Transvaal sea access

Black Sept

This is a rather marginal issue, with no major PODs assumed.

Is there any chance the Transvaal might have gained an access to the sea? I suppose Delagoa(Maputo) Bay is their one and only possibility, but would the rather chaotic Boer Republic have had enough strength to expand against Portuguese and most likely British ambitions? Was there a moment when they were close to achieving this at all? It is clear they wanted a sea access, but I can't find more detailed info. Have they ever done sth concrete to push for a sea outlet? Old Maputo(Lourenco Marquez) was rather underdeveloped, wasn't even the capital, it was in large part due to the growing influence of the Transvaal that the Portuguese started developing it.

How do you think a takeover could realistically take place? Could the sea outlet be bought? I just don't see anyone risking war over this, and I don't suppose Portugal would just give away already occupied land. So how well occupied the land really was? Were the borders clearly drawn before, say, the 1880s?

Thanks in advance for your opinions.
 
iori

iori

You need to change Britain's attitude for it to work, as by the 1870's the British were actively against the idea of it ever having sea access.
 

Black Sept

Iori said:
You need to change Britain's attitude for it to work, as by the 1870's the British were actively against the idea of it ever having sea access.
Click to expand...

According to wiki "in 1868 the Transvaal president, Marthinus Pretorius, claimed the country on each side of the Maputa down to the sea. In the following year, however, the Transvaal acknowledged Portugal's sovereignty over the bay."

As far as I understood Transvaal merely laid a claim for the territory, but it had no leverage whatsoever if other powers were to object, as, of course, they did.

The only possibility I can think of is Portugal 'waking up' too late and not enforcing its presence in the area, which it had apparently abandoned already a couple of times before; Maputo is supposed to have been destroyed by natives and only repopulated around 1850. So maybe if the Boers settled the deserted land first and then made the claim... or if, as you say, the British would have been distracted or uninterested maybe Portugal would have agreed to the claims of Transvaal. I can't decide because it is not exactly clear to me what each state believed to be at stake here and how far they were prepared to go.
 

Black Sept

I thought of an other version, probably much more likely: could Delagoa Bay have been acquired by the British instead of the Portuguese? As in perhaps to make sure that Transvaal doesn't extend there first?
 
Julius Vogel

Julius Vogel

I wouldn't think that the South African Republic had much hope of securing Deloga Bay as territory by force given Portuguese and British objection.

It may have been possible if ZAR had been able to keep on an amicable basis with the British, assuming no First South African War or the likes. Maybe if the Zulu war had gone differently etc. Jonathan Edelstein's West African TL has a couple of good posts on his ATL development of South Africa which could be a pointer.
 
Cook

Cook

Banned
Alternatively, you could have the short lived Boer Republic of Natalia survive, giving you three Boer Republics and giving Orange and Transvaal access to the sea that is free of British and Portuguese control.
 

wolf_brother

Banned
The Swazi nearly become a Boer protectorate in the 1850s; have that occur and the Boers would be able to effectively place settlements along the coast.
 

Marius

Cook said:
Alternatively, you could have the short lived Boer Republic of Natalia survive, giving you three Boer Republics and giving Orange and Transvaal access to the sea that is free of British and Portuguese control.
Click to expand...

You're going to have change the British attitudes of the time somehow, don't know if that's possible.

But that is interesting. Butterflies of a surviving Natalia may mean that there is no OFS or ZAR. Which leaves expansion across the Vaal left to British settlers and explorers, which has all kinds of implications for later developments in the region.
 

Marius

wolf_brother said:
Because its OTL borders today after some 150 years perfectly match those it had in the 1850s, right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Iori said:
You're right, its border are'nt the same; it was smaller.

Swaziland at no time in its history ever had a coast.
Click to expand...

Was just about to say that, thanks Iori.

When I said Swaziland, I was referring to the generic area of the Swazi people, not necessarily the modern nation-state.

Southern Africa is quite "bay poor" too, so it is quite difficult to find suitable places where ships can dock safely.
 

Marius

Cook said:
Damn, I wasn’t aware that the founding of Orange and Transvaal was tied in with the British occupation of Natalia.
Click to expand...

Not completely, but there probably wouldn't have been a ZAR as we know it, if there had been a Natalia.
 

Tyr

Wasn't the entire point of the Boer republics that they were well inland and out of the way of the British?
Move to the sea and you've undone their reason for existing.
 

Marius

Tyr said:
Wasn't the entire point of the Boer republics that they were well inland and out of the way of the British?
Move to the sea and you've undone their reason for existing.
Click to expand...

Not really. The point was to just get away from British rule, didn't mean they didn't want sea access.
 

Tyr

Marius said:
Not really. The point was to just get away from British rule, didn't mean they didn't want sea access.
Click to expand...

Being on the coast leaves them rather vulnerable to the British though. The coasts are the parts of Africa people cared about. Doesn't seem to be the smartest of moves to escape from the British only to setup right where the British will be interested in expanding. I get the impression that by going inland they felt they were going somewhere Britain didn't care about.


To get this I'd think you would have to greatly delay European expansion in Africa and have the Boers build up a decent inland country which is fully recognised and respected by the other nations of the west- then maybe they can get a bit of coast.
 

Marius

Tyr said:
Being on the coast leaves them rather vulnerable to the British though. The coasts are the parts of Africa people cared about. Doesn't seem to be the smartest of moves to escape from the British only to setup right where the British will be interested in expanding. I get the impression that by going inland they felt they were going somewhere Britain didn't care about.


To get this I'd think you would have to greatly delay European expansion in Africa and have the Boers build up a decent inland country which is fully recognised and respected by the other nations of the west- then maybe they can get a bit of coast.
Click to expand...

Part of the reason the British made Bechuanaland a protectorate was to prevent the ZAR and German South-West Africa linking up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top