AHC: Save the Zulu Kingdom

Have London recall Sir Henry Bartle Frere about a year earlier for his misconduct in attempting to force Confederation of the British colonies and declaring war on the Xhosa Kingdom of Gcalekeland against the wishes of either the government in London or that in Cape Town (he was recalled after the Zulu War on the same charges anyway, but the trend was already pronounced). The man managed virtually single handedly to destroy the stability of Britain's position in South Africa, and is responsible for starting wars Xhosa states already under British protection, the relatively friendly Zulu Kingdom and in the Boer states declaring independence from British rule after being persuaded to accept it.

After that, probably the best you can hope for is the Zulu Kingdom going through a Swaziland transition of becoming a formal British protectorate, staying out of confederation (not particularly popular for a long time anyway) and gaining independence at the end of colonial rule.
 
Or you could make a POD that somehow prevents the Europeans from reaching South Africa for hundreds of years, leaving the Zulu alone and intact.
 
Have the British negotiate a separate protectorate of Zululand from South Africa that's a lot like a princely state in India. The Zulu supply troops to the British army and they support them against Boer encroachment. From there they are given independence as their own independent kingdom from decolonization on.
 
Have the British negotiate a separate protectorate of Zululand from South Africa that's a lot like a princely state in India. The Zulu supply troops to the British army and they support them against Boer encroachment. From there they are given independence as their own independent kingdom from decolonization on.
That's what I was going to suggest.
 
Have the British negotiate a separate protectorate of Zululand from South Africa that's a lot like a princely state in India. The Zulu supply troops to the British army and they support them against Boer encroachment. From there they are given independence as their own independent kingdom from decolonization on.

You neither want a Princely state style system (which would still be subservient to the Cape Colony and liable to be absorbed a la Griqualand East and the Xhosa states of the Transkrei that weren't conquered outright), nor need to go so far to get a comparison. Lestoho, Swaziland or Bechuanaland provide perfectly valid examples of how a Zulu Kingdom can survive and develop if it isn't initially conquered.

Indeed a Princely State set up would probably lead to Zululand becoming the Matabeleland of Natal.
 
Or you could make a POD that somehow prevents the Europeans from reaching South Africa for hundreds of years, leaving the Zulu alone and intact.

The earliest mention I can find of the Zulu is in 1709, which is probably too late to prevent Europeans from colonizing.
 
The earliest mention I can find of the Zulu is in 1709, which is probably too late to prevent Europeans from colonizing.
Much too late. On the other hand, if the Portuguese had maintained their control of Natal and thus prevented the Boers and British occupation of the land you would not have expansionist Europeans pushing up from the south. In addition if you have a non expansionist enclave on the Cape a la the VOC and the Zulus don't have to worry about Europeans coming from the west either.

The catch in both is that both Natal and the Cape are both on the route to British India and thus coould not be allowed to fall into hostile hands. The latter was reputedly seized to prevent Napoleon doing the same. The former was colonised by the Boers then seized by the British. My conclusion is that is to save the Zulu Kingodm you need to keep the British out of southern Africa. Any PoDs to do that? ;)
 
My conclusion is that is to save the Zulu Kingodm you need to keep the British out of southern Africa. Any PoDs to do that? ;)
It should not be hard to keep the British out of South Africa with a POD before (or even during) the French revolutionairy wars. A failed French revolution or a contained French revolution, or possibly even peace made with the revolutionairy France (the cape colony was returned to the Batavian republic during the treaty of Amiens after all) would all keep the Cape colony Dutch.

As long as the Dutch keep the Cape colony I believe the Boer trek will be prevented or at least a lot smaller in scale. This would probably keep the Dutch/Boers out of the Zulu kingdom and even if it doesn't, I don't think the Dutch would be able to or even care to conquer it.
 
Much too late. On the other hand, if the Portuguese had maintained their control of Natal and thus prevented the Boers and British occupation of the land you would not have expansionist Europeans pushing up from the south. In addition if you have a non expansionist enclave on the Cape a la the VOC and the Zulus don't have to worry about Europeans coming from the west either.

The catch in both is that both Natal and the Cape are both on the route to British India and thus coould not be allowed to fall into hostile hands. The latter was reputedly seized to prevent Napoleon doing the same. The former was colonised by the Boers then seized by the British. My conclusion is that is to save the Zulu Kingodm you need to keep the British out of southern Africa. Any PoDs to do that? ;)

That is in no way necessary. Neither London (for Natal) nor Cape Town, had any desire to annex the Zulu Kingdom when the war started, that was entirely down to Bartle-Frere being reckless and exceeding his authority. Britain was perfectly capable of allowing Native states to have domestic independence or exist as separate colonies ranging on a scale from the Benin, Oyo and Yoruba Kingdoms of Nigeria, which the King was allowed to retain some ceremonial powers and unofficial influence, through the Ashanti and Matabele Kingdoms, domestically independent but ruled as part of neighbouring colonies, right up to Swaziland and Bastutoland, separate Kingdoms run independently from any neighbouring colony.

And considering the Zulu Kingdom didn't even exist as an entity until 1816, any PoD which keeps the British out of South Africa probably butterflies away the existence of the Zulu state anyway.
 
That is in no way necessary. Neither London (for Natal) nor Cape Town, had any desire to annex the Zulu Kingdom when the war started, that was entirely down to Bartle-Frere being reckless and exceeding his authority.
Sounds suspciously like the East India Company's expansion under Wellesey. OK so replace Bartle-Frere with a less aggressive adminstrator thus buying time for the Kingdom. Sooner or later though Britain will make a grab just as they did on the Boer Republics.
And considering the Zulu Kingdom didn't even exist as an entity until 1816, any PoD which keeps the British out of South Africa probably butterflies away the existence of the Zulu state anyway.
My understanding of the rise of the Zulus was that it was due to internal reforms by Dingiswayo and Shaka. The only European influence appears to be commerce with the Portuguese.
 
Sounds suspciously like the East India Company's expansion under Wellesey. OK so replace Bartle-Frere with a less aggressive adminstrator thus buying time for the Kingdom. Sooner or later though Britain will make a grab just as they did on the Boer Republics.

It's very similar indeed, but the beauty of replacing Bartle-Frere with someone else is that you also avoid the initial ham-fisted attempts to replicate the Canadian Confederation in South Africa which helped contribute to much of the conflict of the period. The South African Republic had already been annexed by Britain in 1877 after they went bankrupt and in part due to the threat of the Zulu Kingdom (which was at that point moderately friendly with Britain but not outright under the protection of the crown), and the Orange Free State had impeccably amicable and good relations with Britain right up until the Second Boer War (albeit on the understanding that it was, to some extent, in the British sphere of influence). Indeed it was the crushing of the Zulu Kingdom that really led to the First Boer War and the second period of independence for the Transvaal. The result was a situation that was simmering but oddly balanced without the intervention of Bartle-Frere. The Zulu Kingdom was determined to maintain good relations with the British in Natal and seek opportunities for expansion in the Transvaal, while the Boers were equally determined not to give them that opportunity and resigned to the protection that British suzerainty gave. Natal was concerned about a potentially expansionistic Zulu Kingdom, but had no love for the Boers either, the Orange Free State frankly detested the leadership in South Africa and was quite happy with working with the British, and the Cape Colony couldn't care less about any of the interior and just wanted to get on with running her own affairs. Into this stepped Bartle-Frere who was convinced that confederation was desirable, and that the Zulus were the main obstacle to this, prompting him to take the side of the Boers in Transvaal and demand reparations, the rest being history.

Now, it's probably not a stable situation for the long term, but IMO it really doesn't need to be. It's likely that Cetshwayo would live longer without the Zulu wars, but judging by the lifespans of both his predecessors and successors, he was already at the older end of the scale, and I'd really expect a death in the late 1880s or early 1890s. The above situation can probably last into the mid 1880s at the very least, but as I expect the Boers to be the ones to slip first (having had much less experience in balancing the sides), I think it likely that Britain would back the Zulus and at least preserve the existence of the state even if they're not eager for it to expand. At that point, surrounded by British territory or protectorates and without avenues to expand, it seems likely that a policy of simply continuing the good relations with Britain while preserving the independence of the Kingdom would be the most likely one to be chosen (it's a very logical continuation of the policies of the last few decades after all).

My understanding of the rise of the Zulus was that it was due to internal reforms by Dingiswayo and Shaka. The only European influence appears to be commerce with the Portuguese.

You may be right, though so much of the history of the area was caused by various migrations after the arrival of the British so it's still probably not the best way to go.
 

Redhand

Banned
It should not be hard to keep the British out of South Africa with a POD before (or even during) the French revolutionairy wars. A failed French revolution or a contained French revolution, or possibly even peace made with the revolutionairy France (the cape colony was returned to the Batavian republic during the treaty of Amiens after all) would all keep the Cape colony Dutch.

As long as the Dutch keep the Cape colony I believe the Boer trek will be prevented or at least a lot smaller in scale. This would probably keep the Dutch/Boers out of the Zulu kingdom and even if it doesn't, I don't think the Dutch would be able to or even care to conquer it.

I'm not sure on the plausibility of this but if you somehow move up the Suez Canal's construction by 50 years or so then there is absolutely no need to get South Africa. I think it could be done if the British end up invading Egypt by land to help kick out Napoleon and see some chances to build the canal. Technology of the time made it a stretch but I think it could be done.

Another thought is if the idea of a Cairo to Cape railroad is made impossible by German or French expansion earlier on and therefore any impetus for expanding against the Zulus go away. I don't see the princely state idea working as the Zulus were militarily strong enough to offset the need for British protection and had no economy the British could exploit.
 
I'm not sure on the plausibility of this but if you somehow move up the Suez Canal's construction by 50 years or so then there is absolutely no need to get South Africa. I think it could be done if the British end up invading Egypt by land to help kick out Napoleon and see some chances to build the canal. Technology of the time made it a stretch but I think it could be done.

Another thought is if the idea of a Cairo to Cape railroad is made impossible by German or French expansion earlier on and therefore any impetus for expanding against the Zulus go away. I don't see the princely state idea working as the Zulus were militarily strong enough to offset the need for British protection and had no economy the British could exploit.

The Suez Canal would have needed to be built by the Ottomans or Khedivate and in existence before the Napoleonic wars in order for South Africa not be a strategic goal, which would affect a lot of things and may well mean that Britain can't get hold of Egypt anyway.

And the Cape to Cairo railroad was blocked by German colonies, and didn't have anything to do with Zululand anyway.
 
I'm not sure on the plausibility of this but if you somehow move up the Suez Canal's construction by 50 years or so then there is absolutely no need to get South Africa. I think it could be done if the British end up invading Egypt by land to help kick out Napoleon and see some chances to build the canal. Technology of the time made it a stretch but I think it could be done.
Alternatively expansion of Waghorne's Overland route would reduce the need for a canal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Fletcher_Waghorn for details. Obviously there is no technical reason why it could not be set up earlier and it probably need to if it were to divert the British from southern Africa. I doubt though before trains it is really going to shift enough cargo to suit the East India Company.
 
Top