Organic nation states in Africa?

Malawi is an option. Its 85% Chewa, has natural borders via the highlands, and had a history of unification.

According to Wikipedia Malawi is only 32% Chewa, even though Chewa are the main ethnicity in the country.

A Hausa and Fulani state between OTL northwestern Nigeria and northern Niger would've been a possibility, since the survival of the Sokoto Caliphate would've been more than enough to make this a reality; Oyo could do the trick for the Yoruba, too.

1024px-Yorubaland_Cultural_Area_of_West_Africa.jpg
 
Madagascar certainly ought to be an 'organic nation state'. It has natural boundaries - its an island, and by the beginning of the C19 the Merina monarchy had unified the whole island. The language is serviceable for administration and, later, education; most importantly it now has a usable latin alphabet. The various dialects of the island are not too different from each other and can all be brought together under the head of 'Malagasy'. There are no real minorities. After a pagan revival the island seemed prepared to settle down later in the century with a form of Christianity. And if there's no 'national story' or overarching tradition I'm sure the Malagasy ought to be a ble to create one.

The real difficulty is keeping out of European colonialism. I don't think they're capable of 'doing a Meiji', as the saying is, but with a bit of luck they ought to be able to do an Ethiopia, if not a Siam. If they can somehow screw the French (usually a good thing - oops, my prejudices are showing!) the monarchy can survive into the 20th century. The ultimate relationship between the aristocracy and the commoners is for the Malagasy themselves to decide. Even if they end up in the British sphere, perhaps they'd be a protected state rather like the Indian or the Malay States, with the administration largely leftin local hands.

I'd say that Madagascar has everything it takes to be a nation state - but it's not really in Africa, is it?
 
Could the ovambo make a stand in what becomes Namibia?
Making a "stand" against the Europeans does not mean you magically become a nation-state. Namibia is just too close to South Africa to not be conquered.

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.
I'll give the Tswana credit where it is due but post-colonial African Nations do not count. There is a world of difference between creating a nation out of a tribal society by yourself and just having your sovereignty and borders handed over to you during decolonization. The OP asked for how pre-colonial Africans could create their own nations without Europe, not how ethnic groups in Africa developed after decolonization.


If they can somehow screw the French (usually a good thing - oops, my prejudices are showing!) the monarchy can survive into the 20th century. The ultimate relationship between the aristocracy and the commoners is for the Malagasy themselves to decide.
Honestly, all that would have to be done is for the British care enough about Madagasgar to say "Keep Out" but not care enough to occupy it themselves, and Madagasgar would probably outlive the Scramble entirely.
 
Last edited:
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.
Maybe they could?

Let's say Napoleon avoids his catastrophic defeat in Russia, and so France remains hegemonic in continental Europe while Britain retains it's naval hegemony. Britain then has a very strong incentive to nip any French(or allied) colonial ventures in the bud, and given their naval hegemony will probably succeed. There is then no competition to motivate questionably profitable pushes inland- why bother if you control the ports?

Or alternatively, if Napoleon had decisively won(including occupying Britain), and so there's no competition in Africa due to France's hegemonic control of Europe.
 
Let's say Napoleon avoids his catastrophic defeat in Russia, and so France remains hegemonic in continental Europe while Britain retains it's naval hegemony. Britain then has a very strong incentive to nip any French(or allied) colonial ventures in the bud, and given their naval hegemony will probably succeed. There is then no competition to motivate questionably profitable pushes inland- why bother if you control the ports?
Or alternatively, if Napoleon had decisively won(including occupying Britain), and so there's no competition in Africa due to France's hegemonic control of Europe.
The problem with a Napoleonic victory is that it all blows up when the man himself dies. By crowning himself Emperor and surrounding himself with yes-men, nobody in France would be able to fill his boots. So Europe will go back to war and the intern leader of France would be more concerned about saving his country than any nominal hegemony. At best we get a bigger France on the Rhine and TTL Congress of Vienna to contain France. Britain will be angry France has the Low Countries. The Germans will be angry France has the Rhineland. And France will be angry if it loses those in the coming decades.

What would be an outlet for that anger? Africa. Give me a non-ASB POD after 1800 and I can spin it so a Scramble still happens.
 
Last edited:
Another reason why Africa was hobbled so badly was the problem of resource grabs by Britain and the other European nations once they've industrialized.

For instance: the Congo was rich in vine rubber, and after the collapse of traditional gutta-percha extraction in Southeast Asia in the 1890's (because of the sap being very good in insulating telegraph cables), there will be many eyes salivating Central Africa as an alternative, despite Congolese latex being chemically inferior - it definitely didn't stop Leopold II from turning the basin into hell. The rise of the bicycle and automotive industry alone would fuel a drive for latex far greater than Amazonian rubber could provide, and there will be several nations whom want to control rubber production at its source. Same goes for palm oil in the Niger delta, which led the British to swallow up Benin, the Yoruba lands, and the Igbo regions.

The only way to avoid this is to have a ruler or society that recognizes the value of the resource present in their lands, and use it to leverage their independence. The Kongo kingdom is a good contender, as do the Niger delta states. But it has be cautioned that a rich African state only makes them bigger targets for industrializing nations.
 
Last edited:
The difference between Africa and Europe was that Europe had an abundance of people while Africa had an abundance of land. When different African groups had conflict they could generally just move 100 kms away from each other, and set up there. In Europe this wasn't possible - people couldn't just move, and had to figure out how to get on, so this led to the genesis of nation-states as we understand them.
 
Another reason why Africa was hobbled so badly was the problem of resource grabs by Britain and the other European nations once they've industrialized.

For instance: the Congo was rich in vine rubber, and after the collapse of traditional gutta-percha extraction in Southeast Asia in the 1890's (because of the sap being very good in insulating telegraph cables), there will be many eyes salivating Central Africa as an alternative, despite Congolese latex being chemically inferior - it definitely didn't stop Leopold II from turning the basin into hell. The rise of the bicycle and automotive industry alone would fuel a drive for latex far greater than Amazonian rubber could provide, and there will be several nations whom want to control rubber production at its source. Same goes for palm oil in the Niger delta, which led the British to swallow up Benin, the Yoruba lands, and the Igbo regions.

The only way to avoid this is to have a ruler or society that recognizes the value of the resource present in their lands, and use it to leverage their independence. The Kongo kingdom is a good contender, as do the Niger delta states. But it has be cautioned that a rich African state only makes them bigger targets for industrializing nations.
Maybe Europeans can aquire these goods by trade, in return for giving industrial products to African nations?
 

Vuu

Banned
You have to go with some ludicrously distant PoD

I think it's impossible really. It will happen at some point in the future since only now there are conditions (read: ability to maintain a high population density) for more dynamic and complex societies seeing that the 3 tons of tropical disease that kept the population down are now put in their place
 
You have to go with some ludicrously distant PoD

I think it's impossible really. It will happen at some point in the future since only now there are conditions (read: ability to maintain a high population density) for more dynamic and complex societies seeing that the 3 tons of tropical disease that kept the population down are now put in their place
No, its not impossible. Look at Somalia its ethnically homogenous and has maritime acess to Eurasia for trade. Its a perfect candidate
 
I'm sorry. I should have worded my question differently. Would it be possible for parts of Africa to not be in countries? For most of human history, many societies were not part of countries. Would it be possible for that to continue?
 

Vuu

Banned
No, its not impossible. Look at Somalia its ethnically homogenous and has maritime acess to Eurasia for trade. Its a perfect candidate

It already is. But East Africa is sort of an intermediate region, a bit different than the rest, no?

Ethiopia also can become such, if they centralize early and find it an interest to assimilate the gazillion 10-people ethnicities they have
 
It already is. But East Africa is sort of an intermediate region, a bit different than the rest, no?

Ethiopia also can become such, if they centralize early and find it an interest to assimilate the gazillion 10-people ethnicities they have
Hmm. Maybe east africa can act as a starting point through which the idea of nationalism can reach the rest of the continent
 
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.
Although I can think of quite a few PODs prior to the 19th Century, this could occur in Ethiopia if the 1890s Rinderpest Epizootic hits Ethiopia’s population worse and sees the Oromos bore the brunt of the effects of the disease. Combine this with an actively assimilationist Ethiopia whose Emperor imposes Shewan culture and Orthodox Christianity upon those ethnic groups in southern Ethiopia. If TTL’s Ethiopia also projects itself as a benevolent patron to the Ethiopians in the south, it’ll see more and more people identify with the Shewan centre but there’ll still be a large number of ethnic groups concentrated in the south and east. I think it’s more likely for Ethiopia to “pull a Russia” - i.e., have a majority (maybe 70-80%) and dominate culturally.
Ethiopia also can become such, if they centralize early and find it an interest to assimilate the gazillion 10-people ethnicities they have
Ethiopia only has 80 ethnolinguistic groups (most of whom don’t exceed double digits in population) but it’s certainly possible - a successful Zara Yaqob that centralizes Ethiopia and a line of Emperors that maintain his centralization programs would be a good start. This leads to a stronger Ethiopia that is able to repulse the Adalese invasion and the subsequent Oromo Migrations that sees the Amharas continue to make up most of the Ethiopian population.

Another way to forge an Ethiopian nation-state could be to have Lebna Dengel establish a modern army with Portuguese assistance earlier and be better prepared for the Adalese invasion. ITTL, Adal manages to rapidly conquer the outlying regions on the Ethiopian frontier but are unable to advance into the Amhara core and devastate it. It isn’t long before Adal’s forces are pushed out of Ethiopia who quickly reclaims the frontier regions whose ethnicities have suffered heavily under Adal. The Emperor is able to resettle waves of settlers from the populous core into those regions while Ethiopia advances into the Adal Sultanate. Ethiopia is able to successfully repulse the Oromo Migrations, pushing many of them beyond their homelands in southern Ethiopia. If Ethiopia remains stable and strong, the Amharas could have successfully become the majority in Ethiopia by the time the 19th Century comes around.
 
Top