seizing the jewel of Portugal's Indian Ocean empire in Goa, but failing to evict them from any of their other Indian Ocean possessions. As a result, trade between India, East Africa, Egypt, and the Mediterranean intensifies in order to compensate for the continued fall of prices as Turko-Venetian and Portuguese ships compete to bring these goods to Europe. The French in particular are eager to encourage competition both to reduce the price of these goods in the noble's courts but to also balance their nominal Ottoman ally for fear that they may encroach on Rome or conquer the Alps, threatening French interests. The Venetians act as the primary provider of goods for Italy, Russia, and Southern Germany while the Portuguese provide for Iberia, England, the Low Countries, and North Sea/Baltic nations.

As a result of the continued rapid expansion of the Ottoman Empire into three different continents, the Venetians begin to struggle to meet their commitments to the Empire both militarily and economically, especially as profits decline over time due to the falling price of goods. It's fortunate that the Sultan at the time, Mehmet III, was sympathetic towards Christians as a result of his Greek Orthodox mother and is well aware of how vital Venetian ships have been in the recent success of the Empire. The crowning achievement of Mehmet III would be his reorganization of the administration; the majority of Ottoman vassals such as the Danubian principalities, Morocco, and Algiers would remain as vassals, but Venice as a state would be made a formal Eyalet administered by a Christian governor, elected by the noble and wealthy families of the Eyalet. Citizens of the Venetian Eyalet would be exempt from Dhimmi taxes, be untouchable by the Janissary conscription system, and would not pay a yearly tribute, being administered instead like a normal province albeit with additional protections for its citizens, regardless if they be in Venice, Zanzibar, or Basra. In exchange for these concessions, the Venetians would establish Arsenals in Constantinople, Alexandria, Salonika, Goa, and surprisingly, Mogadishu due to readily available wood from the Ethiopian highlands. Additionally, the Venetian navy would be formally incorporated into the Ottoman Navy's chain of command, albeit always headed by a Venetian Christian appointed by the Governor of the Venice Eyalet. This branch of the navy in particular would later become popular with the Christians of the entire Empire, as sailors serving under the Venetian arm of of the navy were granted Venetian citizenship for them and their families. The deal was sealed with an agreement between the noble families of Venice and the Sultan to fund the building of a canal in Egypt to connect the Mediterranean and the Red Sea for both commercial and military purposes.

While questionable at the time why such radical steps were taken, it's very simple to understand the reasoning behind these actions; the Ottomans and the Venetians had quickly come to realize over the 50 years since the vassalage of Venice that they needed each other to maximize power and profit. The Venetian navy proved decisive in the expansion of Ottoman power in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, to the point were the majority of the Indian Ocean's Ottoman trade fleet was manned by Venetian sailors. Likewise, the Venetians had come to realize that Ottoman suzerainty led to far more profits than ever before, and the noble houses of Venice were sitting in more wealth than they'd ever controlled. The two entities had had over fifty years to come to terms with their awkward working relationship, and as a result the original capitulation of Venice(the city itself had not been placed under siege for long) was almost looked upon positively by those who had garnered the most gold.

Fast-Forward Another Fifty Years, ~1625-1675

North Africa:
The rise of Venetian trading power in the Western Mediterranean not only saw to the decline of Genoese trade, but also the trade of other European powers save for the Spanish, who eventually limited their trade to a trickle after their decisive defeat to the Turko-Venetian navy. As a result, the Sultanates of North Africa have seen a significant decrease in piracy as its profitability crawled to near nothing, and a shift towards trade and the facilitation of goods from the Sahel. North African cities have quickly become the favored means to transport salt, gold, and ivory from West Africa. While the various Sultanates are not notably prosperous, the region is for a lack of a better term, far more quiet than it's ever been once the threat of Spanish invasion was ended and piracy declined; stability in the region is the primary interest of Constantinople which sees these provinces as an important commercial battleground. Some of the more learned in both the capitals of these Sultanates and in Constantinople have been calling for the reconstruction of the old Roman aqueducts so as to strengthen the local economy of the region but so far, these voices are not yet widespread.

Egypt:
Egypt is one of the primary benefactors of the revived trade between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean as the 'in-between', as well as the province which holds the vitally important Suez Canal. Wealthy, urban, and populous, some in Constantinople grumble that while Constantinople may be the gem of the Empire, Egypt has worked to swing the interests of the Empire southwards with its growing wealth. The old administration of Mamluks was abolished during the 'Great Re-organization' 50 years previously as they had repeatedly hampered Venetian efforts to increase trade, and the region is now directly administered by the Ottoman bureaucracy. Alexandria is the 2nd biggest city in the Empire, with Cairo at 3rd.

Ethiopia:
Despite a mixed century, Ethiopia has notably advanced as a regional power, and hasn't been so centralized since the height of Axumite power. Centered in the Highlands, Ethiopia has struggled to absorb the Oromo migrations but as a result of a booming export of raw goods, notably timber, to the port of Mogadishu via the conquered port of Massawa to fuel the Ottoman Indian Ocean fleet. Ethiopian merchants have slowly started to spread into the Indian Ocean and are also the primary middlemen of goods between the Funj/Luo and the Ottomans.

East Africa:
East Africa is something of a mixed bag. The coast is almost entirely dominated by the Ottoman Empire and its semi-vassal, semi-city state empire that's home to a multicultural mishmash of Turks, Venetians, Arabs, Indians, Swahili, Bantu, Ethiopian, Somali, and the occasional Greek. Trade dominates the economic life of the region, as the exchange of resources from the interior for Asian goods and military weapons occurs. This trade has seen to the rise of several small yet highly centralized martial kingdoms in the entire and around the Great Lakes area for the past 50 or so years, but this seems to be coming to a close as the people of the interior have been conquered into five or six kingdoms which the Ottomans have long rejected the idea of conquering, instead favoring keeping a careful balance of power in the region. Each of these kingdoms easily has the capacity to overrun the Ottomans' East Indian possessions but all recognize that favorable trade with the Turk is the means to achieve superiority over other rival kingdoms rather than wastefully expend resources, regardless of various Portuguese, English, and French promises to aid in their conquests. Trade between the coast and the interior is dominated by native Swahili merchants and as a result, Swahili is lingua franca of the region.

Sahel:
---I don't know enough about this area to do something. If I were to hazard a guess, either one centralized kingdom like the Songhai that the Morrocans never invade, or many competing kingdoms. More prosperous than they would be otherwise as they can balance the Europeans on the coast and the Ottomans through the Sahara for trade.---

---------------------------------------------

There. That should be enough AH Playdoh to make a Great Power.
 
Adwa was more of an Italian defeat than an Ethiopian victory; as an Italian, reading about it is frankly embarrassing. Baratieri was an imbecile, his officers used old (and in places plain wrong) maps, old rifles were used "not to waste older cartridges" (sic.), terrain was awful, the Italians were outnumbered one to six, and /still/ the Ethiopians suffered horrible losses. Not exactly a shining example of Ethiopian might - if even less of Italian might.
 

ben0628

Banned
I think a major POD towards ensuring a more interconnected Africa that is more likely to be fertile for a Great Power to arise would be to avoid the breakdown of trade between the Sahel and the Mediterranean due to a religious divide and the threat of piracy. The easiest way to do so without changing too much would be to have a more mercantile Ottoman Empire; IMO the best way to go about doing that would be to have the Ottomans conquer Venice into vassalage; in exchange for access to the Venetian Arsenal and a yearly tribute, the Ottomans could have granted the Venetians equivalent trading rights throughout their realm and protection from piracy. As a result, Northern Italy, the Adriatic, and Venice in particular quickly begin to become the great artery of trade for goods from Muslim Asia and Africa with the Venetians as middlemen, able to trade with the Christians of Europe and in Ottoman ports with minimal restrictions.

Genoa quickly declines in trading importance as the Venetians seize their possessions, establish trade posts and banking houses from Algiers to Basra, from the Crimea to Aden making record profits. In particular, the Venetians are ardent supporters of Ottoman expansion into the Indian Ocean due to a strong commercial rivalry with the Portuguese; as a result it's Venetian sailors that lead the Ottoman charge into the Swahili city states becoming vassals in order to break the Portuguese monopoly in West Africa. The strong commercial rivalry between the two states intensifies over time as a result of their competing area of interest(the Indian Ocean and Africa), goods(ivory, salt, spices), and declining profits due to each state attempting to undercut the other.

On the Spanish seizure of Portugal after the death of Sebastian I, Ottoman reliance on the Venetians intensifies as a combined Berber-Venetian fleet sails for Malta, decisively crushing the Spanish, conquering the islands of Sicily, Malta, and establishing the nominal vassalage of Morocco while in turn seizing the jewel of Portugal's Indian Ocean empire in Goa, but failing to evict them from any of their other Indian Ocean possessions. As a result, trade between India, East Africa, Egypt, and the Mediterranean intensifies in order to compensate for the continued fall of prices as Turko-Venetian and Portuguese ships compete to bring these goods to Europe. The French in particular are eager to encourage competition both to reduce the price of these goods in the noble's courts but to also balance their nominal Ottoman ally for fear that they may encroach on Rome or conquer the Alps, threatening French interests. The Venetians act as the primary provider of goods for Italy, Russia, and Southern Germany while the Portuguese provide for Iberia, England, the Low Countries, and North Sea/Baltic nations.

As a result of the continued rapid expansion of the Ottoman Empire into three different continents, the Venetians begin to struggle to meet their commitments to the Empire both militarily and economically, especially as profits decline over time due to the falling price of goods. It's fortunate that the Sultan at the time, Mehmet III, was sympathetic towards Christians as a result of his Greek Orthodox mother and is well aware of how vital Venetian ships have been in the recent success of the Empire. The crowning achievement of Mehmet III would be his reorganization of the administration; the majority of Ottoman vassals such as the Danubian principalities, Morocco, and Algiers would remain as vassals, but Venice as a state would be made a formal Eyalet administered by a Christian governor, elected by the noble and wealthy families of the Eyalet. Citizens of the Venetian Eyalet would be exempt from Dhimmi taxes, be untouchable by the Janissary conscription system, and would not pay a yearly tribute, being administered instead like a normal province albeit with additional protections for its citizens, regardless if they be in Venice, Zanzibar, or Basra. In exchange for these concessions, the Venetians would establish Arsenals in Constantinople, Alexandria, Salonika, Goa, and surprisingly, Mogadishu due to readily available wood from the Ethiopian highlands. Additionally, the Venetian navy would be formally incorporated into the Ottoman Navy's chain of command, albeit always headed by a Venetian Christian appointed by the Governor of the Venice Eyalet. This branch of the navy in particular would later become popular with the Christians of the entire Empire, as sailors serving under the Venetian arm of of the navy were granted Venetian citizenship for them and their families. The deal was sealed with an agreement between the noble families of Venice and the Sultan to fund the building of a canal in Egypt to connect the Mediterranean and the Red Sea for both commercial and military purposes.

While questionable at the time why such radical steps were taken, it's very simple to understand the reasoning behind these actions; the Ottomans and the Venetians had quickly come to realize over the 50 years since the vassalage of Venice that they needed each other to maximize power and profit. The Venetian navy proved decisive in the expansion of Ottoman power in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, to the point were the majority of the Indian Ocean's Ottoman trade fleet was manned by Venetian sailors. Likewise, the Venetians had come to realize that Ottoman suzerainty led to far more profits than ever before, and the noble houses of Venice were sitting in more wealth than they'd ever controlled. The two entities had had over fifty years to come to terms with their awkward working relationship, and as a result the original capitulation of Venice(the city itself had not been placed under siege for long) was almost looked upon positively by those who had garnered the most gold.

Fast-Forward Another Fifty Years, ~1625-1675

North Africa:
The rise of Venetian trading power in the Western Mediterranean not only saw to the decline of Genoese trade, but also the trade of other European powers save for the Spanish, who eventually limited their trade to a trickle after their decisive defeat to the Turko-Venetian navy. As a result, the Sultanates of North Africa have seen a significant decrease in piracy as its profitability crawled to near nothing, and a shift towards trade and the facilitation of goods from the Sahel. North African cities have quickly become the favored means to transport salt, gold, and ivory from West Africa. While the various Sultanates are not notably prosperous, the region is for a lack of a better term, far more quiet than it's ever been once the threat of Spanish invasion was ended and piracy declined; stability in the region is the primary interest of Constantinople which sees these provinces as an important commercial battleground. Some of the more learned in both the capitals of these Sultanates and in Constantinople have been calling for the reconstruction of the old Roman aqueducts so as to strengthen the local economy of the region but so far, these voices are not yet widespread.

Egypt:
Egypt is one of the primary benefactors of the revived trade between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean as the 'in-between', as well as the province which holds the vitally important Suez Canal. Wealthy, urban, and populous, some in Constantinople grumble that while Constantinople may be the gem of the Empire, Egypt has worked to swing the interests of the Empire southwards with its growing wealth. The old administration of Mamluks was abolished during the 'Great Re-organization' 50 years previously as they had repeatedly hampered Venetian efforts to increase trade, and the region is now directly administered by the Ottoman bureaucracy. Alexandria is the 2nd biggest city in the Empire, with Cairo at 3rd.

Ethiopia:
Despite a mixed century, Ethiopia has notably advanced as a regional power, and hasn't been so centralized since the height of Axumite power. Centered in the Highlands, Ethiopia has struggled to absorb the Oromo migrations but as a result of a booming export of raw goods, notably timber, to the port of Mogadishu via the conquered port of Massawa to fuel the Ottoman Indian Ocean fleet. Ethiopian merchants have slowly started to spread into the Indian Ocean and are also the primary middlemen of goods between the Funj/Luo and the Ottomans.

East Africa:
East Africa is something of a mixed bag. The coast is almost entirely dominated by the Ottoman Empire and its semi-vassal, semi-city state empire that's home to a multicultural mishmash of Turks, Venetians, Arabs, Indians, Swahili, Bantu, Ethiopian, Somali, and the occasional Greek. Trade dominates the economic life of the region, as the exchange of resources from the interior for Asian goods and military weapons occurs. This trade has seen to the rise of several small yet highly centralized martial kingdoms in the entire and around the Great Lakes area for the past 50 or so years, but this seems to be coming to a close as the people of the interior have been conquered into five or six kingdoms which the Ottomans have long rejected the idea of conquering, instead favoring keeping a careful balance of power in the region. Each of these kingdoms easily has the capacity to overrun the Ottomans' East Indian possessions but all recognize that favorable trade with the Turk is the means to achieve superiority over other rival kingdoms rather than wastefully expend resources, regardless of various Portuguese, English, and French promises to aid in their conquests. Trade between the coast and the interior is dominated by native Swahili merchants and as a result, Swahili is lingua franca of the region.

Sahel:
---I don't know enough about this area to do something. If I were to hazard a guess, either one centralized kingdom like the Songhai that the Morrocans never invade, or many competing kingdoms. More prosperous than they would be otherwise as they can balance the Europeans on the coast and the Ottomans through the Sahara for trade.---

---------------------------------------------

There. That should be enough AH Playdoh to make a Great Power.

Love it!!! Also love playdoh. However a stronger Ottoman presence in East Africa probably means a weaker Ethiopia.
Adwa was more of an Italian defeat than an Ethiopian victory; as an Italian, reading about it is frankly embarrassing. Baratieri was an imbecile, his officers used old (and in places plain wrong) maps, old rifles were used "not to waste older cartridges" (sic.), terrain was awful, the Italians were outnumbered one to six, and /still/ the Ethiopians suffered horrible losses. Not exactly a shining example of Ethiopian might - if even less of Italian might.[/QU

Survival is all that matters. A phyrric victory is still a victory.
 
Survival is all that matters. A phyrric victory is still a victory.
I'm not going to deny that. I'm just pointing out that I find myself quite hard pressed to find a way for Ethiopia to do better; they had foreign help, numbers, and an opponent firmly grasping the idiot ball. What else can they get to make it even better?
 
I think a major POD towards ensuring a more interconnected Africa that is more likely to be fertile for a Great Power to arise would be to avoid the breakdown of trade between the Sahel and the Mediterranean due to a religious divide and the threat of piracy. The easiest way to do so without changing too much would be to have a more mercantile Ottoman Empire; IMO the best way to go about doing that would be to have the Ottomans conquer Venice into vassalage; in exchange for access to the Venetian Arsenal and a yearly tribute, the Ottomans could have granted the Venetians equivalent trading rights throughout their realm and protection from piracy. As a result, Northern Italy, the Adriatic, and Venice in particular quickly begin to become the great artery of trade for goods from Muslim Asia and Africa with the Venetians as middlemen, able to trade with the Christians of Europe and in Ottoman ports with minimal restrictions.

Genoa quickly declines in trading importance as the Venetians seize their possessions, establish trade posts and banking houses from Algiers to Basra, from the Crimea to Aden making record profits. In particular, the Venetians are ardent supporters of Ottoman expansion into the Indian Ocean due to a strong commercial rivalry with the Portuguese; as a result it's Venetian sailors that lead the Ottoman charge into the Swahili city states becoming vassals in order to break the Portuguese monopoly in West Africa. The strong commercial rivalry between the two states intensifies over time as a result of their competing area of interest(the Indian Ocean and Africa), goods(ivory, salt, spices), and declining profits due to each state attempting to undercut the other.

On the Spanish seizure of Portugal after the death of Sebastian I, Ottoman reliance on the Venetians intensifies as a combined Berber-Venetian fleet sails for Malta, decisively crushing the Spanish, conquering the islands of Sicily, Malta, and establishing the nominal vassalage of Morocco while in turn seizing the jewel of Portugal's Indian Ocean empire in Goa, but failing to evict them from any of their other Indian Ocean possessions. As a result, trade between India, East Africa, Egypt, and the Mediterranean intensifies in order to compensate for the continued fall of prices as Turko-Venetian and Portuguese ships compete to bring these goods to Europe. The French in particular are eager to encourage competition both to reduce the price of these goods in the noble's courts but to also balance their nominal Ottoman ally for fear that they may encroach on Rome or conquer the Alps, threatening French interests. The Venetians act as the primary provider of goods for Italy, Russia, and Southern Germany while the Portuguese provide for Iberia, England, the Low Countries, and North Sea/Baltic nations.

As a result of the continued rapid expansion of the Ottoman Empire into three different continents, the Venetians begin to struggle to meet their commitments to the Empire both militarily and economically, especially as profits decline over time due to the falling price of goods. It's fortunate that the Sultan at the time, Mehmet III, was sympathetic towards Christians as a result of his Greek Orthodox mother and is well aware of how vital Venetian ships have been in the recent success of the Empire. The crowning achievement of Mehmet III would be his reorganization of the administration; the majority of Ottoman vassals such as the Danubian principalities, Morocco, and Algiers would remain as vassals, but Venice as a state would be made a formal Eyalet administered by a Christian governor, elected by the noble and wealthy families of the Eyalet. Citizens of the Venetian Eyalet would be exempt from Dhimmi taxes, be untouchable by the Janissary conscription system, and would not pay a yearly tribute, being administered instead like a normal province albeit with additional protections for its citizens, regardless if they be in Venice, Zanzibar, or Basra. In exchange for these concessions, the Venetians would establish Arsenals in Constantinople, Alexandria, Salonika, Goa, and surprisingly, Mogadishu due to readily available wood from the Ethiopian highlands. Additionally, the Venetian navy would be formally incorporated into the Ottoman Navy's chain of command, albeit always headed by a Venetian Christian appointed by the Governor of the Venice Eyalet. This branch of the navy in particular would later become popular with the Christians of the entire Empire, as sailors serving under the Venetian arm of of the navy were granted Venetian citizenship for them and their families. The deal was sealed with an agreement between the noble families of Venice and the Sultan to fund the building of a canal in Egypt to connect the Mediterranean and the Red Sea for both commercial and military purposes.

While questionable at the time why such radical steps were taken, it's very simple to understand the reasoning behind these actions; the Ottomans and the Venetians had quickly come to realize over the 50 years since the vassalage of Venice that they needed each other to maximize power and profit. The Venetian navy proved decisive in the expansion of Ottoman power in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, to the point were the majority of the Indian Ocean's Ottoman trade fleet was manned by Venetian sailors. Likewise, the Venetians had come to realize that Ottoman suzerainty led to far more profits than ever before, and the noble houses of Venice were sitting in more wealth than they'd ever controlled. The two entities had had over fifty years to come to terms with their awkward working relationship, and as a result the original capitulation of Venice(the city itself had not been placed under siege for long) was almost looked upon positively by those who had garnered the most gold.

Fast-Forward Another Fifty Years, ~1625-1675

North Africa:
The rise of Venetian trading power in the Western Mediterranean not only saw to the decline of Genoese trade, but also the trade of other European powers save for the Spanish, who eventually limited their trade to a trickle after their decisive defeat to the Turko-Venetian navy. As a result, the Sultanates of North Africa have seen a significant decrease in piracy as its profitability crawled to near nothing, and a shift towards trade and the facilitation of goods from the Sahel. North African cities have quickly become the favored means to transport salt, gold, and ivory from West Africa. While the various Sultanates are not notably prosperous, the region is for a lack of a better term, far more quiet than it's ever been once the threat of Spanish invasion was ended and piracy declined; stability in the region is the primary interest of Constantinople which sees these provinces as an important commercial battleground. Some of the more learned in both the capitals of these Sultanates and in Constantinople have been calling for the reconstruction of the old Roman aqueducts so as to strengthen the local economy of the region but so far, these voices are not yet widespread.

Egypt:
Egypt is one of the primary benefactors of the revived trade between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean as the 'in-between', as well as the province which holds the vitally important Suez Canal. Wealthy, urban, and populous, some in Constantinople grumble that while Constantinople may be the gem of the Empire, Egypt has worked to swing the interests of the Empire southwards with its growing wealth. The old administration of Mamluks was abolished during the 'Great Re-organization' 50 years previously as they had repeatedly hampered Venetian efforts to increase trade, and the region is now directly administered by the Ottoman bureaucracy. Alexandria is the 2nd biggest city in the Empire, with Cairo at 3rd.

Ethiopia:
Despite a mixed century, Ethiopia has notably advanced as a regional power, and hasn't been so centralized since the height of Axumite power. Centered in the Highlands, Ethiopia has struggled to absorb the Oromo migrations but as a result of a booming export of raw goods, notably timber, to the port of Mogadishu via the conquered port of Massawa to fuel the Ottoman Indian Ocean fleet. Ethiopian merchants have slowly started to spread into the Indian Ocean and are also the primary middlemen of goods between the Funj/Luo and the Ottomans.

East Africa:
East Africa is something of a mixed bag. The coast is almost entirely dominated by the Ottoman Empire and its semi-vassal, semi-city state empire that's home to a multicultural mishmash of Turks, Venetians, Arabs, Indians, Swahili, Bantu, Ethiopian, Somali, and the occasional Greek. Trade dominates the economic life of the region, as the exchange of resources from the interior for Asian goods and military weapons occurs. This trade has seen to the rise of several small yet highly centralized martial kingdoms in the entire and around the Great Lakes area for the past 50 or so years, but this seems to be coming to a close as the people of the interior have been conquered into five or six kingdoms which the Ottomans have long rejected the idea of conquering, instead favoring keeping a careful balance of power in the region. Each of these kingdoms easily has the capacity to overrun the Ottomans' East Indian possessions but all recognize that favorable trade with the Turk is the means to achieve superiority over other rival kingdoms rather than wastefully expend resources, regardless of various Portuguese, English, and French promises to aid in their conquests. Trade between the coast and the interior is dominated by native Swahili merchants and as a result, Swahili is lingua franca of the region.

Sahel:
---I don't know enough about this area to do something. If I were to hazard a guess, either one centralized kingdom like the Songhai that the Morrocans never invade, or many competing kingdoms. More prosperous than they would be otherwise as they can balance the Europeans on the coast and the Ottomans through the Sahara for trade.---

---------------------------------------------

There. That should be enough AH Playdoh to make a Great Power.


An interesting take on the situation, indeed.

However there needs to be clarification, at what time does this Venetian entity become a vassal? That is crucial.

One thing, that is to note, when such an alliance arises in the world, a counter always occurs to challenge. I envision an alliance between Portugal and Safavid powers and perhaps later European states or more radical, Portugese-Mughal partnership to end the domination of the Indian Ocean by Ottoman-Venetian powers. An extended alliance could look as follows:

Portugal, Oman, Safavid, Swahili states, the various Zayydi states in Yemen, Mughals, etc...

To make things worse, is how to keep Venice loyal and not simply rebel and take Egypt? I have never found an example of a servile Christian kingdom in relation to Muslim masters, they will retreat to the enemy of the Muslim immediately. It is likely that the Vebetians betray the Ottomans in wars against the Safavids, where the Safavids promise them Egypt and Palestine. Or then how is the Ottomans to defend Venice who becomes the enemy of all of Europe? Then too, how is the Ottomans to deal with the rising tide of Russia and Austria who will consume Venice with it and give retribution for betraying Christendom like no other.

Also not to mention, with Venice and Ottomans together, who's to say that a counter naval alliance doesn't arise out of France, Spain, Portugal, Genoa, Papal States, etc....? In which case good look Ottomans when also attempting to come to terms with a rising Russia and Austria.


Also Ottomans were a great power essentially, so, I would say that they do not count.

Still I do find your situation interesting, it is essentially trade conscious Ottomans with extreme haram vices (which might hurt them).

Still I cannot see Alexandria (Iskandiriyya) ever overtaking Qahirah-Fustat, unless there is extreme migration of 1800s levels. This could only be done by robbing other areas. They won't leave Istanbul as the Ottoman authorities would likely disallow it, the only area that could send huge migrants to Alexandria alone would be Venice. Which then turns the whole equilibrium on its head as how do you expect the native Egyptian populace who already despise the Ottomans to take Christian immigrants who in turn own their trade? It is already a controversial topic in Fiqh on the permissibility of a Muslim to work for a disbeliever within his own land.... This is essentially a Fiqh nightmare.
 
An interesting take on the situation, indeed.

However there needs to be clarification, at what time does this Venetian entity become a vassal? That is crucial.

One thing, that is to note, when such an alliance arises in the world, a counter always occurs to challenge. I envision an alliance between Portugal and Safavid powers and perhaps later European states or more radical, Portugese-Mughal partnership to end the domination of the Indian Ocean by Ottoman-Venetian powers. An extended alliance could look as follows:

Portugal, Oman, Safavid, Swahili states, the various Zayydi states in Yemen, Mughals, etc...

To make things worse, is how to keep Venice loyal and not simply rebel and take Egypt? I have never found an example of a servile Christian kingdom in relation to Muslim masters, they will retreat to the enemy of the Muslim immediately. It is likely that the Vebetians betray the Ottomans in wars against the Safavids, where the Safavids promise them Egypt and Palestine. Or then how is the Ottomans to defend Venice who becomes the enemy of all of Europe? Then too, how is the Ottomans to deal with the rising tide of Russia and Austria who will consume Venice with it and give retribution for betraying Christendom like no other.

Also not to mention, with Venice and Ottomans together, who's to say that a counter naval alliance doesn't arise out of France, Spain, Portugal, Genoa, Papal States, etc....? In which case good look Ottomans when also attempting to come to terms with a rising Russia and Austria.


Also Ottomans were a great power essentially, so, I would say that they do not count.

Still I do find your situation interesting, it is essentially trade conscious Ottomans with extreme haram vices (which might hurt them).

Still I cannot see Alexandria (Iskandiriyya) ever overtaking Qahirah-Fustat, unless there is extreme migration of 1800s levels. This could only be done by robbing other areas. They won't leave Istanbul as the Ottoman authorities would likely disallow it, the only area that could send huge migrants to Alexandria alone would be Venice. Which then turns the whole equilibrium on its head as how do you expect the native Egyptian populace who already despise the Ottomans to take Christian immigrants who in turn own their trade? It is already a controversial topic in Fiqh on the permissibility of a Muslim to work for a disbeliever within his own land.... This is essentially a Fiqh nightmare.


I'll admit to painting very broad strokes with my outline because I'm not very knowledgeable on the finer points of the regions I've described except the Ottoman Empire's late history. As for why Venice would stay loyal in these scenarios, it's simply a matter of massive early wealth, and being too tightly bound to each other at points in the future when this trade wealth slows down, IMO. The Venetians conceded their nominal independence in exchange for absolute freedom of trade and extensive rights within the Empire at some nondescript point in the late 16th century to their own benefit, while keeping titular control of a part(but nowhere near the majority) of the Ottoman Navy. The spread of the Arsenal to other ports plus the extensive Venetian trade network reliant on Ottoman administrators means that becoming independent and seizing Egypt would be implausible and also bad for business; the Venetians don't have a formal monopoly on trade in the Empire, but they are the de facto traders of goods between Christian Europe and the Muslim world in this scenario; Muslims may act as intermediaries in the Indian Ocean and the Middle East but the Mediterranean -> Europe part is mostly controlled by the Venetians, although I imagine that with the death of piracy in North Africa, some like the Dutch may be inclined to establish small trade missions on the coast to cut Venetian/Portuguese middlemen, to the fury of the Venetians. I don't think the partnership would break on the Venetian side, but the Ottoman side, if a zealous Sultan were to attain power and wanted to push the tax burden onto the Venetians. But even at that point, the Venetians are too inter-reliant on the Empire to take their ball and go home, IMO.
 
I'll admit to painting very broad strokes with my outline because I'm not very knowledgeable on the finer points of the regions I've described except the Ottoman Empire's late history. As for why Venice would stay loyal in these scenarios, it's simply a matter of massive early wealth, and being too tightly bound to each other at points in the future when this trade wealth slows down, IMO. The Venetians conceded their nominal independence in exchange for absolute freedom of trade and extensive rights within the Empire at some nondescript point in the late 16th century to their own benefit, while keeping titular control of a part(but nowhere near the majority) of the Ottoman Navy. The spread of the Arsenal to other ports plus the extensive Venetian trade network reliant on Ottoman administrators means that becoming independent and seizing Egypt would be implausible and also bad for business; the Venetians don't have a formal monopoly on trade in the Empire, but they are the de facto traders of goods between Christian Europe and the Muslim world in this scenario; Muslims may act as intermediaries in the Indian Ocean and the Middle East but the Mediterranean -> Europe part is mostly controlled by the Venetians, although I imagine that with the death of piracy in North Africa, some like the Dutch may be inclined to establish small trade missions on the coast to cut Venetian/Portuguese middlemen, to the fury of the Venetians. I don't think the partnership would break on the Venetian side, but the Ottoman side, if a zealous Sultan were to attain power and wanted to push the tax burden onto the Venetians. But even at that point, the Venetians are too inter-reliant on the Empire to take their ball and go home, IMO.

That's fine and well, we can debate if Venice betrays them or not any time, but how does the Ottomans defend them? It would seem that Venice would seek a patron who can defend them effectively. I through my reading of Ottoman history, have come to the conclusion that the Ottomans would be inefficient at defending Venice, especially when you consider the failure of Ottoman powers to rule even a piece of land in nearby south Italy, much less defend glass canon Venice from its Italian rivals or Austria.
 
Last edited:
Basically impossible, at least for Great Powers (I count the North Africans as Mediterranean/Islamic for this challenge's purposes)

Vast swathes of the continent are basically unsuitable for cavalry- the adverse affect this had on labor costs and warfare in general cannot be overstated. Notably, the two best candidates for an African power -- the wider Sahel and the Ethiopians/Somalians -- were undone by invading cavalry forces, striking into drier areas where there was no horse sickness (the Oromo and the Fulani jihads that, while creating new states/local powers, also weakened older states and in the latter case directly fueled the last great slave boom).

For the other cultures and those two states, you basically have one actor (at first, before the other Euros came) wrecking everything -- the Portuguese. Not only did they redirect trade away from the Sahel and monopolize Bambuk and Bure in the Senegambia for a period (taking away gold and redirecting trade towards the coast via Lancados), they also introduced a major need for slaves as the primary slave-dealers in the early Age of Exploration. This incentivized native states towards war and was a direct cause of the instability in Kongo.

To touch upon Kongo, the Portuguese fucked them in many ways. Firstly, they both introduced Catholicism and therefore a Catholics vs. non-Catholics conflict, but also prevented Kongo from getting Papal recognition or an independent theological establishment. Once in Kongo, Portuguese missionaries, merchants and backwoodsmen (sertanejos) dicked around with regional geopolitics, amassing power to themselves and destabilizing the slave-based economy of Kongo by redirecting slaves out of the country. Once they set up shop in Luanda, the regional archbishop took up residence therein, subjugating the Kongolese religious and secular elite to Luanda's aegis. Portuguese traders diverted inland trade, in slaves and other products, towards themselves. Furthermore, they also created a second powerbase at Sao Antonio do Zaire/Mbanza Sonyo/Mpinda. The elite status of Mbanza Kongo was based on having both a favorable climate and a large population of local slaves, which gave the king more resources and more exploitable labor. The luxury of Mbanza Kongo also drew the nobility to it, keeping them from creating rural powerbases much like Louis XIV's court at Versailles.

Mpinda, as one of Portugal's main ports, always had surplus slaves, many of whom were used locally (esp. if they weren't fit to be sold). This made Mpinda and Sonyo a rival to Mbanza Kongo, and this power equalization, plus the Kongo's elective monarchy and civil wars between bloodlines, ruined the country. Mbanza Kongo was sacked and abandoned, and the state was slowly turned into an irrelevant remainder of the past.

In Southern Africa, Portugal introduced maize, so their main effect on the Nguni was actually entirely positive -- their introduction of trade and crops allowed for the population surpluses that made the Nguni relevant in the 19th century.

North of the Limpopo, however, their influence once again ruined local states. Portugal's entire strategy of early colonization was to basically bomb and destroy Indo-Islamic state actors in the region so that Portugal became the only passable middleman. This destroyed a more peaceful, more profitable system, and redirected a great deal of wealth back towards European markets. The Portuguese were truly western barbarians in this sense.

In northeast Africa, Portugal's meddling in Ethiopian politics and the resultant civil wars after Susenyos I's conversion allowed the Oromo to wreck Ethiopia. In the Swahili coast, the city-states were all largely conquered in the early 16th century, and would not be conquered by Oman until the twilight of the 17th century. In the Zambezi, Portuguese sertanejos just wreaked absolute fucking havoc.

Much in the way that Portuguese interlopers destabilized Kongo, Portuguese sertanejos in the Zambezi quickly assumed power positions through land grants from the Mwene Mutapa and from local chieftains, becoming what amounted to chieftains themselves, with independent powerbases. With trading fairs and these estates, called prazos, they crippled the Mutapan state and caused anarchy across the southern bank of the Zambezi. Only the advent of the Rozwi would keep the Portuguese out of Zimbabwe (despite invasion efforts). The Rozwi were better -- they even had stone edifices, unlike the Kongo -- but Muslim trade and inland security was not enough to make a thinly populated realm a Great Power, especially once you entered the industrial age As a side note, it has to be mentioned how thinly populated Africa used to be, in part due to disease, in part due to vastness, in part due to slavery, etc.

The Mfecane was the last straw in Southern Africa, as the Nguni migrations caused a new Volkerwanderung. The Makololo invaded Barotseland, Mzilikazi of the Ndebele wrecked all the things, and Nguni peoples migrated as far as northern Zambia.

Africa's trade, in the case of all of these coastal peoples, was thusly redirected and reshaped by European actors. Loose local political arrangements were manipulated to maximum efficiency, hollowing out states in a more dramatic version of what the BEIC did to the Mughals. Weak states, constantly moving labour forces (because Africa was so loosely populated, strict labor control was basically impossible due to migration), outside interference, the twin slave trades, the horse sickness, other diseases (aka why Zambezia never developed its own "cradle of civilization" -- outside trade led to Mapungubwe) and just the enormity of the deficit between Africa and Eurasia. They were never quite able to feed into that vast continental system on their own terms, impeded by the Sahara, the Sudd, and the vastness of the African coastal hinterlands.

Even regional power creation requires a great deal of luck (which could net you independent Kongo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Bornu and maybe a *Malian state). Great Power status is simply beyond the capacity of Africa's states.
 
Last edited:
But if you can go back a few hundred years and make a couple of changes, there would be enough butterflies to make an African state a great power by the late 19th century. Now sure, they'd be underdeveloped like Russia and the Ottomans but they'd still be able to pack a punch.

Russia was behind some places in Europe, though not all, in the 16th c., and it was also true in the 19th c. Russia (much as the rest of Eastern Europe) had to deal with being a resource economy exploited by European capitalists and being raided for slaves on a huge scale by southern neighbours.

That said, late Medieval Russia was already more organised than any pre-scramble African state including Ethiopia and the Fulani states, was able to build forts quickly all planned out across huge swathes of hostile territory, built ships that sailed the Arctic and the Caspian and the Siberian Rivers and reached the Pacific in less than a century. It had literacy, printing, an established civil service, a common law code that clerks across all the various Russian states knew, and an impressive ability to absorb foreigners into the Russian culture as service gentry. The 16th c. Russians exported (and imported, granted, but the point here is the domestic production) cannon, armour and steel weapons. They built mines and saltworks hundreds of kilometres from their power centres, and I don't mean open pits, I mean something that any European would recognize as a mine.

SO when it finally decided to look more European, it already had almost everything it needed to be able to do that (consider that Russia managed to get a navy and an army to beat Turkey and Sweden in one lifetime, that would have been impossible if the starting levels were too low), and even so that took doing and came at the price of severe societal shocks.

So my point here is: it's a baffling comparison. Russia (just like the Ottomans, since you mention them) was centuries ahead of any African state in most respects, and Russia wasn't that impressive compared to some of its 19th c. European rivals.

EDIT: For that matter, Japan, China and Persia and even Egypt were all much closer to Russia and the Ottomans in terms of their inherent capabilities, same as the latter two were closer to France and Spain, than any of them were to any OTL sub-Saharan African states.

Just how are you making that gap good with a couple hundred years' head start?
 
Last edited:
I don't think that Ethiopia is a bad choice, but the major problem is that it's hard to jump from a fundamental medieval state to modern one. Japan didn't, they was already a rather developed state before they was forced open. They had for centuries south "Dutch knowledge". We need to see Ethiopia succeed something similar. According to wikipedia Susenyos I converted to Catholicism, but the Jesuit was expelled by his son after his death. So what if the Portuguese gain control over the Somalian and Eritrean low land, this make a alliance with the Portuguese much more valuable and make expelling the Jesuit and converting back much riskier. Now we have a Ethiopia which is in continued contact with Europe, maybe it even import some skilled European craftsmen and mercenaries (enable them to expand into Sudan), Europeans can survive in its climate, forward to 1800; at that time Ethiopia is still backward, but it have access to the newest European knowledge, it have European style universities, it's as advanced as Latin American states, not a equal to the European states, but part of the greater Christian community. As the decades go by it expand its borders, it even come into conflict with the Portuguese and even win gaining a coastline.
 
Top