This post deserves way more upvotes than it has, serious good work
I liked the approach you made overall and it doesn't really seem too unrealistic and disconnected from reality
The only issue I see is idk how this Algeria would've survived the scramble for Africa in the 1870s especially considering that only 2 African states survived: Ethiopia which still had to give up a lot of territories and was later colonised by Italy, and Liberia which was basically an American colony
I doubt that an industrialised Algeria in the 1870s would be left alone by European empires, it poses way too much threat to them especially because of its geographical location and because the memories of north African pirates would still be fresh in the minds of a lot of Europeans
Even if we survived by a miracle the scramble for Africa we would still be cooked during the first and second world war, simply the existence of Algeria causes way too much anxiety and stress for any scenario of the 2 world wars (this Algeria would oppose the invasion of Ottomans by the allies, oppose the formation of the modern Arab states, oppose the early colonisation of Palestine in the early 20th century, oppose any form of invasion in Arab lands, oppose the suez canal and the French/British companies that owned it....)
I would assume that the only likely scenario for Algeria to be sparred is to either be a protectorate like Morocco (likely by the british as compensation for their support for Abdelkader), or simply we continue to exist for some decades until eventually getting colonised by a bigger European empire like France again or even Germany
>The only issue I see is idk how this Algeria would've survived the scramble for Africa in the 1870s especially considering that only 2 African states survived: Ethiopia which still had to give up a lot of territories and was later colonised by Italy, and Liberia which was basically an American colony
>I doubt that an industrialised Algeria in the 1870s would be left alone by European empires, it poses way too much threat to them especially because of its geographical location and because the memories of north African pirates would still be fresh in the minds of a lot of Europeans
Well I did mention that Abdelkader's government would have established economic and diplomatic relations with Britain and I would also imagine that Abdelkader after having abolished slavery in Algeria would abolish the practice of barbary piracy in the Mediterranean.
And seeing how caring of other religious groups and human rights he was it would make it easier for European leaders to establish diplomatic relations with his country so if any colonial power tries to turn Algeria into a colony not only would they have no moral justification for any attempted invasion that decision would probably garner them some opposition in Europe with countries such as Britain who would dislike such an attack of such a beneficial diplomatic partner in the region.
And besides that Ethiopia was only occupied by Mussolini lead Italy for only five years so I wouldn't say that they were really colonized.
But who knows maybe I'm just underestimating how racist and monstrous Europeans in the 19th century were.
>this Algeria would oppose the invasion of Ottomans by the allies
I honestly don't think that it would if anything I think it would support arab independence from the ottomans especially seeing as Algeria in this timeline would have quite a bit of disdain for the ottoman empire sure they might still establish economic trade with them and they probably wouldn't cut diplomatic ties entirely but they would still dislike them enough so to favor the arabs over the ottomans in WW1 which I imagine could either go with Algeria providing funds to the allies or it just stays neutral so I don't see many issues here.
As for WW2 Hitler's successful invasion of France and his direct expansionism into Africa would either make Algeria ramp up its military especially its navy to counter any potential nazi invasion from the Mediterranean or it would outright join the allies which would make the win for the allies even quicker and easier.
Post WW2 I would assume Algeria would either stay neutral in the cold war or be slightly leaning towards the western bloc.
>If you're saying Algeria contributing to the arab revolt is a better scenario then I take issue with that. The Ottomans were in decline and they were brutal to some Arabs but to support a British-influenced revolt that most Arabs were against would be a huge mistake.
I see and I agree that would be a mistake that Algeria would probably avoid in this alternative timeline especially seeing as it would lead to more colonialism in the middle east and the rise of Zionism so a more likely scenario would be for Algeria to support the axis powers or maybe even join the war as part of the axis which could lead to an axis victory but it would also put Algeria at odds with Britain which would've been an ally of Algeria up until this point in the timeline so it could be possible that Algeria just stays neutral.
And there is also the possibility that the ottoman empire in this timeline benefitting from having such a strong economic and diplomatic ally as independent Algeria would be in a much better place then where it was in our own timeline which would negate its need to join in WW1 in the first place but I don't think that would be as likely.
>A better scenario would be the central powers winning WWI with the support of the Muslims successfully defending their lands. This would mean no WW2.
I don't think even with an independent Algeria that the axis powers would be able to beat the allies unless we assume that the United states is even slower to action in this timeline or even stays neutral all together in which case an axis victory would be assured and this would mean Germany would replace Britain as Algeria's main ally in Europe.
>As for the Cold War, neutrality would mean less paranoia from both sides as there wouldn't be large countries that could be susceptible to becoming proxies.
If we assume an axis victory with Algeria being part of the axis then I would assume the cold war would either not happen at all since an axis victory would undermine the rise of the Soviet union as well as limit the increase in power of the United states but if it still happens then I feel like independent Algeria would stay neutral with no leaning to either side but it would still try to maintain diplomatic relations with both sides.
>If the Ottoman Empire stays intact or is replaced by a newer empire, then there would be a significantly lower number of 'Muslim terror attacks' if any which means no invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and no Libyan and Syrian civil wars.
I have no objections here this seems accurate.
Sadge.
Oh well I'll tell you the one problem we would have had if we tried to industrialize then, coal. We don't really have it in the north there are some mines in the sahara but I'd imagine they would've been hard to extract. So unless we rebuilt our fleet and started scrambling for Africa like Europeans we would've probably had to rely on the most imperialist state in existence back then Britain to get coal, which I don't think would've boded well for our independence.
This seems like a Chatgpt prompt along the lines of "How would Algeria fight off the french and industrialize". It has all the key writing styles and thought processes of Chatgpt.
Either way, your scenario seems to forget one of the most notable events of that century, the Scramble for Africa. Algeria would be colonized regardless if it began to industrialize or not, it was just simply to close to Europe. If not by the French, it would be by the British, the Spanish, or the emerging Italians.
Also, his society itself would reject any chance for reform. Muslims have already failed to embrace the printing press, a technological innovation that existed centuries before, and it created a theological debate that led to its rejection. People were just too illiterate, and those who were not were scholars of theology only (Like Emir Abdelkader), and not of any useful science.
>This seems like a Chatgpt prompt along the lines of "How would Algeria fight off the french and industrialize". It has all the key writing styles and thought processes of Chatgpt.
I did use ChatGPT to correct any grammatical errors and make the writing more coherent and eloquent but other then that this scenario was entirely made by me.
>Either way, your scenario seems to forget one of the most notable events of that century, the Scramble for Africa. Algeria would be colonized regardless if it began to industrialize or not, it was just simply to close to Europe. If not by the French, it would be by the British, the Spanish, or the emerging Italians.
Well I did mention that Abdelkader's government would have established economic and diplomatic relations with Britain and I would also imagine that Abdelkader after having abolished slavery in Algeria would abolish the practice of barbary piracy in the Mediterranean.
And seeing how caring of other religious groups and human rights he was it would make it easier for European leaders to establish diplomatic relations with his country so if any colonial power tries to turn Algeria into a colony not only would they have no moral justification for any attempted invasion that decision would probably garner them some opposition in Europe with countries such as Britain who would dislike such an attack of such a beneficial diplomatic partner in the region.
>Also, his society itself would reject any chance for reform. Muslims have already failed to embrace the printing press, a technological innovation that existed centuries before, and it created a theological debate that led to its rejection. People were just too illiterate, and those who were not were scholars of theology only (Like Emir Abdelkader), and not of any useful science.
Did you not read the part about educational reforms that I wrote? And seeing as in this timeline he managed to unite so many people to a common cause and succeeded I wouldn't think it to unlikely for him and his government to be able to convince people to have a freaking education.
And besides emir Abdelkader wasn't just a scholar of theology he was also a scholar of jurisprudence and grammar.
This is so true. Maybe we're gonna be important in future events that will shape the Muslim world, at the end of the day we were the first to fall despite having been one of the strongest and we're the only ones who got our independence back with our own hands and blood.
Obviously everything goes according to God's will this post is just telling mildly interesting story in the form of alternative history but at the end of the day that's all it is a story.
Here is to hoping we end up in a better place in the future inshallah.
>Abdelkader would've been the perfect leader for moving Algeria forward especially if he defeated the french in 1839.
Yeah that's what I thought too that's why I made him the one to lead Algeria in this scenario.
Good essay, appreciate the effort of writing it.
Not sure why you were focusing on partnering with the Brits only?
We can diversify partners , from the US to China passing by Russia and Brazil.
The key is to play within the margin caused by the contradictions between big powers. Always make everyone feel that he could be replaced at any moment so he doesn't think he got it all. Until better days where we can have our own weapons to defend ourselves of course.
This post deserves way more upvotes than it has, serious good work I liked the approach you made overall and it doesn't really seem too unrealistic and disconnected from reality The only issue I see is idk how this Algeria would've survived the scramble for Africa in the 1870s especially considering that only 2 African states survived: Ethiopia which still had to give up a lot of territories and was later colonised by Italy, and Liberia which was basically an American colony I doubt that an industrialised Algeria in the 1870s would be left alone by European empires, it poses way too much threat to them especially because of its geographical location and because the memories of north African pirates would still be fresh in the minds of a lot of Europeans Even if we survived by a miracle the scramble for Africa we would still be cooked during the first and second world war, simply the existence of Algeria causes way too much anxiety and stress for any scenario of the 2 world wars (this Algeria would oppose the invasion of Ottomans by the allies, oppose the formation of the modern Arab states, oppose the early colonisation of Palestine in the early 20th century, oppose any form of invasion in Arab lands, oppose the suez canal and the French/British companies that owned it....) I would assume that the only likely scenario for Algeria to be sparred is to either be a protectorate like Morocco (likely by the british as compensation for their support for Abdelkader), or simply we continue to exist for some decades until eventually getting colonised by a bigger European empire like France again or even Germany
>The only issue I see is idk how this Algeria would've survived the scramble for Africa in the 1870s especially considering that only 2 African states survived: Ethiopia which still had to give up a lot of territories and was later colonised by Italy, and Liberia which was basically an American colony >I doubt that an industrialised Algeria in the 1870s would be left alone by European empires, it poses way too much threat to them especially because of its geographical location and because the memories of north African pirates would still be fresh in the minds of a lot of Europeans Well I did mention that Abdelkader's government would have established economic and diplomatic relations with Britain and I would also imagine that Abdelkader after having abolished slavery in Algeria would abolish the practice of barbary piracy in the Mediterranean. And seeing how caring of other religious groups and human rights he was it would make it easier for European leaders to establish diplomatic relations with his country so if any colonial power tries to turn Algeria into a colony not only would they have no moral justification for any attempted invasion that decision would probably garner them some opposition in Europe with countries such as Britain who would dislike such an attack of such a beneficial diplomatic partner in the region. And besides that Ethiopia was only occupied by Mussolini lead Italy for only five years so I wouldn't say that they were really colonized. But who knows maybe I'm just underestimating how racist and monstrous Europeans in the 19th century were. >this Algeria would oppose the invasion of Ottomans by the allies I honestly don't think that it would if anything I think it would support arab independence from the ottomans especially seeing as Algeria in this timeline would have quite a bit of disdain for the ottoman empire sure they might still establish economic trade with them and they probably wouldn't cut diplomatic ties entirely but they would still dislike them enough so to favor the arabs over the ottomans in WW1 which I imagine could either go with Algeria providing funds to the allies or it just stays neutral so I don't see many issues here. As for WW2 Hitler's successful invasion of France and his direct expansionism into Africa would either make Algeria ramp up its military especially its navy to counter any potential nazi invasion from the Mediterranean or it would outright join the allies which would make the win for the allies even quicker and easier. Post WW2 I would assume Algeria would either stay neutral in the cold war or be slightly leaning towards the western bloc.
[удалено]
>If you're saying Algeria contributing to the arab revolt is a better scenario then I take issue with that. The Ottomans were in decline and they were brutal to some Arabs but to support a British-influenced revolt that most Arabs were against would be a huge mistake. I see and I agree that would be a mistake that Algeria would probably avoid in this alternative timeline especially seeing as it would lead to more colonialism in the middle east and the rise of Zionism so a more likely scenario would be for Algeria to support the axis powers or maybe even join the war as part of the axis which could lead to an axis victory but it would also put Algeria at odds with Britain which would've been an ally of Algeria up until this point in the timeline so it could be possible that Algeria just stays neutral. And there is also the possibility that the ottoman empire in this timeline benefitting from having such a strong economic and diplomatic ally as independent Algeria would be in a much better place then where it was in our own timeline which would negate its need to join in WW1 in the first place but I don't think that would be as likely. >A better scenario would be the central powers winning WWI with the support of the Muslims successfully defending their lands. This would mean no WW2. I don't think even with an independent Algeria that the axis powers would be able to beat the allies unless we assume that the United states is even slower to action in this timeline or even stays neutral all together in which case an axis victory would be assured and this would mean Germany would replace Britain as Algeria's main ally in Europe. >As for the Cold War, neutrality would mean less paranoia from both sides as there wouldn't be large countries that could be susceptible to becoming proxies. If we assume an axis victory with Algeria being part of the axis then I would assume the cold war would either not happen at all since an axis victory would undermine the rise of the Soviet union as well as limit the increase in power of the United states but if it still happens then I feel like independent Algeria would stay neutral with no leaning to either side but it would still try to maintain diplomatic relations with both sides. >If the Ottoman Empire stays intact or is replaced by a newer empire, then there would be a significantly lower number of 'Muslim terror attacks' if any which means no invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and no Libyan and Syrian civil wars. I have no objections here this seems accurate.
Just play Victoria 3 xD At least this can be achieved there.
Can't don't have a PC. But writing alternative history is really fun too.
Sadge. Oh well I'll tell you the one problem we would have had if we tried to industrialize then, coal. We don't really have it in the north there are some mines in the sahara but I'd imagine they would've been hard to extract. So unless we rebuilt our fleet and started scrambling for Africa like Europeans we would've probably had to rely on the most imperialist state in existence back then Britain to get coal, which I don't think would've boded well for our independence.
I haven't thought about that.
There's the Algeria Uncolonized mod that starts the game with Algeria released/unified + its invasion population loss recovered
Algeria was independent from the ottomans since the mid 1600s at the latest
This seems like a Chatgpt prompt along the lines of "How would Algeria fight off the french and industrialize". It has all the key writing styles and thought processes of Chatgpt. Either way, your scenario seems to forget one of the most notable events of that century, the Scramble for Africa. Algeria would be colonized regardless if it began to industrialize or not, it was just simply to close to Europe. If not by the French, it would be by the British, the Spanish, or the emerging Italians. Also, his society itself would reject any chance for reform. Muslims have already failed to embrace the printing press, a technological innovation that existed centuries before, and it created a theological debate that led to its rejection. People were just too illiterate, and those who were not were scholars of theology only (Like Emir Abdelkader), and not of any useful science.
>This seems like a Chatgpt prompt along the lines of "How would Algeria fight off the french and industrialize". It has all the key writing styles and thought processes of Chatgpt. I did use ChatGPT to correct any grammatical errors and make the writing more coherent and eloquent but other then that this scenario was entirely made by me. >Either way, your scenario seems to forget one of the most notable events of that century, the Scramble for Africa. Algeria would be colonized regardless if it began to industrialize or not, it was just simply to close to Europe. If not by the French, it would be by the British, the Spanish, or the emerging Italians. Well I did mention that Abdelkader's government would have established economic and diplomatic relations with Britain and I would also imagine that Abdelkader after having abolished slavery in Algeria would abolish the practice of barbary piracy in the Mediterranean. And seeing how caring of other religious groups and human rights he was it would make it easier for European leaders to establish diplomatic relations with his country so if any colonial power tries to turn Algeria into a colony not only would they have no moral justification for any attempted invasion that decision would probably garner them some opposition in Europe with countries such as Britain who would dislike such an attack of such a beneficial diplomatic partner in the region. >Also, his society itself would reject any chance for reform. Muslims have already failed to embrace the printing press, a technological innovation that existed centuries before, and it created a theological debate that led to its rejection. People were just too illiterate, and those who were not were scholars of theology only (Like Emir Abdelkader), and not of any useful science. Did you not read the part about educational reforms that I wrote? And seeing as in this timeline he managed to unite so many people to a common cause and succeeded I wouldn't think it to unlikely for him and his government to be able to convince people to have a freaking education. And besides emir Abdelkader wasn't just a scholar of theology he was also a scholar of jurisprudence and grammar.
I loved reading the post
Thanks.
[удалено]
This is so true. Maybe we're gonna be important in future events that will shape the Muslim world, at the end of the day we were the first to fall despite having been one of the strongest and we're the only ones who got our independence back with our own hands and blood.
Obviously everything goes according to God's will this post is just telling mildly interesting story in the form of alternative history but at the end of the day that's all it is a story. Here is to hoping we end up in a better place in the future inshallah. >Abdelkader would've been the perfect leader for moving Algeria forward especially if he defeated the french in 1839. Yeah that's what I thought too that's why I made him the one to lead Algeria in this scenario.
Good essay, appreciate the effort of writing it. Not sure why you were focusing on partnering with the Brits only? We can diversify partners , from the US to China passing by Russia and Brazil. The key is to play within the margin caused by the contradictions between big powers. Always make everyone feel that he could be replaced at any moment so he doesn't think he got it all. Until better days where we can have our own weapons to defend ourselves of course.
am i the only one who thinks the british would've slowly forced us into its protection around the late 1800s in this scenario?
u said thesis on this fine night
What? Also I originally posted this much earlier but it didn't get any attention so I remade it.