Africa

Bright day
As has been said there has been no lack of conflict in Africa, nor in any "uncivilized" area.

Also if conflict was the source of progress the most progressive countirs of today would be Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia.
Conflict as in mass organized warfare was mainly restricted to Europe and Asia. Most other place on the planet had a combination of low populations and rich resources.
 
I do think it's partially due to a lack of conflict, and I don't know why this was controversial at all. Conflict generates a lot of material and technological progress for some at the expense of lives and culture, sure, but progress it remains. And being rich in resources works against progress in fact, and I disagree completely with Abdul - it was Africa which was rich in resources and Europe that was poor. The reason elites had developed as early as they did was that there was little enough resources that a warrior class could horde and become an elite, someone special with control, etc... In a rich place, you can horde, but there's still enough left free of your control that hording doesn't transfer political power. And there are other factors as well.

The enslavement nevertheless practically depleted the Western kingdoms, and the Scramble then destroyed the rest. What if one removed the mass enslavement and the Scramble for Africa? How could the African city-states and kingdoms have evolved?

You really believe that in subsaharan Africa there was no conflict prior to European contact? Why do we find so many Iron swords, spear heads in archaeological digs? Why were in 1749 the local tribes persons were able to mine under the walls of an Dutch Fort collapsing three towers, and finally forcing the defender to explode the powder magazine in the final minutes of his defeat? How come Benin City, Timbuctoo, and the Kongo City all surrounded by such high walls that the Europeans wrote about them with glowing praise? The West African statelets were quit adept at warfare.

Why the bloody collapse of the Wolof Empire? How come they built 70 feet long war cannoes able to hold 60-70 warriors. Why did the Benin Empire have such an ability to organize such an effective logistics train?

Conflict can make a kingdom strong, but it can also weaken it. Africa did have wealth, but it was as divided as the Europeans were on a class basis. The Knight class in the Kingdom of Kongo was called the fidalgo. The dukes were called mwene.
 
Conflict as in mass organized warfare was mainly restricted to Europe and Asia. Most other place on the planet had a combination of low populations and rich resources.

No you're wrong, mass organized warfare wasn't really started in Europe until the late 18th century. Before that, it was mainly squabbles between mercenaries, princes, and towns.

Seriously do you want to call the Hundred Years War "mass organized warfare."

Or how about that 30 Years War, man that was organized.
 
1. Portuguese meddling: the Portuguese policy in the Kongo was to protect and help a fellow Catholic ruler. In letters to each other the two Kings called each other brother. Local Portuguese traders, and even some corrupt colonial officials policy was to make as much money as possible. This meant that official Kongolese control over important trade was loosened. The Portuguese traders wouldn't go through official channels for slaves, copper, or anything else. This hurt the Kongolese coffers considerably. Slavery really took off during this time period. Later as the usefulness of the Kongolese King was reduced (because of the lack of economic control created by the free trading Portuguese) the official support from the King of Portugal reduced as well. This led to the Portuguese officially adopting the policy of making as much money as possible. This can be seen throughout th 17th century. When Portuguese would purposefully inflate the currency of the Kongo. This economic disruption meant that the change in official currency several times over this time period. Shells, Bronze crosses, beads, and finally slaves all were adopted as currencies during this time period. The economy of the Kongo during this time period was interesting to say the least. Eventually as other European powers came to do business in the region other alliances were sought. The Dutch for instance. However the Portuguese were by this time quite adept at fighting in the region and defeated them, partly through the use of Cannibal mercenary child soldiers called Imbragala.


WHOA WHAT?
 

Maur

Banned
Enviorenmental we saw a growing fall in soil quality from the 16-18th century, because of overuse, poicies began to be implemented by government to give a incentiments to improve soil qualities (tree planting, efficitation of foresting and adoption of Spanish clover), prevent erosion and state sponsored adoption of new crops which grew better in marginal soil (the potato is the best example). This wasn't a result in a fall of population, but because a growing population made a greater enviorenmental impact.
Okay. I know nothing about European soil quality in history, what i do know is that:

only with the Industrial Revolution most of North Europa reach it pre-collapse population .
No I'm talking of the fact that North Europe could only feed 2/3 of the poulation in 1600 that they could in 1200. The little ice age resulted in a collapse in production, it was mostly hidden by the fact that the plague reduced the poulation by 40% in the same periode. It was only with the introduction of the potato that it was possible for the population to reach it pre-collapse level. If it hadn't been for this collapse, we would have seen the population reach it pre-plague level in 1500, if not before.
Is simply not true. Pre-plague population levels were reached, on average, by mid XV century, and in 1600 Europe had a much higher population than 1340 one. Especially northern Europe.


I do agree that Africa's (or Mediterraen for that matter) doesn't need the same agricultural technology that northern Europe with it heavy soil. Heavy ploughs are detrimental, for example.
Most of their crops don't need ploughs, especially not the new one which introduced in 16-17th century.


On a last note, i do not get the fixation people get with "war causes progress" cliche, when it's rather obvious it's the opposite.

And what Africa lacked certainly wasn't sociopolitical advancement.
 
Conflict as in mass organized warfare was mainly restricted to Europe and Asia. Most other place on the planet had a combination of low populations and rich resources.

What are these rich resources you're talking about? You sound a little like 18th-19th c Europeans fantasists seeking the legendary wealth of Timbuktoo. The reason why African states didn't have the mass organized warfare you're talking about is because Africa couldn't support such large wars, because it was too poor in resources. And again, no beasts of burden due to sleeping sickness.

Ethiopia could muster large armies, but these were totally ruinous to wherever they went, and couldn't leave Ethiopia itself due to the wretched poverty of surrounding areas.
 
Were sny of the sub-saharan empires a uniting force like the Roman empire was?

Could it be possible for one of the African empires to conquer or unite the entire continent?

How about the southern Egyptian empire, could it be the first united empire of the southern sahara. Then have another emopire, say one from western africa conquer them. But still have a united Africa, one that has culture from both. A united Africa that keeps building from one empire to the next.

I might be totally off on that, but is that not one of the ways that Europe advanced from greeks to romans to Charlemagne (barbarians). It was united and one empire built upon the former.

Could that also happen in sub-saharan africa, and how?
 
I think, if you're going to get strong national presences in Africa, the place to look - other, perhaps, than the Mediterranean coastal areas - is East Africa, from the Horn to the Cape. Historically, both Ethiopia and Zansibar were host to large, organised nation-states, and South Africa is an excellent candidate for another, having a perfectly mediterranean climate and plains and valleys for agriculture, and good resource prospects too, with almost none of the endemic disease of the rest of that continent. A successful import of the right crops and domestic animals could catalyze a powerful state, perhaps Bantu or Zulu, very quickly.

Now, between these three areas there is still quite a lot of terrain that boils down, mostly, to wasteland, and there are still many materials that they do not have - so using what precious metals and gems they do have to trade over the Indian Ocean with Arab and Indian states may be necessary, and, even if it's not necessary, will be great for African progress, especially if they can start getting new ideas and innovations flowing from the same place the Arabs got them.

However, if those barriers can be overcome, then a number of recognisable, centralized, competing states with great potential for world significance becomes a real possibility. Historically, the states which did manage to exist in Africa existed in something of a vacuum - their main territorial rivals were incomparatively small or nomadic, similar to the tribes which surrounded the Roman empire (well, the Western empire). Formalized diplomacy, warfare, trade, and competition were not incentivized in these conflicts. Naturally, there were exceptions, but this could be called the norm.

However, theoretically, if proper trade with Eurasia were established, a string of East African nations all the way from Zululand through Ethiopia to Nubia and Egypt, rivals and allies in the same way as historical European and Indian states were, become good candidates for a more European/Indian-style competitive progress. That's the best that can be aimed for, since a single China-style empire just ain't happening. If those East African Empires were established, Western Africa might be colonised, made into satellite or resource outposts (perhaps even for slaves, as historically?), or even progress as well, and existing states there, such as the Songhai, might even be able to grow stronger by alternatively being clients to and playing off European and East African influences (though they're more likely to be torn apart. Still, I want to see a syncretized Zulu-French empire on the Volta!).

Now, these are only a few half-baked ideas, but I can see an obvious potential there. There's a reason why even today the East African states are among the best African states, besides special cases like Botzwitzerland).
 
Ethiopia has potential for agricultural output if it were managed a little better, and avoids nasty civil wars. :(
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I think, if you're going to get strong national presences in Africa, the place to look - other, perhaps, than the Mediterranean coastal areas - is East Africa, from the Horn to the Cape. Historically, both Ethiopia and Zansibar were host to large, organised nation-states, and South Africa is an excellent candidate for another, having a perfectly mediterranean climate and plains and valleys for agriculture, and good resource prospects too, with almost none of the endemic disease of the rest of that continent. A successful import of the right crops and domestic animals could catalyze a powerful state, perhaps Bantu or Zulu, very quickly.

Now, between these three areas there is still quite a lot of terrain that boils down, mostly, to wasteland, and there are still many materials that they do not have - so using what precious metals and gems they do have to trade over the Indian Ocean with Arab and Indian states may be necessary, and, even if it's not necessary, will be great for African progress, especially if they can start getting new ideas and innovations flowing from the same place the Arabs got them.

However, if those barriers can be overcome, then a number of recognisable, centralized, competing states with great potential for world significance becomes a real possibility. Historically, the states which did manage to exist in Africa existed in something of a vacuum - their main territorial rivals were incomparatively small or nomadic, similar to the tribes which surrounded the Roman empire (well, the Western empire). Formalized diplomacy, warfare, trade, and competition were not incentivized in these conflicts. Naturally, there were exceptions, but this could be called the norm.

However, theoretically, if proper trade with Eurasia were established, a string of East African nations all the way from Zululand through Ethiopia to Nubia and Egypt, rivals and allies in the same way as historical European and Indian states were, become good candidates for a more European/Indian-style competitive progress. That's the best that can be aimed for, since a single China-style empire just ain't happening. If those East African Empires were established, Western Africa might be colonised, made into satellite or resource outposts (perhaps even for slaves, as historically?), or even progress as well, and existing states there, such as the Songhai, might even be able to grow stronger by alternatively being clients to and playing off European and East African influences (though they're more likely to be torn apart. Still, I want to see a syncretized Zulu-French empire on the Volta!).

Now, these are only a few half-baked ideas, but I can see an obvious potential there. There's a reason why even today the East African states are among the best African states, besides special cases like Botzwitzerland).

I find that this scenario has possibilities, through I find it more likely that the Arabs set up a state in the Cape than the Bantu does.
 
What are these rich resources you're talking about?
The main resources which matter of course. Food and water. Although it's the reverse now, all populations in Africa had immediate access to hunting, wild and cultivated fruit and vegetables, and water sources, in a way which most 15th century Europeans and Asians couldn't imagine.
 
Were sny of the sub-saharan empires a uniting force like the Roman empire was?

Could it be possible for one of the African empires to conquer or unite the entire continent?

How about the southern Egyptian empire, could it be the first united empire of the southern sahara. Then have another emopire, say one from western africa conquer them. But still have a united Africa, one that has culture from both. A united Africa that keeps building from one empire to the next.

I might be totally off on that, but is that not one of the ways that Europe advanced from greeks to romans to Charlemagne (barbarians). It was united and one empire built upon the former.

Could that also happen in sub-saharan africa, and how?

The large empires tended to be in the Sahel (the semi-arid steppe which stretches all the way across the continent just below the Sahara), which was free of the Tsetse fly and where horses could be employed. The Sokoto Caliphate in particular was really large, comprising most of today's Nigeria and large parts of Niger, Burkina Faso, and Cameroon. The problem is that the areas where large state structures were possible were generally not capable of supporting very large populations and weren't very rich in resources. Nevertheless, Bornu, which was adjacent, and had at times a rather extensive empire, had 1,000 of continuity, almost all of it under a single dynasty.
 
The main resources which matter of course. Food and water. Although it's the reverse now, all populations in Africa had immediate access to hunting, wild and cultivated fruit and vegetables, and water sources, in a way which most 15th century Europeans and Asians couldn't imagine.

I disagree about water; that's only true in the tropics, and that water was often horribly infested. As for food, intensive agriculture was not really possible, so I would have to disagree there too. For gatherers, it might have been OK, but you're not going to get a large state that way.
 
You're not racists for asking the question. I think if the tribes and nations of Africa were at each others' throats like what happened in Europe, then that might spurn quicker advances.
As opposed to OTL, where Sub-Saharan Africa was a stagnant, regressive utopia with no violence or conflict between the various tribes? :rolleyes:
I've never been a supporter of the theory that "constant society-destroying conflict spurs progress," so I fail to see how incessant tribal warfare would make things better for the Africans. All it did in OTL was allow them to be divided, exploited, and conquered.
 
I think, if you're going to get strong national presences in Africa, the place to look - other, perhaps, than the Mediterranean coastal areas - is East Africa, from the Horn to the Cape. Historically, both Ethiopia and Zansibar were host to large, organised nation-states, and South Africa is an excellent candidate for another, having a perfectly mediterranean climate and plains and valleys for agriculture, and good resource prospects too, with almost none of the endemic disease of the rest of that continent. A successful import of the right crops and domestic animals could catalyze a powerful state, perhaps Bantu or Zulu, very quickly.

Now, between these three areas there is still quite a lot of terrain that boils down, mostly, to wasteland, and there are still many materials that they do not have - so using what precious metals and gems they do have to trade over the Indian Ocean with Arab and Indian states may be necessary, and, even if it's not necessary, will be great for African progress, especially if they can start getting new ideas and innovations flowing from the same place the Arabs got them.

However, if those barriers can be overcome, then a number of recognisable, centralized, competing states with great potential for world significance becomes a real possibility. Historically, the states which did manage to exist in Africa existed in something of a vacuum - their main territorial rivals were incomparatively small or nomadic, similar to the tribes which surrounded the Roman empire (well, the Western empire). Formalized diplomacy, warfare, trade, and competition were not incentivized in these conflicts. Naturally, there were exceptions, but this could be called the norm.

However, theoretically, if proper trade with Eurasia were established, a string of East African nations all the way from Zululand through Ethiopia to Nubia and Egypt, rivals and allies in the same way as historical European and Indian states were, become good candidates for a more European/Indian-style competitive progress. That's the best that can be aimed for, since a single China-style empire just ain't happening. If those East African Empires were established, Western Africa might be colonised, made into satellite or resource outposts (perhaps even for slaves, as historically?), or even progress as well, and existing states there, such as the Songhai, might even be able to grow stronger by alternatively being clients to and playing off European and East African influences (though they're more likely to be torn apart. Still, I want to see a syncretized Zulu-French empire on the Volta!).

Now, these are only a few half-baked ideas, but I can see an obvious potential there. There's a reason why even today the East African states are among the best African states, besides special cases like Botzwitzerland).

This gives me some great ideas for Africa in my TL:).
 
There are some good sources online. I posted a few in this thread but if you need more just PM me.

Awesome, I'll check them out and PM if I need some help. I wanted to do more with Africa, then just wait till it just gets colonized.
 
Top