No Shaka Zulu

POD: 1787

The baby known as Shaka Zulu OTL dies in childbirth along with his mother.

Effects, anyone?

Unknown said:

POD: 1787

The baby known as Shaka Zulu OTL dies in childbirth along with his mother.

Effects, anyone?

Click to expand...

Zulu wars would happen still but they'd be much, much more segmented and easier to crush.

He was a master at breaking up clan division and was highly militaristic, idk if another one like him would come about in the way he did.

Well, the Zulus could end up (due to fragmentation) as part of the other two "empires" in South Africa at the time - either Moshoeshoe and the Basotho, or Mzilikazi's "state" up north of the Ndebele. Unless they can make nice with the Xhosa to the south (which they still aren't able to) and join up with them against the settlers.

Kellan Sullivan said:

Well, the Zulus could end up (due to fragmentation) as part of the other two "empires" in South Africa at the time - either Moshoeshoe and the Basotho, or Mzilikazi's "state" up north of the Ndebele. Unless they can make nice with the Xhosa to the south (which they still aren't able to) and join up with them against the settlers.

Click to expand...

The Ndebele and Mzilikazi only came into existence because of Shaka and the Mfecane. Mzilikazi was one of Shaka's generals who tried to set up his own kingdom, and was forced to flee what is today KwaZulu-Natal. No Shaka may mean no Mfecane. This will mean no Ndebele in today's Zimbabwe. It may also mean no consolidation of the Basotho under Moshoeshoe which may mean no Lesotho.

Paradoxically, no Shaka may mean the Zulus and people of KwaZulu-Natal are harder to conquer. No Mfecane means there isn't the depopulation of the interior of South Africa, which may make it more difficult for the Trekkers (and subsequently the British) to conquer.