If the Boers won the 2nd Boer War?

Seek75

This has been kind of biting at me for a while, and I figured I'd ask about it here.

How different exactly would things have gone if the Boers had won the Second Boer War and retained their independence? Would they have eventually kicked the British out of South Africa (this may or may not be realistic)? Who's side would they have joined in World War I, assuming they joined a side? And so on.

Of course, this is all running under the assumption that there was a reasonably possible way of the Boers winning, as I don't actually know as much about the Boer Wars as I would like, so sorry if this is a dumb question.

Also, off-topic, but my first post on the forum :D
 
iori

iori

While it's possible the Boer Republics could remain independent, it's pretty much ASB for them actually managing to 'kick out the British'.

They likely would'nt have officially joined a side, rather remaining officially neutral, but unofficially supporting the Central Powers (Germany was on good terms with them), providing just enough issues to cause the British problems, but not doing that would lead to British taking actual action against them.

The history of Southern Africa would be very different, and African history overall would likely be different as well.
 

Seek75

Do you think there would still have been Apartheid or some sort of Apartheid-esque social policy, either in British South Africa or the Boer Republics?
 
iori

iori

Seek75 said:
Do you think there would still have been Apartheid or some sort of Apartheid-esque social policy, either in British South Africa or the Boer Republics?
Click to expand...

In British South Africa, no, especially since whites would form an even smaller percentage, plus their would'nt be the cultural things that lead to it.

In the Boer Republics it's not impossible, but I doubt it, since the Boers would make up a much larger percentage of the population and not feel threatened, resulting in some of the whole sociocultural reason for Apartheid being greatly reduced.
 

jkarr

theyd either have had the native africans slaughter them later, be reabsorbed intot he british empire, or just fall apart and get taken over
 

Seek75

Anything else you in specific you can tell me about how history in the area would've gone differently? Sorry if I'm asking a lot of questions, I like to have all the little details :p
 

MerryPrankster

Seek75 said:
Do you think there would still have been Apartheid or some sort of Apartheid-esque social policy, either in British South Africa or the Boer Republics?
Click to expand...

Probably something like it, because they did have pass laws in the Boer republics. When the British soldiers arrived, the blacks jubiliantly burned their passes.
 
iori

iori

Their probably would'nt be any Namibian Crisis, leading to it being either neutral or Pro-West.

Actually, this may lead to the Soviets not gaining as much influence in Southern Africa, as with no help from South Africa Portugal may be forced to reform things and grant autonomy to Mozambique and Guinea.

Assuming we don't have some unfortunate situation with the black states deciding they hate the Boer Republics (who'd be either large minority or plurality white), their's a good chance their would be a good deal more co-operation in Southern Africa, perhaps with a Union comparable in terms of integration to the OTL EU.
 

MerryPrankster

Seek75 said:
Anything else you in specific you can tell me about how history in the area would've gone differently? Sorry if I'm asking a lot of questions, I like to have all the little details :p
Click to expand...

Well, we're going to need for them to win somehow.

IIRC they were winning in the early stages and had the chance to take Natal, but spent a lot of time besieging Mafeking instead.

Have Mafeking fall or have the Boers bypass it (perhaps leaving a small force to keep the British contained rather than actively try to take the city) and they'll be waging on war on British territory rather than having war waged on their own.
 

Michael B

MerryPrankster said:
Have Mafeking fall or have the Boers bypass it (perhaps leaving a small force to keep the British contained rather than actively try to take the city) and they'll be waging on war on British territory rather than having war waged on their own.
Click to expand...
When you consider what effort the British made to win the war, invading the Empire is going to only increase it. Once the Boer Republics were in their sight the politicians in London were going to fight the war to the last colonial soldier on the ground.
 

Devolved

Seek75 said:
This has been kind of biting at me for a while, and I figured I'd ask about it here.

How different exactly would things have gone if the Boers had won the Second Boer War and retained their independence? Would they have eventually kicked the British out of South Africa (this may or may not be realistic)? Who's side would they have joined in World War I, assuming they joined a side? And so on.

Of course, this is all running under the assumption that there was a reasonably possible way of the Boers winning, as I don't actually know as much about the Boer Wars as I would like, so sorry if this is a dumb question.

Also, off-topic, but my first post on the forum :D
Click to expand...

The Boers could only win if the British government decided that it couldn't be bothered to raise extra troops to pursue the war on grounds of economy. The British were and still are penny pinchers unless they are in a corner.

Once places like Kimberley and Ladysmith are under seige then public opinion in Britain becomes intensely patriotic. When the British get patriotic the other side tends to lose.
 

mowque

Banned
MerryPrankster said:
IIRC they were winning in the early stages and had the chance to take Natal, but spent a lot of time besieging Mafeking instead.

Have Mafeking fall or have the Boers bypass it (perhaps leaving a small force to keep the British contained rather than actively try to take the city) and they'll be waging on war on British territory rather than having war waged on their own.
Click to expand...

This is true, but the Boer's really can't compete on a full scale, campaign type on conflict. Really the peace they got was almost 100% of everything they wanted.
 

nwanda

If Veg Generaal Joubert had followed through at Colenso, and taken Durban, the British would have been limited to one railway line to provide their logistics. At the very least, the war would have dragged on much longer, with each extra month increasing the possibility of the involvement of either Germany or, less likely, France.

In the event of the Brits having a sudden outbreak of common sense, and agreeing to a face saver peace, the presence of the two Republics would have significantly changed southern African history. Certainly, I believe there would have been significant white immigration into the ZAR (Transvaal) to provide the skills and labour for the mines and associated industry. This would have significantly changed the demographics - no apartheid per se. Indeed, I would think that the black populations would have been forced out to the west, east and north as the core of "white"ZAR grew.

It should also be borne in mind that these were reasonably sophisticated countries, with organised structures, an ordered civil society and a clear self identity. Given peace, they could and probably would have, industrialised rapidly. The possibilities from there are fascinating.
 

nwanda

mowque said:
This is true, but the Boer's really can't compete on a full scale, campaign type on conflict. Really the peace they got was almost 100% of everything they wanted.
Click to expand...

Not really ...;) They felt they had lost everything, which led to the drive for the second Republic. As for the type of campaign, all they had to do was cut the logistics trail - the railway - poison the (very) few water supplies and watch the British Army literally wilt away. Guerilla war supported by some conventional forces - which existed, for example the Staats Artillerie and some of the volunteer regiments that formed from European sources - would have prevented the British winning - with one very big give - that Natal had been neutralised
 
Julius Vogel

Julius Vogel

I don't see the Afrikaner republics winning outside of some sort of major POD. The entire empire mobilised against the republics and it was a war that could be funded by Britain for sometime, which other Great Powers had little ability to hinder.

However, if somehow the Republics did inflict some sort of massive early military defeat, took Natal and the Cape, then perhaps maybe Britain might walk away. It would still seem unlikely, given the importance of the area, the value of the colonies, the many British citizens resident there, the terrible embarassment etc. I would imagine the citizens of the Empire (Canada, the Australian colonies/commonwealth, NZ etc) would be baying for revenge.

I've been reading a few NA newspapers from slightly before and during the initial stages of the War for a possible TL and they clearly demonstrate that the mood of the NZ colony anyway was for war till the end. We ended up sending 6000 or so, many thousands of horses etc. Generally, the NZ government and the volunteers (they all were) funded the equipage and transport, but Britain paid their wages and for their supplied.

Perhaps you might get a better answer as to the future of the Afrikaner republics along the lines of "What if either the war did not occur, or it did not escalate to the degree that it did?"
 

67th Tigers

Banned
nwanda said:
If Veg Generaal Joubert had followed through at Colenso, and taken Durban, the British would have been limited to one railway line to provide their logistics. At the very least, the war would have dragged on much longer, with each extra month increasing the possibility of the involvement of either Germany or, less likely, France.
Click to expand...

It's extremely unlikely the Germans or French would get involved out of sheer self preservation. The RN is far more dominant over either than it would be in 1914.

In the event of the Brits having a sudden outbreak of common sense, and agreeing to a face saver peace, the presence of the two Republics would have significantly changed southern African history. Certainly, I believe there would have been significant white immigration into the ZAR (Transvaal) to provide the skills and labour for the mines and associated industry. This would have significantly changed the demographics - no apartheid per se. Indeed, I would think that the black populations would have been forced out to the west, east and north as the core of "white"ZAR grew.
Click to expand...

You miss the entire casus belli. The non-boer whites were treated not treated as citizens any more than the coloured and black population. The Boers declared war and invaded Natal and the Cape in response to British pressure to allow non-Boer whites citizenship. Kruger was never going to concede this because it meant an eventual incorporation into the British Empire by demographics.

It's worth noting the war was not popular amongst the ZAR and OFS burghers. Only half reported to the colours, and half of those quickly found other places to be. In theory the ZAR and OFS could put ca. 70,000 men into the field, plus another 12,000 burghers in Natal and come miscellaneous burghers from the Cape and the foreign Corps to an estimated 87,365 into the field. In fact their peak combat strength was about a third of this (although still significantly greater than British and South African forces present in the first phase).

The Boers pinned all their hopes on achieving a "super-Majuba" and annihilating the Natal Field Force. Unfortunately their army strength wasn't what it should have been. They should have been able to concentrate superior strength against the poor British dispositions, but the unpopularity of the war meant the majority of their burghers weren't with the army.

To make the Great Boer War a Boer victory I think needs some major political changes in ZAR (especially getting rid of the deeply unpopular Kruger).
 

nwanda

67th Tigers said:
It's extremely unlikely the Germans or French would get involved out of sheer self preservation. The RN is far more dominant over either than it would be in 1914.



You miss the entire casus belli. The non-boer whites were treated not treated as citizens any more than the coloured and black population. The Boers declared war and invaded Natal and the Cape in response to British pressure to allow non-Boer whites citizenship. Kruger was never going to concede this because it meant an eventual incorporation into the British Empire by demographics.

It's worth noting the war was not popular amongst the ZAR and OFS burghers. Only half reported to the colours, and half of those quickly found other places to be. In theory the ZAR and OFS could put ca. 70,000 men into the field, plus another 12,000 burghers in Natal and come miscellaneous burghers from the Cape and the foreign Corps to an estimated 87,365 into the field. In fact their peak combat strength was about a third of this (although still significantly greater than British and South African forces present in the first phase).

The Boers pinned all their hopes on achieving a "super-Majuba" and annihilating the Natal Field Force. Unfortunately their army strength wasn't what it should have been. They should have been able to concentrate superior strength against the poor British dispositions, but the unpopularity of the war meant the majority of their burghers weren't with the army.

To make the Great Boer War a Boer victory I think needs some major political changes in ZAR (especially getting rid of the deeply unpopular Kruger).
Click to expand...

Your points are well made. However, I would suggest that a major root causes of the war, apart from the enfranchisement of non Boer whites,was greed - for the goldfields - and imperialist ambition, particularly on the part of Cecil John Rhodes. See the Jameson raid.

Similarly, the popularity of the war grew and waned with the cycle of harvesting and other domestic concerns. The boers did not constitute an army in the trus sense, as much as they were a directed rabble. I would suggest that with some significant victories and better leadership, that would have changed, as shown by their descendants. The concept of thorougly thrashing the hated British would certainly added to the general enthusiasm.

As regards the deployable field force, the official strength of the mobilised ZAR was between 25 and 40 thousand, according to my sources - hauled out in a hurry ;) - certainly armaments were provided for such a force.

I return to my original post - if Colenso had hve been followed through, the war could have been won. Once the Brits were given time to change from their original rather limited war plan to what turned into a huge effort, the opportunity was lost
 
Julius Vogel

Julius Vogel

Rhodes was pretty dammed popular across the Empire, dammable man that he was (briber of politicians, launcher of coups, invader of Rhodesia(!) etc) and his views of the Empire and the British Race were also pretty popular as well. If you could some how deal with him early enough, that would be an interesting POD. Say, before the Jameison Raid?

On a strategic perspective, I don't see that NZ, Australia or the various Indian/East Asian interests in the Empire would be happy with non friendly SA territories, or a much diminished presence on the Cape. I can see they would lobby long and hard for a return to battle, with or without Rhode's support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top