Could European Colonialism in Africa Be Hindered by Prolonged Chinese Contact?

During Zheng He's voyages, some of the treasure fleets visited the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa. However, after the Yongle Emperor died his successor prevented further voyages, and only one more expedition wasdone after his death. Suppose this does not happen and Chinese interest in East Africa is maintained. Could exposure to Chinese culture (and possibly gunpowder) lead to stronger East African states able to resist colonization? And what might the knock-on effects of a more outward-looking china be?
 
During Zheng He's voyages, some of the treasure fleets visited the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa. However, after the Yongle Emperor died his successor prevented further voyages, and only one more expedition wasdone after his death. Suppose this does not happen and Chinese interest in East Africa is maintained. Could exposure to Chinese culture (and possibly gunpowder) lead to stronger East African states able to resist colonization? And what might the knock-on effects of a more outward-looking china be?
Given East Africa was already fully integrated in the Indian Ocean, I doubt you'd see much difference.
Both the Indian and the arabs had gun and that didn't help the Swahili states
 
Possibly, with regards to East Africa. Cutting out the middle man reduces expense and may lead to one polity gaining dominance over the other as opposed to the city state system that was predominant in the region. I'm certain the Portuguese will make outposts in the region but it may be more difficult than in OTL.
Won't affect W/Africa as much unless with have Chinese traders establish trade post/cities akin to Greek trading cities in Ancient Egypt.
They may venture past the Cape of Good hope and establish links with Kingdom of Kongo. Slaves won't drive trade either as the Chinese didn't need them so a potential avoidance/reduction (latter more likely) in the impact of Slavery on W/African population.
In addition, the Chinese will be more cautious with the Europeans. I don't the Portuguese fleet could match the Chinese fleet of the time (1400-1600). They wouldn't be able to bully the local powers into paying taxes for trading in the Indian Ocean as they did in OTL. From my recollection, the Portuguese basically behaved like pirates (I may be mistaken).

I think above are more best case scenarios. Portugal & the rest of Europe may still make headway. It's just could be just a bit more difficult.
 
The problem with guns in Eastern Africa is there was no ammo, the only way I could see this working is if there was capability of ammunition manufacturing. No Portuguese would have meant no maize and sisal for East Africa, but anyway I'm always happy when I see a thread(that wasn't posted by me) about East Africa.
 
The problem with guns in Eastern Africa is there was no ammo, the only way I could see this working is if there was capability of ammunition manufacturing. No Portuguese would have meant no maize and sisal for East Africa, but anyway I'm always happy when I see a thread(that wasn't posted by me) about East Africa.
Sure but there's trade from multiple sources and partners, from Indonesia, India, Oman, Egypt...

I'm a bit annoyed that a lot of people see China as the end all be all of the Medieval world, like we see Europe in the XIXth century.
East Africa wasn't isolated and tge Portuguese didn't bring it in contact with the world, nor did the Chinese. They were already part of of multi millenial trade networks in the Indian Ocean that existed well on its own without the Chinese
 
The problem with guns in Eastern Africa is there was no ammo, the only way I could see this working is if there was capability of ammunition manufacturing. No Portuguese would have meant no maize and sisal for East Africa, but anyway I'm always happy when I see a thread(that wasn't posted by me) about East Africa.

I'm sorry, what timeframe are we talking about here? Most European soldiers before the late 1800s didn't have particularly sophisticaed ammunition and could in fact produce it themselves right in camp. To produce a ball all you need is some lead, a campfire, and a casting form. Powder can be mixed on the spot and often was. Paper for cartridges is the only thing you can't easily do as a private soldier but technically you don't even need cartridges for most early modern firearms.

Was the problem just a lack of lead mining or saltpetre stockpiling?
 
East Africa already had extensive ties with the Arab and Indian worlds, if exposure to those were insufficient to prevent European conquest I doubt throwing in ties to China will change much.
 
If China continues sending their large fleets into the Indian Ocean, I think that butterflies a lot of European expansion/colonization in Asia long before European colonization in Africa enters full swing.
 
If China continues sending their large fleets into the Indian Ocean, I think that butterflies a lot of European expansion/colonization in Asia long before European colonization in Africa enters full swing.
Only partially, those fleets were soft power display to get tributaries in line.

Keeping those fleets going would be a massive burden on the Chinese budget, especially if they're supposed to keep the links and a presence alive.

Arrival of Portuguese would still be problematic, I doubt China would have the will or power to project power consistently in India. More concerned about the will, India was never part of the tributary system so they probably wouldn't be arsed in maintaining a system in Kerala
 
IMO a huge problem for sub-Saharan Africa was the lack of suitable exports to pay for European goods, creating a dependence on slavery. The second problem is insufficient military power to preserve local power structures.

Not sure what China can do for East African exports. Perhaps they help make coffee a bigger trade commodity, somehow get those gold fields in South Africa discovered earlier. Militarily a sustained Ming presence might spur the Kilwa to build a cannon armed navy and at least cannons for coastal fortresses. Introduction of horses to southern Africa could protect the gold producers.

For West Africa, perhaps agricultural products. Rice, millet and soy beans for consumption, ginger for exports. Nigeria and Cameroon are major ginger producers today and it was one of the most important coomodities during the spice trade. Militrary wise, maybe a switch from low poundage bows with poison tips to long powerstroke crossbows? This could also reduce the trade value of guns somewhat.
 
IMO a huge problem for sub-Saharan Africa was the lack of suitable exports to pay for European goods, creating a dependence on slavery. The second problem is insufficient military power to preserve local power structures.

You mean beyond gold, pepper, ivory, leather goods, diamonds and all kind of precious stones/metals depending where you are?

The demand for slaves plugged itself on existing trading networks and both supercharged each other, kinda replacing/erasing other potential exports.
It's not that Africa didn't have to export, it's just it was more profitable on a micro-economic level to export slaves than minerals. Especially since, if you get concentrations of people to get said resources, you might get attacked by slave raiders anyway
 
You mean beyond gold, pepper, ivory, leather goods, diamonds and all kind of precious stones/metals depending where you are?

The demand for slaves plugged itself on existing trading networks and both supercharged each other, kinda replacing/erasing other potential exports.
It's not that Africa didn't have to export, it's just it was more profitable on a micro-economic level to export slaves than minerals. Especially since, if you get concentrations of people to get said resources, you might get attacked by slave raiders anyway

Yes, alternatives export commodities to replace slavery, which stunted African development.

Gold, ivory, diamonds are expensive by weight but low in total value. There are no national economies built on precious materials, then or now. For example coal and oil are cheap by weight but whole national economies can be built on it. There's a popular myth that Africa is resource rich, it is actually resource poor compared to other places. America for example is exceptionally resource rich, with ample oil, coal, iron, copper, timber. But I digress.

African leather was not in demand and they didn't have the pepper Europeans wanted. India had spices, cotton, dyes; China had tea, silk, porcelain. These were renewable and high volume commodities. But Africa couldn't do without slave exports as they were continuously importing European textiles and manufactured goods. Before the Europeans, tropical Africa bought salt from the Sahel which was needed in bulk for food preservation. And though gold and ivory were also used in the exchange their limited availability could not replace slaves. I don't think there is one product that would do it, but it would help if Africans had a few long term sustainable export commodities.
 
IMO a huge problem for sub-Saharan Africa was the lack of suitable exports to pay for European goods, creating a dependence on slavery.
I'm not entirely sure "paying for European goods" was what drove the East African slave trade...

Also not sure whether the Chinese cared enough about such things to interfere with it.
 
I'm not entirely sure "paying for European goods" was what drove the East African slave trade...

Also not sure whether the Chinese cared enough about such things to interfere with it.


I thought spices were what fueled the East African slave trade. Didn't Zanzibar have a massive clove plantation?
 
Top