A nomads-on-horseback civilisation in Africa?

[Thande]

Alright, I know you could point out the Arabs and Berbers, but I mean sub-Saharan Africa. Is it possible?

[Hapsburg]

Originally Posted by Thande

Alright, I know you could point out the Arabs and Berbers, but I mean sub-Saharan Africa. Is it possible?

It'd be difficult.

The main impediment is the same thing that prevented a wider spread of advanced civilizations in sub-Saharan Africa in the first place: thick jungles and rainforests covering a huge amount of the land area.
Such a thing would hinder movement, travel, and migration greatly, and horse-borne nomads would not fare well in that environment.

The best place would be in large savannah and plains areas, and in Eastern Africa.

[mojojojo]

Why did such a culture not arise in Africa? It seems like the savannas would have been great for it!

[Roberto]

Originally Posted by mojojojo

Why did such a culture not arise in Africa? It seems like the savannas would have been great for it!

At first glance, yes. But if you look a little deeper, you can see that the savannah was not home to major agricultural civilization, nor bordered them. The savannas tended to have low population and littler resources. Thus, no incentive to 'go Mongol'.

[Ran Exilis]

Originally Posted by AHFanatic

At first glance, yes. But if you look a little deeper, you can see that the savannah was not home to major agricultural civilization, nor bordered them. The savannas tended to have low population and littler resources. Thus, no incentive to 'go Mongol'.

No major agricultural civilisation in the savannah-regions?

What about the Ghana and Mali empires?

[Roberto]

Originally Posted by Ran Exilis

No major agricultural civilisation in the savannah-regions?

What about the Ghana and Mali empires?

........................ That's sahel and temperate forests, not savannah.

[Hapsburg]

Originally Posted by mojojojo

Why did such a culture not arise in Africa? It seems like the savannah would have been great for it!

The African savannah areas are arid, sparsely vegetated and populated...they're not exactly deserts, but they're the next best thing, pretty much.

The sahel and temperate forest areas are best for cultivating civilization, i.e Mali and Ghana Empire, and Great Zimbabwe. However, as Ran Exilis said, the biggest impediment is the tsetse fly and other insects, and the diseases carried by them.

[mojojojo]

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

The African savannah areas are arid, sparsely vegetated and populated...they're not exactly deserts, but they're the next best thing, pretty much.

The sahel and temperate forest areas are best for cultivating civilization, i.e Mali and Ghana Empire, and Great Zimbabwe. However, as Ran Exilis said, the biggest impediment is the tsetse fly and other insects, and the diseases carried by them.

Isn't there a lot of game there though? Wouldn't that support a culture like that of the plains indians?

[Ran Exilis]

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

It'd be difficult.

The main impediment is the same thing that prevented a wider spread of advanced civilizations in sub-Saharan Africa in the first place: thick jungles and rainforests covering a huge amount of the land area.
Such a thing would hinder movement, travel, and migration greatly, and horse-borne nomads would not fare well in that environment.

The best place would be in large savannah and plains areas, and in Eastern Africa.

The jungles wouldn't even be your main concern; the tsetse fly and the many human and animal diseases that are transmitted by this rather troublesome insect are the biggest problem for the expansion of nomads on horseback in Africa.

The tsetse fly and the diseases it carries are also the main reason why peoples like the Fulani never spread further south than they did in OTL - their horses died off by the dozens everytime they tried.

[mojojojo]

At first glance, yes. But if you look a little deeper, you can see that the savannah was not home to major agricultural civilization, nor bordered them. The savannas tended to have low population and littler resources. Thus, no incentive to 'go Mongol'.
I was thinking more along the lines of Plains Indians (horse mounted hunters) rather than mongols

Originally Posted by Ran Exilis

The jungles wouldn't even be your main concern; the tsetse fly and the many human and animal diseases that are transmitted by this rather troublesome insect are the biggest problem for the expansion of nomads on horseback in Africa.

The tsetse fly and the diseases it carries are also the main reason why peoples like the Fulani never spread further south than they did in OTL - their horses died off by the dozens everytime they tried.

I that the reason for no horses, were cattle not effected?

[Ran Exilis]

Originally Posted by mojojojo

I that the reason for no horses, were cattle not effected?

Cattle was affected as well, except for a few breeds of cattle that had developed immunity againest these diseases.

Those breeds of cattle were used by the people who traditionally lived within the regions where tsetse flies were found.

[mojojojo]

Originally Posted by Ran Exilis

Cattle was affected as well, except for a few breeds of cattle that had developed immunity againest these diseases.

Those breeds of cattle were used by the people who traditionally lived within the regions where tsetse flies were found.

Couldn't horses have been bred that had immunity?