A Crack at Draka: ME's Attempt at a Better TL

Okay, given Nugax's information and how ME is linking the Draka more with the East India Company, how long until the EIC starts growing cinchona in Java and thereabouts (or buying it from the Dutch and selling it to the Draka at a markup)?

If there starts to be a massive outcry against the Draka's shenanigans in Britain proper, perhaps there are boycotts against the EIC in protest of their enabling Draka expansionism.
 
Ah. Good points.

Yeah, the OTL literally thought this plant was more valuable than gold, if they could have easily transplanted it they would have.

Admittedly the Spanish commercial and land ownership practices didn't help with production, but they still tried and failed.

Okay, given Nugax's information and how ME is linking the Draka more with the East India Company, how long until the EIC starts growing cinchona in Java and thereabouts (or buying it from the Dutch and selling it to the Draka at a markup)?

If there starts to be a massive outcry against the Draka's shenanigans in Britain proper, perhaps there are boycotts against the EIC in protest of their enabling Draka expansionism.

If Peru and general scholarship is unchanged, possibly the quite late 1700s? If they have a secure enough hold over central Java? They could grow it in India too, but Java is better (it was the Dutch success that spurred British efforts).

The OTL Dutch only managed to get it out of Peru in the 1840s (and had several disasters like the half million useless plants I mentioned).
 
The late 1700s might be a good timeframe, given how the Draka in TTL only control a little corner of the Cape so far and it'll take them awhile at this rate to fill up the rest of the "White People Safe Zone" in southern Africa.

Of course, key phrase being "at this rate." We might still have the American Revolution and the flight the loyalists that could give the Draka colony a major population boost.

If the colonists start running into disease problems, that'll give the British and others more incentive to start trying to find ways of dealing with the disease issue.
 
When the Drakans end up de facto controlling the EIC, then they may perhaps be able to organise the purchase and transportation of cinchona plants and seeds to be grown in India and Sri Lanka (places where they were grown IOTL) sometime during the mid to late 18th Century. These could then be harvested and transported to Southern Africa for use in interior expansion.
 
Cool TL!! I just love this attempts to make an ASB book with a good premise into a plausible TL! Keep it up!!
But I just never bought this Deterministic "Guns, Germs and Steel" thing. Europeans settled all over tropical Latin America in OTL. There wouldn't be much more deseases in Tropical Africa then in Tropical America. Of course the Latin America society wasn't based in free white labor and there was all the métissage stuff, but just see Brazil or Cuba, they both have a white majority.
 
Cool TL!! I just love this attempts to make an ASB book with a good premise into a plausible TL! Keep it up!!
But I just never bought this Deterministic "Guns, Germs and Steel" thing. Europeans settled all over tropical Latin America in OTL. There wouldn't be much more deseases in Tropical Africa then in Tropical America. Of course the Latin America society wasn't based in free white labor and there was all the métissage stuff, but just see Brazil or Cuba, they both have a white majority.

Herp derp derp

a) No there weren't tropical diseases in Latin America, at least till later when they were transplanted from Africa. There's still massively less disease burden even to this day. Africa is where we evolved, and where everything knows how to kill us.
b) Europeans settled the Andes and a coastal strip of Brazil, neither of which are analogs to African environments. It took centuries to penetrate the interior of the tropical Americas, indeed you could argue they still haven't.
 
Herp derp derp

a) No there weren't tropical diseases in Latin America, at least till later when they were transplanted from Africa. There's still massively less disease burden even to this day. Africa is where we evolved, and where everything knows how to kill us.
b) Europeans settled the Andes and a coastal strip of Brazil, neither of which are analogs to African environments. It took centuries to penetrate the interior of the tropical Americas, indeed you could argue they still haven't.

a) You say that most of the tropical diseases were transplanted from Africa to America. You got a point. It's inevitable, however, to all of them to reach America with the Columbian Exchange, they all came with the first European (and African) colonists to the new world. Yellow Fever, Malaria, Dengue Fever, etc. are just as epidemic in Africa that is in America nowadays. The fact they are much more deadly in Africa is just a matter of political issue.

b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_Gold_Rush About 400.000 Portuguese settled Brazilian countryside by the 17th century. Just remember that most of the Brazilian land was de jure part of the Spanish Empire because of the Treaty of Tordesillas. Only in 1750 with the Treaty of Madrid the Spanish recognized the Portuguese dominion over that land observing the uti possidetis principle, recognizing, therefore, the Portuguese colonization of the contested area.
The presence isn't strong just because of a simple reason: Lack of economic value. The Brazilian savanna (the cerrado) soil just couldn't sustain cash crops as the coastal areas could. (Just like most of Africa). After the exhaustion of the mines, the region entered into a big period of stagnation.

The lack of colonization of Africa before the 19th century has the same simple reason: The land just sucks. The good lands (Zimbabwe, Central African mountais) were just too far from the coast and, even today, most of Africa can't sustain an economical valuable agriculture. So, I think that the economical answer is more plausible then the "biological" one.
 
b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_Gold_Rush About 400.000 Portuguese settled Brazilian countryside by the 17th century.
The presence isn't strong just because of a simple reason: Lack of economic value. The Brazilian savanna (the cerrado) soil just couldn't sustain cash crops as the coastal areas could. (Just like most of Africa). After the exhaustion of the mines, the region entered into a big period of stagnation.

The lack of colonization of Africa before the 19th century has the same simple reason: The land just sucks. The good lands (Zimbabwe, Central African mountais) were just too far from the coast and, even today, most of Africa can't sustain an economical valuable agriculture. So, I think that the economical answer is more plausible then the "biological" one.

Minas Geras is hills and Cerrado, and actually quite arid in places, the Brazilian highlands are not a comparable environment to tropical hellholes like Mozambique or the African interior. It's more like the Highveld than anything further north (though the soil lacks nutrients)

There were areas of extreme and known economic value in the African interior that were utterly barred to settlement. Europeans wanted to get at the gold in West Africa and on the upper Zambezi that they'd known about for centuries but it was an utter death sentence.

The fact they are much more deadly in Africa is just a matter of political issue.

Just god no. You think the greater endemic ism in Africa is a political issue? Not the massively greater range of insect vectors and genetic variety in the diseases, larger tropical zone, higher mammal populations, fragmented terrain?
 
I'm saying that's a political issue because ALL (except the tse-tse fly though) of the environmental issues that they have in Africa we also have them here in Brazil, and of course state policy influence how deadly a disease is, There was a Yellow Fever Epidemics as north as Philadelphia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Fever_Epidemic_of_1793) That also influences you to think of Africa as a "tropical hellhole" and Brazil as a "nice place to go on vacations".

So, just look the two climate charts: Beira, Mozambique (http://www.world-climates.com/city-climate-beira-mozambique-africa/) and Salvador, Brazil (http://www.world-climates.com/city-climate-salvador-brazil-south-america/). They both have the maximum temperature around 27 C and maximum rainfall around 300 mm. I just don't see the climate difference between both of them.
I'm Brazilian and I've been to Angola, the climate is about the same. The thing that annoyed the most down there, though, was their terrible food. They just don't have a sustainable agriculture and that's their biological issue.
 
Well I'd say your wrong about the biology being the same, but you apparently don't believe in biological factors :rolleyes:

There are more types of insect vector in Africa and they are more pernicious - When the Brazilian government detected the mosquito A. gambie had appeared in Brazil in the 1930s, they went full out to eradicate it before it got out of control, as just this one of many widespread African species is a dozen times more anthrophilic and several times as effective at holding plasmodium than native Brazilian A. darlingi (a pussy of a disease vector all round).

And thats just one example for one disease, and the fact you think sleeping sickness is some minor thing is pretty boggling - think about reaching the Brazilian Cerrado with no animals to ride or carry your goods.

I also don't think your reading those charts very well - Beira's peak temperatures is are higher and its wet season is longer. Not to mention both are coastal cities moderated by the oceanic weather and hardly informative of the interior. Compare Teresina with Tete for more accurate differences, and see the Brazilian city is nearly at the equator whilst the African is more than 15 degrees away.

Finally we're not talking about Angola here are we, the Angolan coast and south are at the rim of the survivable zone.
 
How were the Portuguese colonies/ports at around this time?

Also, what do you think would be the figures for Drakan population at 1790, bearing in mind US population was around 3.9 million, and that the colony has been up and running and taking in immigrants and settlers (a higher number than OTL) since 1600 and has been urbanising since then also. Despite it being further away and less temperate than the North American colonies, it has been well-advertised as a place of freedom and opportunity.
 
How were the Portuguese colonies/ports at around this time?

Also, what do you think would be the figures for Drakan population at 1790, bearing in mind US population was around 3.9 million, and that the colony has been up and running and taking in immigrants and settlers (a higher number than OTL) since 1600 and has been urbanising since then also. Despite it being further away and less temperate than the North American colonies, it has been well-advertised as a place of freedom and opportunity.
Well, Argentina was about 500 000, though I'm not sure what chunk of that were native.
 
How were the Portuguese colonies/ports at around this time?

Also, what do you think would be the figures for Drakan population at 1790, bearing in mind US population was around 3.9 million, and that the colony has been up and running and taking in immigrants and settlers (a higher number than OTL) since 1600 and has been urbanising since then also. Despite it being further away and less temperate than the North American colonies, it has been well-advertised as a place of freedom and opportunity.

Brazil was about two and a half million, the Africa ports were a hundred thousand Portuguese in Angola and about half that in Mozambique

Well if you want to give a numerical value on what the differential attractiveness is you could generate an estimate.

With the assumptions of:
*2000 starting population in 1620
*A generous 1.5% natural increase on year (less than the American colonies but mcuh more than the OTL Afrikaans)
*1/5 of the immigration to the British American colonies being diverted to the Draka, and following that pattern of movement

You get roughly 130 thousand Drakans in 1790, five times the number of OTL Boers and a third of the ASB book Drakans. Personally I'd go with a lower growth and immigration estimate to put them at somewhere between 100-120k.
 
New Arrivals and Competition: 1660-1680


With the 1660s came a new era. The Stuart monarchy returned to power in England and the . Thomas Drake died of malaria after leading an expedition to the north-east in the name of exploration. In old age, he really should have staid at home. His eldest son, Nathaniel Drake, took over his family's estate and the leadership of the colony.

At around the same time, the Dutch East Indies Company (VOC), had decided that their rival corporation's control of the way-point between Europe and India was far too irritating a problem to let continue without a fight. However, they didn't want to hire mercenaries to sack the colony, for fear of BEIC retaliation. Instead they decided to capitalise the resources of the region and create their own port colony.

The man chosen for the job was a VOC official named Stefan van der Merwe, who led an expedition to find a suitable place to establish the new colony. After this was found, several ships full of paid volunteers headed to the settlement and established a fortified town, dubbed Bloemfontein ("Fountain of Flowers").

Over the years, this colony served as a resting point for VOC and VOC-client ships, who would face discriminatory policies or even barrings from the ports of the EIC-sponsored colony of Drakesland. The Colony of Suid-Afrika attracted many a European Calvinist to settle, and the Dutch East Indies Company, seeing the relative success of the Drakesland colony to the west, invested generously in the colony's development - even advertising settling in the colony in the Netherlands and such other promotions.

635px-Charles_Bell_-_Jan_van_Riebeeck_se_aankoms_aan_die_Kaap.jpg

Dutch Settlers land in what they call Suid-Afrika and establish a foothold, communicating with the natives

Over the next few decades, relations would be established between the English and Dutch colonies. Depending on the diplomatic situation between their mother countries, and the economic climate of South Africa, the relationship between Praetor and Bloemfontein would vary between commercial rivalry and outright hostility.

In the Third Anglo-Dutch War, Drake led an expedition of privateers to blockade the port of Bloemfontein and attempt to force the Dutch settlers to surrender so the British East India Company could conquer the colony. The blockade, lasting only a couple of weeks, was eventually called off after bad weather forced Drake's fleet home. A punitive strike was attempted by the VOC against such brazen acts from the "Drakians" (as the Dutch called the Drakesland colonists), but this was fended off by the ships in Praetor's harbour (those owned by the colonists and BEIC ships staying there) and the guns from the towers that defended the sound.

Despite these minor, low-mortality confrontations, the two colonists would remain wary of one another for many more years. Trade and travel between the two, however, did occur and the interaction between Bloemfontein and Praetor would only increase in the future.
 
Last edited:
Suid-Afrika, 1662-1700


The man selected to lead the Dutch colony was an individual of exceptional commitment. He threw himself into the enterprise, overseeing and encouraging the construction of Bloemfontein with unwavering fervour. He continually petitioned the Dutch East Indies Company to help secure colonists and resources for Suid-Afrika. His charismatic, heartfelt appeals often swayed them.

Calvinists and other Dutch settlers were attracted to the colony after Stefan obtained the attention of the Dutch government for more advertisement for the colony. Transported by the VOC, they arrived in waves.

The arrival of European colonists to the lands of the Xhosa provoked, of course, conflict. The Xhosa would raid the settlements of the Dutch settlers fairly often. Surrounded by agitated natives, the Dutch built their settlements and farms into venerable fortresses. They did not shy away from expansion.

Suid-Afrika grew at a slow rate in comparison to the Drakesland colony. They did not have the connections or abilities that the Drakes had, and the colony was right in the middle of Xhosa territory. Corporate support and the stubborn will of the colonists allowed them to survive and even thrive in some places.

Stefan Van der Merwe, in need of support against the Xhosa that the VOC could not and would not give, looked to the west. He petitioned Nathaniel Drake to allow the hiring of former New Colonial Army soldiers for protection. After some consideration, Nathan gave them the go-ahead and enough responded to the opportunity for work. In the 1680s, with the assistance of "Drakian mercenaries", the Suid-Afrikans secured their borders, even expanding into the interior before the dragoons returned home after their contract was up.
 
Last edited:

pike

Banned
Subscribed

The English Drakes land and Dutch Colonies seem much more concentrated on attracting colonists and less on slavery than in OLT in South africa.

The question is will apartheid emerge from the South african melting pot?

Let hope that AH gets its very own non Euro South african apartheid at last.
 

Admiral Matt

Gone Fishin'
Brazil was about two and a half million, the Africa ports were a hundred thousand Portuguese in Angola and about half that in Mozambique

Really. And when exactly are those figures for? If you can recommend a source, it'd be appreciated.

Well if you want to give a numerical value on what the differential attractiveness is you could generate an estimate.

With the assumptions of:
*2000 starting population in 1620
*A generous 1.5% natural increase on year (less than the American colonies but mcuh more than the OTL Afrikaans)
*1/5 of the immigration to the British American colonies being diverted to the Draka, and following that pattern of movement

You get roughly 130 thousand Drakans in 1790, five times the number of OTL Boers and a third of the ASB book Drakans. Personally I'd go with a lower growth and immigration estimate to put them at somewhere between 100-120k.

Well, the main reason the Afrikaans population grew slowly was largely the same as New Amsterdam, or New France, or the European population of Spain's colonies: women. Early colonization of British North America was nearly unique in that it entailed largely families rather than single men. The latter strategy inevitably led to intermarriage with the native peoples, but it also led to an enormous rate of return-migration.

On the Cape in particular, the VOC in OTL actually went as far as actively discouraging and hampering settlement. Given the disease environment, it is extremely reasonable to posit a much faster rate of population growth for this sort of colony.
 
Top