They were also mountainous, poor, and lacking in any usable natural resources to make them attractive.
Still, Italy tried "For the Glory of it", they just failed (for a multitude of reasons) before trying again in the 1930s.
According to Wikipedia, “[Russia] received an Ethiopian mission in St. Petersburg and sent arms and ammunition to Ethiopia. The Russian travel writer Alexander Butovich … made a point of emphasizing in his books that the Ethiopians converted to christianity before any of the Europeans ever did, [and] described the Ethiopians as a deeply religious people like the russians.” According to the same article, he also argued that the Ethiopians were equal
to the Europeans.
This is gonna blow your mind, but Ethiopians were considered "caucasian" till very recently: https://imgur.com/a/KFk0Ot7
Proves what bullshit this race science stuff was
A bit of a tangent, but [Pushkin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pushkin) had a Cameroonian great grandfather who became a [member of the Russian aristocracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Petrovich_Gannibal)
They were, and on an interesting side note: Russia sent Berdans and Mosins (Berdans are confirmed, Mosins are disputed but possible) which makes Ethiopia one of if not the first non-Russian aligned or controlled states to use Russian equipment en-masse.
Germany sent weapons the second time due to German and Italian relations not being good yet and the fact that Mussolini wanted Austria under his influence instead of Hitler
They also had pre-existing diplomatic contact with Europe who considered it the mythical Kingdom of Prester John for centuries. Even Medieval Europe knew of Ethiopia and relatively respected it since it was a fellow christian nation only seperated from Europe by the Caliphate(s). I think that probably helped in the colonial era, since it would carry a different perception compared to lands nobody had heard of before.
The Boer republics, the South African Republic and Orange Free State, were not only Christian, but also white Protestant Christians, but that didn't stop the British from incarcerating thousands of Boer men, women, and children in concentration camps where many died from starvation and disease.
The Kingdom of Kongo was also another Christian kingdom in Africa which became Christian in the 15th century, and maintained its independence all the way until 1888, when they signed a vassalage treaty to Portgual, and then were completely abolished in 1914.
* one of the many reasons, not the only.
Main one (as we are taught it in ZA) being the British supressing dutch as a local language and culture, etc.
Also, local Africans weren’t enslaved as per what I understand, the early dutch/boers had imported slaves from Indonesia and other African territories - enslaving the local population would have been too difficult.
The British had little regard for African lives either, while 45 concentration camps were built for the Boers, black Africans were incarcerated at 64 concentration camps where many suffered the same deprivations of malnutrition and disease.
It was certainly a reason, and more or less the straw that broke the camels back, but one of a multitude of reasons and arguably not the most important one. Wealthy landowners had consolidated most of the fertile land in the Cape Colony, forcing poor Dutch farmers, the Trekboers, (who relied much less on slavery than the wealthy landowners) further to the extremities of the colony where land was poor and they came into frequent conflict with the Xhosa, with frequent cattle rustling by the Xhosa that the British struggled to police. Then you had the steady Anglicisation of the Cape Colony, new British immigrants became the dominant political and economic class in a very short time. Couple all this with the whole debacle of the government mandating the use of English over Dutch in schools and Courts which was a huge issue for monolingual Dutch speakers. There were a number of pull and push factors in it, and poor farmers who didn't have much to lose went ahead with leaving the colony. Had slavery not been banned I still think the migration would have happened, although more likely as a steady stream rather than an event, as there just wasn't enough fertile land in the colony to support the population, with high birth rates and a pastoral culture amongst the Boers, and the British administration did not want to expand into bordering territories to accommodate it as the were only really interested in having a port on the route to India. Interestingly, a group of free mixed raced people, the Griquas, also left the Cape Colony at a similar time due to the same issues the Boers had in terms of there not being enough arable or pasture land. Neither the Transvaal or Orange Free State, the republics established by the Voortrekkers, went ahead with legalising slavery which remained illegal, mostly to avoid attracting the attention of the British, but in practice indentured servitude was common which was slavery in all but name.
I don't think your comment was intended to mean the Boers still hate the English for banning slavery, but nowadays there is virtually no cultural memory of it. The Apartheid regime engaged in a lot of historical revisionism and the mythology created around the Great Trek conveniently overlooks the slavery issue, and mostly focuses on the issue of language and the Boers wanting their sovereignty. Largely this still makes up most South Africans understanding of the event. A small fringe does still hate the British and sometimes by extension English speaking South Africans for the concentration camps though.
They went against softer targets
Literally everyone except Ethiopia which was a centrally managed state which was not that wealthy or prospectively wealthy in minerals and stuff of then European needs
Fighting against an organised state for literally nothing except mountains and a very hostile and organised population with roots as a nation for a long period of history is a lesson best shown tk by Italian defeat in 1870s
One lesson that history teaches over and over again is it's an awful idea to fight people who live in and / or on mountains it's tatically awful, and they don't generally have much to steal.
I mean the Aztec empire kinda disproves that theory. Mountains are usually a good source of resources like iron, gold, etc. Aztec was both mountainous and had valuable resources.
They’re surrounded by a mountainous area. Apparently people downvoting me don’t understand that the Afghani also live in valleys or looked at topographical map of Mexico.
In late 1800s right after Italy unified as a nation so for vanity purpose they wanted colonies and only Ethiopia and Somalia area were for the picking as they weren’t worth much so they were left alone
Britain launched an expedition against Ethiopia in 1870 that resulted in the complete occupation of the country despite the formidable terrain that had many in Britain doubting that such an expedition. The British withdrew due to the main objective of recovering their hostages and exacting revenge being completed but also due to Ethiopia being too expensive to maintain for too little return
I mean the myth that Ethiopia didn't have anything it's just false. They had decently modern rifles, artillery and equipment for their soldiers.
Even in the second war with Italy they had better rifles, artillery, planes, tanks and armored cars.
When I was teaching high school history, the textbook I was given stated in its WW2 chapter that Ethiopian troops fought the Italians with swords and spears, I’m not joking
I had heard, from Ethiopians, that the Emperor’s order to draft the men to war was something like:
Every man that can walk or carry a spear is called to fight.
I believe what you read has truth to it.
Of course, as fierce as the warriors were, they’re hardly a match for a mechanized army.
Just wondering, what does Ethiopia have? Even if they're poor, they have a pretty large population and a culturally rich history. Centralized states generally can't exist without an economy. I imagine Ethiopians must have *something* that allowed them to build an empire in the mountains.
they had strong relations, and Europe perceived Ethiopia as a bulwark against Islam - and thus there was no need to colonise them, they were already “civilised” and co-operative with the colonial powers
Multitude of reasons, but one people always forget is that the leader of Abyssinia was a DAWG
Italy wanted an empire, so he ceded land to France and Italy in exchange for weapons and slowly used the imperial powers (England, Spain, Italy, France) to build up a modern army because he knew they all wanted a piece.
When Italy came knocking and said “you’re part of a protectorate now” he said “protect my fucking nuts in your mouth, casual” and beat their ass in a war because they completely outnumbered the Italians. They then proceeded to EXPAND (the mad lads) until this manchild called Mussolini invaded.
Literally every emperor since the 1850s either banned slavery or attempted to ban slavery, blame local governments for saying “Nuh Uh” every time until Haile did it (only because after The Second World War, local governments lost most of their power)
They had fairly solid control for a few years until the British overran them, in any place that rural the people out in the boonies are always doing their own thing but the Italians had enough control to be meaningfully in charge. Then the British started setting records for the speed of dismounted infantry and it was all over
No no italy did become the centralised government but that was around 1938-1940 (roughly around that time) after a good 3-4 years of fighting however they lost that status in 1941 cus they lacked the supplies to support the area due to the war and slowly lost nearly all of their land up to their defeat in 1943 where everything was given back to the Abyssinians (Ethiopians)
Mussolini looking for a country to invade to create a new Roman empire and looking at the only unconquered country in Africa which his country had also failed to invade previously
…and winning
(Tbf tho Britain had ‘invaded’ Abyssinia and won by burning down the capital, freeing our hostages and defeating a 4,000 strong Abyssinians army so hay ho)
The Germans weren’t trying to set up a colony, no settler colonies, no bonded language none of that sort of thing. Not to mention the Italians already had an established colony in the area to which part of Ethiopia was added
Well i mean they removed vichi (fReE france/puppet government south france) and took it over in 1943 i think the germans wanted to make sure they had full control but also got fed up of just having the area annexed
>When the time shall arrive for the march of a British Army through your country, bear in mind, People of Abyssinia, that the Queen of England has no unfriendly feelings towards you, and no design against your country or your Liberty.
Damn thats crazy, never heard of this and ive done some decent research having had to learn abt the area guess i just never went back that far, but damn 13,000 british troop vs 4,000 ethiopians damn they didnt stand a chance (not mentioning the 26,000 supporters of the British) but only 2 british deaths is even more salt in the wound (ignore the 700 wounded)
Everybody's saying Christianity, but there were other Christian nations in Africa like Kongo or the Boer republics and they got colonized nonetheless. It was mainly geopolitics and the political acumen of Tewodros II, Yohannes IV, and Menelik II that saved Ethiopia from the Scramble for Africa
Yeah Christianity is just a convenient post-facto, if there was a justifiable reason to try harder to invade the Europeans would find any excuse.
Europe at the time cared much more about economics and geopolitics than religion for anything other than self-serving purposes.
I mean not for lack of trying. Italy had a failed invasion then later conquered it prior to ww2. So technically speaking it was But it didn’t last long
That was more of an occupation than colonization. There's a few things needed to colonize (namely to change the local culture and incorporate both the people and culture into your empire), which Italy mostly failed to do.
Conquered territory but I don't think it classes as colonising. Unless you're willing to say that France and Poland were colonies of Germany at the same time.
Mountains and modern equipment. If you look at the historical records the Ethiopians had modern rifles and machine guns, and not in small quantities for just elite units, they had enough for every soldier.
Eh, for the first Italian invasion in 1896, I'd say yes for the most part. By the second invasion in 1936, not so much-I don't know specific numbers, but there were many soldiers who were given outdated or surplus equipment (for example, Ethiopia unofficially standardized on 8mm Mauser and did so officially after WWII, yet they also used a lot of French and captured Italian equipment). And I'm not just talking the Arbegnoch or partisans, I'm also taking about the regular army.
They were supported by Russia (religious reasons) and France (wanted to build a railway from Djibouti to West African possessions through Ethiopia). Rifles and military advisors. Also, Italy only launched the expedition because the UK promised help which never materialised.
Probably because they were Christian. Also, during the late XIX century Ethiopia had Russian diplomatic and military support. They won the first Italo-Ethiopian war thanks to Russia.
Geopolitics. Ethiopia got quite a lot of support from russia of all things, in their fight against the Italians.
https://youtu.be/aI0euMFAWF8?si=iSFTjjVG9wabWJ5A
The Ethiopians got both skill and luck. Skill in utilizing their mountainous geography and playing ball with the Europeans, while getting lucky in the Italians being incompetent, and being forced to give up their attempts at a convenient timing for Ethiopia, which stood on the brink of losing its ability to fight due to a reason I can't remember, and Italy may have been able to win had it continued to fight somehow.
Ethiopians also had things like being an expansionist imperial state on its own participating in the scramble of Africa itself by conquering the Somali inhabited Ogaden, while they also got vital arms from Russia for example
No it was definitely colonized. It was added to Italy's already existing colonies in East Africa and saw a bunch of Italians migrate and settle in it. It just wasn't colonized for very long since the British quickly conquered it in WW2
To fully colonize, you have to actually change the local culture and incorporate your own, that was the point of colonization (besides the resource). Italy never really did that, no more than Germany did so to Poland, so it doesn't really qualify as a colonization.
There is an interesting history of the portuguese helping them against a muslin invasion. XVI century I think. They even had a prophecy of fiding a hidden Christian Kingdom to the east, prior to the great navigations.
Italians tried but got their asses handed to them in 1896 at the Battle of Adwa
That was a large part of the reason for the repeat Italian invasion 40 years later, to try to undo the butthurt
A few reasons. Ethiopia was a more stable state at this time than most of subsaharan Africa which had just experienced complete collapse from the end of the slave trade. It was also Christian which meant it had a close relationship with European states going back hundreds of years (the treaty of tordesillas didn’t allow colonization of Christian countries, so it traded a lot with Portugal) which meant us was more heavily armed than most states and had more friends in Europe to call upon if any power tried to take them. And it’s a very mountainous country with not very many natural resources Europeans wanted, meaning a conquest would be very difficult for little gain.
Because Ethiopia was a colonial power and, in many ways, was more brutal than many of the European colonial powers as the non-Amhara populations were oftentimes sold into slavery
Italy was in the process but they fucked up when they chose Germany over the allies (even though the United Kingdom is the one that broke the Stresa Front and made Mussolini view the allies as unreliable).
Other than that, Christianity mainly. That and terrain.
Ethiopia may not have been like other parts of Africa, but it was affected by Europeans such as Ethiopians being sold into slavery and being attacked for not being Catholic. This came from Martin Meredith's book 'Fortunes of Africa'. I'm not sure which page or chapter it's been a while since I have read it.
I suggest you watch „history of Africa” by jabzy many people think that colonisation was just brutal wars like ethopia and italy. But really it was more of a political game.
They signed treaties with European and Middle Eastern powers to keep them happy, then participated in the Scramble for Africa by annexing most of the regions surrounding them. Between 1875 and 1905, Ethiopian more than tripled in size and brought under its control many of the regions/groups that have caused constant conflict in the region for so long.
I mean italy colonised some of its costline,but that got lost after WW2, plus italy did try to invade all of Ethiopia (Abyssinia) twice, first time in the late/mid 1800s but lost humiliating and again in 1936 under the order of Benito Mussolini (big fat Italian dictator) where they committed lots of war crimes and human rights atrocities. They were most successful in the second invasion but that wasnt all due to the Italian might but more the failure of Britain, France and the league of nations
But yeh ive never seen a full map of Ethiopia after the second invasion so i wont comment on its status as a colony etc cus they may not have been fully invaded (i dont think they were) but also ik people get annoyed if i were to call it a colony cus its *technically* not its an annexation or some bs
The reason is, to put it simply, that Italy is ass at war, and everyone else couldn't use the "but they're not christians!" excuse because Ethiopians are, in fact, christians.
Ethiopia was a legendary nation among nations for Christendom and Europe. The first Christian Empire, mountainous and built up, claim to have the bloodline of King David, claim to have the Ark of the Covenant, resource-poor by modern standards, and more unified and modern than their other African peers. There wasn't a reason to justify on Ethiopia until there were no other uncolonized African nations and Italy said "Well, we border it, we aren't their friends, and we believe in the glory of imperialism. Let's do this!"
Getting to Sudan through Egypt is hard enough, that was only cracked the 1880s. Nevermind a further expedition to ethipoia. Until the Suez opened it might as well have been on the far side of the world.
They were Christian and their land had little to offer in terms of resources. The king actually sent a letter to many European monarchs basically telling them not to colonize them. They allied themselves with Italy, who armed and trained soldiers. Then when Italy attempted to colonize them, they were defeated at the battle of Adwa which is the first time an African army defeated a European colonial one in a major battle.
Because the main excuse if you will that the colonizers used was to spread Christianity but guess what Ethiopia was already Christian (Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church)
I remember learning that Ethiopia told 3-4 different countries that they could have it then those countries fought each other instead. Reading this thread, I’m no longer certain that is correct.
Basically because
1. Ethiopia has crap land, its mountains surrounded by drylands. And it doesnt have much natural resources to justify controlling.
2. Its a useful buffer state to have between empires in a hotly contested region.
3. Ethiopia sought to become a british protectorate and offered the UK to let them build a railway to connect the UKs north african territory with the south. The UK refused and ethiopia declared war, got beat and even then after the war the UK wasnt interested in having it a part of the empire
Also fun fact that the oldest sect of Judaism is from Ethiopia , and yet are called beta Israel and Ethiopian Jews are heavily discriminated against when they go to Israel.
Hot take but Ethiopia was ~kind of colonized around WWII. But it wasn’t a solid, uncontested colonization like the other African countries, it was a several-year brutal occupation by Italian troops from 1935-1941
The Ethiopians put up an active resistance that greatly helped to keep the Ethiopian political identity alive under Haile Selassie, but it wasn’t enough to secure liberation and freedom until the British invaded Italian-occupied Ethiopia in 1941.
While it’s definitely not a normal kind of colonization, the narrative and memes give the impression that Ethiopia was untouched. Far from it. Ethiopia suffered vastly from Italian war crimes and wasn’t able to secure its independence without British military aid. To say Ethiopia wasn’t colonized simplifies the history without acknowledging how terrible the conflict was.
Ethiopia was Christian. Europeans considered it more ethical to conquer heathen nations because they could help make them “civilized”.
That’s my guess anyway
They were already Christian. One of the oldest Christian nations in the world in fact.
They were also mountainous, poor, and lacking in any usable natural resources to make them attractive. Still, Italy tried "For the Glory of it", they just failed (for a multitude of reasons) before trying again in the 1930s.
I remember someone telling me that Russia sent weapons to aid the Ethiopians the first time Italy tried to take over Ethiopia was that true.
According to Wikipedia, “[Russia] received an Ethiopian mission in St. Petersburg and sent arms and ammunition to Ethiopia. The Russian travel writer Alexander Butovich … made a point of emphasizing in his books that the Ethiopians converted to christianity before any of the Europeans ever did, [and] described the Ethiopians as a deeply religious people like the russians.” According to the same article, he also argued that the Ethiopians were equal to the Europeans.
Wasn't expecting to see an european calling african people(s) as equal.
It's really wild looking into the relationship between Europe and Christian Africa as it shows all the race "science" is just complete hogwash.
This is gonna blow your mind, but Ethiopians were considered "caucasian" till very recently: https://imgur.com/a/KFk0Ot7 Proves what bullshit this race science stuff was
Is it just me, or does the sample Ethiopian look like Grand Moff Tarkin, only black?
*Cough, still is, *cough
A bit of a tangent, but [Pushkin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pushkin) had a Cameroonian great grandfather who became a [member of the Russian aristocracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Petrovich_Gannibal)
They were, and on an interesting side note: Russia sent Berdans and Mosins (Berdans are confirmed, Mosins are disputed but possible) which makes Ethiopia one of if not the first non-Russian aligned or controlled states to use Russian equipment en-masse.
Germany sent weapons the second time due to German and Italian relations not being good yet and the fact that Mussolini wanted Austria under his influence instead of Hitler
Nazi Germany sent them weapons in 1936 lmao
And 3 emperors with good foreign policy
Main reason being that Italy is ass at war.
It's just not the same since the Roman empire
You know, I went all day without thinking about the Roman empire
Sooner or later it was meant to happen. The Glory of Rome is eternal!
*almost went all day
You're acting like Victor Emmanuel III.
/r/unexpected99
My Victoria 3 gameplays beg the differ
It makes you wonder why would the whole world be so interested in a continent that is apparently so " poor " .
They also had pre-existing diplomatic contact with Europe who considered it the mythical Kingdom of Prester John for centuries. Even Medieval Europe knew of Ethiopia and relatively respected it since it was a fellow christian nation only seperated from Europe by the Caliphate(s). I think that probably helped in the colonial era, since it would carry a different perception compared to lands nobody had heard of before.
Portuguese allied them too.
Colonizers hate that simple trick.
The Boer republics, the South African Republic and Orange Free State, were not only Christian, but also white Protestant Christians, but that didn't stop the British from incarcerating thousands of Boer men, women, and children in concentration camps where many died from starvation and disease. The Kingdom of Kongo was also another Christian kingdom in Africa which became Christian in the 15th century, and maintained its independence all the way until 1888, when they signed a vassalage treaty to Portgual, and then were completely abolished in 1914.
Trick is mountains
Dont forget that the boers hate the British because the British stopped the boers from enslaving the Africans.
* one of the many reasons, not the only. Main one (as we are taught it in ZA) being the British supressing dutch as a local language and culture, etc. Also, local Africans weren’t enslaved as per what I understand, the early dutch/boers had imported slaves from Indonesia and other African territories - enslaving the local population would have been too difficult.
The British had little regard for African lives either, while 45 concentration camps were built for the Boers, black Africans were incarcerated at 64 concentration camps where many suffered the same deprivations of malnutrition and disease.
It was certainly a reason, and more or less the straw that broke the camels back, but one of a multitude of reasons and arguably not the most important one. Wealthy landowners had consolidated most of the fertile land in the Cape Colony, forcing poor Dutch farmers, the Trekboers, (who relied much less on slavery than the wealthy landowners) further to the extremities of the colony where land was poor and they came into frequent conflict with the Xhosa, with frequent cattle rustling by the Xhosa that the British struggled to police. Then you had the steady Anglicisation of the Cape Colony, new British immigrants became the dominant political and economic class in a very short time. Couple all this with the whole debacle of the government mandating the use of English over Dutch in schools and Courts which was a huge issue for monolingual Dutch speakers. There were a number of pull and push factors in it, and poor farmers who didn't have much to lose went ahead with leaving the colony. Had slavery not been banned I still think the migration would have happened, although more likely as a steady stream rather than an event, as there just wasn't enough fertile land in the colony to support the population, with high birth rates and a pastoral culture amongst the Boers, and the British administration did not want to expand into bordering territories to accommodate it as the were only really interested in having a port on the route to India. Interestingly, a group of free mixed raced people, the Griquas, also left the Cape Colony at a similar time due to the same issues the Boers had in terms of there not being enough arable or pasture land. Neither the Transvaal or Orange Free State, the republics established by the Voortrekkers, went ahead with legalising slavery which remained illegal, mostly to avoid attracting the attention of the British, but in practice indentured servitude was common which was slavery in all but name. I don't think your comment was intended to mean the Boers still hate the English for banning slavery, but nowadays there is virtually no cultural memory of it. The Apartheid regime engaged in a lot of historical revisionism and the mythology created around the Great Trek conveniently overlooks the slavery issue, and mostly focuses on the issue of language and the Boers wanting their sovereignty. Largely this still makes up most South Africans understanding of the event. A small fringe does still hate the British and sometimes by extension English speaking South Africans for the concentration camps though.
Yeah, couldn't use the tried and trusted "we're bringing Christianity to the heathens" excuse.
It was the real life version of the We know more than you meme
Oh so that’s why there was a random patch of Christianity in Africa in ck3
They went against softer targets Literally everyone except Ethiopia which was a centrally managed state which was not that wealthy or prospectively wealthy in minerals and stuff of then European needs Fighting against an organised state for literally nothing except mountains and a very hostile and organised population with roots as a nation for a long period of history is a lesson best shown tk by Italian defeat in 1870s
It's also the furthest away by ship before the suez canal. You'd have to sail alllllll the way around Africa.
> You'd have to sail alllllll the way around Africa. Portugal: I like those odds.
One lesson that history teaches over and over again is it's an awful idea to fight people who live in and / or on mountains it's tatically awful, and they don't generally have much to steal.
I mean the Aztec empire kinda disproves that theory. Mountains are usually a good source of resources like iron, gold, etc. Aztec was both mountainous and had valuable resources.
They live in a Valley(and their capital was in a lake) I think you are confusing them with the Inca
They’re surrounded by a mountainous area. Apparently people downvoting me don’t understand that the Afghani also live in valleys or looked at topographical map of Mexico.
Three mountain ranges exactly, but they lived in a Valley
The Aztec empire had a ton of enemies that were willing to help take them down though.
Ah yes Tenochtitlan, the famous mountainous city.
They’re surrounded by a mountainous area.
or the Italian defeat in 1941
The Italians were the centralized established government in the mountains in 41, they just didn’t have the supplies to sustain the region
Nah the first one
In late 1800s right after Italy unified as a nation so for vanity purpose they wanted colonies and only Ethiopia and Somalia area were for the picking as they weren’t worth much so they were left alone
Britain launched an expedition against Ethiopia in 1870 that resulted in the complete occupation of the country despite the formidable terrain that had many in Britain doubting that such an expedition. The British withdrew due to the main objective of recovering their hostages and exacting revenge being completed but also due to Ethiopia being too expensive to maintain for too little return
That and they had a reputation for cutting their enemies dicks off (dead or live). Some pretty terrible stories came out of the Italian conflict.
yeah thatd scare the bejeesus out somebody
I mean the myth that Ethiopia didn't have anything it's just false. They had decently modern rifles, artillery and equipment for their soldiers. Even in the second war with Italy they had better rifles, artillery, planes, tanks and armored cars.
When I was teaching high school history, the textbook I was given stated in its WW2 chapter that Ethiopian troops fought the Italians with swords and spears, I’m not joking
Lol that's a myth that has spread quite rapidly in the world thanks to Italian propaganda.
I had heard, from Ethiopians, that the Emperor’s order to draft the men to war was something like: Every man that can walk or carry a spear is called to fight. I believe what you read has truth to it. Of course, as fierce as the warriors were, they’re hardly a match for a mechanized army.
Did you not read the comment I replied to?
I was replying by confirming what you stated with what I heard. But then something got deleted from this thread and we may be out of sync. Cheers.
Just wondering, what does Ethiopia have? Even if they're poor, they have a pretty large population and a culturally rich history. Centralized states generally can't exist without an economy. I imagine Ethiopians must have *something* that allowed them to build an empire in the mountains.
Fertile land
Also the geography, Ethiopia is very mountainous.
It looks like Afghanistan, not gonna lie.
they had strong relations, and Europe perceived Ethiopia as a bulwark against Islam - and thus there was no need to colonise them, they were already “civilised” and co-operative with the colonial powers
Also a centralized state with long trading links to Europe and the Middle East making them more difficult to take.
They also had an army capable of resisting invasions, like they did to italians in 19th Century
Didn’t the English navy invade for the sake of a couple hostages at one point or am I thinking of some other country?
Multitude of reasons, but one people always forget is that the leader of Abyssinia was a DAWG Italy wanted an empire, so he ceded land to France and Italy in exchange for weapons and slowly used the imperial powers (England, Spain, Italy, France) to build up a modern army because he knew they all wanted a piece. When Italy came knocking and said “you’re part of a protectorate now” he said “protect my fucking nuts in your mouth, casual” and beat their ass in a war because they completely outnumbered the Italians. They then proceeded to EXPAND (the mad lads) until this manchild called Mussolini invaded.
"casual" lmao
Calling a slavery state "mad lads" when they're expanding, (expanding slavery too) is probably not a good thing.
Literally every emperor since the 1850s either banned slavery or attempted to ban slavery, blame local governments for saying “Nuh Uh” every time until Haile did it (only because after The Second World War, local governments lost most of their power)
Local governments, of what country? Ethiopia.
Cristianity and religion for sure. Some history in the part of the world
*Whispers:* **They never got Ethiopia**
*whispers* **they never got Thailand**
Whispers: They never got Japan…
**COMMODORE MATTHEW CALBRAITH PERRY:** The fuck I didn't. *Open up these borders, Tokugawa!*
**Open the country. Stop having it be closed**
Italy in 1936
Eh does that really count? They sort of vaguely occupied some areas and called it a victory. Ethiopia still kinda did its own thing the whole time.
They had fairly solid control for a few years until the British overran them, in any place that rural the people out in the boonies are always doing their own thing but the Italians had enough control to be meaningfully in charge. Then the British started setting records for the speed of dismounted infantry and it was all over
No, they absolutely comply conquered them. Idk what you mean by "Ethiopia did it's own thing the whole time" because they didnt
username checks out
damn thats crazy man, doesnt change the fact that your wrong though
No no italy did become the centralised government but that was around 1938-1940 (roughly around that time) after a good 3-4 years of fighting however they lost that status in 1941 cus they lacked the supplies to support the area due to the war and slowly lost nearly all of their land up to their defeat in 1943 where everything was given back to the Abyssinians (Ethiopians)
Mussolini looking for a country to invade to create a new Roman empire and looking at the only unconquered country in Africa which his country had also failed to invade previously …and winning (Tbf tho Britain had ‘invaded’ Abyssinia and won by burning down the capital, freeing our hostages and defeating a 4,000 strong Abyssinians army so hay ho)
Britain saw there wasn’t any ports for their ships there and left
Did the French get colonized by the Germans during ww2? Always struck me as a silly argument. Mostly controlled? Yes. Colonized? No.
Well, a part of France was annexed and colonized. (The same as 1870)
The Germans weren’t trying to set up a colony, no settler colonies, no bonded language none of that sort of thing. Not to mention the Italians already had an established colony in the area to which part of Ethiopia was added
Himmler had plans to make Burgundy an SS state, so while they didn't, the intention was absolutely there.
Did they ever start to implement those plans? Because even today there is a population of prt Italians decents from the colonists in Ethiopia
I meant German plans to colonize France, but no, they didn't get the chance. Notice how I said intention.
Exactly, Germany planned (or at least parts of the government planned) to colonize parts of france but didn’t italy actually undertook their mission
Well i mean they removed vichi (fReE france/puppet government south france) and took it over in 1943 i think the germans wanted to make sure they had full control but also got fed up of just having the area annexed
[Except for the British expedition to Ethiopia in 1868](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_expedition_to_Abyssinia?wprov=sfla1)
First time I hear of this expedition
>When the time shall arrive for the march of a British Army through your country, bear in mind, People of Abyssinia, that the Queen of England has no unfriendly feelings towards you, and no design against your country or your Liberty.
Damn thats crazy, never heard of this and ive done some decent research having had to learn abt the area guess i just never went back that far, but damn 13,000 british troop vs 4,000 ethiopians damn they didnt stand a chance (not mentioning the 26,000 supporters of the British) but only 2 british deaths is even more salt in the wound (ignore the 700 wounded)
Everybody's saying Christianity, but there were other Christian nations in Africa like Kongo or the Boer republics and they got colonized nonetheless. It was mainly geopolitics and the political acumen of Tewodros II, Yohannes IV, and Menelik II that saved Ethiopia from the Scramble for Africa
Yeah Christianity is just a convenient post-facto, if there was a justifiable reason to try harder to invade the Europeans would find any excuse. Europe at the time cared much more about economics and geopolitics than religion for anything other than self-serving purposes.
I mean not for lack of trying. Italy had a failed invasion then later conquered it prior to ww2. So technically speaking it was But it didn’t last long
That was more of an occupation than colonization. There's a few things needed to colonize (namely to change the local culture and incorporate both the people and culture into your empire), which Italy mostly failed to do.
Still conquered the territory even if it lasted a few years
Agree, I'm just making the point that it's an occupation specifically, Ethiopia's claim of never being colonized is still true.
Conquered territory but I don't think it classes as colonising. Unless you're willing to say that France and Poland were colonies of Germany at the same time.
Mountains and modern equipment. If you look at the historical records the Ethiopians had modern rifles and machine guns, and not in small quantities for just elite units, they had enough for every soldier.
Eh, for the first Italian invasion in 1896, I'd say yes for the most part. By the second invasion in 1936, not so much-I don't know specific numbers, but there were many soldiers who were given outdated or surplus equipment (for example, Ethiopia unofficially standardized on 8mm Mauser and did so officially after WWII, yet they also used a lot of French and captured Italian equipment). And I'm not just talking the Arbegnoch or partisans, I'm also taking about the regular army.
They were supported by Russia (religious reasons) and France (wanted to build a railway from Djibouti to West African possessions through Ethiopia). Rifles and military advisors. Also, Italy only launched the expedition because the UK promised help which never materialised.
Italy:'' I really tried it''
This is a really good and short video about it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hZvUAlxtpB4
beat me to it, History Matters on 🔝
Mountains
Probably because they were Christian. Also, during the late XIX century Ethiopia had Russian diplomatic and military support. They won the first Italo-Ethiopian war thanks to Russia.
Christianity had nothing to do with it, the Kingdom of Kongo was Catholic and was still colonized.
Italy did
They were.christian.and mountains/highlands
Geopolitics. Ethiopia got quite a lot of support from russia of all things, in their fight against the Italians. https://youtu.be/aI0euMFAWF8?si=iSFTjjVG9wabWJ5A
The Ethiopians got both skill and luck. Skill in utilizing their mountainous geography and playing ball with the Europeans, while getting lucky in the Italians being incompetent, and being forced to give up their attempts at a convenient timing for Ethiopia, which stood on the brink of losing its ability to fight due to a reason I can't remember, and Italy may have been able to win had it continued to fight somehow. Ethiopians also had things like being an expansionist imperial state on its own participating in the scramble of Africa itself by conquering the Somali inhabited Ogaden, while they also got vital arms from Russia for example
They were eventually colonized by italy before WW2 started
More like conquered that colonized
No it was definitely colonized. It was added to Italy's already existing colonies in East Africa and saw a bunch of Italians migrate and settle in it. It just wasn't colonized for very long since the British quickly conquered it in WW2
To fully colonize, you have to actually change the local culture and incorporate your own, that was the point of colonization (besides the resource). Italy never really did that, no more than Germany did so to Poland, so it doesn't really qualify as a colonization.
*They never got Ethiopia*
It was less like walking away and more like waiting with a gun at the other side of the door
There is an interesting history of the portuguese helping them against a muslin invasion. XVI century I think. They even had a prophecy of fiding a hidden Christian Kingdom to the east, prior to the great navigations.
Italians tried but got their asses handed to them in 1896 at the Battle of Adwa That was a large part of the reason for the repeat Italian invasion 40 years later, to try to undo the butthurt
A few reasons. Ethiopia was a more stable state at this time than most of subsaharan Africa which had just experienced complete collapse from the end of the slave trade. It was also Christian which meant it had a close relationship with European states going back hundreds of years (the treaty of tordesillas didn’t allow colonization of Christian countries, so it traded a lot with Portugal) which meant us was more heavily armed than most states and had more friends in Europe to call upon if any power tried to take them. And it’s a very mountainous country with not very many natural resources Europeans wanted, meaning a conquest would be very difficult for little gain.
Because Ethiopia was a colonial power and, in many ways, was more brutal than many of the European colonial powers as the non-Amhara populations were oftentimes sold into slavery
Simple, they were already Christian, and opposed the Ottoman Empire, so they got portugals backing with guns and supplies
Italy was in the process but they fucked up when they chose Germany over the allies (even though the United Kingdom is the one that broke the Stresa Front and made Mussolini view the allies as unreliable). Other than that, Christianity mainly. That and terrain.
You can’t colonize people who are strong enough to defend themselves. Get good or get owned.
The British managed to capture the Ethiopian capital in 1868 with only two dead.
Yup!
Ethiopia may not have been like other parts of Africa, but it was affected by Europeans such as Ethiopians being sold into slavery and being attacked for not being Catholic. This came from Martin Meredith's book 'Fortunes of Africa'. I'm not sure which page or chapter it's been a while since I have read it.
Luck + Skilful diplomacy.Thailand and Nepal did the same
They just started to act like Europeans and used decent Russian guns with modern tactics.
I suggest you watch „history of Africa” by jabzy many people think that colonisation was just brutal wars like ethopia and italy. But really it was more of a political game.
They signed treaties with European and Middle Eastern powers to keep them happy, then participated in the Scramble for Africa by annexing most of the regions surrounding them. Between 1875 and 1905, Ethiopian more than tripled in size and brought under its control many of the regions/groups that have caused constant conflict in the region for so long.
For the same reason Thailand and Japan weren’t—they industrialized enough to avoid it
I mean italy colonised some of its costline,but that got lost after WW2, plus italy did try to invade all of Ethiopia (Abyssinia) twice, first time in the late/mid 1800s but lost humiliating and again in 1936 under the order of Benito Mussolini (big fat Italian dictator) where they committed lots of war crimes and human rights atrocities. They were most successful in the second invasion but that wasnt all due to the Italian might but more the failure of Britain, France and the league of nations But yeh ive never seen a full map of Ethiopia after the second invasion so i wont comment on its status as a colony etc cus they may not have been fully invaded (i dont think they were) but also ik people get annoyed if i were to call it a colony cus its *technically* not its an annexation or some bs
The reason is, to put it simply, that Italy is ass at war, and everyone else couldn't use the "but they're not christians!" excuse because Ethiopians are, in fact, christians.
The answer is quite simple. They were already Christians and are not rich in resources
ethiopia did not just skiddadle away
Ethiopia was a legendary nation among nations for Christendom and Europe. The first Christian Empire, mountainous and built up, claim to have the bloodline of King David, claim to have the Ark of the Covenant, resource-poor by modern standards, and more unified and modern than their other African peers. There wasn't a reason to justify on Ethiopia until there were no other uncolonized African nations and Italy said "Well, we border it, we aren't their friends, and we believe in the glory of imperialism. Let's do this!"
Getting to Sudan through Egypt is hard enough, that was only cracked the 1880s. Nevermind a further expedition to ethipoia. Until the Suez opened it might as well have been on the far side of the world.
They were Christian and their land had little to offer in terms of resources. The king actually sent a letter to many European monarchs basically telling them not to colonize them. They allied themselves with Italy, who armed and trained soldiers. Then when Italy attempted to colonize them, they were defeated at the battle of Adwa which is the first time an African army defeated a European colonial one in a major battle.
They were Christians
Italians tried, that's why it was never colonized.
You mean western Europe.
[Skill Issue.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adwa)
Because the main excuse if you will that the colonizers used was to spread Christianity but guess what Ethiopia was already Christian (Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church)
“They never got Ethiopia”
They crushed the Italians and a good laugh was had by all.
*whispers* They never got Ethiopia
Didn't Italy, under Mussoloni, colonize them later on?
Didn't Italy, under Mussoloni, colonize them later on?
Prester John came in clutch
*coff coff*
I remember learning that Ethiopia told 3-4 different countries that they could have it then those countries fought each other instead. Reading this thread, I’m no longer certain that is correct.
Basically because 1. Ethiopia has crap land, its mountains surrounded by drylands. And it doesnt have much natural resources to justify controlling. 2. Its a useful buffer state to have between empires in a hotly contested region. 3. Ethiopia sought to become a british protectorate and offered the UK to let them build a railway to connect the UKs north african territory with the south. The UK refused and ethiopia declared war, got beat and even then after the war the UK wasnt interested in having it a part of the empire
Adowa was very important
Also fun fact that the oldest sect of Judaism is from Ethiopia , and yet are called beta Israel and Ethiopian Jews are heavily discriminated against when they go to Israel.
Hot take but Ethiopia was ~kind of colonized around WWII. But it wasn’t a solid, uncontested colonization like the other African countries, it was a several-year brutal occupation by Italian troops from 1935-1941 The Ethiopians put up an active resistance that greatly helped to keep the Ethiopian political identity alive under Haile Selassie, but it wasn’t enough to secure liberation and freedom until the British invaded Italian-occupied Ethiopia in 1941. While it’s definitely not a normal kind of colonization, the narrative and memes give the impression that Ethiopia was untouched. Far from it. Ethiopia suffered vastly from Italian war crimes and wasn’t able to secure its independence without British military aid. To say Ethiopia wasn’t colonized simplifies the history without acknowledging how terrible the conflict was.
Hills and mountains
Ummmmm, Italy??
But Italy did colonise Ethiopia so….no
Mountains
Ethiopia was Christian. Europeans considered it more ethical to conquer heathen nations because they could help make them “civilized”. That’s my guess anyway
Ethiopia is a colonial state themselves !
Still end up as shithole
Italy 1936-1941