Imperial powers and their colonies from the 19th to early 20th century: motives, rivalries and exploitation

Contents

1. Foundations of colonial expansion
2. Imperial expansion and the balance of power
3. Domination and exploitation in the colonial order

In the second half of the 19th century, European powers, led by Britain and France, embarked on an ambitious phase of global expansion. This era, marked by imperial rivalry and technological superiority, saw European nations extend their control over vast territories in Africa, Asia, and Oceania. The so-called “new imperialism” of this period differed from earlier colonial ventures by its intensity, scope, and strategic planning. It was driven not only by economic interests but also by geopolitical competition and cultural ideologies rooted in racial superiority and the perceived duty to civilise.

The Third Republic in France played a prominent role in this renewed imperialist push. While Britain maintained the largest colonial empire, France carved out the second largest, extending its reach across North and Sub-Saharan Africa, Indochina, and parts of the Pacific. This expansion was not without controversy. Domestically, the colonial question provoked fierce political debates between those who saw imperialism as a moral duty and a source of national prestige, and critics like Georges Clemenceau, who denounced the inherent violence and hypocrisy of colonial rule.

Internationally, colonial ambitions frequently led to diplomatic tensions and near-conflicts between European powers. Although the 1884–85 Berlin Conference sought to regulate the “Scramble for Africa”, it did little to prevent rivalry and competition. Key incidents such as the Fashoda crisis in 1898 and the Moroccan crises of 1905 and 1911 demonstrated how imperial interests could destabilise European diplomacy and edge the continent closer to war.

This chapter explores the motivations behind European imperialism, the processes by which colonial empires were constructed, the rivalries they provoked among the imperial powers, and the exploitative systems imposed upon colonised peoples. By examining these interconnected themes, it becomes possible to understand both the global impact of European imperialism and its enduring legacy.

#1. Foundations of colonial expansion

#1. Causes of colonisation

#a) Strategic motives

One of the primary strategic motivations behind European colonisation in the late 19th century was the intensification of imperial rivalries. The great powers of Europe were locked in a struggle for international prestige and influence, and colonial expansion was increasingly viewed as a key measure of national greatness. As new imperial players such as Germany and Italy entered the global arena, established colonial powers like Britain and France felt compelled to consolidate and expand their overseas holdings to defend their global standing.

Britain, in particular, pursued a strategy often described as splendid isolation, avoiding entangling alliances while relying on its naval supremacy to maintain its global influence. This naval dominance underpinned British control of the seas and enabled the protection of far-flung territories across its empire. Central to this strategy was the control of maritime routes critical to trade and military movement. The expansion of steam navigation and the globalisation of commerce heightened the importance of coaling stations, ports, and maritime chokepoints. Among the most vital was the Suez Canal, opened in 1869, which dramatically shortened the journey between Europe and Asia and became essential to the route to India, the so-called “jewel in the crown” of the British Empire. Britain’s occupation of Egypt in 1882, ostensibly to restore order, was a calculated effort to secure unimpeded access to this crucial artery.

France, not to be outmanoeuvred, sought to establish its own strategic strongholds. The acquisition of Tunisia in 1881 was motivated partly by concerns over British and Italian ambitions in the Mediterranean. In West Africa, French expansion aimed to create an east–west corridor stretching from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, a vision that directly clashed with British ambitions running north to south. This strategic competition culminated in the Fashoda crisis of 1898, where both nations narrowly avoided open conflict in the Sudan.

In this context, strategic considerations were inseparable from colonial policy. The race for overseas possessions was not merely about economic exploitation, but about ensuring long-term security, influence, and military advantage. Naval supremacy, particularly for Britain, and control over global trade routes were central pillars of late 19th-century imperialism, shaping the nature and direction of European colonial expansion.

#b) Economic and technological factors

Economic and technological factors played a central role in the renewed wave of imperial expansion in the late 19th century. The global economic downturn led many European nations to look outward for solutions. Colonies were viewed as protected markets for manufactured goods and as dependable sources of raw materials at low cost, helping to buffer metropolitan economies from instability. They also became attractive targets for overseas investment, particularly for financial elites eager to secure returns insulated from the volatility of domestic markets. In France, this sentiment gave rise to influential pressure groups like the Parti colonial, which lobbied strongly for imperial expansion.

Colonies also held strategic economic value as repositories of natural wealth. Gold and mineral deposits were seen as vital stores of value, contributing not only to national prestige but also to the monetary stability of European powers still tied to precious metal standards. The pursuit of such resources played a significant role in justifying colonial incursions, particularly in Africa.

Technological advances reinforced these ambitions. Steam-powered navigation, the telegraph, and the construction of major transoceanic canals, most notably Suez (1869) and later Panama (1914), shrunk global distances and enhanced imperial reach. Such improvements not only made colonial conquest and administration more efficient, but also strengthened the illusion of European superiority. Medical progress, such as the widespread use of quinine against malaria, enabled deeper and more sustained occupation of tropical regions.

Together, economic pressures and technological capabilities combined to make colonial expansion seem both necessary and feasible for European powers navigating the challenges of industrial modernity.

#c) The will to "civilise" so-called primitive peoples

Beyond strategic and economic imperatives, imperial expansion in the late 19th century was deeply embedded in an ideological framework that sought to legitimise domination through moral and cultural narratives. Across Europe, there was a widespread conviction that colonialism was a duty, an effort to “civilise” so-called primitive peoples by introducing Western education, religion, and values. This civilising mission was promoted by politicians, missionaries, and educators, and became a key component of national discourse in countries such as Britain, France, and Belgium.

Underlying this mission was a firm belief in racial superiority. Influenced by 19th-century scientific racism and popularised through both academia and the press, Europeans ranked human societies into hierarchical categories, with white Europeans placed at the top. This was not seen merely as cultural chauvinism but was often presented as objective science.

Social Darwinism further reinforced these ideas by suggesting that human societies were subject to the same laws of natural selection as biological species. In this view, European dominance was not only justified but inevitable, the result of evolutionary progress. These ideological justifications masked the coercion and violence inherent in empire-building and helped mobilise public support across imperial powers, transforming colonialism into a self-styled moral enterprise.

#d) Minority opposition to imperialism

Despite the dominant enthusiasm for colonial expansion in Europe, especially in the 1880s and 1890s, a vocal minority challenged its legitimacy and ethics. These critics came from varied political and intellectual backgrounds and often expressed deep unease with the violence, inequality, and hypocrisy underpinning the imperial project.

In France, one of the most prominent voices of opposition was Georges Clemenceau, who forcefully denounced the colonial ideology promoted by figures like Jules Ferry. Ferry had argued that France had a duty to bring civilisation to “inferior races,” a view Clemenceau attacked as both arrogant and morally indefensible. In a famous parliamentary speech in 1885, he declared: “Races supérieures, races inférieures… c’est bientôt dit.” He warned against cloaking brute force in the guise of civilisation, calling it a betrayal of the ideals of the Enlightenment and French Revolution: “La conquête que vous préconisez, c’est l’abus pur et simple de la force… Ce n’est pas le droit, c’en est la négation.”

In Britain, critics such as John Hobson later argued that imperialism was driven not by national interest but by the needs of financial elites. Others, including missionaries and members of the liberal intelligentsia, were troubled by the cruelty of conquest and the racial theories used to justify it.

Although these opponents were often marginalised or dismissed as naïve, their interventions highlighted the contradictions within the imperial enterprise. They questioned the moral legitimacy of empire at a time when it was still widely celebrated, and laid the groundwork for later anti-colonial critiques in the 20th century.

#B. Early forms of expansion

#a) The role of exploration

In the early stages of 19th-century European colonial expansion, exploration was a crucial precursor to imperial control. Much of Africa and parts of Asia were still considered terra incognita, unknown lands to Europeans, marked on maps with vast blanks or speculative features. Into these regions ventured missionaries, geographers, and adventurers, whose presence laid the groundwork for later conquest.

Missionaries were often the first Europeans to settle in these areas, driven by religious zeal to convert and ‘civilise’ indigenous populations. While their work included education and medical aid, it also served to familiarise home audiences and policymakers with the peoples and cultures they encountered, subtly promoting imperial interest.

Geographers and adventurers, supported by national geographic societies and encouraged by the public’s fascination with distant lands, mapped rivers, collected botanical samples, and charted inland routes. Their expeditions transformed the unknown into strategic knowledge. Figures such as Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza in the Congo and Henry Morton Stanley, who explored the Congo Basin for Leopold II, exemplify how exploration was both scientific and political. Though framed as disinterested discovery, their efforts often led to claims of sovereignty and direct imperial intervention.

These early explorers helped turn the unfamiliar into the governable, not merely opening new frontiers for empire but also shaping European perceptions of the non-European world as a space to be tamed, mapped, and ultimately ruled.

#b) Conquest and coercion in colonial expansion

The conquest of colonial territories typically combined negotiation with the use of military force, underscoring the coercive nature of imperial expansion. In Algeria, France’s 1830 invasion marked the beginning of a protracted and violent campaign to assert control, culminating in the suppression of resistance led by Emir Abd el-Kader by 1847. This was followed by recurring uprisings and harsh reprisals. In Indochina, France expanded its presence through a series of military interventions, treaties, and protectorates throughout the 19th century, often facing determined resistance from local populations.

Elsewhere, European powers relied on a blend of diplomacy and armed conflict. Treaties were frequently signed under pressure or misrepresented to indigenous rulers, facilitating annexation. In some cases, colonial forces exploited internal rivalries or political instability to justify intervention. Despite the rhetoric of peaceful expansion, conquest was generally underpinned by overwhelming military superiority and a willingness to resort to violence. The imposition of foreign rule, while sometimes framed as orderly or consensual, more often reflected the stark realities of imperial domination.

A particularly revealing example of colonial conquest driven by commercial and strategic interests was Britain’s involvement in China during the Opium Wars. Seeking to redress a trade imbalance caused by high demand for Chinese goods, especially tea and porcelain, Britain began exporting opium from India to China, a trade that the Qing authorities tried to suppress due to its devastating social impact. The First Opium War (1839–1842), triggered by Chinese efforts to halt the opium trade, ended with the Treaty of Nanking, which ceded Hong Kong to Britain and opened several Chinese ports to foreign trade. A Second Opium War (1856–1860) followed, further expanding Western influence and legalising the opium trade. These conflicts exemplified the use of military force to impose unequal treaties and economic dominance, marking China’s semi-colonial subjugation and the broader imperial trend of enforcing commercial advantage through coercion.

#c) Foundations of empire before 1880: legacies of earlier colonisation in the Americas and Asia

Before the acceleration of imperialism in the 1880s, European powers had already laid the foundations of global colonisation through earlier waves of empire-building, particularly in the Americas and Asia. The 16th to 18th centuries witnessed the expansion of Spanish, Portuguese, British, French, and Dutch empires, often motivated by trade, religious conversion, and territorial control. These empires established extensive networks of colonies, trading posts, and settler communities, especially in the Americas and parts of South and Southeast Asia, creating the first truly global systems of exchange and domination.

This earlier period also introduced key patterns that would persist into the 19th century: the violent seizure of land, the exploitation of indigenous populations, and the strategic control of trade routes.

While the post-1880 colonial expansion often appeared more systematic and bureaucratised, it was in many ways a continuation of these long-standing practices. The experience, infrastructure, and ideological justifications inherited from these earlier imperial ventures. They had provided both the precedent and the rationale for renewed conquests, particularly in Africa and inner Asia, as the industrial powers sought to extend their reach further into previously marginal or inaccessible territories.

#2. Imperial expansion and the balance of power

#A. The rules of empire

#a) The Berlin Conference (1884–85)

The Berlin Conference of 1884–85 marked a turning point in European colonialism by establishing a framework for the division of Africa among imperial powers. Convened by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the conference was not initially intended to launch colonisation, but to manage rising tensions between rival powers, particularly France and Britain, over African territories. Keen to avoid conflict and wary of French revanchism in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71), Bismarck sought to position Germany as a neutral mediator. He deliberately assigned a leading role to the French delegate, Alphonse Chodron de Courcel, to temper French ambitions with diplomatic responsibility.

Over the course of several months, representatives from 14 European states, as well as the United States and the Ottoman Empire, agreed upon a series of protocols that effectively laid the legal groundwork for imperial expansion. Chief among these was the principle of “effective occupation”: powers could only claim territory in Africa if they could demonstrate active administration and control. This was intended to prevent paper claims and encourage more orderly colonisation, though in practice it sparked a frenzied race to establish outposts, treaties, and garrisons throughout the continent.

Additional declarations focused on suppressing the slave trade, particularly in the Congo Basin, and affirming the notion of “free trade” in designated regions. These provisions, while couched in the language of humanitarianism and liberal economics, often served to justify territorial acquisition and economic domination. In theory, the Congo was to be managed as a free-trade zone under the International Association of the Congo. But in reality it became the personal domain of King Leopold II of Belgium, infamous for its brutal exploitation of local populations.

Though no African representatives were present, and little genuine understanding of the continent’s societies existed among the delegates, the Berlin Conference succeeded in formalising the imperial order. It accelerated colonisation under the guise of legality and humanitarian concern, establishing the rules that would govern imperial competition for the next decades.

#b) The Scramble for Africa

Following the Berlin Conference, the pace of European colonisation in Africa intensified dramatically in what became known as the “Scramble for Africa”. European powers rushed to stake claims over vast territories, motivated by strategic interests, economic ambitions, and the perceived necessity to assert imperial prestige. By the early 20th century, nearly the entire continent, with the exception of Ethiopia and Liberia, had been colonised.

This rapid expansion was marked by the drawing of borders that bore little relation to Africa’s existing ethnic, linguistic, or political divisions. European diplomats, many of whom had never set foot on the continent, relied on outdated maps, second-hand reports, and strategic guesswork. The resulting boundaries often split ethnic groups between colonies or forced rival communities into shared administrative units, sowing seeds of future conflict and fragmentation that would long outlast the colonial period.

The ideological framing of Africa as the “Dark Continent” further reinforced imperial intervention. This label, steeped in racial prejudice and paternalism, portrayed the continent as a place of backwardness, chaos, and savagery in need of European civilisation. Explorers like Henry Morton Stanley and Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza, who were celebrated in European capitals, helped to popularise this narrative. Their accounts of Africa frequently blended geographical discovery with moral justification for imperial conquest.

Despite rhetorical commitments to anti-slavery and humanitarian progress, many colonial regimes practised forms of forced labour, economic exploitation, and violent repression. Infrastructure and education systems were developed primarily to serve imperial interests, and African voices were systematically marginalised from political decision-making.

The scramble for Africa thus represents a case study in imperial competition veiled in the language of progress. It reshaped the geopolitical map of the continent while entrenching a legacy of inequality, resistance, and contested sovereignty that continues to shape African politics and international relations today.

#B. Rivalries between European powers

#a) Anglo-French tensions in Fashoda

By the late 19th century, colonial rivalries among European powers had intensified, with France and Britain frequently clashing over territorial ambitions, particularly in Africa. One of the most emblematic confrontations was the Fashoda Incident of 1898, a near-military standoff that exposed the fragile balance of imperial power.

In 1896, the French government launched the Marchand Mission, a military expedition led by Major Jean-Baptiste Marchand. Its goal was to traverse the continent from West to East, linking the French colonies of Senegal and Djibouti and thereby asserting French influence along a continuous transcontinental axis. The mission culminated in July 1898 at the small fort of Fashoda (present-day Kodok, South Sudan), on the banks of the Upper Nile.

However, British interests in the region clashed directly with this vision. Britain aimed to establish a north–south axis of control from Cairo to Cape Town, a vision famously associated with Cecil Rhodes. As British forces under General Kitchener moved up the Nile following the defeat of the Mahdist state at Omdurman, they encountered Marchand’s party at Fashoda in September 1898. Tensions flared, with both nations unwilling to back down, raising the spectre of war.

What followed was a protracted diplomatic crisis. Though the standoff at Fashoda remained bloodless, it sparked nationalist fervour on both sides. In France, the perceived humiliation of Marchand’s eventual withdrawal was met with anger, especially among conservative and nationalist circles. Nevertheless, the French government, already weakened by internal divisions and still recovering from the Dreyfus Affair, chose negotiation over escalation. In November 1898, France officially recognised British claims to the Nile valley in exchange for concessions elsewhere.

This crisis marked a turning point. It convinced both governments of the need to avoid future colonial confrontations. The Fashoda Incident paved the way for the 1904 Entente Cordiale, a diplomatic agreement that formalised colonial spheres of influence and helped stabilise Anglo-French relations. More significantly, it laid the foundation for their eventual alliance during the First World War, as imperial rivalry gave way to geopolitical cooperation in the face of rising German ambitions.

#b) The Moroccan Crises (1905 and 1911)

In the very early 20th century, Morocco became a flashpoint of imperial rivalry between France and Germany. The First Moroccan Crisis erupted in 1905 when Kaiser Wilhelm II visited Tangier and declared his support for the Sultan’s sovereignty, challenging France’s growing influence. France, backed by Britain, resisted German pressure, and the Algeciras Conference of 1906 confirmed French policing rights in Morocco, isolating Germany diplomatically.

Tensions resurfaced in 1911 during the Second Moroccan Crisis, or Agadir Incident. France had deployed troops to Fez under the pretext of protecting European residents. In response, Germany sent the gunboat Panther to Agadir, a move that alarmed Britain, fearing a threat to its naval interests. The crisis was defused with a diplomatic agreement: France formalised its protectorate over Morocco, while Germany received minor territorial compensation in the Congo.

These crises exposed the growing antagonism between France and Germany and solidified Franco-British alignment. They underscored the instability of imperial competition and foreshadowed the deeper conflicts that might erupt.

#c) Geopolitical consequences: imperial stabilisation and alliance formation

By the early 20th century, imperial rivalries had helped redraw the global map and define the balance of power in Europe. Crises like those in Fashoda and Morocco ultimately led to a diplomatic stabilisation of colonial claims, reducing the risk of conflict in overseas territories. However, they also accelerated the consolidation of opposing alliances.

The Entente Cordiale between Britain and France (1904) and its later extension to include Russia, stood in contrast to the German-led Triple Alliance. Far from resolving tensions, colonial disputes deepened mistrust and contributed to the strategic alignments that would shape the outbreak of the First World War in 1914.

#3. Domination and exploitation in the colonial order

#A. Forms of domination

#a) Colonies and protectorates

European imperial control took different forms depending on strategic needs and local conditions. Colonies, such as French Algeria, were placed under direct rule and often integrated administratively into the metropole, becoming in some cases full extensions of the imperial state. Protectorates, like Tunisia and Morocco, preserved a nominal local sovereignty but operated under European supervision, with real authority vested in colonial residents or governors. These arrangements allowed European powers to manage vast territories while maintaining the illusion of continuity with indigenous institutions. In both cases, they institutionalised foreign dominance and reinforced deep political and administrative inequalities.

#b)Semi-colonies and spheres of influence

Unlike outright colonies, semi-colonies and spheres of influence in China represented a subtler form of imperial control. Through a series of "unequal treaties", foreign powers extracted territorial and commercial privileges without assuming full sovereignty. Key port cities became sites of concessions, districts where European powers exercised legal and administrative authority independent of Chinese jurisdiction. Britain’s acquisition of Hong Kong in 1842 and its later lease of its New Territories marked a more formalised colonial presence, while Kwang-Chou-Wan (Guangzhouwan), obtained by France in 1898, was administered as part of French Indochina, effectively functioning as a full colony.

In contrast, other powers established spheres of influence without direct annexation. Germany occupied Qingdao in Shandong, Russia held Port Arthur and Dalian, and after the Russo-Japanese War, Japan took control of these strategic ports. Multiple international concessions in cities like Shanghai and Tianjin were governed by consular courts and foreign police forces, fragmenting Chinese authority. These areas symbolised the erosion of Chinese sovereignty without the imposition of colonial rule, making China a patchwork of imperial interests rather than a fully colonised state.

#B. Inequality and exploitation

#a) Code de l'indigénat

The Code de l’indigénat, first formalised in Algeria in 1881 and later extended to other French colonies, institutionalised a system of legal and civic inequality between colonisers and colonised. Indigenous populations were treated as subjects rather than citizens, denied political rights, and subjected to special regulations that allowed colonial authorities to impose fines, forced labour, and imprisonment without trial. They were also liable to conscription into colonial armies, particularly during the World Wars, and burdened with unequal taxation despite their lack of representation. Administered outside the framework of regular French law, the system reinforced a racialised hierarchy and provided a legal framework for repression and control through bureaucratic rather than judicial means.

Colonial societies were structured around deep social and economic inequalities. Europeans overwhelmingly dominated the upper strata of colonial life, holding the most powerful administrative, military, and commercial positions. Indigenous populations were largely confined to lower-status roles, as labourers, soldiers, or minor clerks, while laws and customs entrenched these disparities.

One of the key tools of imperial control was education. In many colonies, particularly those of Britain and France, the colonial authorities fostered a local elite class by promoting Western-style schooling in the language of the coloniser. These schools aimed to create intermediaries who could assist in governance and administration, but also served to instil values aligned with imperial authority. In British India, for example, English education created a class of civil servants and professionals who were culturally distanced from their own traditions. In French colonies, the adoption of French language and culture was promoted as a path to limited assimilation.

In Hong Kong, British rule pursued a more overt policy of de-Sinocisation. Local Chinese elites were encouraged to adopt English customs, and British institutions such as the legal system, education, and public service were imposed to reshape the colony’s identity. This effort to create a culturally distinct Hong Kong served to both consolidate British control and weaken ties with the Chinese mainland.

Despite their Western education and occasional access to administrative roles, colonised elites remained politically marginalised and socially subordinate. Their inclusion in the imperial system was limited and rarely translated into genuine power, reinforcing the overall hierarchy of colonial rule.

#c) Forced labour and violence

Colonial economic systems across Africa and beyond were underpinned by violence and coercion, often resulting in widespread suffering and demographic catastrophe. In French Equatorial Africa, the use of forced labour by concessionary companies led to systemic abuses. Local populations were compelled to gather rubber, carry goods, and pay taxes under threat of punishment. Practices such as hostage-taking, beatings, and mass reprisals became routine. These policies, aimed at extracting maximum value from the land and its people, led to staggering mortality and social disintegration.

Elsewhere, colonial regimes used similar or even more extreme methods. Under Belgian rule in the Congo Free State, entire communities were terrorised into meeting rubber quotas, with mutilations and executions carried out as punishment. In German South-West Africa (present-day Namibia), the Herero and Nama peoples were subjected to what many historians now recognise as genocide. Following uprisings in the early 1900s, German forces drove thousands into the desert, where most perished from hunger and thirst. Those captured were placed in concentration camps under inhumane conditions, leading to massive loss of life.

British colonial warfare also employed very repressive tactics. During the Second Boer War (1899–1902), British forces implemented a scorched-earth policy and established "re-concentration camps" for Boer civilians. These camps were overcrowded, unsanitary, and poorly supplied, leading to the deaths of tens of thousands, primarily women and children. Though justified at the time as a military necessity, such actions reflected the broader logic of colonial domination, in which imperial power was sustained through violence and racial hierarchy.

Across empires, forced labour and state-sponsored brutality were integral to the functioning of colonial economies, revealing the extent to which economic extraction and racialised violence were inseparable components of imperial rule.