Organic nation states in Africa?

Thought the 18th and 19th centuries, Africa was seeing an increase in the number of organized states appearing throughout the continent. Yet, European colonialism essentially curbed that development. Could we have seen European style ethnic nation states appear organically in Africa? No exact pod, but preferably no eariler than the 19tn century.
 
Problem 1. Africa is enormous. There were some centralized Kingdoms on the Continent but they were usually hundreds/thousands of kilometers from each other. It isn't possible that they would be able to block Europeans from moving into the interior. Also, Africa has very few homogeneous areas that you could expect to fit a nation state in. So any surviving States would be Empires in their own right, as was the case in Asia. But the numerous local tribes are going to stuck between a rock and a hard place, either getting annexed by the a local Kingdom turned to a de-facto Empire or the Europeans.

Problem 2. It isn't possible to avoid some sort of European scramble after 1800. The scramble happened due to rivalries in Europe needing an outlet somewhere and the technological superiority of the Europeans over the local population. These factors can't be avoided. Plus Europeans are already on the continent by 1800, colonizing regions like South Africa or participating in the slave trade through trading ports on the coast. And it was actually the abolitionists in Europe and the British navy trying to abolish the slave trade and slavery in general that devastated the economies of the kingdoms, weakening them and putting them in a poor position to resist European direct colonial control later.

That said a "softer" Scramble is possible, and the odds get better the further back the POD is. It is certainly possible more states could survive. The Kongo Kingdom and Madagascar have a lot of potential, and of course there is Abyssinia. But you have to consider why and how they would do it. There is the Japan option, trying to industrialize and beat the Europeans at their own game, (this is very unlikely to work). Or the Siam option, playing European rivalries off each other to maintain Independence as a sort of "buffer" (which would require Europeans to have already occupied most of the continent as a prerequisite). Ethiopia, the only African State to survive the scramble did a little of both, they centralized, expanded a bit, had to defeat a European conquest attempt, and use the prestige from that to obtain international recognition as a Sovereign State.
 
Last edited:
One option, and I swear I’m not making this up, is Rwanda. Before colonization, it was a relatively unified state with a monarch that sometimes switched between the two major ethnic groups, with both speaking the same language. Maybe if it’s left alone for a while, and it plays its cards right, it could survive. A big issue, obviously, is size, but today at least it’s a very dense country, and perhaps it could expand some.
 
An ethnic nation, probably not without some... removal of non ruling populations to be colonized by the conquerors. But something like Austria-Hungary with many ethnicities? Possible. Just improve Abyssinia's power base in the 1600s and it is plausible (no means guaranteed, or event he most likely outcome but plausible), and it could end up a power that the British would rather get trade concessions from rather than land.
 
One option, and I swear I’m not making this up, is Rwanda. Before colonization, it was a relatively unified state with a monarch that sometimes switched between the two major ethnic groups, with both speaking the same language. Maybe if it’s left alone for a while, and it plays its cards right, it could survive. A big issue, obviously, is size, but today at least it’s a very dense country, and perhaps it could expand some.

If a family had certain markers of wealth (owning X amount of land, marrying into high class families, some combination of the above, specifics depended on the decade really) for a few generations, there was a ceremony to become Tutsi and it was a great honor. I think this automatically disqualifies these groups it as an ethnic group if there is a specific ritual for becoming a different group than what one was born as.
 
Also, Africa has very few homogeneous areas that you could expect to fit a nation state in. So any surviving States would be Empires in their own right, as was the case in Asia. But the numerous local tribes are going to stuck between a rock and a hard place, either getting annexed by the a local Kingdom turned to a de-facto Empire or the Europeans.

An ethnic nation, probably not without some... removal of non ruling populations to be colonized by the conquerors. But something like Austria-Hungary with many ethnicities? Possible. Just improve Abyssinia's power base in the 1600s and it is plausible (no means guaranteed, or event he most likely outcome but plausible), and it could end up a power that the British would rather get trade concessions from rather than land.

You forget that western Europe wasn't always homogeneous. France was filled with languages but now mostly speaks French. Same for every other country in Europe. They became homogeneous through assimilation and standardization of the language of the people in charge. Can an African country do the same?
 
There could easily have been multiple independent Arab nation states in north Africa, although to be true nation-states they might need a Bosnia-Herzegovina type arrangement with Berbers.

A Zulu-nation state is possible.

A Sakalava nation-state could be possible in an uncolonized Madagascar.
 
You forget that western Europe wasn't always homogeneous. France was filled with languages but now mostly speaks French. Same for every other country in Europe. They became homogeneous through assimilation and standardization of the language of the people in charge. Can an African country do the same?

Not even a POD as early as the 1600s can make an ethnic state (without eliminating large numbers of population for recolonization) if you go by Europe's standards since you are trying to squeeze a Millennium of developments in less than 300 years
 
Wouldn't that have lots of Minorites? Not to the Austria-Hungary level, but more of say... HRE Level (lots of German speakers, but throw in some Czechs, Danish, and Italians)
Depends on how much non-Sakalava Malagasy land it includes.

An uncolonized Madagascar would probably have several different countries rather than being one united island (Merina Kingdom united the island but a POD that prevents colonialism probably also prevents the Merina Kingdom). Sakalava Kingdom could be central enough for Western Malagasy dialects that it could standardize and assimilate the others.
 
I mean, Madagascar could still be united by some other kingdom, it's not that big. It would take time, but I think it would happen eventually like the British Isles or Japanese islands where united.
 
I don't see how an early united Madagascar wouldn't be able to assimilate the individual ethnic groups and the dialects of Malagasy. Is it really much different than France (Oïl/Oc split plus the Bretons) or Japan (Eastern/Western Japanese plus some divergent dialects at the fringes plus Ryukyuan)? Or for that matter Thailand which has quite a bit of ethnic diversity.

Not even a POD as early as the 1600s can make an ethnic state (without eliminating large numbers of population for recolonization) if you go by Europe's standards since you are trying to squeeze a Millennium of developments in less than 300 years

Somalia? There's very few non-ethnic Somalis who live there.
 
Not even a POD as early as the 1600s can make an ethnic state (without eliminating large numbers of population for recolonization) if you go by Europe's standards since you are trying to squeeze a Millennium of developments in less than 300 years

?

Somalia, Swaziland, Lesotho, Botswana.

Four states with one dominant ethnicity. You could even make an argument for Zimbabwe, where 80% of the population is Shona.
 
Somalia? There's very few non-ethnic Somalis who live there.

Strictly speaking yes. But there's a difference between having Somalis and getting them to identify collectively as a single socio-national group. I'm not saying it isent possible to change this in an atl, but currently the clan structure and identities in the region FAR supercede any national identity. You need to weaken those loyalties and dull the infighting if you want a state that qualifies by European standards
 
Maybe a middle ground where the different powers of Europe would support their preferred Kingdoms and help them "assimilate" the minorities so to say.
 
It isn't possible to avoid some sort of European scramble after 1800.
I disagree. The Europeans didn't just decide to colonize Africa for no reason, there were a lot of factors, many of them after 1800, that led to the Scramble. Butterfly some of them and you can likely end with a situation where the African states are left independent, at least in theory.
 

Deleted member 67076

Malawi is an option. Its 85% Chewa, has natural borders via the highlands, and had a history of unification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RGB
Top