Different Boer Wars?

Let's say that Marthinus Pretorius is more successful in bringing about a union of the Orange Free State and the Transvaal in the late 1850's, as attempted OTL. Granted, there were fundamental, idiological differences between the two, but we can handwavium that away; at least, to the point that they'd be identified as a single state.

Then things with the British get hot per OTL.

Worse for both parties? No real difference overall?

Thoughts?
 
Let's say that Marthinus Pretorius is more successful in bringing about a union of the Orange Free State and the Transvaal in the late 1850's, as attempted OTL. Granted, there were fundamental, idiological differences between the two, but we can handwavium that away; at least, to the point that they'd be identified as a single state.

Then things with the British get hot per OTL.

Worse for both parties? No real difference overall?

Thoughts?

The key component here is simply manpower. At one point, the British had marshalled a quarter million men and more in South Africa to deal with the Boers, and they couldn't hope to match that. The only thing which might have made things more... 'even' would have been if the Boer Republics had achieved their goal of getting the Afrikaaners of the British Cape Colony to rise up. Otherwise, bloodier or longer, the end result is the same.
 
The key component here is simply manpower. At one point, the British had marshalled a quarter million men and more in South Africa to deal with the Boers, and they couldn't hope to match that. The only thing which might have made things more... 'even' would have been if the Boer Republics had achieved their goal of getting the Afrikaaners of the British Cape Colony to rise up. Otherwise, bloodier or longer, the end result is the same.
I never assumed they would even come close to matching British deployments. Rather, I was wonder about the consequences of a more unifed front presented by the Boers.
Would that "...bloodies and longer..." outcome have seen any significant population reductions over OTL? The British military seemed to have few qualms about sending women and children to (effectively) concentration camps. Perhaps a stronger Boer front would have seen even harsher measures taken by the Brits? Maybe a stronger anti-war reaction back home?

I don't know enough to really say. :eek:
 
I never assumed they would even come close to matching British deployments. Rather, I was wonder about the consequences of a more unifed front presented by the Boers.
Would that "...bloodies and longer..." outcome have seen any significant population reductions over OTL? The British military seemed to have few qualms about sending women and children to (effectively) concentration camps. Perhaps a stronger Boer front would have seen even harsher measures taken by the Brits? Maybe a stronger anti-war reaction back home?

I don't know enough to really say. :eek:

Ah, yes. Now, the British suffered three defeats in a single week during the opening weeks of the war, and they were stinging, humiliating defeats. What's more is, though the numerical losses weren't so bad as - say - the Indian Mutiny battles, the "London born" percentages were far higher. So yes, the outcry back in Ol' England might have reached a point where something very different came about.

I still can't see Britain just... bowing out, though. Not with the gold and gems having been discovered and not after that string of defeats. They would need to recoup those losses somehow. Now, going off the assumption that the Boer Republics united a full generation and more before these events, you're also assuming that the impetus for such a conflict wouldn't be the same as OTL (hooray butterflies!), but let's handwavium that for now.

So, if the Boers could deal that kind of damage to the Brits in 'conventional warfare' in the early stages in OTL without that early union, then logic would assume that their ability to wage war in that earlier union to be far greater. Wow, what a sentence... let's retry.

If the Boers could do what they did with such handicaps OTL, then a lot more time training, prospering, and living together should nullify many of those handicaps to a degree and one could then assume they would be able to inflict even heavier losses on the Brits. Of course, a stronger, more unified Boer presence might mean that the Brits don't underestimate these 'dirty farmers.' It could also mean that the Boers have more overseas friends, some who might be willing to lend a hand.

I'm sorry, it's late. Did that make any sense?
 
Top