It'd be difficult.Alright, I know you could point out the Arabs and Berbers, but I mean sub-Saharan Africa. Is it possible?
Why did such a culture not arise in Africa? It seems like the savannas would have been great for it!
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.
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?
I that the reason for no horses, were cattle not effected?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.
The African savannah areas are arid, sparsely vegetated and populated...they're not exactly deserts, but they're the next best thing, pretty much.Why did such a culture not arise in Africa? It seems like the savannah would have been great for it!
I that the reason for no horses, were cattle not effected?
Couldn't horses have been bred that had immunity?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.
Isn't there a lot of game there though? Wouldn't that support a culture like that of the plains indians?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.
Couldn't horses have been bred that had immunity?
So why didn't they do both?They could have, but without modern medicine and technology and all that, that would take centuries.
It also took centuries to breed varieties of cattle that were immune to the local diseases.
So would an earlier introduction of the horse (á la every thread about native Americans doing better) have made a big difference?As for sub-Saharan Africa probably because they didn't really have the horse.....
From what I have heard zebras are pretty assholeish.Is it possible to domesticate the zebra?
No,So would an earlier introduction of the horse (á la every thread about native Americans doing better) have made a big difference?
Is it possible to domesticate the zebra?
Is it possible to domesticate the zebra?
From what I have heard zebras are pretty assholeish.