AHC: Boers Win the Second Boer War

[EnglishCanuck]

You're challenge, should you chose to accept, is to create a POD where the Boers win the Second Boer War. The gist is that they maintain their political independence, but anything beyond that is fair game too, but bear minimum they must remain independent states (or create one Boer republic) and you can have a POD as far back as 1880 to work with.

Go!

 

[joho6411]

You're challenge, should you chose to accept, is to create a POD where the Boers win the Second Boer War. The gist is that they maintain their political independence, but anything beyond that is fair game too, but bear minimum they must remain independent states (or create one Boer republic) and you can have a POD as far back as 1880 to work with.

Go!

1) In the very beginning of the war in October, 1899, have the Transvaalers take and hold the railroad bridge over the Modder River. This cuts off Kimberly, Mafeking, etc. No need to siege either...let them wither and die. Set up strong defenses on the north side of the Modder River. Let the British Army do what it is (was) best at... getting its infantry killed due to foolish and incompetent commanders.

2) In the Natal, hold the lines along the Tugela River and let the British Army CO's do what they do best (again [see # 1 above]).

3) Big, tricky & sneaky...have the Orange Free State remain neutral as long as possible. The terrain of the O.F.S. is notoriously flat and conducive for cavalry & infantry operations. By remaining neutral for several months or (preferably) more, it forces the British to either continuing head/face first into Boer guns and rifles in the rugged terrain of Natal. In the West, the Khaki-coats have to go into the desert to try to circumvent the Boers and try to drive north through very inhospitable terrain on their way to the Z.A.R. (Transvaal). This would cause many more casualties and perhaps lead not to a military victory for the Burghers but a political victory since the British will hopefully grow tired & disillusioned leading to a collapse of one gov't after another. May lead to a negotiated peace on Afrikaner terms.

4) If the British unilaterally declared war on the neutral Orange Free State, for whatever reason they can come up with, it makes Britain more of the overt aggressor in the public/international eye...leads to more dissatisfaction & social discord within Britain, and more importantly, possible German/Franco intervention due to Great Britain declaring war on "neutral" Orange Free State.

My 2 cents, Joho .

 

[Nik]

Snag is the Brits were going 'industrial'. Radio, steam road-trains, machine guns etc. The THIRD Boer War would have been very, very nasty...

 

[mlp]

After diamonds are discovered there's no way the Brits are stopping even after the second boer war. Either the Boers sign a mining deal that leaves the Brits happy or they face another war.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Snag is the Brits were going 'industrial'. Radio, steam road-trains, machine guns etc. The THIRD Boer War would have been very, very nasty...

After diamonds are discovered there's no way the Brits are stopping even after the second boer war. Either the Boers sign a mining deal that leaves the Brits happy or they face another war.

Well I said they only had to win the second one, nothing about the third

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The most plausible way would be to have some other, bigger, more important crisis blow up somewhere else, leading the British to conclude peace with the Boers so they can focus their attention elsewhere.

 

[Saphroneth]

The reason this is difficult is that, frankly, the Boers got pasted because the British were able to put together such a large force on short notice. The Boer declaration of war was in October 1899 and by March 1900 there were - counting both regulars and reserve - 35 cavalry regiments, seventy batteries and 116 infantry battalions in or en route to South Africa (that is, under orders, and most took a couple of weeks to get on ships if that). All stereotypes aside this is a force the Boers cannot possibly fight in the open field, it outnumbers them by a very considerable margin.

I think the problem is simply that the Boers dramatically overestimated their own ability to bring the war to a conclusion. As per usual for a lot of military groups who won the previous war they were focused on repeating it, and staked all their hopes on a Majuba mk.II (much like the Japanese in 1941-2 aimed for a turbo Tsushima, the Germans in 1941 aimed for a collapse of the Russian government...)

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I think the problem is simply that the Boers dramatically overestimated their own ability to bring the war to a conclusion. As per usual for a lot of military groups who won the previous war they were focused on repeating it, and staked all their hopes on a Majuba mk.II (much like the Japanese in 1941-2 aimed for a turbo Tsushima, the Germans in 1941 aimed for a collapse of the Russian government...)

The Boers had basically bogged down into an unwinnable situation after six months historically, despite initial successes they could not capitalize on their gains, and were tied down in their sieges of Ladysmith, Kimberly, and Mafeking, and beyond that they were depending on the British rolling over like they had in 1881. It was a very bad strategy.

Tactically they were winning come January 1900, but strategically they had already lost barring an amazingly unlikely victory over the British.

The premise is difficult, but a different Boer strategy might allow them to eke out their independence slightly longer.

 

[GauchoBadger]

The reason this is difficult is that, frankly, the Boers got pasted because the British were able to put together such a large force on short notice. The Boer declaration of war was in October 1899 and by March 1900 there were - counting both regulars and reserve - 35 cavalry regiments, seventy batteries and 116 infantry battalions in or en route to South Africa (that is, under orders, and most took a couple of weeks to get on ships if that). All stereotypes aside this is a force the Boers cannot possibly fight in the open field, it outnumbers them by a very considerable margin.

I think the problem is simply that the Boers dramatically overestimated their own ability to bring the war to a conclusion. As per usual for a lot of military groups who won the previous war they were focused on repeating it, and staked all their hopes on a Majuba mk.II (much like the Japanese in 1941-2 aimed for a turbo Tsushima, the Germans in 1941 aimed for a collapse of the Russian government...)

I assume that a better situation for the boers would be delaying the SBW until WWI (i made a thread on it a few days back). Once the british have to also fight the germans in Namibia, the boers have a better chance.
Which leader has to die for this scenario to take place: Paul Kruger, Joseph Chamberlain, or both? I'd assume that the boer states would seek a compromise and grant (very) limited rights to the uitlanders.

 

[Saphroneth]

Just to put those troop counts in metric, 116 battalions is 29 brigades as used in he Boer War (four battalion brigades). It looks like they were using two brigade divisions, so this is nearly fifteen divisions though a fair chunk was non regulars.

 

[Saphroneth]

Okay, so something that occurs to me is that the British Army during and after the Boer War was expanding out - indeed, IIRC there was a planned doubling in the 1904-5 period which got cancelled.

Makes one wonder what it would have been like in WW1 if the Boer War events had taken place a few years later and/or had resulted in a British defeat - maybe they would have gone through with the doubling? Imagine the Brits having much greater counts of Regulars during the July Crisis - after all, double the size of the army and you substantially more than double deployable manpower as a lot of the garrison commitments are static.