PC/WI: Boer victory in the Second Boer War (1898-1902)

An idea that has been pounding on my mind for a few days.
I heard from here before that the best tactic the Boers could have used for defeating the British in their second war with them would have been infiltration and fast-paced offensives, rather than the drawn-out siege warfare that they conducted IOTL, which led to their doom.
I also hear that it would have been a better idea for them to attack the Cape province of British South Africa instead of Natal. The Cape had a larger and a bit more supportive Afrikaner population than Natal, which could technically translate into more pro-Boer rebellions there.
So, with this change of strategy in the Boer leadership's mind, assume that they win, and manage to strike it all the way to the Cape coast, until suing for peace on their own favourable terms.
What would a Boer victory in the Second Boer War mostly look like?
Would the British retain some territory in the Cape? IIRC, Boer propaganda from the time advocated for pushing the British all the way until Williamstown, which they said was the only necessary part of the Cape for the British to maintain contact with the East.
Would there be an earlier version of apartheid institutionalised?
Considering that the Germans (and, especially, Kaiser Wilhelm II) strongly supported the Boers IOTL, could we see a more-or-less formal entry of this new "Afrikaner Federation" into the Central Powers?
And, lastly, what are the effects on Britain? Humbled by "Bill and the Boers", would they seek a quicker detente with France and Russia? How does this affect the coming Russo-Japanese War? With communications with London lost to the Boers, what happens to the British colonies in south-central Africa?
 
Last edited:
An idea that has been pounding on my mind for a few days.
I heard from here before that the best tactic the Boers could have used for defeating the British in their second war with them would have been infiltration and fast-paced offensives, rather than the drawn-out siege warfare that they conducted IOTL, which led to their doom.
I also hear that it would have been a better idea for them to attack the Cape province of British South Africa instead of Natal. The Cape had a larger and a bit more supportive Afrikaner population than Natal, which could technically translate into more pro-Boer rebellions there.
So, with this change of strategy in the Boer leadership's mind, assume that they win, and manage to strike it all the way to the Cape coast, until suing for peace on their own favourable terms.
What would a Boer victory in the Second Boer War mostly look like?
Would the British retain some territory in the Cape? IIRC, Boer propaganda from the time advocated for pushing the British all the way until Williamstown, which they said was the only necessary part of the Cape for the British to maintain contact with the East.
Would there be an earlier version of apartheid institutionalised?
Considering that the Germans (and, especially, Kaiser Wilhelm II) strongly supported the Boers IOTL, could we see a more-or-less formal entry of this new "Afrikaner Federation" into the Central Powers?
And, lastly, what are the effects on Britain? Humbled by "Bill and the Boers", would they seek a quicker detente with France and Russia? How does this affect the coming Russo-Japanese War? With communications with London lost to the Boers, what happens to the British colonies in south-central Africa?

Assuming they win is... a big assumption, though given the sheer differential in forces it was always going to be a case of "win fast or die slow" for the Boers. Making a daring strike at and securing the Cape would likely be the best gamble they can make, actually: it forces the British into a logistical situation where it's harder to bring the weight of the Empire to bare, and gives a huge propaganda/political coup for the Boer leadership that can be parlayed into getting international recognition and demands for arbitration. The only way around that would be redeeming Cape Town via an amphibious assault/contested landing... which runs a high risk of turning into a humiliating bungle.

The Brits probably receive the return of a fairly large portion of land around the Cape in peace negotiations; they're not exactly going to concede it to the extent propaganda demands, and that would be seen as perfectly reasonable to any arbitrating power. The Boers get... maybe the north-eastern 1/3 or so of Cape Colony?

In the Dutch regions, yes, but I'm hesitant to say the same about the British. Indeed, the colonial government probably can't get Commonwealth status and so remains under tighter British direct rule for longer.
 
Assuming they win is... a big assumption, though given the sheer differential in forces it was always going to be a case of "win fast or die slow" for the Boers. Making a daring strike at and securing the Cape would likely be the best gamble they can make, actually: it forces the British into a logistical situation where it's harder to bring the weight of the Empire to bare, and gives a huge propaganda/political coup for the Boer leadership that can be parlayed into getting international recognition and demands for arbitration. The only way around that would be redeeming Cape Town via an amphibious assault/contested landing... which runs a high risk of turning into a humiliating bungle.

The Brits probably receive the return of a fairly large portion of land around the Cape in peace negotiations; they're not exactly going to concede it to the extent propaganda demands, and that would be seen as perfectly reasonable to any arbitrating power. The Boers get... maybe the north-eastern 1/3 or so of Cape Colony?

In the Dutch regions, yes, but I'm hesitant to say the same about the British. Indeed, the colonial government probably can't get Commonwealth status and so remains under tighter British direct rule for longer.
If you mean only 1/3 of the Cape province, then perhaps the Boers may annex British Bechuanaland and West Griqualand, and pry off Botswanna from British influence, too?
images
 
If you mean only 1/3 of the Cape province, then perhaps the Boers may annex British Bechuanaland and West Griqualand, and pry off Botswanna from British influence, too?
images

I'd say they give Griqualand semi-autonomous status, while getting Britain to agree to the "Pink Map" which puts Bechuanaland as either a German client (in exchange for commercial concessions and rights of storage and trade in Sudwest Afrika (since the Boers would want a friendly outlet to exterior markets), and perhaps getting the Brits to concede to Portugal's "Pink Map" since the Cape to Cairo project is now dead in the water and Rhodesia is in a strategically untenable position.
 
I'd say they give Griqualand semi-autonomous status, while getting Britain to agree to the "Pink Map" which puts Bechuanaland as either a German client (in exchange for commercial concessions and rights of storage and trade in Sudwest Afrika (since the Boers would want a friendly outlet to exterior markets), and perhaps getting the Brits to concede to Portugal's "Pink Map" since the Cape to Cairo project is now dead in the water and Rhodesia is in a strategically untenable position.
If that's the case for the war's end, then what happens to South Rhodesia? Does it go to Portugal, and do the Boers get a piece of it?
Considering that Walvis Bay may still be in British hands at this point, would more German trade with the Boers result in more investment in the port of Lüderitz to the south?
 
If that's the case for the war's end, then what happens to South Rhodesia? Does it go to Portugal, and do the Boers get a piece of it?
Considering that Walvis Bay may still be in British hands at this point, would more German trade with the Boers result in more investment in the port of Lüderitz to the south?

How much land do you think the Boers can digest, exactly?
 
As much land as where there is a majority of Boer-sympathizing people, assuming that they achieve a sufficiently quick victory.

To which you run into the problem that a lot of the black population don't exactly sympathize with the Boers. Plus, setting up administration, subduing regions, establishing infastructure, ect. takes time, money, and skilled personnel: things the Boer Republics don't have in abundance. This slows the speed at which newly acquired territory can be brought under effective government, as well as in the longer run stretches their military force thinner and thinner.
 
To which you run into the problem that a lot of the black population don't exactly sympathize with the Boers. Plus, setting up administration, subduing regions, establishing infastructure, ect. takes time, money, and skilled personnel: things the Boer Republics don't have in abundance. This slows the speed at which newly acquired territory can be brought under effective government, as well as in the longer run stretches their military force thinner and thinner.

Which I think is the point this thread misses. The war aim of the Boer Republics was not conquest but preservation. They set out to preserve the electoral system whereby Boers remained a majority of electors and uitlanders remained excluded from the exercise of government. Achieving that is victory.

The issue with conquest is that it draws the Boer Commandos away from the source of their strength towards the source of British strength...any approach close to the sea will become increasingly difficult. Fighting in towns and cities nullifies the Boer's mobility advantage and plays to the advantage of the British in systematic command structure and greater resources. Also an attack on the British Empire is an attack, defeating the attacker is likely to be a lot more popular in Britain and Canada, Australia and New Zealand than say trying to impose a new government on a bunch of recalcitrant Dutch at the behest of a bunch of miners and moneymen. Further but ruthless defence was well within the diplomatic niceties of the time while invasions of white folks needed careful justification.

Paul Kruger would have been best not sending the British any ultimatums but playing the poor starry eyed innocent in his missives to the British government, something along the lines of "We do not interfere in your constitutional arrangements why do you try to interfere in ours?"

If the Boers do not attack there is a chance the British underestimate the forces required to do the job, 22,000 troops is not likely to be enough and even if the British concentrate 40-60,000 for a proper offensive then the Boer guerrilla strategy is going to be vastly more politically and diplomatically effective without having preceded it with an invasion of British territory. If the Government loses the support of the electorate at home peace could very well involve continued independence for the Boer Republics which would constitute the second win in a century over the British who may not try a third time.
 
Which I think is the point this thread misses. The war aim of the Boer Republics was not conquest but preservation. They set out to preserve the electoral system whereby Boers remained a majority of electors and uitlanders remained excluded from the exercise of government. Achieving that is victory.

The issue with conquest is that it draws the Boer Commandos away from the source of their strength towards the source of British strength...any approach close to the sea will become increasingly difficult. Fighting in towns and cities nullifies the Boer's mobility advantage and plays to the advantage of the British in systematic command structure and greater resources. Also an attack on the British Empire is an attack, defeating the attacker is likely to be a lot more popular in Britain and Canada, Australia and New Zealand than say trying to impose a new government on a bunch of recalcitrant Dutch at the behest of a bunch of miners and moneymen. Further but ruthless defence was well within the diplomatic niceties of the time while invasions of white folks needed careful justification.

Paul Kruger would have been best not sending the British any ultimatums but playing the poor starry eyed innocent in his missives to the British government, something along the lines of "We do not interfere in your constitutional arrangements why do you try to interfere in ours?"

If the Boers do not attack there is a chance the British underestimate the forces required to do the job, 22,000 troops is not likely to be enough and even if the British concentrate 40-60,000 for a proper offensive then the Boer guerrilla strategy is going to be vastly more politically and diplomatically effective without having preceded it with an invasion of British territory. If the Government loses the support of the electorate at home peace could very well involve continued independence for the Boer Republics which would constitute the second win in a century over the British who may not try a third time.

Gaucho presumes the victory of a quick and decisive strike, though, which is why I prefaced my response with the fact that it'd a big "if" to assume a victory. However, given that such a shock and awe move on the Cape would be the least politically damming option and play into their strengths and minimize British advantages if the Boers were insistent on having an offensive war goal, i thought it was just viable enough of a possibility to discuss if the proposed gains are limited to those that help insure long term security, both by engendering the regime to the other nearby colonial powers and minimizing their front with the British without directly annexing more than could be effectively integrated as a buffer zone.
 

mad orc

Banned
Can anyone please be kind enough to explain the conclusion of this discussion please .
What exactly do would the Boers most probably get/lose ?
 
I'm not very familiar with this part of history. Why were the Boers divided into different republics? Would they have had more success if they were a single republic?
 
Maybe if there was a higher population growth rate among the Boer population, then the population would be large enough to win or even avoid a war?
 
I'm not very familiar with this part of history. Why were the Boers divided into different republics? Would they have had more success if they were a single republic?

Because they were established by different groups who left the Cape to different areas at different times, and the Boer tradition of pastoral self-government and a lack of large urban centers, ports, infastructure and trade ect discouraged centralization. Think of it like the early American colonies, only take away the British connections and ability to move by sea.
 
I don't think the Boers have the the logistics needed to take Cape Town, and as long as they have that I don't see the Boers winning. I'm also not sure striking at the Cape would bring about more Cape colony rebels, call it an army of liberation if you want but it's still an army of occupation living off the land of the occupied.
 
I'm not sure a quick strike against the Cape would be enough. Losing to the Boers like that would be a massive humiliation for the British, so I'd expect them to make at least one major attempt at reconquest. Probably the most realistic scenario for a Boer victory would be to have some major crisis flare up somewhere else (earlier WW1?), so that the British decide to make a few concessions in South Africa to free up troops for this new problem.

Also an attack on the British Empire is an attack, defeating the attacker is likely to be a lot more popular in Britain and Canada, Australia and New Zealand than say trying to impose a new government on a bunch of recalcitrant Dutch at the behest of a bunch of miners and moneymen.

And in the rest of the world, too. IOTL there was a lot of sympathy for the Boers in Europe and NA, and there'd probably be a lot less of this if the Boers were seen as the aggressors.
 
I don't think Britain can afford to lose this. I occasionally look at historic papers for various reasons, in NZ, and the amount of interest the War generated there was considerable. Would be a very real political issue across the White bits of the empire at the very least
 
Top