AHC: Black Carthage

Winnabago

Banned
Exactly what it says on the tin. Produce a predominantly black trading nation based in Tunisia by the third century BC. Bonus points if it's ethnically Semitic!

In case you're wondering, this is because some people think this is OTL.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
My Af-Am studies class, inexplicably.

Is it arguing that "Black" Sub-Saharans were a part of ancient North African demography or that blacks were the principal population of North Africa / "Tunisia" in the 3rd Century? Secondly, what does blacks in Tunisia have to do with African-American Studies? Or is this a Black Studies class? Finally, might it not simply be possible that objective of your lesson isn't to teach you that "Whenever Africans build something cool, white people just have to show up and destroy it..." but that the historical rendering of North Africa as "Blackless" in its history is about as meaningful as America being Blackless in its history. Both viewpoints widely held historically, and equally false, despite the fact that "Blacks" never comprised the greater part of the population in either region at least during the periods most widely known and examined by historians.
 
Last edited:

scholar

Banned
Similar claims put most of Mauritania (Rome) and Egypt in there as well.

Its a non-issue, to be honest. It ultimately comes down to how many people you believe traveled around the Mediterranean and the migrations of people, and there's no reason to think that Carthage would be any more or less based on what skin color founded it or predominated within its walls.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Anyway, as to the question, I think Africa is probably largely "Screwed" as long as it and its "Negroid" population remains oriented on a North-South Axis. Change that, and you may butterfuly away the origins of man entirely. Nevertheless, Africa needs to be shifted to an East-West Axis if the civilizations that arise there are going to have a real chance to compete with Eurasian Civilizations, and that is a pre-history mutation. The principle exception being Egypt, and a more navigatible Nile possibily allowing the North-South African Continent to compete. But we're talking a Nile blessed with no cataphracts, reaching its full extent. Short of Ancient Egyptians being able to sail into Uganda (And Ugandas being able to sail to Alaxandria) I dont' see it. But, if Ugandans can sail or paddle their way to Alaxandria / Cairo from time immemorial, than I suspect a "Black" Carthage is possible. On the other hand, the butterflies begin long before Carthage is even a twinkle in Dido's eye.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, as to the question, I think Africa is probably largely "Screwed" as long as it and its "Negroid" population remains oriented on a North-South Axis. Change that, and you may butterfuly away the origins of man entirely. Nevertheless, Africa needs to be shifted to an East-West Axis if the civilizations that arise there are going to have a real chance to compete with Eurasian Civilizations, and that is a pre-history mutation. The principle exception being Egypt, and a more navigatible Nile possibily allowing the North-South African Continent to compete. But we're talking a Nile blessed with no cataphracts, reaching its full extent. Short of Ancient Egyptians being able to sail into Uganda (And Ugandas being able to sail to Alaxandria) I dont' see it. But, if Ugandans can sail or paddle their way to Alaxandria / Cairo from time immemorial, than I suspect a "Black" Carthage is possible. On the other hand, the butterflies begin long before Carthage is even a twinkle in Dido's eye.

Honestly I'd say that just getting rid of the Tetse fly and Malaria would do more for African civilizations than anything involving Geography (India is a good case showing a north south oriantation is not a real problem for a region). The big problem with subsaharan africa (a terrible way to describe africa by the way, it's better to divide it up into West, Northeast, Couastal south east, the congo, coastal south west, and south in terms of geographic regions) is that most of it is not optimal farmland (besides egypt) and is riddled with diseases which ensure low populations.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Honestly I'd say that just getting rid of the Tetse fly and Malaria would do more for African civilizations than anything involving Geography (India is a good case showing a north south oriantation is not a real problem for a region). The big problem with subsaharan africa (a terrible way to describe africa by the way, it's better to divide it up into West, Northeast, Couastal south east, the congo, coastal south west, and south in terms of geographic regions) is that most of it is not optimal farmland (besides egypt) and is riddled with diseases which ensure low populations.


I'm not quite sure why you'd say India stands out as being proof of the invalidity of the North-South theory, considering how often native Indian subcontinent civilization was destroyed / conquered by invaders from the East-West Eurasian continent. (North Africa experienced the same, it was the Sahara that stopped Eurasian invasions before 1500 in Sub-Saharan Africa. And of course, while the Himalayas were not as complete a barrier as a Sahara before the domestication of the camel, invaders who figured out a way to cross it from Eurasia seem to have been more successful than not.
 
Last edited:

Winnabago

Banned
Is it arguing that "Black" Sub-Saharans were a part of ancient North African demography or that blacks were the principal population of North Africa / "Tunisia" in the 3rd Century? (1)Secondly, what does blacks in Tunisia have to do with African-American Studies? (2)Or is this a Black Studies class? Finally, might it not simply be possible that objective of your lesson isn't to teach you that "Whenever Africans build something cool, white people just have to show up and destroy it..." (3)but that the historical rendering of North Africa as "Blackless" in its history is about as meaningful as America being Blackless in its history. Both viewpoints widely held historically, and equally false, despite the fact that "Blacks" never comprised the greater part of the population in either region at least during the periods most widely known and examined by historians(4).

1. Both. Hannibal is apparently black too, and worse, so is his Hispano-Gallic army.
2. Black heritage, I guess? I don't make the rules.
3. Well, they also describe the horrible things that Alexander the Great did to Egypt, while inexplicably neglecting that the Persian Empire had conquered the country already.
4. Sure, and certainly not the population of an empire of Phoenecian traders.

However, the AHC is to make an analogous black state.
 

scholar

Banned
I'm not quite sure why you'd say India stands out as being proof of the invalidity of the North-South theory, considering how often native Indian subcontinent civilization was destroyed / conquered by invaders from the East-West Eurasian continent. (North Africa experienced the same, it was the Sahara that stopped Eurasian invasions before 1500, largely.)
"Destroyed" is a very strong and very harsh term for what happened. Conquered is better. The sub continent's civilization survived that just fine and its religious texts and written works are amongst the oldest in civilization. No one knows what happened with Harappa, but as a whole Indian civilization [though I find the grouping absurdly diverse] was never destroyed.
 
I'm not quite sure why you'd say India stands out as being proof of the invalidity of the North-South theory, considering how often native Indian subcontinent civilization was destroyed / conquered by invaders from the East-West Eurasian continent. (North Africa experienced the same, it was the Sahara that stopped Eurasian invasions before 1500 in Sub-Saharan Africa. And of course, while the Himalayas were not as complete a barrier as a Sahara before the domestication of the camel, invaders who figured out a way to cross it from Eurasia seem to have been more successful than not.

Honestly thats hardly ever the case, Indian states where often destroyed from the east (and mostly specifically states centered in the Punjap or north east) which where then quickly assimilated into the cultures of the conquered and India continued to do well in the long run as a north south orientated region, they where probably the region of the world closest to Europe in terms of development in the world.

Your example of invaders from Eurasia beating sub-Saharan Africa can also easily be attributed to the fact sub-saharan africa is a malarial region with low population density which make it poorly suited to support powerful states. In fact the areas where this is less the case or where they where they got past it by filling a different niche (Egypt, Ethiopia, Swahili city states) actually managed to produce strong states.

I'd much prefer Spartacus X to show up in this timeline, or the Rabbi King, but whatever.

Really it needs the Human Tornado.
 
err actual hannibal is phoenician technichally speaking since carthages elite was descended from phoenician seafairers. Howdve thwy did use numidian troops and so on but carthage itself was for all intents and purposes mainly phoenician.

Therefore perhaps the carthage elite mismanages rule over the native pops who revolt and establish a nunidian carthage dynasty. Thats the only real way to have a "black" carthage but even then stricltyl speaking all lands from mauritania(roman poftion) to much of india and persia fall under the caucasion group. Thereford to have a truly black carthage you need a subsaharan kingdom somehow conquer carthage.
 
err actual hannibal is phoenician technichally speaking since carthages elite was descended from phoenician seafairers. Howdve thwy did use numidian troops and so on but carthage itself was for all intents and purposes mainly phoenician.

Therefore perhaps the carthage elite mismanages rule over the native pops who revolt and establish a nunidian carthage dynasty. Thats the only real way to have a "black" carthage but even then stricltyl speaking all lands from mauritania(roman poftion) to much of india and persia fall under the caucasion group. Thereford to have a truly black carthage you need a subsaharan kingdom somehow conquer carthage.

But Numidians are/were Berbers so do they really count as "Black"?
 
Is quite easy to found berbers with light. hair and blue eyes, so they aren't blacks

This questions about race seems typical of anglosaxon countries :confused:

Blackness or whitenes has so many gradations...
 
The only Black people in North Africa at the time would be the ancestors of the modern Tuareg (Saharan nomads) and Haratin (agricultural oasis-dwellers) populations in western North Africa, and they would have been outnumbered demographically by the Berber Kabyles and Chaoui (Numidian descendants). In any case, whatever North African Black tribes or communities there were, they existed within the framework of Amazighen/Berber tribal confederacies. The proto-Haratins and Tuaregs may have outnumbered the Phoenicians in North Africa, but they appear to be too few and too scattered to create a formidable state.
 
Top