History short note for grade 12th all unit 1-9 hundaa bufadhaa irra dubisa
Telegram contact:https://t.me/Eliyasteach
UNIT ONE
Development of Capitalism and Nationalism from 1815 to 1914
Development of Capitalism The Nature and Main Features of
Capitalism
What were the main characteristic features of capitalism?
What were the essences of the capitalist system?
The Nature of Capitalism
Capitalism grew in the womb of decaying feudalism.
It has become the dominant economic system in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism.
Many historians agree that fully fledged capitalism emerged in Northwestern Europe, especially in Great Britain and the Netherlands, from the 16th to 17thcenturies, when mercantilism was established.
Mercantilism is defined as the distribution of goods that are bought at a certain price and sold at a higher price in order to generate profits.
The ethics fostered by the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century helped to consolidate capitalism in the Western world.
Moreover, capitalism enjoyed the benefits of the rise of strong nation states in Europe.
These nation-states succeeded in supporting the development of capitalism through regulations, uniform monetary systems, public investment, etc.
and eventually made possible the shift from public to private initiative.
Subsequently, capitalism gradually became the dominant economic system throughout the world.
In the 18th century, mercantilism declined when a group of economic theorists led by Adam Smith challenged mercantilist doctrines.
They believed that a state could only increase its wealth at the expense of another state‘s wealth while the amount of the world‘s wealth remained constant.
As a result of the decline in mercantilism, industrial capitalism arose in the mid-18th century due to the vast accumulation of capital during the phase of merchant capitalism and its investment in machinery.
Industrial capitalism marked development of manufacturing factory system and led to the global domination of capitalist mode of production.
The Main characteristic Features of Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of the means of production, especially in the industrial sector. The economy is run by individuals (or corporations) who own and operate companies and make decisions on the use of resources.
Capitalist society was characterized by the split between two antagonistic classes: the capitalist class (the owners), which owned the means for production (property, plants, and equipment) and the working class, which sold their labor to the capitalist class in exchange for wages.
Unlike the previous systems, capitalism used accumulated capital to enlarge productive capacity rather than to invest in economically unproductive enterprises, such as pyramids and cathedrals.
The motive for all companies in the capitalist system is to make and sell goods and services only for profits.
Capitalist societies believe markets should be left alone to operate without government intervention. This idea is known as laissez-faire. True capitalists believe that a free market will always create the right amount of supply to meet demand and all prices will adjust accordingly.
The ideology of classical capitalism
The ideology of classical capitalism was articulated by Adam Smith (1723-1790) in his book entitled: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776).
He was a Scottish economist and moral philosopher, who is considered to be one of the fore father‘s of capitalism.
Smith recommended leaving economic decisions to the free play of self-regulating market forces.
Smith supported the idea that laissez fair economics that would benefit its practitioners while also promoting society‘s general welfare.
On the other hand, the growth of industrial capitalism in the 19th century created a vast new class of industrial workers whose generally miserable conditions inspired the revolutionary philosophy of Karl Marx.
As Marx suggested, in the socialist system where there was no private ownership and all means of production were collective or state-owned, central planning determined how much should be produced and how all resources were allocated.
Therefore, the antithesis of capitalism is Marxian Economics, named after Karl Marx.
He believed that capitalism brings about class segregation between the capitalist class and the working class.
According to Marx, the exploitation of the surplus value of labour is one of the major drawbacks of capitalism.
He said that the working people possess personal property or capital in the form of their labour.
By selling their labour to other persons, workers enter into wage labour contracts.
The workers profit from their labour and may use the subsequent earnings to buy necessities.
The employer, however, also earns a profit from the workers labour.
Marx also argued that capitalist economies would weaken in systematic crises.
These crises would cause social disturbance.
Wealth would become more and more concentrated into the hand of even more privileged class.
Marx also predicted the inevitable overthrow of capitalism in a proletarian-led class war.
The Industrial Revolution
What were the factors that led to the industrial revolution?
What were the political and socio-economic consequences of the industrial revolution?
The industrial revolution was the first establishment of industrial capitalism in any country.
It took place in Britain in the period between 1750/1780 and 1850.
The industrial revolution was preceded and made possible by a long period of change and development going back at least to the mid-16thcentury and even to the middle Ages.
Moreover, change and development did not cease in the 1850‘s but continued because of industrialization and the change which it brought was a continuing process.
However, by 1850, Britain was already a mature industrial state.
Its major industries and its transport system had been transformed by machinery and steam power.
The industrial revolution meant that industrial production in major industries was transformed so that far greater and cheaper production was possible than ever before.
This cheap mass production was achieved by interconnecting organizational and technological changes.
These organizational and technological changes were at the heart of the Industrial Revolution.
There was a change from dispersed production in small units under the old putting out system to the new factory system of the industrial revolution.
Under the new factory system industrial production was concentrated in large units, i.e., the factories which employed many workers in each factory.
The industrial capitalist owned the factory and built the machinery in the factory.
The power unit which operated the machinery, the raw materials processed in the factory and the finished products.
The workers in the factories owned only their labor power which they sold to the factory owner for money wages.
The wage workers in the factories were hired and dismissed at the will of the industrial capitalist.
The factory system and the power operated machinery which went with the factory system had several advantages for the factory owner.
The factory system was more productive, i.e., it enabled far more production in a given time at lower unit cost.
The factory system was therefore; more profitable provided that the goods which were produced could be sold.
By 1850, the factory system was dominant in major industries in Britain, especially the cotton
textile industry of Lancashire in the northwest of England.
Small workshops and the putting out system still survived on a large scale in many industries, but the future belonged to the factory system.
Machines in factories replaced or complemented work done by hand with human strength and skill.
The industrial revolution took machinery a stage further.
There were more machines of new types, and they were more complex and larger.
The size and expense of machinery in the industrial revolution meant that by the late 18th century the employment of these machines required industrial capitalists and factory systems.
The new machines in factories and elsewhere employed inanimate power.
Inanimate power from water and from the wind has been used since the middle Ages or in the case of sailing ships since ancient times.
However, as the economy expanded and when industry needed a form of power greater than water could provide and more flexible than waterpower, a new form of power came into use, i.e., steam power.
The heat to generate steam came from burning coal, which in Britain was cheap and abundant.
The first commercially viable steam engine was constructed by Newcomer around 1705/1709.
But it could only be used for pumps chiefly in mining.
James Watt in 1783/84 made a steam engine which was more powerful and more economical in its use of fuel and adapted to operate machinery in factories.
From 1780s, more and more factories adopted steam power.
Steam power was also applied to land transport in the form of railways.
The first modern railway was operated entirely by steam locomotives and carried passengers as well as freight.
The Liverpool and Manchester railway was opened in 1830.
By 1850, a network of railways connected all important places in Britain.
Political and Socio-economic Consequences of the Industrial Revolution
Cheap mass production was one of the features of the industrial revolution.
The basic economic problem in industrial states was no longer the scarcity of commodities.
Instead, the main problem became overproduction and the consequent difficulty of selling the commodities which were produced.
Many poor people meant limited demand for the commodities produced. Before the industrial revolution, economic depression usually resulted from wars, big epidemics, or most often bad harvests.
From the industrial revolution onwards, however, a normal cause of economic depression was overproduction caused by a lack of effective demand.
The industrial revolution made the agricultural sector of advanced countries less dominant.
People transferred to other sectors of the economy, and investment and production in other sectors increased.
Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, advanced economies had a falling percentage of their population living in rural areas and employed in agriculture.
Nevertheless, despite the decrease in the percentage of the population living in rural areas and engaged in agriculture in the more advanced countries, agricultural productivity increased so that fewer people engaged in agriculture produced more food.
In this way, agriculture could support larger urban population and more people who were not engaged in agriculture.
Agricultural productivity has increased in advanced countries because of the spread of better methods of agriculture.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, science was also applied to increasing agricultural production, for example, the development of artificial fertilizers and pesticides.
The industrial revolution accelerated the shift from the country side to the towns and cities.
More productive agriculture could feed this larger urban population.
Population expanded rapidly in Britain and other industrialized countries of the west despite bad living and working conditions for the working class.
Probably, the main reasons for this population growth were that more food was available to support a larger population.
Industrialization with expanding economies could provide more employment for an expanding population.
As a result of the industrial revolution, a new class system developed with more class consciousness than ever before.
A large industrial capitalist class was added to the existing bourgeoisie of merchants professional people and bankers, making the bourgeoisie as a whole richer and more numerous.
In the 19th century at different times in different countries, the bourgeoisie became the economically and politically dominant class,
replacing the centuries-long domination of the land-owning nobility.
Alongside the industrial bourgeoisie and because of industrialization, there developed the new class of the industrial proletariat.
There had always been wage workers, but these were now more numerous and were more and more concentrated in large factories especially in towns and cities.
As the industrial proletariat became more conscious of itself as a class and more conscious that its interests were different from and antagonistic to those of the bourgeoisie.
The industrial proletariat came to provide the mass base for the new doctrines of socialism and the support for working class political parties with socialist programs governments and ruling classes were alarmed by the growth of socialism in the 19th century.
Industrialization increased national wealth although this was very unevenly distributed.
From about 1850, industry, technology, and science were applied to armies and navies.
This meant that the already existing gap in power between western states and non-western states became bigger than ever before.
This meant clashes of interest and confrontations between western states and non-western states.
Conflicts could be resolved more easily by western states using military or naval force or both.
Moreover, the growth of industry and the expansion of the western economy in general meant that western states became more interested in non-western areas of the world than before as sources of raw materials and as markets for export or potential markets.
Also, steamships, railways and the electric telegraph (1840s on) improved transport and
communications and tied the world more closely together than ever before.
So that from the third quarter of the 19th century, the world became increasingly one single integrated capitalist world economy.
The result of all these changes was the imperialism of the late 19th century, i.e., the expanding and accelerated drive for colonial acquisitions and spheres of influence.
However, the earlier industrial revolution and the spread of industrialization had laid the groundwork for late-19th century imperialism.
In fact, very large acquisitions of colonial territory took place in the 19th century before what is usually called the ―Age of Imperialism,‖ beginning around 1885 or 1890.
Finally, the industrial revolution made economic, social, and cultural changes faster than ever
before, so that ―change became the norm‖.
Nationalism
» What were the major factors behind the growth of nationalism in the 19th century?
Nationalism has been the most powerful political force since the 1850s in the Western world.
Nationalism‘s deepest roots lie in a shared sense of regional and cultural identity, especially as those roots are expressed in custom, language and religion.
It influenced all classes but more so the urban than the rural peasants.
Nationalism created the atmosphere which made World War I possible in that nationalism aggravated the great international crisis of 1905–
1914 and made the peoples of Europe support the war when it broke out in July-August 1914.
Nationalism, of course, did not begin in the middle of the nineteenth century, but it grew and intensified from then until World War I.
The following factors promoted the growth of nationalism in the 19th century:
Compulsory primary education was used by the government for state building and inculcating patriotism.
Governments also used compulsory military service to inculcate patriotism and loyalty to the state and rulers.
The cheap newspapers for the masses often had chauvinistic tones, but nationalism and hostile feelings towards neighboring states were also
features of the ―quality‖ newspapers for the upper and middle classes.
Much of the literature of the years before World War I was also strongly nationalist and warned against the dangers of neighboring countries.
Patriotic societies were created to inculcate patriotism, to agitate for stronger armament, and sometimes also to agitate for bigger colonial empires.
Nationalism was stimulated by the wars of unification in Italy and Germany and of national liberation in the Balkans.
British nationalism was stimulated by the small colonial wars which Britain fought so often, though the second Boer War (1899-1902) was an unpleasant shock which cooled down British aggressiveness for a time until it was revived by fear of Germany.
In the USA, victory in the Spanish-American War of 1898 stimulated American nationalism.
Pseudo-science also stimulated nationalism and inculcated aggressive hostile feelings towards neighboring states and the idea that war was inevitable.
This pseudoscience is what became known as
«Social Darwinism. »
It was «Social Darwinism» that spread the idea that history is a struggle between states and nations for power, supremacy and even survival.
The strongest state and nation, which were the best, would be the victors, while weak states and nations would be subjugated and even destroyed.
In the period between the 1880s and 1914, nationalism transformed its character in several ways:
First, more and more national movements appeared in Europe and in the Ottoman Empire outside Europe.
Many of these movements were towards numerically quite small numbers of people living in quite small territories.
Therefore, nationalism, which earlier in the nineteenth century had appeared to work towards greater unity, as in the case of Italy and Germany, now tends towards fragmentation.
Second, language and ethnicity became the major criteria, especially language for nationalism.
All over Europe, submerged minority nationalities were struggling to assert the rights of their languages to equality with previously dominated languages.
So there were bitter disputes over language questions.
Third, a national question became part of the domestic politics of many states, particularly
multinationals like Austria-Hungary and Tsarist Russia, and others like Britain with its serious Irish question.
In terms of class, the new minority nationality movements attracted the petty bourgeois, because the success of a national movement and its language would mean not just more prestige for the nationality and its language but more employment in the public sector for the language speakers.
Nationalism for the government was a two-edged weapon.
Nationalism could be and was used to strengthen loyalty to the state and the ruler and to divert the workers away from socialism.
However, where national minorities existed, nationalism could arise from the national demands of these national minorities and cause discontent and disloyalty.
The USA was very successful in the nineteenth century in assimilating millions of emigrants who came to the USA from Europe.
This success was made possible because migrants left Europe because they were dissatisfied with conditions in their home country.
By becoming US citizens, they joined a country and a nation which offered them more economic opportunities and more social and political freedom.
Unification of Italy
What were the obstacles and favorable factors in the process of Italian unification?
The political and social process that united the separate states of the Italian Peninsula into a single nation in the nineteenth century was known as Italian unification.
It is difficult to put the exact dates for the beginning and end of Italian reunification, but most historians agree that it began with the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and the end of
Napoleon‘s rule, and it ended with the Franco-Prussian War in 1871.
In 1852, Italy was still politically divided and Austrian influence was still supreme.
In the north, the two rich provinces of Lombardy and Venetia were part of the Austrian Empire.
In the north-central part of Italy, there were the petty states of Parma, Modena and Tuscany, which were very much under
Austrian influence and ruled despotically by rulers related to the Hapsburg emperor of Austria.
The Papal States still covered a vast territory across Italy, consisting of the provinces of the Romagna, the Marches, Umbria and Rome and the patrimony.
In addition to being the spiritual head of Catholics all over the world, the pope was the sovereign ruler of the Papal States.
Since 1849, there had been a French garrison in Rome to protect the pope against any revolution and to show Austria that France had an interest in Italy and did not accept that Italy was an exclusively Austrian sphere of influence.
The south of Italy and the island of Sicily were part of the kingdom of Naples.
The kingdom was poor, feudal and backward.
It was ruled despotically, and its king was closely allied with Austria.
In the northwest of Italy was the kingdom of Piedmont, consisting of the mainland territory, which was its most important territory, and the island of Sardinia.
Piedmont was the only Italian state that was really independent of Austria and that had a constitution, a parliament and civil rights, though these had only existed since 1848.
This situation made it possible for Piedmont to take the lead in the movement for Italian unification.
Because liberals and nationalists all over Italy saw their best hope of a united Italy in unification with Piedmont under the constitutional monarchy of King Victor Emmanuel II (r.1849-1878) of Piedmont.
The main obstacle to Italian political unification was:-
The power of Austria. Austria wanted to maintain the status quo.
The weakness of national sentiment in Italy.
The presence of foreign powers like France aroused national feelings but hindered unification for the time being.
The negative position and role of the Papacy worked against unification, too. Church leaders believed a United Italy would end the Pope's rule over the Papal States.
A favorable factor in the struggle for unification was
The diplomatic isolation of Austria after the Crimean war (1855–56) and rivalries between France and Austria in Italy, which meant that Italian nationalism, was able to use French help for Italian aims.
Camillo Cavour (1810–61) prime minister of Piedmont from 1852–62 was the main architect of Italian unification ―from above.‖
He prepared Piedmont for the role of leadership in Italian unification.
In 1858, Cavour met the French emperor, Napoleon III, secretly at Plombiere, in France, and succeeded in reaching an agreement with Napoleon for an alliance of France and Piedmont against Austria. Cavour contributed a lot to the successful unification of Italy.
In the end, Cavour successfully gained control of Lombardy, Tuscany, Parma and Modena, which greatly helped the unification process.
In April 1859, Cavour successfully provoked a declaration of war by Austria on Piedmont.
Napoleon III then intervened on the side of Piedmont against Austria.
The combined force invaded Lombardy and defeated the Austrian army at the Battles of Magenta and Salferino in June 1859.
The Austrians were driven out of Lombardy but still held Venetia. One of the results of the Battle of
Salferino was the establishment of the International Red Cross Association by the Swiss humanitarian Henri Dunant.
Napoleon, however, concluded a unilateral peace treaty with Austria on the basis that Austria ceded Lombardy to Piedmont but kept Venetia.
Other developments resulting from the war also took place.
The papal province of Romagna and the states of Parma, Modena and Tuscany revolted against their rulers in 1859.
Their rulers were overthrown. Provisional governments were established which were in close touch with the government of Piedmont and demanded union with Piedmont.
Once the north had been united as the Kingdom of Italy, the unification movement turned to absorbing the powerful Kingdom of Two Sicilies in the south.
In 1860, there was an uprising in Sicily against the unpopular government of the Kingdom of Naples.
At that time, the successful military leader, Garibaldi, was invited to come from Piedmont to lead the Sicilian uprising.
Garibaldi agreed to lead the Sicilian uprising provided that the people accepted the program of unification with the rest of Italy under Victor Emmanuel.
He recruited his famous Thousand Volunteers in the North and took them to Sicily, where they joined by other volunteers, advanced up the peninsula and took the city of Naples on September 7, 1860.
The reasons for Garibaldi‟s success were:
first, his own skill as a leader in guerrilla warfare and his magnetic personality, which made people of all classes eager to fight and die under his leadership.
Second, his successful mobilization of the Sicilian masses. The masses supported him partly because of his personal qualities but also because they hoped that his movement would bring them freedom from oppression and bitter life.
Third, on the mainland, his success was largely owing to the demoralization of the army of Naples and to the defeatism and treachery of many of the officials of the Naples government the fall of Gaeta brought the unification movement to a successful conclusion only Rome and Venetia remained to be added on February 18/ 1861 Victor Emmanuel assembled the deputies of all the states that acknowledged his supremacy at Turin, and in
their presence, he assumed the title of King of Italy.
Victor Emmanuel II, king of Piedmont, changed his title too to Victor Emmanuel II, king of Italy.
Four months later, Cavour, having seen his life‘s work nearly completed, died.
The Italian government used the 1866 Austro-Prussian War and the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian war to complete Italian unification on 1866 in preparation for war against Austria, Bismarck made an alliance with Italy on the basis that Italy would go to war against Austria on the side of Prussia and, in return, would get Venetia.
In spite of Italy‘s poor showing, Prussia‘ success in the war forced Austria to cede Venetia on 1870 the Franco-Prussian war forced Napoleon III to withdrawal French troops from Rome the Italian government therefore sent its troops and seized Rome in September 1870 Rome soon became the capital of Italy.
Unification of Germany
ᵯ In the 1850s, Germany was a loose confederation of 39 states called the German Confederation (The Bund).
ᵯ The Bund was presided over by Austria, with Prussia second.
ᵯ The Bund was not a satisfactory form of unity for German nationalists who wanted real political unity for reasons of German nationalism and economic reasons.
ᵯ German nationalism was encouraged by the success of Italian national unification between 1859 and 1861.
The obstacles to German unification were:
ᵯ Austria, which wanted to preserve the status quo.
ᵯ The German princes, wanted to keep their independence
ᵯ The cultural differences between North and South Germany.
ᵯ There was religious dissension between the Protestant north east, and Catholic south.
ᵯ There were also political differences between the autocratic north and the more liberal south.
ᵯ Economic disagreements between an agrarian east, dominated by the Junkers (lands lords) and the more industrialized west was also a problem to German unification.
ᵯ France was against the creation of a united German and strong nation-state that could become a rival to French power in Europe.
ᵯ France had influence over the Catholic German states in the south.
Courses of the Germany Unifications
ᵯ In 1861, William I (r.1861–1888) was crowned King of Prussia.
ᵯ He and his war minister, Von Roon, proposed enlarging and reforming the Prussian army to give Prussia more influence against Austria and as security against France.
ᵯ But the proposal was opposed by the Prussian parliament, which refused to vote on the necessary new taxation.
ᵯ An important issue behind the Prussian parliament was who would control the army.
ᵯ The king, thus, appointed Otto von Bismarck as chief minister of Prussia.
ᵯ Bismarck (1815–1898) was politically conservative but a political realist and extremely able.
ᵯ He soon overcame the crisis by collecting additional taxation for the army reforms without the consent of Parliament.
ᵯ There was no resistance.
ᵯ German nationalism rapidly shifted from its liberal and democratic character in 1848 to Bismarck‘s authoritarian rule.
ᵯ Bismarck knew that Germany could not be united under Prussia without war against Austria and probably France.
ᵯ Austria would not give up its leadership in the Bund unless it suffered a defeat.
ᵯ The traditional French policy was to keep Germany politically divided and therefore weak, so that France too would probably not accept German unification unless France suffered a military defeat. Bismarck also knew that his program of uniting Germany would not be possible without good relations between Prussia and Russia.
Therefore, he exerted all his diplomatic skills to maintain good relations with Russia.
ᵯ He was helped by the fact that Prussia and Russia had a common interest in opposing Polish nationalism.
ᵯ Both Russia and Prussia, particularly the first, had large areas of former Polish territories inhabited by the Poles.
ᵯ Therefore, during the great Polish revolt of 1863, Prussia was the only great power that was sympathetic to Russia.
The three consecutive wars that led to the Unification of Germany were
War with Denmark
War with Austria
War with France
War with Denmark
ᵯ He first allied with Austria to defeat Denmark in a short war fought in 1864, thus acquiring
Schleswig-Holstein.
War with Austria
ᵯ In 1866, with the support of Italy, he virtually created the Austro-Prussian War and won a decisive victory at the Battle of Koniggratz,
ᵯ This victory allowed him to exclude long-time rival Austria when forming the North German Confederation with the states that had supported Prussia in the Austro-Prussian War.
ᵯ The Confederation was the direct precursor to the 1871 Empire.
War with France
ᵯ Finally, Prussia defeated France in the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71).
ᵯ The German Confederation was transformed into an Empire with the proclamation of Prussian King Wilhelm I as German Emperor at the Palace of Versailles, to the humiliation of France.
The American Civil War
Origins of the Conflict
The American Civil War was fought in the United States from 1861 until 1865 between the forces coming mostly from the 23 northern states of the union and the newly formed Confederate States of America, which consisted of11 southern states that had declared their secession.
There were several divisive issues between the north and south of the USA.
The South resented the economic dominance of the North.
The South wanted low tariffs to ensure cheaper imports from Europe while the North wanted protective tariffs to encourage their industries.
The South emphasized states‘ rights, i.e., the constitutional rights of the individual states of the USA while the North put more emphasis on the National Federal Government.
However, the slavery issue outweighed all other issues and was the only issue capable of producing secession and civil war.
When the south lost control of the political institutions of the USA, they turned to secession, fearing that northern domination of the union would lead to attacks on slavery.
Tensions grew rapidly during the 1850s. The United States Republican Party was established in 1854.
The new party opposed the expansion of slavery in the western territories.
The Republicans mobilized popular support among Northerners and Westerners who did not want to compete against slave labor.
1860 was a year of presidential election. At that time, the Republican Party had a very good candidate named Abraham Lincoln, who was an effective politician, an able speaker, and an attractive personality.
He was a man who appealed to ordinary northerners because he was a self-educated man.
In 1860, Lincoln‘s election as President triggered secession in the south as the south had warned before the elections.
Lincoln‘s election was seen as an intolerable threat to slavery in the south.
Before Lincoln took office, seven states seceded from the union, establishing a rebel government, known as the Confederate States of America, on February 9, 1861.
They took control of federal forts and property within their boundaries.
On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President of the United States.
In his inaugural address, he called secession
―legally void.‖
He stated he had no intent to invade the southern states but would use force to maintain possession of the federal property.
Then, Lincoln called for all of the states in the Union to send troops to recapture the forts and preserve the Union.
The Civil War and Its Results
The northerners were willing to fight to end secession.
The North initially was fighting to end secession not to end slavery.
Nevertheless, slavery had caused secession and therefore the causes of the civil war were both slavery and secession.
Why the Union prevailed (or why the Confederacy was defeated) in the Civil War has been the subject of extensive analysis and debate.
Advantages are widely believed to have contributed to the union‟s success.
In the civil war between the North and the South, the North had most of the advantages.
It had more states, a much bigger population, more skilled labor, far more industry, more railways, much greater agricultural production, except for cotton, much greater financial wealth, and also naval power to block the south and cut the south off essential imports.
Although the British and French governments and ruling classes sympathized with the South‘s ―king cotton,‖ they were not strong enough to intervene in the war on the side of the south.
Nevertheless, the north did not win easily because the south had initially better generals and fought with great determination, and the defensive power of firearms favored the south.
The war lasted from 1861 to 1865 and claimed the lives of 620,000 people.
The Northern motive for making the war a struggle against slavery was more acceptable.
Thus, making the civil war a struggle against slavery would make it politically and morally impossible for any European government to support the confederacy because slavery was now regarded in Europe as obsolete, totally wrong, and totally indefensible.
In September 1862, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to become effective as of January 1st, 1863. The proclamation said that all slaves in rebel-held territory would be free as of January 1st, 1863.
The proclamation helped the North to recruit African American troops and many African American troops did serve with distinction in the Northern armies.
The proclamation also damaged the south by encouraging slaves in the confederacy to run away from the plantations especially when the northern army advanced into the south.
In April 1865, the Confederacy was finally defeated unconditionally and completely.
A few days later on April 14, 1865 Lincoln was assassinated by a southern fanatic named John Wilkes Booth.
The civil war decided once and for all the issues of secession and slavery.
Both ended by the victory of the North. After the civil war, southern political leaders had
virtually no impact on the immediate post-war decisions.
Thus, several amendments to the US constitution were made:
The Thirteenth abolished slavery
The Fourteenth granted citizenship to former slaves, and
The Fifteenth allowed them to vote.
The Eastern Question
The ―Eastern Question‖ meant what would happen to the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and elsewhere as Ottoman power declined.
In the Balkans, the Ottoman Empire was threatened by the militancy of Balkan national movements, backed usually by Russia.
In particular, the Eastern Question was an issue of political and economic instability in the Ottoman Empire from the late 18th to early 20th centuries.
Moreover, it was the main cause of the subsequent strategic competition and political considerations of the European great powers in the region.
As the collapse of the Ottoman Empire approached, the European powers engaged in a power struggle to safeguard their military, strategic and commercial interests in the Ottoman domains.
The decline of the Ottoman Empire benefited Imperial Russia; on the other hand, Austria-Hungary and the United Kingdom demanded the Empire‘s preservation as being in their best interests.
In the 1870s, the hardships of the Ottomans had increased; their treasury was empty, and they faced insurrections not only in Herzegovina and Bulgaria, but also in Serbia and Montenegro.
However, the Ottoman Empire managed to crush the insurgents in August 1876.
On the other hand, Russia now intended to enter the conflict on the side of the rebels, using rumors of Ottoman atrocities against the rebellious population as an excuse.
In April 1877, Russia declared war against the Ottoman Empire.
It had effectively secured Austrian neutrality with the Reichstadt Agreement of July 1876, under which Ottoman territories captured during the war, would be partitioned between the Russian and Austria-Hungarian Empires, with the latter obtaining Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Britain did not involve itself in the conflict. However, when Russia threatened to conquer Constantinople (now Istanbul), Britain urged Austria and Germany to ally with it against Russia.
Russia negotiated peace through the Treaty of San Stefano (3 March 1878), which stipulated independence for Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro; autonomy for Bulgaria; reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina; the ceding of Dobruja and parts of Armenia; and a large indemnity to Russia.
This would give Russia great influence in Southeastern Europe, as it could dominate the newly independent states.
However, to reduce these advantages to Russia, the Great Powers (especially Britain) insisted on a thorough revision of the Treaty of San Stefano.
At the Treaty of Berlin on July 13, 1878, the boundaries of the new states were adjusted in the Ottoman Empire‘s favor. Bulgaria was divided into two states (Bulgaria and Eastern Rumania), as it was feared that a single state would be susceptible to Russian domination. Bosnia and Herzegovina were transferred to Austrian control.
Later, Austria-Hungary took advantage of the Ottoman crisis to annex the two provinces in 1908.
This act outraged Pan-Slav nationalists in Serbia, who had long seen Serbia and anticipated a merger with Bosnia in a union of the southern Slavs.
This eventually became an immediate cause of World War I.
Germany drew away from Russia and became closer to Austria-Hungary, with whom it concluded the Dual Alliance in 1879.
Germany was also closely allied with the Ottoman Empire.
In return, the German government took over the reorganization of the Ottoman military and financial systems.
It received several commercial concessions, including permission to build the Baghdad Railway, which secured for them access to several important economic markets and opened the potential for German entry into the Persian Gulf area, then controlled by Britain.
German interests were driven not only by commercial interests, but also by a burgeoning rivalry with Britain and France.
Meanwhile, Britain agreed to the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904, thereby resolving differences between the two countries over international affairs.
Britain also made peace with Russia in 1907 with the Anglo-Russian Entente.
Balkan Wars (1912-1913)
The Balkan Wars were two successive military conflicts that took place in the Balkan Peninsula in 1912 and 1913 that deprived the Ottoman Empire of all its remaining territory in Europe except part of Thrace and the city of Adrianople.
The First Balkan War began in the Balkans when Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, and Greece joined forces to attack the Ottoman Empire.
By the early 20th century, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro and Serbia had achieved independence from the Ottoman Empire, but large elements of their ethnic populations remained under Ottoman rule.
In 1912, these countries formed the Balkan League with Russian support to take Macedonia away from Turkey.
The First Balkan War began on October 8, 1912, and the Balkan allies were soon victorious.
The Turkish collapse was so complete that an armistice was signed on December 3, 1912.
A peace conference began in London, but, after a coup d‘état by the Young Turks in Constantinople in January 1913, war with the Ottomans continued.
Again, the allies were victorious: Ioánnina fell to the Greeks and Adrianople to the Bulgarians.
Under a peace treaty signed in London on May 30, 1913, the Ottoman
Empire lost almost all of its remaining European territory, including all of Macedonia and Albania. Albanian independence was insisted upon by the European powers, and Macedonia was to be divided among the Balkan allies.
The Second Balkan War erupted when the Balkan allies Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria, quarreled among themselves over the partitioning of their conquests in Macedonia.
The result was a resumption of hostilities between Bulgaria, on the one hand, and Serbia and Greece, which were joined by Romania, on the other.
Serbia and Greece allied against Bulgaria, and the war began on the night of June 29–30, 1913, when King Ferdinand of Bulgaria ordered his troops to attack Serbian and Greek forces in Macedonia.
Serbian and Greek forces were later joined by Romania to attack Bulgaria.
The Ottoman Empire also attacked Bulgaria and advanced in Thrace, regaining Adrianople.
On July 30, they concluded an armistice to end hostilities, and the Treaty of Bucharest was signed between the combatants on August 10, 1913.
Under the terms of the treaty, Greece and Serbia divided most of Macedonia between themselves, leaving Bulgaria with only a small part of the region.
The Balkan Wars were marked by ethnic cleansing, with all parties being responsible for grave atrocities against civilians.
As a result of the Balkan Wars, Greece gained southern Macedonia as well as the island of Crete.
Serbia gained the Kosovo region and extended into northern and central Macedonia.
Albania was made an independent state by a German prince.
The most alarming aspect of the war was the growth of tension between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.
Serbia had extensive claims upon Albanian territory.
Having obtained an assurance of German support, Austria-Hungary delivered an ultimatum on October 17, 1913, to force Serbia to withdraw from the Albanian borderlands.
The conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia was aggravated by the assassination of the Austrian prince, Franz Ferdinand by a Serb nationalist named Gavrilo Princip on June 28, 1914, in Sarajevo, capital of Bosnia.
This action convinced Austro-Hungarians to attack Serbia to crush Serbia‘s independence was the only solution.
The invasion of Serbia by Austria-Hungary thus led the First World War.
UNIT TWO
AFRICA AND THE COLONIAL EXPERIENCE (1880S –
1960S)
The Era of “Legitimate Trade” and Colonial Empires
» Why did the Europeans want to colonize Africa?
» How could the European colonizers manage to easily defeat the African people and establish colonial states in Africa?
The Birth and Expansion of the „Legitimate Trade‟
The Trans-Atlantic Slave trade was referred to as the “Illegitimate Trade” because its commodities were humans or slaves rather than other goods.
After the end of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and the success of the abolitionist campaigns, the former trade in humans or African slaves could not continue.
For three centuries, the ―Illegitimate Trade‖ in humans had dominated the commercial activities in the West African coastal areas.
After the Industrial Revolution, the European colonial powers, particularly the British, took measures that first weakened and gradually abolished not only the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade but also the slave trade in general.
The Europeans introduced a new trade in West Africa which they called the “Legitimate Trade” in which the principal commodities were no more human beings or African slaves.
During the first half of the 19th century, new West African commodities replaced slaves as merchandise to be exported abroad. These commodities for export included items like gum, groundnuts, and palm.
By the middle of the 19th century, palm oil became
This increased commercial competition between
West Africa‘s major export item.
the European merchants led to the European
The ‗Legitimate Trade‘, that replaced the
competition which eventually culminated in the
‗Illegitimate Trade‘‘, did not however economically
‗Scramble for Africa‘ in the 1870‘s and 1880‘s to
prosper the West African states. It rather
control sources of raw materials and markets.
benefited most African rulers and wealthy
merchants.
The Infrastructure and the Ideology of New
The new ―Legitimate Trade‖ could not bring significant improvement to the majority of West Africans.
Indeed, the living condition of the people could not
Imperialism
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism.
When we say New Imperialism we are referring to a period of increased expansion of capitalism that
improve.
The goods imported from Europe, which were cloth, alcoholic drinks and firearms could not contribute for the development of African native
economies.
was started in the second half the 19th century and continued until the outbreak of the First World War.
In the period known as the New Imperialism,
European powers wanted to control African
The imported European clothes thoroughly weakened the development of the African indigenous craft industry.
African peoples were attracted by imported European goods. The imported firearms too, had a
negative impact.
colonies.
After achieving unification, in the early 1870s, Germany and Italy joined the struggle to control territories in Africa.
Following the rapid economic development that
came as a result of adopting the economic policy of
They not only undermined the indigenous African weapon making industry, but also enabled the African rulers to get military might to plunder their own people.
In fact, the imported firearms were not modern in
free trade, a serious financial crisis affected the western states in the early 1870s.
In order to withstand the economic crisis and protect their economic interest, European states
began to take measures.
the true sense of the term and could not enable African rulers to protect themselves and their people from the colonial powers, who were equipped with more sophisticated weapons.
The European merchants, who were involved in the
For instance, in the 1870s and the 1880s, the two major European colonial powers, Great Britain and France partitioned the western part of the African continent into their spheres of influence.
The Berlin Conference of 1884/85 enabled
―Legitimate Trade‖ in West Africa, had succeeded in controlling not only the export trade but also the internal trade in West Africa as well.
The European traders maximized their profits as
European powers to divide Africa among themselves. That led to the physical occupation of territories in Africa which means the
intensification the colonial conquest.
they served as intermediaries between the African merchants and the European traders.
There was European presence in Africa even before the start of the period of the New
Imperialism. The period of the New Imperialism
differs from the earlier period in the sense that the Europeans came to Africa with a very developed technology.
Before the 1870s, although the Europeans had contacts with the peoples of the coastal areas of Africa, particularly, West Africa, they were not equipped with efficient firearms to easily conquer the native peoples there.
Moreover, the Europeans also lacked appropriate means of communication to control Africa particularly the interior parts of Africa.
In general, the European colonial powers had a great difficulty to penetrate deep into the African interior.
At the early days of colonization, tsetse fly and mosquito had almost prevented the Europeans from entering the African interior.
Eventually, the European colonizers managed to penetrate deep into the African interior with relative ease; thanks to technological advancement including the invention of better river boats, steam ship, better rifles, and the discovery of medicine to combat malaria.
By 1880, a relatively small number of well-armed and properly trained European soldiers had managed to easily defeat the native Africans who had a marked numerical superiority over them.
After the second Industrial Revolution, many of the European states became technologically more advanced and they developed interest to colonize un-colonized areas in Africa.
Industrial development invited new powers to involve in the colonial contest. As we have already mentioned, Germany and Italy were newcomers in the colonial struggle to acquire colonies in Africa.
Technology and involvement of new powers in the colonial struggle hastened the development and spread of the New Imperialism.
The emerging European industries needed a huge capital investment.
The financial capital required to run the new industries paved the way for the development of financial institutions like banking and capital markets that could finance the new industries.
The expansion of industries in Europe not only demanded excess raw materials but also importing food for the then growing urban population in the industrialized cities and towns.
Technological advancement in maritime technology and navigation techniques enabled the European colonial powers to get raw materials and food supply with relative ease traveling even to distant areas including the Far East.
Improvement in ship building also encouraged the revival of militarism and aggression in the world. Great Britain, which was the first country to embark on the industrial revolution, was the strongest World Power of the period and had supremacy in military and naval powers.
Its technological superiority enabled Great Britain to build more efficient naval force.
Soon other European colonial powers followed suit and modernized their armed forces including their navy.
After the 19th century, the European colonial powers worked hard to consolidate their rule in the areas which they had already occupied.
In fact, they also worked to get new colonies although there were no adequate territories to be newly colonized in Africa by then.
The technological boom that came as a result of the New Imperialism had some negative impacts on peoples who had their own polities.
The militarily superior European colonial states now managed to colonize the entre African continent except Ethiopia and Liberia, and many areas in Asia and the Pacific Islands.
Although the European colonization of territories in Africa was started earlier, the scale had increased dramatically, and the European acquisition of territories reached its peak during the period known as the New Imperialism.
When the First World War broke out in 1914, about 85 percent of the territories in the world had fallen under colonial rule.
During the First World War, the colonized people followed their colonial masters paid sacrifices in military confrontations that had nothing to do with them.
The Partition of Africa, Motives and Processes
On the eve of the European Scramble for Africa, Western Europe had conducted the industrial revolution for a century and had clearly become the most powerful and technologically advanced continent in the world.
Firearms, transportation, and communication technologies were developing very quickly, and national pride was growing in each European country.
Furthermore, advances in medicine have enabled Europeans to spend longer periods in the tropics free of illness.
An economic decline in the early 1870‘s pushed some Europeans to look toward the non-industrial world, especially the African countries.
They viewed these countries as both markets for their products and suppliers of natural resources to fuel their industries.
In addition, the strongest European countries began to fear what would happen to the balance of power if their rivals acquired colonies in Africa.
All of this resulted in the scramble for Africa.
It began with slow territorial acquisition through the early 1880‘s and was followed by a competitive
rush to claim African lands after the Berlin Conference (1884–1885).
Therefore, you will learn about the major developments that led to the Berlin conference.
Why did Great Britain and France manage to establish big colonial empires while others, like Italy and Germany, were unable to have an adequate number of colonial states in Africa?
Because of her position as an industrial nation in the world, Britain dominated Africa‘s external trade until the second half of the 19th century. She produced industrial goods and exported them to Africa using her largest merchant navy.
This provided her with an opportunity to establish trading stations and occupy bases and coastal colonies on the continent.
As their home markets became saturated, these powers turned to Africa to sell their manufactured goods.
As a result “protectionism‖ was encouraged more than “free trade”.
This in turn increased the desire of the new industrial powers to establish colonies or
―protected‖ areas in Africa.
While Britain, France and Belgium were advancing their arms into Africa, Germany was waiting for its time.
In 1884, Bismarck declared a German protectorate over three African territories, namely Togoland, Cameroon and Southwest Africa (present day Namibia). He then invited the major European powers to Berlin.
The stated goals of the conference were to be the settlement of Congo claims between Britain, France, and Portugal and the Anglo-French rivalries along the Niger River.
European powers recognized that rules were needed for controlling African territories, especially for seizures that held the potential for European conflict.
The Berlin Conference was held in Berlin (Germany) from November 1884 to February
1885.
It was Bismarck, the chancellor of Germany, who initiated the conference.
The conference was an attempt by European leaders to add international agreement to the carving up of Africa that was already underway.
It involved representatives of 13 European countries.
The European states were namely Britain, Germany, France, Austria, Hungary, Russia, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark and Sweden.
In fact, the Ottoman Empire which has been thoroughly weakened and lost most of its former territories was not represented in the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885.
Although the main agenda in the Berlin Conference was Africa, no African country, including Ethiopia and Liberia, was invited to take part in the Conference. By the time the conference ended (February 25, 1885)
King Leopold of Belgium had secured ownership of the Congo Free State, and the conference
recognized Leopold‘s so-called ―International Association‖ as the legitimate authority in the Congo basin.
In return, the Belgian king agreed to allow
European traders and missionaries‟ free access to the area.
Based on the Berlin negotiations, Leopold proclaimed his own personal kingdom, the „Congo Free State‟, in 1885.
France got acceptance of its claims to the French-Congo; Portugal lost most of its Congo claims; and European powers recognized Germany‘s new protectorates.
The European nations declared free trade along the Congo Basin and free navigation on the Niger River.
The European colonial powers also consolidated their rule in the areas they already occupied and set out rules to occupy additional new territories.
Nevertheless, the most significant of these rules or General Act of Berlin was Article 36.
It stated that colonial powers were obligated to notify each other when they claimed African territory.
Furthermore, subsequent “effective occupation” of the claimed area was necessary for the claim to remain valid.
The Berlin Conference marked the real beginning of colonization in Africa.
Principle of effective occupation:
According to Article 35 of the Final Act, Colonial powers could acquire rights over colonial lands only if they possessed them: if they had treaties with local leaders, if they flew their flag there and if they established an administration in the territory with a police force to keep order.
Doctrine of the Sphere of Influence-
According to article 34 of the General Act of the Berlin Conference, any fresh act of taking possession of any portion of the African coast would have to be notified by the power taking possession to the other signatory powers. The conference resolved to end slavery in Africa.
The Congo Free State (today‟s Democratic Republic of the Congo) was confirmed as the private property of King Leopold II of Belgium. Free navigation of the Niger and the Congo.
African Resistance against Colonial Expansion
African Initiatives and Responses to Colonialism
The Africans did not welcome the European colonizers who were uninvited guests in Africa. The Africans attempted to resist the European colonizers as much as they could.
The colonial powers employed different methods to colonize Africa.
They used fake treaties to extend their control of the continent. When treaties failed to bring them what they wanted, the European colonizers resorted to the use of force. The Africans, on the other hand, reacted to the colonial aggression in two ways. The African reaction to colonial rule included both peaceful and violent methods. Practically, the African society resisted the colonizers using any means, and there was resistance in almost every region of European advance.
But there were differences in the intensity of resistance from one region to another. The African resistance had a clear ideological basis, that is, the resistance was an attempt to safeguard their sovereignty.
Samori Toure of Mandinka
Samori Toure (c 1828- June 2, 1900) was a Muslim religious figure and a military leader, who is referred to as the founder of the Islamic Empire known as the Wassoulou Empire that was located in the present-day north and south eastern Guinea.
The areas that were parts of the empire created by Samori Toure included the present-day territories of Sierra Leone, Cot d‘ Ivoire and Burkina Faso.
Samori Toure strongly resisted the colonial rule of France in West Africa until the French defeated and captured him in 1898. By the year 1867, Samori became a commander of a relatively strong army having his base at a place called Sanankoro in the highlands of Guinea.
Samori Toure worked hard to create a well-trained and properly armed army that could help to build a strong and stable empire.
In order to strengthen his army, Samori used to import firearms via Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone since 1876.
His military power enabled him to control the gold mine district known as Bure. And this increased Samori Toure‘s economic strength.
In 1878, Samori Toure proclaimed himself the leader of the Wassoulou Empire he created. Samori Toure made the town of Bissandugu the capital of his empire.
He soon established strong political and commercial relations with the neighboring Toucouleur Empire.
In 1881, after heavy fighting, Samori Toure managed to control the essential Dyula trading post of Kankan which is found on the upper Milo River.
By 1881, the territorial size of the Wassoulou Empire was enlarged and included parts of the present-day territories of Guinea, Mali, Sera Leone and Cot d‟ Ivoire.
The French attempt to expand in West Africa in the late 1870s, brought them to direct conflict with Samori Touri.
The French were expanding towards the territories occupied by the Wassoulou Empire. In
early 1882, the French forces launched attack against the forces of Samori Toure.
His forces successfully repulsed the French attack and retained their possessions there.
In this battle, Samori Toure was surprised by the military discipline and quality of firearms of the French troops he defeated.
Toure wanted to have well trained; disciplined and properly armed troops like the French soldiers.
In order to create an efficient modern army, Samori Touri sought European assistance.
In January 1885 he sent his envoys to the British colonial rulers in Freetown, Sierra Leone, promising to place his empire under British protection.
The British were not willing to confront with the French by accepting Samori‘s request to put his Empire under their protectorate.
Nevertheless, the British agreed to sell modern weapons to Samori Touri.
The French troops launched a military expedition in 1885 to control the Bure rich gold mines.
The forces of Samori Touri, who were by then better armed, successfully resisted the French attack and launched a successful three directional counter-offensive and expelled the expanding French forces from Bure.
Samori Touri‘s army was well organized divided into infantry and cavalry units.
In March 1891, the French forces launched a military offensive against Samori in Eastern Guinea.
Although the forces of Samori had scored victories in some battles, they could not totally expel the French troops from their empire.
In June 1892, the French troops defeated the forces of Samori Touri and captured the capital of the empire, Bissangudu.
To make matters even worse to Samori Touri, the British refused to sell firearms and ammunitions to Samori anymore.
In the last resort, Samori Touri formed an anticolonial coalition with the neighboring Ashante Empire.
Nevertheless, the alliance could not be fruitful as the British troops defeated the Ashante Empire in 1897.
In the next year, i.e., 1898, Samori Touri lost almost all the territory of the empire he created to the French and was forced to retreat.
Eventually, on 29 September 1898 Samori Touri surrendered to the French and was exiled to Gabon and died on 2 June 1990 in captivity.
The attempts made by the Africans to stop the European powers from colonizing their countries were not successful.
It was partly because the African resistances against the European invaders were not well-organized.
The Europeans had also a marked superiority in military training and quality of firearms.
Sometimes the Europeans were able to mobilize the Africans against fellow Africans who were determined to fight them.
The only successful anti-colonial struggle in Africa was that of Ethiopia.
Ethiopians under Emperor Menelik II had managed to defeat the Italians at the battle of Adwa in 1896 and Ethiopia became the only country in Africa whose independence was recognized by the colonial powers in the era of colonialism.
The Ashanti
The Ashanti Empire was a pre-colonial West African state that emerged in the 17th century in what is today Ghana.
The Ashanti, or Asante, were an ethnic sub-group of the Akan-speaking people and were composed of small chiefdoms.
The Ashanti established their state around Kumasi in the late 1600s, shortly after their first encounter with Europeans.
In some ways, the Empire grew out of the wars and dislocations caused by the Europeans who sought to control the famous gold deposits which gave this region its name, the Gold Coast.
During this era, the Portuguese were the most active Europeans in West Africa.
They made Ashanti a significant trading partner, providing wealth and weapons that allowed the small state to grow stronger than its neighbors.
In the 18th century Ashanti was simply one of the Akan-speaking Portuguese trading partners in the region.
That situation changed when Osei Tutu, the Asantehene (paramount chief) of Ashanti from 1701 to 1717, and his priest, Komfo Anokye, unified the independent chiefdoms into the most powerful political and military state in the coastal region.
The Asantehene organized the Asante Union, an alliance of Akan-speaking people who were now loyal to his central authority.
The Asantehene made Kumasi the capital of the new empire. He also created a constitution, reorganized and centralized the military, and created a new cultural festival, Odwira, which symbolized the new union. Most importantly, he created the Golden Stool, which he argued represented the ancestors of all the Ashanti.
Upon that throne, Osei Tutu legitimized his rule and that of the royal dynasty that followed him.
Gold was the major product of the Ashanti Empire. Osei Tutu made the gold mines royal possessions.
He also made gold dust the circulating currency in the empire. Gold dust was frequently accumulated by the citizens of Asante, particularly by the evolving wealthy merchant class.
The Ashanti Empire‘s economy depended on the gold trade in the 1700s, but by the early 1800s, it had become a major exporter of enslaved people.
In exchange, the Ashanti received luxury items and some manufactured goods, including most importantly, firearms.
The consequence of this trade for the Ashanti and their neighbors was terrible.
From 1790 until 1896, the Ashanti Empire was in a continuous state of war.
These wars led to the acquisition of more slaves for trade. The constant warfare also weakened the Empire against the British, who eventually became their main enemy.
Between 1823 and 1873, the Ashanti Empire resisted British advance on their territory.
In 1874, however, British forces successfully invaded the Empire and briefly captured Kumasi.
The Ashanti rebelled against British rule and the Empire was again conquered in 1897.
After another uprising in 1900, the British overthrew and exiled the Asantehene and annexed the Empire into their Gold Coast colony in 1902.
Urabi Pasha‟s Rebellion in Egypt
Ahmed Urabi, or Urabi Pasha, was an officer in the Egyptian army.
Urabi participated in an 1879 mutiny that developed into the Urabi revolt against the administration of Khedive Tewfik, which was under the influence of an Anglo-French dual rule.
He was promoted to Tewfik‟s cabinet and began reforms of Egypt‘s military and civil administrations, but the demonstrations in
Alexandria in 1882 led to the British bombardment and the occupation of Egypt.
Urabi and his supporters were arrested and exiled to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka).
This revolt, also known as the Urabi revolt, was primarily inspired by his desire for social justice for the Egyptians based on equal standing before the law.
With the support of the peasants as well, he launched a broader effort to try to free Egypt and Sudan from foreign control and to end the absolutist regime of the Khedive Ismael Pasha.
The revolt, then, spread to express resentment at the influence of foreigners, including the aristocracy of the Ottoman Empire.
Urabi was eventually captured and tried by the restored Khedivate for rebellion on December 3, 1882.
Urabi was found guilty and was sentenced to death, but the sentence was immediately commuted to banishment for life.
He left Egypt on December 28, 1882, for Ceylon. In May 1901, Khedive Abbas II, Tewfik‘s son and successor, permitted Urabi to return to Egypt.
Abbas was a nationalist and remained deeply opposed to British influence in Egypt.
Urabi returned in 1901 and remained in Egypt until his death in 1911.
Urabi›s revolt had a long-lasting significance in Egypt as the first instance of nationalistic sentiments in Egypt, which would later play a very important role in Egyptian history.
Some historians also note that the 1881–1882 revolution laid the foundation for mass politics in Egypt.
In 20th-century Egypt, particularly during the regime of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Urabi would come to be regarded as an Egyptian patriot and a
national hero; he also inspired political activists living in Ceylon.
The Mahadist Movement in the Sudan
The Mahadist rebellion in the Sudan began in 1881 by Muhammad Ahmad, a Muslim holy man from Dongola who declared that he was the expected Mahdi.
His followers, too, identified him as Al-Mahdi.
In 1881, he organized a revolt, declaring that he was the expected Islamic savior, or Mahdi, and it was from this name that the Sudanese religious revivalist and anti-colonial movement were named the Mahadist movement.
On August 12, 1881, Al-Mahdi won his first victory over the colonial forces at the battle of Aba.
Again in November 1883, the Mahaddists won another victory over the Anglo-Egyptian army in Kordofan Province.
Subsequently, in 1885, Al-Mahdi‘s forces captured Khartoum and killed Charles Gordon Pasha.
Five months later, Muhammad Ahmad passed away.
The Mahaddists were also known as the Dervishes (religious beggars) and later as the Ansars (helpers). Upon the death of the Mahdi in 1885, Khalifa Abdullah took the leadership.
He set up a strong administrative system by appointing district governors responsible for collecting taxation strictly in accordance with the rules of the Quran.
The British regarded the successive victories of the Mahaddists as a threat and wanted to avenge the death of Charles Gordon.
In 1896, the Anglo-Egyptian army, under the command of General Kitchner, advanced into the Sudan.
Two years later, in 1898, this army inflicted a final defeat upon the Mahadist forces at the battle of
Omdurman. Sudan was occupied by the combined forces of Britain and Egypt.
Following this, the British set up what they called the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium.
Lord Kitchner was appointed as the first Governor-General of the Sudan.
The Maji-Maji Rebellion
In East Africa, the most serious challenge for the Germans was the widespread resistance of the people of Tanganyika.
This rebellion broke out in the southern part of the colony, in the hinterland of Kilwa, in July 1905.
It began in the Matumbi hills, following the imposition of heavy taxes and the use of forced labor in the cotton growing farma for export.
The revolt spread rapidly throughout the region, with attacks on all foreigners: missionaries, administrators, and their Swahili/Arab clerks.
It was a spontaneous revolt with no previous planning or central leadership.
And yet, the peoples of Southern Tanzania came together in a way that is unique in the history of African resistance to colonialism.
Instinctively, they turned to their beliefs in the powers of the spirit world.
It was a deliberate attempt to overcome the problems that had crippled earlier African resistance to European conquest, i.e., a lack of African unity and the European machine-gun.
They sprinkled their bodies with magic water known as Maji-Maji, which they believed would turn the bullets of their enemies into water.
It is therefore from this term that the resistance movement got the name Maji-Maji.
Although the revolt spread to Morogoro and the outskirts of Dares Salam, it had gradually lost its initial momentum.
The power of Maji-Maji had been weakened and its political unity was gradually falling apart because of ethnic and other differences.
In addition to this, by the end of 1905, the Germans had brought reinforcements, recruited from Somaliland and New Guinea.
As a result, in 1906, the Germans gradually reclaimed the central highland region under their control.
They even perused a ―scorched-earth‖ policy, destroying villages and laying waste vast stretches of southern and central Tanzania.
Finally, they defeated the powerful Ngoni warriors in 1907.
The war devastated several African villages and brought famine to the Africans.
It also resulted in the destruction of trade and wealth in the country.
In any case, the Maji-Maji revolt demonstrated the possibility of broader African anti- colonial nationalism.
The sacrifice of the thousands of Tanzanians who died in the Maji-Maji revolt was important in inspiring the later generation of nationalists who brought their country to independence in the early 1960‘s.
Colonial Administration and the Colonial States
British and French Colonial Policies
British Colonial Policy
The British followed a colonial administration known as ―indirect rule‖ which was most clearly formulated by Frederick Luggard.
In 1922, Luggard published his book called ―The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa.‖
He described the system of government he had worked out for the administration in Northern Nigeria.
He recommended its application to all British tropical African colonies.
“Indirect rule” was believed by the British to be the cheapest and most effective way of administering a vast population stretched over even vaster territories with the minimum of European personnel.
But ―indirect rule‖ was far from being a clear-cut system.
Its application varied enormously from colony to colony.
The British based their colonial administration upon what they saw as a series of minor but totally separate pre-colonial chiefdoms.
To make this a reality, they emphasized differences in dialects and redefined them as totally separate languages.
They described customary differences in dress, housing, and religious practices in terms of rigid
―tribal‖ distinctions.
Indeed, it has been argued that colonial authorities invented ―tribalism.‖
By insisting on the strength of ―tribal‖ differences and rivalries, colonists made it more difficult for Africans to achieve unity in opposition.
The British thus made use of the age-old imperial maxim: ―divide and rule.‖
The French Colonial Policy
The French believed that by teaching the colonial peoples the French language, subjecting them to French law, and giving them French civil and political rights, they could assimilate the people they colonized.
Throughout their colonies in Africa, the French applied this theory in full only in Senegal.
In 1848, France conferred French citizenship on the Senegalese and also gave them the right to elect a representative, called a deputy, to the French National Assembly (the lower house of the French parliament) in Paris.
In accordance with the policy of assimilation, the Senegalese were given the French system of local government based on communes.
All the indigenous inhabitants were French citizens and enjoyed the same civil and political rights as Frenchmen.
People born in other parts of the French colonies could become French citizens only if they could read, write, and speak French well.
Albert Sarraut, Minister of Colonies in 1920–24 and 1932–33, was the individual who laid the foundations for the French colonial policy of administration usually known as ―Direct Rule.‖ Sarraut‘s outlook was very different from that of the Englishmen.
It was less respectful of African personalities while also being more fraternal toward Africans. Sarraut never talked about allowing the Africans to develop along their own lines.
His dominant thought was that France and her African colonies must be kept as united in peace as they had been in war.
There were two major differences between the British and French methods of using African chiefs in local government.
The first was that the British tried as much as possible to ensure that all the chiefs they used were traditional rulers, as the French were not particularly keen on this point.
The second was that the British were more inclined to respect the chiefs under them and to give them more powers than the French did. It was above all in education that French policy differed
from the British. Although a few mission schools received government subsidies for exceptional efficiency, nine-tenths of the formal education in French Africa was given by the state. All the teaching was in French. It is, however, noteworthy that, ultimately, the French and British methods virtually led to the same result. They caused African chiefs to lose their traditional character and made them dependent on their colonial masters.
The possession of other European power and their rule
Belgium had some colonial possessions in Africa. Belgian African colonial possessions included Congo, Rwanda, and Burundi. Belgian colonial rule in the Congo was based on the idea of a “colonial trinity” in which interests of the state, missionaries and private companies were all considered.
Portuguese colonial rule in Africa, particularly in Angola and Mozambique, included both oppressive and liberal methods. There was no clear landmarked policy to administer the Portuguese colonies in Africa. We can say that the Portuguese colonial system of administration was more or less oppressive. In fact, there were few liberal policies like the assimilation policy. The assimilation policy was never fully implemented, but it kept native African peoples in Portuguese colonies hoping that one day they would behave and live like white Portuguese.
German colonial rule in Africa from 1884-1914 was an expression of nationalism and moral superiority. The Germans pursued a colonial administrative policy of direct rule like the French to maximally exploit the resources of the people of Tanganyika. The Germans employed direct rule, assigning enough personnel or manpower to administer their colonial possession of Tanganyika.
The Political Economy of Colonial Agriculture, Mining and Trade
One of the driving factors for the European conquest of Africa was economic motive.
That was the need for raw materials for European industries and new markets for manufactured goods. Colonial governments often encouraged Africans to undertake cash crop production.
A major role was filled in this process by African chiefs, whether ―traditional‖ or newly created.
The chiefs were often given the task of establishing their own export plantations using unpaid force labor of their subjects.
The most important cash crops were palm oil, palm kernels, peanuts, cocoa, coffee and cotton.
Small-scale peasant farmers had dominated the cash crop production in much of tropical Africa. Ground nuts remained the main cash crop in Cote d‟Ivoire, Angola, Tanganyika, Uganda and Eastern Belgian Congo.
Cocoa was even more successful as a dominant cash crop in northern Nigeria and Senegal.
Coffee was developed as a profitable cash crop and remained the principal export crop of the Gold Coast and southwestern Nigeria.
Cotton, which was low-priced and labor-intensive, was usually produced only under pressure from Europeans.
To satisfy the demands of the French textile industry, peasant production of cotton was made compulsory in certain parts of Ubangui Chari (Central Africa Republic), Upper Volta (Burkina Faso), Mali and Niger.
In Southern Sudan, between the Blue Nile and White Nile, the British government sponsored a vast irrigation scheme to promote the peasant production of cotton.
African tenants, however, lost access to land for growing food and only received 40% of the profits from their cotton.
Most of the African peasant farmers still graze most of their own basic food. Cheap rice from French Indo-China was imported into French West African colonies and sold at rates which undercut local food producers.
African peasant farmers, who had often started the growth of cash crops for export under pressure from colonial taxation, rapidly became dependent upon the imports which their crops might buy.
In general, during the 1920‘s and 1930‘s, African farmers were paid less for what they produced, but had to pay more for what they bought.
Thus, it was particularly the case after the “Great Depression,” which struck Europe and the United States in 1929-30. With failing real incomes and the constant pressure of colonial taxation, African peasants had to bring more and more land into cash-crop production.
Food crops were neglected, the soil became exhausted, and in times of drought, famine struck. In 1931, famine killed nearly half the population in some areas of Niger.
Mining
The sector of the colonial economy most profitable for capital investment was mining. Colonial authorities assumed all rights over minerals within their territories.
They were then leased to European-owned companies to exploit.
The British thus took over the gold fields of Asante.
The other major mineral resources which attracted European mining capital to West Africa
were the ancient tin-mines of the Jos plateau region in northern Nigeria.
These were exploited by low-technology, open-caste mining using huge quantities of unskilled African labor.
The richest parts of tropical Africa for European mineral exploitation in the colonial period were the central African region of Katanga (Shaba) and the Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) “copper belt”.
The Union Muniere Company has obtained exclusive control of copper-mining in Katanga.
They drew much of their initial labor from the area near Northern Rhodesia.
The settlement of white farmers along the Northern Rhodesia line of rail was to grow maize and cattle to feed the Katanga miners.
Southern Rhodesia was another important zone of European mining enterprises.
Besides the coal of Hwange, which provided the copper belt (Katanga) mines with most of their industrial fuel, Southern Rhodesia became a major producer of gold, copper, and asbestos. The dominant industrial mining center of southern Africa was the Witwatersrand.
UNIT THREE
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN ETHIOPIA, MID 19TH C. TO 1941
Long Distance Trade and Peoples‟ Interaction in Ethiopia in the 19th Century
Factors for the Revival of the Long-Distance Trade
The establishment of a monarchical system among the southwestern Oromo regions,
Particularly the rise of the five Oromo kingdoms in the Gibe region was one of the factors that contributed to the revival of the long-distance period and the reappearance of the northern Ethiopian merchants in the Gibe region.
The resulting political stability they ensured also encouraged caravan traders to travel deep into the interior of the south-western Ethiopian regions in search of export items.
The local rulers of the region welcomed merchants and gave them patronage as they paid tax and imported luxury goods for them.
Second the rising power of the ruler of Egypt, Mohammad Ali, in the 1830s resulted in the political stability of the region.
This in turn, contributed to the revival of trade in the Red Sea basin and Arabia.
As the most valuable items of export along the Red Sea could only be found in the Ethiopian interior, the internal long distance trade of Ethiopia got new stimulus
This was probably because of the relative improvement of the political conditions along the Red Sea coast after the Egyptian conquest of South Arabia at the beginning of the 19th century.
New political development along the Red Sea coasts and Arabia by the turn of the 19th century strengthened peace and order and increased the importance of the Red Sea as a very important channel of trade.
Thirdly, the conquest of the Caucasus by Russia
Had closed the supply of some goods of high demand and concubines to the Ottoman Turks
This resulted in an increased demand for Ethiopian slaves and luxury goods such as civet, gold and ivory.
Fourthly, in the 19th century European interest in Ethiopia was revived.
This was after about two centuries of Ethiopia's lack of interest in diplomatic relations with Europe.
The coming of Europeans into Ethiopia, since the first decade of the 19th century, was part of their commercial competition in the Horn of Africa.
Some of the Obstacles of Long distance trade were
At the beginning of the 19th century, there were intense regional feudal wars that could be an obstacle to the smooth conduct of trade.
Although the period was apparently unstable and unsafe for the smooth conduct of commercial activities, trade improved from time to time.
Participating in the long distance trade caused several hazards.
It was very risky to cross some rivers, gorges, mountains and deserts.
In addition to these natural barriers, robbers (shiftas) and brigands as well as disposed local rulers created much difficulty for merchants.
In order to challenge such problems, merchants organized themselves into a caravan
These organized merchants choose one merchant as a leader of the caravan traders. The leader of the caravan traders was known as nagadras or chief of traders.
Trade Routes and Market Centers
These markets linked the south-western regions with the northern regions of Ethiopia.
Bonga in KaffaHirmata in Jimma Sakka in Limu-Enarya Assendabo in WollegaBasso in GojjamDarita in Begemidir Gonder Metema and Adwa in Tigrai.
At Gondar, the route was divided into two:
one of the routes led to the Sudan through Metemma;
While the other went to Massawa via Adwa.
Another major caravan route that originated from the Gibe region followed a north-eastern direction to the Soddo market in the Gurage land.
Markets located along the east-west long distance trade included Sodo in Gurage AnkoberAliyu Amba and Abdul Rasul in northern ShoaAncharo and Dawe in Wollo
Dire Dawa and Harar in Hararge.
These markets served the trade routes leading to the ports of Tajura and Obock in Djibouti, and Zeila and Berbera in Somalia.
The Soddo market was linked with the Ankober market in Shewa.
With the emergence and consolidation of the Shewan Kingdom in the 19th century, the caravan route that linked the Shewan Plateau with Harar also revived.
Thus, Harari merchants began to visit Ankober frequently in the nineteenth century. The trade route from Harar went either to Zeila or Berbera on the coast of the Gulf of Aden.
The principal long-distance caravan routes were:
Bonga (Kafa) –Jimma-Saka-Assendabo-
Basso-Gondar
Gondar-Metemma-Sudan
Gondar-Adwa-Massawa
Bonga-Jimma-Saka-Assendabo-Aussa-Tajura/Obock
Bonga-Jimma-Soddo-Ankober-Harar-Zeila/ Berbera.
Trade Items and Slave Trade throughout the nineteenth century,
The major trading items included ivory, civet, gold, wax, and animal skins and slaves.
Map 3.1 Trade routes of 19th C. Ethiopia
By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, coffee also became one of the important commodities for export.
Ethiopian goods were natural products which were obtained mainly from southwestern Ethiopia.
Even today, most of the Ethiopian commodities for export are natural agricultural products.
Slaves became the major Ethiopian export item since the ancient times. Slaves from Ethiopia were exported both to the Sudan and Arabia.
The well-known slave auction markets were Yejjube in Gojjam, and Abdul Rasul, near Aleyu Amba. .
Merchants of the Long Distance Trade
As far as the merchants were concerned, although there were also some Christian merchants
The majority were Muslim traders from northern Ethiopia
The two most dominant merchants were known
the Jabarti and the
the Afkala
The Jabarti
They were Muslim merchants of northern Ethiopia trading as far as the Red Sea Coast.
These merchants traveled in large caravans, selecting one of them as their head, Negade Ras, a term which was later transformed into Negadras.
The Jabarti had a dominant role in the long-distance trade of the nineteenth century until they began to face competition from the Afkala.
The Jabarti maintained their monopoly until the middle of the 19th c.
The Afkala
They were the dominant Muslim merchants in southwestern Ethiopia came to dominate the local trade of the Gibe region.
The Afkala had many connections along all the caravan routes from which they collected the important trade commodities.
They had also better protection from the local people and could easily and safely travel between
the market places in the north and the Gibe region.
By the middle of the nineteenth century, most of the caravan trade between the south and northern Ethiopia was conducted by the Afkala.
Trade as a Factor for People‟s Interaction
Long Distance Trade as a Factor in the Interaction among Peoples and Among States
It served as a major means of economic ties and interdependence among different peoples and among states in the region.
Peoples of different environmental zones or different means of livelihood exchanged valuable items through the agency of caravan traders.
Added to exchanging of goods, peoples of different areas also exchanged views, cultures and technologies through trade.
Trade also encouraged division of labour and specialization in production among different peoples with different skills by providing markets for their produce.
Trade was a major source of income to rulers in control of resourceful regions and through whose territories the trade routes passed.
By safeguarding markets and protecting trade routes,
They levied taxes in their respective regions.
They also benefited from involving in the trade through commercial agents.
They imported luxury items and firearms through merchants.
All of these helped rulers of different states to consolidate their economic and political powers.
Long-distance trade contributed to the political and religious transformation among the Oromo of the Gibe region.
It hastened the formation of feudal monarchical states in the late 18th and early 19th centuries by consolidating the economic and military powers of successful war leaders.
The introduction and spread of Islam helped the Oromo chiefs to establish monarchies and legitimize their power by neglecting the Gada system and other Oromo practices which were against hereditary rule or monarchy.
Islam helped the rulers in southwestern Ethiopia to strengthen their state apparatus, reinforce their authority, and facilitate the growth of trade.
Even more, Muslim merchants of the long-distance trade introduced Islam into the Gibe region.
Islam helped rulers to legitimize their authority through adopting Muslim laws, customs, taxes and other practice
The introduction of money resulted in the increase of states' income.
Rulers began to collect taxes in the form of cash.
Moreover, silver coins were preferred as they were easier to store in great quantity and for long years than amole or other goods.
The long-distance trade created strong links between the people of northern Ethiopia and south-western Ethiopia.
Merchants from the north began to intermingle with people from south-western Ethiopia.
There was also an exchange of ideas and cultures.
Power Rivalry and Consolidating Central Government, 1855-1913
What do you understand by Zemene-Mesafint? »
Beginning from 1769 and lasting through the middle of the 19th century, Ethiopia experienced a period of intense regionalism.
By then, the country was divided into several almost independent regional polities, which were they further divided into smaller units.
By then, the power of the so-called Solomonic kings had been thoroughly weakened.
The Yejju Rases had dominated Ethiopian politics from 1769 to 1855.
The Yejju rulers, who were also known as Worashe, were Amharized Oromos with a Muslim background.
They took the title Ras Bitwoded, and most of them used Debre Tabor as their capital.
Nevertheless, the Yejju Rases could not bring lasting peace and unity within Ethiopia.
The period from 1769 to 1855, which is commonly known as the Zemene Mesafint or the Era of Princes, was a time when not only the power of the Solomonic kings was thoroughly weakened, but it was also a period when the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was torn by religious doctrinal controversies.
There were doctrinal controversies within the Ethiopian Orthodox Church in the medieval period.
There was a dispute within the church between the House of Abba Ewostatewos and the House of Teklehaimanot.
The disagreement was regarding the observance of Saturday as a Sabbath which was resolved by Emperor Zerayacob in 1450 at the Council of Debre Metmaq which accepted both Saturday and Sunday as holyday.
During the Zemene Mesafint there were
They were called Qebat
controversies within the Ethiopian Orthodox
Their doctrine and teaching laid stress upon
Church on the birth of Christ.
the anointing of Jesus Christ and not upon the
Incarnation of Jesus
They states that Jesus became perfect man
1.
The three birth of Christ (Sost Ledet)
and perfect God by anointing of the Holy
The first group claimed that Jesus Christ had
Spirit in the Jordan River, and not at the
three births (Soset Ledet)
Incarnation
They were known as Ye Tsega Lej ( Son of Grace)
Eternal birth of the Son from the Father
Genetic birth of the Son from the Virgin Marry
Birth from the Holy Spirit during baptism after the Incarnation
Their followers were dominant in Gonder and then in Shewa
The two birth of Christ (Hulet Ledet)
The second group sect argued that Jesus Christ had only two births (Hulet Ledet),
They were known as Karra (knife, perhaps because its adherents are criticized for cutting the births of Jesus Christ down to two).
Emperor Yohannis IV gave state support for the Hulet Ledet (Karra) group.
They confesses the unity of two natures of Christ
Divine
Human
They supported the Tewahedo doctrine which means unity.
They were supported by the states ( TewodrosII and YohannesIV) and by the Egyptian Patriarch of Ethiopia.
Their followers were dominant in much of Tigray and Lasta.
The third doctrine of Qebat („Unction‟)
Characteristic features of the Zemene Mesafint
Frequent civil wars among regional lords.
The Ethiopian peasants were the principal victims of civil war.
The peasants were forced to attend battles against their will.
They were forced to hand over their produce to the lords in their vicinity.
Peasants had to pay numerous taxes to numerous lords.
They were also obliged to feed and take care of some soldiers that were assigned to them through the billeting system, as the soldiers were not salaried.
Because of the frequent wars, they could not conduct their agricultural activities peacefully.
In general, the impoverished peasants were almost completely exhausted by the perpetual feudal warfare that characterized the period of the Zemene Mesafint.
Nevertheless, the period of the Zemene Mesafint was not simply a time of the complete anarchy and collapse of the state power.
It did see some periods of relative peace. During the long rule of Ras Gugsa, the Worashe hegemony gained a solid basis.
During that period Shewa and Tigray were not fully under the Worashe hegemony even during the tenure of Ras Gugsa.
Moreover, the Yejju lords contributed to the survival of the institution of the weakened monarchy.
The works of travelers of the period are not only stories of decline and destruction. Their accounts also show some positive developments.
Therefore, the period needs additional research. As we have seen already during the Zemene Mesafint, the central government was greatly weakened.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church also faced serious doctrinal divisions.
The country lacked peace and stability.
The peasantry suffered more than any other section of Ethiopian society.
The rise of Kassa Hailu
In order to solve these problems and reunite the country, a young man named Kassa Hailu rose against the Worashe dynasty.
In four major battles, the young Kassa defeated powerful regional lords of northern Ethiopia.
In November 1852 Kassa defeated Dejach Goshu Zewde of Gojjam at the battle of Guramba.
In April 1853, Dejach Kassa routed the vassals of Ras Ali Alula, including Dejach Birru Goshu and Dejach Birru Aligaz, at the battle of Gorgora Bichen.
On 29 June 1853 Kassa launched an attack against Ras Ali Alula, and defeated Ali at the battle of Ayshal. The battle of Ayshal was very significant as it put an end to the Worashe rule. The battle of Ayshal did not mark the end of the period of the Zemene Mesafint because there was still another powerful lord in northern Ethiopia particularly in Simen i.e., Dejach Wube Haile Mariam.
In February 1855 Kassa Hailu had to remove the last obstacle to assuming power. Therefore, the forces of Kassa Hailu and Dejach Wube met at a place called Deresge. Dejazmach Kassa Hailu
defeated Dejach Wube and ascended to the throne as Tewodros II, King of Kings of Ethiopia. The battle of Deresge brought an end to the period of the Zemene Mesafint. Activity
How did the battle of Debarqi in 1848 shape the life of Emperor Tewodros?
Emperor Tewodros II attempted to introduce several important reforms.
Attempts to unify the country,
The introduction of a centralized administration,
The creation of a national army to prepare the country for possible foreign and particularly Egyptian aggression.
Tewodros II was aware of the value of military training, military discipline, and proper firearms. He got this lesson while he was a rebel, from the battle of Deberki in 1848 where his lost many fighters while fighting against Egyptians.
Tewodros realized that he was routed by the Egyptian soldiers who had marked superiority over the forces of Kassa Hailu in military training and in the quality of weapons.
Tewodros introduced a military reform which included modern military training with military drills and introduced military titles like AserAleqa (corporal), Hamsa Aleqa (sergeant), Meto Aleqa (lieutenant) and Shaleqa (Major).
He also wanted his soldiers to be armed with modern and very efficient firearms.
Emperor Tewodros II launched campaigns against Wollo, Gojjam and Shewa to unite Ethiopia.
He punished those who tried to resist him.
His punitive measures were not limited to his adversaries.
He also punished his own soldiers to enforce strict military discipline.
These measures had some undesired effects and many of his own soldiers eventually deserted him.
The downfall of Emperor Tewodros
The conflict between Tewodros and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church
The relationship between Emperor Tewodros II and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was generally unhealthy.
Tewodros quarreled with the clergy and the patriarch, Abune Selema not because of religious reasons.
What brought Emperor Tewodros and the Church into conflict was Tewodros‘ attempt to confiscate the extra land holdings of the church to redistribute it among landless peasants.
He also declared that each church should retain land that could maintain no more than two priests and three deacons.
That brought him into conflict with the Orthodox clergy.
As a result, Abune Selama excommunicated Tewoodros.
In response, Tewodros‘ imprisoned Abune Selama in 1864 and the Abune died in prison in 1867.
The conflict between Tewodros and the regional lords
Tewodros was the serious opposition he faced from the regional lords of the various regions in Ethiopia who lost their regional power because of Tewodros‘s centralization.
He appointed his own men in the regions he incorporated.
Just a decade after Tewodros had assumed the imperial throne; most of the Ethiopian territories that were incorporated by him by force of arms had fallen under big regional lords including Tisso Gobeze of Wolkait, Dajach Kassa Mercha of Tigrai, Tedla Gualu of Gojjam, Wagshum Gobeze
Gebremedhin of Lasta and Negus Menelik of Shewa.
Emperor Tewodros was aware of Ethiopia‘s backwardness and made serious attempts to modernize Ethiopia, particularly because he wanted to build well trained, disciplined and well-armed national army.
The conflict between Emperor Tewodros II and Great Britain
Tewodros was not solely interested in importing European manufactured goods.
He rather sought firearms to be manufactured in Ethiopia by the Ethiopians.
He wanted European assistance and wrote letters to Queen Victoria of England to send him skilled personnel.
Unfortunately, Tewdros could not get a quick positive response from the British government for his request for British technical assistance.
Disappointed by lack of response from the British government, Emperor Tewodros II took Captain Cameron, the British consul and European missionaries in Ethiopia as hostages and forced them to manufacture mortars in his gun-foundry established at Gafat near his capital, Debre Tabor.
Although the European missionaries had no experience in arms production, Tewodros forced them to manufacture mortars including the largest one which he named Sevastopol.
The British government tried to convince Tewodros to release European captives by sending Hormuzd Rassam promising that the British were ready to send him the skilled personnel he requested.
Nevertheless, Tewodros was not willing to release the hostages.
Therefore, in 1867, the British government sent a military expedition against Ethiopia led by General Robert Napier with a limited objective of releasing European captives.
By 1867, the army of Emperor Tewodros had declined to 5,000 – 1000 while the British force was composed of 32,000 – 40,000 men.
In addition, the British had a marked superiority over the Ethiopian forces, both in military training and the quality of firearms.
On the April 10, 1868 the British forces routed the Ethiopian forces led by Fitawrari Gebreye at the battle of Arogee. In this battle, the righthand man of Emperor Tewodros, Fitawrari Gebreye lost his life. The death of Fitawrari Gebreye was a big blow to Tewodros.
The British eventually stormed Meqdela. General Napier demanded the unconditional surrender of Tewodros. But Tewodros was not willing to do so. Emperor Tewodros II first released all the European hostages and then committed suicide on April 13, 1868 at Meqdela rather than surrender to the British.
Aftermath of the death of Emperor Tewodros II
The British soldiers looted Ethiopian treasury at Meqdela.
The forces under General Robert Napier also took Prince Alemayehu Tewodros and his mother and wife of the late Emperor Tewodros i.e., Etege Tiruwork as captives and left Ethiopia.
The death of Emperor Tewodros again led to the usual power struggle among the leading regional lords.
Nevertheless, the objective reality of the period was quite different from that of the Zemene Mesafint.
As a result, the powerful lords were determined to become emperor.
Thus all the three powerful rivals, namely: Dejzmach Kassa Mircha of Tigray, Wagshum Gobezie Gebre Medhin of Lasta and Menilek Haile Melekot of Shewa, wanted to become king of kings of Ethiopia like Tewodros.
Period of Emperor Tekle Giorgis
The first to succeed the late Tewodros was Wagshum Gobezie Gebre Medhin of Lasta
Who took the throne name Emperor Tekle Giorgis.
The reign of Emperor Tekle Giorgis was not more than three years long.
His authority was seriously challenged by other feudal princes of Gojjam, Shewa and Tigray.
Although he tried to consolidate his authority, the other contenders for power were not willing to obey and recognize him.
Kassa Mircha of Tigray, for instance, was not willing to pay tribute to the new Emperor. Finally, in July 1871, at the battle of Asem Dejzmach Kassa Mircha of Tigray defeated and captured Emperor Tekle Giorgis and brought an end to
Emperor Tekle Giorgis‘ short reign.
The rise of Dejzmach Kassa Mircha
™ The major success of Dejzmach Kassa defeated his rival Emperor Tekle Giorgis at the battle of Asem was; because of the modern weapons he received from General Napier for helping the British forces on their march to Meqdela to fight against Tewodros.
™ In 1872, Dejzmach Kassa Mircha declared himself Emperor Yohannis IV of Ethiopia and ruled from 1872 to 1889.
™ Although Emperor Tewodros‘ plan to create a united Ethiopia did not materialize, there was no return to the Zemene Mesafint.
™ The idea of Ethiopian unity was adopted and implemented by the successors of Tewodros,
including Yohannis IV, though with differing styles.
™ Emperor Yohannis IV was politically liberal and followed an administration that resembled federalism.
™ Yohannis was willing and ready to share power with his vassals.
™ He granted a great deal of autonomy to regional and dynastic rulers.
™ In this regard, in 1878, he forced Menilek of Shewa to drop his title of king of kings and confirmed his title of king of Shewa.
™ Emperor Yohannis IV also designated Ras Adal Tesema of Gojjam as Negus of Gojjam and Kafa in 1881.
™ Yohannis IV did not interfere in the internal affairs of his vassals as long as they recognized his over-lordship and paid tribute.
™ The Shift of the Political Centre from the North to Shewa Although Emperor Yohannis IV had designated Ras Mengesha as his heir and successor; it was Negus Menilek of Shewa who formally inherited the throne from Emperor Yohannis IV.
™ As mentioned already, the pioneer of the modern Ethiopian state formation was Emperor Tewodros II.
™ But Tewodros could not achieve his goals of national unification. Emperor Yohannis IV was somewhat successful in building an empire where regional hereditary rulers enjoyed the right of internal autonomy.
™ Nevertheless, the process of the Ethiopian empire‘s formation was not completed.
™ Negus Menilek of Shewa, who crowned himself king of the kings of Ethiopia in 1889, learnt from the experiences and failures of his predecessors and made a great effort to complete the national unification process.
™ During the reign of Emperor Menilek II, the size of the old Christian kingdom grew by more than double and, thanks to the remarkable victory the Ethiopians scored over the Italian forces at Adwa in 1896, Ethiopia got her first internationally recognized modern boundaries.
The main features of the reign of Emperor Menilek II included:
Large scale territorial expansion. He extended the territory of the Shewan Kingdom to the south, southwest, and southeastern Ethiopia.
Defending the country against colonial aggression by mobilizing the entire Ethiopian population
Consolidating the process of modernization in Ethiopia that was begun by Emperor Tewodros
Territorial Expansion and the Incorporation of Kingdoms
Territorial expansions by the kings of the central highland kingdom was common even in the medieval period
When Menilek was king of Shewa, he began to expand his territory.
Ethiopian export commodities such as ivory, gold, civet, coffee, and even slaves were mostly obtained in these arm for him, appears to have attempted to gain from the natural wealth of southwestern his aim of extending into this fertile region, he worked hard to improve the quantity and quality of his weaponry.
Menilek also wanted to control the long-distance trade in southern and southwestern Ethiopia.
Menilek‟s territorial expansion had three phases
The first covered the period from 1870 to 1889.
The second stage was conducted between 1889 and 1896.
The last stage of the expansion was carried out between 1896 and 1900.
The first phase covered the period from 1870 to 1889.
Negus Menilek of Shewa began his territorial expansion while he was the king of Shewa in the 1870s.
Menelik‘s expansion was directed against the independent peoples and states in the areas of present south western, southeastern and south Ethiopia.
The expansion of Menelik was different from that of his predecessors in its Intensity and Unprecedented degree of Success.
During this phase, the main objectives of Menelik were to occupy resourceful regions and to control the long distance trade route line.
The following peoples were peacefully submitted and were incorporated by Menelik. These were:
The Oromo clans of Shewa were the first to be incorporated by Negus Menilek of Shewa in the early 1870s were the Oromo clans of Tulama and eastern Macha Oromo territories in Shewa.
Kistane (the northern Guragie people)these people had the following factors:
were predominantly Christians
Geographical they were near to Shewa
The Oromo monarchical states in Gibe region These were Limmu enarya,Jimma, Gera, Gomma, Gumma. The rulers of these states were agreed to Menelik to be autonomous state.
King Aba Jifar of Jimma who submitted peacefully to Menilek in the years between 1882 and 1884.
The Oromo monarchical states in Wollega region. These states were Leqa Qelem and Leqa Neqemet. In return for their peaceful submission, Negus Menilek recognized the internal administrative autonomy of these kingdoms. .
Jote Tulu of Leqa Qellem and Kumsa Moreda of Leqa Neqamte belong to the list of local rulers who submitted peacefully to Menilek in the years between 1882 and 1884.
Southwestern Ethiopia, which is very rich in natural resources, was a bone of contention between Negus Menilek of Shewa and Negus Tekle Haimanot of Gojjam.
In fact, Emperor Yohannis IV had allowed Negus Tekle Haimanot of Gojjam to expand in that direction and stopped Menilek‘s expansion in southwestern Ethiopia.
On 6 June 1882 the battle of Embabo (Wallaga) allowed Meneilik (His Army Leader was Ras Gobena Dache) defeated Takla-Haymanot of Gojjam and to establish a firm control over the southwestern region.
The Shewan victory over the forces of Gojjam at the battle of Embabo gave Negus Menilek the opportunity to expand towards southwestern Ethiopia
The people who lived-in the Illubabur also submitted peacefully and incorporated to MenelikII.
The other peoples and states forcefully subjugated were:
The Arsi people: They tried to protect themselves and fought Menelik from 1882 to 1886.
The Arsi Oromo gave the Shewan forces a very stiff resistance.
The Shewan forces had to make six unsuccessful military campaigns to incorporate Arsi.
In some of these campaigns launched to incorporate Arsi, Negus Menilek himself personally took part.
Finally, after four years of brave fighting, the Arsi Oromo were defeated in 1886 at the battle of Azule.
The well-armed and militarily better experienced Shewan forces that finally defeated the forces of the Arsi Oromo were led by Ras Darge, the uncle of Menilek.
In the Arsi campaign, the Oromo general Ras Gobena Dache who had a significant role in the early campaigns of Negus Menelik‘s territorial expansion had taken part as a military commander of the forces of Negus Menelik.
The Arsi campaign was one of the bloody campaigns that claimed the lives of many people.
Unlike the rulers of southwestern Ethiopia, who peacefully submitted to the forces of Menilek, the rulers of the Arsi Oromo were not granted internal administration.
They were removed from their positions and replaced by governors appointed by the Shewans.
The people in Harar: They were defeated at the battle of Chellenqo (bloody war) on January 6, 1887 and they were subjugated to MeneliK. The last Emir of Harar was Emir Abdulahi.
The Emirate of Harar was subdued by the forces of Shewa under Menilek after a bloody battle fought between the armies of Menilek and Emir Abdulahi at a place called Chelenqo on 6 January 1887.
His success at the Chelenqo battle enabled Negus Menelik of Shewa to control the eastern
commercial town of Harar and gave him full control of the long-distance trade route.
In the Chellenqo battle, not only the Harari forces but also the Oromo people fought against the forces of Shewa under Negus Menelik. Chelenqo, the main battleground of the war, is about 90
kilometers from Harar‘s historic walled city.
This victory brought an end to the independent existence of the Emirate of Harar
The southern Guragie people:
The people of Southern Gurage gave the forces of King Menilek stiff resistance organized under their leader Hassan Enjamo who was from the people of Qebena.
This area was subdued by the forces of Ras Gobena Dache only in 1888, after ten years of resistance.
. .
. The second phase from 1889 to 1896.
The main objective of Menelik was to give a solution for Great Famine that broke out for four years from 1888-1892 in northern Ethiopia.
The immediate cause of Great Famine (Kefu Qen) was the cattle disease.
The name of this cattle disease was called Rinderpest.
The infected cattle were imported from India and killed hundreds of thousands of cattle.
States and the people that submitted peacefully
Bale and
Sidamo.
States and the people that submitted Forcefully
A. The people and the kingdom of Wolayta was
The people of Wolaita, organized under their king KawoTona, put up a determined fight to repulse the forces of Emperor Menilek II.
Finally, KawoTona, the last king of Wolaita, was wounded and captured, and he became a prisoner for the rest of his life.
The 1894 campaign of Emperor Menelik II brought an end to the independence of the kingdom of Wolaita and the kingdom became part and parcel of the emerging modern Ethiopian Imperial State.
The campaign for the incorporation of Wolaita was probably the bloodiest of all the campaigns.
In this campaign, Emperor Menelik personally participated.
The independent kingdom of Wolaita was one of the areas in southern Ethiopia whose rich resources had attracted the army of Emperor Menilek.
The Wolaita fought against the forces of Emperor Menelik II for a long time employing their own indigenous techniques of warfare
The notable war leaders of the combined army of Menelik during the war of Walayta were:
Fitawrari gebeyehu
Liqa meqwas Abate
Ras Michael
Dejach Balcha
Ras woldgiowrgis
The third Phase from 1896 -1900.
The major objective of Menelik was to create a buffer zone between the fertile interior and the neighboring European colonies by conquering border lowlands in Ethiopia.
Menelik occupied peacefully
Borana and
Ogaden.
Menelik forcefully subdued
The Muslim states (the sheikdoms) along Ethio-Sudan border.
These states were Benishangul, Asosa(Aqodi) and Komosha.
They tried to establish the common army and decided to fight against Menelik‘s army,
They were defeated by the army of Ras Mekonnon (the then commander of Menelik‘s army.)
Sheikh Abdurrahman Hojele was the ruler of Assosa who defected the united resistance of Muslim state when they fought against Menelik.
Ras Mekonnon was supported by the rulers of Jote of Qalem and Kumsa of Neqemt when he invaded these Muslim states.
Kafa
The other independent kingdom to be incorporated by the forces of Emperor Menilek was the kingdom of Kafa.
The campaign to incorporate Kafa was carried out after Ethiopia‘s spectacular victory over the Italians.
Kafa was an independent state with its own dynasty.
The people of Kafa stood firm against Emperor Menilek‘s forces, led by their monarch, Tato Gaki Sherecho.
Ras Wolde Giorgis commanded Emperor Menilek‘s army.
Like to that of Wolaita Kingdom, the military confrontation between the forces of Emperor Menelik and the kingdom of Kafa was concluded with immense loss of human life and material damage.
Tato Gaki Sherecho, the last king of Kafa, was wounded and captured, and he became a prisoner for the rest of his life until his exile and death.
The post-Adwa campaigns of territorial expansion of Emperor Menelik were intended to check the
advance of the European colonial powers who sought to pre-empt Menilk‘s further expansion.
The Nature of the North and South‟s Land Tenure Systems Northern and southern Ethiopia
It had different land tenure systems, especially after the 19th century.
The traditional community system of land ownership has continued in the north.
Many provinces in Ethiopia‘s northern regions, including Tigray, Begemder, Gojjam, Wollo, and Northern Shewa, had communal land ownership.
Anyone who could prove a blood connection to the landowner or the original possessor of the land, as well as the creator of the first settlement, had the right to claim the land.
As a result, most of the land in northern Ethiopia was based on the rist system.
Rist is the hereditary right to hold and use land.
The land tenure also included the gult system, which is a right to collect tax.
At the beginning, gult rights were not hereditary.
Gabbar -Melkegna System
The gebbar system was the basic means of surplus appropriation of the feudal class.
A gebbar was a land holding peasant who had to pay giber, or tribute, to the state.
In many cases, tributes were paid in kind or by providing unpaid forced labor.
Free labor service was given by the peasant and members of his family to the bale gult or Melkegna in times of grain production, construction, transportation, guarding prisoners, and domestic
services like grinding grain and fetching water and firewood for local chiefs.
The gult owners not only kept a portion of the tax collected from their gult areas, but also got gifts and services, including unpaid labor.
Gradually, gult rights became hereditary and the riste-gult system emerged.
Gult land was given by the state to government officials.
Gult owners could be either individuals or institutions, such as churches and monasteries.
The gult owners were known as Melkegnas, and they represented the government in their gult areas.
Therefore, they were influential and powerful in their localities.
Changing Dynamics of Land Tenure in the South Menilek‟s expansion to the south, west and east brought significant changes.
First, it eased the congestion in the rist lands of the north by providing new areas of settlement.
Second, it transposed the gebbar- melkegna relations to most of the newly incorporated regions.
In fact, the peacefully submitted areas to the forces of Menilek were free from the burden of the gebbar-melkegna system and thus managed to retain some degree of autonomy.
In the newly incorporated southern territories, peasants were gradually alienated from their land.
This began with the introduction of the qelad system of land measurement.
The institutionalization of the qelad system not only culminated in the appropriation of much land by the central government but also facilitated the privatization of land.
It also increased the state revenue since it classified land tax based on the level of fertility of the land.
The qelad system reduced the status of the peasants of the newly incorporated areas from land-owing farmers to insecure tenants on their own land.
Poor peasants who were unable to purchase land or those who were driven away from their land were forced to migrate to the urban centers in search of job.
External Relations, Challenges and Threats
In 1875, Egypt‘s ruler, Khedieve Ismael Pasha launched a war of aggression on Ethiopia from three directions.
The Egyptians came from Zeila
The numbers of armies were Un known
The commander was Mahammoud Rouf Pasha.
He occupied Harar in October 1875.
The Egyptians stayed for 10, years (1875-1885)
Egyptians came from Tajura.
The number of the armies were 500
Commanded by Warner Munzinger (he was the architect of Egyptian aggression)
Muzinger and his army were ambushed and destroyed by the Afar people.
Egyptians army from Massawa
Another well-armed Egyptian army under the command of a Danish colonel named Arendrup marched into the interior from the port of Massawa.
In October 1875, his army had reached the Mereb River.
In October, Emperor Yohannis IV issued a mobilization order.
In command of an estimated army of between 20,000 and 25,000, Yohannis crossed the Mereb River and and fought against the Egyptian army at the battle of Gundet on November 16, 1875.
After two hours of effective attack on the encircled Egyptian troops, Ethiopians scored complete victory.
At the battle of Gundet, Colonel Arendrup and about 1,320 Egyptian troops were killed.
Although the battle of Gundet was a humiliating defeat for the Egyptians, they did not withdraw from Ethiopian territory.
Despite the defeat at the battle of Gundet, Khedieve Ismael prepared a second, larger expedition against Ethiopia to avenge his earlier setback.
In 1876, about 15,000 well-armed Egyptian troops under the command of Mohammed Ratib Pasha and an American officer, General Loring invaded Ethiopian territories in the north.
The second battle was fought between March 7 and 9 March 1876 at a place called Gura, in what is now Akale Guzay in Eritrea.
The Ethiopians also captured 2,500 Egyptian soldiers and enormous weapons.
But Ethiopian victories at the battles of Gundet and Gura were not rewarding for Ethiopians.
The Egyptians remained in control of the Ethiopian territories they occupied.
The brilliant military victories in the two battles were not followed by a lasting peace treaty.
Emperor Yohannis IV was neither able nor prepared to push the Egyptians out of either Massawa or Bogos.
Defeat in the two gave Khedieve Ismail an important lesson that he could not realize his dream of annexing Ethiopian territories by force of arms.
The battles also hastened the downfall of Khedive Ismael.
The guns which Emperor Yohannis IV captured from the Egyptian invading troops helped him to
establish his supremacy over the other Ethiopian regional lords.
The Egyptians also sent General Gordon of Sudan to Ethiopia for peaceful solution.
The demands of Gordon were the following:
Reparation payment
Release of prisoners of war
Cession of occupied Ethiopian region
Therefore the peaceful solution was failed.
The period from 1877-1883 was No war and No peace among the Ethiopian and Egyptians.
The Hewett (Adwa) Treaty of 1884
The Hewett (Adwa) Treaty of 1884 Emperor Yohannis IV and the British representative Admiral William Hewett signed a treaty in 1884 signed a treaty at Adwa.
They agreed on the following points at the treaty Hewett (called Adwa Treaty by its place) on June 3, 1884.
Free transit for Ethiopians via the port of Massawa
Restoration of occupied region including Bogos
, Harar and other coastal Region
Yohannes agreed to facilitate the evacuation of Egyptian trapped armies along Ethio- Sudan border
Emperor Yohannis IV honored his words by allowing the encircled Egyptian troops to be evacuated by sending his general Ras Alula Engeda (Alula Aba Nega).
The British on the contrary failed to keep their promises and rather allowed Italy to occupy Massawa.
The Dogali Incident
Ѿ In 1885 Italy, with the help of the British, occupied Massawa and began to expand to the interior from the coast.
Ѿ The Italian attempt to control the Mereb Melash (Eritrea) was unacceptable both to Emperor Yohannis IV and his military commander, and to the governor of the Mereb Melash region, Ras Alula.
Ѿ Therefore, the Italians came into direct conflict with Emperor Yohannis and Ras Alula.
Ѿ On 26 January 1887, Ras Alula, intercepted and destroyed an Italian army consisting of about 500 soldiers at a place called Dogali who were on their way to reinforce the Italian fortress at Saati.
Ѿ The Dogali incident was the first serious blow to the Italian colonial advance in Ethiopia.
Ѿ In other words, Dogali was the place where the Italians suffered their first defeat by the Ethiopian forces.
Ѿ The Italians condemned Alula‘s attack on their troops at Dogali as an unjust attack and demanded an official apology from Emperor Yohannis IV.
Ѿ They also demanded that Italy be allowed to occupy Keren and the Assaurta and the Habab regions, in addition to reoccupying Saati and Wia, which they had evacuated following their defeat at Dogali. T
Ѿ He Dogali incident created great anxiety and provoked an Italian desire for revenge.
Ѿ It equally offended the British government.
Ѿ Britain intervened as a peace broker even if behalf of Italy sent Gerald Portal to Ethiopia.
The proposal Gerald Portal were
War indemnity for Italy
Official Ethiopian apology for Alula‘s attack
Cession of occupied coastal regions to Italia
Ѿ This was totally unacceptable for Ethiopia. Yohannis declared his choice of war rather than accepting these proposed terms for ―peace.‖
Ѿ Therefore, the Portal mission failed, and Ethiopia began preparations for the inevitable war.
Ѿ Shortly afterwards, Emperor Yohannis called his people to arms.
Ѿ In March 1888, Yohannis mobilized a large army of 80,000 soldiers and marched to Saati, which had been re-occupied by the Italians.
Ѿ However, Yohannis returned without fighting because the Italians refused to come out of their fort and engage in an open fight.
Ѿ Yohannis did so partly because he felt insecure about his rear owing to the Mahadist incursions into Gondar and the collusion of his disobedient vassals, Negus Menilek of Shewa and Negus Teklehaimanot of Gojjam, who were plotting against him.
Ѿ Returning from Saati, Yohannis waged a devastating punitive campaign against Gojjam.
Ѿ Then he went to Metemma to deal with the Mahadist threat.
The Battle of Metemma
Ѿ Emperor Yohannis faced a triangular problem in the late 1880s. Mahadist soldiers advanced from the west, slaughtering people, demolishing churches and monasteries, and setting fire to the city of Gondar.
Ѿ The Italians had already occupied Massawa, Wia and Seati in the Mereb Melash region. King Menilek of Shewa and TekleHaymanot of Gojjam, his two vassals in the south, were also disobeying and bothering him.
Yohannis postponed his war with the Italians and returned to Debre Tabor in July 1888.
The major factors for the return of Yohannes from north to southwest part of the country were the following.
The Italians refused to come out from their fortress at saati.
Shortage of supply including food was the problems of Ethiopian army.
Yohannes was informed of the distractive invasion of Mahadist troops including Gonder.
The rebellions of Negus T/ haymanot and Menelik II against the Emperor.
Yohannes heard the secret agreement of Menelik and the Italians in 1887.
Ѿ Because of these major factors Yohannes returned to Gondar and fought with Mahadists on March 9/1889 at Mattama.
Ѿ Yohannis was patient enough to postpone his campaign against Negus Menilek and to strike the Mahaddists first.
Ѿ Accordingly, Emperor Yohannis turned towards the Mahadists and marched to Metemma.
Ѿ On 9 March 1889, the Ethiopian forces under Emperor Yohannis and the Mahadist troops, or the Ansars, fought at the battle of Metemma.
Ѿ Despite their initial success, the Ethiopian forces lost the battle because Emperor Yohannis was fatally wounded, and his army retreated. Yohannis died the next day.
Ѿ The corpse of Yohannis was beheaded by the Ansars.
Ѿ This brought a climax to the Mahadist revenge, and they seemed to be satisfied.
The consequences of the battle of Metemma
Internally, it resulted in a dynastic shift of power from the Tigrean house to Shewa. Although Emperor Yohannis IV had designated Ras Mengesha as his heir and successor, Negus
Menilek of Shewa was crowned Emperor Menilek II, King of Kings of Ethiopia.
Secondly, the absence of strong defense in the north created a golden opportunity for the Italians, who managed to easily advance further into the Mereb Melash region, which they proclaimed the Italian colony of Eritrea on the 1st of January 1890.
Religious Division and Doctrinal Debates
Most of the Ethiopian Christian monarchs believed that religious uniformity would bring about national unity.
Emperor Yohannis IV, for instance, made an unsuccessful attempt to bring religious uniformity.
He gave the Muslims two options at the Council of Borumeda in 1878:
Convert to Orthodox Christianity or
Lose their property and land.
Some Wollo Muslims were baptized, while others decided to resist under their leaders like Sheikh Telha.
Two of the rival Muslim chiefs of Wollo,
Imam Mohammed Ali and
Imam Amede Liben (Abba Watew) were offered the choice between immediate baptism and loss of their position in Wollo.
Imam Mohammed Ali was baptized Mikael and Yohannis allowed him to rule western Wollo with the title of Ras.
Imam Amede Liben became Dejazmach Haile Mariam and was allowed to rule the rest of Wollo from Dessie.
Both chiefs, however, were to rule Wollo under the overall authority of Negus Menilek of Shewa. Yohannis‘ religious policy was not only directed at the Muslims of Wollo but also influenced the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as well.
Religious doctrinal controversies with regional orientation, such as Tewahedo (union), Qebat, (unction) and Yetsega Lej (grace), weakened the Orthodox Church during the Zemene Mesafint.
Emperor Yohannis IV used the same council at Boru Meda to end religious doctrinal controversies within the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
The emperor himself ordered all the Orthodox Christians to follow only the Tewahedo doctrine.
His decision brought an end to the doctrinal controversies within the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
The Battle of Adwa
1876: The official contact between the Italians and Menelik was begun
Italians who were led by Antinori came in to shewa.
Menelik gave a camp for them at LetMarefia near Ankober for these Italians.
The major objective of these Italians was to facilitate their colonial expansion towards Ethiopia but they cover their main objective with Scientific Study.
On the other hand the objective of Menelik was to obtained firearms from the Italians.
October 1883: Menelik and the Italians signed a commerce and friendship treaty in October 1883 the two groups agreed on the following points. These were:
Free trade
Free movement of their nationals
Freedom of religious propagations
Consular exchange.
1887 the Convention of Neutrality
Menelik and the Italians signed a treaty in October, 1887 after the Dogali Incident.
The Italians persuaded him to remain neutral when they fought to Yohannes and they promised to him to give 5000 rifles.
Nevertheless these rifles had not reached Menelik.
May2, 1889 the treaty of Wuchale
Menelik and Antonelli signed a Wuchale treaty in May2, 1889.
This treaty had 20 articles but among these articles, the two of them ie.
Article 3 and Article 17 were the immediate cause of the battle of Adwa in 1896.
Article 3 deals about
The boundary delimitation between the Italians occupied regions in Merb Melash and the rest of Ethiopian provinces in north.
While article 3 gave legal basis for the Italian colonization of Eritrea
Article17. Deals about
The Amharic version of the article reads that Ethiopia can use the help of Italy in her diplomatic relation with other European countries.
The Italian version bounded MeneliK to use the good office of Italy for his diplomatic relation with European countries.
Italy notified the great power of Europe that by Article 17 of the wuchale treaty, Ethiopia had become an Italian protectorate.
But France and Russia opposed the Italian interest towards Ethiopia.
Therefore, Emperor Menilek wrote his famous circular in 1891 to the European governments, officially proclaiming Ethiopia‘s position.
Italy tried to persuade Menilek to accept the Italian version of Article 17 of the Wuchale
Treaty. Moreover, the Italian governors of Eritrea pursued a policy of subverting his authority in Tigray.
The Tigrean princes under Ras Mengesha Yohannis expressed their solidarity with the Italians by swearing on 6 December 1891, an oath of alliance known as the Mereb Convention.
In F
0 Comments