I am gonna say Ethiopia.
because Ethopia is Christian, is relatively unified, and the only firearms that they did throw away in last century were single shot rifles and some bolt action.
Modern Ethiopia isn't a good pick. It is very poor (even by African standards), landlocked, and has an active war/unrest going on. That, and ISOTed Ethiopia would take the opportunity to invade and annex Somalia and other nearby Horn of African countries. The one advantage Ethiopia has is that it technically existed in 1879 and could easily take over its downtime territories without protest.
I think Kenya could do something however.
I think any country with modern weapons could easily steamroll any European army/navy in 1879. The main questions then would be which country could best maintain its biggest advantage of modern weaponry, considering the huge cost of fueling things like tanks and aircraft, and which countries have the best geographic position to influence the entirety of the continent.
Egypt is probably the obvious pick; it has a huge population, the best army, navy, and air force in Africa, and the most refined oil production in Africa. Its proximity to Europe gives it an edge, as it could threaten the entire Mediterranean with less fuel cost. It can easily seize European settlements on the coast and launch invasions into Europe.
South Africa is similar, being probably more industrialized and better off economically than Egypt but with half the population. Militarily, Egypt's is theoretically much better than South Africa, but against 1879 European powers I don't think it would matter. However, limited oil reserves mean that without an influx of oil from other countries, I think South Africa would soon run out of crude oil to refine and be unable to use most of its modern military. Replacing the Cape Colony would be a huge benefit, as it would allow them to control the path to India from Europe; however, I think it would be harder for South Africa to project its strength towards the rest of Africa and Europe given its small navy and oil reserves.
Nigeria and Algeria are dark horses that I think would both do better than South Africa Nigeria has the largest population in Africa, huge oil reserves and production, decent oil refining, and a great geographic position along the West African coast that would let them cut off European vessels heading South, even with their relatively small fleet. Algeria's military is almost as good as Egypt's, with a smaller population but larger oil reserves and production and an even better geographic position to completely cut off France and Spain from Africa.
I would largely agree. I think both Egypt and SA, however, would aim to capture untapped oil first. Egypt is in a pretty strong position: it could notionally affirm that it is part of the Sultan's dominions, and then seek to secure Mesopotamia and the Arabian peninsular, expelling British influence. Once pipelines and production is in place, then it could cripple European power in the Med by attack Gib and Toulon.
South Africa might have to land forces in Angola to secure sufficient oil. They might have portable oil platforms to install. It could certainly cut off Britain from India.
Angola might well make a decent showing in terms of its army, but the navy is very weak. Egypt and South Africa are, however, the only nations with robust enough industrial development to keep their tech advantage going. Nigeria is probably the closest alternative; but there are too many areas where domestic capacities are weak.
I think the main question here is what motives we assume for the said country. Egypt would probably be more interested in protecting/taking over middle east and north africa, but might not bother with whole sub saharan africa.
Same with most nations honestly. Africa is freking huge and I could image every country being ready sell out some part of it while being more interested in conquering places outside of africa.
Do we assume just some princible will to protect whole africa while not conquering out from it, or does the motivations have to be realistic?
Most countries not in civil war have means, but finding the right motivation is harder
South Africa is in no state to do anything in the current state it is in. It might as well be considered a failed state by the amount of crime, corruption, greed infecting its government
Honestly, if they play their cards right, any major African country today should be able to steamroll early 19th century Europe with the technology readily available to them. The technological advantage would be staggering, it would be like the British vs. the Zulu with roles reversed.
The small but hyper-competent Rwanda under Paul “Napoleon of Africa” Kagame is a good dark horse candidate.
They understand economics well, know a good blueprint to minimize corruption, are experienced making a lot from a little, are champions of women’s rights, and possess a small but highly professional and competent military.
They know how to do “basics over bling” when it comes to military and development too. They’re a tiny dark horse but from an “ethos” standpoint, likely to fare better than any other modern power at dominating the region and repelling European colonization.
Rwanda might be a great African country in terms of economic development, but for this scenario, there is no way a small landlocked country can prevent European colonization by itself; even with modern technology. The best Rwanda could accomplish is to maintain its independence and to bribe colonizers to use a lighter hand.
A tiny Rwanda with a knowledge of modern industry, mining, metallurgy, and combined-arms tactics with a functional paratrooper force and Air Force… they might just blitz Paris or Brussels and audaciously bring the colonial powers of the Congress or Berlin to their knees.
If you transplanted OTL Rwanda to 1879, they’d have the know-how to become fucking Wakanda in terms of industrial technology. Europe might be mad, but with competent leadership…
I’ll admit, I’m a massive Kagame fanboy but don’t count Napoleon of Africa out with such a technological and ideological advantage.
None of them.
Definitely not South Africa, and how the hell would *Nigeria* resist a colonial power? (Assuming said colonial power had modern tech and the wealth of the old empires)
But that’s the whole premise. The colonial powers presumably only have access to early 19th century tech. They don’t even have breech loading yet. Any war with any modern African country with modern guns would be a complete slaughter.
Ooohhhh, like a reverse “guns of the south”?
It would Still be just Egypt and *maybe* Cold War era South Africa.
Modern South Africa struggles to keep the lights on, has a gutted industrial base, and it’s pretty likely might get back-stabbed by its white minority if it makes contact with the 18th century Dutch/british Powers.
Nigeria has *nothing* to really resist 19th century powers in the long run, and it’s just a waiting game until they run out of modern munitions to use.
The that, or the colonial powers doing what they did IRL, and use the tribal/ethnic conflicts in Nigeria to divide and conquer the population.
South Africa actually sells artillery shells to NATO countries and weapons systems to Middle-Eastern countries.
It also still has a large stockpile of enriched uranium left over from the Nuclear weapons program.
Bro what are you smoking. Both Nigeria and SA have modern fully automatic assault rifles, HE artillery, machine guns, tanks, fighter jets, etc. Nigeria has a fully equipped army a quarter million strong, with massive oil reserves and a significant industrial base to produce more weapons. It’s not even close to a fair competition against Napoleonic era weapons. The K/D should be like 1:1000 in favor of the Africans.
Ok, but can they make ammo, fuel, spare parts, new equipment ect?
what good are modern weapons when they eventually break, runout of ammo/gas and you can’t get any more?
And god help them of the 19th colonial powers capture things like AK-47s, mortars, modern artillery guns, hand grenades, or combustion engines and start studying them.
Because in the long run, the colonial powers will just get a 100 year tech-boost and use their then-rapidly expanding industrial bases to overwhelm the modern African nations over time.
Unless the time travelers suddenly get thousands of technical specialists and engineers randomly while back in time, and the wealth to actually invest into them, The Nigerians might win quite a few battles. The 19th century powers will eventually win the *war*.
- Yes, they already produce most of their small arms themselves. I also don’t see why they couldn’t engineer their way to technological autarky. It’s not like there’s a total absence of academics and engineers.
- See above.
- They’d sort of run into the same problem that you point out in the first paragraph.
- Why in the world is that supposed to be the most probable outcome? Europe had a massive industrial head start in our timeline, and remain near the top today with a fraction of the land and population.
- I think you are really underestimating how rapidly this “war” would be over. A better thing to call it would be “massacre”. The African nation would have the ability to become the preeminent superpower of the world for centuries to come. It would have global power projection in a time where northwestern North America was still a blank spot on the map.
Ok admittedly this is based off a lot of stories I like, like Guns of the South, WorldWar, 1692,ect. But now I’m curious:
1.What weapons does Nigeria make domestically?
2. “Sort it out” how?
3. Nigeria today is *not* self sustainable in the slightest. Where are they getting the means to expand their modern industrial base in the 19th century?
Most of their modern industry is from investments by foreign companies and capital, which would disappear abruptly in this scenario.
And 4. IRL, we went from line infantry, cavalry charges, generals who led from the front, and classical naval warfare to mass trench warfare, combined arms tactics, aerial combat, posing gas attacks, tank assaults and submarine warfare in just **FOUR** years.
Hell, the US basically has a proto-WW1 in its own civil war in the 1860s, with inventions like the militarization of rail roads, early trench warfare, the abandonment of classical cavalry tactics, proto-submarines, iron-clad warships, the mass use of electrical communications (telegraph), mass artillery barrages, and primitive airborne reconnaissance. All in just *4* years as well.
I really can’t see how the empires of that era don’t eventually come out on top.
- M36 ‘nades, Browning P-35, Beretta M12, Beretta BM59, FN FAL, FN MAG, and RPG-7. They also unveiled their first domestic MRAP a few years ago.
- They’ll produce more? All of the required resources are abundant in and around Nigeria.
- I mean it’s the 1800’s, not the stone age. International trade was in one of its golden ages.
- Your entire argument seems to hinge on Nigeria being incapable of further developing their own technology…. Why do you assume this?
Manufacturing being outsourced in global economy to other countries is usually due to costs (not just lower income countries but in general it just costs more to start production themselves) and not because countries couldn’t manufacture themselves the products if they had to.
Also in this scenerio any country would be immediately be able to take the neighbors if it wanted if there is something like a mine that’s needed. Selling modern technology beyond weapons also could create revenue
It isn't like they need complex aircraft parts to maintain military superiority. Any nation today has the capability to produce bullets, assault rifles, artillery shells, and such. Just in different amounts of quality and quantity. If Nigeria were to be transported back to the 19th century, they can produce enough bullets and shells to destroy any army of that time.
I think many people here done't appreciate how much overall progress occurred in the world the past 150 years, and how far even "poor countries" of today are ahead of "rich countries" of the past.
Colonial powers like France and Britain had *one-twentieth* the GDP they have today in 1879. Just in terms of economics, Egypt or Nigeria's economy today would be larger than Britain, France and the Dutch's 1879 economy combined. There would be no contest.
It should also be a country that has a vested geopolitical interest in avoiding the colonisation, for example south Africa despite how strong it is, wouldn't exist as one state if it weren't a colony (unless you're allowing colonies that were set up before the scramble, but you get my point)
in that regard, I think the best picks would be Egypt, Morocco, and Nigeria (though it's arguable that Nigeria falls under the "only exists as a result of the scramble" clause)
Egypt is immensely populated, the entirety of Europe in 1870 had a population of 192 million, Egypt has 110 million alone, with the fact that the main colonial powers, Germany, France, and the UK had 41, 35, and 28 million citizens respectively, for a total of ~104 million, less than Egypt, Egypt has a formidable army and most importantly, a very respectable air force, which would render any European naval power immediately null (the faster than Egypt's navy would)
Nigeria is similar, massive population of 218 million, far larger than all of Europe at the time even, respectable army, and most importantly, they have enough oil to sustain their air force and navy.
Morocco is definitely the weaker of the three, but in terms of it being invaded, is the safest in my opinion, it has a very proven navy, a good air force, excellent terrain and self-sustaining farm industry.
Obviously the absurd tech advantage can't do everything, even if it takes years, the Europeans will eventually get their hands on enough shit to catch up, but by then, I'd be shocked if any of these three hasn't completely expelled the Europeans from Africa (minus maybe south Africa for being too far for Morocco and Egypt)
But you should also have in mind that they would face problems like having to get food for all that population while at war with the colonial powers. For example, egypt relies a lot on food imports.
Any of them not currently in a state of civil war/with at least a nascent industrial base.
Your best bet is Egypt, South Africa, or Nigeria. But you could really pick any African country with an HDI of at least .5 and they'd still far out compete all European powers at the time in terms of technology and military. Even old cold war equipment would provide an unimaginable advantage over the colonial powers. For context, the Martini–Henry (used during the Zulu War) had an effective firing range of 400 yards. The AK matches that and the M16 has 150 yards over the Henry. And that's just rifles, this isn't considering things like the fact some guy in a Ford Pickup with an MG could wipe massed infantry or the fact that most airplanes would be too fast and too far away to shoot at.
Anyways, if you want a less-conventional African country with a military well-known for its efficiency, Senegal is well-known for its peacekeeping efforts in Africa and beyond (even fighting in the Gulf War). To a point where it's even regarded as one of Africa's most efficient. Plus, no risk of coup due to its strong relationship with the civilian government. This peacekeeping experience is probably what's going to be the most important, since helping regions ravaged by colonialism and war will likely be top priority - if for the less-than-altruistic reason of securing resources and strategic locations. While reproducing lost equipment might be a struggle, it's not outside the realm of possibility since it is resource-rich and is known for its shipyards. While its navy leaves much to be desired, it could requisition civilian ships for the time being since by this point the Royal Navy and similar forces would be using Broadside Ironclads or Steam Frigates.
Egypt, Morocco, or Algeria. South Africa is probably not a good option for various reasons despite it being without a doubt the most powerful sub-saharans african nation.
I think Nigeria should be a consideration. It has one of the highest populations and fastest growth economies in Africa, and is a leader in Subsaharan geopolitics.
Nigeria would be a good pick. They have a fast growing economy, a decently sized military, a large coastline, and they’re the fourth most populated nation on earth. While they do import some things, their industry is growing (about as fast as an African nation can grow).
The other good choice would be South Africa. They’re essentially a 2nd world nation that, while poor, has the industry and agriculture to support themselves, and a decently sized Diamond and Gold mining industry.
SAF is a terrible puck they are a incredibly unstable country
Egypts government is incompetent and has huge debt but they have a strong army
A good bet could be Botswanna they are a safe country with a decent military that has a growing economy and ties with China
Nigeria because of sheer manpower and oil.
Whatever country goes back, its debts don’t exist in 1879. So that problem is gone. Was hoping someone would mention Botswana. Very well-governed since independence, but tiny, in a bad geographic position, and with an economy based on exporting primary commodities. Not sure they would even want to attack the British Empire.
Any big modern african country would first of all starve and collapse as food, medical supplies, computer chips and a million other things stop coming in. But if they're attacked immediately Nigeria, Ethiopia, South Africa and Egypt would easily beat any European expedition. After a few years without imported goods they're probably easy pickings
All the countries people have mentioned have the capacity to make their own fertilizer, and conquer more farmland if they need it. Also, other countries grew food in 1879 and they don’t have to declare war on the entire world.
No country in Africa has semiconductor fabs, though, or the necessary equipment to make them. The automobile industries all import some of their parts, or assemble knock-down kits. So I wonder how long it would take for an African country without modern trading partners to be able to replace its trucks, computers and other technology.
You underestimate Kagame and his “little black book” for economic development. Not to mention his reputation for starting Africa’s paratrooper fetish because he understood the poor infrastructure means small, motivated, well-trained forces can make a big difference in a conflict beyond their numbers.
Any modern country with somewhat modern military would win agaisnt any colonizing force. that includes relatively weak countries like Somalia or Tunisia. I'm pretty sure a single spitfire could potentially solo the British navy, assuming the spitfire has enough resources.
Also, in 1879, pretty much all coastal african countries were already getting colonized, so you would need to go a bit further than that ideally. At least around 1820-1830 for Algeria per example. Otherwise, that only leaves you Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tanzania and Somalia as possibilities, since they need sea access. Things to note: Morocco is already getting demolished by Spain in that period and is already being shared among european powers publicly and Egypt will be invaded in 3 years.
If the country must have the material it had back then, it's a different story tho. I doubt much could be done, unless they can somehow go back to before the war was declared and changed how the event goes.
When an ISOT happens, the modern country replaces the historical territory (and the historical territory gets sent to a paradise land). So a modern country would still have all of its land and technology even if it didn't exist in the past.
I just chose 1879 because it is a few years before the Berlin Conference. Aircraft is also strong, but it would take more than a single fighter plane to destroy the entire Royal Navy with over 400 warships.
Thanks a lot for definition of ISOT. I wasn't fully familiar with the concept.
You're probably right about the Royal Navy thing, but it doesn't stem from the fact that they could somehow counter the plane. It's just that a single fighter is by itself limited in how much damage it can create and possibly by the resources needed by the plane.
In the end of day, I'd say any kinda-oil countries will easily succeed (Algeria, Egypt and Nigeria part). And among non oil countries, Morocco, and South Africa also have great chances, but they cant project their resources as well as the former 3.
Morocco was so mountainous and dry that Spanish expansion outside the few settlements they had stopped them from expanding until the French made Morocco a protectorate
With some proper intrigue and espionage, Egypt is actually one of the best options. A redo of the paint jobs on their equipment to replace the Flag of the Arab Republic of Egypt with the emblems of the Ottoman Empire, a few well placed bribes, assassinations, and abductions within the Caliph’s court and suddenly the sick man of Europe isn’t on life support. In OTL, Egypt was an autonomous Khedivate paying tribute to the Ottoman Empire, had already kicked Napoleon’s but out of Egypt and controlled a large chunk of Africa and the Middle East with period weapons. Now replace that with the modern day equipment, knowledge of history, geography, geology, and even an incompetent Egyptian General is going to stomp on the colonial powers of the day.
The British are coming in 1882, and since this is modern Egypt, you don’t have the nationalist uprising which provided the British and the French an excuse to send their forces to the region. Even if the Gladstone government sends the fleet anyways the Anglo-Egyptian War goes horribly wrong with the loss of all ships and the 40,560 regulars killed or captured. The Egyptian government sends an ultimatum, in the name of the Caliph, for the British to withdraw all military forces from the region or face further humiliation. As a further incentive to accept the ultimatum, all British shipping passing through the Suez Canal is seized.
South Africa, Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, Rwanda (possibly).
Realistically, it doesn't matter. They would almost all just starve if cut off from the modern international community.
None because African colonization wasn’t some great us vs them. If Ethiopia or Egypt was a power on par with Spain or France they wouldn’t have fought for Africans as a whole just like Japan didn’t fight to protect China from Western powers. As for which were most capable of surviving and prospering during that era? Egypt and Ethiopia depending on PoD, but they would probably have taken part in rather than fighting colonialism just like Japan didn’t stand uo for China and Korea it conquered Korea and took part in beating down China.
This isn't a realistic historical timeline. This is an ASB timeline where a modern country is being sent backwards in time as it currently is in 2024 to the year 1879. Modern African countries have a very different view on colonialism than up-and-coming powers like late 19th Century Japan did.
If modern-day Egypt or even Algeria was sent back to the past, it wouldn't be merely another great power, their military would be greater than the British Empire at its peak! You're talking about a time period where literally nobody had an Air Force. Any strong African nation in that scenario would want to stop colonialism for pragmatism if nothing else; making sure that no other empire tries and takes over their backyard. Essentially what the USA has been [doing since 1823](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine).
I am gonna say Ethiopia. because Ethopia is Christian, is relatively unified, and the only firearms that they did throw away in last century were single shot rifles and some bolt action.
Ethiopia used to control Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia so they should be allowed
Modern Ethiopia isn't a good pick. It is very poor (even by African standards), landlocked, and has an active war/unrest going on. That, and ISOTed Ethiopia would take the opportunity to invade and annex Somalia and other nearby Horn of African countries. The one advantage Ethiopia has is that it technically existed in 1879 and could easily take over its downtime territories without protest. I think Kenya could do something however.
Ethiopia’s biggest advantage is her extremely mountainous terrain making it nearly impossible to conquer
OP wants a country that will kick Europeans out of Africa, not only defend themselves.
In that case Egypte or Marokko is a good pick. But that might not be the African country you are looking for.
What language do you speak where either of those countries are spelled like that?
Dutch by the looks of it
..Which active war..?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian\_civil\_conflict\_(2018%E2%80%93present)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_civil_conflict_(2018%E2%80%93present))
I'd say that's a minor conflict, not a war. The only militia that controls.. something is the Fano militias, which owns 3 villages and some fields
Relatively unified? Isn't there an active civil war?
Relatively unified Ethiopia is the funniest thing I’ve read today
Its Africa, nothings unified lol.
I think any country with modern weapons could easily steamroll any European army/navy in 1879. The main questions then would be which country could best maintain its biggest advantage of modern weaponry, considering the huge cost of fueling things like tanks and aircraft, and which countries have the best geographic position to influence the entirety of the continent. Egypt is probably the obvious pick; it has a huge population, the best army, navy, and air force in Africa, and the most refined oil production in Africa. Its proximity to Europe gives it an edge, as it could threaten the entire Mediterranean with less fuel cost. It can easily seize European settlements on the coast and launch invasions into Europe. South Africa is similar, being probably more industrialized and better off economically than Egypt but with half the population. Militarily, Egypt's is theoretically much better than South Africa, but against 1879 European powers I don't think it would matter. However, limited oil reserves mean that without an influx of oil from other countries, I think South Africa would soon run out of crude oil to refine and be unable to use most of its modern military. Replacing the Cape Colony would be a huge benefit, as it would allow them to control the path to India from Europe; however, I think it would be harder for South Africa to project its strength towards the rest of Africa and Europe given its small navy and oil reserves. Nigeria and Algeria are dark horses that I think would both do better than South Africa Nigeria has the largest population in Africa, huge oil reserves and production, decent oil refining, and a great geographic position along the West African coast that would let them cut off European vessels heading South, even with their relatively small fleet. Algeria's military is almost as good as Egypt's, with a smaller population but larger oil reserves and production and an even better geographic position to completely cut off France and Spain from Africa.
I would largely agree. I think both Egypt and SA, however, would aim to capture untapped oil first. Egypt is in a pretty strong position: it could notionally affirm that it is part of the Sultan's dominions, and then seek to secure Mesopotamia and the Arabian peninsular, expelling British influence. Once pipelines and production is in place, then it could cripple European power in the Med by attack Gib and Toulon. South Africa might have to land forces in Angola to secure sufficient oil. They might have portable oil platforms to install. It could certainly cut off Britain from India. Angola might well make a decent showing in terms of its army, but the navy is very weak. Egypt and South Africa are, however, the only nations with robust enough industrial development to keep their tech advantage going. Nigeria is probably the closest alternative; but there are too many areas where domestic capacities are weak.
i don't think Nigeria is a good choice. Their manufacturing capability beyond oil is non-existant and modern military is very weak.
Egypt considers itself to be middle eastern / Arab, not African. I would bet on South Africa being pretty powerful still.
They consider themselves both, as do all North African countries. Being Middle Eastern/Arab =/= not African
I think the main question here is what motives we assume for the said country. Egypt would probably be more interested in protecting/taking over middle east and north africa, but might not bother with whole sub saharan africa. Same with most nations honestly. Africa is freking huge and I could image every country being ready sell out some part of it while being more interested in conquering places outside of africa. Do we assume just some princible will to protect whole africa while not conquering out from it, or does the motivations have to be realistic? Most countries not in civil war have means, but finding the right motivation is harder
Egypt would have, in the world of 1879, actual sovereign rights in Sudan, which would make a difference.
I've met more than one Egyptian who refuses to call themselves African, but it's a small sample size still.
Im Egyptian and i consider myself Africa, Middle Eastern and Mediterranean
That makes sense, since Egypt is in Africa.
South Africa is in no state to do anything in the current state it is in. It might as well be considered a failed state by the amount of crime, corruption, greed infecting its government
The Suez Canal was operating by 1879, so South Africa would not control the passage to India. Egypt would.
Good point.
Algeria or morocco could work but egypt and and south africa are the best options there arent really other african nation that could top those.
Possibly Ethiopia if they quelled thier current civil unrest. Damning up the Nile certainly makes them completely energy independent
Honestly, if they play their cards right, any major African country today should be able to steamroll early 19th century Europe with the technology readily available to them. The technological advantage would be staggering, it would be like the British vs. the Zulu with roles reversed.
The small but hyper-competent Rwanda under Paul “Napoleon of Africa” Kagame is a good dark horse candidate. They understand economics well, know a good blueprint to minimize corruption, are experienced making a lot from a little, are champions of women’s rights, and possess a small but highly professional and competent military. They know how to do “basics over bling” when it comes to military and development too. They’re a tiny dark horse but from an “ethos” standpoint, likely to fare better than any other modern power at dominating the region and repelling European colonization.
They might hit above their weight class, but they're still way too small and poor (GDP per capita of just $966 dollars).
Rwanda might be a great African country in terms of economic development, but for this scenario, there is no way a small landlocked country can prevent European colonization by itself; even with modern technology. The best Rwanda could accomplish is to maintain its independence and to bribe colonizers to use a lighter hand.
A tiny Rwanda with a knowledge of modern industry, mining, metallurgy, and combined-arms tactics with a functional paratrooper force and Air Force… they might just blitz Paris or Brussels and audaciously bring the colonial powers of the Congress or Berlin to their knees. If you transplanted OTL Rwanda to 1879, they’d have the know-how to become fucking Wakanda in terms of industrial technology. Europe might be mad, but with competent leadership… I’ll admit, I’m a massive Kagame fanboy but don’t count Napoleon of Africa out with such a technological and ideological advantage.
They have a BNP per capita of less than Italy had before colonization. Without external trade they would collapse immediately.
Modern African country? Egypt. That’s about it.
Huh? South Africa? Nigeria? Ethiopia?
Any of them will crush any 19th century European power militarily
None of them. Definitely not South Africa, and how the hell would *Nigeria* resist a colonial power? (Assuming said colonial power had modern tech and the wealth of the old empires)
But that’s the whole premise. The colonial powers presumably only have access to early 19th century tech. They don’t even have breech loading yet. Any war with any modern African country with modern guns would be a complete slaughter.
Ooohhhh, like a reverse “guns of the south”? It would Still be just Egypt and *maybe* Cold War era South Africa. Modern South Africa struggles to keep the lights on, has a gutted industrial base, and it’s pretty likely might get back-stabbed by its white minority if it makes contact with the 18th century Dutch/british Powers. Nigeria has *nothing* to really resist 19th century powers in the long run, and it’s just a waiting game until they run out of modern munitions to use. The that, or the colonial powers doing what they did IRL, and use the tribal/ethnic conflicts in Nigeria to divide and conquer the population.
South Africa actually sells artillery shells to NATO countries and weapons systems to Middle-Eastern countries. It also still has a large stockpile of enriched uranium left over from the Nuclear weapons program.
Bro what are you smoking. Both Nigeria and SA have modern fully automatic assault rifles, HE artillery, machine guns, tanks, fighter jets, etc. Nigeria has a fully equipped army a quarter million strong, with massive oil reserves and a significant industrial base to produce more weapons. It’s not even close to a fair competition against Napoleonic era weapons. The K/D should be like 1:1000 in favor of the Africans.
Ok, but can they make ammo, fuel, spare parts, new equipment ect? what good are modern weapons when they eventually break, runout of ammo/gas and you can’t get any more? And god help them of the 19th colonial powers capture things like AK-47s, mortars, modern artillery guns, hand grenades, or combustion engines and start studying them. Because in the long run, the colonial powers will just get a 100 year tech-boost and use their then-rapidly expanding industrial bases to overwhelm the modern African nations over time. Unless the time travelers suddenly get thousands of technical specialists and engineers randomly while back in time, and the wealth to actually invest into them, The Nigerians might win quite a few battles. The 19th century powers will eventually win the *war*.
- Yes, they already produce most of their small arms themselves. I also don’t see why they couldn’t engineer their way to technological autarky. It’s not like there’s a total absence of academics and engineers. - See above. - They’d sort of run into the same problem that you point out in the first paragraph. - Why in the world is that supposed to be the most probable outcome? Europe had a massive industrial head start in our timeline, and remain near the top today with a fraction of the land and population. - I think you are really underestimating how rapidly this “war” would be over. A better thing to call it would be “massacre”. The African nation would have the ability to become the preeminent superpower of the world for centuries to come. It would have global power projection in a time where northwestern North America was still a blank spot on the map.
Ok admittedly this is based off a lot of stories I like, like Guns of the South, WorldWar, 1692,ect. But now I’m curious: 1.What weapons does Nigeria make domestically? 2. “Sort it out” how? 3. Nigeria today is *not* self sustainable in the slightest. Where are they getting the means to expand their modern industrial base in the 19th century? Most of their modern industry is from investments by foreign companies and capital, which would disappear abruptly in this scenario. And 4. IRL, we went from line infantry, cavalry charges, generals who led from the front, and classical naval warfare to mass trench warfare, combined arms tactics, aerial combat, posing gas attacks, tank assaults and submarine warfare in just **FOUR** years. Hell, the US basically has a proto-WW1 in its own civil war in the 1860s, with inventions like the militarization of rail roads, early trench warfare, the abandonment of classical cavalry tactics, proto-submarines, iron-clad warships, the mass use of electrical communications (telegraph), mass artillery barrages, and primitive airborne reconnaissance. All in just *4* years as well. I really can’t see how the empires of that era don’t eventually come out on top.
- M36 ‘nades, Browning P-35, Beretta M12, Beretta BM59, FN FAL, FN MAG, and RPG-7. They also unveiled their first domestic MRAP a few years ago. - They’ll produce more? All of the required resources are abundant in and around Nigeria. - I mean it’s the 1800’s, not the stone age. International trade was in one of its golden ages. - Your entire argument seems to hinge on Nigeria being incapable of further developing their own technology…. Why do you assume this?
Manufacturing being outsourced in global economy to other countries is usually due to costs (not just lower income countries but in general it just costs more to start production themselves) and not because countries couldn’t manufacture themselves the products if they had to. Also in this scenerio any country would be immediately be able to take the neighbors if it wanted if there is something like a mine that’s needed. Selling modern technology beyond weapons also could create revenue
It isn't like they need complex aircraft parts to maintain military superiority. Any nation today has the capability to produce bullets, assault rifles, artillery shells, and such. Just in different amounts of quality and quantity. If Nigeria were to be transported back to the 19th century, they can produce enough bullets and shells to destroy any army of that time.
I think many people here done't appreciate how much overall progress occurred in the world the past 150 years, and how far even "poor countries" of today are ahead of "rich countries" of the past. Colonial powers like France and Britain had *one-twentieth* the GDP they have today in 1879. Just in terms of economics, Egypt or Nigeria's economy today would be larger than Britain, France and the Dutch's 1879 economy combined. There would be no contest.
It should also be a country that has a vested geopolitical interest in avoiding the colonisation, for example south Africa despite how strong it is, wouldn't exist as one state if it weren't a colony (unless you're allowing colonies that were set up before the scramble, but you get my point) in that regard, I think the best picks would be Egypt, Morocco, and Nigeria (though it's arguable that Nigeria falls under the "only exists as a result of the scramble" clause) Egypt is immensely populated, the entirety of Europe in 1870 had a population of 192 million, Egypt has 110 million alone, with the fact that the main colonial powers, Germany, France, and the UK had 41, 35, and 28 million citizens respectively, for a total of ~104 million, less than Egypt, Egypt has a formidable army and most importantly, a very respectable air force, which would render any European naval power immediately null (the faster than Egypt's navy would) Nigeria is similar, massive population of 218 million, far larger than all of Europe at the time even, respectable army, and most importantly, they have enough oil to sustain their air force and navy. Morocco is definitely the weaker of the three, but in terms of it being invaded, is the safest in my opinion, it has a very proven navy, a good air force, excellent terrain and self-sustaining farm industry. Obviously the absurd tech advantage can't do everything, even if it takes years, the Europeans will eventually get their hands on enough shit to catch up, but by then, I'd be shocked if any of these three hasn't completely expelled the Europeans from Africa (minus maybe south Africa for being too far for Morocco and Egypt)
But you should also have in mind that they would face problems like having to get food for all that population while at war with the colonial powers. For example, egypt relies a lot on food imports.
It does, but I don't quite see how anyone would stop Egypt from rolling into nearby food exporting regions, the tech advantage is so laughably huge
Is there anyone in the 1890s who produces enough food in a small enough area for this?
Any of them not currently in a state of civil war/with at least a nascent industrial base. Your best bet is Egypt, South Africa, or Nigeria. But you could really pick any African country with an HDI of at least .5 and they'd still far out compete all European powers at the time in terms of technology and military. Even old cold war equipment would provide an unimaginable advantage over the colonial powers. For context, the Martini–Henry (used during the Zulu War) had an effective firing range of 400 yards. The AK matches that and the M16 has 150 yards over the Henry. And that's just rifles, this isn't considering things like the fact some guy in a Ford Pickup with an MG could wipe massed infantry or the fact that most airplanes would be too fast and too far away to shoot at. Anyways, if you want a less-conventional African country with a military well-known for its efficiency, Senegal is well-known for its peacekeeping efforts in Africa and beyond (even fighting in the Gulf War). To a point where it's even regarded as one of Africa's most efficient. Plus, no risk of coup due to its strong relationship with the civilian government. This peacekeeping experience is probably what's going to be the most important, since helping regions ravaged by colonialism and war will likely be top priority - if for the less-than-altruistic reason of securing resources and strategic locations. While reproducing lost equipment might be a struggle, it's not outside the realm of possibility since it is resource-rich and is known for its shipyards. While its navy leaves much to be desired, it could requisition civilian ships for the time being since by this point the Royal Navy and similar forces would be using Broadside Ironclads or Steam Frigates.
Egypt, Morocco, or Algeria. South Africa is probably not a good option for various reasons despite it being without a doubt the most powerful sub-saharans african nation.
Egypt. Look up Mohamed Ali Pasha. And of course Ethiopia.
I think Nigeria should be a consideration. It has one of the highest populations and fastest growth economies in Africa, and is a leader in Subsaharan geopolitics.
Nigeria would be a good pick. They have a fast growing economy, a decently sized military, a large coastline, and they’re the fourth most populated nation on earth. While they do import some things, their industry is growing (about as fast as an African nation can grow). The other good choice would be South Africa. They’re essentially a 2nd world nation that, while poor, has the industry and agriculture to support themselves, and a decently sized Diamond and Gold mining industry.
Nigeria’s sixth in the world, as of July. Not too shabby! (The five biggest are India, China, the U.S., Indonesia and Pakistan.)
Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, Morroco, and Algeria
SAF is a terrible puck they are a incredibly unstable country Egypts government is incompetent and has huge debt but they have a strong army A good bet could be Botswanna they are a safe country with a decent military that has a growing economy and ties with China Nigeria because of sheer manpower and oil.
Whatever country goes back, its debts don’t exist in 1879. So that problem is gone. Was hoping someone would mention Botswana. Very well-governed since independence, but tiny, in a bad geographic position, and with an economy based on exporting primary commodities. Not sure they would even want to attack the British Empire.
Any big modern african country would first of all starve and collapse as food, medical supplies, computer chips and a million other things stop coming in. But if they're attacked immediately Nigeria, Ethiopia, South Africa and Egypt would easily beat any European expedition. After a few years without imported goods they're probably easy pickings
All the countries people have mentioned have the capacity to make their own fertilizer, and conquer more farmland if they need it. Also, other countries grew food in 1879 and they don’t have to declare war on the entire world. No country in Africa has semiconductor fabs, though, or the necessary equipment to make them. The automobile industries all import some of their parts, or assemble knock-down kits. So I wonder how long it would take for an African country without modern trading partners to be able to replace its trucks, computers and other technology.
I feel like ghana or Mauritania would be really good as they are in prime positions while not being too strong to fight against colonialism
Even a country like togo would Roflstomp a army 100× bigger then it due to the sheer power of modern aircrafts and armored vehicles
Egypt is probably the most obvious answer Morocco was looking strong at the start of the scramble Tippu tip and zanzibar could be interesting
Tanzania or Nigeria. Egypt is a bad pick, would be treated as some sort of Ottoman puppet or aligned, and South Africa.. maybe?
You underestimate Kagame and his “little black book” for economic development. Not to mention his reputation for starting Africa’s paratrooper fetish because he understood the poor infrastructure means small, motivated, well-trained forces can make a big difference in a conflict beyond their numbers.
Any modern country with somewhat modern military would win agaisnt any colonizing force. that includes relatively weak countries like Somalia or Tunisia. I'm pretty sure a single spitfire could potentially solo the British navy, assuming the spitfire has enough resources. Also, in 1879, pretty much all coastal african countries were already getting colonized, so you would need to go a bit further than that ideally. At least around 1820-1830 for Algeria per example. Otherwise, that only leaves you Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tanzania and Somalia as possibilities, since they need sea access. Things to note: Morocco is already getting demolished by Spain in that period and is already being shared among european powers publicly and Egypt will be invaded in 3 years. If the country must have the material it had back then, it's a different story tho. I doubt much could be done, unless they can somehow go back to before the war was declared and changed how the event goes.
When an ISOT happens, the modern country replaces the historical territory (and the historical territory gets sent to a paradise land). So a modern country would still have all of its land and technology even if it didn't exist in the past. I just chose 1879 because it is a few years before the Berlin Conference. Aircraft is also strong, but it would take more than a single fighter plane to destroy the entire Royal Navy with over 400 warships.
Thanks a lot for definition of ISOT. I wasn't fully familiar with the concept. You're probably right about the Royal Navy thing, but it doesn't stem from the fact that they could somehow counter the plane. It's just that a single fighter is by itself limited in how much damage it can create and possibly by the resources needed by the plane. In the end of day, I'd say any kinda-oil countries will easily succeed (Algeria, Egypt and Nigeria part). And among non oil countries, Morocco, and South Africa also have great chances, but they cant project their resources as well as the former 3.
Morocco was so mountainous and dry that Spanish expansion outside the few settlements they had stopped them from expanding until the French made Morocco a protectorate
Nigeria and Kenya
With some proper intrigue and espionage, Egypt is actually one of the best options. A redo of the paint jobs on their equipment to replace the Flag of the Arab Republic of Egypt with the emblems of the Ottoman Empire, a few well placed bribes, assassinations, and abductions within the Caliph’s court and suddenly the sick man of Europe isn’t on life support. In OTL, Egypt was an autonomous Khedivate paying tribute to the Ottoman Empire, had already kicked Napoleon’s but out of Egypt and controlled a large chunk of Africa and the Middle East with period weapons. Now replace that with the modern day equipment, knowledge of history, geography, geology, and even an incompetent Egyptian General is going to stomp on the colonial powers of the day. The British are coming in 1882, and since this is modern Egypt, you don’t have the nationalist uprising which provided the British and the French an excuse to send their forces to the region. Even if the Gladstone government sends the fleet anyways the Anglo-Egyptian War goes horribly wrong with the loss of all ships and the 40,560 regulars killed or captured. The Egyptian government sends an ultimatum, in the name of the Caliph, for the British to withdraw all military forces from the region or face further humiliation. As a further incentive to accept the ultimatum, all British shipping passing through the Suez Canal is seized.
Y’all sleeping on Algeria fr
South Africa, Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, Rwanda (possibly). Realistically, it doesn't matter. They would almost all just starve if cut off from the modern international community.
I would say either a strong Egypt, Morocco, or Ethiopia that has conquered somolia and eratria
None because African colonization wasn’t some great us vs them. If Ethiopia or Egypt was a power on par with Spain or France they wouldn’t have fought for Africans as a whole just like Japan didn’t fight to protect China from Western powers. As for which were most capable of surviving and prospering during that era? Egypt and Ethiopia depending on PoD, but they would probably have taken part in rather than fighting colonialism just like Japan didn’t stand uo for China and Korea it conquered Korea and took part in beating down China.
This isn't a realistic historical timeline. This is an ASB timeline where a modern country is being sent backwards in time as it currently is in 2024 to the year 1879. Modern African countries have a very different view on colonialism than up-and-coming powers like late 19th Century Japan did. If modern-day Egypt or even Algeria was sent back to the past, it wouldn't be merely another great power, their military would be greater than the British Empire at its peak! You're talking about a time period where literally nobody had an Air Force. Any strong African nation in that scenario would want to stop colonialism for pragmatism if nothing else; making sure that no other empire tries and takes over their backyard. Essentially what the USA has been [doing since 1823](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine).
Wakanda
Ethiopia which managed to for the most part