The rest was ruled through residencies, like with the Princely States in British India
-
-
Replying to @vandeRede
Heck, they were still trying to make the nominal emperor, Bao Dai, the head of their puppet state in the 1950s!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vandeRede
It's similar to the situation in India under Company rule - they acknowledged the Mughals as nominal sovereigns up until the Sepoy Rebellion
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vandeRede
Whereupon both the emperor and the Company were deposed, and the British monarchy slotted itself into both those positions
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vandeRede
But the French couldn't do the same thing in Vietnam, because they were a republic!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vandeRede
In Algeria, they just went all the way and made it a part of the Metropole, which was doable because of all their settlers and colonists
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vandeRede
But in Vietnam, there were no colonists, because it was on the other side of the planet! So, direct control only of the southern tip
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vandeRede
I think my point is monarchies can rule overseas empires far easier than republics, bcs they can slot themselves into traditional systems
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
-
-
Replying to @eigenrobot
Is a case in the point, they frequently ruled their realm through client kingdoms until the emperors came
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.