https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pG2gh4rgfM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULlYfSUiYYc

>>1575 Worst: Leopold II in Congo.

>>1585 It should be remembered that the man was an inveterate autist, and that he had quite a few enemies. https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/05/monarch-profile-king-leopold-ii-of.html https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/06/enemies-of-king-leopold.html

The issue with the African colonies is that European monarchies often simply came and destroyed the existing hierarchy and imposed unilateral colonial administration, not based on pre-existing states or tribes but what was convenient for the Europeans at the time. Often whatever monarchs refused to bow to the colonial jackboot was just destroyed. The German Kamerun and Vichy French Africa are the best example of an African colony left to its own devices on day-to-day affairs. My ideal solution would have been something like the early colonial ambitions: small settlements, limited to the coasts, and Europeans actually treating preexisting African kingdoms like actual states instead of vassals to be lorded over. In exchange for protection and military aid, as well as access to European markets and education, African rulers would swear fealty to a European monarch, pledging to support them in wars, protecting merchants, offering tribute, contributing a certain number of soldiers, etc. A system such as this one would've easily out lasted the past colonial projects of this timeline. In fact, when looking at it as a whole its no surprise that the age of New Colonialism lasted only for about 50 years.

>>1600 >jackboot No. Remember that many of them were invited in. Let's not pretend that the natives were entirely innocent in all this. Though in quite a few cases, what you're suggesting would have been better, yes.

>>1600 >>1606 The Congress of Berlin was a mistake, and it only happened due to Leopold II wanting an empire. Before that Africa was seen as a wasteland.

>>1617 Leopold II sending exploratory missions into Africa led to a rush to colonize it after they found it contained useful resources and wasn't just malaria ridden jungle. Otto von Bismarck called an international conference to formally settle claims on the continent, some revived from the Age of Discovery in the 1400s. The British gave the effort their backing as they profited from maintaining the balance of power in Europe so they could freely sell to the continental markets. There was a caveat in the agreement reached that if a nation did not move to assert its power in its agreed territory it would be considered forfeit. The spheres of influence the Berlin Conference of 1884 established led to the poorly drawn borders of modern Africa, since they were created for colonial administration and not in accordance with the tribal divisions on the ground. If Africa had ended up like the Americas with most of the natives exterminated it wouldn't have been an issue, however 50 years in the empires of Europe were exhausted by the First World War. The countries were not created by an organic process of alliances and warfare and instead by a haphazard scramble to make paper claims a reality, untested for long-term viability by fate.

>>1647 Interesting, and thank you, though there is one thing: are you sure the Spaniards' and Portuguese actively genocided the indians, or that most of it was just a badly spreading disease? After all, Albion likes to demonize her Catholic rivals to an almost comical extent.

>>1649 I doubt it. The conquistadors made their conquests often with the support of native forces. The English puritans had a much more disdainful view of the Indians than the Spanish, Portuguese, and French. Their interactions immediately resulted in conflict whereas the Catholic empires sought religious conversion. The excesses of Columbus, who was the first administrator in the New World and not a formally trained one, led to his rapid dismissal and replacement once the news reached the Spanish crown. Many of the criticisms of the Spanish conduct were issued by Spanish authorities themselves in order to denounce those who had abused their power. The Latin American Wars of Independence also did not begin until after the American example had proved successful, and only in the context of a Spain occupied by an invasion from Napoleonic France. When the Portuguese crown evacuated to Brazil due to those events, they reportedly found the colony so enjoyable they wished to have stayed permanently. That would not have made much sense if it was the death camp of the propaganda. When I was thinking of drawn borders that did not need to adhere to any reality due to the destruction of the native population, I had first in mind the borders of many American states, which are simply rectangular divisions of territory along lines of latitude and longitude to formalize their administration. Administration by a republic of course, and what is a republic if not government by conference, of lawyers obsessed with legalistic demarcation?

>>1654 Right. The Black Legend. Would be nice to have a book point-by-point refuting all those accusations. I'm told that many of the brighter Brazilians look back on the overthrow of Dom Pedro II with great regret. They weren't a living punchline then. Even rich. How did republican sentiment even get going in such a place?

>>1668 Good times create weak men.

>>1669 Sure, but Floriano Peixoto was a strong man, and yet he was also a rabid dog. Was Dom Pedro II too lenient on education and society at large?

Any HUElanders about here to elaborate? Or on who Solano Lopez of Paraguay was? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OXyex40z6g

>>1723 Right first on Solano fucking Lopez, a Paraguayan dictator with a napoleon complex who drove his nation to the dirty because of some delusion of grandeur. He thought that he could take on the two super powers of the region (Glorious Brazilian Empire and...Argentina *vomits*) and their rebellious child (Cisplatina or Uruguay depending on who you ask) and win...well he failed terribly. The Christ cannon, was one the artillary guns used by paraguay during the war but was captured by the Brazilian army and is on exposition in a brazilian museum as a war prize.

>>2494 >>1723 The thing is...Paraguay was devastated during the war for no fault but their own, with Lopez going Endsieg before it was cool and even throwing children at the veteran brazilian army near the end of the war. About 60% of Paraguays population died in the war (most because of famine and disese), Lopez was hated by Paraguay for a long time until they decide to go full revisionist and make him a national hero while also blaming the Triple Alliance nations (especially) Brazil for the war with even some of the demanding reparation because of it

Bolívar, the man who not only betrayed Spain, but also all Venezuelans, this man signed an act and told the people that it was to expel Napoleon from Spain, and that the King regain his crown. but he lied, and when he was discovered and the people expelled him, he returned and killed everyone who was not by his side, killing more than half the population, even those who were in hospitals, those who had surrendered and the children, the elderly and women. He's definitely what a megalomaniac would call an equal.

>>2581 What other calumnies was he guilty of?

>>1600 Exterminating all niggers would have been a better solution

How the fuck did France just get the Indochina/SEA part while the British got petty much everything around it?

How well did the Portuguese colonies in Africa and the Indies operate during their Empire period?

>>2857 Go back to /pol/.

>>3381 No

>>3383 Why not?