AHC: United Sub-saharan Africa

Let's try putting it this way - how is an African empire going to expand across 4/5ths of the continent before 1900?

Alternatively, how is one colonial power going to invest into conquering & controlling an entire continent twice the size of their own while also preventing any competitors from establishing a foothold? I mean, the Sun Never Sat on the British Empire and all that, but Paris' African empire was the same size and extent as that of London's. Hell the Germans got into the colonial game long after any other colonial power and it's African territories were still roughly half the size of Britain's.

It's conceivable that a civilization similar to the mongols could have arisen in africa. The songhai, mali or ghana empire could have gone another way and focused heavily on territorial aggrandizement. It's less ASB to have this be done by an internal african power than by a european one and to be fair having a european one do so IS asb. Its impossible to forsee a scenario where one european power develops at a faster rate than the others in time to conquer the whole continent and post scramble for africa its also impossible because european countries would never go after each other's colonies for the same reason they propped up the ottoman empire: to prevent a general european war.
 
Or, for numerical comparison, Africa is 30,221,532 km (18,778,789 mi.) in size while Russia is only 17,098,242 km (10,624,355 mi.) in size.

I'd do a comparison for Sub-Saharan Africa, but there is no universally accepted definition of what it comprises.

British empire was 33.2 million square km. Mongol empire was roughly 30 million also. its not the size that prevents this from happening
 

dead_wolf

Banned
It's conceivable that a civilization similar to the mongols could have arisen in africa. The songhai, mali or ghana empire could have gone another way and focused heavily on territorial aggrandizement. It's less ASB to have this be done by an internal african power than by a european one and to be fair having a european one do so IS asb. Its impossible to forsee a scenario where one european power develops at a faster rate than the others in time to conquer the whole continent and post scramble for africa its also impossible because european countries would never go after each other's colonies for the same reason they propped up the ottoman empire: to prevent a general european war.

I'm not sure how you can have the Sahelian empires, as dependent as they were on slave labor and cavalry, expanding into either the Sahara or the Central African jungles, regions which would kill off both those resource-populations.

You could certainly have a Sahelian empire stretching from Dakar to, say, the Darfur, potentially even the Nile, but I think you'd find it incredibly hard for them to expand either North or South of that range, or be able to maintain such an empire.
 
Alternatively, how is one colonial power going to invest into conquering & controlling an entire continent twice the size of their own while also preventing any competitors from establishing a foothold? I mean, the Sun Never Sat on the British Empire and all that, but Paris' African empire was the same size and extent as that of London's. Hell the Germans got into the colonial game long after any other colonial power and it's African territories were still roughly half the size of Britain's.

Well, not exactly, the French Empire did rival the British Empire, but it was smaller; in the Interwar period, when both were at their heights, the British Empire encompassed a combined 33.7 million km in territory and 458 million people (20% of the Human population of the time), while the French Empire was only 12.3 million km in size and only 110 million people (5.1% of the population at the time).

Additionally the German Empire was one of the smaller Empires; at it's height it was only 3.5 million km in size with only 64.9 million people (the vast majority of which was Germany itself), or 3.7% of the Human population at the time (1914).
 

Avskygod0

Banned
Without spontaneously removing the natives like in america, impossible. The native peoples in Africa today still demand their own countries sometimes
 
An empire that spans Africa will require a huge transportation edge to function, and unless some method can be found (eg. Mongols = best cavalry in history, British = mastery of the seas) the size of the empire will cause it to implode spectacularly.

Such an edge will be extremely hard to implement on Africa, which by dint of spanning North-South has multiple climate zones throughout. By contrast the East-West Eurasian Mongol Empire was basically a giant steppe at its heart. A method that can work in some of the climate zones might not be feasible in others, and unless large amounts of transportation occur this empire will be struck with periodic outbreaks of diseases at its opposite ends (lack of immunity to germs from other biospheres and all that).

The multiple-climate zones thing is one of the reasons that the Americas failed to produce advanced civilizations (ie. with much trade, contact, exchange of ideas, etc).
 

dead_wolf

Banned
Well, not exactly, the French Empire did rival the British Empire, but it was smaller; in the Interwar period, when both were at their heights, the British Empire encompassed a combined 33.7 million km in territory and 458 million people (20% of the Human population of the time), while the French Empire was only 12.3 million km in size and only 110 million people (5.1% of the population at the time).

Additionally the German Empire was one of the smaller Empires; at it's height it was only 3.5 million km in size with only 64.9 million people (the vast majority of which was Germany itself), or 3.7% of the Human population at the time (1914).

Hmm, source? I'll defer to just about anything you link as I've never compared actual numbers before. On a map they look so much the same but admittedly that's likely projection error.
 
An empire that spans Africa will require a huge transportation edge to function, and unless some method can be found (eg. Mongols = best cavalry in history, British = mastery of the seas) the size of the empire will cause it to implode spectacularly.

Such an edge will be extremely hard to implement on Africa, which by dint of spanning North-South has multiple climate zones throughout. By contrast the East-West Eurasian Mongol Empire was basically a giant steppe at its heart. A method that can work in some of the climate zones might not be feasible in others, and unless large amounts of transportation occur this empire will be struck with periodic outbreaks of diseases at its opposite ends (lack of immunity to germs from other biospheres and all that).

The multiple-climate zones thing is one of the reasons that the Americas failed to produce advanced civilizations (ie. with much trade, contact, exchange of ideas, etc).

I don't get why everyone thinks this has to be your standard run of the mill empire. Why can't there be one mighty empire with vassals spanning the rest of the continent. It doesn't have to be direct rule.
 
I don't get why everyone thinks this has to be your standard run of the mill empire. Why can't there be one mighty empire with vassals spanning the rest of the continent. It doesn't have to be direct rule.

Maybe not, but such a state will have next to no longevity.

Non-direct rule will eventually lead to over-mighty vassal states that will rebel against the liege-lord to pursue independence. Unless the central figure can crack down on every region that steps out of the line (which again runs into the transportation issue), the only way such balkanization won't occur is if the ruled people somehow lack the ability to produce ambitious people, or if the central state can perpetually maintain military/economic/diplomatic edge over the vassal states. In other words, impossible.
 

dead_wolf

Banned
I don't get why everyone thinks this has to be your standard run of the mill empire. Why can't there be one mighty empire with vassals spanning the rest of the continent. It doesn't have to be direct rule.

Because vassals tend to rebel and become independent unless you have the ability to enforce their vassalage? Why should some Bantu tribe in Matabeleland care about the writ of an emperor seated in Timbuktu when travel time between the two is measured in years, and even small armies tend to die on the march across the continent.
 
Maybe not, but such a state will have next to no longevity.

Non-direct rule will eventually lead to over-mighty vassal states that will rebel against the liege-lord to pursue independence. Unless the central figure can crack down on every region that steps out of the line (which again runs into the transportation issue), the only way such balkanization won't occur is if the ruled people somehow lack the ability to produce ambitious people, or if the central state can perpetually maintain military/economic/diplomatic edge over the vassal states. In other words, impossible.

Religion could be used as a tool to keep vassals submissive. A belief in a better life after death can go a long way.
 
Religion could be used as a tool to keep vassals submissive. A belief in a better life after death can go a long way.

Millennia of Christian European history refutes your statement.
Byzantine Emperors were considered Vicegerent of God on Earth. Didn't stop peripheral regions from declaring independence.
Popes were/are considered divinely inspired by God. Didn't stop people from ignoring or outright defying his edicts.

No doubt there are some people pious enough to stand true to the their religions, but the vast majority of humanity will always care for the immediate gains first before some nebulous promise of an afterlife.
 
Hmm, source? I'll defer to just about anything you link as I've never compared actual numbers before. On a map they look so much the same but admittedly that's likely projection error.

The Wikipedia articles on the French and British Colonial Empires include numbers in the initial paragraphs while the page on 'Largest Empires' includes exact percentages and the numbers for the German Empire.
 

dead_wolf

Banned
The Wikipedia articles on the French and British Colonial Empires include numbers in the initial paragraphs while the page on 'Largest Empires' includes exact percentages and the numbers for the German Empire.

Oh. I was referring exclusively to their African territories.
 
Oh. I was referring exclusively to their African territories.

Well, that would depend on the time period then, for example German Cameroon's borders actually changed several times, and of course ALOT of colonies were only founded after 1870.

That said, on the eve of WWI, while the size difference was much less than the Empires overall British Africa was still noticeably bigger than French Africa, likewise German Africa was less than half the size of the other two.

I suppose I could look-up and add the sizes of each colony, but I'm to lazy right now :)p).
 
Top