WesWorld

If it fits my posted history with Nordmark and others feel free to re-write history as you like. Just make sure it has no effect on our current status quo.

The Dutch colonial aspect rewrite was mainly what changed South Africa from Chile's boogyman to Iberia (that and good relations with Atlantis and the United States). Taking the 1880s African invader out of the picture changed things a bit as it makes the African territories old colonial lands that were freed rather than still under "oppressive" imperialist as a colony. Uruguay seems to be more a partner with South Africa, though it has become the lesser partner since the discovery of diamonds in Africa. The theorized assistance of the Dutch from Uruguay against British forces in Africa during the Napoleonic Wars seems like a final step to independance and union.

A logical extention would be to have Madegascar join the Dutch/Afrikaners in an Alliance of mutual defense against the French and British during the colonial era wars and then again when the South Africans went independent. Trust would join the two and thus give a reason for the South Africans to use African names on their warships.

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
The Dutch colonial aspect rewrite was mainly what changed South Africa from Chile's boogyman to Iberia (that and good relations with Atlantis and the United States). Taking the 1880s African invader out of the picture changed things a bit as it makes the African territories old colonial lands that were freed rather than still under "oppressive" imperialist as a colony. Uruguay seems to be more a partner with South Africa, though it has become the lesser partner since the discovery of diamonds in Africa. The theorized assistance of the Dutch from Uruguay against British forces in Africa during the Napoleonic Wars seems like a final step to independance and union.

A logical extention would be to have Madegascar join the Dutch/Afrikaners in an Alliance of mutual defense against the French and British during the colonial era wars and then again when the South Africans went independent. Trust would join the two and thus give a reason for the South Africans to use African names on their warships.

One problem is the ruler during most of the earlier part of the 19th Century in Madagascar was a xenophobic Queen that banned Christianity and was pretty much anti-westerner, not the best partner for the Dutch IMO.

Also Madagascar wasn't an unified Kingdom until the end of the 18th century.

Dutch help is okay but keep in mind written WesWorld history since we started EoY1919. Re-read the stuff about South Georgia and other posts referring to SAE-Nordmark relationship. Both Royal Families are closely tied to each other and this relationship was born from the Nprdmarks help when the SAE was founded....

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
One problem is the ruler during most of the earlier part of the 19th Century in Madagascar was a xenophobic Queen that banned Christianity and was pretty much anti-westerner, not the best partner for the Dutch IMO.

Also Madagascar wasn't an unified Kingdom until the end of the 18th century.

Probably that Queen suffered an early flu in WW....

Probably it was Nordmark that helped make sure the two Dutch colonies could reach each other. (Would it be a full Nordmark, or just one of either Norway or Sweden at that time? About 1800)

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
One problem is the ruler during most of the earlier part of the 19th Century in Madagascar was a xenophobic Queen that banned Christianity and was pretty much anti-westerner, not the best partner for the Dutch IMO.

Also Madagascar wasn't an unified Kingdom until the end of the 18th century.

Probably that Queen suffered an early flu in WW....

But how a strict Protestant Ruling Class will amalgam a Muslim ruling class into their society? By the early part of the 19th century IMO it will be too late to try to change the religion of a population group that IIRC was even larger than the population of South Africa at the time.

The Alliance may have started earlier, say in the 17th century. Two hundred years might be enough to at least soften the blow.

Reading Wikipedia, my impression is that the population of Madagascar was a mix of Christians and "traditional" religions, with only a small Muslim community.

This Queen Ranavalona the Cruel (came to power in 1828 by murdering her dead husband's heir and family) is probably an excellent opportunity to bring Madagascar into the SAE. Apparently, she followed the sorcerous religions - wasn't a Muslim - and did not like the Christians at all. I can easily imagine the persecuted Christian population, and SAE business interests, appealing to the Christian SAE government for help. A few graphic incidents, reported in the press, could then incite South African military intervention onto the island, with its subsequent annexation.

Keeping the island afterward shouldn't be too hard. The French invaded historically, and didn't have any significant resistence until after WW2. A much earlier SAE action should allow more time for integration of the population.

(Just to clarify - if anybody is assuming Madagascar to be Muslim because of the Indian raid I mentioned, don't. I had envisioned the operation to be a matter of the Indians sailing over, shooting the crap out of the pirates there, and then going home a few weeks or months later. No take-and-hold.)

There was a large Muslim community due to the slavery and commerce in the coastal areas but I was wrong in my assumption of the ruling class converting to Islam.

Your idea seems to be very good but my concern is if the SAE have the manpower to do this. The populations were about the same contrary to France's 4:1 advantage. But with the Kingdom of Madagascar being unified for less of a hundred years by the 1830's some factions must exists that will embrace a change of rulers.

The local Christians ought to be a friendly faction that the Africans can use to take over and then administer the place. The Africans should also have some wealth with which to bribe other factions, and the firepower necessary to destroy or intimidate those who "can't be reasoned with".

Historically, these are techniques used by small populations (the British in India, the Conquistadors in the Americas) to take over larger populations successfully.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
The local Christians ought to be a friendly faction that the Africans can use to take over and then administer the place. The Africans should also have some wealth with which to bribe other factions, and the firepower necessary to destroy or intimidate those who "can't be reasoned with".

Historically, these are techniques used by small populations (the British in India, the Conquistadors in the Americas) to take over larger populations successfully.

But the British depended of a lot of local rulers keeping certain degree of autonomy while the Conquistadors complete pacification of their conquest was helped by the diseases that they brought with them.

But I could live with something similar to what you have explained in the first paragraph as the way the conquest of Madagascar occurred but if you use the British "conquest" of India as an example you could see some minor rulers still on the island, akin to nobility or the German Duchies with their own military units like in the German WW1 Army or in the British Indian Army

The time period I was proffering - the late 1600s (1690), would be in response to the Piratical activity.

At that time the Dutch "colonies" were run by the Dutch East and West India Companies, which generally supplanted the ruling class and/or allied with a faction, but left the rest of the structure intact- to form a stable government. Religeon was apparently not terribly relevant- as the Hindi/Muslim/Buhddist/Christian DEI indicates.

This would also be considerably before the 1828 Queen referenced ever came to power.

In the 4th Anglo-Dutch war, and the later Napoleanic wars, the Dutch / Batavian republic lost considerable territories, many of which were restored when the Kingdom of the Netherlands was founded at the Treaty of Vienna. This would, however, make the logical time for them to loose the territory. Logically the independant South Afrikans would claim the adjacent lands.

Perhaps then Queen Ranavalona the Cruel was a rebel queen taking advantage of the post-Napoleanic Dutch weakness (due the the 1830 rebellion of Belgium and subsequent war), which led to the South Afrikans actively pacifying the territory.

This gives a unified, Dutch-affected Madagascar as of 1690, a logical loss of that territory in the 1780-1815 timeframe, and a weak re-establishment around 1815, followed by a revolt of 1828-1831, when the South Afrikans cemented their claim and eliminated opposition.

Hows that sound?

Just make sure you don´t plant a reason for Dutch-SAE hatress or something. In WesWorld both powers come along well but with SAE taking important parts of Dutch possessions this may be unrealistic.

Don´t forget WesWorkd facts when working with historical incidents and persons.

I don't think the scenario would set up future problems. Overall, I'm just interested in making sure my background history lays the ground work for whatever you want- so it's ultimately your call Hoo.

Prior to 1800, those lands would have been administered under the auspices of the Dutch East India Company.

Off past readings- In the 1790s (?) there was a revolution in the United Provinces and the Batavian Republic came to be, and aligned with France and Napoleon, eventually being annexed. The Dutch East India Company failed in 1800.

The Netherlands was reborn in 1815 as the United Kingdom of the Netherlands and many of her possessions restored (from British occupation) largely via Russian insistence to diminish and offset France.

The Netherlands then took over the former assets of the DEI Co. and started consolidating control. This led to several brutal wars in the Indies throughout the 1800s.

So as long as SAE separated prior to ~1815 it would be an issue with the DEI Co or in 1796-1815 while the independent Netherlands didn't exist. Certainly the 1830 Belgian revolt (with French intervention) would have eliminated issues.

Lastly, a little tension at the time of separation- or the Dutch being busy/occupied also gives both reason for the separation, reason Nordmark's aid might be sought/embraced, heck, maybe that's when first contact with India occurred.

IMO Kirk's timeline for Madagascar fit nicely into the history laid out so far. That takes care of one problem, loyalty of the Malagasy members of the Imperial forces.

That bring another question. I have read somewhere in WW history of South Africa that the Royal House moved the capital to Pretoria. The problem is that IOTL Pretoria wasn't founded until around the second half of the 19th.(1860's IIRC) I guess the need to change the standing orders of the Companies exists to make possible an earlier founding of Pretoria. Of course that will change the history of how the relation between the native tribes and the Dutch colonists was develop. An earlier war with the Xhosa? An alliance with the Zulu? The Zulu were defeated by the British after a very hard fight using breechloading rifles. How Dutch with black powder musket could have stood the impis?

I would say the Alliance with one of the major tribes might best suit the scenario.

Given that the Dutch trading post on Sri Lanka was allied to an inland indigenous kingdom, (prior to the ruthless conquest by a certain country not to be named) and the habit in the Indies of allying with locals to tip the balance in their mutual favor, it would be reasonable.

However, it's up to Hooman beyond this point

The only thing to remember from a Dutch history POV is that I stuck with much of the historic timeline for the Kongo. The Kongo holding is not some Dutch colony that never left, it is a relatively recent aquisition of the Queen's. Historically unclaimed until 1885, Kongo was personally held by Leopold I of Belgium from 1885-1905, before international outcry (odd what killing 1/3-1/2 the population does for opinions) forced him to give it up, which is when Wesworld diverges and Queen Wilhelmina takes it (instead of Belgium).

How that effects the SAE Cameroon area, I do not know

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

How that effects the SAE Cameroon area, I do not know

IIRC they were acquired after the Great War so the story in the region seems to be about the same as in IOTL until the Great War.German colonies but this time administered by South Africa instead of being split between France and the British.

All fine with me - as long as no history has to be re-written or I suddenly have to deal with strong independence movements....

The reason of all this is find a logical reason of what is being mentioned so far as part of South African history. Having the Dutch being more aggressive in their push inland instead of just stopping their advance to the interior fit nicely and getting the Zulus to do their bidding (IOTL they didn't reach the status of tribal power until Shaka in the late 18th century) will also fit the historical actions of the Dutch in their colonial activities.