Could any other African states have "pulled an Abyssinia/Ethiopia"

Historically, Abyssinia/Ethiopia was unique amongst native African states in that it was able to fend off European imperialism during the Scramble of Africa in the famous Battle of Adowa of 1896, where Ethiopian forces defeated the Italians, preserving Ethiopian independence. The question is what other native African states, with a POD after 1800, could have similarly "pulled an Abyssinia", preserving its independence, even if territorially truncated.
 
i would say that would be very unlikely as Ethiopia was very unique among Africa, this is because it like nation such as Egypt it was a lot more integrated into the politics and economics of the old world through places like Arabia. and in the case of the first Italian-Ethiopian war Ethiopia was heavily supported by opposing great powers such as russia and france though mainly russia as they provided light arms and artillery to the Ethiopia. they also were provided officers for training. the only people i think after 1800 that could do it in the long term with one hell of a monstrous pod is the zulu or western Sahel empires but you would need to establish a much faster information exchange and over a longer period so they can adopt more western weaponry and systems. if the zulu were too encounter the boars earlier and if the zulu commander did not push into british territory after Isandlwana rather allowing the king to negotiate then you can buy them time. if you want something where they just avoid colonization short term than just have the second pod where the commander does not move in. but if you want long term freedom you need to get the zulu to start adopting western tech which is very difficult. for the western Sahel states i do not know
 
Madagascar/Merina. They have geography on their side as well as had a faction which was open to westernization. They could easily escape the colonization of Africa by ending up a client state of some European power (maybe divided into French and British spheres of influence) plus the cession of some ports for European navies. They're basically Thailand as an island.
 

Zen9

Banned
The British and French came to an agreement that the French could have Madagascar. They then took this licence to do just that.

It wouldn't take much for this to be altered.
Sweden and the Netherlands had contacts with Madagascar going back over a hundred years by that point.
It's viable they could supply some assistance. Albeit on a small scale.
Had the Merina Kingdom kept itself out of French hands for long enough, the British will change the rules on the French.
And then the Germans will try to involve themselves.
With multiple contacts, access to the sea and an island with quite some resources. Something quite interesting could develop.
 

Deleted member 67076

Sokoto and Ashanti come to mind.

Actually most of the continent can be independent, politically at least, if there's no Scramble for Africa. In other words by avoiding the Long Depression of the 1870s and the British dominion over Egypt there's much less of a rationale to invade for captive markets; Africans were already participating in the global capitalist market by then.
 
Sokoto and Ashanti come to mind.

Actually most of the continent can be independent, politically at least, if there's no Scramble for Africa. In other words by avoiding the Long Depression of the 1870s and the British dominion over Egypt there's much less of a rationale to invade for captive markets; Africans were already participating in the global capitalist market by then.

Ooh, that sounds interesting. Mind elaborating on that?
 

Deleted member 67076

Ooh, that sounds interesting. Mind elaborating on that?
Basically there were 4 factors that led to the Scramble for Africa

1) The Berlin Conference, obviously. Less obviously was the provision colonies could not be traded (hence why the Gambia exists). The result was a rush to get as much land as possible because it couldn't be traded away. It also made a framework to divide the continent rather than getting involved in mess border and proxy wars.

2) The Weakening of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were a major source of weaponry, trade, and technology transfer to the Sahel states. With them having to rebuild much of their infrastructure following the brutal losses of the 19th century, a lot of the hand me down weapons got much rarer. Sahel states (and also Somalia and the Swahili coast) lost an important trading partner and friendly hegemon.

3) The Long Depression of the 1870s. Prior to that, free trade was the dominant economic theory. The depression caused a resurgancee in protectionism and the idea of needing new captive markets, which colonies are great for.

4) The Franco Prussian War. France losing that really drove an intensification to conquer partly to assuage national pride but also to obtain more necessary goods and raw materials to keep up with Germany.

Weakening these factors gives more breathing room for African states, most of whom were in the process of dramatic transformation into more modern states and economies. Either through vast conquest of pre state areas (Rabih Az Zubayr in todays CAR) or through getting some amount of foreign direct investment (South Nigerian Palm oil production).
 
Basically there were 4 factors that led to the Scramble for Africa

1) The Berlin Conference, obviously. Less obviously was the provision colonies could not be traded (hence why the Gambia exists). The result was a rush to get as much land as possible because it couldn't be traded away. It also made a framework to divide the continent rather than getting involved in mess border and proxy wars.

2) The Weakening of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were a major source of weaponry, trade, and technology transfer to the Sahel states. With them having to rebuild much of their infrastructure following the brutal losses of the 19th century, a lot of the hand me down weapons got much rarer. Sahel states (and also Somalia and the Swahili coast) lost an important trading partner and friendly hegemon.

3) The Long Depression of the 1870s. Prior to that, free trade was the dominant economic theory. The depression caused a resurgancee in protectionism and the idea of needing new captive markets, which colonies are great for.

4) The Franco Prussian War. France losing that really drove an intensification to conquer partly to assuage national pride but also to obtain more necessary goods and raw materials to keep up with Germany.

Weakening these factors gives more breathing room for African states, most of whom were in the process of dramatic transformation into more modern states and economies. Either through vast conquest of pre state areas (Rabih Az Zubayr in todays CAR) or through getting some amount of foreign direct investment (South Nigerian Palm oil production).

1- So butterfly away the Berlin Conference and while the colonies being traded would be an odd thing, maybe the relationship could become different. What could be done here?

2- Oh Ottoman Empire, what to do with you? They'd need to have a good partner or some way of modernizing sooner. Maybe improve relations with the USA or something???

3- So have the Depression not last as long then or maybe be not as bad? That or maybe just have the protectionists be disregarded and have other economic theories affect them.

4- If things were mishandled, maybe the French Empire could end sooner and that the whole war was the result of national pride, making France go more focus on domestic issues.

This would be pretty interesting to note and it'd be fascinating to see what modern states would emerge, especially if Europe backed their favorite kingdoms or so on.
 
How would this Madagascar which "pulled an Abyssinia" have developed, then?

Probably it would spend most of its time subduing internal resistance, which may require European assistance. Ideally, get a faction of traditionalists to kill a missionary or something, and then have the government request financial/material aid in defeating them. They could argue the traditionalists want to close off the country to foreign trade and ships, which may get some attention. What they don't want is the perception the government is being propped up by Europeans, so ideally any direct European intervention should stay confined to the port cities the Europeans will want to have.

I think they'd be close to Japan (island nation recently unified at risk of European colonialism), and possibly do even better at it than Ethiopia. They'd likely play up their Asian heritage (the Merina are lighter skinned than other Malagasy groups) to appeal to both Japan (as their Asiatic brethren) and the Europeans (since Africans were considered inferior to Asians in the racial pseudoscience of the era). IIRC this isn't too far off from what the Merina OTL practiced, and in any case not hard to see it evolve as a consequence of modernisation and need to appeal to foreign powers. The social consequences of this are obviously not pretty.

They'd likely have some grief with France over the Comoros. There are Malagasy-speaking people on the islands, and the islands were raided by the Malagasy into the 19th century. French influence started early in the 19th century, so this will be a sore point in relations with the French. The ideal scenario is for France and Britain to remain enemies into the late 19th/20th centuries, and Malagasy soldiers play a key role in attacking the Comoros and Réunion alongside the British--potentially they could get at least the former after a peace treaty. If it's like OTL and the British and French remain allies, then I don't think the Malagasy will make any aggressive moves--the consequences would be too great, and potential allies like Germany or Japan are too far away to aid. If Portugal does something stupid (like over the Pink Map issue) and gets diplomatically isolated, then possibly the Malagasy would fight them in a war. Call it the Russo-Japanese War in miniature.

Ignoring butterflies, then by the 20th century I think Japan will be an increasingly important supplier to the Malagasy military. They could easily go navy-focused and build a disproportionately sized navy for their country. So maybe a few coastal defense ships (like Thailand) ordered from Japan, some destroyers, some torpedo boats. Overall they'd likely have a mix of (dated by the time they get them) British and Japanese equipment.

By the mid-20th century they can easily be an important regional power and major player in South/East African affairs, but may have some serious internal issues over the oppression of peasants/caste system. Assuming a reasonable compromise is found and things don't go to utter hell (i.e. Mao/Pol Pot-style government), Madagascar is likely to end up a middle-income economy with a GDP per capita of maybe 5-6,000 and a population similar to OTL but with a more balanced population pyramid more similar to Southeast Asia (as better medical care and reduction of infant mortality would have occurred earlier)--so this means an economy about 10 times bigger than OTL, and about the size of OTL Ukraine.
 
What about a Kongo which say, manages to bypass Portuguese control over their clergy and maintains their own connections to the Catholic Church?
 
@metalinvader665 If there was a faction of the kingdom killing missionaries or priests, the europeans will just invade and destroy them just like during the boxer rebellion, except this time they will annex them.
 
Kingdom of Kongo could be legitimized at the eyes of the Europeans by having its ruling class converted to Catholicism, the crown and aristocracy patrons of the Church with an official zealous policy and effort of converting the rest of the population. Also with the help of the Church it could have a written alphabet and schools.

The control of the lower Congo River could bring trade and commercial benefits (Slaves, gold, rubber, etc).

Having guns and gunpowder from the Europeans it could conquer its immediate rivals and centralize power.

More than a pulling an Abyssinia/Ethiopia i see Kongo playing with the rivalries of the European countries (as Siam) and gain a lot of it.

OTL downturn of all this were the rivalries of the royalty that broke out in civil wars that weaken them.
 
Last edited:
Top