While at first appearance European power and influence in Africa pre-1800 may seem great, beneath the surface it is much less impressive. If anything, the pre-1800 colonial experience in Africa is much more similar to that in Asia than the one in America. the majority of European colonies in Africa consisted of strings of coastal fortifications, with zero actual control exerted inland. These fortifications also depended on the goodwill of African rulers.

The existence of the trans-Atlantic slave trade is not really evidence of massive European control inside Africa. Rather, slaves were purchased from local rulers who had acquired them in internal African wars, in a trade that benefitted both parties. (Although obviously not the slaves)

There were a few European colonial ventures into the interior of Africa in the 1500'es and 1600'es. Most notable were Portuguese incursions into Kongo and Angola, which did manage to spread some limited influence, such as the conversion of the king of Kongo to Catholicism, but they never managed to truly establish inland political control. On the east coast the Portuguese also had expeditions into Mozambique, as well as interventions in Ethiopia.

Yet none of these had any lasting success. There are several reasons. A popular one, which hold largely true, is that Africa was essentially guarded by a "wall of diseases." Tropical diseases were rampant, especially malaria, yellow fever, sleeping sickness, and others. Africans grew up with these diseases and such had a certain acquired immunity as adults, while Europeans faced the full onslaught of these diseases when arriving in adulthood. Especially yellow fever was relatively harmless as a childhood disease but deadly for adults. Western Africa was often known as White Man's Graveyard for these reasons. Many of the Portuguese expeditions into the interior were decimated by diseases, and it acted as a strong discouragement against attempted colonization. The Europeans were content to remain in coastal strongholds and actually have as little of a presence in Africa as possible. x

A run-off effect of this was also a weakening of the military advantages Europeans enjoyed in America. Horses were difficult to have in significant amounts in Africa, because they suffered from sleeping disease among others, so European armies in Africa were largely on foot. The Europeans did not really hold key military advantages, and both in Angola and Ethiopia they suffered several losses and failed to establish a lasting presence.

These reasons are further compounded by the one successful European colonization that did take place in Africa pre-1800 - the Dutch settler colony in the cape region of SOuth Africa. This far south, the disease presence was much weaker, and the native Khoikhoi lacked the political organization of the more established states further to the north, such as Kongo and Ethiopia, enabling a certain level of European colonization and expansion. Although even here, the Dutch presence did not extent much inland before 1800.

What changed after the Berlin Conference was mainly two things. First of all, modern medical science, including medicine like quinine to treat malaria reduced the potency of diseases. Second, industrial developement tipped the military balance of power much further in the favor of Europeans, due to modern weaponry. These two breakthroughs enabled a colonization that had been impossible in previous centuries.