If anything the biggest change is perception. For the British this would’ve been absolutely humiliating especially to the other great powers. It would likely cost a lot of politicians their jobs, and military personnel. To the other great powers the British were beaten by native savages with spears and cow hide shields. I think Britain would try to take the colony back just to save face, or they would attempt to conquer or expand somewhere else to compensate.
Yea the loss of the Italian Ethiopian war pretty much destroyed the administration because of the humiliation. The prime minister of italy had to resign im pretty sure something similar would happen to Britain at the time if they lost.
I made this for fun. Zulu Land National Anthem (Verse 1) Oh, Zululand, land of noble birth, Where courage and strength find their worth, Our warriors brave, our spirits soar high, With pride in our hearts, we reach for the sky. (Chorus) Zululand, united and bold, Forever steadfast, never to fold, Through trials and triumphs, we proudly stand, A nation united, a proud Zulu land. (Verse 2) From the battlefields of yesteryears, Resonates the echo of valiant cheers, Our history etched in tales of might, In our veins, courage runs day and night. (Chorus) Zululand, united and bold, Forever steadfast, never to fold, Through trials and triumphs, we proudly stand, A nation united, a proud Zulu land. (Bridge) Our strength resides, Our culture, we harmonize, Determined, we forge a path anew, With iNkosi leading, guiding us through. (Verse 3) Majestic mountains, rivers that flow, From the green valleys to the plains we know, This land, our home, a treasure untold, Our heritage, a flame that never grows cold. (Chorus) Zululand, united and bold, Forever steadfast, never to fold, Through trials and triumphs, we proudly stand, A nation united, a proud Zulu land. (Outro) Oh, Zululand, land of our birth, Our love for you fills every hearth, With hearts ablaze, we proudly proclaim, Zululand forever, may your legacy remain.
What people don't realise about shaka zulu is that he killed 2 million people in his conquests. He was literally the biggest killer of Africans aside from Leopold II
Yes your mom and Churchill kill more satanic way. Shaka zulu is patriotic tribal fighter. Why are you crying lgbt white guy. Look your country first 😂😂😂😂
I think if Shaka had not been killed and had faced the British things might have been different. For all his flaws he was a brilliant tactician. The Boers actually had a good relationship with him. It’s his successors who caused the problems, leading up to the battle of Blood River
I disagree, most of Shakas success came from the inexperience of his opponents. He was really the first of region to develop a tactical view of war. It’s why his kingdom didn’t expand as much as others because his opponents learned how the Zulu waged war, and adopted it for themselves.
4 scenarios: 1. What if China became Muslim and Japan Christian? 2. What if Spain kept part of the Empire in the XIX Century and expand into Africa? 3. What if Al-Andalus survived? 4. What if Harald Hardrada became king of England?
@@turg9958simple, it wouldent have have mattered. Steiner didn't have the strength do defeat the red army an even if he would have won some battles, Nazi Germany didn't had the manpower equipment or ammunition to fight much longer.
As a Boer, gotta say, love this timeline. No Anglo-Boere Wars, no Concentration Camps, and Solid Cooperation with the Zulu to keep British and other colonial powers out of South Africa? What a wonderful timeline.
In reality, they’d have come back and taken vengeance hardcore tbh. Would’ve been better if Portugal kept it before the Dutch instead. Otherwise the boar’s best bet would have been to cooperate with the British instead of fighting them in the first place.
@@youthoughtaboutit6946 The British Lost the 1 Boer war and almost lost the 2nd if it wasn't for concentration camps, and that was when rhe British had 450,000 troops to combat the 45,000 Boer Kommandos. In reality a Boer-Zulu alliance to kick out the British stood a really good chance to actually kick them out
@gustavopperman8837 nah putside of European intervention there was no kicking the British out of South Africa. The boers specialty was guerilla warfare and the zulu weren't advanced enough. It would have been a massacre if they went on the offensive
@@thenomad47 unlikely, the Zulu and boar alliance wouldn’t have lasted considering there was already a rather long history of bad blood between them. There was no having the boars as they were/had been.
Was beginning to think youd never do this one, glad to see it! Another suggestion What if the Egyptians lost the Battle of Megiddo? What is Somalia won the Ogaden War?
What is very interesting about many of your videos is that they often revolve around themes that are actively discussed amongst my Boer people. Today more than ever we want independence and most of us predict some kind of conflict in the near future. Out of interest, at the very top levels of Boer and Zulu leadership an alliance is forming. It is very complex and not everybody agrees, but basically a Boer homeland alongside a Zulu homeland within a military and political alliance to secure mutual independence and balkanize the ZAR from top to bottom. Freeing one tribe after the other. We cannot predict everything in the future but as sure as the sun rises Boer kommandoes will again be seen on the veld.
No such thing is going to happen mate. You and your buddies can wear your short shorts and discuss all these grand plans over a beer and a braai, but the truth is no one cares all that much, and those who do are just as lost and sad as you, living vicariously though youtube alternate scenarios.
The future is Africa is further union. The continent is tired of those who preach further separation and ethnocentric narratives, those have led to failure and suffering at every point in African history.
@@zeinnanla5422 There are more countries today in Africa (and the world) than there ever was. This definite and visible trend is stronger now than ever. You said that Africans are tired of calls for further separation, that is simply inaccurate and false. You also frame it in a negative way, when separation should actually be read as autonomy. From the top of Africa, right to the Cape there are calls from the ground up for further autonomy and independence. African tribes are very diverse and not some monolith as many uninformed people seem to think (black people are not all the same). The only people calling for political unification across Africa are leftist-globalists who have zero support on the ground and do not care about the fact that there are hundreds of unique tribes with unique languages who wish to keep their unique cultures alive and thus want independence. You are making some vague uninformed emotionally-based statements with no actual understanding of the issue.
Here's a thought: the Zulus might find an unexpected ally in the US, which obviously had a history with Great Britain. The timeline in which the Zulus beat the British Empire might be a timeline where the US and British Empire have so-so or even bad relations and the Americans would be happy to sell guns, cannons and whatnot to the Zulus- and more importantly to provide military advisors to train Zulu soldiers how to use them.
What if the American Revolutionary War ended in a stalemate? Half of the colonies gaining independence and half remaining British? I've never seen a single video about if the war ended in a draw only videos about an alternative British victory but it's not far fetched considering The War of 1812 ended in a draw so did The Irish War of Independence where the country was divided.
Which half would the British kept? The industrious north, closer to the loyalists who fled to Canada??? Or the South, who were the economic powerhouse and Britains primary interest in the colonies???
@@DavyCDiamondback There were a few times where the war could have ended in a stalemate but the closest point was late 1777/early 1778 during this time the French had not joined the war, the British had been defeated at Saratoga but the Americans were defeated at Philadelphia soon after, during Washington's harsh Valley Forge encampment both sides could have been open to negotiations, Massachusetts would have gained independence as the British were unable to hold on too it, Washington's home of Virginia would have also gained independence, New York and Philadelphia would have remained British, the rest of the colonies would have been up for negotiations, even though the South was more loyalist the Americans would have threatened to continue the war if they didn't get atleast a piece of the south, in the end negotiations would have probably favoured the Yankees with possibly 9 colonies gaining independence and only 4 colonies remaining British...at some point in the 1800s the 9 US colonies would have purchased the remaining colonies that they couldn't win during the war, if the British refused to sell I imagine the Americans would have won them back in another war as it was their backyard.
10:06 If Portugal's able to maintain those colonies, then perhaps they wouldn't have fallen victim to the plague of Republicanism in 1910, like they did in our timeline. *ALSO, VIDEO SUGGESTION:* During The Apartheid era, why didn't the bantustans simply declare independence from South Africa? And what if they did?
@@lionandwolfboy8714 but i feel like there’s a lot that would play in their favour. The country would be situated in the south which would grant them acces to the atlantic ocean and gulf of Mexico which would facilitate trade. It would also mean that they would have acces to modern technology due to all the trade. African americans are also very westernised and thus would inherit a lot of the western ideals and philosophy unlike the newly freed haitians of which most were born in africa and not on the island itself so culturaly they were still very african and thus the mindset would be different.
@@kevinsuggs1 liberia was actually quite developed until the native liberians took over after they assassinated the americo-liberian president and ended their hegemony on the country. Liberia would have never succeeded due to the fact that the african americans (americo liberians) were vastly outnumbered by the natives as they only constituted 5% of population. This wouldn’t be the case in this scenario because the african americans would be the dominant ethnic group in their country.
But something about gaining high losses with a well-armed African foe (I'm assuming the French are heavily supporting them after embarrassing the British the first time) still wouldn't be easy to swallow for the British and the whole colonial thing would be a bit less popular. And if they won, then they'd fight the Anglo-Boer war after to consolidate South Africa but then like the last one which already was an embarrassing event they'd lose the first encounter due to the surprising guerilla tactics. Then they'd start the second Anglo-Boer war which would see them win but like in our timeline concentration camps could be used which was negatively perceived by the Brits once news reached home like in our timeline. So, an industrialized Zulu kingdom would just make South Africa one of Britain's toughest African colony to take over and could easily ruin their prestige on the world stage. Just something about losing on the first attack of the Anglo-Zulu war Anglo-Boer war as well as having high losses against the Zulus would ruin the British's image among europeans
What I find interesting is the borders of the "native" nations of Africa. Like Lesotho, Zululand, etc., could you imagine a large part of Africa, basically everything south of Morocco and Egypt/Sudan/Ethiopia would just be a bunch of tiny nations, most of which would be landlocked? How more often would wars break out on the continent? I'm of course assuming this is basically what would happen if the Europeans stayed largely out of the land of Africa. Maybe France still has Algeria, Spain has Morocco, etc., but there'd be nothing more than trading post type towns like what Portugal largely did. How much more technologically backwards would they still be today? Would they be? Would the USSR have invested time and effort into the continent like they did in our timeline? Would there be a Soviet backed pan-African SSR? Interesting thoughts.
No, because you don't need colonialism to become more technologically advanced. That can be done through trade. These questions are making assumptions that don't quite play out in reality. Also, wars have broken out precisely because groups were forced together without regard to how they interacted with each other. Africa's current issues are because of those borders, not despite them.
@@jeremiahkivi4256 It's clear you have little knowledge of African demography because you included Ethiopia on your list. It's also clear that you have no knowledge of African history. Moreover, you didn't actually address any of my points. So if I'm naive, you're something even worse.
@@macintoshalexandcompany3903 lol no. You are the type of person that thinks the native Americans were gonna be some super advanced race if we just left them alone. They hadn't even known about the wheel. Backwards cultures breed backwards peoples. Africa would be far worse off without colonialism than without. Bunch of spear chucking tongue clickers.
@@crusader2112I think of close to Abraham and Sarah's age from the Bible So around 120 to 150 That's what modern scientist think humans will live to at the max with their current cities of some anti-aging techniques they're working on
What if the Zulu had adopted the cult of Makima, Revy, Cutie Honey, Marin Kitagawa, Trixie Tang, Judy Neutron, Marge Simpson, Wendy Corduroy, Lois Griffin, Sailor Moon and Maddie Fenton instead of Abrahamic shit?
They would have needed an ally to give them modern fire arms and possibly artillery similar to what the Russians did for the Ethiopians in the first Italian Ethiopian war.
This would be big if I ask this What if all of Europe retain paganism and not becoming christian? What if Japan became full on buddhist? What if Sokoto empire remain independent? What if ancient Egypt remain indepent and retain their tradition for more than thousand years? What if Majapahit become a major power in Asia? What if Maratha defeated the British and remain independent? What if the Byzantines(Eastern Romans) remain independent? What if the Mamluks survive Ottoman invasion? What if the Mauryans return to power and conquer all of India?
Wait, if we pester you enough, you'll give us shout outs? ... What if Austria-Hungary was made out of chocolate? 😉 Real comment: Great video, Z! South Africa would certainly be a much cooler place that's for sure. I am split over if they will stay united in our timeline, and if it's better they split.
If the Boer republics were to exit from an agrarian society and develop we may see a more liberal Gauteng region with calls from the Africans in the area for an end to whatever racist laws they'd have at that time and maybe see a unification effort funded by a Pan-African organization that would see the new South Africa be a powerhouse with stronger industries in Natal and similar ones in our timeline within Gauteng and Cape town. As well as Maputo being a good major city with a port. It would definitely cement South Africa as a powerful nation and in electricity we'd see the north struggling a little to give its people electricity while the South would be doing alright in that regard if no new power generating capabilities were added. (Apartheid needed less electricity less Africans lived in modern houses and under sanctions manufacturing was less profitable [less economic growth] so they only produced a bit more electricity than what was needed) The north would be extremely rich either way because of how profitable Gauteng is as well as Kimberley. The South would still be quite powerful as they would have had an early development and have most of the nation's port cities (Assuming Cape Town is under Zulu influence)
It still can happen! I mean the breakup of the Republic of SA into a Cape Republic consisting of the WC, the NC and probably parts of the EC on one side and a then mostly Zulu controlled KZN, GP and the rest. With an economically and politically further degrading SA, this independent Cape Republic becomes more and more and option, as it is already on the political landscape and has garnered many support over the last decade. One decisive factor certainly will be the general election next year; in case the ANC wins again, the WC population will be veeeeery unhappy to pay any further taxes to a most corrupt ANC government in Pretoria.
It would have big implications. Africans everywhere would see it as a great victory against white colonialism. It might even have inspired colonized people to rise up and fight.
I don't think the Zulus had written language or the wheel... They were also slavers, committed genocide against their neighbors, and were so Tyrannical they make North Korea seem like a liberal democracy. (Seriously look into what Shaka Zulu did to his own people, the dudes insane) i have my doubts SA would have done much without the Anglos.
Some very inaccurate ai art in the into section here... Also pretty much inconceivable that the Zulu would ever have 'defeated' the British as described. More likely scenario is if they had inflicted a few more costly if relatively small scale, defeats and convinced the British that it wasn't worth conquering them.
