How far North into Southern Africa can Europeans settle before modern tech?

[Jiraiyathegallant]

I'm including a map because it always makes threads look nicer (and who would have known where Southern Africa is otherwise?!).

Anyways, provided earlier colonization of South Africa (say, 1500 early), with steady waves of immigration coming in every few decades and with the population naturally increasing very quickly, the area could quickly fill up with people and have tens of millions of settlers by the mid 1800s. Provided that the settlers politically and militarily dominated the region as one united country and did not have to fear foreign militaries or native tribes, how far North can they spread before disease makes further advance impossible without major technological PoD?

Also, what would the likely carrying capacity be in the early 1800s for a fairly advanced European society? If they were mixed race (probably Spanish or Portuguese colony originally instead of Dutch or Anglo) due to intermarriages with the natives, could they spread further North and establish larger populations than pure European colonies with African ancestry, or would disease also be too much for them and most of their animals?

 

[Clandango]

Too far. Can't get enough people to willingly go down there in enough numbers to overrun the locals. Plus there is the disease of the jungles, lack of sufficient supplies, the need to work land to make it farmable, and even with that you will need roads to get everything to market.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

South Africa is far enough south to avoid some of the tropical diseases. The High Veldt in Zimbabwe is high enough that it's cool enough to also avoid them.

That's basically it.

 

[moxn]

Central Madagascar is also a possibility, but you'd have to get through the disease-ridden coastal areas first.

On the mainland, most areas south of the Zambezi would be suitable, or could be made suitable, for settlers. There would still be areas further north of there, like the Angolan highlands, they just become few and far between. I've heard the areas around Malawi, Rwanda, and Burundi are all also fairly suitable for Europeans, but all three countries have very highly concentrated native populations already, unlike most of the rest of southern Africa.

 

[Lampiao]

The Angolan Highlands are reasonably fertile, at least as fertile as Zimbabwe. IMO large-scale colonization wouldn't work only in sleeping sickness country, as 19th century societies simply cannot live without cattle or horses. All the other diseases are somehow controllable. Here's a map of the distribution of sleeping sickness in Africa:

Now, if we exclude the barren/less fertile land, we'll have the following areas:

• The Cape;
• Natal;
• South African's Highveld;
• Zimbabwe's Hghveld;
• Angolan Central Plateau;
• Malawi;

In addition, southern Mozambique, particularly Maputo, could have been huge, as the main port of Johannesburg.

 

[Sol Zagato]

Malaria is pretty relevant too:

Any idea how this would have differed in the colder 18th and 19th centuries?

 

[Lampiao]

Malaria was quite common everywhere in the 19th century. With better sanitation and some actions over the wetlands it'll drastically decrease over time.

The problem of sleeping sickness is deeper because 1) we won't get to the area, as we can't have horses; and 2) without cattle we'll also have nothing to eat!

 

[Revachah]

Central Madagascar is also a possibility, but you'd have to get through the disease-ridden coastal areas first.

On the mainland, most areas south of the Zambezi would be suitable, or could be made suitable, for settlers. There would still be areas further north of there, like the Angolan highlands, they just become few and far between. I've heard the areas around Malawi, Rwanda, and Burundi are all also fairly suitable for Europeans, but all three countries have very highly concentrated native populations already, unlike most of the rest of southern Africa.

Even in the highlands malaria persists and no European military alone, (especially without 19th century firearms) could defeat the Sakalava or the Imerina.

Highland Central Africa and the African Great Lakes are too densely populated to be conquered.

Also remember Europeans without the horse are at a great disadvantage.

 

[moxn]

Even in the highlands malaria persists and no European military alone, (especially without 19th century firearms) could defeat the Sakalava or the Imerina.

Highland Central Africa and the African Great Lakes are too densely populated to be conquered.

Also remember Europeans without the horse are at a great disadvantage.

I agree that those areas are too densely populated or too well organized to be easily conquered, I was just looking at it purely from an environmental perspective. Even though malaria would still be a problem, I think sleeping sickness would be an even bigger deterrent, since Europeans have conquered and colonized places rife with malaria elsewhere.

 

[Revachah]

I agree that those areas are too densely populated or too well organized to be easily conquered, I was just looking at it purely from an environmental perspective. Even though malaria would still be a problem, I think sleeping sickness would be an even bigger deterrent, since Europeans have conquered and colonized places rife with malaria elsewhere.

Not pre-1800 without much native support though.

 

[St. Just]

I'd say the Cape is about the farthest you can get; if the Shona revival against the Portuguese on the Zambezi doesn't happen, then Zimbabwe could also theoretically be colonized, although the difficulties of getting horses past the Zambezi without them dying would be great. You'd really need a port in the Eastern Cape to swing that, IMO.

The level of native population and the very low levels of European settler colonialism before the 19th century suggest that, even with a theoretical possibility for advanced settlement, you'd need to set up a number of factors and prevent the rise of the Changamire in Zimbabwe and other native states powerful enough to stop the Portuguese or the Dutch (or whoever).

 

[Lampiao]

I think you're overestimating African capacity to fight against early modern warfare. Remember the Battle of Blood River. The Boers "visited" the whole region and did settle as north as Southern Angola within a century. If we manage to get a population surplus in the Cape area one century earlier, all Southern Africa would probably be colonized and settled to some extent, it doesn't mean that Europeans will magically become a majority everywhere, though.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

By mixing with natives descendants of European settlers would get immunity to local diseases.

 

[altwere]

I hav e a couple of questions.
The Europeans started to arrive in the 15th century, when did the bantu tribes reach the area?
If the Europeans arrive before the bantu they will be able to move in and hold areas farther north and will probably swamp , the Khoi tribes a nd as per OTL leave the poorest areas to the suriving San.

 

[Socrates]

The Angolan Highlands are reasonably fertile, at least as fertile as Zimbabwe. IMO large-scale colonization wouldn't work only in sleeping sickness country, as 19th century societies simply cannot live without cattle or horses. All the other diseases are somehow controllable. Here's a map of the distribution of sleeping sickness in Africa:

Now, if we exclude the barren/less fertile land, we'll have the following areas:

• The Cape;
• Natal;
• South African's Highveld;
• Zimbabwe's Hghveld;
• Angolan Central Plateau;
• Malawi;

In addition, southern Mozambique, particularly Maputo, could have been huge, as the main port of Johannesburg.

What about the highlands of Kenya and Tanzania? There seems to be a route through there, and they were fertile.

 

[Arkenfolm]

I agree that those areas are too densely populated or too well organized to be easily conquered, I was just looking at it purely from an environmental perspective. Even though malaria would still be a problem, I think sleeping sickness would be an even bigger deterrent, since Europeans have conquered and colonized places rife with malaria elsewhere.

Is there a map for rinderpest? That might be important too.

I'd say the Cape is about the farthest you can get; if the Shona revival against the Portuguese on the Zambezi doesn't happen, then Zimbabwe could also theoretically be colonized, although the difficulties of getting horses past the Zambezi without them dying would be great. You'd really need a port in the Eastern Cape to swing that, IMO.

The level of native population and the very low levels of European settler colonialism before the 19th century suggest that, even with a theoretical possibility for advanced settlement, you'd need to set up a number of factors and prevent the rise of the Changamire in Zimbabwe and other native states powerful enough to stop the Portuguese or the Dutch (or whoever).

Agreed, I think the Zambezi is the limit if everything goes right for the Europeans. But you could have decent amounts of settler colonialism if we go by the example of Brazil.

I think you're overestimating African capacity to fight against early modern warfare. Remember the Battle of Blood River. The Boers "visited" the whole region and did settle as north as Southern Angola within a century. If we manage to get a population surplus in the Cape area one century earlier, all Southern Africa would probably be colonized and settled to some extent, it doesn't mean that Europeans will magically become a majority everywhere, though.

But the Portuguese had a lot of trouble with Monomotopa, the Rozwi, etc. It would probably take significant amount of bad luck on the part of the Africans and good luck on the part of the Portuguese/whoever's colonising the region to be able to successfully subdue the local states. Even then, it would take a while to completely destroy native resistance.

I hav e a couple of questions.
The Europeans started to arrive in the 15th century, when did the bantu tribes reach the area?
If the Europeans arrive before the bantu they will be able to move in and hold areas farther north and will probably swamp , the Khoi tribes a nd as per OTL leave the poorest areas to the suriving San.

The Bantu were there since BC times or just after. Great Zimbabwe was built by Bantu peoples, for instance.

Not that 15th century Europeans are much different technologically than the Bantu peoples which would certainly hinder control.

 

[Lampiao]

But the Portuguese had a lot of trouble with Monomotopa, the Rozwi, etc. It would probably take significant amount of bad luck on the part of the Africans and good luck on the part of the Portuguese/whoever's colonising the region to be able to successfully subdue the local states. Even then, it would take a while to completely destroy native resistance.

I think it has little to do with natural conditions or a significant achievement of the native Africans, the problem is there was no significant pull factor to the isolated highlands of Africa. At first, only a more nativized and expansionist group, like the Boers, would be attracted to these lands, like the North American Voyageurs and Brazilian Bandeirantes.

 

[Arkenfolm]

You do have similar factors to the Brazilian bandeirantes, in that you have great stories of gold and precious stones in a place where you can enslave many natives.

 

[St. Just]

There were the prazeiros and sertanejos in Mozambique, and backwoodsmen across Portugal's "sphere" in Africa; they were less slavers than they were Africanized descendants of Portuguese and Luso-Indian men given land grants by the Monomotapa.

If the prazeiros can coalesce and defeat the Changamire, then they might be able to exert light power over Malawi and Zimbabwe -- they never had very many people, and were reliant on the chikundas, their class of slave-soldiers that operated on essentially African lines of fealty and loyalty to the very Africanized prazeiros.

The Viceroyalty of the Rios de Sena and Mozambique more generally always had problems with manpower and the exertion of authority -- that is my main reason for doubting the Zambezi as a vector of truly European settlement, beyond the general climactic issues.