Ngl "effective occupation" by any stretch of the imagination is a stronger claim than "historical discovery and recent exploration"

How many portugese people were living there?

Y'all are faggots

Not even that great mental gymnastics required

Claims are worthless

The British claimed effective occupation

they didnt have it

If you can’t enforce them

Point is we could

@Mankn II no, we claimed the land based off of effective occupation

we had military forces in the area

which were forced to retreat

I.e. occupation achieved

because our own allies sent us an ultimatum

@Mankn II how many troops? How many colonists?

How many troops did you have

all I see so far is claims

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campanhas_de_Conquista_e_Pacifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o

translate it if you want

CLAIMS BASED OFF OF REALITIES ON THE GROUND

I don't see a number nor mention of Zimbabwe or rhodesia @Mankn II

Im yet to see your claims and mentions

we got there first

we were at the beginning of the colonizing process

"effective occupation" means they were occupying it on the ground

and you sent an ultimatum

THEY CLAIMED EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Portuguese_Treaty_of_1891#Origins_of_the_Anglo-Portuguese_conflict

They didnt have it

fixed the boundaries between the British Central Africa Protectorate, (now Malawi) and the territories administered by the British South Africa Company

A treaty imposed by an Ultimatum

"administered"

i.e. already under their control

I like how far you Anglos go to justify an ultimatum on your own ally

typical

They didn't claim effective occupation, it was a claim BASED OFF OF effective occupation

Well done @The State, you just advanced to level 5!

@Mankn II can you even prove military units were there?

because the wiki doesn't even mention that

whereas the BSAC engaged in a military campaign in 1890

yo is it degen if there's a girl calling me daddy