Why did the Scramble for Africa take so long, why wasn't it earlier?

RNG

Banned
Why did the Scramble for Africa take so long, why wasn't it earlier? What was the reason that it took so long? What factor need to change for it might to have been earlier? Was the size underestimated and so if it was mapped earlier it might colonised faster? What factors need to change for people to what to map it? Was it missionary that caused it to be mapped? If it was colonised earlier how might this change history? Would independence have been faster? What about slavery? If slavery was abolished long before America was established, what would America look like? Would the factors that lead up to the Civil War been avoided with the factor of slavery gone? How might America have been with no such war? America would of course have a much smaller black population, how might this change it's course? What you think?
 
Two factors:
(1) Tropical diseases
(2) See (1).

Once Europeans were able to survive in tropical Africa (well, higher likelihood of survival, anyway) the Scramble for Africa happened fairly quickly thereafter.
 
Two factors:
(1) Tropical diseases
(2) See (1).

Once Europeans were able to survive in tropical Africa (well, higher likelihood of survival, anyway) the Scramble for Africa happened fairly quickly thereafter.
This, plus Africa's natural resources were far less useful for Europeans before the industrial revolution.
 
What about 3) Slave exports and European technological shifts increasing the technical and resource disparity beyond pre-1900 or so levels? Along with I assume probably European efforts to weaken native industrialization?
 
Why did the Scramble for Africa take so long, why wasn't it earlier? What was the reason that it took so long? What factor need to change for it might to have been earlier? Was the size underestimated and so if it was mapped earlier it might colonised faster? What factors need to change for people to what to map it? Was it missionary that caused it to be mapped? If it was colonised earlier how might this change history? Would independence have been faster? What about slavery? If slavery was abolished long before America was established, what would America look like? Would the factors that lead up to the Civil War been avoided with the factor of slavery gone? How might America have been with no such war? America would of course have a much smaller black population, how might this change it's course? What you think?

Because outside a few coastal regions Africa was pretty worthless to the Europeans, the scrample was more a question of prestige and fear of the African interior becoming valuable in the future and fearing the other powers would gain from that.
 
Your slavery questions should be in a separate thread. I don't think an earlier scramble for Africa could possibly lead to slavery ending earlier. It would lead to access to more slaves.
 
Well if the Dutch had given a damn about settling the Cape, earlier discovery of diamonds and gold would probably convince other European powers that Africa was full of wealth
 
Two factors:
(1) Tropical diseases
(2) See (1).

Once Europeans were able to survive in tropical Africa (well, higher likelihood of survival, anyway) the Scramble for Africa happened fairly quickly thereafter.
You are underestimating the fighting capabilities of the people of Africa as well. You combine the two and it will take until the late 19th century for the Europeans to do what they did
 
Because outside a few coastal regions Africa was pretty worthless to the Europeans, the scrample was more a question of prestige and fear of the African interior becoming valuable in the future and fearing the other powers would gain from that.

But also the legitimate concern that other European powers would outflank their coastal trading and coaling stations. They needed a 'march', ideally with railroads, around them to make sure that they could be defended in wartime. They may have preferred to continue indirectly exploiting local trade through local alliances, but this couldn't last in the face of expertise transferring to the locals, and potential/inevitable fellow European encirclement.
 

Lusitania

Donor
We need to also understand the politics of 19th century. The British had control of the areas they were interested. The Portuguese the same but also had limited resources to expand their territory.

The emergence of United Germany and Italy led these two countries to attempt to increase their prestige. Germany especially wanted a colonial empire to rival British and France.

France having suffered repeated loses over the preceding 50 years including loss of war to Germany desired to paint the map blue. They took a huge portion of Africa but most of it was desert.

The Berlin conference was initiated by German desire to get foothold of Africa without needing to go to war to do so.

For us to have an earlier Scramble for Africa we need to have the right political desire to expand the various countries colonial empire. If Germany had not initiated the scramble for Africa we might of had an even later scramble.
 
Last edited:
We need to also understand the politics of 19th century. The British had control of the areas they were interested. The Portuguese sand and also had limited resources to expand their territory.

The emergence of United Germany and Italy led these two countries to attempt to increase their prestige. Germany especially wanted a colonial empire to rival British and France.

France having suffered repeated loses over the preceding 50 years including loss of war to Germany desired to paint the map blue. They took a huge portion of Africa but most of it was desert.

The Berlin conference was initiated by German desire to get foothold of Africa without needing to go to war to do so.

For us to have an earlier Scramble for Africa we need to have the right political desire to expand the various countries colonial empire. If Germany had not initiated the scramble for Africa we might of had an even later scramble.

Okay, so have Germany unite earlier and decide to get into the imperialism game earlier? Maybe have the US decide to get involved as well? Maybe the US developed a few coastal colonies during the heyday of the slave trade and hung on to them after the trans-Atlantic slave trend ends? Just spit balling...
 

Lusitania

Donor
Okay, so have Germany unite earlier and decide to get into the imperialism game earlier? Maybe have the US decide to get involved as well? Maybe the US developed a few coastal colonies during the heyday of the slave trade and hung on to them after the trans-Atlantic slave trend ends? Just spit balling...

For Germany to unite earlier you almost have to get rid of the Napoleonic wars and decisively weaken the Hapsburgs and Austria. It was their defeat at the hands of Prussia that allowed Prussia to unite all Germanies not under Hapsburg rule into Germany.

As for US,that would require a massive shift in American attitudes. America was anti colonial and for them to establish American colonies in Africa be completely against their moral standard. The US was also evenly split between slave states and non slave. To establish colonies in Africa would be opposed by half of US. The closest they came was the establishment of Liberia for freed Africans.

Plus Africa had no resources the US needed since at that time they had all the land and resources they needed.
 

RNG

Banned
For Germany to unite earlier you almost have to get rid of the Napoleonic wars and decisively weaken the Hapsburgs and Austria. It was their defeat at the hands of Prussia that allowed Prussia to unite all Germany not under Hapsburg rule into Germany.

As for US,that would require a massive shift in American attitudes. America was anti colonial and for them to establish American colonies in Africa be completely against their moral standard. The US was also evenly split between slave states and non slave. To establish colonies in Africa would be opposed by half of US. The closest they came was the establishment of Liberia for freed Africans.

Plus Africa had no resources the US needed since at that time they had all the land and resources they needed.
Perhaps the reason for the Napoleonic Wars not to happen is that the French never help the Americans in their fight for Independence. America loses to Britain. America then is a police state and mass executions of anti British rebels take place in America. French nobles convince King Louis XVI to impose a British style parliament so the nobles get more power, perhaps a slight armed rebellion takes place against him by nobles, or perhaps a smaller French revolution where they are easily destroyed yet cause the King fear. Anyway Napoleon never rises to power, the Napoleonic Wars never happen and German never unites, or perhaps they do yet Prussia is as powerful, perhaps a United Kingdoms of Germany with each Kingdom having a King or Duke or whatever. Perhaps Britain fear another war for independence and so quickly looks for other colonies for fear that they lose their one in America in the next war. And as Asia is far away Africa might have to fit for now. If this did happen, would their be another war, or would Britain be paranoid for no reason, if America did rise again what would a modern America look like without the Founding Fathers, would they be replaced or would America chose their own King or counsel of Kings or another governmental system altogether?
 
Last edited:

Ryan

Donor
the French never help the Americans in their fight for Independence. America then is a police state and mass executions of anti British rebels take place in America.

That doesn't follow. I'm pretty sure the general consensus is that if France didn't help the Americans then they wouldn't have been able to win their war of independence.
 
What about 3) Slave exports and European technological shifts increasing the technical and resource disparity beyond pre-1900 or so levels? Along with I assume probably European efforts to weaken native industrialization?

See the thing is that the Europeans actually gave up enslaving Africans for the most part after awhile. There were actually pacts signed with some African kingdoms that prevented them from doing so. While the Europeans could win land engagements, they needed friendly ports.

"Wait there was totally a slave trade"

Yes there was. The Europeans remembered that there were actually slavers in Africa who were enslaving... other people. And these guys did it without bother the locals. So the Europeans just purchased the slaves in bulk and brought them over. I didn't say the Europeans didn't take advantage of slavery, they just didn't grab people and made them slaves. The local slavers did the work of capturing and breaking the spirts and the Europeans were just the end consumer of this ghastly institution. I don't know why they didn't do that with the Ottomans who were enslaving people even faster than any of the West African kingdoms did, maybe the Ottomans were known for cheating them or something? Or maybe the slave trade was internal only.
 
Top