Though there had been a European presence in Africa since the 16th century the majority of the continent was still formally independent at the start of the 1870s. That was the period when there was an upsurge in the colonising activities of the European powers, which effectively divided up the whole continent within the space of three decades or so. The evaluation will seek to explain why the European powers chose to divide the continent up between them so rapidly in what was subsequently dubbed the ‘scramble for Africa’. The evaluation will go on to explain how the partition took
place and that the conflicts that division brought with it. The European powers as will be discussed decided to partition up the continent of Africa due to various motivations and factors. The scramble for Africa as will be evaluated also brought about conflicts and disputes between the European powers involved in the process of partition.The European powers or at least Britain, France and Portugal had possessions in the continent of Africa by the middle of the 19th century as part of their extensive overseas empires. Not only did Britain and France have their own colonies in Africa they also had effective control of countries such as Egypt and the Sudan that were still nominally part of the Ottoman Empire (Chamberlain, 1999). At that point the bulk of Africa remained independent or not under European control, and those Europeans that went to Africa usually stuck to coastal areas. The Ottoman Empire controlled the majority of North Africa, whilst the Islamic faith had spread across much of the continent (Woodruff, 2005 p. 85). The development of new means of transport would eventually give the European powers the means to go further into Africa, and the opportunity to gain much more territory than before, as well as increasing the scope for Christian missionaries (Hobsbawm, 1987 p. 5). Portugal had long established colonies in Angola and Mozambique, whilst Britain and France and gained outposts such as Sierra Leone during the era of the Transatlantic slave trade (Freund, 1984). Portugal had extracted large amounts of previous metals from its colonies, whilst the Transatlantic slave trade had made European slave traders a fortune before the British decided to abolish slavery in the first part of the 19th century (Ferguson, 2003 p. 120). In parts of Africa the slave trade would actually continue until the British and the French extended their colonies further inland. The British and French had been slowly building their colonies in the continent before the scramble for Africa. Aside from the British, the French, and the Portuguese the only other European powers that held territories was the Dutch in the South African provinces of the Orange Free State and the Transvaal (Packernham, 1992 p. 10).
The European powers divided up the continent Africa with such great speed due to more of these states deciding that they wanted to gain colonies there, as a means of national advancement (Roberts, 1996 p.495). Although the British and the French had been expanding their African possessions the desire of other European powers such as Belgium, Germany and Italy to gain overseas territories meant that they decided to grab more African land themselves. Gaining territories in the continent of Africa was the obvious option as it was nearer than potential colonies in Asia and there was no land that was available in the Americas (Oliver & Atmore, 2005 p. 117). Britain and France as they already held territories were in the most advantageous positions to gain the most from the rapid partition of the continent of Africa. Though the British and French had been imperial rivals for the previous two centuries of so, their governments to large extent co-operated with each other to reduce the risk of conflicts. To be more precise they sought to co-operate with each other to reduce the risk of fighting between the European powers over the spoils of Africa (Packernham, 1992 p. 12).
The European powers that had not previously held territories in the continent of Africa, namely Belgium, Germany, and Italy had imperial ambitions that contributed to the great speed of the subsequent partition. Belgium itself had only been an independent country for four decades or so, yet its King Leopold decided that he wanted an empire in Africa (Oliver, 1999). Legally the Belgian colonies of Africa were the personal property of the monarch rather than the Belgian state, and Leopold was a man that had absolutely no respect for the lives of his African subjects (Roberts, 1996 p. 496). Germany and Italy due to the lateness of their own national unification were latecomers to the gaining of overseas empires. For Germany and Italy the most obvious source of overseas territories was the continent of Africa. The Italians could argue that the gaining of colonies in North Africa such as Libya was in fact the recreation of the past glories of the Roman empire. The Germans went on to gain territories in the Far East once they had built a larger navy to ferry their troops to both their African and Asian colonies (Packernham, 1992 p. 12).
The British and the French were content to reach agreements with Belgium and Italy, less so with Germany, especially the French. Germany had become a unified country at the expense of France in the wake of victory in the Franco-Prussian war. France was reluctant to allow German colonies in Africa and bitterness over the defeat of 1870 was a source of conflict between the two countries both in Europe and Africa (Clark, 2007 p. 553). The British were more willing to reach agreements with other European powers so to divide the continent of Africa up as efficiently as possible with the minimum number of European deaths. The ways in which the European powers divided up the continent of Africa was generally by examining maps of the territories yet to be taken over, then allocating land to all of the European powers involved in negotiations. The partition of Africa was carried out by the European powers with no regard to the history, ethnic, national, religious and tribal divisions of the continent, a sure fire recipe for future conflicts. The European powers liked to neatly divide all the colonies between them, straight lined borders that across traditional African kingdoms and tribal boundaries in order to allow each imperial power to literally divide and rule (Packernham, 1992 p. 12).
The European powers divided up the continent of Africa with such great speed in order to obtain or maintain their own national pride and prestige by grabbing as much territory as they could. The European powers anticipated that having colonies in Africa would also be highly profitable in terms of the precious metals and raw materials that could be extracted and used by the colonial powers. The greed of the European powers went hand in hand with the desire to make money (Hobsbawm, 1987 p. 249). They would frequently use their new colonies in Africa as markets for their goods and products, which meant that the native populations of the African colonies were exploited for their labour and then had to buy things from their imperial masters. The European powers were not bothered about treating their African subjects with respect and generally exploited their colonies for all their worth. The British and the French did attempt to bring their African subjects elements of their own civilisations and cultures. On the other hand the treatment of the African population in the Belgian colony of the Congo was so brutal that it even surprised the other European powers. The Belgian rule over its African colonies was the most obviously exploitative and amounted to mass slavery of entire populations in everything but name (Woodruff, 2005 p. 89).
Perhaps the main reason why the European powers were able to partition the continent of Africa with such great sped was due to the superior military firepower that they had. The nations and tribes in the continent of Africa were generally ill prepared and ill equipped to resist the territorial expansion of the European powers. Some of the African nations such as Egypt and Ethiopia had long traditions of trading with the European powers and even had quantities of modern military equipment, though
not enough to resist the stronger European powers of Britain and France. The African nations and tribes could do little to resist the rifles, the machine guns, and the modern artillery of the European powers. The superior firepower of the European powers divided the continent up with such great speed; perhaps if the Africans had their own machine guns it might have been different. Machine guns and artillery fire were particularly effective even against superior numbers, they allowed the European powers to divide the continent up with such great speed, and relatively few men. The European powers were aware that it was less expensive to send small heavily armed army detachments to Africa than to fight against each other in Europe (Oliver, 1999).In fact the European powers realised that the biggest potential threat for their territorial expansion came from each other, hence their desire to divide Africa up via agreements between themselves (Curtin, 1995). Such was the confidence of the European powers that no Africans could successfully resist them, the Berlin Conference of 1884 to 1885 that drew the divisions of Africa did not bother to invite any Africans to it (Woodruff, 2005 p. 87). However the superior firepower of the European powers did not prevent the African nations and tribes from resisting their plans for conquest. Despite the resistance to the European powers they were still able to divide the continent up with such great speed, though that resistance resulted in conflicts between the Africans and the European powers (Freund, 1984).
The territorial and imperial ambitions of the European powers to divide the continent of Africa up with such great speed was the cause of conflicts due to resistance from the African nations and tribes to those ambitions (Zeleza and Eyoh, 2003). It was only natural for the African nations and tribes to wish to resist the invading European powers and maintain their independence. The European powers not only had superior firepower, the invention of the steam ship as well as the steam engine meant that the continent of Africa was in travelling distance of Europe. Even if African resistance was strong then reinforcements could be readily sent by the European powers (Woodruff, 2005 p. 88). In the end in the majority of the conflicts between the European powers and the Africans the resistance of the latter turned out to be futile. The Zulu tribes for example put up a very strong resistance to British expansion into South Africa before bravely giving into inevitable defeat (Cain and Hopkins, 2002).
Providing the European powers picked suitable terrain for their battles with the Africans they were intending to conquer then their superior firepower would normally prove sufficient to ensure victory. Even if forced to fight on unfavourable terrain machine guns were generally decisive. That was not always the case, as the Italians found out to their cost as well as their embarrassment when they were defeated in Ethiopia. Italy was the only one of the European powers permanently driven out of an African country that they had wished to invade between 1880 and 1914. It was a stain on Italian national pride until Mussolini successfully invaded in 1936 (Roberts, 1996 p. 498).
Occasionally the European powers would be driven back, but the set backs only ever proved to be temporary. The British lost control of the Sudan for a decade until victory at Omdurman in 1898, a rare example of Africans having a large amount of modern weapons to fight with (Cain and Hopkins, 2002). The Sudan had shown the power of Islam to inspire Africans to resist the European powers. The result of these conflicts between the European powers and the Africans was that by 1900 only Ethiopia and also Liberia remained independent nation states free of imperial masters. Ethiopia had successfully repelled the Italian invasion attempt, whilst Liberia retained its independence by default as the European powers could not decide which of them should take that country over. Surely if either Britain and France had decided that they had wanted to incorporate either Ethiopia or Liberia into their respective empires then independence would have been quickly ended. Perhaps Liberia was luckier than the rest of Africa because none of the European powers believed that it was fighting each other over (Ferguson, 2003 p. 133).
Despite the European powers partitioning Africa with such great speed there was not militant conflicts between these countries over the spoils of conquest (Zeleza and Eyoh, 2003). That is not to say that there were not diplomatic disputes as to how the continent of Africa should be divided up between the European powers. The most serious disputes occurred in 1903 and 1911, caused by German plans to gain land in Morocco at the expense of France (Kedward, 2005 p. 16). Conflict was avoided in Africa and Europe, yet German conduct brought Britain and France nearer to each other with bad consequences for Germany in the First World War. The crisis over Morocco was calmed down by the European Powers without having to resort war (Clark, 2007 p.553).
The only conflict between a single European power and other Europeans would be the Boer War of 1899 to 1902 (Zeleza and Eyoh, 2003). When the Boers, the white settlers of Dutch descent resisted the extension of British control in the Transvaal and the Orange Free state war was the outcome. It was a war in which the well equipped, well trained and determined Boers more than a match for a Britain too confident of its own military power (Mackenzie, 1983). Britain eventually won the Boer War yet it showed up many serious shortcomings in the British Army, as well as being the stiffest test for any of the European powers in the partitioning of Africa (Chamberlain, 1999). If the other African forces that resisted the European powers had been as well equipped and armed as the Boers then the partition of the continent might not have been so complete, or have proceeded at such a great speed (Rodney, 1988)
The European powers were able to partition Africa with such great speed due to a variety of factors. The European powers in the shape of Britain, France and Portugal had a foothold in Africa, which allowed Britain and France to expand the number of colonies they controlled. Other European powers decided that they wanted to gain colonies in Africa, especially Belgium, Germany and Italy. The European powers shared one goal in common, the gaining of colonies to increase national prestige. Belgium, Germany, and Italy as relatively new countries were particularly keen to be able to gain colonies to gain international status. The more established of the European powers such as Britain and France that were in reality were able to get the pick of the best colonies and territories as they already had a presence upon the African continent. In terms of motivations for grabbing territories in the continent of Africa greed and the belief that gaining or extending empires in Africa would be highly profitable also heavily influenced the European powers to join in the scramble for Africa. The European powers rightly or wrongly believed that gaining colonies in Africa would boost their own national economies due to the gaining of raw materials and new export markets. The European powers carried out systematic and widespread economic exploitation of their colonies, which has greatly impacted upon the underdevelopment of the continent of Africa in the post-colonial era.
Bibliography
Cain P J and Hopkins A G, (2002) British Imperalism 1688-2000, Chapter 11
Chamberlain M E, (1999) The Scramble for Africa
Clark C, (2007) Iron Kingdom, the Rise and Downfall of Prussia, Penguin, London
Curtin P, (1995) African History, chapter 15
Freund B, The making of Contemporary Africa[1984] chapter 5 The Conquest of Africa. Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century African History, Paul Tiyambe Zeleza and Dickson Eyoh [eds] London and New York [2003].
Ferguson N, (2003) Empire, Penguin, London
Hobsbawm E, (1987) the Age of Empire 1875-1914, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London
Kedward R (2005) France and the French since 1900, Penguin, London
Mackenzie J M (1983) The Partition of Africa 1880-1900
Oliver R,(1999) A short History of Africa. Chapter 16
Oliver R & Atmore A, (2005) Africa since 1800
Packernham T, (1992) The scramble for Africa
Roberts J.M, (1996) A History of Europe, Penguin, London
Rodney W, (1988) How Europe Uderdeveloped Africa
Woodruff W, (2005) A concise History of the Modern world
