Effects on West Africa if the transatlantic slave trade is reduced or collapses?

So might the earlier ending of the Atlantic slave trade not simply mean such diversifcation occurs earlier? It seems likely to me, and it's pretty much what @Czar Kaizer seems to point to:



Though I'm not sure if West Africa should be compared to India - which, before Europe overtook it at a relatively late stage had long been (much like China) one of the most wealthy and developed regions of the entire world. Nevertheless, I do tend to agree that an earlier end to the slave trade would ultimately be a major boon to West Africa. Depending on how gradually it happens, there might be an economic downturn if it happens too suddenly. But either way, it will force economic diversification. The trade network is there.

On a positive note: having to build up from less of a history of wealth than India historically possessed, it may take a while for uninterested Europeans to notice. If the West Africans gradually evolve into useful trading partners, West Africa may be spared the brunt of direct colonialism, facing concessions and unequal treaties instead. Not ideal, but better than certain other alternatives.

Yes and it also helps that they wouldn't be constantly raiding their neighbors. Personally though, I think a complete end to the slave trade before the 19th century is ASB.

From an economic perspective, the slaves were not an ultra-valuable commodity if not export. Without the slave trade, we would just see excess mortality that would cancel out the slaves leading the area.

i don't understand this post. Can you rephrase? Are you saying that slave weren't so valuable that they caused some African states to completely reorient their economic and political structures around exporting them?
 
Bear in mind that the downturn in the slave trade is limited to colonial America (as a result of indentured servitude becoming more popular at the expense of African chattel slavery).

Edit to add: This trend starts in the late 17th century, beginning in the late 1670s and starting to ramp up much more in the 1680s and 90s.
 
Bear in mind that the downturn in the slave trade is limited to colonial America (as a result of indentured servitude becoming more popular at the expense of African chattel slavery).

I don't actually know what you mean by "Colonial America", but, assuming that most of the people here are US citizens, I guess that you're talking about the Thirteen Colonies.

The British North American colonies only took about 5% of all Transatlantic Slave Trade. Therefore, there's no meaningful impact in Africa.
 
I wonder if earlier and wider spread of Islam in West Africa would stop slave trade there-if West Africa is solid muslim up to Gulf of Guinea coast by 1500. It was forbidden for Muslims to sell other Muslims into slavery and Europeans would not be able to capture significant numbers on their own in "white man's grave".
 

BlondieBC

Banned
i don't understand this post. Can you rephrase? Are you saying that slave weren't so valuable that they caused some African states to completely reorient their economic and political structures around exporting them?

These societies were generally at the carry capacity of the land, and facing population growth that was constantly pushing against these limits. In these environments, the marginal value of additional men added or removed from the economy is zero. It can be approached as I have presented, or it can be also seen in the concept of "hidden unemployment". The limited factor in these societies was not available labor but physical resources.

Also, in my readings and generally speaking, societies were not exporting their own young men, but men captured in wars with neighboring tribes. And these wars were at about the same rate as before the slave trade, the change was that before the slave trade, the men of the neighboring tribes would have been killed. In the slave trade era, they would have been sold.

This pattern of war is not unique to Africa. We have two good data sets of over 10K dead. One for the Americas, one for the around the Czech area. The majority cause of death for all humans under age 60 was a violent death to another human. We are an very violent, war like species.
 
@Jonathan Edelstein may be able to provide some insight - he knows a ton about West Africa. Overall, the most important changes I'd say will depend on why the slave trade disappears or declines, both proximate and remote causes.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 

BlondieBC

Banned
There are quite a few problems with this but the main one is simply that over the last 8000 years West Africa has developed tremendously - or rather, you first say it did not but then that it did but slower? What are you arguing? Engineering is a terrible analogy as even the largest work of that field pales in comparison to the scale of a massive area of Earth over the course of 8000 years. The entire thing is inherently complex to the point that it is currently impossible to "fully explain" it, and as such we require complex ways of viewing what has happened. This includes looking at it through multiple lenses.

When discussing why one area does better, we are not talking about the ABSOLUTE level of technology, but the RATE of technology change.

Let me try what hopefully is a less controversial example. The Roman legions of the 4th, 5th and 6th century AD were much better than they Roman legions that defeated Carthage. As in if 6 legions of each era were to meet on the field of battle, the 5th Century AD ones would win more than 90% of the time. Yet, the earlier eras from the Punic wars to about 179 AD are an era glory. The late Roman era is an era of defeat. And the reason is simply, the quality of the opposing armies improved at a faster rate than the Romans did, and arguably, surpassed Roman.
 
These societies were generally at the carry capacity of the land, and facing population growth that was constantly pushing against these limits. In these environments, the marginal value of additional men added or removed from the economy is zero. It can be approached as I have presented, or it can be also seen in the concept of "hidden unemployment". The limited factor in these societies was not available labor but physical resources.

Also, in my readings and generally speaking, societies were not exporting their own young men, but men captured in wars with neighboring tribes. And these wars were at about the same rate as before the slave trade, the change was that before the slave trade, the men of the neighboring tribes would have been killed. In the slave trade era, they would have been sold.

This pattern of war is not unique to Africa. We have two good data sets of over 10K dead. One for the Americas, one for the around the Czech area. The majority cause of death for all humans under age 60 was a violent death to another human. We are an very violent, war like species.

What on earth does that have to do with my post? Where did I mention population? I was talking about diversification in the economy.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
What on earth does that have to do with my post? Where did I mention population? I was talking about diversification in the economy.

We are dealing with a labor based economy, often with limited use of farm animals for horse power. So the amount of labor is an important. It goes back to if the slave trade impacted the diversity of the economy. The slave trade did not harm economic diversity like the de-industrialization of India did.
 
We are dealing with a labor based economy, often with limited use of farm animals for horse power. So the amount of labor is an important. It goes back to if the slave trade impacted the diversity of the economy. The slave trade did not harm economic diversity like the de-industrialization of India did.

Now you're bringing the de-industrialization of India into this? What does that have to do with anything? When did I say the amount of labour was unimportant? You're making these vague statements that seem disconnected from my post.

My statement was simply that the sheer profitability of the slave trade caused some African states to orient their entire societies around it both economically and politically. That's not healthy because it is a fundamentally extractive and mono-focused.
 
I don't actually know what you mean by "Colonial America", but, assuming that most of the people here are US citizens, I guess that you're talking about the Thirteen Colonies.

The British North American colonies only took about 5% of all Transatlantic Slave Trade. Therefore, there's no meaningful impact in Africa.
Well, it also ranges up to Canada, all of which (including Quebec) is British as a result of knock-on effects of the POD. I thought it might be the case that there weren't many significant differences, I just thought my TL might be more interesting with butterflies in Africa.
 
You would have fewer states forming along the coast but convesrly you may see the states that do rise have more diversified economies. In the early years of European and African trade Africans exported things like cloth and other manufactured goods, however with European demand for slaves there was a dramatic shift in trade to the export of slaves. The long term ramifacations of economies no longer based on the export of slaves are hard to judge but a diverse and resiliant economy could see West Africa being as valuable as India, which could also be a negative as like India we could see European colonialists try to take over West Africa a lot sooner, rather than OTL where it was ignored for 200 years.

That would be almost ASB. India was practically the polar opposite of export poor West Africa. With spices, dyes, cotton and textiles, crucible steel, India was the poster child of export abundance.
 
I wonder if earlier and wider spread of Islam in West Africa would stop slave trade there-if West Africa is solid muslim up to Gulf of Guinea coast by 1500. It was forbidden for Muslims to sell other Muslims into slavery and Europeans would not be able to capture significant numbers on their own in "white man's grave".

They promptly decide that most West African Muslims are not "Real Muslims" for one reason or another and the trade continues. They will find one thing or another with wrong their culture , seize it as evidence that they are "apostates" and then sell them anyways.
 
Last edited:
They promptly decide that most West African Muslims are not "Real Muslims" for one reason or another and the trade continues. They will find one thing or another with wrong their culture , seize it as evidence that they are "apostates" and then sell them anyways.
Or they will prey on peoples elsewhere in Africa that haven't yet been Islamicised (sic). Central and East Africa for starters, later southern areas. Anyone got numbers for the slaves taken from the east coast and adjoining areas of Africa by "Arab" slavers over several centuries? I read once that in a single decade alone in the mid-19th century about one million slaves were taken from Malawi and neigbouring regions. Not sure that figure is correct but IF it is the total taken for the Middle Eastern slave markets will have dwarfed the 11m over three centuries shipped over the Atlantic!!
 
Top