Did empires rule their colonies directly, or through local rulers?

Both, and the choice often came down to money. Direct rule meant imperial officials running a colony themselves. Indirect rule meant leaving day-to-day government in the hands of existing rulers, such as kings, chiefs or emirs, while the empire kept control of the things that mattered most to it. Some British colonies were ruled directly by the Colonial Office in London, while others were ruled indirectly through local rulers supervised by British advisors.

Indirect rule was cheap. The British were not prepared to pay for colonial administration and did not have enough staff, so it made sense to use the institutions already there. In Northern Nigeria, Frederick Lugard worked out the model after his forces conquered the Sokoto Caliphate. The British controlled external affairs, the military and taxes. Everything else was left to the local aristocracies. A small number of European advisors could oversee large numbers of people.

The bargain was not equal. Traditional rulers kept prestige and protection, but lost control of foreign affairs and often of taxation. And where no suitable chief could be found, Europeans sometimes simply appointed one. In Kenya and Southern Nigeria these so-called warrant chiefs were not always supported by the people they ruled.

French writers presented their own system as the opposite: centralised, uniform and aimed at turning colonial subjects into French citizens. Historians today think the contrast was sharper in theory than in practice.