Perhaps there can be both? Zoutpansberg is useful for vanilla and a Voortrekker State can be better fleshed out when the decentralized State dlc eventually comes out.
The Great Trek, the Mfecane, and Victoria's South Africa Problem
- Thread starter Lukevan16
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
"Decentralised states" seem to be more a system for tribal societies which the Boers weren't. When possible they founded Western style republics, there wasn't a societal/technological gap. What we have here is a transition period which I think is best solved with Zoutpansberg.
Last edited:
It’s hard to speak about decentralized states without having much information on them. I suppose it’ll be easier to come to a conclusion once we get a dev diary about them. I agree that if they are essentially tribal states it wouldn’t work well for the Boer states, even if they had no central government. I suppose if we wanted to go a tiny bit more ahistoric we could have the ZAR exist as game start in Klerksdorp and Potchefstroom but with no other territory and have Zoutpansberg up north. Given the lack of much of a presence of anyone in the free state at game start I wouldn’t be opposed to the OVS being in right at the start either. Obviously a lack of population would be a significant issue for all these boer states at game start as the great trek hasn’t happened yet, so at least they wouldn’t be too powerful.
From what I've seen, "unrecognised" is a euphemism for what in Victoria 2 is called "uncivilised" and "decentralised" is basically areas in Victoria 2 that were "uncolonised".
- 1
As far as I can tell, for most of the game's timeframe, the term Boer and Afrikaner were almost interchangeable. But that also has a massive caveat, in that the national identity of what is now the Afrikaners was very much in its infancy and the identity was not cohesive (as their identity over the 1700s and into the early 1800s was as being Burghers or Christians, not generally as you indicated Hollands). One source apparently indicates that urban white Afrikaans speakers by the mid 1800s called themselves Afrikaners while those in rural areas called themselves Boer, but this likely wasn't a difference in national identity but simply a different name for the same broader identity.
However, the reason I would prefer Boer is simply because Afrikaner doesn't appear to have initially had such a narrow meaning as it acquired later, with Coloureds, recent arrivals from across Europe, and a whole bunch of others having been recorded over the late 1700s and early 1800s using the term Afrikaner to describe themselves. At the same time, the period the game starts in was a time of massive change in Southern Africa with new identities emerging and previously vaguely defined identities became solidified into what we know today (this goes beyond just the Afrikaners).
Also, to say Boer was just an occupation ignores the dual meaning of the term, which it seems existed well before the Great Trek. You can be a Boer and a boer, or a Boer but not a boer, or a boer but not a Boer.
And yes, there almost certainly was cultural differences between Trekboers and those that stayed in the Cape. There were also cultural differences between Trekboers and the later Voortrekkers (early Trekboers were generally loyal to the British). Just not big enough differences to treat them with different labels in this game, or to say they weren't all Boers/Afrikaners.
Zoutpansberg might be the best we can cling to, but it was very insignificant in the big scheme of things. I can't see any other option though, as the first Voortrekkers didn't leave the Cape until late 1835 and early 1836. They then stuffed around in Natalia for a bit and after that nothing recognisable as a state appeared until the late 1840s.
I think Paradox will either have to create a series of events later to reflect the emergence of the Boer Republics, or we have to accept ahistoricity woth their inclusion at the game start.
Entirely depends on your definition of culture, if it's extremely broad to include class-related things then yeah, otherwise nope for the game.
Is Blood River what happens when your commander rolls all 9s plus an entrenchment bonus, and the enemy all 0s? Though if they modelled the technological disadvantage of the Zulu Kingdom harshly enough for that to work there's be little reason for the player not to invade them the moment they share a border. Though I do remember that the Voortrekkers tried to harass the Zulu with cavalry and came out the worse for it, so it seems their disadvantage was only so extreme when attacking fortified positions.
Last edited:
I mean it's a combo of the Zulus attacking over a river + an entrenched laager + the Voortrekkers having 2 small cannons + the cannons and everyone's rifles using buckshot so aim didn't have to be perfect + massed together Zulus
Last edited:
Essentially, combined with a lot of luck. I hear there was a similar battle with the southern Matabele up in the Transvaal around the same time, although information on those Matabele are pretty difficult to come by.
I really hope the devs would listen to these ideas though I haven't seen any changes to South Africa in the new steam screenshots.
- 1
Yes it’s a shame. I’ve been too busy with schoolwork to discuss the other parts of South Africa in more detail, but once the game actually comes out I’ll try and put together another thread. It’ll be easier to talk about things that need to be changed when we have a full picture of how SA is represented in the game. Perhaps, with a little practice, I’ll be able to put together a mod or something.
- 1
You ever play Victoria 2 mod HFM or HPM? They actually handled this very well and exactly how you described.Hello everybody,
The 19th century was an important period of nation building in South Africa. The mass migration of the largely Dutch speaking Afrikaners beginning mere months before the standard Victoria start-date of 1 January 1836 had major implications on the existing power structures of the region, and the tension and conflict that emerged between Anglo and Afrikaner in South Africa at this time would be a long-running theme in the region from 1836-1936 and beyond. In spite of the importance of this period in South African history, the Victoria games have failed to do it justice. With the game still being early in development, and after reading @lachek's very nice statement showing that the developers have made an effort to flesh out the colonial intricacies of Canada at game start, I hope that by informing the devs of the situation in South Africa during the early 19th century the region will find itself better represented at game launch.
Although information on Victoria 3 remains scant, screenshots of Africa seem to show that the situation in South Africa at game start has essentially been ported over from Victoria 2.
While hard to make out. This image clearly shows that at game start South Africa is divided between the British Cape Colony, the Boer republics of the Orange Free State and ZAR (Transvaal) and the Zulu kingdom in Natal. This would be the structure of the region by the 1850s, but in 1836 Afrikaners had just begun their famous migration out of Cape Colony, and the the areas north of the Orange and Vaal rivers were still dominated by various local tribal and ethnic groups. Furthermore, the notion that these Boer republics were "organized states" in any capacity is a farce. A historian described life in the Natalia Republic, a trekker state which briefly existed in the 1830s and 40s, as "utter anarchy. Decisions of one day were frequently reversed the next, and every one held himself free to disobey any law that he did not approve of. ... Public opinion of the hour in each section of the community was the only force in the land." Clearly something must be done about these anachronistic republics at game start.
For the native population this time also represented a period of change and unrest. The mfecane, or scattering, was a period of internal migration and conflict amongst the Bantu-speaking peoples of Southern Africa. Although its cause is still up for debate, it is clear that the violent rise of the Zulu Kingdom and the increasing demands and encroachments of European colonists in the Cape and Portuguese Mozambique contributed to this era of confusion. This period is totally absent from Victoria, which presents the Afrikaner presence in 1836 in the Transvaal as an established fact rather than an emerging situation.
To leave South Africa as it is would be unsatisfactory, as it fails to do justice to either the histories of the Afrikaner people as well as the native inhabitants of the area with whom they came into conflict. Instead I make the following suggestions to improve the region:
1. The South African Republic (Transvaal) does not exist at game start, and is instead broken up into a few of the most important native groups which inhabited the area (Pedis, Matabele, Batlou, Tswanas etc.)
2. In the Free State (which Victoria has unfortunately christened 'Oranje') a disorganized state called 'Voortrekkers' exists with claims on the Transvaal and the area of the Natalia Republic. While disorganized like its native neighbours, this state will have modern weaponry and therefore an edge in combat. While initially there should be very very few Boer pops in this state, Low and middle class Boer pops from Cape Colony should be encouraged to migrate to the Voortrekker state allowing it to become more powerful as time goes on.
3. British Cape Colony should be have the Xhosa areas in its east split-off, as they would war with this group repeatedly throughout the period, and should also receive whatever measures of independence given to the Canadian colonies as previously described by the game's lead dev.
Furthermore, a tiny bit of railroading would go a long way in making the region historically accurate and interesting. Two events which I see as being of critical importance are the following.
1. The Battle of Blood River in 1838 saw a small group of Voortrekkers defeat a sizeable contingent of Zulus with no losses. This event has been mythologized in Afrikaner history and some continue to see it as evidence of God's favour for the Afrikaners. Clearly it's something important. I think it best portrayed as an event for the Zulus with two potential outcomes. If the Zulus win the battle they lose some soldier pops but the Voortrekkers lose their claims on the area of the Natalia Republic (essentially the south-western zulu territory at game start.) If the Boers win, as was historical, the Natalia Republic -an unorganized state with modern technology much like their Voortrekker neighbours- is established. Perhaps the life rating of the Natalia Republic should be raised as well so the British can absorb them within a few years as historically happened.
2. As the Voortrekker state expands and centralized, the British government should have the opportunity to recognize the independent Boer Republics. Historically the Orange Free State and the South African Republic (Transvaal) were both internationally recognized in the 1850s by the Orange River and Sand River conventions. The way I see it, if the Voortrekkers reach a certain primary pop threshold and level of centralization, the United Kingdom should be given the opportunity to enact these conventions. The Voortrekkers will benefit by immediately jumping to the position of centralized state, but in exchange the country will find itself split by the Vaal river, with the southern area becoming the "Free State" and the north becoming the "ZAR" (or Transvaal).
As more information comes out on Victoria 3, I will update this thread with information more pertinent to the game's mechanics. In the meantime I hope the devs take my suggestions into account. While not representing all the intricacies of the region, they would seriously improve the historical portrayal of South Africa and make playing in the region much more engaging.
Finally, for the love of God don't call it Oranje in Victoria 3. There has to be a better way. I say Orange Free State, Free State, or OVS.
Some Wikipedia links for those interested in more reading:
Mfecane - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Great Trek - Wikipedia
Natalia Republic - Wikipedia
South African Republic - Wikipedia
Orange Free State - Wikipedia
Xhosa Wars - Wikipedia
P.S. If someone with map-making skills wants to draw up a map of the region redone with my suggestions I would most appreciate it.
To people who have not played 2 look up HPM or HFM mod for ideas and examples. I see some post on here that makes me think how that mod added a lot to game flavor wise and on maps.
- 3
Yes, HPM handles South Africa much better than the vanilla game did.
- 3
This been mentioned in some other forums but I think a nomad pop or mechanic maybe added on in “horse lords” type of DLC could help better replicate such things.
Also maybe some imperator Rome feature mechanics about how tribes or unorganized groups can develop themselves(under developed nations or ones with tribal elements or on frontier).
Modern scholars and social sciences like to avoid “long history” narratives now for some reason but reason nation states and nationalism took off in Europe as it is included Centuries to millenniums of specific circumstances and not always related developments coming all together.
You had Roman Republic/Empire spread Greco-Roman Hellenistic culture across Europe along with destruction of multiple smaller or opposing cultures into Romanization. The Greco-Roman destruction of celts and idolization of urban lifestyle first blow to tribalism in Europe. After them the church continues where they left off somewhat with feudalism and chivalry which is basically way to “minimize” and regulate warlordism seen in Europe after Rome collapse. Basically clergy trying to get barbarians now “nobles” to stop raping, pillaging, looting, mass enslavements, and going full Viking like their pagan predecessors at least openly/officially. Even shit like Caesar invasion Gaul or extreme hyper masculine militarism of pagan Greco-Roman society was discouraged by church. Just took centuries of back and forth to see widespread results.
Even in Far East you have China often being “Greco-Rome” cultural equivalent of a “model” for civilizations/people out that way. India would also have its own stuff going on along with Persia and later Islamic world.
Now to relate this to Africa does it become clear what they lack? Even some native Americans had Aztec/Mayan and Inca civilization and later would rally behind “Hispanic culture” and “la raza” if westernized natives.
African lacks much of this context partly due to geography(a giant ass desert makes trade, technology exchange, and empire growing much harder and less “coherent”/linear. Same goes for jungles who can “reclaim” land/city fast).
There is no better way to put this but the native Africans especially in land are completely outclassed in almost every regard compared to everyone except native Americans. They are dealt shit hand and bad luck.
They literally have to to jump from imperator Rome in development all way to nation states and industrialization process of Victoria era to even catch up with non of stuff “in between that”.
The closest example that we have of heavy hand social engineering to “speed up” the industrialization process is Soviet Union and communist regimes which we know how bloody and forced such programs can become along with resistance they can bring it. Africans are starting even further behind which can easily lead to some Pol Pot Khmer Rougr level crimes.
For example, imagine if zulus somehow industrialized or even go Meiji route. They might honestly put brutality of European imperialist to shame like Japanese did at times. Giving them modern weapons is arguably like giving Vikings or Romans colt action and semi automatic guns. They literally went from pre industrial society to industrial one in one huge ass leap. Also not most “natural” process like first places to industrialized(UK or US).
- 1
Sub Sahara is stuck in that pre industrial loop of empire rise and collapse but climate makes it where nature likely reclaims anything built more so then many places along with destroying records.
Great Zimbabwe ruins is great example. For all we know they could have had written language that got lost in collapse.
Also even Afrikaans, Dutch, and English explorers point out how Bantu are more militaristic then actual non Bantu and actual native African counterparts. The records are blurry but I honestly think Bantu by time Europeans are settling South Africa largely did what Germanic people did to Rome but in central and Southern Africa.
The Bantu had a highly racist and rigid caste system between them and non Bantu Africans and natives. Also big part of slave trade especially in land. Like Zulu they committed multiple genocides, mass enslavements, and displacement of native groups.
The Bantu before the Bantu expansion was originally a small group from modern Nigeria. You don’t expand like they did peacefully.
The Bantu honestly might helped screwed Africa in long run and easier to take over like how mongols screwed over development in Asia which ended up unintentionally helping European projection power in long run. The Bantu also depopulated much of place before Europeans got there through slavery and war.
- 2
We all know they don't tell grand narratives anymore because they're afraid of getting featured on r/badhistory .
More seriously, Jared Diamond and David Hackett Fischer come to mind for recent historians who keep up the "long history" tradition.
- 1
I’m guessing that Reddit? I don’t use thatWe all know they don't tell grand narratives anymore because they're afraid of getting featured on r/badhistory .
More seriously, Jared Diamond and David Hackett Fischer come to mind for recent historians who keep up the "long history" tradition.
. Also not group that paradox should care about honestly lol. They often just have elementary understanding of Frankfurt school, Hegelianism, and British or French scholarship methods. Many honestly sound like broken Record recorder about some of their points.Now other places even by start or industrialize era given only slightly different leadership or changes could industrialized and modernize just as fast as Europeans.
Best example, homogeneous Japan. Strong ethnic identity(nationalism and nation states), highly educated pre industrial civilizations along with already very urban, and long standing civilization themselves with clear written language and recorded history(not oral).
China was mainly sent backwards by Qing conquest. The mongols and Genghis Khan are rightfully depicted as Nazis and Hitler of their time in Asia. Help spread Black Death and what diseases didn’t kill their raiding and conquest and desire for “grazing” land saw development of many areas crushed. Northern China and Central Asia saw multiple genocides and even drove Slavs out of Kiev Rus for time while scorning farmland and urban centers.
Another then that China and Japan are highly advanced civilizations in their own rights especially before industrialization takes off in Europe. Their problem is self imposed isolationism along with shunning of foreign influences and technology at times out of fear of upsetting social order. They consider Europeans “barbarians” not always imperialist for this reason.
The Europeans from high medieval until really steam power and mass industrialization is only ahead of Far East and parts of Islamic world mainly due to being more expansionist and infighting leading to better innovations in weaponry.
The Europeans got gunpowder from China but Europeans made it into more advanced guns instead of mere fireworks or “boom sticks” especially once you got colt action.
For example, China cut back on exploration voluntarily and by its own choice. They were once exploring Indian Ocean and pacific but eventually just lost interest.
China could be authoritarian but often less expansionist then Europeans for much of its history. It always preferred hegemony over more direct expansion with exception of few dynasties.
Japan did originally try to expand after uniting with invasion of Korea but unlike later failed and was discouraged for time from trying again. Europeans especially if that close to something were often more likely to keep trying sometimes.
The problem with Africa and especially native American people they aren’t nowhere near that close. They are more in position the early Romans were when they were still trying to unite just fellow Latin tribes around Rome in Latium. Ancient Rome and Greece are some “proto” examples of nation building and group many nationalist got their ideas from in some form. Think about Plato Republic and idea of “civic” system.
The natives in Americas are largely screwed by this point at game start. Best they can hope for it something like situation in Hispanic Americas where they are made to acculturate/assimilate into national identity or working with existing regimes there and within them. On their own they will lose by this point.
But As African tribe, chiefdom, or petty kingdom you should have more of chance especially if inland or far from Europeans to start.
You have to nation build like Rome did somewhat. Unite local tribes under your rule, identity, and banner first. Then take over as much of surrounding region as possible next especially before Europeans can ever involve themselves in area
Next Use your raw resources and production of crash crops or tropical goods to help pay and trade for industrial products and modern weapons. Focus on infrastructure and simple but self sufficient industries/factories. Stuff like concrete, dams, roads, clothes, canned goods, and more fundamentals along with small arms if possible.
Before Berlin conference or 1860s most Europeans should not care how most Africans expand outside of North Africa, Cape, and their holdings.
Reminds me of the idea that knowing why a thing is true can be more important than knowing that a particular thing is true.
Along with technological advances, social and moral progress go hand-in-hand; it's likely no coincidence that industrialization really gains steam (
) after a nation abolishes forced labor, and likewise how reactionary movements like Communism and Fascism fight back against the march of liberty to enslave people once more.An old violent mindset with new technology results in the loss or stagnation of the technology over time (i.e. Rome).
- 1
- 1
The main issue with development especially during this exact time of industrialization is fear by elites among ancien and dynastic or hybrid regimes regarding how technology impacts power/social dynamics. Even when open to new ideas they are more inclined to slow integration of it over rapid high reward process that can destabilize the social order of the regime.Reminds me of the idea that knowing why a thing is true can be more important than knowing that a particular thing is true.
Along with technological advances, social and moral progress go hand-in-hand; it's likely no coincidence that industrialization really gains steam (
An old violent mindset with new technology results in the loss or stagnation of the technology over time (i.e. Rome).
I won’t say social and moral progress always go hand and hand. Often does but not always and I do think that’s dangerously naïve view to have at times. Look at China now going way of 1984 even with its create throughs in science.
Fascism and communism especially aren’t reactionary. Often authoritarian but not reactionary in the sense it is trying to revert to status quo of pre French Revolution which even fascist said hell no too. Many fascist especially after ww1 become disillusion with ideas of ancien regimes(monarchs, Christianity, and medievalism). After Kaiserreich German nationalist start “dabbling” in neo paganism and start idolizing “Vikings and Saxons” along with tribes that brought down Rome over “Germanic Christian monarchs and crusaders” like they did during imperial regime.
Communism took society that was on way to being Mexico/India(without democracy or hybrid regime like Federation at best) of Europe and forcedly/artificially social engineer population into its “ideas” with very mixed results even they could not see long term effects of. They sadly might not have been worse result for Russia in long run. The tsardom could easily evolve into “Uber” Saudi situation and people think Russian federation was bad imagine surviving Tsardom
The other hole in social and moral progress being tied to technology is capitalist themselves can be apolitical greedy whores and slaves to their own indulgence and wealth. This is reason you will see capitalist be shortsighted and work with monarchs, communist, and fascist if “money is right”.
For example, the US was often making many break throughs in technology at rapid rate and often allowed inventors more freedom. They often did not do this for love of science but possible rewards and advantages innovation.
For example, Ford or one of American billionaires can’t remember exactly who only got into philanthropy due to his son having sickness. Literally the rich did not care to invest in medical sector here over business and engineering until they realized “o shit this can hurt us too. Better fund this stuff more”. Polio was often “rich” or middle class disease here because it could “impact anyone” regardless of money
- 1
One difference between Communism premier and commissioners vs tsar and nobles the first is way more likely to utilize industrialization and innovation to oppress people and keep order while second is more trying to figure out how to integrate it into society without overly changing social dynamic.Reminds me of the idea that knowing why a thing is true can be more important than knowing that a particular thing is true.
Along with technological advances, social and moral progress go hand-in-hand; it's likely no coincidence that industrialization really gains steam (
An old violent mindset with new technology results in the loss or stagnation of the technology over time (i.e. Rome).
Capitalist can be all over place due to their individualism in democratic or non democratic society but generally open to innovation of any kind of it benefits them or indifferent if not. They aren’t going to care to stop anyone for better or less unless it directly ties to them more so any other group
- 1