Plausibility Check: A Franco-Ethiopian War in the Late 1890s?

CaliGuy

Banned
Would it have been plausible for France to beat Britain to Fashoda and thus conquer South Sudan and then, after its logistical situation in the area improves and Italy gets its butt kicked by Ethiopia, invade Ethiopia itself in order to create a land connection between its West African colonies and Djibouti?

If so, how would a Franco-Ethiopian War in the late 1890s have turned out? Also, please keep in mind that Ethiopia has just fought a successful war against Italy in this TL (in 1896, to be specific).

Any thoughts on all of this?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Also, would Britain help Ethiopia in a late 1890s Franco-Ethiopian War in order to get its revenge at France for getting to Fashoda first and thus conquering South Sudan (in place of having Britain itself do this)?
 
I... think you might get Italy into the CP field indefinitely. Hatred for A-H trumped the very real anger at the French conquest of Tunisia; if France invades Tunisia and Ethiopia in 20 years? I have a feeling Corsica/Nizza/Savoia will get more attention than Trento and Trieste.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I... think you might get Italy into the CP field indefinitely. Hatred for A-H trumped the very real anger at the French conquest of Tunisia; if France invades Tunisia and Ethiopia in 20 years? I have a feeling Corsica/Nizza/Savoia will get more attention than Trento and Trieste.
Why shouldn't France have dibs on Ethiopia after Italy tried and failed to conquer it in 1896, though?
 
Why shouldn't France have dibs on Ethiopia after Italy tried and failed to conquer it in 1896, though?
I wouldn't use "dibs" for conquest, really: in any case, Ethiopia was very much considered to be in the Italian sphere of influence (mostly not willingly), and a French conquest would be seen as another slap, after the one of Tunisia.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I wouldn't use "dibs" for conquest, really: in any case, Ethiopia was very much considered to be in the Italian sphere of influence (mostly not willingly), and a French conquest would be seen as another slap, after the one of Tunisia.
Maybe; however, why should France defer to Italy on Ethiopia after Italy already got its butt kicked by Ethiopia?

Also, while I will need to check this again, I believe that France wanted to have a contiguous chain of African colonies from its west coast to its east coast; obviously it never accomplished this in our TL, but if it gets to Fashoda before Britain and then successfully conquers Ethiopia, then France will actually accomplish this!

Finally, wouldn't the Italian-majority areas of Austria-Hungary be much more important to Italy than Ethiopia is?
 
The all Fashoda expedition was actually a joint Ethiopian-French expedition. The east branch (the one which did not get to Fashoda in time) left from Addis Abbeba in 1897 under Bonchamps, but failed to pass the mountains ; another expedition in 1898 managed to get to the Nile, but not further.

It would take a 180° degree turn in French-Ethiopian relations for France to invade Ethiopia when it had already a foothold in the country from economic and diplomatic cooperation.
 
I wouldn't use "dibs" for conquest, really: in any case, Ethiopia was very much considered to be in the Italian sphere of influence (mostly not willingly), and a French conquest would be seen as another slap, after the one of Tunisia.
Trudat. The French needed all the allies they could and could NOT piss off another country at their border.

On top, let's not forget that the main port of Ethiopia at the time is basically Djibouti, thanks to heavy French investment. They built the Abbis Abeba - Djibouti railway in 1894, hinting at good business relations. Now you could have some way to get the French pissed off (a proto railway-nationalisation?) that would lead to a bout of war.
However, IMHO, that'd be more limited "gunboat" diplomacy rather than actual prolonged conflict. Ethiopia is notoriously hard to conquer (Muslim sultanates tried for centuries...) due to their mountains and fortresses. You'd need a lot of effort to get it really going and in the post-1880 period, it's just not worth it. It's very poor, and relatively unified with a decent-ish army (for Africa). Much easier to pick on the disunited kingdoms of West Africa.
Plus it's a Christian kingdom, so no defense of civilization here, it would be really hard to get funds.

So two scenarios: gunboat diplomacy, or an enterprising officer overstepping its bound, maybe chasing a tribe off Djibouti territory and escalating the conflict? Due to fund issue it would probably stay limited (hard enough to fund Tonkin...) but who knows?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Trudat. The French needed all the allies they could and could NOT piss off another country at their border.

Wouldn't Italy have cared more about Trentino, Trieste, and Fiume than about Ethiopia, though?

On top, let's not forget that the main port of Ethiopia at the time is basically Djibouti, thanks to heavy French investment. They built the Abbis Abeba - Djibouti railway in 1894, hinting at good business relations. Now you could have some way to get the French pissed off (a proto railway-nationalisation?) that would lead to a bout of war.
However, IMHO, that'd be more limited "gunboat" diplomacy rather than actual prolonged conflict. Ethiopia is notoriously hard to conquer (Muslim sultanates tried for centuries...) due to their mountains and fortresses. You'd need a lot of effort to get it really going and in the post-1880 period, it's just not worth it. It's very poor, and relatively unified with a decent-ish army (for Africa). Much easier to pick on the disunited kingdoms of West Africa.

Couldn't Italy have conquered Ethiopia in 1896 with better generals, though?

Also, couldn't Ethiopia hold value for France by allowing France to build a transcontinental railroad across Africa from east to west if it will successfully conquer Ethiopia?

Plus it's a Christian kingdom, so no defense of civilization here, it would be really hard to get funds.

Doesn't France itself have enough funds for this, though?

So two scenarios: gunboat diplomacy, or an enterprising officer overstepping its bound, maybe chasing a tribe off Djibouti territory and escalating the conflict? Due to fund issue it would probably stay limited (hard enough to fund Tonkin...) but who knows?

Can you please elaborate on the part about the difficulty in funding Tonkin?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Indeed, please keep in mind that France already controls South Sudan in this TL; else, even with a successful conquest of Ethiopia, France wouldn't be able to build a transcontinental railroad in Africa from west to east (and fully under French control/rule, that is).
 
Wouldn't Italy have cared more about Trentino, Trieste, and Fiume than about Ethiopia, though?
Maybe but France didn't hold those so France couldn't bargain for it!

Couldn't Italy have conquered Ethiopia in 1896 with better generals, though?

Sure, perhaps, it wasn't out of reach for a Great Power with the will and the mean. I'm not that knowledgeable about the Italian tentative but my point about France was that it would be long and bloody. On one side, you have very bad fighting conditions but on the other, the guys on the other side actually know by which end to hold the rifle.

Italy needed that for their national mythos: they wanted to show the World (i.e. Europe) they mattered. France here doesn't have that need. Way easier to strangle them economically if needed

Also, couldn't Ethiopia hold value for France by allowing France to build a transcontinental railroad across Africa from east to west if it will successfully conquer Ethiopia?
That would indeed have value but not enough to justify a war over it. It would also be a massive project which would have troubles getting funded. I encourage you to look at the thread "An Empire's folly" about the Transsaharian railway, it will give you a good idea of the difficulties :)
It was WAY more strategic and yet never got funded!



Doesn't France itself have enough funds for this, though?
Can you please elaborate on the part about the difficulty in funding Tonkin?
Yes and no. If you look at a balance sheet, yes, of course France was rich enough to pay for it, and more over. But each of these wars has to be approved, and funded through a vote at the Assemblée Nationale, which is fairly reluctant about that whole "let's colonise the world!" thing.
People on the left thought it disgusting and a perversion of Republican values, people on the right thought it a waste of men and money that could be better spent preparing the inevitable war of revanche against Germany. All agreed it was a bloody waste of money.
Jules Ferry, the chief of government, was famous for his back-handed funding tactics. Basically it went like this.

"Jules, you can't go colonise more places.
-Ok.
*Some lieutenant somewhere trips over a stone*
-Oh no! France is under attack, we must fund this expedition, they are killing our boys!
-Ah fek it, but that's the last time Jules!"

It lasted a while until the Franco-Chinese war of 1885 and the Tonkin Affair. Basically, the French took a city in North Vietnam but then had to retreat, losing a few men. The general sent a telegram saying he needed urgent reinforcements not to lose the war.
The papers saw it and went mad about it. It exemplified that "waste of money and men" I was talking about and led to the downfall of the Ferry government.

In the end, it wasn't that bad: he lost 70 men and 200 wounded retreating from a 25000 strong Chinese army in an awful region (mountains+jungle+malaria+hostile natives+fairly well equipped and very pissed adversary)
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Maybe but France didn't hold those so France couldn't bargain for it!

It could help Italy win a future war with Austria-Hungary, though.

Sure, perhaps, it wasn't out of reach for a Great Power with the will and the mean. I'm not that knowledgeable about the Italian tentative but my point about France was that it would be long and bloody. On one side, you have very bad fighting conditions but on the other, the guys on the other side actually know by which end to hold the rifle.

As far as I know, though, a large part of the reason as to why Ethiopia won is because it successfully provoked the Italians to fight while it itself still had a large army; indeed, AFAIK, Ethiopia was unable to maintain a large army on the field for too long (due to lack of resources, et cetera).

Italy needed that for their national mythos: they wanted to show the World (i.e. Europe) they mattered. France here doesn't have that need. Way easier to strangle them economically if needed

So, would Ethiopia allow France to build a railroad from South Sudan to Djibouti which is exclusively under French control?

That would indeed have value but not enough to justify a war over it. It would also be a massive project which would have troubles getting funded. I encourage you to look at the thread "An Empire's folly" about the Transsaharian railway, it will give you a good idea of the difficulties :)
It was WAY more strategic and yet never got funded!

OK; understood.

Yes and no. If you look at a balance sheet, yes, of course France was rich enough to pay for it, and more over. But each of these wars has to be approved, and funded through a vote at the Assemblée Nationale, which is fairly reluctant about that whole "let's colonise the world!" thing.
People on the left thought it disgusting and a perversion of Republican values, people on the right thought it a waste of men and money that could be better spent preparing the inevitable war of revanche against Germany. All agreed it was a bloody waste of money.
Jules Ferry, the chief of government, was famous for his back-handed funding tactics. Basically it went like this.

"Jules, you can't go colonise more places.
-Ok.
*Some lieutenant somewhere trips over a stone*
-Oh no! France is under attack, we must fund this expedition, they are killing our boys!
-Ah fek it, but that's the last time Jules!"

It lasted a while until the Franco-Chinese war of 1885 and the Tonkin Affair. Basically, the French took a city in North Vietnam but then had to retreat, losing a few men. The general sent a telegram saying he needed urgent reinforcements not to lose the war.
The papers saw it and went mad about it. It exemplified that "waste of money and men" I was talking about and led to the downfall of the Ferry government.

In the end, it wasn't that bad: he lost 70 men and 200 wounded retreating from a 25000 strong Chinese army in an awful region (mountains+jungle+malaria+hostile natives+fairly well equipped and very pissed adversary)

Thank you very much for sharing all of this information! :)
 
Top