Ethiopia, Persia, Siam

Feb 2010
629
Cambridgeshire, UK
#5
Well I guess there's no point going to the effort if you can already get want you want through trade and diplomacy in the case of Siam. As for Ethiopia I would assume it was due to not having much to grab and that it was sort of "civilised" compared to other African nations and may not have been worth the trouble. Persia? I have no idea, other than that it was bordered by the Ottoman Empire and I would assume it would have lead to tensions if a European power became involved however it did play a role in the Great Game with both Britain and Russia sending Persia gifts and weapons during the colonial period.
 
Aug 2010
16,205
Welsh Marches
#6
Ethiopia was an ancient and well-established kingdom, and the terrain was extraordinarily difficult for any invader. The British never contemplated annexing Ethiopia, although they did launch a punitive expedition in 1868 after the erratic Emperor Theodore imprisoned, chained and ill-treated British missionaries and then a British consul. Otherwise relations between Ethiopia and Britain were generally pretty good. Italy established a colony in the coastal region of Eritrea in about 1890, and hostilities arose between Italy and Ethiopia in the 1890s as a result of disagreement over the treaty signed between the two nations over Eritrea (in the Italian version this established Ethiopia as an Italian protectorate, which the Ethiopians naturally did not want). The Italians tried to invade Ethiopia in 1896 but were defeated. The Ethiopians did not try to displace the Italians from Ethiopia, so the situation was left at that until Mussolini's attack in the 1930s. So: the Italians did try to seize Ethiopia but were unable to; the British would have been capable of seizing Ethiopia (this is demonstrated by the success of the punitive expedition of 1868) but did not want to. It is difficult to see what advantage the British could have gained by annexing Ethiopia even if they had thought that they had any legitimate ground for doing so.
 
Mar 2010
9,842
#7
Siam remained independant as a buffer state between British expansion to the west (Burma) and French expansion to the east (Veitnam). The territorys wich now make up Loas were ceeded to France from Siam as part of a deal to keep the French out of Siam. Not to sure what was on offer for the British though. (Malaysia maybe)
 
Aug 2010
16,205
Welsh Marches
#8
Siam ceded areas of Northern Malaya (relatively small in relation to the other Malay teritories) and NE Burma to the British at one time or another; it had to give up much more territory to the French. The situation was complicated by the fact that it claimed sovereignty over areas that it did not actually control.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,935
SoCal
#9
These three seemed to have escaped being conquered outright during the new Imperialism. How did it happen?
-Ethiopia defeated Italy in battle in 1896.
-Siam (Thailand) served as a buffer zone between the British and French possessions in Southeast Asia.
-Persia (Iran) served as a buffer zone between the British and Russian possessions in the Middle East and in South Asia and Central Asia.

As a side note, I wonder if Morocco would have remained independent as well if World War I had broken out two or more years earlier.
 
Jun 2013
6,394
USA
#10
These three seemed to have escaped being conquered outright during the new Imperialism. How did it happen?
Siam and Persia still had "influence" zones but yes they did avoid ultimate conquest. A lot of it was simply a lack of tons of focus from Europe like with Africa. As for Ethiopia, you could argue that their conquest in 1935 by Italy still counts.
 

Similar History Discussions