Anglo-Zanzibar War

The Anglo-Zanzibar War is famous for being short... around forty minutes.... The English had signed a treaty with the Shah stating that his successor could only rise to power with English Support, among other things. When he died, a prince that the English didn't support declared himself Shah, seized the palace, a piece of artillery, and a couple machine guns. His soldiers barricaded the palace against the English. The RN had several ships in the harbor that the palace overlooked, shelled the Palace out of existence and sank the Zanzibar Navy... the HHS Glasgow to be exact, and the Shah promptly surrendered after forty minutes.
Now, consider if the Shah had been a sneaky bugger and not barricading the palace, but merely taking the artillery, the MGs, and the guns off the Glasgow. With those, do you think it would be possible for the RN to be forced out of the harbor? I figure artillery in protected positions and MGs covering against landing parties.... I know Zanzibar couldn't win, but it would be interesting to see a joke of a war turn slightly expensive.
 
HHS Glasgow was the Zanzibar royal yacht. Its chances of mounting a successful naval military action are zero.
 
Oh no, it was grossly out-numbered. But it was still slightly armed. I figured naval actions are out of the picture. I was thinking dismount the artillery.
 
mm, true. I see now. Still, I have to say that I think you'll find that the guns on board would be at most a nuisance to the British flotilla.
 
The real problem with this scenario is that to prolong the war you need to find a way not to stop the British landing troops but from being able to bombard the palace long(-ish) range. Under the present circumstances a talented commander could probably create enough of a threat to stop the British from wanting to get close, but ultimately the British knew that they weren't under any real threat from the Glasgow's guns, mainly as the RN ships were at this pointed fairly well armoured. They also have the ability to sit back at a distance of perhaps up to one mile to achieve their task relatively quickly, which the Glasgow's guns probably couldn't match, and certainly couldn't do damage at. Ultimately the circumstances just aren't really right for prolonging the event.
 
Oh no, it was grossly out-numbered. But it was still slightly armed. I figured naval actions are out of the picture. I was thinking dismount the artillery.

It wouldn't matter. The guns were very obsolete 9-pounders, non-quick-firing. They had no chance of doing any substantial damage to the 1st class cruiser the RN had in the harbor. Or for that matter the 3rd-class cruisers, or either of the gunboats.

Glascow was just a yacht, with a composite hull (meaning the girders were iron and the skin was wood). It could probably take on a pirate dhow, but not a real warship.

BTW, the ruler of Zanzibar wasn't a shah - he wasn't even a Sultan. His title was Seyyid.
 
The real problem with this scenario is that to prolong the war you need to find a way not to stop the British landing troops but from being able to bombard the palace long(-ish) range. Under the present circumstances a talented commander could probably create enough of a threat to stop the British from wanting to get close, but ultimately the British knew that they weren't under any real threat from the Glasgow's guns, mainly as the RN ships were at this pointed fairly well armoured. They also have the ability to sit back at a distance of perhaps up to one mile to achieve their task relatively quickly, which the Glasgow's guns probably couldn't match, and certainly couldn't do damage at. Ultimately the circumstances just aren't really right for prolonging the event.

If Glasgow had quick-firing guns, it could have posed some threat, as the armored ships present were all protected cruisers, meaning they had armored water-line decks, but not armored sides. But with slow firing antiques, it was more or less helpless.

My Ottoman TL has a different outcome for this war, so stay tuned...
 
If Glasgow had quick-firing guns, it could have posed some threat, as the armored ships present were all protected cruisers, meaning they had armored water-line decks, but not armored sides. But with slow firing antiques, it was more or less helpless.

My Ottoman TL has a different outcome for this war, so stay tuned...

Its been forever... Just post the first part already!

haha sorry but I'm really curious as to how you are going to make this ottoman empire more powerful...
 
Its been forever... Just post the first part already!

haha sorry but I'm really curious as to how you are going to make this ottoman empire more powerful...

It's basically all about a more successful performance in the war with Russia in 1877-78. The Ottomans should actually have won, but due to a crisis in the center, a senile old man was left in command in Bulgaria, leaving the initiative to the Russians. Unfortunately, the experienced war minister was assassinated, which removed a critical person at a critical time. With proper Ottoman leadership, the Russians would have lost, because they underestimated Ottoman military capabilities and didn't mobilize enough troops, and the Ottomans were superior in experience and equipment. Also, the Russians had limited logistical infrastructure to project power into the Balkans and Caucasus, and insufficient financial resources to sustain a lengthy war effort.

As it was, the Ottomans did a lot better against the Russians than the French had against the Prussians just a few years earlier...
 
It's basically all about a more successful performance in the war with Russia in 1877-78. The Ottomans should actually have won, but due to a crisis in the center, a senile old man was left in command in Bulgaria, leaving the initiative to the Russians. Unfortunately, the experienced war minister was assassinated, which removed a critical person at a critical time. With proper Ottoman leadership, the Russians would have lost, because they underestimated Ottoman military capabilities and didn't mobilize enough troops, and the Ottomans were superior in experience and equipment. Also, the Russians had limited logistical infrastructure to project power into the Balkans and Caucasus, and insufficient financial resources to sustain a lengthy war effort.

As it was, the Ottomans did a lot better against the Russians than the French had against the Prussians just a few years earlier...

Well, of course, I've read quite a few threads where wou've detailed this. But whats really interesting is the butterflies after it. Not only with Zanzibar, but all across southwest Asia and Africa...

Anyway, I'm looking forward to it.
 
Well, of course, I've read quite a few threads where wou've detailed this. But whats really interesting is the butterflies after it. Not only with Zanzibar, but all across southwest Asia and Africa...

Anyway, I'm looking forward to it.

If the Ottomans had beaten Russia (actually just successfully fended them off), the Powers would probably have explained it away as Russian incompetence rather than Ottoman competence, but it still would have had some impact on their perception of the empire and its place in the balance of power. Also, in OTL, the Russians murdered the entire Ottoman army by death marching them through the winter - this had been a rather elite and experienced army, and it took about 20 years to rebuilt it. Having military resources and greater confidence would allow the empire more diplomatic maneuvering space, which would lead to greater ties to the rest of the Islamic world.

Egypt was headed to crisis before my POD, but in this TL, the Ottomans can intervene... control over Egypt and Somalia (which the Egyptians held) gives them power projection capability in the Indian Ocean and Africa. If Britain isn't held hostage by Germany over Egypt, Britain will be in a position to preserve the territorial integrity of the Zanzibari Empire. In OTL the Zanzibaris recognized the Ottoman Sultan as supreme Caliph - in this TL there is latitude for a real relationship...

Incidentally, the ruler of Bornu (today mostly in Northern Nigeria), also recognized the Ottoman Caliph - European travellers reported the Ottoman flag flying at the capital of Bornu in the 1890s. That will probably be a stronger relationship too.
 
Incidentally, the ruler of Bornu (today mostly in Northern Nigeria), also recognized the Ottoman Caliph - European travellers reported the Ottoman flag flying at the capital of Bornu in the 1890s. That will probably be a stronger relationship too.

How absolutely fascinating- I've been reading up on Bornu for "Fight and be Right" and had never come across that before. It does make perfect sense, come to think of it....
 
How absolutely fascinating- I've been reading up on Bornu for "Fight and be Right" and had never come across that before. It does make perfect sense, come to think of it....

In the 16th c, the Ottomans sent a miliary mission to Bornu to organize their army for them. By the 19th c, relations had gotten tenuous, but the Ottomans as part of their pan-Islamic strategy did their best to reactivate relations.

It's "cheap" to acknowledge the Caliph - it doesn't mean he has actual authority, and you might get some money, equipment, or diplomatic assistance in return.

Yakub Bey in Chinese Turkistan, and Aceh also did this. These went so far as to pronounce themselves Ottoman provinces.
 
Top