Highlands007
Banned
What if Napoleon after the peace of amiens became interested in creating a French empire in Africa and lost interest in getting more territory in Europe(it's ASB but I was wondering how different Europe and Africa be like)
To be fair, that was because of fighting with Britain and the fact that Haiti used the same weapons and tactics as the Europeans. No African empire or polity, with the exception of those in North Africa (with France conquering and colonising Algeria in the 1830s if I'm not wrong) has gunpowder weapons of the same calibre and quality as those in Napoleon. Heck, Napoleon conquered Egypt, for crying out loud. If he stops his campaigns, he sweeps Africa low diff.Napolean couldn't take Haiti, what makes you think he could take most of Sahelian or Equatorial Africa?
Outside of Southern and North Africa (where Napoleon attempted and failed to build an Empire in Egypt), Africa was, to put it mildly, less than hospitable for Europeans. For European colonies on the coast of Africa (they never dared venture inland until the 19th century), the death rates were nothing short of staggering, and thus said colonies functioned more or less as trading posts rather than imperial centres. There are also problems such as the British Navy, and the relative strength of African polities themselves (especially in West Africa). I note you have recognised it as Alien Space Bat, but I really do want to underline the futility of a scenario more unrealistic.
#1 - Although a peace had been signed, the British were not about to let the French go around building a dominant empire either within Europe or without. See what happened after the Peace of Amiens for reference.You are ignoring an important premise: Peace of Amiens. It means that the British navy is not a hostile factor.
In OTL, Napoleon had a plan of conquering Algeria which had been used for a real invasion in 1830. Serious colonization of the area started in 1835: "Clauzel recognized the farming potential of the Mitidja Plain and envisioned the production there of cotton on a large scale. During his second term as governor general (1835–36), he used his office to make private investments in land and encouraged army officers and bureaucrats in his administration to do the same. This development created a vested interest among government officials in greater French involvement in Algeria. Commercial interests with influence in the government also began to recognize the prospects for profitable land speculation in expanding the French zone of occupation. Over a ten-year period they created large agricultural tracts, built factories and businesses, and bought cheap local labor." It looks like most of the "worthy" territory had been captured within the 1st decade of the French conquest. Make allowance for an absence of the revolution and dynasty change (with the political opposition to the colonial conquests) and you can make this period shorter.
![]()
By 1962 French population of Algeria amounted to 1.6M which means that the climate was not prohibitively hostile.
French conquest of Tunisia (making it French protectorate) was a relatively easy affair.
So, put together, they'd institute a nice little colonial empire in Africa with the possible expansion along the coast (if the French still have a colonization itch).
#1 - Although a peace had been signed, the British were not about to let the French go around building a dominant empire either within Europe or without. See what happened after the Peace of Amiens for reference.
#2 - The French occupation of Algeria in OTL was not an easy one, and this is minus almost thirty years of technological and organization development in the military fields by the French. The French may not be able to advance beyond the coast, and since naval dominance isn't guaranteed thanks to factor #1...
Really, if you want an indication as to how a French attempt on Algeria would look like, you probably don't have to look any further than the example of Egypt. 1802 was not 1830.
There were a few differences between the diplomatic situation of 1803 and 1830, believe it or not. And contrary to your assertion, the British did have an interest in Algeria, firstly as bases of supply to Gibraltar and Malta, as well as to keep them out of French hands.I know what happens to the Peace of Amiens but it happened to a great degree because he kept interfering into the German affairs. Him conquering places to which the Brits did not have any interest would be OK. They did not object to the French conquest of Algeria in OTL.
While European armies still used the musket in both 1803 and 1830, there were various technological improvements in the interim, and European armies had been sharpened by years of intensive warfare. Geoffrey Wawro's Warfare and Society in Europe, 1792-1914 is a good starting point to look at how European armies had changed in the time separating both dates. It should be mentioned that organizational and technological developments in Algeria did not keep pace with those in Europe, meaning the gap was smaller in 1803 than it was in 1830. In regards to the "not progressing from the coast", this is based on the assumption that Algerian resistance in the interior would be stiff as it was in OTL (the resistance led by Abd-al Kadir for example), and that distance from naval support and the more difficult terrain of the Atlas Mountains would add additional problems for the French.FYI, weaponry of the 1830 was not significantly different from one of Nappy's time. Keep repeating that French may not be able to advance beyond the coast does not elevate it into the uncontested fact. Ditto for the naval dominance: in Nappy is not messing in the places about which the Brits care, they'd not be openly against him messing in the places about which they don't care. Most probably, they'd even like his little adventure in Africa as a guarantee of him not acting against their interests.
It isn't completely irrelevant. Egypt was similar to Algeria in a few respects, both being Islamic countries in North Africa under nominal Ottoman sovereignty. And of course, as I have pointed out earlier in this post, the British had interests in both countries.Why would I look for something almost completely irrelevant? Egypt expedition - France at war with Britain, 1803 - they are at peace. Egyptian expedition - Britain considered it a potential danger to India, 1803 - it is impossible to link Algiers to India.
There were a few differences between the diplomatic situation of 1803 and 1830, believe it or not. And contrary to your assertion, the British did have an interest in Algeria, firstly as bases of supply to Gibraltar and Malta, as well as to keep them out of French hands.
While European armies still used the musket in both 1803 and 1830, there were various technological improvements in the interim,
and European armies had been sharpened by years of intensive warfare.
Geoffrey Wawro's Warfare and Society in Europe, 1792-1914 is a good starting point to look at how European armies had changed in the time separating both dates.
It should be mentioned that organizational and technological developments in Algeria did not keep pace with those in Europe, meaning the gap was smaller in 1803 than it was in 1830.
In regards to the "not progressing from the coast", this is based on the assumption that Algerian resistance in the interior would be stiff as it was in OTL (the resistance led by Abd-al Kadir for example), and that distance from naval support and the more difficult terrain of the Atlas Mountains would add additional problems for the French.
It isn't completely irrelevant. Egypt was similar to Algeria in a few respects, both being Islamic countries in North Africa under nominal Ottoman sovereignty. And of course, as I have pointed out earlier in this post, the British had interests in both countries.
Napoleon tried to invade Egypt.