More surviving African states?

Which African states do you think could have stood a better chance at surviving intact throughout the scramble of Africa? This is either as independent states in the manner of Ethiopia or where they are colonised but the existing territorial state and perhaps government is maintained as a figurehead such as Morocco, Egypt, Rwanda or Burundi?

In terms of specific examples I was thinking if it was possible to retain Mahdist Sudan, basically as a result of a disagreement between the French and British over who gets the territory. Is it possible to have the two powers more or less agree to come to an agreement to leave Sudan as a nominally indendent state, so that neither side can have it. I imagine such a state would be subject to numerous concessions allowing the French and British to pursue their economic and strategic objectives in the country so it would not be a fully independent state. I would also imagine the reigning Caliph of the Mahdists being deposed in favour of someone more pliable ( perhaps putting up the Mahdi's youngest son who collaborated with the British historically)
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Which African states do you think could have stood a better chance at surviving intact throughout the scramble of Africa? This is either as independent states in the manner of Ethiopia or where they are colonised but the existing territorial state and perhaps government is maintained as a figurehead such as Morocco, Egypt, Rwanda or Burundi?

In terms of specific examples I was thinking if it was possible to retain Mahdist Sudan, basically as a result of a disagreement between the French and British over who gets the territory. Is it possible to have the two powers more or less agree to come to an agreement to leave Sudan as a nominally indendent state, so that neither side can have it. I imagine such a state would be subject to numerous concessions allowing the French and British to pursue their economic and strategic objectives in the country so it would not be a fully independent state. I would also imagine the reigning Caliph of the Mahdists being deposed in favour of someone more pliable ( perhaps putting up the Mahdi's youngest son who collaborated with the British historically)
Two questions:

1. Didn't Ethiopian Emperor Menelik actually offer the Mahdists an alliance in 1897?
2. What about the Kingdom of Kongo (Congo)?
 
Two questions:

1. Didn't Ethiopian Emperor Menelik actually offer the Mahdists an alliance in 1897?
2. What about the Kingdom of Kongo (Congo)?
Yeah the Ethiopians did but it was rejected by the Mahdists who invaded Ethiopia instead and sacked the place. I'm not sure about Kongo though, although I think by the scramble of Africa the state had decayed significantly or was Portuguese already.
 
I've always wondered what might happen if Ouaddai (conquered 1909) had managed to hold out against France or otherwise avoid them or other European attention for just a few more years longer. Probably the same as with the Sultanate of Darfur (which already had been annexed). Both had to rely on the Senussi to some degree or another. In any case, I think the survival of Ouaddai (and reindependence of Darfur) depends on the success of the Turks and failure of Allies in WWI in North Africa (and probably Africa as a whole). If the Central Powers win, maybe at the peace treaty Ouaddai and Darfur can maintain independence, but it isn't like surviving the war means they won't get colonised. See the Dervish State for a good example of that. Both states would need a very charismatic and powerful leader to even think of being able to resist in the long term. They'll need to purchase a lot of modern weaponry as well, especially anti-aircraft weaponry.

A key flaw in indigenous African armies is equipment. They had a hell of a time acquiring modern weapons (the world powers banned it as a side effect of preventing the slave trade), and when they got them, they didn't get the crucial one--machine guns. Very, very few seem to have had or used machine guns in any real capacity. Machine guns are crucial for success against Europeans. I'd also suggest they'll need landmines, and in areas where the terrain is good, something like Makhno's tachanka. Obviously an actual early automobile with a machine gun would be incredible (i.e., an actual technical as are used now in Africa), but the logistical difficulties are sadly too high.


That's for sub-Saharan Africa. I think Morocco stands a great chance of keeping it's independence, maybe like a Thailand of Africa.

Yeah the Ethiopians did but it was rejected by the Mahdists who invaded Ethiopia instead and sacked the place. I'm not sure about Kongo though, although I think by the scramble of Africa the state had decayed significantly or was Portuguese already.

Portugal basically annexed them, and the resistance they put up was apparently not enough.
 
Yeah I had considered Darfur as well, as the British had largely let them alone for a long time untill Sultan Ali Dinnar declared his rebellion and he got deposed. The British however were already going to move into Darfur regardless due to the French conquest of Ouaddai. I agree with you that it would be very hard for an African power to resist colonisation due to technology. Thus I was thinking survival by conflicting European powers not wanting to give up their own ambitions thus perhaps settling on excluding each other pr establishing buffer states?
 

ben0628

Banned
Morocco

Madagascar

Madhist Sudan

Luba & Lunda kingdoms

Afrikaner states (technically existed pre scramble and were conquered during scramble, but I assume you weren't talking about them.

Oman/Zanzibar
 
Madagascar

Definitely these guys. They got utterly screwed by internal issues which I think they could've easily surmounted. They probably would've ended up like Thailand, but on an island. Out of all the states mentioned ITT, I think they would be second to Morocco in terms of influence on regional politics. Except for maybe Zanzibar, but I've always thought of them more as a Singapore-style post-colonial nation than as their colonialism-era empire.
 
Definitely these guys. They got utterly screwed by internal issues which I think they could've easily surmounted. They probably would've ended up like Thailand, but on an island. Out of all the states mentioned ITT, I think they would be second to Morocco in terms of influence on regional politics. Except for maybe Zanzibar, but I've always thought of them more as a Singapore-style post-colonial nation than as their colonialism-era empire.
Zanzibar/Oman could definitely have stayed independant. Sure, they would have been a proxy protectorate but still fully independant if they had played their cards right, by downplaying slavery or doing an economic transformation away from it
 
The Somali sultanates were technically protectorates of the Italians until the 1920s when Mussolini beat the shit out of them and annexed them properly.

Tunis and Algiers both emerged from French rule attempting to keep their pre-existing monarchies intact, albeit with the latter having lost its claimant's line (IIRC it tried to borrow that of Tunis).

It could be argued that the Senussi who gave Libya their king emerged from colonial/protectorate status in a semblance of their prior position.

In essence, what I am looking at here is the fact that even when subjugated by Europeans its possible for a state to emerge from colonialism with its pre-existing monarchical structures
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I've always wondered what might happen if Ouaddai (conquered 1909) had managed to hold out against France or otherwise avoid them or other European attention for just a few more years longer. Probably the same as with the Sultanate of Darfur (which already had been annexed). Both had to rely on the Senussi to some degree or another. In any case, I think the survival of Ouaddai (and reindependence of Darfur) depends on the success of the Turks and failure of Allies in WWI in North Africa (and probably Africa as a whole). If the Central Powers win, maybe at the peace treaty Ouaddai and Darfur can maintain independence, but it isn't like surviving the war means they won't get colonised. See the Dervish State for a good example of that. Both states would need a very charismatic and powerful leader to even think of being able to resist in the long term. They'll need to purchase a lot of modern weaponry as well, especially anti-aircraft weaponry.
If both Ouaddai and Darfur remain independent, could an eventual federation between the two of them eventually be in the cards?
 
The Somali sultanates were technically protectorates of the Italians until the 1920s when Mussolini beat the shit out of them and annexed them properly.

Tunis and Algiers both emerged from French rule attempting to keep their pre-existing monarchies intact, albeit with the latter having lost its claimant's line (IIRC it tried to borrow that of Tunis).

It could be argued that the Senussi who gave Libya their king emerged from colonial/protectorate status in a semblance of their prior position.

In essence, what I am looking at here is the fact that even when subjugated by Europeans its possible for a state to emerge from colonialism with its pre-existing monarchical structures
Several African states emerged from colonialism with their existing monarchucal structures. Morocco kept their kingship all through colonialism. Lesotho, Swaziland other examples
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Several African states emerged from colonialism with their existing monarchucal structures. Morocco kept their kingship all through colonialism. Lesotho, Swaziland other examples
To be fair, though, Morocco got lucky in the sense that WWI affected Europeans' perceptions of colonialism and imperialism to some extent.
 
A key flaw in indigenous African armies is equipment. They had a hell of a time acquiring modern weapons (the world powers banned it as a side effect of preventing the slave trade), and when they got them, they didn't get the crucial one--machine guns. Very, very few seem to have had or used machine guns in any real capacity. Machine guns are crucial for success against Europeans.

This was a key part of Ethiopia's success at Adua - it had machine guns and artillery most likely bought from or provided by Russia (though some sources say that some of the guns were bought from France or captured from Egypt during the 1870s invasion), and (probably) Russian advisors to help use them. The Dervish State in Somalia, which lasted until 1920, also had machine guns, likely bought through Arab intermediaries. If another African state could achieve an alliance similar to Ethiopia's friendship with Russia - for instance, if Bornu could persuade the Ottomans to arm it - then it might be able to keep its independence.

Alternatively, in a slightly different Scramble, the European powers could decide that certain parts of Africa are too economically marginal, rebellious and logistically difficult to be worth the trouble of conquering, and would serve better as Nepal- or Afghanistan-style buffers. The organized Sahelian states would be the most likely candidates for this treatment, but so might the Great Lakes kingdoms or some of the mountain kingdoms in southern Africa (this is in fact essentially what happened to Lesotho IOTL after defeating the Cape Colony in the Basuto Gun War).
 
To be fair, though, Morocco got lucky in the sense that WWI affected Europeans' perceptions of colonialism and imperialism to some extent.
And that it got a convinced Monarchist convinced in the beauty of Islam and the importance of religion as France's representative
 
OK; understood. :)

Also, though, wasn't Lyautey one of the best colonial governors during this time?
I would say so but then again I do like the guy.

He was extremely competent and did have some very job. Basically, his strategy was to crash down hard on any resistance while keeping the economic systems as intact as possible.
Basically using Roman like colonial tactics
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I would say so but then again I do like the guy.

He was extremely competent and did have some very job. Basically, his strategy was to crash down hard on any resistance while keeping the economic systems as intact as possible.
Basically using Roman like colonial tactics
So, did Morocco's economy suffer less under French colonial rule than, say, Tunisia's economy did?
 
Top