No Scramble for Africa - State System

[Beatriz]

Reading GURPS Cornwallis, I noticed that the authors said there is little interest in Africa after the abolition of the slave trade, and colonial expansion outside of French Algeria, British Cape, Angola, Mozambique and Spanish Morocco is none-existent.

The native states use European weaponry to essentially do a scramble on the continent, partitioning it into two-dozen or so states. There are mentions of adventurers and missionaries but no impact by the Five Thrones-Dominate (revolutionary dictatorship) struggle.

Outside of this specific scenario, to what extent would native african polities without a Scramble tie themselves into the wider geopolitical and economic systems?

@Jonathan Edelstein

 

[Warthog]

Interesting question.

The grossly oversimplified summary in Southern Africa is that most states were less interested in direct control of territory than in control of trade.

So a surviving Rozvi Kingdom, for example, would have maintained a watchful peace with occasionally clashes vs Ingombe Ilende, the bamaNgwato and so on, while perhaps pushing against the Portuguese if they felt strong enough.

This is all before the great changes in what is now KZN at the first decades of the 19th century: the lack of land for growth, the strong military power of even the defeated groups and their movements across the subcontinent. But even there, the more successful like Mzilikazi or Soshangane sought conquest for the purpose of a new homeland to settle, they did not seek to build empires away from the lands now settled by "their" people. So the question would be the motive to involve themselves into the wider geopolitical and economic systems?

Of course, if one polity were to do so, others would need to follow if they were in conflict with each other?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

IIRC, the last "king of the Kongo" was only deposed in the 19th century, but pretty much anything would be better than Léopold.

It could be interesting to see a multi-polar Africa:

Kongo and Rovzi both had Portuguese support/recognition (until they didn't). The Kongo even had papal accreditation IIRC, making it the only nation in Africa (aside from Ethiopia) to have that prerogative.
The Ashanti in west Africa IIRC were pro-British (until they weren't)
The Zulus were basically the main British ally in Southern Africa, the remainder of the tribes were a species of "allied" or "friendly" with the Boer Republics. The British usually sided with the Zulus because AFAIK the Xhosa (who were anti-British) were caught between the Cape and the Zulus (enemy of my enemy).

Afraid I don't know enough about the rest of Africa aside from this, but it is an interesting thought as to how Africa would develop in this scenario

 

[traminer]

My own small-but-growing knowledge in this space is mostly a century too early for this discussion.

The Kingdoms of the Zaire/Congo basin generally lasted longer and had significant influence later on the further inland they were. The Lunda Empire somewhat bridged between the Congo-basin kingdoms west of it and the peoples and kingdoms east and southeast of the Great Lakes region.

In a scenario of Africans carving out their own borders freer of European interference, my questions would be these:

1. Even as transatlantic slavery winds down, how long does transIndian slavery remain just as relevant? And though it was less horrific and some African societies (notably Kongo) railed against the Atlantic slave trade, how would intra-African slave trading change? My guess is rather unevenly.
2. How would trade and politics each affect what linguas francas become most used in these kingdoms? Lingala or Swahili in the centre seem likely. Portuguese or a Portuguese/Bantu creole might still dominate in Angola.
3. Would the European (especially Portuguese) love of settling offshore islands as trading posts become a stronger trend, the better to facilitate or influence trade with the mainland nations?
4. What would be the divides, diplomatically, politically and economically, between African nations that "use European weaponry" and those that make nice with Europeans to make equivalent weaponry locally?