Dutch Madagascar

[ghappy1000]

Almost Anyone could do it, so i really went for would bother to. That said, i don't really know what madagascar had to boast in the mid to late 19th century, so i'm basing this on getting to other colonies and trade networks.
GB already had the whole damn cape. Who cares about one island?

Spain might, they do have the philippines and might want an easier way to- oh, oh right.

Honestly what does Portugal gain from it? They don't have any notable asian colonies, and while they did have angola and mozambique, they also had the oldest alliance in the world. If anyone is gonna be able to land in Cape Town, it'll be them.

Belgium only got the Kongo because it promised to trade with everyone. I think that's the best they can get. "This is too important for any of us to trust anyone else with, so we're just gonna pawn it off on you and everyone else gets some of the stuff there."

Italy taking is probably not gonna happen without something on the western part of africa, because if i had to pay france or GB just to send ships to 2/3 of my colonies, i'd get pissed.

Russia is one of the two (the other being belgium) i don't think actually could (unless they conquer Persia)

Well with Germany it wouldn't really matter because it won't win ww1 for them and it'll probably flip to Britain. But, i mean. They could?

But the dutch? They could and would do it. It's on the way to indonesia, opens up markets, and lets them circumvent the British in cape town, which both the Anglo-Dutch Wars, and the Boer Wars tell me is a really good thing for dutchmen.

That said, If america was feeling colonial, they would probably do it (and take Japan) because it opens up so many asian and african markets

The Dutch did capture and enslave Malagasy slaves from Madagascar before taking them to Mauritius despite failing to colonize Madagascar. If the Dutch did capture and colonize Madagascar (most likely in the 17th or the 18th century, although it could be 19th century as compensation for South Africa during the Berlin Conference), the Dutch would enslave even more Malagasy slaves for Madagascar and Mauritius. If the Dutch failed to make enough profits on Mauritius, the Dutch would withdraw from Mauritius as in otl. Similarly, if the Dutch failed to make enough profits on Madagascar, the Dutch would withdraw from Madagascar and things would return to otl.

However, the Dutch, if they obtained enough profits to maintain their colonialism of Madagascar, might prolong colonialism of Madagascar long enough to keep the colony going. The Dutch would still need to protect Madagascar from the British (as the Dutch were generally aligned with the British and the Portuguese for combined naval superiority against France). As South Africa's Cape Town, compared to Madagascar, would require less travel from Britain, the British might let the Dutch keep Madagascar. The Dutch in Madagascar, after their migration patterns, cuisine and culture in Madagascar, might bring in Indonesians for exploitation, migration patterns, cuisine and culture of Madagascar, to the detriment of the oppressed Malagasy. In the late 19th century, the Dutch would try to settle deeper into the interior of Madagascar from the Madagascar coast and incorporate the settlement of Boers in Madagascar. Malagasy, Indonesians and the Dutch would defend the island for the Allies (including the Dutch) in WW2 and the resources put into Operation Ironclad could be put into use elsewhere. After WW2, the Indonesian War of Independence and the Malagasy struggle for independence, Madagascar would gain independence from the Dutch in the 1960s and the Europeans/ Anglosphere/ Boers and pro-Dutch Malagasy and Indonesians would move to the Netherlands. Assuming minimal to zero butterflies. Mauritius might also share Madagascar's fate in this scenario.

 

[ghappy1000]

There is also the unexplored option of a Swedish Madagascar. As for a Swedish Madagascar, the Swedes can colonize Madagascar sometime in the 18th century (1718) to support Sweden-aligned Jacobite pirates. With reduced butterflies, the Swedish Madagascar will be taken by Britain in 1810-1812 (after capture of Java the previous year) or even earlier in the 18th century so that Madagascar could become British instead of Swedish or Jacobite and with the objective of eliminating the Jacobites on Madagascar. If returned to Swedish control or captured by Sweden (successfully) later in the 19th century, then, Madagascar will be looted and colonized by the Swedes for rubber, rice and coffee. In the 20th century and during WW2, Swedish Madagascar will be defended by the Swedes and the British wouldn't need to conduct Operation Ironclad on Madagascar. Swedes may not allow Japanese or British forces into Madagascar due to Swedish neutrality, though. After WW2, the Malagasy will fight the Swedes until Madagascar's independence and the Swedes will be less likely to be seen positively and more as oppressors in African nations.

 

[Quintuplicate]

Can you imagine what either country would call lemurs?

 

[Jürgen]

Can you imagine what either country would call lemurs?

Half-monkeys

 

[Anneessens]

Can you imagine what either country would call lemurs?

There's a fair probability that it would be the same as in OTL in Dutch, I guess: maki's (signular: maki), apparently a Malagassy derived word.

Although there's always the possibility of new words being coined instead of borrowed from the local language. Hence the fact that Afrikaans has kameelperde , whereas Dutch just has giraffen.

 

[Jürgen]

There's a fair probability that it would be the same as in OTL in Dutch, I guess: maki's (signular: maki), apparently a Malagassy derived word.

Although there's always the possibility of new words being coined instead of borrowed from the local language. Hence the fact that Afrikaans has kameelperde , whereas Dutch just has giraffen.

Traditional before the word was expanded to other physiological primitive primates, they simply called them halfapen (ape meaning monkey in non-English Germanic languages and apes being called “human-monkeys”).

 

[Anneessens]

Traditional before the word was expanded to other physiological primitive primates, they simply called them halfapen (ape meaning monkey in non-English Germanic languages and apes being called “human-monkeys”).

Scientific terminology and classification is one thing, popular usage another. I'm not really convinced that the actual, everyday word for lemur would be "halfapen", which, to me at least, feels like a moderately artificial or at least conscious taxonomical coining (a quasi-calque for prosimius) whereas maki sounds like a spontaneous borrowing resulting from the contact between two languages (although in OTL, it was borrowed through French).

Incidentally, according to etymologiebank.nl, maki first showed up in Dutch around 1761. I can't immediately find a definite first occurrence of halfaap in Dutch or prosimii in Latin), but I wouldn't be surprised if the first occurrence in scientific writing of the latter term were around the same period. (Wikipedia cites Illiger in 1811, but I'm not sure that means the word absolutely didn't exist before).