1
Q
North - Strategic
A
- Egypt - Suez Canal 1869
- Short route to India - ‘jewel in crown’
- Australia/Malaya - useful in war
- Access to Br Indian Army
- Disraeli sought the strategic waterway
- Bought 44% share (1875)
- Cape-Cairo railway:
- Critical element in Br’s scheme:
- unify possessions (colonies)
- enabled military to move quickly/conduct war
- Critical element in Br’s scheme:
2
Q
North - Nationalism (Egypt)
A
- Egypt - Colonel Pasha:
- 1882 revolt
- Br had to set up to protect investments
- Left leadership vacuum Br had to fill
- Trigger to take over land!
3
Q
North - Nationalism (Sudan)
A
- Sudan - Mahdi:
- Gen. Gordon sent to evacuate was killed (1885)
- Outrage in Br
- Gladstone accused of being too weak to send more troops.
- Avenge Gordon - Br excuse to takeover!
4
Q
North - Economic Factors
A
- Egypt - Br banks vast amounts into investments:
- Cotton
- Lent sums for Khedive’s modernisation scheme
- Fear losing investments
- Br econ thrived on “free trade”
- Another took over?
- Protectionism will impose tax on exports
- Can’t sell cheap -> no one will buy -> economy drop
- Protectionism will impose tax on exports
- Another took over?
5
Q
North - Imperial Rivalry (Egypt)
A
- Egypt - policy to prop up Ottoman Emp:
- Didn’t want others to benefit from collapse
- Shown by sending troops (1882) to put down revolt to support it!
- Nationalism would free control from Turkey - can ally w/ others!
- Feared inc. Fr influence
- Owned 55% Suez
- Threat to trade/Suez route
6
Q
North - Imperial Rivalry (Sudan)
A
- Fr wamted land from E–>W coast inc. Nile HQ
- Br wanted Cape–>Cairo railway
- Led to confrontation at Fashoda (1898)
- Though military conflict b/w EU superpowers unlikely
- Anglo-Fr agreement over Nile Valley (1899)
- Didn’t want Fr gain foothold in region
- Incident efforts show imp of rivalry - trigger?
7
Q
East - Economic Factors
A
- Raw materials - Nile:
- Zanzibar - vast quantities manufactured goods from Br->Ind
- Total imp/exp trade £2 mill
- Major trade in E. interior - ivory/leather goods
- Desire to inc. inlet of resources
- Elusive source of Nile
- Egypt’s econ stability depended
- Zanzibar - vast quantities manufactured goods from Br->Ind
- Econ. motivation long-pres factor, but not substatial enough for exp.
- Trigger likely imp rivalry, properly sparked by Berlin Conf.
8
Q
East - Imperial Rivalry
A
- Fear inc. Fr influence:
- Claimed Madagascar
- Leave Br little land left
- Raised prospect of threat to Br trade w/ creation of Fr/Ger naval base on coast
- Threat Suez route
- Claimed Madagascar
- Berlin Conf (1884-5):
- “Effective occupation” policy
- Rivals felt need to exert influence even stronger!
- Br needed to discard ‘informal influence’ to protect spheres from foreign influence
- Br determined to resist imbalance from rivals
- Made occupation much quicker, thus quickened pace of partition
9
Q
East - M.O.T.S (MacKinnon)
A
- IBEAC (1885) to attract investment
- Br didn’t want involvement; saw little econ value
- Berlin Conf –> fear of not being dominant
- Led to chartering (1888)
- Provoked by Bismarck’s support for Peters
- Shows econ concerns not enough to expand; triggered by competition
10
Q
East - M.O.T.S (Peters)
A
- German E. Af Co (1884)
- Collected signed treaties w/ local chiefs
- Gained govt backing from Chanc. Bismarck
- German intervention evoked fear!
- Prompted Br govt to give same support for MacKinnon by chartering
11
Q
East - M.O.T.S (Cpt. Lugard)
A
- Contributed to exp. Br influence in East
- Bugandan civil war:
- Anglican missionary assassinated, Hannington
- Br had to step in to achieve stability
- IBEAC sent military unit under him (1890)
- Success ext. IBEAC authority, limiting Peter’s treaties
12
Q
West - Economic Factors
A
- Trade on coast - trading ports were govt protectorates
- Gold fields controlled by Ashanti tribe
- Nigeria - palm oil; industrial lube for industry
13
Q
West - Nationalism
A
- Ashanti:
- Sought to exp. rule; promote trade
- Invaded Fanti lands (Br allies)
- Led to series of wars final resulted in Ashanti defeat
- 1902 Ashanti lands became part of Gold Coast colony)
- Was fundamental trigger to expand!
14
Q
West - Imperial Rivalry
A
- French:
- Interested in exp. colony Senegal to develop W. Af emp, until almost swallowed Gambia
- Gambia - econ insignif old colony; thought of swapping for other land
- Gambia lobby didn’t want this - pressure!
- Br determined to have inf. in West; kept useless land!
- Rivalry key factor, rather than econ. sparked by Berlin Conf.
- Belgians:
- Set up Congo Free State to expolit rubber trade - growing influence
15
Q
West - M.O.T.S
A
- Goldie:
- United Afr Co (1879) est to encourage commerical interest
- 1881 sought charter from Gladstone’s govt - attempts failed!
- Foreign activity (Fr) in area led to charter (1886) to Royal Niger Company
- Govt backing didn’t immediately follow - implies diff factor needed to provoke exp
- Trigger largely rivalry - kicked off by Berlin (1885)
16
Q
South - Economic Factors
A
- Raw materials in Boer lands:
- Mineral rev induced by discovery of:
- diamonds (1869)
- gold in Witwatersrand (1886)
- Br suddenly desperate to exp to profit from this econ powerhouse
- Mine owners/investors “rand millionaires” put pressure to annex/secure access to minerals
- Kimerly region rapidly annexed under pretext of bringing to law gold digging
- Mineral rev induced by discovery of:
- Econ interest led to involvement, but not immediate formal acquisition
- **Can’t take full credit for territorial exp **
17
Q
South - Strategic
A
- Cape Route:
- Position of Boer Rep strategically imp for Br plans to ext in S. Af
- Transvaal - gave route to Br colonies in East: India, Australia etc
- Cape route considered safer course than Suez
- If Suez threatened by surrounding rivals, gain access to colonies through Cape route in South
18
Q
South - Nationalism
A
- Influx of Uitlanders (min. rev) result in trensions w/ Boers
- Denied pol rights, taxed heavily
- Gave Br excuse to provoke war!
- Series of wars - 2nd Boer war (end 1902) led to takeover of land
- Boer War was trigger!
19
Q
South - Imperial Rivalries
A
- Boers:
- Min. rev trans econ balance in region
- Transvaal from agricultural econ –> inc in prosperity
- Br govt, esp Chamberlain disliked growing wealth/power Boers had fr exploiting new-found wealth in minerals
- Threat to Br dominance
- If Boers had complete control over imp regions, none left for Br!
- Min. rev trans econ balance in region
- Germany:
- Claimed S.W Af (1884)
- Feared unity w/ Boers in Transvaal
- Would unite German E.Af–>S.W
- Cape Colony would be cut off fr Br - investments/strategic hegemony lost!
20
Q
South - M.O.T.S
A
- Rhodes:
- Elected PM of Cape (1890)
- 1889 charter for Br. S.Af Co (BSAC)
- Contributed to inc Br influence
21
Q
Expansion was by treaties/agreements
A
- Fashoda crisis (1898) at Nile showed military conflict b/w EU powers unlikely
- 1899 Anglo-Fr agreement over Nile
- Berlin Conf (1884-5):
- “effective occupation”
- Led to chartering of trade companies
- Expansion achieved by diplomacy
- Led to chartering of trade companies
- “effective occupation”
22
Q
Expansion was by military conflict
A
- Direct conflict prevalent in South:
- Zulus (1879)
- Boers (2 wars, ended in 1902)
- Conflict in East/West:
- Ashanti Wars (ended 1901)
- Use of force against revolts:
- Egypt (Pasha)
- Sudan (Mahdi)
23
Q
Expansion was by combination of financial/diplomatic agreement and military action
A
- Purchase of Suez share (1875) led to limited military action to exp. influence
- Declaration of Br-Fr Dual Control (1876) of Egypt
- Restablished (1879) - discontent among elements of popln led to reaction against EU interference (1881 revolt).
- Military action/attempts at negotiation used to bring Mahdist revolt to end, but Gordon death (1885) brought calls for military action (Kitchener advanced 1896)
- Where possible, Br attempted to negotiate w/ local rulers (allied Fante)
- Attempts by settled grps to resist Br exp, more often than not, led to military conflict before Br could achieve goal
