Consequences of No French CONQUEST of Algeria ?

On this rather easily avoidable occurence from OTL, I have some questions :

> What will become of Algeria without French conquest generally ? General population massacre and European migration is now out of the picture. So should be its expansion into interior, however, since it happened only in the context of French colonialism in Sahara. As for its political future, will it remain an independent deylicate (though most likely under European influence), or will it follow Tripoli's path into becoming an Ottoman vilayet ?

> Years back, I read in Ziauddin Sardar's book that Islamic Medicine met its effective end in Algeria. Is that true ? Indeed, I'm aware that French dismantled everything that looked like non-european sophistication back then, including education system, and that they did burned all the books and stuff. So if that's true, then what if....

> What would the absence of French rule over Algeria do to their West African politics ? Since I don't think their involvement in the Sahel will exactly be butterflied away. By this time, France was already long established in Dakkar. But no Algeria will still mean that their approach to West Africa will be very different.
 
Last edited:
Wait, are you going for "no French rule or influence in Algeria", or "Algeria is not a French colony", because those two are not the same thing?

A French protectorate (rather than outright colony) of Algeria would certainly be interesting - annexation needn't have happened...
 
The second. I'm challenging the motion that the OTL military conquest and the following utter dismantle of Algerian society was inevitable. But I know that Barbary region falling to French orbit was pretty much inevitable post-Napoleon.
 
Algeria really was one of those places it's inevtiable it'll become part of a European Empire after a certain part; it right's across the Med. and it has the same climate, plus by the post-Napoleonic parts of it had already been parts of European states; Spain occupied several cities before leaving of its own accord between the 16th century and early 18th century and then re-conquered Mers el Kabir and Oran in the 1730's before selling them to the Bey of Algiers in the 1790's.

Ultimately what caused the invasion when it happened IOTL was the Bey hitting a French diplomat with a flyswatter for not telling him what he wanted to hear (though of course that was'nt the only part of it, their'd been economic conflicts based on debts previously, which IIRC the aforementioned meeting was about), whichc caused France to demand an apology and intiate a blockade, then when they demanded Algeria send an ambassador to France to try and sort out the situation the Dey responded by firing on the French ships, which then spiraled into war.

In short, from Napoleon onwards Algerias fate is to be conquered, and really Algeria ending-up independent IOTL after is really the result of specific events which could have easily been butterflied away.
 
On this rather easily avoidable occurence from OTL, I have some questions :

> What will become of Algeria without French conquest generally ? General population massacre and European migration is now out of the picture. So should be its expansion into interior, however, since it happened only in the context of French colonialism in Sahara. As for its political future, will it remain an independent deylicate (though most likely under European influence), or will it follow Tripoli's path into becoming an Ottoman vilayet ?

> Years back, I read in Ziauddin Sardar's book that Islamic Medicine met its effective end in Algeria. Is that true ? Indeed, I'm aware that French dismantled everything that looked like non-european sophistication back then, including education system, and that they did burned all the books and stuff. So if that's true, then what if....

> What would the absence of French rule over Algeria do to their West African politics ? Since I don't think their involvement in the Sahel will exactly be butterflied away. By this time, France was already long established in Dakkar. But no Algeria will still mean that their approach to West Africa will be very different.
No French might just mean Spaniards or Italians instead? But if no Europeans invade I think Algeria would still expand south. Morrocco and Egypt both did.

I find what you said about Islamic medicine being destroyed interesting. What were they doing differently to the Europeans that the French found so objectionable?


In short, from Napoleon onwards Algerias fate is to be conquered, and really Algeria ending-up independent IOTL after is really the result of specific events which could have easily been butterflied away.
Could Algeria have been protected by Britain out of Francophobia? Maybe if Napoleon hadn't gotten his ass kicked in Russia the Brits would have been a lot more Francophobic and stop further French expansion whenever they could. Napoleonic France did have de facto control of Spain and Italy, so I could see the Brits pissing themselves over the idea of him having North Africa as well.
 
Could Algeria have been protected by Britain out of Francophobia? Maybe if Napoleon hadn't gotten his ass kicked in Russia the Brits would have been a lot more Francophobic and stop further French expansion whenever they could. Napoleonic France did have de facto control of Spain and Italy, so I could see the Brits pissing themselves over the idea of him having North Africa as well.

The Med. was really France, and to a lesser degree, Spain and Italy's, backyard, sure the British had Malta and Gibraltar, but the British announcing a Protectorate over North Africa would've been viewed similarly to how Britain would view Napoleonic France declaring a Protectorate over a rebel controlled part of Ireland, plus overall until the Suez Canal was (re)built the Brits really did'nt give a damn about the Med., their interests were in the America's and South & East Asia.
 
Last edited:
The Med was really France, and to a lesser degree, Spain and Italy's, backyard, sure the British had Malta and Gibraltar, but the British announcing a Protectorate over North Africa would've been viewed similarly to how Britain would view Napoleonic France declaring a Protectorate over a rebel controlled part of Ireland, plus overall until the Suez Canal was (re)built the Brits really did'nt give a damn about the Med., their interests were in the America's and South & East Asia.
But the Brits did intervene when Napoleon invaded Egypt. And their policy in the West Med wasn't exactly hands off, they protected Sardinia and Sicily from the French for the duration of the Napoleonic wars. Algeria seems like a natural extension of that.
 
But the Brits did intervene when Napoleon invaded Egypt. And their policy in the West Med wasn't exactly hands off, they protected Sardinia and Sicily from the French for the duration of the Napoleonic wars. Algeria seems like a natural extension of that.

They did in Egypt because, well, it's Egypt, a major political and cultural center and one of geopolitical influence.

In the case of Sardinia and Sicily it was most likely I suppose what you might call a diversionary tactic; a war is easier to win if your enemy is forced to fight on multiple sides and have to worry about defending the sides it's not fighting on.

Their's also the fact they were, well, European, Algeria was not only not European, but not part of Christendom, and while the Brits were'nt exactly the 'Only deal with fellow Christians!' type, they also would'nt have cared about Algeria's fate.

Incidentally the British did end-up trying to curb France in North Africa in the case of Tunisia, they were worried that if it gained Tunisia as a colony it would spread further East into Libya and threaten Egypt, which at that point mattered even more as a result of the Suez Canal and it more closely linking Europe and Asia, however this was not because the British were concerned about French domination of the Med., but rather because they felt it threatened India, since the Suez had becom a vital link to it and thus they went out of their way to ensure no one could threaten the Canal, which lead to not only the British establishing a Protectorate and Condominium over Egypt, but also their colonization of East Africa to ensure they could control the Nile from its source all the way to the Nile Delta.
 
On this rather easily avoidable occurence from OTL, I have some questions :

> What will become of Algeria without French conquest generally ? General population massacre and European migration is now out of the picture.

How exactly? Morocco wasn't taken military but you still had an important european population, in harbour essentially (between 2/5 and 1/2 in Casablanca region only). 60 000 europeans in 1917, a few more in the 30's.
 
How exactly? Morocco wasn't taken military but you still had an important european population, in harbour essentially (between 2/5 and 1/2 in Casablanca region only). 60 000 europeans in 1917, a few more in the 30's.

That's not comparable to Algeria, surely? And Morocco kept its monarchy...

Could Algeria have ended up as a French puppet while its more "traditional" government?
 
That's not comparable to Algeria, surely? And Morocco kept its monarchy...
Actually it's comparable with the lasts waves of european migration in Algeria.

If the first wave was mainly for creating a middle and upper european class in rural aeras, the others (especially after 1870) were urban migrations. Let's imagine a later conquest or a "influenced algerian coast" instead of a colony, it would have been comparable in many ways.

EDIT : Furthermore, while a protectorate, don't forget that the hinterland wasn't really controlled and "pacified" up to the mid 20's. That certainly had an impact on migration.
But you had a quite important incitative for European to establish themselves in town (my great-grand father moved because of the quite good conditions of work and wages), and the presence of the military aslo could lead to settlement (my other great-grand father was stationned in Morocco after the Rif's War by exemple).


Could Algeria have ended up as a French puppet while its more "traditional" government?
I doubt it.

1) You didn't had an Algeria to really speak of.
2) While the coastal communauties could have been treated like Tunisia was in OTL, the inner lands would have necessited a military conquest as well : the large region, the division between tribes and chiefdoms, the semi-desertic or desertic land would have called for campaigns.
3)The conquest of these inner lands, especially for the period pre-1870/80 was requested for protecting coast and settlers (as well the great arab land-owners that would have benefited from protection as they did OTL, with the support of their clientele)
 
The second. I'm challenging the motion that the OTL military conquest and the following utter dismantle of Algerian society was inevitable. But I know that Barbary region falling to French orbit was pretty much inevitable post-Napoleon.

I'd challenge that. The invasion was launched by Charles X in order to attempt to shore up his domestic support back in Paris - remember it was less than a month after the capture of Algiers that the Bourbon regime fell. Without the Fan Affair as a pretext, or with a different political situation in Paris, Algeria would never have been conquered by France, and, I'd argue, the whole dynamic of the mid- and late-19th century Mediterranean would have changed.

It seems to me there's a lot of teleological determinism being offered as 'proof' ITT.
 
The Barbary States' encouragement of slave raiding against European and American ships was intolerable. If France didn't act unilaterally, either someone else would or there would be a coalition attack.
 
The Med. was really France, and to a lesser degree, Spain and Italy's, backyard, sure the British had Malta and Gibraltar, but the British announcing a Protectorate over North Africa would've been viewed similarly to how Britain would view Napoleonic France declaring a Protectorate over a rebel controlled part of Ireland, plus overall until the Suez Canal was (re)built the Brits really didn't give a damn about the Med., their interests were in the America's and South & East Asia.

Really? Trade with the Ottomans was still worth something and Britain always made sure it had bases in the Med for a reason: it wanted control of the Sea.
 
I'd challenge that. The invasion was launched by Charles X in order to attempt to shore up his domestic support back in Paris - remember it was less than a month after the capture of Algiers that the Bourbon regime fell. Without the Fan Affair as a pretext, or with a different political situation in Paris, Algeria would never have been conquered by France, and, I'd argue, the whole dynamic of the mid- and late-19th century Mediterranean would have changed.

It seems to me there's a lot of teleological determinism being offered as 'proof' ITT.

And Louis-Philippe was not a supporter of an aggressive interventionist foreign policy. If Charles X falls quicker than OTL, then Orléanist France isn't going to occupy Algeria over a diplomatic incident.
 
Really? Trade with the Ottomans was still worth something and Britain always made sure it had bases in the Med for a reason: it wanted control of the Sea.

Britain's control of the Sea, while intended by some to mean control of all giant bodies of water connected to the Oceans, was more control the Open Ocean, specicially those near it or its important territories and to keep the sealanes open.
 
Top