AHC: Boers win Second Boer War

Well if they are doing that to the point of not giving the British reason to mobilise against them then they are not winning the war as there is not one as such - at least not as far as the British are concerned anyway!
Um, the British were mobilizing against the Boers as part of an ultimatum to give political rights to the Utilanders; the idea of the republics staying on the defensive means they focus on thwarting these mobilized armies when they try to make good on that threat, instead of going on the offensive as they did OTL. My point was that, given how well the Boers did in these offensives OTL, they would likely do well against said forces in a more defensive capacity as well; and that it would be far harder for the British to send reinforcements for said army just to make good on Chamberlains ultimatum on the Utilander question, as opposed to come to the defense of the Cape Colony et el, as they did OTL.

On the more mundane side - would a largely averted Second Boer War mean that anti-imperialist parties in the Cape Colony (the liberal South African Party, and the Afrikan Bond) do better earlier than OTL? Meaning Merriman, not Jameson, succeeds Sprigg as PM?
 
I don't see Boer states signing onto a federation with a colony they'd have just beaten in wartime. If anything they *might* be convinced to enter into an economic treaty (maybe a union currency, maybe not) if the right bait was there. That in turn could cause their eventual entrance into a Greater South Africa by a slightly different means.

A Boer victory means they absolutely need the port at Maputo for economic livelihood, by the Boer War there is a railway connecting it to Pretoria and Bloemfontein via Jo-Burg. Southern Mozambique thus comes into play for Boers to capture/secure or for the British to seize on the heels of the Pink Treaty. If the British take it, the Boers are literally surrounded and have to push east to Durbin and Port Richards for sea access or become almost entirely self-sufficient in order to avoid British economic strangulation. Rhodesia, Botswana, and later Southwest Africa likely join the Union of South Africa as a deterrent against potential Boer aggression later. Depending on the scenario southern Angola might as well, potentially leading to a South Africa stretching north to the Zambezi in the East and the Cuanza with Lungue-Bungo in the West.

If the Boers take Maputo or can buy southern Mozambique they could potentially expand greatly into Rhodesia, northern Mozambique, Botswana, and elsewhere depending on world events. Maybe they get land for siding with the Allies in World War I or take South Africa as a Central Power and force a major British manpower committment to free the Cape? Maybe they act as a pro-CP neutral and give the Lion of Africa a base to operate from, especially if Portugal decides to sell its territories to someone other than Germany or Britain before they can be divided?
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Delay the war until 1903. With no "khaki" election effect the Liberals may win the British General Election in 1902. The Government is then split between the Radicals (Lloyd George, perhaps Campbell-Bannerman) and the Liberal Imperialists (Asquith, Grey, Haldane backed by Rosebery) over reaction to the situation in South Africa and look for a negotiated settlement instead of throwing a large slab of the British Empire's weight into crushing the Boers - so essentially Gladstone & Majuba Hill all over again.
 
Top