Sagallo, Russia's African Colony

Onyx

Banned
I swear to god, as far as I want Russia to had a Colony in Africa, they did............. In Djibouti
Sagallo was founded by a Cossack merc and later on brought settlers and such to the colony, but France being the usual "Take-our-colonies-and-your-gonna-get-shot" colonists (Or was that the Belgians?) got P.O. that Russia was colonizing in there land (Which I found out, but forgot where, they didnt had any land rights in Djbouti back then in the 1800s since they couldn't care less of the colony) and attacked them, and Russian settlers left and lost there colony in just one year.

But what if the Russians somehow got support from other powers or defended the colony, and owned Djibouti or Sagallo they called it, Russia could've gotten more ambitions in colonizing more of Africa and would even try colonizing more areas. It would be pretty amazing to see a Russian colony in Africa and how it would work out

But that would only happen in my alt history, because some French Djboutans got mad

Discuss it.

.........Seriously France, why would you own a colony called Djibouti? I mean really, You did owned like half of West Africa, and nearly all of North Africa, give Russia, Denmark, Sweden, and the Dutch a chance
 
As much as I find it interesting I don't think it's feasible for Russia to have an African colony plus I don't think the Czar or the rest of the Imperial government has any ambitions. Alaska was the only overseas colony they had and the Russians themselves didn't want it.
 

Onyx

Banned
What the hell? COURLAND!?

Courland indeed, and they were a protectorate....To Poland.....
Courland's insanity of colonizing is OVER 90000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess the Czar would've been interested with an African colony for a couple of years, but would've gone "Screw it, the colonies worthless" like they did to Alaska
 
I swear to god, as far as I want Russia to had a Colony in Africa, they did............. In Djibouti
Sagallo was founded by a Cossack merc and later on brought settlers and such to the colony, but France being the usual "Take-our-colonies-and-your-gonna-get-shot" colonists (Or was that the Belgians?) got P.O. that Russia was colonizing in there land (Which I found out, but forgot where, they didnt had any land rights in Djbouti back then in the 1800s since they couldn't care less of the colony) and attacked them, and Russian settlers left and lost there colony in just one year.

But what if the Russians somehow got support from other powers or defended the colony, and owned Djibouti or Sagallo they called it, Russia could've gotten more ambitions in colonizing more of Africa and would even try colonizing more areas. It would be pretty amazing to see a Russian colony in Africa and how it would work out

But that would only happen in my alt history, because some French Djboutans got mad

Discuss it.

.........Seriously France, why would you own a colony called Djibouti? I mean really, You did owned like half of West Africa, and nearly all of North Africa, give Russia, Denmark, Sweden, and the Dutch a chance

It wasn't called Djibouti, it was called French Somaliland or Afars and Isars. The reason the French wanted it was because it provided an important and strategic coaling station astride the Suez Canal, which should answer your question why there isn't a chance in Hell Britain would ever allow Russia to have it.

More importantly, it was Ottoman territory until the 1860s when it was handed over to Egyptian administration, and Russia had no chance of taking it from Egypt. France didn't until after Egypt withdrew from its African possessions due to the Madhist Revolution, and Russia had no fleet to get there with.

Also, what would Russia do with African possessions?
 

The Sandman

Banned
Also, what would Russia do with African possessions?

A place to exile people who might have enjoyed Siberia?

I mean, the Russians had colonial possessions in OTL: everything east of the Urals. Exploiting those was enough of an imperial project to make Africa pointless.

The only way I can see them getting any of Africa is if they do sufficiently well in the Great Game that Britain starts trying to bribe them away from India and Persia. And I don't think that's likely.
 
A place to exile people who might have enjoyed Siberia?

I mean, the Russians had colonial possessions in OTL: everything east of the Urals. Exploiting those was enough of an imperial project to make Africa pointless.

The only way I can see them getting any of Africa is if they do sufficiently well in the Great Game that Britain starts trying to bribe them away from India and Persia. And I don't think that's likely.

Still, letting them have a colony like Djibouti which would actually give them the ability to cut off the actual route to India would probably require every man, woman, and child in the British Isles to simultaneously commit suicide.
 

The Sandman

Banned
I don't know. In the right hands, it could actually be used to cripple Russian naval buildup. I mean, they'll finally have their warm-water port, right? So they'd want to put plenty of effort into it. And maybe more effort into their navy, which won't actually be useful under most circumstances as far as Russia's foreign policy priorities.

But the big thing is that a port there could be cut off by the British in the Suez, cut off by the Ottomans in the Dardanelles and then again by the Ottomans or the British in Aden, or based on Socotra, or just turn one of the harbors into British Somaliland into something more useful. And from the land, it could be attacked from every side. Essentially, it would only exist at British sufferance; in the event of war, it potentially puts a big portion of the Russian Navy in a position where the British could easily cut it off from any hope of additional supplies and where the British wouldn't have to try going into the Baltic or Black Seas to get at it.

A sort of African White Elephant, as it were. And if the Russians get Djibouti, perhaps the French take Eritrea and then tell the Italians to go suck it?
 
But what if the Russians somehow got support from other powers or defended the colony, and owned Djibouti or Sagallo they called it, Russia could've gotten more ambitions in colonizing more of Africa and would even try colonizing more areas. It would be pretty amazing to see a Russian colony in Africa and how it would work out.

I did this in "Fight and Be Right" (shameless plug) :rolleyes: - the best option is less Tajoura Bay but Raheita, just up the coast and on the border with Eritrea. OTL, the only reason why the Russians didn't grab it was because the Italians got wind of the attempt and occupied the town a few hours before Col Ashinov and his men arrived. If you delay the Italians by a few hours then Russia has a foothold in Africa, and not one which is too close to Obock for the French to tolerate.

As much as I find it interesting I don't think it's feasible for Russia to have an African colony plus I don't think the Czar or the rest of the Imperial government has any ambitions. Alaska was the only overseas colony they had and the Russians themselves didn't want it.

The Russians actually had quite a few interests in Africa, mainly (but not exclusively) concentrated on Abyssinia, a fellow Orthodox power. Grabbing something in Somaliland would provide a convenient staging post for trade with the Abyssinians, who were desperate for European training and rifles, as well as giving the British conniptions with a naval base just across from Aden that had the potential to close the Red Sea. I'll plug "Fight and Be Right" at this point, not (particularly) in a gratuitous way, but mainly because it explores the practicalities and consequences of a Russian presence in Somaliland in quite a lot of detail. Needless to say, it doesn't end wonderfully wel..
 

Onyx

Banned
Yep, I head that they sent tons of Russian Orthdox Priests there, and when France took over there settlement, many of them left to Ethiopia, it would be pretty neat to see an interest of a Russo-Ethiopia alliance due to religion, but they'd just conquer the region with the manpower of 1,000,000,00 charging men.

I mean getting to Africa would be really tough, they'd had to cross the Baltic strait, and cross all the way to europe without getting pissed off by GB and France.
But wasn't Denmark and ally with Russia back then? so I guess Denmark would've allowed Russia to go through.
But still even if you had an African colony for Russia, you need alot of labor work for things, not to mention what Leopold II did.

So it would'nt be possible to get Djibouti, or Afars and Issis, but there could be a chance to have a region in West Africa, but of course they could've gave that colony to like France, GB, or even Belgium
 
The only way I can see them getting any of Africa is if they do sufficiently well in the Great Game that Britain starts trying to bribe them away from India and Persia. And I don't think that's likely.

I think a much more plausible scenario is Russia (somehow) takes and holds Constantinople. That way, they have access to the Med, so they become a trading power, and stop-off points mean something to them then. Of course, whether the British would point blank deny them access through Suez is a tetchy issue which might render Sagallo's existence moot.

I don't know. In the right hands, it could actually be used to cripple Russian naval buildup. I mean, they'll finally have their warm-water port, right? So they'd want to put plenty of effort into it.

I think you're misconstruing the reasons the Russians wanted a warm-water port. They wanted somewhere they could trade out of, and establish a navy at. Djibouti does not do this for them unless they entirely annex the Ottomans first. They need a land connection for Sagallo to make any sense as "the" warm-water port. They can't trade with Sagallo in the first place unless they have all-year access to it, and they didn't have that. So as a warm-water port, Sagallo is next to useless. I think the whole point was that this was a private venture. I doubt the Russians actually paid any attention whatsoever to it - I bet few in the Imperial Court even knew about it. It's entirely possible that the Russians would take it over eventually if the Cossacks held it, but they'd probably take it over in the same way that England held Tangiers in the 1680s - they'd happily trump it as a Russian prestige point, but if push came to shove they'd abandon it long before it any such time as they'd actually have to actively maintain it.

Also, it would be worthless to attack British shipping. The Royal Navy throughout the previous 200 years is just too strong - at the first sign of trouble, Sagallo would be completely overrun. The Russians could try to defend it, but that would A - result in them losing a fleet; B - start a pointless war over a pointless colony. British trade shipping is just too numerous and too important to Britain for them to just accept losing a trade lane, and you can bet that no European power capable of projecting power in Africa would actually want to get involved in a war with Britain over such an insignificant and ultimately indefensible possession.
 
I did this in "Fight and Be Right" (shameless plug) :rolleyes: - the best option is less Tajoura Bay but Raheita, just up the coast and on the border with Eritrea. OTL, the only reason why the Russians didn't grab it was because the Italians got wind of the attempt and occupied the town a few hours before Col Ashinov and his men arrived. If you delay the Italians by a few hours then Russia has a foothold in Africa, and not one which is too close to Obock for the French to tolerate.



The Russians actually had quite a few interests in Africa, mainly (but not exclusively) concentrated on Abyssinia, a fellow Orthodox power. Grabbing something in Somaliland would provide a convenient staging post for trade with the Abyssinians, who were desperate for European training and rifles, as well as giving the British conniptions with a naval base just across from Aden that had the potential to close the Red Sea. I'll plug "Fight and Be Right" at this point, not (particularly) in a gratuitous way, but mainly because it explores the practicalities and consequences of a Russian presence in Somaliland in quite a lot of detail. Needless to say, it doesn't end wonderfully wel..

The Russians had no interest whatsoever in Abyssinia. Just having some vague religious connection doesn't suddenly give you interests. First of all, Abyssinia is close to Coptic Egypt religiously - it has never had ties to Russia. Second "interests" are related to trade, of which there was virtually none.

Having a base there wouldn't give the British "conniptions", it would cause the British to issue an ultimatum: Withdraw, or war - and they would be serious.

I don't believe it's true that the Russians were forestalled by the Italians by hours. The Russians had discussed acquiring a coaling station there, but it was placed in the Italian sphere. If Russians had landed there, they would have been forced to withdraw through diplomacy, and it would have resulted in the humiliation of Russia, which is why they didn't attempt it.
 
I don't know. In the right hands, it could actually be used to cripple Russian naval buildup. I mean, they'll finally have their warm-water port, right? So they'd want to put plenty of effort into it. And maybe more effort into their navy, which won't actually be useful under most circumstances as far as Russia's foreign policy priorities.

But the big thing is that a port there could be cut off by the British in the Suez, cut off by the Ottomans in the Dardanelles and then again by the Ottomans or the British in Aden, or based on Socotra, or just turn one of the harbors into British Somaliland into something more useful. And from the land, it could be attacked from every side. Essentially, it would only exist at British sufferance; in the event of war, it potentially puts a big portion of the Russian Navy in a position where the British could easily cut it off from any hope of additional supplies and where the British wouldn't have to try going into the Baltic or Black Seas to get at it.

A sort of African White Elephant, as it were. And if the Russians get Djibouti, perhaps the French take Eritrea and then tell the Italians to go suck it?

Let's compare it to Tsingtao. Yes, it was vulnerable and was lost to Germany, but not before it caused the diversion of a large portion of the RN, resulted in one of the worst naval humiliations in British history, and Emden shut down all trade in the Indian Ocean for weeks.

Now place Tsingtao astride the route to India. Raiders from there can strike at shipping through Suez and going around the cape. The damage could be incalculable.

In this era, the Ottomans and Russians got along fairly well, and the question was open whether or not the Ottomans could become Russian protectorate. Now imagine this Russian base, a Jihad called by the Caliph, and Russian warships appearing off India. It probably would accomplish little in that regard, but that's not how Victorian statesmen would have seen it.
 
I think a much more plausible scenario is Russia (somehow) takes and holds Constantinople. That way, they have access to the Med, so they become a trading power, and stop-off points mean something to them then. Of course, whether the British would point blank deny them access through Suez is a tetchy issue which might render Sagallo's existence moot.



I think you're misconstruing the reasons the Russians wanted a warm-water port. They wanted somewhere they could trade out of, and establish a navy at. Djibouti does not do this for them unless they entirely annex the Ottomans first. They need a land connection for Sagallo to make any sense as "the" warm-water port. They can't trade with Sagallo in the first place unless they have all-year access to it, and they didn't have that. So as a warm-water port, Sagallo is next to useless. I think the whole point was that this was a private venture. I doubt the Russians actually paid any attention whatsoever to it - I bet few in the Imperial Court even knew about it. It's entirely possible that the Russians would take it over eventually if the Cossacks held it, but they'd probably take it over in the same way that England held Tangiers in the 1680s - they'd happily trump it as a Russian prestige point, but if push came to shove they'd abandon it long before it any such time as they'd actually have to actively maintain it.

Also, it would be worthless to attack British shipping. The Royal Navy throughout the previous 200 years is just too strong - at the first sign of trouble, Sagallo would be completely overrun. The Russians could try to defend it, but that would A - result in them losing a fleet; B - start a pointless war over a pointless colony. British trade shipping is just too numerous and too important to Britain for them to just accept losing a trade lane, and you can bet that no European power capable of projecting power in Africa would actually want to get involved in a war with Britain over such an insignificant and ultimately indefensible possession.

Private ventures have a way of becoming state policy - Djibouti itself began as a French private venture in the port of Obok, and Italy's first presence in Eritrea was a private coaling station.

A port there wouldn't be useless to Russia, but it's certainly not on the level of Istanbul or a Persian port which could have a direct connection to Russia. It would be a slightly more useful Tsingtao. Nobody had a conception of a major war lasting as long as WWI - in a short one, a base for raiders would have been a great asset, even if untenable, and that would have been in the minds of the people at the time.

The British can't keep Russian ships out of Suez - international treaties initiated by Britain forbid it. In peacetime they would not be able to do it because all the powers would team up to prevent it. In war though, Britain could and did ignore the treaty.
 
Yep, I head that they sent tons of Russian Orthdox Priests there, and when France took over there settlement, many of them left to Ethiopia, it would be pretty neat to see an interest of a Russo-Ethiopia alliance due to religion, but they'd just conquer the region with the manpower of 1,000,000,00 charging men.

I mean getting to Africa would be really tough, they'd had to cross the Baltic strait, and cross all the way to europe without getting pissed off by GB and France.
But wasn't Denmark and ally with Russia back then? so I guess Denmark would've allowed Russia to go through.
But still even if you had an African colony for Russia, you need alot of labor work for things, not to mention what Leopold II did.

So it would'nt be possible to get Djibouti, or Afars and Issis, but there could be a chance to have a region in West Africa, but of course they could've gave that colony to like France, GB, or even Belgium

Where are you guys getting this? Do you have links? The Russians didn't send tons of Orthodox priests to Eritrea! What 1,000,0000 men? I don't even understand the basis of what you're saying.
 

Onyx

Banned
Where are you guys getting this? Do you have links? The Russians didn't send tons of Orthodox priests to Eritrea! What 1,000,0000 men? I don't even understand the basis of what you're saying.

Dude, did you hear me joking about 1,000,000,00 men? Its a joke
And I don't even understand the basis your saying as well
 
Where are you guys getting this? Do you have links? The Russians didn't send tons of Orthodox priests to Eritrea! What 1,000,0000 men? I don't even understand the basis of what you're saying.

1,000,000 men and mass proslytisation are a bit over the top, but there were a number of interesting links between Russia and Abyssinia that never went anywhere OTL, but might have got a bit further had the Russians had a small lodgement on the Red Sea coast and a bit more political will.

I'll post a few quotes from a relevant journal later on when I have more time, but in the meantime, you may find this discussion on SHWI a useful summary.
 
Top