Sub-Saharan African Empire

[aware of emptiness]

Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the most backward regions in OTL.
Before Western exploration, the region seemed to be an assortment of (diverse) small tribes, clans and bands living simple lifestyles.

What if the various tribes and ethnic groups of Africa unified fairly early on in their history into one culture to form one big empire with agriculture and a centralized bureaucratic government. I'm thinking of an African analogue of China - could such a scenario be possible? How far back would the POD need to be? How would such an empire interact with Europe and face up to colonialism?

[Kidblast]

One might argue that Africa's geography wouldn't allow this to happen. There is a distinct lack of a Central River Valley, like the Yangtze or the Yellow rivers that would allow full scale agriculture to take place.

Secondly, there are no grains native to Sub-Saharan Agriculture that could be used by a River Valley Civilization like China or Egypt.

[Flocculencio]

For the whole of Sub-saharan Africa? The problem is crops- the terrain across the region plus the North-South orientation means that there is no simple food package to base a large civilisation on. Also, lack of domesticable animals.

Any POD would have to involve domesticable large mammals in Sub-saharan Africa.

Another problem is the huge variety of terrain types- communications are going to be extremely difficult across the Great Rift and across the tropical rainforests of the Congo.

[Fabilius]

I agree with Kidblast and Flocculencilo. But I must point out though that some civilisations did advance to use of iron in the subsahara. I´m not really familiar with African history but I´ll have a shot at this dilemma.

Ethiopia, is a potential place for such an empire to start. The empire could start around the Nile banks, or the rivers that flow from Nile in that area. Uganda maybe, Sudan.

I´ll say that it starts around lake Victoria in Uganda when wheat plants spread to that area. The empire converts to christianity in the 3d century, it spreads from Egypt to Uganda. It invades north Africa to spread their own interpretation of the religion in the fourth century. The Byzantine empire loses and instead of Islamic spread over north Africa in 6th century, we have a new interpretation of christianity spreading over the area that is now the Islamic world.

I´m new here in this forum. I hope this spinoff sounds slightly plausible.

[Flocculencio]

I agree with Kidblast and Flocculencilo. But I must point out though that some civilisations did advance to use of iron in the subsahara. I´m not really familiar with African history but I´ll have a shot at this dilemma.

Ethiopia, is a potential place for such an empire to start. The empire could start around the Nile banks, or the rivers that flow from Nile in that area. Uganda maybe, Sudan.

I´ll say that it starts around lake Victoria in Uganda when wheat plants spread to that area. The empire converts to christianity in the 3d century, it spreads from Egypt to Uganda. It invades north Africa to spread their own interpretation of the religion in the fourth century. The Byzantine empire loses and instead of Islamic spread over north Africa in 6th century, we have a new interpretation of christianity spreading over the area that is now the Islamic world.

I´m new here in this forum. I hope this spinoff sounds slightly plausible.

Welcome to the forum.

The problem is spreading that civilisation beyond the northern part of Sub Saharan Africa- wheat won't grow in the tropics which means that it can't pass from the Northern sub saharan region down to S. Africa which is perfect for wheat growing. Also you can't bring horses down through the tropics there. So you can get Ethiopian and Nubian civilisations as in OTL but spreading them is the problem.

As for iron, even in the 1800s when livestock and temperate crops had been introduced to the Bantu of Southern Africa, the region remained iron poor.

So you could get an Ethiopian based East African civilisation but it's hemmed in with the Indian ocean to the East, the Rift to the West and the tropics and tsetse belt to the South.

[Imajin]

Hm, what about something like this: The Ethiopians do more trading of technology with the Portuguese rather than simply using them to defend them (perhaps the Arab invasion that managed to conquer Ethiopia for awhile fails from the start), and so Ethiopia is more powerful, and gets more ship technology from the Portuguese... Could they trade grain as well, or would the grain the Portuguese have be unsuitable? Anyway, ship technology allows it to slowly expand around the coast, though the Zanzibaran Emirate would have to be conquered... By 1750 or maybe a bit earlier Ethiopia should have control of the coast at least up to Cape Town, maybe further... and all the European colonies all started on the coast and went inland, so I think it's not implausible to think this Greater Ethiopia could do the same thing...

[Fabilius]

Welcome to the forum.

The problem is spreading that civilisation beyond the northern part of Sub Saharan Africa- wheat won't grow in the tropics which means that it can't pass from the Northern sub saharan region down to S. Africa which is perfect for wheat growing. Also you can't bring horses down through the tropics there. So you can get Ethiopian and Nubian civilisations as in OTL but spreading them is the problem.

As for iron, even in the 1800s when livestock and temperate crops had been introduced to the Bantu of Southern Africa, the region remained iron poor.

So you could get an Ethiopian based East African civilisation but it's hemmed in with the Indian ocean to the East, the Rift to the West and the tropics and tsetse belt to the South.

Thanks. One question: Does OTL mean our world?

So it´s technically not possible to get a huge civilisation spreading around, unless one ignores the geographic problems. But what if it would happen at a later time? Maybe if arabian colonisation had happened earlier and at a faster pace? Maybe they could bring wheat and horses to S.africa, like the English and French to North America, then there could have developed a big muslim empire. In the time between 900. A.D. and 1200 A.D. the settlements occurr, and the empire is united in 1300, becoming more powerful.

A stable and populous country at the southern tip of Africa would have become very powerful between. Taking advantage of the trade between Asia and Europe, becoming extremely rich. Also, it could keep up with the developement of the West because of the constant traffic. Westerners would settle and information would be shared. Maybe the country would be influenced by ideas of the enlightenment, democracy, and even industrialisation. It might keep up with the Europeans in the 19th century, and become the only Arab country able to resist becoming a pawn to the superpowers. Maybe it would develope in a similiar manner to Japan?

It´s not really possible though, because the Arabs didn´t have any need to colonise that area. Overpopulation wasn´t really a problem. But it could easily be imagined, after all Swahili is a mixup between Arabic and Bantu. (Yeah I know it´s in Tanzania and Kenya, not Cape good hope, I´m thinking about if the immigration had gone further south also).

[Fabilius]

Hm, what about something like this: The Ethiopians do more trading of technology with the Portuguese rather than simply using them to defend them (perhaps the Arab invasion that managed to conquer Ethiopia for awhile fails from the start), and so Ethiopia is more powerful, and gets more ship technology from the Portuguese... Could they trade grain as well, or would the grain the Portuguese have be unsuitable? Anyway, ship technology allows it to slowly expand around the coast, though the Zanzibaran Emirate would have to be conquered... By 1750 or maybe a bit earlier Ethiopia should have control of the coast at least up to Cape Town, maybe further... and all the European colonies all started on the coast and went inland, so I think it's not implausible to think this Greater Ethiopia could do the same thing...

Yeah, I can picture that happening. But wouldn´t a greater Ethiopia have tempted the European colonisers? Wouldn´t it just end up being divided by Britain France and Germany in 1885?

[Imajin]

Yeah, I can picture that happening. But wouldn´t a greater Ethiopia have tempted the European colonisers? Wouldn´t it just end up being divided by Britain France and Germany in 1885?
Not if it managed to avoid the decay that Ethiopia avoided OTL... If it's strong enough, the Europeans won't try to colonize it... also, note that it would be Christian, which gives it some more support...

[Tom Veil]

Thanks. One question: Does OTL mean our world?

So it´s technically not possible to get a huge civilisation spreading around, unless one ignores the geographic problems. But what if it would happen at a later time?
1. Yes, OTL means our timeline. ATL means alternate timeline, which is usually synonymous with TTL, or this timeline.

2. You'll see a lot of references to Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel in this forum, and for good reason -- it purports to explain all of ancient history, and then argues that inequality in the ancient world pretty much required either the Europeans or East Asians to take over the world some day.

During periods of less violent competition, though, the geographically disadvantaged nations have chances to catch up. That's what we're seeing now in the better-situated developing nations.

And yes, Ethiopia is one place that had could easily have leapfrogged at a couple of junctures in history if only the breaks had gone right. The southern coast of Arabia is rather hospitable, and if you can sail along it, you'll end up in Persia or Pakistan -- places that have pretty much always been slightly, but only slightly, behind the rest of the world. A number of PODs, like friendlier Muslims or more successful Indians, could get Ethiopia the help that it needed anywhere from 900-1500 AD. After they have their Reniassance, their technological superiority -- and the fact that they look different from other Africans -- gives them a fighting chance of being treated like a "Civilized Nation" by the European imperialists, and then they would have the military technology to take over Somalia and Kenya and have a real empire.

All very contingent, eh? Europe and East Asia have so many people with similar cultures bumping into each other that one bright idea is much more likely to spread. That's why they always seemed to catch the lucky breaks in history.

[Fabilius]

Not if it managed to avoid the decay that Ethiopia avoided OTL... If it's strong enough, the Europeans won't try to colonize it... also, note that it would be Christian, which gives it some more support...

Still, they´re bound to interfere with it, a little. After all in this scenario it has become strategically important. The British would at least have to ally with it, to ensure the route to India.

Or so I´d imagine, it´s a country with both the harbour of Zansibar, and big part of the red sea coast.

[Michael B]

But what if it would happen at a later time? Maybe if arabian colonisation had happened earlier and at a faster pace? Maybe they could bring wheat and horses to S.africa, like the English and French to North America, then there could have developed a big muslim empire. In the time between 900. A.D. and 1200 A.D. the settlements occurr, and the empire is united in 1300, becoming more powerful.

A stable and populous country at the southern tip of Africa would have become very powerful between. Taking advantage of the trade between Asia and Europe, becoming extremely rich. Also, it could keep up with the developement of the West because of the constant traffic. Westerners would settle and information would be shared. Maybe the country would be influenced by ideas of the enlightenment, democracy, and even industrialisation. It might keep up with the Europeans in the 19th century, and become the only Arab country able to resist becoming a pawn to the superpowers. Maybe it would develope in a similiar manner to Japan?

It´s not really possible though, because the Arabs didn´t have any need to colonise that area. Overpopulation wasn´t really a problem. But it could easily be imagined, after all Swahili is a mixup between Arabic and Bantu. (Yeah I know it´s in Tanzania and Kenya, not Cape good hope, I´m thinking about if the immigration had gone further south also). Such an Isalmic State could be a cross between Granada with its science and technology and Ethiopia, the only African kingdom to take on the European and win enough to be remain independent. In fact its larger population plus supplies of gold and diamonds would greatly improve its chances of survival.

The biggest problem is Islamic manpower. The answer that would be convertion by the Khoi to Islam. Faced by the rolling Bantu advance and meeting wizards who use firesticks to kill their enemies, the first few tribes decide to join a few Arab traders who have ventured that far south. With the making of jihad against the pagan Bantu, a few more Arabs settle in the region and convert more tribes. Eventually a new kingdom is formed with a racial hierarchy of Arabs at the top and pure Khoi at the bottom. Eventually the Khoi overthrow their masters but in the meantime they acquire the means to built a modern state on par with Europe and the Middle East.

[aware of emptiness]

One might argue that Africa's geography wouldn't allow this to happen. There is a distinct lack of a Central River Valley, like the Yangtze or the Yellow rivers that would allow full scale agriculture to take place.

Secondly, there are no grains native to Sub-Saharan Agriculture that could be used by a River Valley Civilization like China or Egypt.

Could it happen in North America? Could the various indigenous ethnic groups or tribes unite under one centralized government early on in their history?

[Fabilius]

Could it happen in North America? Could the various indigenous ethnic groups or tribes unite under one centralized government early on in their history?


Well I for one can´t see why it couldn´t happen.

[Tom Veil]

Well I for one can´t see why it couldn´t happen.

The WHOLE continent? Impossible. Virtually all of the great empires up until 1492 were confined to a single climate type or to several similar climate types. For instance, the Sahara was too dry and Germany was too cold for the Romans to settle, without devoting too much in resources to develop all of the new technologies needed.

However, you could have the entire Mississippi valley, from Topeka to Minneapolis to Pittsburgh, be one culture. One of the leading theories is that they were one culture -- usually known as the Mound People -- but that the distances were too great for societies that had no wheels or riding animals, so they splintered over time.

[Superdude]

Ok, a POD could be that some sort of rideable animal survives the mass extinctions unbeknownst to humans on the continet?

[Michael B]

Ok, a POD could be that some sort of rideable animal survives the mass extinctions unbeknownst to humans on the continet?
Horses would be perfect if they had been more wary of Clovis hunters and thus not all had been barbecued. After all some large herbivores such as pronghorns survived. A few tweaks in the gene pool and the North American horse remains to roam the plains.

It should noted through that without a collar, horses don't make very good draft animals. Still they are first rate for warfare. If anyone wants to beat on the Conquistadors defeating several thousand Commanche and Apache mounted archers I would be more than happy to take their money?

Of course there is still the disease thing and that killed more Native Americans than all the battles, massacres etc put together.

[Flocculencio]

Of course there is still the disease thing and that killed more Native Americans than all the battles, massacres etc put together.

If they have large domesticated animals like horses they'll probably have a few epidemic diseases of their own. The colonists might come down with a nasty case of some horrible plague.

[Tizoc]

I am wondering why no-one mentioned Mali, Songhai or Kanem-Bornu there - in XIVth C Mali was one of the richest countries in the world! Then later, in XV-XVIth C there was powerful Songhai Empire destroyed later by Moroccans thanks to guns. And the last, Kanem-Bornu Empire that had the pike of glory, AFAIK, in the late XVI/early XVIIth C... Make any of those empires grow and stabilise and you have your Sub-Saharan Empire:)

[The Mists Of Time]

We are talking here about Sub Saharan Africa, so staying on subject with that.

I think what is suggested here would be very difficult. As others have pointed out you have problems such as lack of a native grain, lack of a central river valley the kinds of things early civilizations raised up around.
You also have a vast territory much of it with unforgiving terrain and climate.

Another problem I see here is that you have a lot of tribes and ethnic groups which are culturally different from each other. Forming a single cohesive culture out of all these different tribes and ethnic or cultural groups would be very difficult. To form a single unified kingdom like this requires having a single cohesive culture, something cultural that unifies the people of that kingdom together into being one kingdom, one culture, one people. Without that it will be very difficult.

Perhaps if a large powerful empire or kingdom that already exists at some point in that region, perhaps Ancient Egypt, or Ethiopia, and they are successful at a vast program of conquest and empire building and spread their empire throughout most of Sub Saharan Africa, then it might work.

If you consider all the problems that would have to be overcome to build such a kingdom or empire, maybe it's understandable why this region is the way it is.

[aware of emptiness]

As for the issue of one culture unifying various tribes/ethnic groups, couldn't there be something like a China analogue (eg. the ethnic groups which lived in modern day China were quite diverse, from cold, dry desert dwelling Mongols, Manchus, to mountain-dwellers (eg. Tibetans, Burmese) to the southern Miao, Hmong and other darker skinned South-east asian ethnicities of the jungles) but they all got assimilated under one dominant culture, written language; the Han Chinese.

Couldn't an African empire unite under one culture the way China unified different groups into a single cultural "entity"?

[Ivan Druzhkov]

Ok, a POD could be that some sort of rideable animal survives the mass extinctions unbeknownst to humans on the continet?
Here's one from...good lord, almost 7 years ago. (http://members.aol.com/dalecoz/alt1198.htm) The author here uses a disease to keep humans out of the Appalachians long enough to keep llamas alive. It's a nice little piece, and one of my favorites.

[Max Sinister]

If the Africans had a ridable animal and some good crops, the Congo valley might be a good place to start a China-like Civ.

For Ethiopia alone there's the problem that it's too far of the centers of the world.

[Michael B]

If the Africans had a ridable animal and some good crops, the Congo valley might be a good place to start a China-like Civ. The Africans do have rideable animals, zebras, elands and hippos to name but three. What they need is one that is domesticable and that is what Africa does not have. Whilst physically correct, all of them have a nasty disposition and thus the owner has a good chance of being killed by them.

This is also applies to Euroasian creatures such as the onager which got "phased out" as so soon as the Near East acquired horses.

The Africans don't though need a native animal (although a tweak of the genes could give them one.) The can import one. Cattle were domesticated about 6000BCE and the Khoisan peoples acquired them by 0CE so the Bantus would have had the opportunity to acquire them earlier. If they also acquire ploughs they would replace their hoe agriculture with a system that was more productive.

[Max Sinister]

That's what I meant, domesticable and ridable.