WI: Smarter African Colonialism?
- Thread starter Crying
- Start date
Well what if they'd continued that and there hadn't been a Scramble for Africa?
An interesting idea. Perhaps with less (direct) colonisation there'd be less tension between the European colonial powers, and hence big conflagrations like WW1 would be less likely.
Another thing: if these countries are ruled by client kings instead of being directly annexed they might be less likely to seek independence, since they'd presumably benefit in some ways from the status quo (protection against enemies, probably increased trade) without (as many of) the drawbacks of being ruled by a foreign country. I don't know whether this means they'd still be European protectorates in the present day; I could see it going either way, depending on which way the butterflies flap their wings.
Nope, colonisation, and the scramble in particular was devised as a way to keep French pride without wrecking too many shits on the continent.
After the 1871 defeat, it's very clear they needed to go abroad if they wanted to keep their status as a Great Power, or at least that's how they felt. No colonisation means a build up of pressure in France
Yeah, but at what cost to them?
Most African states in that period don't have the complexity and density to be like Thailand.
So either you're looking at Ethiopia, too poor and isolated to be bothered or China, which technically wasn't a colony.
Or third case, Tunisia which tried to reform but got taken over when they couldn't manage their debt (noting they did have a capable administration and got relatively unlucky)
If colonialism was not economically beneficial, would not the benefits to the economy of not having colonies outweigh the disadvantages (less prestige?)?
I'm speaking of the states in the African rainforest. The acephelous societies in Africa. There is a band from Southern Cameroon to the northern parts of both Congo-Kinshasa and Congo-Brazzaville with no tradition of state societies. These were raided for slaves throughout history.
The states I speak of are the state societies are more like the Yeke Kingdom and its leader Msiri, or long existing Sahel kingdoms which raided societies south of them like Wadai and Baguirmi.
In this case, Europeans will prop up states which already exist, but they will face issues in places where no state exists for them to prop up.
If people cared mainly about growing the economy, sure. But most people don't think like that, and are happy for the government to spend money to uphold the national honour. Plus, I'm not entirely sure it was obvious at the beginning of the Scramble that it wouldn't end up helping the colonising nations' economies.
So if Germany didn't annexe Alsace-Lorraine, would that be enough to stop the French picking on the Africans to make themselves feel better?
My question is, would there be a difference with OTL then? Those states would end up completely coopted, especially if they don't have the skills to exploit the resources on a large enough scale
Well, it's one theory. Africa is still right there with natural resources and not much in the way of organised resistance compared to the technology of Europe.
But my take on it would be "Pretty much yeah"
If France isn't slighted, less need to go there, so less need for the Brits to react to it and less incentives for the Germans to jump in and organise the Berlin conference...
On top of that, longer lived Napoleon III might see his project of Arab Kingdom in Algeria completed
Deleted member 67076
Africa would be much more developed today.
Native states nearby go empire building to take over non state societies and bring them into their orbit.
Its possible, although this depends more on if the Third Republic still forms and if the 1870s Depression is avoided rather than just A-L.
Why did they change from client states to direct colonization, and what can stop it?
The idea that controlling territory enhances a nations prestige. Really I think some of the blame can be laid on Napoleon who raised an entire generation with this notion
Deleted member 97083
Somehow, have the Franco-Prussian War turn into a long, gruelling war that destroys the economy of Prussia and France. The Paris Commune expands and begins to take over. Kulturkampf in Germany goes all wrong, and Catholic uprising occur in the south.
In unrelated events, Leopold II's scheme fails. Also Cecil Rhodes falls off a horse and dies.
France and Germany are distracted. No Scramble for Africa occurs.
Britain, with the strongest navy, claims all of Africa. Logistically, they can't conquer it all. They've also got the precedent of puppets in Egypt and South Africa (the Boer states). Their only competitor is Portugal.
There's no rush for them to directly conquer the territory they've claimed. France, distracted by communist revolution, can't do anything, and French Algeria is defenseless and underpopulated. The Ottomans rule Libya indirectly. Ethiopia is impossible to conquer. The French are not present in West Africa. Rhodes is dead. Leopold II failed.
From this point, the British can secure the coasts alone with naval bases, and then form a myriad of puppet states inland. Of the many West African civilizations, subsidize one or two of them as client states and allow them to conquer the rest. The Congo? Keep the Kingdom of Kongo intact, tax them instead of conquering them. Sudan? Let Egypt conquer it. Zanzibar? Make Oman a permanent vassal and rule it through them. Continue for the rest of Africa, forming local puppet kingdoms instead of directly conquering.
It's impossible to prevent the desire for territory, however, pragmatism can limit this to indirect rule if it's economically more sensible.
In unrelated events, Leopold II's scheme fails. Also Cecil Rhodes falls off a horse and dies.
France and Germany are distracted. No Scramble for Africa occurs.
Britain, with the strongest navy, claims all of Africa. Logistically, they can't conquer it all. They've also got the precedent of puppets in Egypt and South Africa (the Boer states). Their only competitor is Portugal.
There's no rush for them to directly conquer the territory they've claimed. France, distracted by communist revolution, can't do anything, and French Algeria is defenseless and underpopulated. The Ottomans rule Libya indirectly. Ethiopia is impossible to conquer. The French are not present in West Africa. Rhodes is dead. Leopold II failed.
From this point, the British can secure the coasts alone with naval bases, and then form a myriad of puppet states inland. Of the many West African civilizations, subsidize one or two of them as client states and allow them to conquer the rest. The Congo? Keep the Kingdom of Kongo intact, tax them instead of conquering them. Sudan? Let Egypt conquer it. Zanzibar? Make Oman a permanent vassal and rule it through them. Continue for the rest of Africa, forming local puppet kingdoms instead of directly conquering.
Napoleon didn't invent this. Not even the Classical world, the Ancient Romans or the Han Dynasty, invented this. No, the idea that controlling territory enhances your prestige goes back to the 3100 BC, with the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt as a source of prestige for the pharaoh. It independently became a common view in basically every sedentary, agricultural civilization, with the exception of a brief period in feudal Europe when everyone started subletting their kingdoms, and perhaps in Mesoamerica during some periods, which also had a feudal-esque system.
It's impossible to prevent the desire for territory, however, pragmatism can limit this to indirect rule if it's economically more sensible.
Um, France had a position in West Africa during this period, mostly in Senegal.
Deleted member 97083
Yeah, that's why I said the Paris Commune takes over. Communists aren't going to want to colonize Africa.
No of course Napoleon didn't invent this but he hyper charged that desire. An entire generation was raised with his conquests and it was a major criticism of the restored Bourbons that they were not adding new territory to France. Hence the 1830 invasion of Algeria