Splitting control of the Hawaii Islands?

I saw on one of the map threads (with a pre-1000AD) a map that had the eight main islands of Hawaii split between two international powers (western four with a Byzantine Empire which was the hyperpower and the easter four with the Japanese).

I'm having problems with the plausibility of this. Oahu seems like the big prize due to its harbor and without Oahu, are the rest useful/defendable?
 
Butterfly away or severely limit the American influence in Hawaii by some method and leave the British in effective control of the islands. Most likely the Brits are not interested in a Sandwich Islands colony and in general agree to support the existence of the monarchy but insist on possession of Pearl Harbor either by cession or a 99 year lease, ala Hong Kong.
 
I saw on one of the map threads (with a pre-1000AD) a map that had the eight main islands of Hawaii split between two international powers (western four with a Byzantine Empire which was the hyperpower and the easter four with the Japanese).

I'm having problems with the plausibility of this. Oahu seems like the big prize due to its harbor and without Oahu, are the rest useful/defendable?

Big Island is the other real prize.
Hilo and Kona can be turned into fairly good harbors and it's large enough to maintain plantations.

Kaho'olawe is largely useless, and the other islands are too small to be really useful.
 
Once the Hawai'ians had unified themselves I find it harder to split them up by European colonial Powers. But if they had not unified themselves then it is possible for a split similar to the German and US division of Samoa, a unified kingdom but not as strong in my opinion as Hawai'i. Could see Britain take Oahu, the US the Big Island, France another island, Germany some western smaller islands just to satisfy their honor. This could affect the split of Samoa, the US, Britain, and Germany could all trade Hawai'ian claims for Samoan or vice versa, so Samoa may not look the same as OTL.
 
Only the US and the UK had any sort of influence or presence on Hawaii in the 19th century. Potentially some sort of split between the US and UK is possible, any other powers not at all. Additionally as noted Hawaii was a united country, I can't see the US and UK overtly taking it down and splitting it. The UK was not terribly pleased with the overthrow of the monarchy and the subsequent request by the new government to be annexed by the USA, but these islands were certainly more in the US sphere of influence rather than that of the UK and certainly not worth getting in to a fight about.
 
Only the US and the UK had any sort of influence or presence on Hawaii in the 19th century. Potentially some sort of split between the US and UK is possible, any other powers not at all. Additionally as noted Hawaii was a united country, I can't see the US and UK overtly taking it down and splitting it. The UK was not terribly pleased with the overthrow of the monarchy and the subsequent request by the new government to be annexed by the USA, but these islands were certainly more in the US sphere of influence rather than that of the UK and certainly not worth getting in to a fight about.
France had a presence there. They even invaded once. They even had warships around during the overthrow of the kingdom. Even Russia at one point had a fort/trading post there, 1700s I believe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Honolulu at least do a quick Google or do some Wikipedia investigating before coming to conclusions.
 
France had a presence there. They even invaded once. They even had warships around during the overthrow of the kingdom. Even Russia at one point had a fort/trading post there, 1700s I believe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Honolulu at least do a quick Google or do some Wikipedia investigating before coming to conclusions.

Early 1800's on the island of Kaua'i for the Russians.

Russia's "Presence" is heavily exaggerate and more importantly completely unsupported by the Tsar.

The French "Invasion" is likewise an overexaggerated and ultimately irrelevant incident.
 
My point was that by the 19th century only the USA and the UK had a serious presence in the Hawaiian Islands. The fact that France or Russia had brief forays really means very little unless you want to say that either would stake a claim there in the 18th or very early 19th century which would involve physically conquering the islands. The Swedes had more a presence in North America than France or Russia did in Hawaii. The US had a presence there from missionaries, merchants, and whalers. The British had a similar assortment, and additionally the British had a stronger naval presence at least for the first 2/3 of the 19th century.

If you are having a European power or powers taking over Hawaii before about 1820, France could be involved until the Napoleonic Wars, which would probably result in the islands being taken over by the UK. If Russia expands south from Alaska they might develop an interest in Hawaii before the Americans and British become predominate. Both are highly unlikely.
 
The Swedes had more a presence in North America than France or Russia did in Hawaii.

Amusingly, the Norwegians have a stronger presence in Hawaii than the Russians and French.

Vlademar Knudsen was a very successful plantation owner, Rancher and was nearly appointed to the House of Nobles in 1852.

At least one ship of workers was sent over in 1880, but they hated the conditions of their work and housing.
Most of them left, but some stayed behind.
 
Top