Speaking of Shaka Zulu, one big question regarding South Africa is whether something like the
Mfecane will occur ITTL. The destruction and chaos caused by the inter-Bantu wars of the early-mid 19th Century greatly increased the ease with which white settlers could conquer the eastern part of South Africa, and without it the Bantu nations could put up much stiffer resistance to the expansion of the colony.
The mfecane is caused by rapid population due to the introduction of corn, which lead to huge increases in population, and when less rainfall occured it caused a famine, increasing the competition of resources, causing major groups (the Zulus for example) to strike big.
I think the mfecane would be caused no matter what, and exacerbated by European settlers having better technology and numbers as they sense the opportunity to kick the natives out. 'the fisherman profits when the clam and snipe fight' is very true, and as eastern South Africa is depopulated I could see the settlers move in and the central gov wiping out any centralised state that remained.
The fact that we had states like the Iroquois confederacy be wiped out by the Americans despite the fact they were on paper on par with the Americans makes me think it was more about whether the governments fought or not. In this instance I could see the British endorsing the colonists and giving them the tools to wipe the bantu states out for ostrich and antelope pelts for example.
Great chapter. Looks fascinating and I’m looking forward to big English South Africa. Without them too strong in NA the Kalmar can colonize it yay.
I think we'd either see a Kalmar north/Dutch New Amsterdam/English South or the French taking the south instead (I could see the French using the resources from Brazil to do so if they hold Louisiana).
I do feel that the British colonising south Africa and America at the same time would have interesting consequences. I could see the Brits losing several wars in America (the Portuguese were the other competitors in South Africa ala Angola and Mozambique) and having to take time to regain their footing while the African colony does better in many aspects.
It’s not at all impossible that instead of banning it, they encourage it while continuing to pour more white settlers in from England. Blanquieamento was a thing in Brazil after all.
Tbf I don't think it'll be something that would be desirable especially as more and more British settlers and the first few generations of British are born. The early cross cultural marriages were partially due to having few choices in terms of marriage, and as more ppl are born/move there the less need there is for it.
Brazil had it's policy partially bc they had a lot of slaves that were converting to Christianity. In British Africa slaves native to the region are just going to run off bc they know the land, so the slaves would have to be shipped there, and due to English policy convicts were a lot cheaper, not to mention the fact that it is a lot cheaper to buy and use convicts unless the turnover rate was high like sugarcane farming. Wheat farming in early British Africa wouldn't require slavery so there was no reason for attempts at assimilation.
PS would we see the Portuguese attempt to settle SEA? I think their trading posts there could grow into something much bigger than otl and become the bedrock in which Portuguese ppl spread.