You seem to be wilfully misunderstanding what I am explaining.
-----
no im not. i am not misundestanding you. i am debunking your half-truths.
----
"So I will just give you a few other sources that I have researched. It is really up to you to check them. You certainly do not have to agree with anything I have said. I simply present my research and what I derive from it. Thus far you have not invalidated the central points I have made:"
-----
you arent presenting research-you are presenting your opinion. these are two distinct realities.

----
1. Ethiopia is an ancient Christian monarchy that did have links political and otherwise with other Christian European monarchies. You can see 'links' in anyway you feel to
----
1. Yes, Ethiopia is an ancient Christian kingdom. Still you have not shown any substative 'links' to Uropean monarchies. None whatsoever.

2. The centralization of Ethiopia under one Christian ruler did impose Christianity and infringe on the power of other once independent states and religions.
----
2. What independent states and religions did Ethiopian monarchs infringe upon. I am not asserting that all Ethiopian monarchs were saints-some monarchs were tyrannical and unworthy of praise.
------
3. The monarchies did deal very harshly and violently with opposition from these groups that attempted to retain their autonomy
-----
3. Sure SOME monarchies did deal harshly and violently with opposition.
-----
4. Ethiopian rulers at varying times were confident that they could call on European rulers for aid in times of war with their Muslim neighbours.
-----
Again-WHEN did they call on that aid, I recall during the years of 1520-1541. What other times did they call on the aid of uropean rulers?
----
Whether whatever aid that did come was sufficient or came at all is not entirely relevant.
------
it is relevant. if your country is being attacked it makes sense to call on whomever may be able to assist you. at the time they were being attacked by moslems, they asked the portugeese to help because they are christians. that seems to be a very logical and relevant use of perceived resources. you do not automatically know someone is your enemy, unitl they prove as much. when the ethiopian saw that rome and portugal was not a reliable source of assistance-they acted accordingly and banished them from the country.
---
"The fact is these rulers felt comfortable and confident enough to negotiate political alliances with European rulers."
----
what fact? what rulers? is their something inherently wrong with attempting to form alliances with uropeans or non uropeans??
-----
5. In my view, Selassie, due to a long standing relationship in his line with European monarchies, and his own adherence to Christian beliefs could not have fully understood either the damaging effects of Christianizing colonialism on other Africans
-----
5. here we go again-you do have the right to your view-but your view is somewhat biased. youve yet to verify any relationship with the Ethiopian and uropean monarchies except for a one year allegiance with portugal in 1541.

"These are a few of the books that I have read among others for you to consider:

Church and state in Ethiopia, 1270-1527 by Taddesse Tamrat.
----
please re read pgs 249-267. Chapter Seven- Early Contacts w/ Christian Urope. the author makes it quite clear that contact with ethiopain and uropean christian was quite limited.