alternatehistory.com

Not many here seem to know much about Sub-Saharan Africa. But there's a couple out there, so let me run this by you:

From what I gathered on wiki, Shaka Zulu can be pretty directly held reponsible for the rise of the Zulu kingdom which first gave the Boer's, and then the British a run for their money. However, before this, they spend a good chunk of time whomping on their native neighbors: resulting in what I learned was called the difaqane, or a period of massive upheaval and social chaos.
From what I gather, it was largely due to this that the Trekboers found (what they thought was) perfect, vast, uncivilized, and empty land. From there, they moved right in, and we have the foundations of future conflicts resulting from white settlers/farmers moving into Native claimed territory.

However, let's get rid of Shaka. Easy enough. With out him, I think it's fair to say that the Zulu military powerhouse never gets off the ground. While that has butterflies of it's own, in the short term, we've gotten rid of the difaqane episode, resulting in that temptingly empty land the Boers moved into. Give the Boers much earlier, much stiffer resistance in the form of all those tribes NOT displaced by Zulu activity, and they'd not be able to run and range nearly so far.
Possibly giving us a much more concentrated white population in the southern half of the country? Maybe enough of a large white population, in a more confined area, that we're able to see less of an OTL racially troubled South Africa, and more of mini-Australia/white majority in a far more compact, shrunken South Africa?
At the very least, without the Boers stumbling into the middle of the Zulu initiated socio-economic mess, we should be able to see a more geographically divided, and thence, more stable future for the region?

Thoughts?
Top