Transvaal sea access

wolf_brother · Nov 1, 2012

Iori said:
You're right, its border are'nt the same; it was smaller.

Swaziland at no time in its history ever had a coast.

Hmm. Bonner's Kings, Commoners and Concessionaires: The Evolution and Dissolution of the Nineteenth-Century Swazi State very strongly indicates that the Swazi did in fact have access to the sea, and that a deal was nearly made in the late 1850s that would have made the Swazi vassals of the Boers in return for protection from the Portuguese, Gaza, British, and Zulu, in which the Boers were to be allowed right of settlement in and through Swazi territory - including sea access.

Black Sept · Nov 5, 2012

wolf_brother said:
Hmm. Bonner's Kings, Commoners and Concessionaires: The Evolution and Dissolution of the Nineteenth-Century Swazi State very strongly indicates that the Swazi did in fact have access to the sea, and that a deal was nearly made in the late 1850s that would have made the Swazi vassals of the Boers in return for protection from the Portuguese, Gaza, British, and Zulu, in which the Boers were to be allowed right of settlement in and through Swazi territory - including sea access.

I like this POD very much because it doesn't have the ZAR challenge major colonial powers in the region, and yet it still gains sea access. But I can't find any map of Swaziland streching all the way to the sea, and certainly not to Delagoa Bay. And even if it did at some point the Portuguese and the British were actively competing for the area- concluding treaties of cession with natives and such- even before the Great Trek, since the 1820s.

Maybe if a larger Swazi state manages to retain control of the area and then make an alliance with the expanding Transvaal...? It's just that the bay-in 'bay poor' Southern Africa, as someone put it- might be too good a spot to be left unoccupied. I checked the Mozambique coast south of Maputo on Googleearth and there are hardly any settlements, never mind ports.

Still the Boer-Swazi alliance seems the most likely scenario to me so far.

cimon · Nov 5, 2012

Over the Drakensberg mountains,in Richard's bay....

iori · Nov 5, 2012

wolf_brother said:
Hmm. Bonner's Kings, Commoners and Concessionaires: The Evolution and Dissolution of the Nineteenth-Century Swazi State very strongly indicates that the Swazi did in fact have access to the sea, and that a deal was nearly made in the late 1850s that would have made the Swazi vassals of the Boers in return for protection from the Portuguese, Gaza, British, and Zulu, in which the Boers were to be allowed right of settlement in and through Swazi territory - including sea access.

In the 19th century the only states with sea access in South Africa were the British colonies, Natal (before annexation) and Zululand.

None of the maps from the early 20th or late 19th century show it as having a coast, but rather as being situated between Portuguese Mozambique, Transvaal, Zululand and Britain.

Marius · Nov 6, 2012

cimon said:
Over the Drakensberg mountains,in Richard's bay....

Which was firmly in Zulu, and therefore, by extension, British, territory. No dice.

wolf_brother · Nov 6, 2012

Black Sept said:
I like this POD very much because it doesn't have the ZAR challenge major colonial powers in the region, and yet it still gains sea access. But I can't find any map of Swaziland streching all the way to the sea, and certainly not to Delagoa Bay. And even if it did at some point the Portuguese and the British were actively competing for the area- concluding treaties of cession with natives and such- even before the Great Trek, since the 1820s.

Maybe if a larger Swazi state manages to retain control of the area and then make an alliance with the expanding Transvaal...? It's just that the bay-in 'bay poor' Southern Africa, as someone put it- might be too good a spot to be left unoccupied. I checked the Mozambique coast south of Maputo on Googleearth and there are hardly any settlements, never mind ports.

Still the Boer-Swazi alliance seems the most likely scenario to me so far.

Iori said:
In the 19th century the only states with sea access in South Africa were the British colonies, Natal (before annexation) and Zululand.

None of the maps from the early 20th or late 19th century show it as having a coast, but rather as being situated between Portuguese Mozambique, Transvaal, Zululand and Britain.

The Swazi certainly claimed the area; whether or not you'll find European-produced maps which show it not under their own jurisdiction is another matter altogether. I've already quoted my source in this matter.

Wendell · Nov 10, 2012

Wasn't Transvaal asserting contol over parts of OTL Mozambique west of the Limpopo in the late 1860's? Perhaps, if Britain is too busy on another front to act, the change will stand.

cimon · Nov 13, 2012

Marius said:
Which was firmly in Zulu, and therefore, by extension, British, territory. No dice.

Not really,they could take it by force and the British were not exactly friendly with Zulus then,about 1851-2(after the first Boer War) read "The Map of Africa by Treaty" and when the boers established the two repubics of Transvaal and Orange Free State;Wilson ponders the possibility...

Marius · Nov 14, 2012

cimon said:
Not really,they could take it by force and the British were not exactly friendly with Zulus then,about 1851-2(after the first Boer War) read "The Map of Africa by Treaty" and when the boers established the two repubics of Transvaal and Orange Free State;Wilson ponders the possibility...

First Boer War was in 1877

Not too sure what you are trying to say in this post.

MadMc · Nov 14, 2012

Wendell said:
Wasn't Transvaal asserting contol over parts of OTL Mozambique west of the Limpopo in the late 1860's? Perhaps, if Britain is too busy on another front to act, the change will stand.

Maybe if Britain and Spain don't pull out of the French Expedition in Mexico in the early 1860s, they'll be preoccupied with the war there, and possibly the public anger over the expedition. Too preoccupied to worry about issues in South Africa?

cimon · Nov 14, 2012

Marius said:
First Boer War was in 1877

Not too sure what you are trying to say in this post.

Marius,you have your facts totally wrong!

What you call First Boer war was in 1880-1881 not 1877 and it was not the first one;The First Boer War occurred in 1848 with the battle of Boomplaats.
Its consequences were very serious because it forced certain Boer groups
to cross the river Vaal and institute two democracies,those of Transvaal and
Orange Free State;The real point being that some Boers,after the defeat of the Zulus had come to agreements with the Zulus about the lawful purchase of land before the British annexed Zululand in 1848,and,in an official capacity I had to handle cases and claims before the High Court of Bulawayo,Rhodesia so I know the case first hand and its fiscal as well as its political importance
since Her Majesty's Government stood liable for unjustifiable delay of the Zululand's annexation after the timely proclamation of that matter by the Governor and the relevant Order in Council.
Pertinent to the point in question being that the access to the sea was in Boer hands due to purchases in the area.

Marius · Nov 15, 2012

cimon said:
Marius,you have your facts totally wrong!

What you call First Boer war was in 1880-1881 not 1877 and it was not the first one;The First Boer War occurred in 1848 with the battle of Boomplaats.
Its consequences were very serious because it forced certain Boer groups
to cross the river Vaal and institute two democracies,those of Transvaal and
Orange Free State;The real point being that some Boers,after the defeat of the Zulus had come to agreements with the Zulus about the lawful purchase of land before the British annexed Zululand in 1848,and,in an official capacity I had to handle cases and claims before the High Court of Bulawayo,Rhodesia so I know the case first hand and its fiscal as well as its political importance
since Her Majesty's Government stood liable for unjustifiable delay of the Zululand's annexation after the timely proclamation of that matter by the Governor and the relevant Order in Council.
Pertinent to the point in question being that the access to the sea was in Boer hands due to purchases in the area.

I might have got my dates wrong, but you said the Boer War was in 1850...

And now you say the First Boer War was in 1848. I am very confused by your dates here dude.

Julius Vogel · Nov 15, 2012

He seems to be counting earlier wars or battles in the naming of "Boer Wars". Whereas at least in the English speaking places I've lived, we refer to two, the first being 1880-81, the second being 1899-1902. Any other battles or wars use different naming rules.

Marius · Nov 15, 2012

Julius Vogel said:
He seems to be counting earlier wars or battles in the naming of "Boer Wars". Whereas at least in the English speaking places I've lived, we refer to two, the first being 1880-81, the second being 1899-1902. Any other battles or wars use different naming rules.

That's what I thought, was trying to get some clarification from him.

By that reckoning let's start calling the conflict of 1939-1945 World War V.

wolf_brother · Nov 15, 2012

Tbf guys until the IOTL First Boer War the various wars between the Boers and the British-backed Zulu and other natives was known as the Boer Wars in South Africa.

Marius · Nov 15, 2012

wolf_brother said:
Tbf guys until the IOTL First Boer War the various wars between the Boers and the British-backed Zulu and other natives was known as the Boer Wars in South Africa.

Were the Zulu backed by the British?

But that's silly.

Until WWII started the First World War was called the Great War. We don't call it that anymore, do we?

Julius Vogel · Nov 15, 2012

cimon said:
Marius,you have your facts totally wrong!

What you call First Boer war was in 1880-1881 not 1877 and it was not the first one;The First Boer War occurred in 1848 with the battle of Boomplaats.
Its consequences were very serious because it forced certain Boer groups
to cross the river Vaal and institute two democracies,those of Transvaal and
Orange Free State;The real point being that some Boers,after the defeat of the Zulus had come to agreements with the Zulus about the lawful purchase of land before the British annexed Zululand in 1848,and,in an official capacity I had to handle cases and claims before the High Court of Bulawayo,Rhodesia so I know the case first hand and its fiscal as well as its political importance
since Her Majesty's Government stood liable for unjustifiable delay of the Zululand's annexation after the timely proclamation of that matter by the Governor and the relevant Order in Council.
Pertinent to the point in question being that the access to the sea was in Boer hands due to purchases in the area.

If you do not mind me asking, what were you working on when in Rhodesia?

MadMc · Nov 15, 2012

Marius said:
Were the Zulu backed by the British?

But that's silly.

Until WWII started the First World War was called the Great War. We don't call it that anymore, do we?

Yes, some of us still do

Burton K Wheeler · Nov 15, 2012

Marius said:
Was just about to say that, thanks Iori.

When I said Swaziland, I was referring to the generic area of the Swazi people, not necessarily the modern nation-state.

Southern Africa is quite "bay poor" too, so it is quite difficult to find suitable places where ships can dock safely.

Wasn't Durban harbor initially pretty poor and requiring extensive dredging and so on?

Marius · Nov 16, 2012

Burton K Wheeler said:
Wasn't Durban harbor initially pretty poor and requiring extensive dredging and so on?

Yes, I believe so.

Durban itself is pretty much at capacity now, lots of cargo goes through Richards Bay now, which is further north on the eastern seaboard.