If Wikipedia can be trusted on the matter, the Kindom of Hawaii briefly made a claim to Sikaiana in the Solomon Islands, but no real effort was made to ever really assert the claim due to distance and domestic concerns. I've wondered though, could Hawaii have slightly later asserted claims to parts of Eastern Polynesia, such as the Marquesas, where a language related to Hawaiian is spoken?
Hawaiian colonial empire?
- Thread starter Wendell
- Start date
A rather cool idea.
Well, given that much of Polynesia was colonized by Europeans rather late, and that the Marquesas are somewhat remote, but nonetheless relatively close to Hawaii, I'm surprised that there was no opportunity for the kingdom to expand in that direction.
I don't believe they could have, due to the massive toll that disease was taking on the Hawaiians and other Polynesians. Hawaii would not have been able to sustain an invasion anywhere, due to the fact that their army would have suffered massive attrition not from fighting but from contact with European sailors, missionaries, etc.
In addition, there was a scramble for the Pacific going on among the European powers at the time-a successful Hawaiian invasion of the Marquesas would have been a perfect excuse for a European power to send in ships to 'restore order' and seize both Hawaii and the Marquesas for themselves.
EDIT: OK, the scramble was a bit later IOTL, but this is the exact sort of POD that could have made it come earlier.
In addition, there was a scramble for the Pacific going on among the European powers at the time-a successful Hawaiian invasion of the Marquesas would have been a perfect excuse for a European power to send in ships to 'restore order' and seize both Hawaii and the Marquesas for themselves.
EDIT: OK, the scramble was a bit later IOTL, but this is the exact sort of POD that could have made it come earlier.
I'm thinking a POD sometime after a claim is made to Sikaiana in the Solomon Islands (1850s) is the right way to go with this. Also, theoretically, Hawaii itself might not have to contribute substantially to the invasion, given the number of random Europeans and Americans periodically in service to the kingdom.
Alex Richards
Donor
The closest you can get IMO is basically:
1. Hawaii becomes a British protectorate
2. Britain also acquires a large amount of the Eastern Pacific (OTL at least, maybe more)
3. Large parts of the rest of the British Pacific are administered from Honolulu, and when Hawaii eventually goes independent it includes these.
So think OTL Kiribati, Marshall Islands that sort of area. But it's not strictly a Hawaiian Colonial Empire.
1. Hawaii becomes a British protectorate
2. Britain also acquires a large amount of the Eastern Pacific (OTL at least, maybe more)
3. Large parts of the rest of the British Pacific are administered from Honolulu, and when Hawaii eventually goes independent it includes these.
So think OTL Kiribati, Marshall Islands that sort of area. But it's not strictly a Hawaiian Colonial Empire.
Why would Brotain administer its Pacific holdings from Hawaii given that it's rather far from the rest of populated Polynesia?
King Kalakaua (of course) actually tried - he made a treaty with Samoa establishing a confederation, and the chiefs of a couple of Gilbert Islands atolls asked to join. He was stopped in both cases by European intervention.
My guess is that for a Hawaiian colonial empire to work, it would have to be established earlier, before European interests in the Pacific became so entrenched and at a time when more Pacific islands were in the formative state-building stage. Kamehameha III might have been able to do it. The trouble is that, at this time, the Hawaiians were already experiencing major dieback and cultural dislocation, and they didn't have the resources to project force across the Pacific. Maybe a European adventurer with a warship could have helped, but this seems like a pretty low-probability outcome.
My guess is that for a Hawaiian colonial empire to work, it would have to be established earlier, before European interests in the Pacific became so entrenched and at a time when more Pacific islands were in the formative state-building stage. Kamehameha III might have been able to do it. The trouble is that, at this time, the Hawaiians were already experiencing major dieback and cultural dislocation, and they didn't have the resources to project force across the Pacific. Maybe a European adventurer with a warship could have helped, but this seems like a pretty low-probability outcome.
Wou'd this have been true still if Kalakaua's efforts were targeted further east than Samoa and the Gilberts?
The islands further east were also, for the most part, further south. The Line Islands might work (the Marquesas were already French by Kalakaua's time), although there isn't much worth annexing there. The Marshall Islands were already claimed by Spain, and they aren't culturally similar to Hawaii in any event; the Cook Islands aren't so far away but British missionary interests were strong there. It's hard to find any part of the Pacific in Kalakaua's reign that the Europeans cared little enough about to let him take over.
A French protectorate was not established in the Marquesas until the 1880s, and the Marquesas are north of Samoa, not just east.
Alex Richards
Donor
Well, OTL they administered the entire stretch from Fiji to Kiribati as a single unit for most of the early 20th Century. considering the distances between the islands of Kiribati, it's not unfeasible.
NothingNow
Banned
Because it's the largest inhabited and economically useful part of Polynesia, outside of New Zealand?
And because British polynesia amounted to fuck-all outside New Zealand IOTL.
And to be honest, it makes about as much sense as administering it from Auckland. Since it's not a settler colony, and you can actually find people who speak the same language in large part.
Fiji was British, and is far closer to Samoa, the Solomons, the Ellice Islands, Niue, and the New Hebrides (which were ruled in conjunction with France) than are Hawaii or New Zealand, yet it did not become the type of colonial focal point you describe for the British. Also. the Phoenix Islands in East in Kiribati are/were largely uninhabited, so I'm not sure that matters.
Then explain Fiji.
Alex Richards
Donor
Well, some of that is very easily explainable:
Tonga and the Solomon Islands were run as protectorates so were administered seperately, the New Hebrides had the complicated co-dominium thing going on which necessitated a seperate administrative idea. Samoa was granted to New Zealand as spoils from the Germans in WWI, as with New Guinea and Australia, Niue/Cook Islands was an action initiated by the government of New Zealand, and pretty much everything else was administred as protectorates while Fiji was a colony.
So then explain your post about Hawaii
Surely, you agree that it makes no sense in this context.That's why I said "for the most part."
You're correct that France didn't establish a formal protectorate over the Marquesas until the 1880s; however, it already had a claim by 1870 and wouldn't have taken kindly to Kalakaua interfering.
On the other hand, there were Native Hawaiian missionaries in the Marquesas starting as early as 1853. Hawaii sent missionaries to the Gilberts too. So if an earlier Hawaiian king had wanted to expand - say, Kamehameha IV or V - then both island groups might have acknowledged Hawaii's overlordship in the 1850s or 60s. In that scenario, Hawaii might pick up the Line Islands too, although I'm not sure it would be a "colonial empire" as we think of that term. Of course, come the 1880s, France might still decide to meddle - it didn't think of Hawaii as a "real" country - but if Hawaii had obtained British or American backing in the meantime, then the French might take a pass.
What we may need here is for one of the later Kamehamehas to have a personality more like Kalakaua, or for the Kamehameha dynasty to end earlier and for some expansionist prince to be elected king. I'm not quite sure who that would be in the 1850s, but there were plenty of candidates for the monarchy, so there might be at least one that would fit.
If this Hawaii is eventually annexed by the United States, then there will be an American state covering a truly vast swath of the Pacific.
Alex Richards
Donor
So then explain your post about Hawaii
Ah sorry, turns out I'd got slightly muddled as to the differences between internal subdivisions and the overall arching structure.
While there were a fair number of Protectorates lumped in together, what I'd semi-forgotten about was the existence of the British Western Pacific Territory, which was administered from Fiji and included Kiribati, Tuvalu, Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Pitcairn, Niue, the Cook Islands, Tokelau and the British shares of the condominiums of the New Hebrides and Nauru. This was the top level division for the Pacific, though the various parts had differing degrees of autonomy, and several bits were split off as seperate colonies at differing points or given to New Zealand.
Does OTL Hawaii count? Conquering the whole island chain, including an island that has a greater population is a pretty major effort. True, it wasnt 'colonial', but neither would the confederation discussed above have been.