How to save these African states?

[Vinization]

Before the European conquest of almost all of Africa in the late 19th century, the continent was home to many different states. Some noteworthy ones include:

1. The Sultanate of Zanzibar, which ruled over the coast of what is now Tanzania and Kenya at its height and had vassals further inland. Its economy was highly dependent on slavery, and the country was eventually partitioned between Britain and Germany;
2. The Ashanti Empire, located in what is now Ghana. It clashed with Britain as early as the 1820s, and was eventually conquered in 1900. Could they inflict a conclusive defeat on the British during their first war, allowing the empire to keep control of its coastline?
3. The Sokoto Caliphate, which existed in what is now northern Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger and Burkina Faso. This was probably the biggest and most populous African state at the time of its existence, with a population of 30 million people. It was, from what little I've read about it so far, highly unstable as well.
4. The Toucouleur Empire, the youngest and shortest-lived of all the states on this list. Founded by Omar Tall on 1861, it was, according to its wikipedia article, plagued by infighting between Omar's relatives in the years that followed his death, and was conquered by the France in 1893.

Three of the four states listed above had Muslim rulers, so would it be plausible to assume that a stronger Ottoman Empire would benefit them? I could see Constantinople using them as proxies to further its own interests in Africa, so strengthening them could further that agenda.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Would vassal status meet the criteria? For example, supposing Britain secured recognition for pretty much the entire eastern shore of the continent between Mozambique and Somalia (ie no German East Africa)?

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Zanzibar was a independent country in 1964 but had a coup.

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

The Ashanti Empire, located in what is now Ghana. It clashed with Britain as early as the 1820s, and was eventually conquered in 1900. Could they inflict a conclusive defeat on the British during their first war, allowing the empire to keep control of its coastline?

The Ashanti had a bad case of most poorly-timed bad luck, in the first war at least. After the disaster at Nsamankow they had literally an incoming whole season of free hands over the British Gold Coast, but had to turn back due to army epidemics, such a chancey thing. The British weren't bent on reinforcing the colony anytime soon, neither, since the new governor had to raise an army of africans to defend Accra two years later, two years of possible reinforcements and nothing came, well, lucky were the british that two years of free hands for the Ashanti were denied by a seasonal epidemic.

 

[Vinization]

Would vassal status meet the criteria? For example, supposing Britain secured recognition for pretty much the entire eastern shore of the continent between Mozambique and Somalia (ie no German East Africa)?

Only if there's no other option.

The Ashanti had a bad case of most poorly-timed bad luck, in the first war at least. After the disaster at Nsamankow they had literally an incoming whole season of free hands over the British Gold Coast, but had to turn back due to army epidemics, such a chancey thing. The British weren't bent on reinforcing the colony anytime soon, neither, since the new governor had to raise an army of africans to defend Accra two years later, two years of possible reinforcements and nothing came, well, lucky were the british that two years of free hands for the Ashanti were denied by a seasonal epidemic.

Holy moly, that's the sort of stuff that would be decried as ASB if someone in this site wrote it. I suppose the Ashanti would have a better chance of modernizing if they consolidate their control over the coast, right? My guess is that they would have more access to foreign trade and technology that way.

 

[jacob ningen]

Only if there's no other option.


Holy moly, that's the sort of stuff that would be decried as ASB if someone in this site wrote it. I suppose the Ashanti would have a better chance of modernizing if they consolidate their control over the coast, right? My guess is that they would have more access to foreign trade and technology that way.

A good contender for a post to the what sounds like AH but isnt thread

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

I suppose the Ashanti would have a better chance of modernizing if they consolidate their control over the coast, right?

Surely, i mean, IOTL they were fairly modernized already, in the first anglo-ashanti war they had up-to-date muskets, suffered with ammunition issues but apparently nails were sufficiently effective, but with control over the euro-ports (considering that they probably would end up taking over the Dutch Gold Coast that IOTL went to the UK) it certainly would cease to be such a issue.

By the Golden Stool War (the last one), they were up-to-date enough militarily to fight the early 20th Century British army to a strategic standstill and, technically, a textbook "victory" (the war was fought over a british officer demanding to seat in the sacred Ashanti throne, yes, this is the golden stool, and the conclusion to the war was basically, well, Britain recognizing that it couldn't seat in the golden stool...) even with the factor that they had already submitted to the British 5 years earlier.

 

[Lalli]

1. The Sultanate of Zanzibar, which ruled over the coast of what is now Tanzania and Kenya at its height and had vassals further inland. Its economy was highly dependent on slavery, and the country was eventually partitioned between Britain and Germany;

Not really easy. It was going to be target of intrest of Europeans. But there is some options to keep Sultanate of Zanzibar arond to this day. Latest would be 1964 revolution being failure and monarchy remaining around.

1. The Ashanti Empire, located in what is now Ghana. It clashed with Britain as early as the 1820s, and was eventually conquered in 1900. Could they inflict a conclusive defeat on the British during their first war, allowing the empire to keep control of its coastline?

This seems bit hard. Probably best would be that when Ghana is decolonised, it becomes monarchy under Ashanti dynasty.

1. The Sokoto Caliphate, which existed in what is now northern Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger and Burkina Faso. This was probably the biggest and most populous African state at the time of its existence, with a population of 30 million people. It was, from what little I've read about it so far, highly unstable as well.

Not sure could this even survive.

1. The Toucouleur Empire, the youngest and shortest-lived of all the states on this list. Founded by Omar Tall on 1861, it was, according to its wikipedia article, plagued by infighting between Omar's relatives in the years that followed his death, and was conquered by the France in 1893.

Might be even harder to save than Sokoto Caliphate.

Three of the four states listed above had Muslim rulers, so would it be plausible to assume that a stronger Ottoman Empire would benefit them? I could see Constantinople using them as proxies to further its own interests in Africa, so strengthening them could further that agenda.

I doubt that. You would need much stronger Ottoman Empire.

 

[Evil Crusader]

The biggest hurdle is the matter of slavery, that pits most of them against Britain, and which if removed greatly destabilises those realms by taking off a chunk of their income. If they find a way to not become dependent on the slave trade, especially Ashanti has a chance to pull off a Thailand and simply play off France and the UK to preserve a reasonable degree of independence. It's a complex tightrope to walk, though, as some dumb people would certainly overestimate their ability to manipulate the Euros and/or fight them off and may well be more successful in their efforts if the power imbalance is less steep.

 

[Warthog]

The Sokoto Caliphate, which existed in what is now northern Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger and Burkina Faso. This was probably the biggest and most populous African state at the time of its existence, with a population of 30 million people. It was, from what little I've read about it so far, highly unstable as well.

Malê Rising is worth reading (very very worth reading anyway) but is relevant in this context

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

Before the European conquest of almost all of Africa in the late 19th century, the continent was home to many different states. Some noteworthy ones include:

1. The Sultanate of Zanzibar, which ruled over the coast of what is now Tanzania and Kenya at its height and had vassals further inland. Its economy was highly dependent on slavery, and the country was eventually partitioned between Britain and Germany;
2. The Ashanti Empire, located in what is now Ghana. It clashed with Britain as early as the 1820s, and was eventually conquered in 1900. Could they inflict a conclusive defeat on the British during their first war, allowing the empire to keep control of its coastline?
3. The Sokoto Caliphate, which existed in what is now northern Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger and Burkina Faso. This was probably the biggest and most populous African state at the time of its existence, with a population of 30 million people. It was, from what little I've read about it so far, highly unstable as well.
4. The Toucouleur Empire, the youngest and shortest-lived of all the states on this list. Founded by Omar Tall on 1861, it was, according to its wikipedia article, plagued by infighting between Omar's relatives in the years that followed his death, and was conquered by the France in 1893.

Three of the four states listed above had Muslim rulers, so would it be plausible to assume that a stronger Ottoman Empire would benefit them? I could see Constantinople using them as proxies to further its own interests in Africa, so strengthening them could further that agenda.

All of them are hard to save.

 

[traminer]

I’ve been reading loads about nations from the Senegal river through Cameroon (it gets much harder to find info east of the Cameroon line), as I’m about to situate a timeline there (17th century).

Geography and succession are of massive importance. The bigger the empire, the more consequential any arguments over succession.

As for Geography, if you go north far enough, you’re in camel power territory. Then in the Sahel and south of it, the ranges of forests and tsetse flies decide whether you’re in horse territory or no-horse-territory.

Salt comes from further inland, and before the Portuguese came, gold was easy to get for salt at the coast. An inland empire that really consolidated the salt trade would have a good window of opportunity to survive far inland (say, around Djenné or Tombouctou and well-spread out).

Move the European discovery of the plant that eventually yielded quinine far into the future, or don’t have quinine made from it at all, and you will see Europeans keep dying at phenomenal rates in Africa, nerfing the scramble for Africa. Disease-resistant creoles around European trading posts might rise to become so vital to trade with Africa that they become the ruling class of empires built on integrating trade from inland to the ports.