Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

Around 1841 a Belgian diplomat, Edouard Blondeel van Duelenbroeck, was in Ethiopia. While there he made treaties with the leaders of both Gojjam and Begemder in which they agreed to invade Tigray and hand it over to the Belgium, and in exchange they would get arms and funds from the Belgians. When he got back to Belgium with these treaties he also proposed to establish a colony along the Bay of Anfile so Belgium would have a trade post in the Red Sea and could establish a connection with Tigray (which is more inland). In 1844 a Belgian company was actually ready to do so but the ministry of foreign affairs blocked it. This was in part due to the Belgian 'colony' (depends on who you ask) established in Guatemala in 1843...

So say that the deal with Guatamala had fallen through or some other European country had beaten them to it. In the immediate aftermath of this Blondeel shows up in Brussels, treaties in hand, for a colony along the Red Sea. The king is enthusiastic, a company is formed, and the ministry of foreign affairs gives in. Blondeel returns to Ethiopia with the promised arms and funds, the princes invade Tigray and hand it over, and a port is established on the nearby Red Sea coast... What happens next?


The British might not be too happy about Belgium making moves in a region that could be considered part of their sphere of influence, however at the same time the Belgian presence would be a good counter against creeping French influence. This isn't too different from the British supporting Italian colonial efforts in the same region, for the same reason, only a couple of decades later. The French are seemingly powerless to do anything since their intervention in Ethiopia would only anger the British even more. Any thoughts on that?

What would further colonial ventures look like? Of course there's a chance that Belgium acquires no other colonies at all. However, without otl's abysmal failure that was Santo Tomas (and other setbacks like the Rio Nunez in Guinea) there'd be less government reluctance for such efforts. Some places that Leopold I or his son Leopold II had interest in in otl include (but are not at all limited to): the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Fiji, Samoa, etc.​

Even if the Belgians acquired no other colonies at all after getting a Belgian Eritrea, it would still mean that Belgium would rule Eritrea and cruelly exploit the Eritreans like what happened in the Congo Free State. Today's Democratic Republic of the Congo would escape colonialism or would suffer colonialism and atrocities from other European powers in the Scramble of Africa. The Belgians would rule Eritrea until pressured to give Eritrea its independence sometime in the 1960s. Post-colonial Eritrea would be in likely turmoil due to Belgian perpetrated divide and conquer tactics against Eritreans plus irrendentism for conquering Eritrea from Ethiopia and Sudan. In WW2, the Italians would take Eritrea instead of Somaliland after an early conquest of Somaliland from Somalia and there would be fewer Italian naval and merchant ships to be scuttled in Eritrean ports but more to be scuttled in Somalian ports.

Assuming minimal butterflies.
 
Last edited:
it would still mean that Belgium would rule Eritrea and cruelly exploit the Eritreans like what happened in the Congo Free State
The POD of that thread is 24 years before Leopold II ascended the throne and 44 years before he established the CFS. Saying that Belgium under a different government would treat a different colony in an different place with a different economy the same as how Leopold II and his agents (since the CFS wasn't actually under the control of the Belgian government) treated the CFS iotl is jumping to conclusions and determinism.
Post-colonial Eritrea would be in likely turmoil due to Belgian perpetrated divide and conquer tactics against Eritreans
Is this alluding to the Hutu-Tutsi thing in Rwanda? because that wasn't even originally a Belgian idea to begin with, that started under the Germans...
In WW2, the Italians would take Eritrea instead of Somaliland after an early conquest of Somaliland from Somalia and there would be fewer Italian naval and merchant ships to be scuttled in Eritrean ports but more to be scuttled in Somalian ports
Italian colonialism would be entirely different from the start without Eritrea. Also the world wars as we know they would be entirely butterflied, there's literally an entire century of history between the POD and otl's WW2.
 
If its acquired around the time of the Abyssinian-Adal War, a joint Portuguese-Ethiopian campaign could be launched against the Islamic states in the Horn of Africa which sees Ethiopia swell to her OTL borders (perhaps with Eritrea) as European advisors train a professional Ethiopian Army and the Portuguese become responsible for equipping Ethiopia. Ethiopia might become a de-facto Portuguese protectorate, depending on the extent of assistance and how willing the Portuguese are to continue expanding into the Horn of Africa but there would be no formal colony unless the Portuguese conquered Ethiopia. I can see Portugal acquiring the predominantly Somali regions (including a parcel of the Ogaden) of what would be Greater Somalia but they might manage expansion into the borders of Ethiopia IOTL.
If the Portuguese colonized either one of Sudan (with a 1541 Portuguese conquest pod at Suakin that year), Eritrea (with a 1541 pod of Portugal winning at and capturing Massawa that year), Ethiopia (with a 1541 pod of Portugal winning at and capturing Massawa followed by further expansion into Eritrea that year), Djibouti (with a 1541 pod of Portugal winning at and capturing Massawa that year or capturing Benadir in 1542), Somalia (with a 1541 pod of Portugal winning at and capturing Massawa that year or capturing Benadir in 1542), Kenya (with a pod of Portugal defending its colonialism in Mombasa (Kenya) and Zanzibar (Tanzania) from 1696-1698) or Tanzania (with a pod of Portugal defending its colonialism in Mombasa (Kenya) and Zanzibar (Tanzania) from 1696-1698), after their migration patterns, cuisine and culture in Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti or Somalia, might bring in Ethiopians, Goan Indians, Eurasians and Macanese Chinese for exploitation, migration patterns, cuisine and culture of Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia, Kenya or Tanzanians to the detriment of the oppressed Sudanese, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Djiboutians, Somalians, Kenyans and/ or Tanzanians. In the late 19th century, the Portuguese would try to settle deeper into the interior of the aforementioned East African colonies from their coastlines and incorporate the settlement of Portuguese in the colonies. Depending on which East African country was colonized by Portugal, and assuming both World Wars still occurred and colonialism elsewhere on the African continent remained the same as otl, a Portuguese Tanzania would butterfly Lettow-Vorbeck's exploits there and Lettow-Vorbeck would do his evasive warfare (if still possible) from Namibia instead of Tanzania while a Portuguese Ethiopia would butterfly the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 and Italy switching from involvement in the League of Nations and the WW2 Allies to the WW2 Axis with all the resulting consequences. A Portuguese Kenya might make it more difficult for Britain to invade German Tanzania in WW1 and Italian Somalia in WW2 and a Portuguese Sudan might make it more difficult for Britain to invade Italian Eritrea in WW2 unless the relevant land invasions were replaced with amphibious landings. A Portuguese Djibouti, Eritrea or Somalia might result in history proceeding closer to otl, but in WW2, there would be fewer Italian and German naval and merchant ships to be scuttled in Eritrean ports but more to be scuttled in Somalian ports in the Portuguese Eritrea scenario and vice versa with the Portuguese Somalia scenario. After WW2, the Cold War and the struggles for independence of the Portuguese Colonial War, any of the above East African nations would gain independence from the Portuguese if still colonized by the Portuguese to the latest possible in the 1970s and the Europeans/ Anglosphere/ Boers/ Portuguese and pro-Portuguese Sudanese, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Djiboutians, Somalians, Kenyans and/ or Tanzanians would move to Portugal. Assuming minimal to zero butterflies.
 
Is this alluding to the Hutu-Tutsi thing in Rwanda? because that wasn't even originally a Belgian idea to begin with, that started under the Germans...

I am alluding to general divide and conquer tactics practiced by colonizers in general.
 
Last edited:
What would be a suitable capital for an artificially established, Orthodox-dominated Greco-Albanian state (ruled by a foreign Catholic monarch)? It would be conquered from the Ottomans either in the second half of the 19th century or in the beginning of the 20th century, and its borders would look like this:
1707147941944.png

The Ionian Islands are also part of the country, including Kythera.
 
Last edited:
Calling all Napeolonic War experts!
What are some likely ways the conflict would evolve, if Napoleon did not invade Egypt? I understand he was named General of the Orient just prior to the invasion. Is there another target he could have applied himself to?
 
What would be a suitable capital for an artificially established, Orthodox-dominated Greco-Albanian state (ruled by a foreign Catholic monarch)? It would be conquered from the Ottomans either in the second half of the 19th century or in the beginning of the 20th century, and its borders would look like this:
On first sight perhaps Vlore? Fairly central, large harbor, close to the plains. I'm not sure what the religious makeup was back then but with the immigration of Christians that probably wouldn't be too much of an issue no matter what city is chosen.
Perhaps Corfu or Ioannina which are in more Christian dominated areas already but having the capital on an islands or that close to the border feels odd.
 
On first sight perhaps Vlore? Fairly central, large harbor, close to the plains. I'm not sure what the religious makeup was back then but with the immigration of Christians that probably wouldn't be too much of an issue no matter what city is chosen.
Perhaps Corfu or Ioannina which are in more Christian dominated areas already but having the capital on an islands or that close to the border feels odd.
I was thinking about Vlorë too, but I'm torn over the issue of it being a coastal city: The sea grants it great connectivity, but its also exposed to attacks of foreign navies. Ioannina was my second consideration, but it might be too close to the border. It's also not exactly centrally located.

Berat seems like a good option, but perhaps Fier could also be purpose-built to become the capital of the country. Or would Vlorë be fine, after all? What do you think?
 
Why couldn't the (Western) Romans replenish their manpower after the Battle of Adrianople? This defeat seems to have broken the back of the Roman Armies. Similar-scale defeats in the past could be rebuilt from, like Cannae and Teutoburg Forest in the Republic and early Empire. What gives?
 
I've heard some people state that the American independence was actually a good thing overall to Britain, as America still aligned with her economically without the need to pay for the costs of administration and protection. So how important was the thirteen colonies was to Britain, and is it true that they were better off without it as a subject?
 
What could the Ptolemies have done in Egypt to avert their collapse? IIRC Cleopatra tried her best, but it was too late by then. I think Ptolemaic Egypt is an underrated period of Egyptian history. Yes, people know about it because of Cleopatra, but it's usually glossed over.
 
In a world where the Protestant reformation never occurs, could Spain conquer the Ming dynasty some time around the 1610s to 1630s? They would certainly have the money to do so.
 
Which city would be more sutable to become the capital of an Armenia with such borders as below? Karin(Erzurum) or Yerevan? Perhaps something else?
1707260593708.png

Assume the state is a late-19th century creation.
 
Which city would be more sutable to become the capital of an Armenia with such borders as below? Karin(Erzurum) or Yerevan? Perhaps something else?
View attachment 886497
Assume the state is a late-19th century creation.
Well, being an artificial creation likely the capitol is a coastal city, allowing the sponsor country to make financial/naval threats if Armenia tries to pretend to act really as an independent power...
 
Top