Obviously (almost) nothing is truly inevitable. But how inevitable was the Colonization, and division, of the African Interior by the Europeans?
Q: How Inevitable was the Scramble of Africa?
- Thread starter The Anglo-Dutch Union
- Start date
I think the question needs to be framed a bit differently since Inevitability is absolute in itself; there are no degrees to it. Furthermore, it lends a bit of unnecessary finality to the subject.
Taking this into consideration, and since you rightly point out that (almost) nothing is truly inevitable, a better phrasing might be "How probable was the Colonization, and division, of the African Interior by the Europeans?"
IMO, the successful Reconquista made it highly likely that the Hispanic people would try and get a piece of the Sahel trade- which was half the reason the taifas were so prosperous and lucrative in the first place. After this Colonization would simply be taking this objective to its logical extreme.
Hmmm... I don't think it's entirely inevitable, but the African continent was in for alot of problems for numerous reasons. The Sahara desert served as a massive obstacle against the share of knowledge that Europe and the Middle East benefitted from, which meant they were going to be kept behind. Combine this also with the Kongo and the widespread diversity, it would be easy for a divide and conquer scenario, especially my playing off pre-existing biases and tendencies.
As such, it wasn't inevitable, but the continent has a lot of factors going against regarding colonization and exploitation of it though they still have some advantages to the Americas.
My guess is that if the Europeans have a steak of bad luck in terms of setting up colonies, at least anything bigger than city-states or small nuggets, then they may just shift more toward something like vassalization or whatnot. Favor certain groups over others and help them "nationbuild" in exchange for favorable deals and so on. So while African nations of the continent would grow from already preexisting powers, they would be influenced by their European allies/benefactors.
As such, it wasn't inevitable, but the continent has a lot of factors going against regarding colonization and exploitation of it though they still have some advantages to the Americas.
My guess is that if the Europeans have a steak of bad luck in terms of setting up colonies, at least anything bigger than city-states or small nuggets, then they may just shift more toward something like vassalization or whatnot. Favor certain groups over others and help them "nationbuild" in exchange for favorable deals and so on. So while African nations of the continent would grow from already preexisting powers, they would be influenced by their European allies/benefactors.
Need more details. How inevitable is simply the colonization of the interior? The entire interior? Are we taking most of Africa, or all of Africa. Are we including the division as in multiple European powers colonizing the interior, or an agreed upon division as in the Berlin Conference.
For the total division of the continent, I don't think it's too improbable not to happen. The Europeans essentially got what they needed from coastal trade. The reason they went deep into the interior was because it coincided with a relative period of peace and the reason it was divided was to avoid border conflicts. Have Europe become a bit more riddled with conflict and you'll see less resources going onto Africa.
I'd say preventing the British from occupying all of India and the Dutch from occupying the East Indies and you'll see a race for Asia as opposed to Africa.
Having WW1 kick off earlier can also likely prevent the scramble as European nations will be in too poor an economic state to divert resources.
Alternatively, having strong resistance against European invaders could do it. Look at Ethiopia.
For the total division of the continent, I don't think it's too improbable not to happen. The Europeans essentially got what they needed from coastal trade. The reason they went deep into the interior was because it coincided with a relative period of peace and the reason it was divided was to avoid border conflicts. Have Europe become a bit more riddled with conflict and you'll see less resources going onto Africa.
I'd say preventing the British from occupying all of India and the Dutch from occupying the East Indies and you'll see a race for Asia as opposed to Africa.
Having WW1 kick off earlier can also likely prevent the scramble as European nations will be in too poor an economic state to divert resources.
Alternatively, having strong resistance against European invaders could do it. Look at Ethiopia.
The African interior is a pretty broad swathe of different peoples, cultures and technology levels and Europeans also aren't the only ones who might be interested.
If we're not counting Egypt as European for example, even in the 1850s it's conceivable that a modernised Egyptian state would end up vassalising Ethiopia and a good way down the Nile- possibly even further than islamic culture had penetrated up to that point, and if Europeans aren't convinced that Africa's literally just there for the taking, the Omani empire could end up surviving and maintaining its hold over eastern Africa.
If we're not counting Egypt as European for example, even in the 1850s it's conceivable that a modernised Egyptian state would end up vassalising Ethiopia and a good way down the Nile- possibly even further than islamic culture had penetrated up to that point, and if Europeans aren't convinced that Africa's literally just there for the taking, the Omani empire could end up surviving and maintaining its hold over eastern Africa.
I'm talking what was colonized after the congress of Berlin
When I'm talking about the Interior I'm refering to the areas colonized after the congress of Berlin. And I won't be including Egypt as European, as the thread is most about the European Imperial powers who colonized africa in the 1880's
Nothing is inevitable in the sense that no probability is 1, but there are points where it begins to grow rapidly and approach 1.
I don't think the Scramble as we got it is inevitable, but I think the rest of the world getting mightily interested in Africa's resources is once international trade and capitalism got rolling. If anything I'd argue an alternate approach to colonialism built off backing coastal client states that centralize and expand into the interiors is far more likely than ex. the Belgian Congo where a random state in Europe swooped into the heart of Africa off of a sliver of coastline.
Would the discovery of vulcanization and the increasing use of rubber be a reason for Europeans to try and push into the interior (if only in the Congo)? Rubber was a massively profitable commodity in the late 1800s if I remember correctly, and Britain did go to war with China over opium. Granted, China was much stronger, richer, and more populous than Africa, but it does show that Europeans were willing to invade and occupy territory in support of commercial interests.
I think the reason the scramble for Africa happened fortwo reasons. The first reason is that colonialis had become prestigeous. Simply put, if you wanted to show that you are an important nation, you had to have a colony. That is why countries like Germany and Italy wanted colonies. They wanted to show that they were important too. The second reason was that France, one ofthe most important countries in Europe, lost a lot of colonies in the previous century, like French north America, India and Haiti and basicly wanted to show that they were still important and wanted the colonies to prove it. Combine both things with the fact that most of Africa was still empty, meant that all those countries looked towards Africa to fill those needs.
I would say that if you avoid the loss of the French colonies in the 18th century and avoid the unification of Italy and Germany, or make colonies less prestigious than they were OTL, you can avoid the scramble of Africa. That said, Africa would not be left alone, since several countries already head colonies in Africa and several parts would be very useful in other ways (like as a halfway station to Asian colonies, or to occupy strategic points, like the Suez. But I think you can avoid the more useless colonies, like the middle of the Sahara desert.
I would say that if you avoid the loss of the French colonies in the 18th century and avoid the unification of Italy and Germany, or make colonies less prestigious than they were OTL, you can avoid the scramble of Africa. That said, Africa would not be left alone, since several countries already head colonies in Africa and several parts would be very useful in other ways (like as a halfway station to Asian colonies, or to occupy strategic points, like the Suez. But I think you can avoid the more useless colonies, like the middle of the Sahara desert.
I would expect the Europeans to want to break into the interior for the same reasons they did in OTL to fuel the industrial revolution.
China was a bit different since Britain went to war to secure it's commercial interests, not extract resources directly. If African states had the desire to extract said resources and trade with Europe, then there'd be very little reason to divert funds to colonizing the interior. If Africa had more modern and strong states like China, then I'd expect thr Europeans to keep to coastal trade.
Assuming that the same medicinal advances occur as IOTL, it was very likely. It was not long after Europeans gained the ability to better survive the tropical diseases that colonization became a serious project.
Had medicine reached this stage 50 years earlier, the scramble probably would have happened in the 1830s.
Had medicine reached this stage 50 years earlier, the scramble probably would have happened in the 1830s.
TheSwedishHistorian
Banned
I would say it could have easily gone differently. Colonialism was controlling key trade points and areas for the longest time, and most African colonies very never really profitable and mostly for prestige and special interest groups.
This more limited and more trade oriented colonialism is also a lot more sustainable and european powers could possible keep most of these enclaves indefinitely as they likely would have the colonial powers people.
Ceuta, melilla, french Guinea, singapore... Djibouti...
This more limited and more trade oriented colonialism is also a lot more sustainable and european powers could possible keep most of these enclaves indefinitely as they likely would have the colonial powers people.
Ceuta, melilla, french Guinea, singapore... Djibouti...
TheSwedishHistorian
Banned
One problem is that the different empires partially turned into their own trade blocks that didn't trade much with eachother.
The discovery of diamonds (1867) and gold (1886) in South Africa increased European interest in the continent. Europeans expected that Africa would provide raw materials for industrialization and become a market for European goods.
The discovery of diamonds (1867) and gold (1886) in South Africa increased European interest in the continent. Europeans expected that Africa would provide raw materials for industrialization and become a market for European goods.