Kargintina wrote:Honestly, could Spain realistically hold the Phillipines if it was too be seized by a different nation?
Not that I would planning that or anything up there with annexing Korea
Could Manila AKA the part that matters most for them hold out? I presume the Spanish are keeping a garrison there and its fortified, so they could hold out in a siege-like state for some period of time. Could they hold it through the course of a war? No. Would attacking it be an act of war against Spain, whom you can't take it from in the eyes of the world until they sign it away in a treaty? Yes.
Jade Confederacy wrote:New Granadeseret wrote:
Well, conquering a territory and enslaving the population en-mass is likely to draw the attention of the British and other supporters of Abolition. But there's a reason it took until the invention of powerful, mass produced rifles, machine guns, powerful medication, ect. before the colonization of much of Africa (As cheaply in terms of lives and manpower as it was done). Flintlock muskets just aren't all that much of a decisive edge when you're facing off against Africans on their own turf (Plus, they have some guns too... what do you think they were trading those slaves for?), particularly once you get out in the bush or far enough away from your base of operations on the coast.
It's not that you CAN'T conquer parts of Africa. You just can't take it and hold large chunks of it remotely as cheaply as Europeans would be able to few decades later.
hence why we're dividing the coastal provinces first-im not planing to go further inland until the bigger Malian Kingdoms fall. For France it probably mean fanning out from Senegal. Everyone would be free to do what they wish in their allotted spheres of influence and i dont care what the British want since we're economic rivals.
"Dividing" is such an ugly way of handling this. After all, the IRL Congress of Berlin didn't set up who could colonize what areas, it just set up the rules for what constituted effective colonization in the eyes of the European community and thus made the space you ran a viable "no touchie" zone for other power. I would much prefer it be handled in a more wild-west, free for all manner such problems deserve.
Also, you may very much care about what the British want once they start boarding your slave ships and confiscating their cargo on the grounds of "Abolition"
*Dutch Cape Colony would be recognized... though on the frontiers nations could probably make a legal argument that Dutch sovergenity doesn't really extend that far out.
Sanabel wrote:New Granadeseret wrote:
Well, conquering a territory and enslaving the population en-mass is likely to draw the attention of the British and other supporters of Abolition. But there's a reason it took until the invention of powerful, mass produced rifles, machine guns, powerful medication, ect. before the colonization of much of Africa (As cheaply in terms of lives and manpower as it was done). Flintlock muskets just aren't all that much of a decisive edge when you're facing off against Africans on their own turf (Plus, they have some guns too... what do you think they were trading those slaves for?), particularly once you get out in the bush or far enough away from your base of operations on the coast.
It's not that you CAN'T conquer parts of Africa. You just can't take it and hold large chunks of it remotely as cheaply as Europeans would be able to few decades later.
Hey, no slavery, no slave revolts, and you can probably depend on the local leadership structure a lot more. Makes colonies cheaper to run.
I have an idea.
I will turn the Skeleton Coast into a giant penal "colony". I'll just drop off the prisoners on the barren coast and let God judge them. We will give the name Gates of Hell yet another reason to be called that.
My population is overflowing, and the prisoners need to go somewhere.
One can never have too many workers for the factories. Prison Industrial Complex hoe!
