Hello, i would like to talk about a topic never mentionned, not known at all, even from 99% of Moroccans themselves due to the later events overshadowing it
As a Moroccan and LULZtory lover i started to study more and more industrialisation around the world, how some places had all the necessary to be the first ones to start industrialisation, how it spreaded from England to all over the world, where did it fail etc... and Most peoples take Industrialisation as an European history when its more of a Western European history, the rest of europe only got industrialized by being conquered by those major western powers ( except for Russia which is eastern but at that time thanks to monarchy was deeply linked to other western empires )
And then, there's the Ottoman empire, which got industrialised but not to an extant like western europe, they undoubtedly had their weapon factories, daily life industrial tools etc... but it was really mainly concentrated around Turkish heartland and Balkan Ottoman Empire, the rest of Arab states weren't being developped at all and were kept as village and farm populated place with very few cities unindustrialized mainly due to the fact that all MENA countries didn't have a big population that would prop up industrialization, but also due to Ottomans not wanting to make Arabs self sufficient, but rather force them to keep buying products made in Turkish factories.
Assumedly much like madagascar before you, they tried creating some textile factories and it failed miserably. But good for you that you those while it lasted.
But what i also learned is what happened in Egypt from starting from 1805, Muhammad Ali took power there, in an Ottoman Egypt, gradualy throughout the years Muhammad Ali understood that his 7.5million inhabitants egypt was falling too much behind Western powers which not only were more populated ( France had itself 31 million inhabitants in 1820, more than all Arab countries combined ) becoming modern through reforms, new military organisation and training, scientific methods, but also started industrializing which would be the nail in the coffin if egypt didn't act
He ordered total reorganization of the army, copying western style of armies and making the army a job, and not just peoples becoming soldiers when in war, he copied western style of training and understood the importance of separating soldiers from the cities by building training camps, where order and dicipline was teached, in picrel you can see the results, Ottomans becoming too weak relied on Egypt multiple times to conquer revolting place up until Egypt itself advanced toward Ottoman core territory before UK forcing egypt to stop in a fear that the fall of Ottomans would mean more Russian control in the balkans.
To speed up a bit Muhammad Ali also in his later reign made huge changes in egypt by building a dam, the first few railroads and true roads, some factories also were built and he was responsible for a short new arabic culture golden age where by making printing available in egypt managed to spread arabic litterature, poetry, qurans, scientific books and other manuals which in the end allowed more and more Arabs ( not only in egypt ) to have access to a Quran, which meant also allowing peoples to learn to read and write in Arabic by being teached in mosques how to read these qurans peoples could have at home, it also allowed pro arab independence sentiments to become more widespread in the middle east.
But now i asked myself, Morocco is the only north african nation that resisted Ottomans, and that was too a more populated place compared to the rest, and had a long lasting monarchy, recent victories against europeans and also a lot of trading with europes, europeans coming there, Moroccan kings forging alliances or bringing european advisors to help them, so they sure were aware about industrialisation and the new gap of power that would now be hardly fought like it was before, due to Europeans being able to produce new all powerful weapons and strong navy
>But now i asked myself, Morocco is the only north african nation that resisted Ottomans
Many regions in algeria were never taken by the ottomans (ait abbes/kuoukou) and by the 18 th century, even the regency of algiers was independant
One of the reasons why the ottomans didnt intervene when the french invaded algeria is because algeria had many rebellions, out of controle regions and that ottoman ships/jannisaries garrisons would often get attacked
I know that Ottomans didn't really have control over these a lot of North African or even Middle Eastern territories, i just really didn't want to write more text kek, but yes Algeria was de facto a semi state made of confederation with Algier acting as the head of the Algerian territory, but without exercing a lot of control which also explains why at that time Algeria was known and hated for its piratery, raids on european coasts to bring european slaves, until France decided to put an end to it
Ottoman rule over Algiers ended de facto in the late 1600s even if they remain de jure overlords. The Ottomans didn't care much in 1830 when the French entered the region.
But had the French not invaded Algeria, the Ottomans would have restored order by the 1840s or 1850s. Which in return means Morocco has someone to look for support. The Ottomans were weak willed with regards to Morocco
>Fighting another Muslim
>Hostile Christian power nearby
>Nothing of value
It would be even less interested in the 19th century when no Euro Power wanted others to control Morocco.
The biggest issue is: Ceuta and Melilla
In the era of Imperialism, these enclaves mean Spain will look for the Rif region. To control it or by others loyal to Madrid.
Considering how Algiers still got Oran in 1792, Morocco also had options.
For Ceuta and Melilla a treaty was signed by Morocco in 1845 recognizing it as spain, which almost started a new era of cooperation and friendship with spain that unfortunatly stopped when locals kept attacking those two cities with the Moroccan royal troops there not preventing it, spain legit didn't want to go back at fighting Morocco and basically asked multiple time Moroccan king to act and punish the attackers, they asked it multiple times and the king of morocco kept asking for more time due to his orders not being respected, the king died meanwhile and his son successor also asked spain for more time to settle his power over the country but ultimatly failed to stop those regular attacks from locals, in the spanish parliament some politicians called for a war to wash honor and got the support of the population, the rest of the gov of Spain had no choice but to act after being pushed to go at war and did so
exactly, Algier regency was just nominal but had no power over all the various groups there and piracy
And by searching deeper, even reading century old documents, or research papers about this topic or other almost 2 centuries old documents from french sent to Morocco documenting the Moroccan empire etc...
A part of myself, accentuated by the fact that im Moroccan, couldn't just believe that Morocco who was in contact with europe and wasn't isolated at all and kept fighting and winning wars against portugese and spain or losing some, a Morocco that planned in the late 17th century with England to fight Spain and create a Moroccan colony in the Americas, i just couldn't believe we were just retarded and never industrialized and let ourselves get conquered.
What i learned was surprising, apparently Moroccan king of middle/late 19th century paid multiple times French scientists, military advisors and engineers and planners to modernize Morocco too, in 1864 a sugar refining factory was built with the help of an english engineer, king of Morocco sent multiple hundred Moroccans to europe in an attempt to have them educated there and come back and become themselves teachers but the initiative was delayed multiple times due to political reasons, and those who could were directly integrated in Moroccan armies as advisors. Other smaller factories were built notably an artillery factory but nothing more occured, why ?
>morocco the japan of the mena
>but the initiative was delayed multiple times due to political reasons
It's never really ephasized how short a time these nations have to either make it or break it, get a bad leadership in those crucial years and you're history.
Why didn't they try to ally with another Euro power earlier, too confident? Surely someone else doesn't like France gaining that much colonies, could have acted as a buffer state like Thailand.
Do you think their industrialization could have been successful enough to remain independent? From that wall of text they sounded too reliant on trade, like Portugal.
They had long time allies like UK that always was up to go at war against spain with the help of Morocco, and they also kept later on being reliable weapon trading partner, US also was an ally, in fact the first country to recognize USA was morocco, but US had this non interventionnist policy that prevented it from being useful to Morocco + it went through us civil war, then you have Germany that always seek friendship and ally with Morocco but never had true access to Morocco for it due to France an England ruling the seas around Morocco, the thing is that Morocco could have kept being allied and even make new allies but it simply didn't have the power to be useful to anybody and itself was collapsing and couldn't help itself
if morocco got industrialized and reformed successfully its army it would have stayed independent most likely, France only really colonized Morocco after seeing total Moroccan collapse when it just had in mind to have strong influence on it politically without invading it because Morocco was seen as being a real state and not just some african tribal territory, and also because it would have been too costly considering how much Spain and Portugal already lost there before.
>didn't have the power to be useful to anybody
This is what I mean, sounds like the idea is
industrialize > get money > move from trading focused economy > use exports to be important > use importance to secure diplomatic ties
But did Morocco have enough potential local resources for that level of industialization in the first place?
They have a ton of phosphate, which started being used to create artificial fertilizer in 1842. Like they do today they could use the export of phosphate or fertilizer to secure the foreign currency required to purchase industrial equipment.
An important precursor to industrialization however is breaking the power of the landlords and agriculture reform, which takes considerable political strength.
thing is those phosphate deposits are in the south, which at that time was already controlled by spain in their Rio de Oro aka western sahara colony KEK
the problem is that even if successfully industrialize, Moroccan products would still not be competitive on the global market due to UK Germany and France already producing everything for a lot cheaper and in large enough quantity + also having directly access to all sorts of ressources through their colonies, trade with other smaller european powers and trade with the US, while Morocco would have only be able to produce things with only local ressources and bad infrastructures to transport them which meant that even with all the factories in the world, the ressources wouldn't get there due to the country being in anarchy state as soon as you leave the core coastal territories, and the problem is that not only Morocco doesn't have coal sources being known to be there and easily extractible like in northern France, England and Western Germany, but also those places with valuable minerals and coal were located further away next to or directly in those mountaineous regions where control wasn't present anymore, and where no roads or railways would have brought the ressources to the factories, and also not enough inhabitants to just send them to the mines
Other smaller european nations had the same problems of not exporting due to UK/France/Germany doing it already but still kept industrializing to produce things they localy need, weapons, and they could do it thanks to having ties with neighboring countries which ensured income to industrialize, where Morocco had no neighbors to trade with, no places to conquer, no control on its valuable territory, no ally to sort this shit, and no foreign investment due to investors simply fearing total moroccan state collapse
said, there are many stakeholders who would not benefit, even lose, in industrialization, and many of those stakeholders are the suppliers of troops, taxes, and local order. In many cases, they are also key decision makers, who would obviously decide against a process that would strengthen urbanites, cause instability, and incur debt.
too is right. By the mid 1800s, Western europe had decades of expertise in materials science and engineering, the infrastructure to support it, connections to markets for demand, ability to ship at lower costs. To say it would be an uphill battle is an understatement.
All and all, kino thread OP
Then how did Japan do it so fast?
Japs are also too far and have a solid economic backbone with chinese trade.
>The problem is
Can't they have founded a solid naval dominance as well?
Like I said can't they just blockade it? I imagine barbary pirates raiding colonies there instead of western med. That way they can also claim to be natives acting in self defense.
Problem with Moroccan Navy is that it was almost fully destroyed due to the wars with Spain, France, Portugal and also against Algeria and Ottomans in late 18th century, building ships cost a lot and they couldn't because 19th century was the moment when Morocco had to constantly pay more and more war reparations, while having infights and collapse of its taxation system, naval dominance became impossible + new ships steam ships being around they would have been primitive anyway
barbary pirates were mostly along algerian coast and had no intent to sail around morocco to go to SSAfrica just for some blacks and gold when they earned already better money by raiding european coasts taking europeans and asking for money in exchange of them, but i don't get what you mean by blockading it or by claiming to be natives acting in self defense
Some 17th century records mention Barbary Pirates being seen on the Coasts of Virginia. Considering no raid took place I doubt it was true.
But what will they get from the New World?
They can get them closer to home
>Gold and Silver?
Heavily protected by the Spanish, only captured by fully armed Anglo-Dutch navies. Not a one ship job
>Sugar cane, coffee, cotton, tobacco?
Grows at home
You get all the dangers of crossing the Atlantic + little to profit. It would only work if they had some settlements in the Americas.
this + the confirmed farthest north african pirate raid was on Iceland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Abductions
>Barbary Pirates being seen on the Coasts of Virginia. Considering no raid took place I doubt it was true.
we sailed all this way and changed our mind
thanks, legit you explained it better and shorter than i did lol, i write too much, peoples forget how if you went to France before industrialisation it was still heavily populated, its cities were very dense, it had universities and all the scientific knowledge and peoples to keep sharing it or improving it, it was reformed militarily with Napoleon ( before that europe had a similar non professional armies like morocco that got crushed until going to moscow by the professional Napoleon army ) and the road system was good enough + multiple long rivers, today unused but at the time essential for fast travel, and connections by road to their neighbors when Morocco had no neighbors to connect with, rivers being where the king already had control in the plains, and the rest being mountains and low population areas
their emperor had control over the country and total subordination by its people which wasn't anymore the case in Morocco + good navy due to it being an island which favored it for trade when the Moroccan navy shrinked by 95% in less than 2 centuries due to all the wars and piracy
The reason was linked to battles, against other powers but also in Morocco.
What happened from 1850 to 1900 wasn't just Morocco learning slowly to industrialize, it was also mainly how Moroccan state became too sick to function properly, and became a constantly fighting country to ensure itself few more decades of existence, during 19th century Morocco saw its entire surrounding being conquered by Western europeans, becoming alone isolated between French and Spanish territories, Morocco usually just had to fortify its northern part and north western coast against Spanish and Portugese attempts at conquering lands, it also managed to maintain its presence on the East when it had to fight the Ottomans and Algerian Regency during late 18th century, but it never had or could maintain its Eastern Saharan borders, notably because those were just trade routes, no other state could attack Morocco, and Moroccan army only crossed these borders to conquer subsaharan kingdoms for slaves and gold, so only expeditionnary forces, but never stationnary presence. which truely signed an end to Moroccan habit of fending off stronger European armies trying to invade it because this time its not coming from the north, this time in 1830 France conquered Algeria then subsaharan Africa and Sahara which made it possible for Morocco to be attacked from the south and east. picrel you can see the conquest of Algeria and Sahara, and the loss of Moroccan saharan territories that weren't defended at all
From there Morocco's downfall started due to economic reasons, peoples tend to think that colonization of MENA was uniquely an army advancing on MENA countries, but it was also treaties, debts, ambassadors or leaders from both countries negociating etc...
in 1844 Moroccan king, seeing the total conquest of Neighboring Algeria decided to help the local counter colonization leader the Emir Abd el-Kader
This help was in form of weapon donations, hosting Algerian rebels behind Moroccan borders, sending Moroccan militias fighting against France, all of that pushed France to take actions and ask Moroccan king Abd alrahman to remove all help or face war, Moroccan king stayed vague and denied providing help to Algerians, France declared war, a war that was quick but had heavy consequences, the Battle of Isly saw Oujda, a big Moroccan city next to the Algerian ( now French ) border being conquered quickly thanks to French strategic formation rendering Moroccan fast horse mounted attack ineffective despite 45000 Moroccans with canon pieces fighting 10 000 french troops, the French navy also sent 20 warships along Western Moroccan coasts where main cities are, shelling first the northern city of Tangier heavily protected itself by moroccan canons aimed toward the sea, despite heavy Moroccan fighting the battle ended in few hours due to French guns being more precise, destroying a lot of Moroccan canons, but also shelling the city, same thing happened in Essaouira a bit later notably where France destroyed most Moroccan coastal defenses but saw 40 Moroccan canons holding positions and keeping intense fire on french ships, followed by French troops disembarking on a small island
Moroccan king capitulated to avoid more political loss and negociate statut quo
The city of Oujda was given back and war ended but Morocco had to pay heavy war tribute to France, in 1851 another shortlived battle occured between France and Morocco without results, in 1859 a war against Spain was started after multiple raids from local moroccans on spanish territory of Ceuta which the Moroccan gov or army did nothing to prevent it or repair it, the war was declared and saw 50 000 spanish troops invading the north fighting against 50 000 Moroccan troops, the fight was symetrical because the losses were similar, but peace was signed in 1860 again at the price of huge war reparations which is why when Morocco tried to industrialize in the years 1880 it didn't go anywhere due to Morocco having multiple debts to pay, debts Morocco couldn't ignore due to the risk of France and Spain colonizing Morocco like the rest of Africa was, from there the collapse of Moroccan state and power started, the country got poorer, the taxes increased to pay these reparations, adding few consecutive years of bad weather that caused few famines and civil unrest, the Political structure of the Moroccan empire, based on constant war and conquest was now over, the power of the king outside of the core of Morocco ( coastal morocco around Rabat, Casablanca etc... ) relied on local rulers submitting to the king and ensuring taxation in exchange of getting paid and being ensured power on their local town, the Moroccan army heavily relied on Black slaves which were separate from the society and treated better, they formed the royal guard army and at the time were 30 000, ( they were 150 000 one century before ) they were prefered to Moroccan soldiers due to their total submission and loyalty to the king when Moroccans soldiers were feared because would have created infighting for power. a small european like Moroccan army was also formed but it only regrouped the most valuable assets of Moroccan army which was artillery and the few remaining warships
Those european style troops were trained and kept in good shape, but the foot troops and horse mounted troops weren't trained nor even employed as soldiers, those local rulers ensuring allegiance to the king also had the job of having to create themselves their own small local army and when called for a war by the king leading them to where it was needed where they would be mixed with all the other Moroccans summoned too by their local leaders and all leaded by the King himself or a relative or an army leader nammed by the king, they are those who make up the most troops when at war but are poorly trained due to being just civilians, moreover those small local units were a heavy cost for the state, because of their status of ready to be called soldier they are also paid a small compensation by the state even when not at war, which was a huge expenditure considering that at few hundred of thousands of Moroccan men were part of these reserve troops, and when the Moroccan state got in debt and started to collapse this money started to stop flowing like before, prompting local unrest and refusal of submitting to Moroccan state or paying taxes, which made Morocco poorer and increased the amount of these peripheral territories that were so important due to them being closer or near the borders with european african colonies, picrel shows "bilad siba" which are those unsubmitting territories. Morocco showed its total weakness and societal collapse to power hungry western europe, especially France UK and Germany which all wanted Morocco due to its strategic location guarding entrance to med sea
Morocco could do nothing, not only it couldn't invade subsaharan lands to take gold and slaves and sell these slaves all to bring money fuelling the state and preventing rebellions due to all of these subsaharans being colonized, but it couldn't trade anymore due to most of its territory not under control, and even the controlled parts couldn't bring significative income due to Europe already having all of their needs from Africa and also producing themselves everything they need a lot cheaper thanks to industrialization, this is when Morocco stopped having any further attempts at industrialization, and this is also when more and more Moroccan peripheric territories are conquered by France and spain without seeing attempts from the central gov at protecting these lands, carving out modern Moroccan borders, This is when in 1905 Western european powers almost started WW1 over who would get Morocco, notably Germany's Kaiser Guilliaum II visiting Tangier in Morocco after seeing France gaining too much power in the area to meet the Moroccan king and offer him protection against France which caused a crisis and the Algesiras conference where France was given right over Morocco and Germany had to refrain from further attempts at making ties with Morocco, then began in 1912 the conquest of Morocco, Moroccan state surrendering but the people keeping the fight, which was completed in 1938 only, due to intense resistance, and even significant victories from Moroccans against Spanish troops in the rif
bump, help a nigga out he's actually made an interesting non-bait thread on LULZ
The colonial techniques seem pretty standard. They realized too late and were too close to europe to catch up. Japan did the same thing with hiring a ton of foreign scientists, but it had the benefit of being an island nation and being far enough that the european powers and their colonial empires to be slowly taken over.
Also Japan is a very nationalistic country. Probably the most nationalistic in the world since the Tokugawa took power. That's why they're able to move so fast, because they can always organize around the prosperity of their country/emperor. And also probably because they consider everyone else inferior to them.
he did basically everything right, then he died
in the end lack of time killed Morocco, industrialization need high population that get concentrated in cities and need work, it needs total state control and not the monarchy relying on local rulers submitting to the king that when things go wrong end up not recognizing your power, it also needs to first build rails, have trains and manage to get peoples to mine in those remote places, at least to this step, because Morocco would at least export raw resources, and with the income open local factories to refine those raw ressources yourself and fuel the industry by having constant weapon demand from the army, and somehow manage to pay for it when in the case of Morocco not only it could invade nobody, but trade with nobody so those weapons domestically built would still end up being a net loss, the only way Morocco could have saved its ass is by looking healthier and trading with the Americas, which wouldn't mind buying from Morocco, and also perhaps Morocco hosting US troops as an ally during WW1 if it managed to not get colonized until then, which would after have ensured that Morocco gets political recognition and protection like Thailand
This might be Paradox tier strategy but could Morocco have tried to secure western Africa earlier?
I imagine they might ally with Spain and contested/captured Portugese colonies, then made sure no european puts up as much as a harbor in the region.
Of course they would have to impose unfair shit like free docking and very cheap prices so emerging colonizers won't just go gunboat diplomacy.
That way they will secure a sea route for trade and resources the future factories will need.
Tbh i can see Morocco easily conquering the whole area given the necessary amount of Money and propaganda to rise enough troops like it was already done a century or two before when Morocco invaded Songhai empire
But i can't see Morocco keeping it at all, the only way would be Morocco having an european style professionnal army already around year 1800 that could act as occupation troops, and administration, the most likely scenario would then have been Morocco conquering the Area then handing it to Portugal and Spain in exchange of Money and trade rights, i can easily see spain and portugal holding these lands, they would never have been able to conquer it due to their armies not being really fit for quick invasion, but their armies and history prove how they can hold far away territories even with little troops there thanks to good organisation and relatively low corruption compared to the shitshow that a Moroccan occupation would have been
>compared to the shitshow that a Moroccan occupation would have been
Elaborate. Surely, being both muslims, West Africans would be more supportive of Moroccan rule?
them being muslim made it that Morocco couldn't enslave them and submit them totally but instead just put some of the friendly ones in power + after invading their whole country collapsed and the numerous tribes and peoples went their way so in the end Morocco invade an empire that disappears when invaded, effectivly making it control nothing more than the few cities that were before center of the empire
>This might be Paradox tier strategy but could Morocco have tried to secure western Africa earlier?
For what purpose? The only worthwhile thing there was the Mali gold mines, but they didn't care about those because they still profited from the trade routes, so conquering the south was not necessary and probably would have seen as a burden, at that time.
That's why I said it's Paradox tier.
I'm assuming they would have seen Portugal/Spain's expansion and concluded that their monopoly of goods from south of the Sahara is threatened if other nations circumvent them by sea.
Not that they will rule west africa, just secure a place as the middleman either by naval blockade or getting exclusive trading rights from independent native kingdoms.
things is conquering those places is only beneficial if you have an industry to feed at home and trade to operate and big demand of goods at home
Morocco didn't have that, nor Portugal or Spain, the only valuable things there were gold, that Morocco could get by just invading and withdrawing from time to times without making it too costly to have peoples there that have to be paid, replaced, supplied etc.. when you can just leave the africans do their thing themselves and come take the benefits here and there
They tried to and did, causing the collapse of Songhai. The problem is:
1. The Sahara poses incredible difficulty for communication and control. It’s massive. You can’t have reliable supply lines for any large army. The only people who know how to navigate it are not moroccan and very difficult to control, because they know how to navigate the desert and you do not.
2. Sahelian West Africa became less economically important once Europeans developed navigation techniques to sail there, cutting out the middleman for slaves and resources. It was a less valuable prize.
3. The Sahel, like most parts of the world at that time, was militarily on par with Morocco. Guns, cavalry, metal weapons, large armies, all were available there. Morocco had no necessary advantage.
So what's the story with western Sahara. Is it an independent country or is it part of Morocco.
Mostly controlled by Morocco
What does that mean? Are the citizens Moroccan. Do they pay taxes to Morocco. Can you move there and start a business?
Western Sahara is basically the southern parts of Moroccan empire taken by spain like the northern rif region while France took the core, when Morocco got independent only the core was, it still had to free those parts held by Spain, after some wars Morocco ended up taking back 80% of Western Sahara and agreed for a ceasefire, the peoples there call themselves Moroccans and are Moroccans on their passport and ID card, there is no difference between the north and Moroccan western sahara, the remaining 20% are almost fully unpopulated but due to politics are a lot of time shown as being the legitimate state n sheit
A lot of the Sahrawi people (the local desert nomads) don't like Moroccan rule and fought back.
Problem is that there are a LOT of Moroccans and not many Sahrawis, so they lost most of Western Sahara (including the relatively good bits) and getting a separate marking on maps for their government in exile is about all they could accomplish.
most of the sahrawi local still were along the coastal cities as always before, inland were just nomads that just made their route through sahara but almost nobody lived inland, when all countries started to got decolonized in the sixties sahara wasn't, during that time Algeria started to support a group named Polisario, while Morocco already planned to take back sahara itself, Morocco didn't want another war after that war was declared in 57 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ifni_War to take back the city of Ifni and cap Juby, the Spanish/French alliance won but had to concede all of Cap Juby, most of Ifni but morocco didn't get ifni back, and the PRO MOROCCO rebels in western sahara got crushed. The country decided to ask for moroccan citizens to go make a march to the sahara, unarmed, 5 million peoples were voluntary which was too much for Moroccan logistics so the king organized a draw to select 350 000 civilians, that were accompagned to the south with 25 000 soldiers ensuring their protection in case of spanish retaliation, the march was successful but when spain started to withdraw the Polisario front that was armed by Algeria and perhaps (not sure at all) with USSR/Arab baathist weapons didn't want to let that happen as they planned to themselves take control of sahara, the idea of being back in the kingdom went against Arab socialist ideology and all the arab socialist states of the time like Algeria, Libya, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, so they declared war and kept being funded, by algeria and kept attacking and withdrawing back in the Algerian city of Tindouf, so that morocco couldn't get them for good without having to go at war with algeria.
in the end the western saharans you're talking about are 30 000 all living in Tindouf, Algeria while the rest of native saharans, 600 000 are in moroccan sahara
Yeah, it's a David vs Goliath kind of situation. Their biggest bet was having help from Spain, but that probably will never happen again considering how useless is that situation is for them.
They actually claim that region but their historically claim is dubious. That part of Africa has always been mostly tribal land.
So it's a bit like North Korea. It's a territory with no government recognized by the world.
I think a better example would be Somalia. In theory, they control the whole country, but in reality is like only like a half.
>Ottomans not wanting to make Arabs self sufficient, but rather force them to keep buying products made in Turkish factories.
I dont' blame them, the concept of capatalism making everyone more wealthy is kind of strange concept, for much of history it was kind of the standard that for one person to prosper, others must fail, the idea that prosperity proliferates just didn't have as many examples especially back then they could point to and realibly feel they could rely on it when centrlized power tends to be the thing most powers that came to be focused on
thing is its totally logic for muslim powers to fail integrating to capitalism due to the religion itself forbidding usury or betting ( which investment is since you give money hoping that in the future you'll get more back ), but it doesn't excuse it from not industrializing its country for the sake of transporting troops across their empire that spanned over 3 continents ( nafrica, middle east, and european part ) + also to allow muslims to go on pilgrimage ( the railway was done but very late )
the problem is as usual the surrounding of the Sultan not being there thanks to merit and skills were just a bunch of fat dumb class only there because the sultan has to give them money and power over this and that part of the empire to avoid having some of them trying to take his place, which in the end made it that everyone knew the empire was lacking, but no centralized enough actions are taken and not enough informations are given to the sultan, which is why you see Ottoman empire autistically doing dumb attempts at catching up like if it was someone with no knowledge trying to fix this shit, im talking about Factories, plans for railroads or stuffs like that never finished or that were ordered but never could be done due to the lack of a lot of needed elements and engineers, understand here that basically the Sultan saw europe being OP thanks to industry, and shouts at his subordinate to build the same stuff, without knowledge of how to extract ressources first for these industries, bring engineers etc...
It's not just the problem of investment in islamic culture, it's also the problem of trade. Islam prohibited trade with christian countries and the Ottomans efectively imposed an embargo on trade with Europe cutting also the silk route that had connected commercially Europe with Asia. That's why the portuguese began looking for an oceanic way to reach Asia. North Africa was extremely shitholian already and the Ottoman influence only made things worse. They could only trade with far away Constantinople but what exactly could they trade? There was nothing of interest for the Ottomans. Except the slaves and gold they could pillage from their raids in Guinea and Mali, but soon that door was closed once the europeans began founding trading posts in the gulf of guinea. It was a subsistence economy with reactionary mentality and pillaging what they could via raids in the sahel/piracy at sea, when possible, as only means of income. So isolation and stagnation happened.
>thing is its totally logic for muslim powers to fail integrating to capitalism due to the religion itself forbidding usury or betting
The problem was not Islam, but its reformers. I mean, usury, betting and capitalism as we know it would be banned under a strict view of Christianity, as well.
Islamist reformers, like Al-Ghazali and company, singlehandedly ruined Islamic civilization for everyone and put an end to their golden era.
That whole part is not true. The concept of nationalism is pretty alien in the Ottoman Empire until 1918 when Arab majority lands were lost. Production was largely owned by Christians like Greeks and Armenians, and israelites. This was due to capitulations which made non-Muslims eglibile for European citizenship thus avoid most taxation (3% at best). Merchantile class was therefore not considered as financially attractive for Muslims anywhere in the Empire.
>I dont' blame them, the concept of capatalism making everyone more wealthy is kind of strange concept, for much of history it was kind of the standard that for one person to prosper, others must fail,
This is still the case anon. Somebody in the world is getting poorer as someone gets richer. The current mechanism for this is trade since both cooperations and the people dont spend their money but instead try saving.
Morocco was a feudal islamic shithole. The same with all North Africa. Why did Algeria and Tunisia fell to the Ottomans? Because they were feudal muslim tribes, obsolete and disorganized that could offer no resistance to Ottoman domination. It was also easier for the Ottomans to play muh islamic ummah card to dominate these lands, so there wasn't much resistance. In the end the Ottomans were happy to see the Berbery states becoming pirate states in the west med and didn't care much about them being de facto semi-independent as long as their economy and very reason for existance was just being pirates. Which explains the conquests of Spain in the area to remove piracy. It was all a proxy war between the Ottomans and Spain, and North Africa was the playground. Morocco could have fallen to the anglo-portuguese invasion in the XVI but it managed to resist it except for a few coastal places, Tangiers being the last after the english were expelled from there. After that, the only reason Morocco didn't fall to Ottomans-Algiers was Spain supporting Morocco because it obviously didn't want the Ottomans (or anybody else btw) occupying Morocco and turning it into another shithole pirate state.
France eventually occupied Algeria and Tunisia in the XIX century to precisely put an end to piracy but also to annex it and colonize it with french settlers as the locals were seen as monkeys. Morocco didn't follow the same fate initially because there were too many geopolitical interests and conflicts among European nations, namely UK, Spain and France, to tolerate anyone occupying Morocco. Until the Germans messed in and that sealed the fate of Morocco, as that made UK, Spain and France finally agree that better get on with it before the germans start exerting their influence over Morocco. That's why it became a protectorate rather than a colony. There was zero interest in Morocco except the interest to prevent other powers to occupy it for its geographical position.
Most of what you say is true, beside that no, Europe mostly tried to keep itself out of Morocco and nobody really wanted to go for it and everyone just tried to get political influence there, but of course its only when Germany really went there, and that the empire collapsed that Western powers understood that it was time to conquer it to avoid not only germany trying to come save the King and Morocco ( to in the end have a military presence there and ensure his way in the med sea ) but also to avoid having a chaotic mountaineous region that could quickly become unmanageable and spread unrest in Algeria.
Which is mainly why despite being an islamic shithole like you say France didn't go there and kill the king and bring its republican ideology like it tried everywhere else, it understood that the best chance to manage a conquest of Morocco was with the presence of the King to push all the newformed anti france confederacies to calm down ( which almost didn't work )
Disagreed in 1st alinea, agreed in 2nd alinea.
Morocco was also a base of Piracy, albeit much less. See the Republic of Sale for example. The King of Morocco had however stronger authority in his realm which means he could end piracy. Algiers was more of an alliance between the city and the tribes beyond. The Governor couldn't end it if he wanted.
Thanks for the thread OP
Seems like the Islamic custom of slave armies made it difficult for their countries to adopt European conscription, as opposed to other modernising nations like Japan.
Truly Albanian are the master race
i have myself too a schizo theory btw guys but that is very logical but just never thought about, its that the collapse of the Empire and the French protectorate saved Morocco
Yes, if Morocco didn't collapse and instead became stronger, reformed its army and industrialized its very likely that the country would have been seen as an enemy to western power and also a potential ally to countries like Germany, Austria-Hungaria, Ottoman empire during WW1, or even during WW2 siding with Germany against France, which in the end in both case would have meant western powers invading Morocco, REMOVING its king, turning it in a republic ( always fail in muslim countries ) and also remove most of Moroccan territories like done to Hungaria in WW1
Instead the empire when crumbling created a power void for France who conquered it, but didn't remove the king due to him being useful at incitating Moroccans to calm down, which is seen by many as collaboraton with France when in reality both did it by interest, the King understood that he almost got overthrown and the country fell apart but went through it, and even got conquered by France which was a nightmare but didn't get removed too by France, he understood France needed him, which is good for the king because it meant France doing most of the taming job and basically taking back control of Morocco ensuring that the core state stays, and the way that the king of Morocco adopted a style of western like negociations instead of calling Moroccans to chimp out made Morocco look good and in the end made decolonization easy with in bonus keeping good relations with western powers, in the end its perhaps the best case scenario Morocco could get
>Instead the empire when crumbling created a power void for France who conquered it, but didn't remove the king due to him being useful at incitating Moroccans to calm down
Morocco was not the only african kingdom in keeping it's ruler, that's why it was a protectorate and not a direct colony. The only difference is, while other post-independence kingdoms removed their monarchies in revolutions backed, either by americans or the soviets, the moroccans never had anything like that.
Great thread OP, now I'm well versed in middle-late 18th and early 19th century Moroccan history. This was a good read.
thanks a lot i did my best to stay neutral on the era, not being biased toward or against countries and not we wuzzing on Moroccan history, even tho i didn't really feel the need to at all, you know as a Moroccan all we really know in our history is mainly Morocco invading Al Andalus then perhaps also about Moroccan military expeditions in the south against african kingdoms, Moroccan explorers and scientists especially the travel of Ibn Battuta
then nothing and only talks about colonialism and history of Moroccan decolonization.
why ? i think mainly due to 2 things, first even if colonization is a very short moment for Morocco and not that important compared to the rest of Africa and Middle east and what occured after with all the dictators, wars, ideologies etc... the fact that its not just moroccan history but African and Asian event made it too important even tho Morocco didn't get fucked much, has things to be proud of and also had a history of colonialism.
Also the politics and the King in the sixties didn't want to have the population know about how his predecessors fucked up, and how the king during years 1912 collaborated with French army to take back control over the multiple de facto independent confederations.
in the end i found that Morocco went beyond my expectations and wasn't a closed dumb state but just had no time and no enough authority when the poorer and poorer population saw the king not able to protect Algeria, capitulate multiple time to France and Spain, and had to pay all those war reparations and debts
The only thing this thread is missing is an explanation of al makhzen
Thanks man, i could have covered so much and even talk about Morocco post 1956 and its huge retard compared to the rest of Africa ( France built a lot of roads, railways, mines etc.. there, Algeria being the most advanced part almost on par with Europe since France made it a region of it and not just a colony ) due to Morocco just being occupied, not a colony proper, it in 56 became a military and agricultural state but slowly became more industrialized until today now Morocco is one of the biggest car producer of europe/north africa, Planes are being assembled there and spare parts produced, military factories built, first high speed train of Africa, soon hydrogen batteries produced there, the biggest solar farm in the world there
so a good come back only possible due to its stability, but in picrel (high quality pdf here https://reliefweb.int/map/morocco/morocco-general-logistics-planning-map-14-mar-2011) you can still see how Morocco has a very short railway system, little connections to its sahara due to it having been spanish.
also the implications of the "secret" Israeli-Moroccan hyperalliance, of which I have witnessed in person
Yeah, one of most misunderstood political event of Moroccan modern history, i myself can miss some points but basically since years 1850 Moroccan Kings are basically doing realpolitik, and not just politic based on history or sentiments toward another nation, explaining why Morocco stayed friendly all the way from 1850 to nowadays to Western europe by knowing its the best to do for its interests, for Israel Moroccan king knew it had no interests going at war, had no oil to put pressure on western powers, would get toppled, had around 300 000 Moroccan israelites in Israel, he understood that it would be a failure and the best was to quickly get out of this mess, fast forward now Morocco is back at being isolated like a century before with Algeria being hostile, most arab republics being unfriendly or not of any support, which means no trade, huge losses for the economy and Western europe being fake friends by not supporting Morocco in western sahara and condemning it, seething about democracy and human rights despite Morocco being the most helpful nation in Africa against terrorism, Morocco also saw western europe not wanting much to trade weapons with it and now sucking Algeria because they have gas.
In order to avoid the same mistakes as before Morocco now needs its own military industry like Turkey, and the only country that was ready to share tech and blueprints was Israel thanks to the shilling of Moroccans there and Israel begging for arabs being friendly, Moroccan gov are very practicing muslims but they passed national security before hatred, they still support palestine tho regularly.
Don't forget Morocco is, literally, paying european politicians in high spheres to keep their influence in the west.
Just look at the recent Qatargate scandal, while despite the name, half of it is related to Morocco.
Yeah, unironically Moroccan diplomacy is perhaps the best thing in the country currently, the best in Africa and one of the best in the general area, its deeply routed to colonialism, as Moroccan king wasn't toppled and chose diplomacy and cooperation with France and Western powers than pushing anti france idea to get it out by force which he could have done easily during WW2, + recent Moroccan kings being sent to France and Belgium to learn politics and diplomacy, for example current king Mohammed VI was sent by his father King Hassan II in Belgium in the European comission, the monarchy made too many friends in Europe and secured many strong friends among politicians there, the whole qatargate is cringe because many will just think that Morocco paid peoples and that's all, of course money must have been sent here and there sometimes but most of the time the influence is simply due to Morocco being friendly, convincing many politicians that Morocco is the most reliable ally and place to invest, and Moroccan kings made many friends in europe. Same is done now with next king Hassan 3 picrel
Morrocan diplomacy is based around bribing people and hiring PR lobbies. That works in the short term, in the long term it backfires terribly.
Are there any books that cover industrialization of precolonial Middle Eastern countries (or countries of other regions) that anyone can recommend? I want to read up more on this.
really just search in French and UK unclassified archives of the 19th century and search for a country, you'll easily find documents of peoples sent by France or UK there to map, understand the country's economy politics and army, those informations were very important for France and UK that knew too little and didn't want to risk a failed invasion, sadly for french archives you'll have to understand french, and i don't know if UK made recon of Moroccan empire but since Morocco and UK were allies i think you should find too for Morocco, you'll tho perhaps find not much about Ottoman held territories, here is one of my major source of info i found to make this thread https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044022688642&view=1up&seq=1 search on this website for Morocco and XIX century
Ottomans got cucked in 1877-78. Had they won the war then their industrialization would have a 30 years headstart (1900s instead 1930s).
The rest of the Muslim World was unlucky due to Colonialism.