Huh? The Europeans tapped into an already existing slave trading network in West Africa. They didn't hop of the boats and round up Africans you know.
Norman Egypt
- Thread starter The Sicilian
- Start date
Huh? The Europeans tapped into an already existing slave trading network in West Africa. They didn't hop of the boats and round up Africans you know.
From my understanding, a lot of Africans were sold into slavery by rival tribes, who would get guns and other such goodies from the Europeans. If they are already at the level of firearms production, then they don't have much incentive to sell their brethren into slavery. Perhaps it's flawed thinking, but, either way, that's too far ahead in the TL to speculate well.
I see what you mean, its just from the way your previous post was worded it seemed to suggest that there was no slavery in West Africa until the Europeans turned up.
Its a bit more complicated then selling to the Europeans just because they had guns, but its been a while since i studied the African slave trade stuff.
Yes, it was a poorly worded post. My bad.
I should probably touch up on my knowledge of that area as well. Right now I am concentrating on the spread of Islam in West Africa, which, at this point in the TL, is more relevant.
Actually, If I remember the numbers correctly, when European practiced the triangular trades, about 45 millions slaves were taken in subsaharian Africa. Of these, 11 were sent across the ocean, 12 were transported across the Sahara to North Africa and 22 were kept in slavery in Africa. If these numbers are correct, the desire for european goods was definitely not the driver for slave taking in Africa. Also, the trans-saharian slave trade existed before and after - it still existed in the 1930s - the transatlantic one ( in addition to being larger ).
I'm more interested to know what a Christian North Africa will do to the transsaharian slave trade. If it withers or is reduced to a negligible size, there maybe no arabic slaver network for the transatlantic slave shipping to tap into. OTOH, the intra-African slase-taking may still be there and may even be worsened by the addition of arabic refugee technology.
I'm more interested to know what a Christian North Africa will do to the transsaharian slave trade. If it withers or is reduced to a negligible size, there maybe no arabic slaver network for the transatlantic slave shipping to tap into. OTOH, the intra-African slase-taking may still be there and may even be worsened by the addition of arabic refugee technology.
You put it better then I could fhaessig.
I'm more curious of how North Africa gets conquered by the Christians at the time of the Almoravids or the Almohades. Unless that was already mentioned somewhere.
They're completely cut off from the Ummah. I'm not saying it won't be bloody for both sides, especially in Morocco. However, they are surrounded by the Iberians and Normans, two groups that are focused on taking Muslim lands. Roger II took Tunisia IOTL. Sicily lost it not due to a native uprising, but to the hostilities between William I and Barbarossa, and the meteoric rise of the Almohades.
Just wondered about a few things:
At some point whether during the medieval era or much later, does the Norman government of Egypt resurrect the canal that used to connect the Nile Delta with the Red Sea? I realise that the Abbasid Caliph al-Mansour discontinued it during the eighth century, but perhaps such an idea could be given support by the the Italian merchant republics who would probably love to get their own ships through to India.
The Prince Palatinate of Jerusalem. Does that develop into some kind of hereditary regency in Jerusalem, or is the office only reserved for royalty?
When it comes to the Colonial Era, and since its too far from America, would Egypt be among the first to colonize and conquer the lands further down the Nile, or will it's foreign interests remain fixed in the Mediterrenean?
Once Spain is reconquered, perhaps either the Italian States, such as Genoa, or even the Kingdom of Sicily might capture Cordoba as a province or protectorate, and later use it as a launch point for shipping to the Americas?
At some point whether during the medieval era or much later, does the Norman government of Egypt resurrect the canal that used to connect the Nile Delta with the Red Sea? I realise that the Abbasid Caliph al-Mansour discontinued it during the eighth century, but perhaps such an idea could be given support by the the Italian merchant republics who would probably love to get their own ships through to India.
The Prince Palatinate of Jerusalem. Does that develop into some kind of hereditary regency in Jerusalem, or is the office only reserved for royalty?
When it comes to the Colonial Era, and since its too far from America, would Egypt be among the first to colonize and conquer the lands further down the Nile, or will it's foreign interests remain fixed in the Mediterrenean?
Once Spain is reconquered, perhaps either the Italian States, such as Genoa, or even the Kingdom of Sicily might capture Cordoba as a province or protectorate, and later use it as a launch point for shipping to the Americas?
I can neither confirm or deny...
More on Palatine later. In short, it's a knightly order, with it's head also being the King of Jerusalem.
A bit far ahead. Still haven't figured out all of the 12th century!
I can neither confirm or deny...
Move to a new thread, with a spiffy new title!
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=98249
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=98249
Just want to bump this for display.
It's been dead for 3 years; apparently revived in a different thread; and you bump THIS thread? Without even adding anything to it?
Is that a problem?
Apparently we didn't give you a warning the first time you did this crap in August.
Allow me to rectify that oversight.
DO NOT resurrect dead threads for shits and giggles. Do NOT resurrect them to make some useless comment.
If the subject is actually of any interest START A NEW THREAD.