No French invasion of Algiers in 1830

[WolfBear]

What if either the Dey of Algiers wasn't such an idiot (see this: Hussein Dey - Wikipedia ) or King Charles X of France would have been deposed just a little bit earlier, before he could have actually launched his invasion of Algiers? Thus there would have been no French invasion of Algiers in 1830. Anyway, what would have happened to Algiers and to the rest of this region afterwards?

Honestly, this strikes me as being a huge blessing for Algiers (later Algeria) since this would mean that if French colonization there will still occur later on, it will look more similar to that in Tunisia and Morocco, without as much settler colonialism, which in turn would have made it much easier for France to leave Algeria during the age of decolonization. Anyway, what do you think?

@Chiron Any thoughts on this?

 

[Chiron]

The Bakri-Busnach affair was a pretext made out of whole cloth. If the Ottomans had won decisively at Navarino, it would have blown over as the Ottomans would have won the war in Greece and been able to send sufficient forces instead of having several spats between Muhammad Ali and the Sublime Porte which left Abdelkader unsupported.

This combined with a victory in Greece and a Palace Coup that gets better leadership in the Sublime Porte can stop the internal rot in the Bureaucracy of the Sublime Porte and get the British and French to back off and see it as a peer to court support.

 

[WolfBear]

The Bakri-Busnach affair was a pretext made out of whole cloth. If the Ottomans had won decisively at Navarino, it would have blown over as the Ottomans would have won the war in Greece and been able to send sufficient forces instead of having several spats between Muhammad Ali and the Sublime Porte which left Abdelkader unsupported.

This combined with a victory in Greece and a Palace Coup that gets better leadership in the Sublime Porte can stop the internal rot in the Bureaucracy of the Sublime Porte and get the British and French to back off and see it as a peer to court support.

Can there be any way to save Algiers if the Ottomans still lose at Navarino, though?

 

[Chiron]

Can there be any way to save Algiers if the Ottomans still lose at Navarino, though?

No as Muhammad Ali loses the leverage he needs and shit rolls downhill as the Europeans have contradictory goals and can't commit to their prior agreements and the internal politics of the Sublime Porte under Mahmud II were utter shit which made it easier for the Europeans to push him around.

An Ottoman victory at Navarino complete with the crushing of the Morea Greeks and checking and even wiping out the Russian Expedition, will give Muhammad the means to take Constantinople, present the British and French a Fait Accompli that they have to eat, then he can march to Algeria and eject the French instead of fighting Mahmud and having victory snatched from him by British interference.

This will then force the British and French to back the fuck off as its clear the Ottomans are not as weak as they thought... And looky, the Americas are getting a little hot and Gran Columbia seems to be having a divorce, lets go over there.

 

[raharris1973]

Honestly, this strikes me as being a huge blessing for Algiers (later Algeria) since this would mean that if French colonization there will still occur later on, it will look more similar to that in Tunisia and Morocco, without as much settler colonialism, which in turn would have made it much easier for France to leave Algeria during the age of decolonization. Anyway, what do you think?

Why is the timing in particular going to determine if France does settler type colonialism and faux integration with the metropole (but with Apartheid for Muslims) or protectorate style colonialism without settlers a la Tunisia-Maroc?

And even with the 1830 conquest, couldn't some colonial administrative changes have simply avoided the settler colonialism aspect? I did pose that question once on AH.com, and no one responding would entertain the possibility. They just didn't seem to compute how France could limit itself in that way. Very odd.

 

[WolfBear]

Why is the timing in particular going to determine if France does settler type colonialism and faux integration with the metropole (but with Apartheid for Muslims) or protectorate style colonialism without settlers a la Tunisia-Maroc?

And even with the 1830 conquest, couldn't some colonial administrative changes have simply avoided the settler colonialism aspect? I did pose that question once on AH.com, and no one responding would entertain the possibility. They just didn't seem to compute how France could limit itself in that way. Very odd.

Well, why did Tunisia and Morocco not receive anywhere near as much European settler colonialism as Algeria did in real life? I always presumed that it was due to the timing and the fact that immigration to the US, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, et cetera was more attractive to people who wanted to emigrate from Spain or Italy, in, say, 1880 or 1900 or 1910 than it was in, say, 1830 or 1850 or 1860, but maybe I'm wrong about this.

And Yes, France could have restricted the inflow of European settlers to Algeria had the political will for this actually existed. The problem is how exactly to realistically create the political will for this in 19th century France. Please keep in mind that back then Algeria was not a demographic threat to France; in 1850, there were something like 15 or 16 European French people for every Muslim Algerian (in France as a whole; not just in Algeria). Had these demographics remained unchanged, France could have easily kept Algeria up to the present-day and given Algerians full voting rights (without any gerrymandering) and full legal equality without any problems. It's the subsequent Algerian population explosion that made this impossible.