WI: Great Lakes of Africa region united?

The Great Lakes of Africa include many people speaking related languages, with similar lifestyles (historically) and cultures. Curiously, many of the ruling kingdoms there include reference to an "Empire of Kitara" in the past to legitimise themselves as descendents of this empire. It seems highly doubtful that an Empire of Kitara ever existed or was as prominent as the legends of it might seem to be.

So with this in mind, could any individual kingdom (Buganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Bunyoro, etc.) ever unite the region on their own with this shared culture and mythological background as a legitimising force? Would this take a "great person" to arise, an Alexander/Temujin of the Great Lakes or such? And ignoring the pre-colonial era, if the Great Lakes of Africa were colonised by one country (instead of being divided between Britain and Germany and later Britain and Belgium), could a movement develop for the region to unite as one country (presumably nowadays Uganda--possibly excluding the northern parts--Rwanda, Burundi, plus the Kagera Region of Tanzania at least) even if only by colonialist instigation?

Regarding the impact on history, a precolonial united state making up most of nowadays Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi with bits of Tanzania could be a powerful force that would be one of the last African states to be conquered by Europeans. With some luck and a skilled leader, it could hold off the European onslaught and never be colonised, in which case the development of the state would still be heavily influenced by what would go on in the neighbouring countries but with a very unique tone thanks to the circumstance of the state. In the worst case, a Derg-type regime might be able to come to power, but on the other hand, it could develop somewhat more positively. It would still be a landlocked country with a very high population density, which brings a unique set of challenges.

If colonised, and if the region holds together, I think much of the above would hold true, particularly if the precolonial monarchies are able to play a role in the modern state as they do in Uganda OTL. Colonialism will change the mindset, but the circumstance the country will find itself in remain very similar.
 

Deleted member 67076

A possible way this can be done by avoiding the collapse of the Omani-Zanzibari personal union (it only happened in the 1860s), as the Zanzibari were essentially working on conquering, the interior of the Great Lakes, settling the area, building infrastructure, creating large plantations of clove, nutmeg and a bit of sugar, and vassalizing native kingdoms.

Oman provides more manpower and capital, in addition to contacts with the rest of the Middle East that would allow for Arab settlement which would create an important merchant minority to glue the place together, economically speaking. Additionally, the greater influx of Islam would create another institution to hold the vast land.

Do that and avoid the 1870s Depression in Europe (the major impetus for the scramble for Africa and Africa's markets) and you'll buy enough time to cement Omani control of the Great Lakes into 1 country.
 
A possible way this can be done by avoiding the collapse of the Omani-Zanzibari personal union (it only happened in the 1860s), as the Zanzibari were essentially working on conquering, the interior of the Great Lakes, settling the area, building infrastructure, creating large plantations of clove, nutmeg and a bit of sugar, and vassalizing native kingdoms.

Oman provides more manpower and capital, in addition to contacts with the rest of the Middle East that would allow for Arab settlement which would create an important merchant minority to glue the place together, economically speaking. Additionally, the greater influx of Islam would create another institution to hold the vast land.

Do that and avoid the 1870s Depression in Europe (the major impetus for the scramble for Africa and Africa's markets) and you'll buy enough time to cement Omani control of the Great Lakes into 1 country.

Might it stick in the long run? The Zanzibari were pretty aggressive slave-traders, though they helped spread Swahili as a lingua franca deep into Africa. That makes them little better than the Europeans (I'm pretty sure the Africans subjected to them thought similar). Unlike the Europeans, the Zanzibari have less of an ability to control the "pace" of colonialism as Europe did when the Europeans largely abandoned their colonial empire with much less bloodshed than could've been. The Great Lakes (and Congo's Kivu region) to them are effectively like Algeria to France. Their actions could easily result in the Great Lakes fragmenting even more than it did OTL. All those monarchies in Uganda OTL could easily be their own states, and who knows what to do with the Luo peoples in the north of Uganda most akin to the South Sudanese (most infamously certain segments of the Acholi people and their Lord's Resistance Army).

Omani control is very difficult. Africa seems best to govern in the model of "federations", considering the ethnic diversity of the continent and lack of a state tradition in many places, and certainly the Omani were in the best position OTL of any non-European power to enforce this idea in East Africa (native African empires enforced this for centuries, including Kitara if in the unlikely circumstance they were a real empire) but they seem fragile in the long run.
 
I honestly believe Kitara or an empire like that existed but I'm also having to acknowledge such a conversation is dismissed because of its implications.
 

Deleted member 67076

Might it stick in the long run? The Zanzibari were pretty aggressive slave-traders, though they helped spread Swahili as a lingua franca deep into Africa. That makes them little better than the Europeans (I'm pretty sure the Africans subjected to them thought similar). Unlike the Europeans, the Zanzibari have less of an ability to control the "pace" of colonialism as Europe did when the Europeans largely abandoned their colonial empire with much less bloodshed than could've been. The Great Lakes (and Congo's Kivu region) to them are effectively like Algeria to France. Their actions could easily result in the Great Lakes fragmenting even more than it did OTL. All those monarchies in Uganda OTL could easily be their own states, and who knows what to do with the Luo peoples in the north of Uganda most akin to the South Sudanese (most infamously certain segments of the Acholi people and their Lord's Resistance Army).

Omani control is very difficult. Africa seems best to govern in the model of "federations", considering the ethnic diversity of the continent and lack of a state tradition in many places, and certainly the Omani were in the best position OTL of any non-European power to enforce this idea in East Africa (native African empires enforced this for centuries, including Kitara if in the unlikely circumstance they were a real empire) but they seem fragile in the long run.
This really depends on a number of factors, but I think the odds are fair for Omani control. For one, its not a state built on as much segregation as French Algeria was, and theres far more potential for natives to move up in the system. Second, it'll be a feudal state that largely preserves the state structures of native kingdoms (thus making them more willing to work within the system) because thats how the metropole worked back home.

Now Oman has the benefit that its dirt poor with plenty of contacts in the Middle East, so it shouldn't be difficult to obtain high levels of settlement. This means you'd quickly get a large ruling overclass of Arabs who play important commercial and administrative roles in linking the place together but it no matter what will still be small enough that it will need to recruit from natives. There's also, unlike in British East Africa a very strong system of patronage and intermarriage with local clans, which helps glue the frankly feudal administration together for allow the state to form and solidify. This will bite them later on as the state attempts to modernize, but its a great short term boost in an era of colonial competition. Its also very good for Arabization, and even today you have plenty of Zanzibaris and people of the Tanzanian coast primarily identifying as Arab or Persian.

The slavery will be bad, but its also going to be maintained and propagated by allied Islamizied clans and tribes who will be higher up on the totem pole than those unfortunate enough to not be. And also slavery's not going to last. Economic factors of boom and bust aside (because central Africa was subject to depopulation thanks to disease outbreaks during the late 1800s), there'll be immense pressure from Europeans to do away with it. Which Oman will probably cave in like everyone else did.

Direct Omani control is difficult, but frankly I think Oman will become a colony of Zanzibar rather than vice versa as time passes. They've at one point moved their capital to Zanzibar; throw in the loads of money they'll be making from clove, nutmeg, cinnamon, other spices, ranching, mining and shipping and its evident Zanzibar will be calling the shots soon. And unlike Portugal, the metropole isn't as important, which aids state cohesion.

So I think after 20 years or so of 'proper colonization' and this'll be Zanzibar with an Arabian province, not Oman with a vast East African hinterland.
 
I've been toying with the idea of the Buyid Dynasty extending down to Oman and the Indian Ocean. A developed region bounded by the Swahili Coast and the Great Lakes would be a nice trans oceanic trading partner.
 
Top