A nomads-on-horseback civilisation in Africa?
- Thread starter Thande
- Start date
Hapsburg
Banned
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'.
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.
No major agricultural civilisation in the savannah-regions?
What about the Ghana and Mali empires?
........................ That's sahel and temperate forests, not savannah.
mojojojo
Gone Fishin'
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
I was thinking more along the lines of Plains Indians (horse mounted hunters) rather than mongols
I that the reason for no horses, were cattle not effected?
Hapsburg
Banned
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.
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
Gone Fishin'
Isn't there a lot of game there though? Wouldn't that support a culture like that of the plains indians?
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.
Well I know in northwest Africa, think Burkina Faso or so, there's a group sort of similar to that called the Mossi. Not the Maasai, the Mossi.
As for sub-Saharan Africa probably because they didn't really have the horse.....
Not only that but you have a climate that necessitates movement in many areas. And I'm talking constant. It would have been much easier if they had horses but it was not to be.
Though it's not impossible to use cattle for brunt labor and riding, which they did in a few instances. At least according to my knowledge on the subject.
As for sub-Saharan Africa probably because they didn't really have the horse.....
Not only that but you have a climate that necessitates movement in many areas. And I'm talking constant. It would have been much easier if they had horses but it was not to be.
Though it's not impossible to use cattle for brunt labor and riding, which they did in a few instances. At least according to my knowledge on the subject.
Thande
Donor
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?
No,
http://abc.net.au/animals/program2/factsheet1.htm
Zebras tend to attack people, and easily panick. However Zebras do breed with horses and donkies, so you might be able to get some type of mule introduced if you have a small breeding population of either. (Zonkeys and Zorses, oh-mi)
Probably not - I think a few attempts were made in the late 19th and early 20th century by Europeans, with little success. Supposedly adult zebras are a lot more aggressive than most horses, with a preference for biting people and not letting go. I read somewhere that in a lot of zoos zebras actually cause more injuries than any other animal.
Haha ... nearly died laughing at that. In any case, I don't think zebras can be domesticated. If I remember correctly from "Guns, Germs, & Steel," all the animals that could be domesticated in Africa are domesticated. You can mate a zebra with another equid, making a zebroid. Besides sounding like a bad Transformers spin-off, zebroids are even more temperamental than mules, so I don't know how well that would fare. Plus, they just look weird.
Also, one of the problems that nomadic cultures in Africa may face is that the continent lies north/south instead of east/west like Europe or Asia. Because of the different climates that develop because of that north/south line, it can be nearly impossible to grow the same plant or use the same animal in Algeria and South Africa.