WI: Africa gets gunpowder earlier?

Gunpowder would help but by itself I don't think it would make that huge of a difference for Africa, specifically subsaharan Africa. Africa has a few underlying problems. It's population density, even in places like Ethiopia was really low even before the slave trades. Too low of a population density and large state formation is difficult. It has a lot of diseases and infertile soils as well meaning population growth was very low compared to other continents which would later exacerbate the detriment of the slave trade.

And I don't know if that 40-50 million number is accurate for the Mali Empire. Historical records of that era would often exaggerate army and town sizes and furthermore, Mali's population today is only 15.3 million. Even adding the parts of the various countries together wouldn't give a number nearly that large. How would all those people be supported in medieval West Africa when technology was far less advanced?
 

Sycamore

Banned
Tatar raids capturing people is different than Africans selling other Africans to Europeans who can't go two miles into Africa without catching fatal malaria/yellow fever/etc. And the Tatar raids were bitterly opposed; Africans weren't fighting Europeans (except in Kongo and the Swahili), they were fighting each other to sell the losers to said Europeans. The first is a classic slave raid sort of deal; the latter is a transactional, mercantile relationship funded by African-on-African warfare.

How so? The first isn't a classic slave raid sort of deal; it was also a transactional mercantile relationship (with the Ottomans and the other powers of the Middle East, which the Crimean Khanate founded its entire economy upon) funded by European-on-European warfare. True, there was a lot of difference between the Tatar Europeans and the Slavic Europeans- but there were equally large cultural and religious differences between those African peoples who were conducting their slave wars and those African peoples who were being enslaved. And there were even greater linguistic and genetic differences between them than there were between the Tatars and the Slavs. By oversimplifying it into 'African-on-African', you're effectively dismissing it as 'Black-on-Black'. I'd be just as entitled to lump all of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa together, and summarize the slave trade as 'Caucasoid-on-Caucasoid'. It doesn't take a genius to realize that things have to be a bit more complex than that.

As for why they wouldn't be bitterly opposed: because a) the (West and East Sahelian) African states were Muslim, b) they had domestic slavery as sanctioned by the Koran, c) they could trade in pagans. Muslim states nominally tried to avoid selling other Muslims. Christians launched rescue missions and tried to conquer the Barbary coast, or paid ransom. Russia's foreign policy for centuries was one of conquering the Tatars, mainly to stop all the slaving.

And a) the European states were Christian, b) they had domestic slavery as sanctioned explicitly by the Bible and the Decretum Gratiani, c) they could trade in pagans. Christian states nominally tried to avoid selling other Christians; Muslims launched rescue missions and tried to conquer stretches of the Mediterranean coast, or paid ransom (or, the other option which you left out, in spite of the fact that the Christian Europeans did this as well- the Knights of Malta being a notable example- mounted counter-raids of their own to enslave enemy civilians). The Mossi Kingdoms' foreign policy for centuries was one of defeating and conquering the Jihad states, mainly to stop all the slaving.

See how it works both ways? And also, how the emergence of an African Gunpowder Empire or two might serve to change things, if it leads to Sub-Saharan Africa becoming far more uniform religiously, either under Islam or under another native African belief system? Would the African Muslims still be willing to sell other African Muslims on as slaves to pagan Christian Europeans?

Notably, that's a) before Europe made contact with sub-Saharan Africa and b) mostly in Turks and Circassians, and maybe some of the others. I know Venice dominated the market, but they were selling Caucasians and Turks out of the fringe of Europe to Muslims, not Italians and Frenchmen or even Balkan Slavs by that point. As I said, the major period of European slavery ended with Christianization of the Balkans and Baltic.

Eventually, the major slavery in the Med was done by pirates--hence all the captured Venetians as Valide Sultans of the Ottoman Empire and all that. The Venetian dominance over the Circassian slave trade in the Late Middle Ages ended once Venice started fighting the Ottomans in the 16th/17th century.

And no, North Africa should not be lumped with the rest of Africa. It's part of the Mediterranean world, which sub-Saharan Africa definitely isn't.

So, you're saying that North Africa shouldn't be lumped in with the rest of Africa, and that its's a part of the 'Mediterranean world'- but you're also saying that Turks and Circassians don't count as Europeans? Genetically, linguistically, culturally, historically- in all of these regards, the Bantu peoples alone (not Sub-Saharan Africans- just the Bantu) were either just as diverse or even more diverse than all of the Indo-European peoples of Eurasia. So if you're lumping all of the peoples of Sub-Saharan Africa together into a single group, you might as well have another group comprising all of the peoples across the entire remainder of Afro-Eurasia together into another single group as well.

That's a very generous definition of "Sahel"; IMO it ends at the border with Ethiopia.

Ethiopia, notably, basically lacked sea access for most of its history; the Muslims controlled Eritrea and the Bab al-Mandeb, and the Horn. Gunpowder did not transfer by sea OTL, and I see no reason for it to do so here. It would travel, via land, to North Africa and then down the salt routes to the Western Sahel, after which it would go East--as it did OTL. Considering India only got gunpowder post-Mongols (around the same time as Europe), this plan to have Sahelian gunpowder even close to then seems suspect to me.

No, that's the actual definition of 'The Sahel', which is an African climatological zone. And you claim that Gunpowder didn't travel by sea IOTL- so then, how do you explain away the incontrovertible fact that the Majapahit Empire, on the island of Java, got their hands on gunpowder weapons in the early to mid 14th century (at around the same time as, or even earlier than, the Indians started making use of them)? Archeological evidence indicates that either Arab or Indian traders were responsible for introducing gunpowder weapons to the Mahapajit, via the established Indian Ocean commercial trade routes. My POD is simply based on the basic premise that, given that these traders already introduced gunpowder weapons to the respective kingdoms of the Indonesian archipelago, they would have been equally capable of introducing those same gunpowder weapons to the respective kingdoms (and sultanates) along the East Coast of Africa as well, at around the same time (early to mid 13th century)?


Ultimately, I don't buy the OP premise, I don't buy that gunpowder is all that important in giving Africa an advantage comparative to OTL, and I don't buy that gunpowder would magically make African statecraft or social organization equal to the nascent coastal bourgeoisie of Early Modern Europe. They have the complex states, absolutely, but its the little things--and the access to the ocean--that really helped Europe out in the long run.

Go back and read my OP again. Here it is again, in case you missed it...

As it says in the title: how profound would the changes have been if gunpowder warfare had been introduced to the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa far earlier than it was IOTL- at roughly the same time that it was introduced to Europe (in the early to mid-13th century)? The POD I've got in mind would see the ruler of the Kingdom of Zimbabwe (which had the established trade links, abundant wealth and the levels of political organisation required to make this scenario perfectly plausible) deciding to adopt the use of gunpowder weaponry after witnessing a spectacular demonstration from a Chinese, Indian or Arab merchant. What kind of an impact might this potentially pivotal POD have had, both on the course of African history and on the history of the World?

So, you've already given your own answer to the OP question- in your opinion, it wouldn't have had any real impact, and big Europe would have still smashed puny Africa anyway. Fair enough; everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But IMHO, the most interesting ATLs are the ones which look the most implausible and fantastical at first glance. The key is getting there gradually, making sure that every step along the way is perfectly plausible.
 
Personally, I suspect that gunpowder would not arrive alone, and that other impulses and notions that piggybacked military tech could be quite important.

And I don't know if that 40-50 million number is accurate for the Mali Empire. Historical records of that era would often exaggerate army and town sizes and furthermore, Mali's population today is only 15.3 million. Even adding the parts of the various countries together wouldn't give a number nearly that large. How would all those people be supported in medieval West Africa when technology was far less advanced?

Its from here. Basically, Africa is really large. Historical Mali was basically a few really fertile river areas, analogous to the Nile, or Mesopotamia. But covering an area rougly equal to France and Germany together. Not quite China, but a respectable attempt.
 

Sycamore

Banned
And yet sub-saharan Africa still lacked the urbanization required to form the basic foundations of a centralized governance among the disparate tribes, even comparable to the likes of the Aztecs or the Inca by the time gunpower could have been discovered as per the OP

Name one area of sub-saharan Africa where, with the historical domestication you describe, could support a population center in the 100s of Thousands? You can't, and that's my argument.

While sure, it's impossible to claim that domestication or high yield crops didn't exist in Africa, it is easy to see why Africa, from the Arabs to the Europeans were the colonized rather than the colonizers.

So, can you describe any areas of Europe in this era which, with the historical domestication you describe, supported an urban population centre in the hundreds of thousands? You can't- especially not if you exclude Turkey (Constantinople) from your definition of 'Europe'. But that's not a workable argument, because it's by no means an indicator as to whether or not they could have been capable of supporting cities of this size. In 1450, for instance, Timbuktu was as populous as Venice, with a population of 100,000- more populous than the cities of London and Rome combined at this time. The populations of both Djenne and Gao, also in the Kingdom of Mali, were also known to have rivalled that of Timbuktu, with many historical first-hand accounts from visiting merchants asserting that these cities were both larger than Timbuktu was at this time.

In 1400, the cities of Kilwa, Malindi, Mombasa and Gedi, all in the Kilwa Sultanate, were all estimated to have populations of roughly 10,000 people each- hardly impressive, but still almost twice as populous as the city of Berlin was at this time. If Imperial glory comes their way ITTL as a result of the POD, you could easily envision at least one or two of these cities' populations booming in much the same manner as Berlin's did IOTL. As for the Kingdom of Zimbabwe's capital, Great Zimbabwe, it had a population of 18,000 people- roughly the same population as the contemporary European cities of Madrid and Vienna.
 
Last edited:
How so? The first isn't a classic slave raid sort of deal; it was also a transactional mercantile relationship (with the Ottomans and the other powers of the Middle East, which the Crimean Khanate founded its entire economy upon) funded by European-on-European warfare. True, there was a lot of difference between the Tatar Europeans and the Slavic Europeans- but there were equally large cultural and religious differences between those African peoples who were conducting their slave wars and those African peoples who were being enslaved. And there were even greater linguistic and genetic differences between them than there were between the Tatars and the Slavs. By oversimplifying it into 'African-on-African', you're effectively dismissing it as 'Black-on-Black'. I'd be just as entitled to lump all of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa together, and summarize the slave trade as 'Caucasoid-on-Caucasoid'. It doesn't take a genius to realize that things have to be a bit more complex than that.

I don't consider Tartars to be Europeans; they were Turkic peoples from Central Asia foundationally formed by the Golden Horde.

And yes, of course the Africans were culturally different--the various language groups, the different traditions--but Europeans didn't really care about that, of course.


And a) the European states were Christian, b) they had domestic slavery as sanctioned explicitly by the Bible and the Decretum Gratiani, c) they could trade in pagans.

The Catholic Church banned the selling of Christian slaves to Muslims--the main market--multiple times. Slavery was replaced by serfdom everywhere in Europe by the time the Mongols came on the scene.

Christian states nominally tried to avoid selling other Christians; Muslims launched rescue missions and tried to conquer stretches of the Mediterranean coast, or paid ransom (or, the other option which you left out, in spite of the fact that the Christian Europeans did this as well- the Knights of Malta being a notable example- mounted counter-raids of their own to enslave enemy civilians). The Mossi Kingdoms' foreign policy for centuries was one of defeating and conquering the Jihad states, mainly to stop all the slaving.

Christians did not sell white Christians in the time period we're talking about. Turn them into Caribbean slaves as punishment for rebellion? Sure, the Redlegs. Enserf them or bring them close to slavery? Yes. But did Europeans sell other Europeans to a third party of Europeans in the Early Modern Era? No. Portugal and Spain imported Africans as domestic servants instead. You could make a stretch for Poland and Lithuania (there, it ended in 1588) or even Russia, but they had no access to the kind of markets that Portugal and Spain did. Serfdom had replaced slavery.

The Mossi kingdoms had nowhere near the cogent foreign policy or, more importantly, political unity of Muscovy (which became Russia). To compare the two situations is ridiculous.

See how it works both ways? And also, how the emergence of an African Gunpowder Empire or two might serve to change things, if it leads to Sub-Saharan Africa becoming far more uniform religiously, either under Islam or under another native African belief system? Would the African Muslims still be willing to sell other African Muslims on as slaves to pagan Christian Europeans?

The African, Sahelian states of the period did not have the state organization/centralization/longevity that the main gunpowder empires had. Notably, all of said empires were fundamentally touched by Mongol heritage--and built off of Mongol administrative traditions and prior administrative traditions in organizing their states. What does the Sahel have? Kanem-Bornu, sure, and the carousel of various Malian states? It did not have a Perso-Islamic canon, or the Kievan Rus, or something even approachably close to China. Ethiopia, the oldest of them all, had fundamentally changed after the decline of Aksum, the Ethiopian post-Yodit Dark Ages, the Zagwe and then the "Solomonid" revival. For one, it had no sea access.

So, you're saying that North Africa shouldn't be lumped in with the rest of Africa, and that its's a part of the 'Mediterranean world'- but you're also saying that Turks and Circassians don't count as Europeans?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The successors to the Golden Horde are successors to the steppe tradition and Central Asia, not to Europe. Just because they looked white doesn't make them Europeans.

Genetically, linguistically, culturally, historically- in all of these regards, the Bantu peoples alone (not Sub-Saharan Africans- just the Bantu) were either just as diverse or even more diverse than all of the Indo-European peoples of Eurasia. So if you're lumping all of the peoples of Sub-Saharan Africa together into a single group, you might as well have another group comprising all of the peoples across the entire remainder of Afro-Eurasia together into another single group as well.

In this time period, to European eyes and mercantile purposes, Africa was Africa. The Muslim powers near Europe--the Ottomans especially--knew to differentiate between Eastern and Western Europe, and then between people like the Tatars and, say, the Serbs.

Europeans only differentiated the types of Africans when they needed to make sales comparisons of folks up on the auction block.


No, that's the actual definition of 'The Sahel', which is an African climatological zone.

I'm using it as the cultural term; it is obvious Ethiopia is in the Horn of Africa "zone" as opposed to the Mali-Kanem axis that traditionally defines the Sahel.

And you claim that Gunpowder didn't travel by sea IOTL- so then, how do you explain away the incontrovertible fact that the Majapahit Empire, on the island of Java, got their hands on gunpowder weapons in the early to mid 14th century (at around the same time as, or even earlier than, the Indians started making use of them)? Archeological evidence indicates that either Arab or Indian traders were responsible for introducing gunpowder weapons to the Mahapajit, via the established Indian Ocean commercial trade routes.

They probably got it from China, IMO, although I could definitely have been wrong on the sea-gunpowder thing. In any case, I don't see gunpowder getting from, say, the Swahili or Somali through Ethiopia to the Sahel, not when gunpowder would have just come south from the Arab world.

My POD is simply based on the basic premise that, given that these traders already introduced gunpowder weapons to the respective kingdoms of the Indonesian archipelago, they would have been equally capable of introducing those same gunpowder weapons to the respective kingdoms (and sultanates) along the East Coast of Africa as well, at around the same time (early to mid 13th century)?

I don't think gunpowder got there that early--maybe mid-to-late 14th century.

So, you've already given your own answer to the OP question- in your opinion, it wouldn't have had any real impact, and big Europe would have still smashed puny Africa anyway. Fair enough; everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But IMHO, the most interesting ATLs are the ones which look the most implausible and fantastical at first glance. The key is getting there gradually, making sure that every step along the way is perfectly plausible.

I am a bit of a plausibility zealot, I will admit. You mention Monomotapa; although there was certainly Arabo-Swahili influence, I don't think there was enough sustained contact to give them gunpowder. Hell, in OTL they had gunpowder-users from two ends: the Arab merchants and the Portuguese prazeiros, but gunpowder didn't really catch on. Mutapa was, in any case, not the strongest state; a papally-recognized Kongo is a good bet, if only because the Papal recognition might be able to prevent the worst Portuguese abuses.

I could see Kanem becoming a gunpowder-esque state in the Early Modern Era, seeing as it wouldn't get "Songhai'd"; the spectre of Fulani jihads makes the creation of a centralized or modern state even harder, since nomads tend to make a mockery of the plans of settled folks.

###

And considering what became of the Qing and Mughals, being a gunpowder empire isn't exactly a safe protection from the depredations of the trans-oceanic merchants of the European bourgeoisie.
 
I could see Kanem becoming a gunpowder-esque state in the Early Modern Era, seeing as it wouldn't get "Songhai'd"; the spectre of Fulani jihads makes the creation of a centralized or modern state even harder, since nomads tend to make a mockery of the plans of settled folks.
The thing is that gunpowder makes it a lot easier for settled folks to resist nomads, the way the Russians or Americans did. The Fulani jihads are more likely to be shattered on a gunpowder empire Kanem Bornu than to shatter it, judging from other empires and kingdoms facing nomads with gunpowder weapons.

And considering what became of the Qing and Mughals, being a gunpowder empire isn't exactly a safe protection from the depredations of the trans-oceanic merchants of the European bourgeoisie.
The Mughals suffered much more from internal issues than the "depredations of the trans-oceanic merchants of the European bourgeoisie". Going too far in conquest, spurring rebellions onwards, suffering from palace intrigue, and promoting religious bigotry hardly needed East India Companies to occur. It was rather the collapse of Mughal power that enabled depredations than vice-versa.

The Qing were less clear-cut, but the Europeans (specifically the British) were also much stronger by the time that they were being pressured than they had been while the Mughals were beginning to fall apart in the 18th century. And of course in either case, the "depredations" were of an entirely different character to what happened in Africa. Even if they can't avoid predation, negotiating a different relationship would still be a net long-term positive.
 
Nice concept but its too broad in geography, not broad enough in terms of technology.

E.g. while millet may be a food crop (but seems to be substituted for something else at the first opportunity) if you have to hand grind it, it takes a lot of labour. So you need water or wind mills and an adequate power source for either. They also help in gunpowder making, a lot.

To be more than a roadbump to European or Islamic expansion the state or group of states need to be sufficiently advanced and stable at several stages widely spread over time while maintaining a sufficiently advanced technology and military system to withstand the next wave.

And that’s a real problem, European colonisation in Africa as opposed to the west African slave trade is a late 19th century issue apart from the Cape which is the one area where there are no earlier substantial African polities so the 13th century ( or 15th) introduction of gunpowder has to translate into the ability to stand up to breechloaders, maxim guns ironclads and rifled artillery.

To do that you need some motivation to maintain a sophisticated military force and stable political structure of some size. Having the military power to see off early European forces is feasible but in the end they are traders not conquerors so you get a trade relationship. None of the Portugese, Dutch or Brits or Omani’s did and there has to be something of substance to trade for. Ain’t no tea, sugar or spices.


The best two bets are a state based around the Cape – which would be Great Zimbabwe without the pastoralist invasions and internal tensions or a Christian state around the Horn of Africa with access to the coast that gets integrated into the European state system. I say that because the threat from the Muslim neighbours is likely to push for high military standards and integration would facilitate broad technology transfer, especially early on.

As to west Africa - apart from Kongo there seems to be very little in the way of organised states.
 
You mean Central Africa, right? West Africa is where all the slave states were. And Central Africa did have the Lunda and Luba, but the Kongo and its vassals were definitely the most organized states
 
Maybe Muslim countries like Songhai or Mali could learn how to make guns or trade for them. They seemed much more technologically advanced than Sub-Saharan cultures at the time.

I personally have a soft spot for Mali and Songhay. If they could somehow get a gun industry up and running, and the professionalized armies to go with it, the Songhay or Malian empires would have had the ability to project power to a much greater level than what they did OTL. A revived Malian empire out of the Songhay dynasties could be interesting. Maybe they adopt some Ottoman Islamic scholars* to make up a class of professional bureaucrats and voilà, you've go yourself an African Empire to rival those of early modern Europe.

*Conveniently fleeing from north Africa due to ATL religious strife or civil war.
 
Except the slave states are petty chiefdoms rather than largeish organised kingdoms. Certainly on maps there is a long stretch of coast from the Yoruba to Kongo with nothing beyond local note.

Yes you can set up a scenario that establishes one but I would suggest that Gunpowder is the least of the issues, notably they have to not use their gunpowder advantage to be more efficient slavers.

On another matter a number of population quotes have been given, Quick answer is for sub saharan africa noone knows until quite modern times as there no written records, estimates vary from 100m to 22m in the 1600's, so its a guess and Egypt and north africa are likely to be included.

One reasonable good source ( or they explain how they got the numbers) gives sub sahara as a population of ~38m in 1500 - 52m in 1820. Vs W Europe population 57m - 132m in the same period. The Sub saharan african area being 2.4X the size of europe inc european Russia.

Another issue will be economic growth. West Europe grows from 44m USD in 1500 - 163m in 1820 - 4x GDP growth vs less than 2x pop growth.

Africa est 18m to est 31m so not too far off linear with population.

After 1500 to stay competitive the putative African state needs to to mechanise and modernise.

Western Europe is a very densely packed part of the world, with excellent sea and river communications great linguistic and communal diversity but an overarching commonality ( Christendom, Latin and Greek scholarly languages, later French) which allows intense military and commercial rivalry, prevents overwhelming victory and is generally a hothouse for both commercial and military sciences in the period.

Without similar conditions how does an African State maintain the development tempo? ( have the Spanish go conquistadoring in Africa and the Portugese trading in South America, with Protestant Pirates supporting the African States?)

In 1500 in all probability any semi decent african tribe could see off a european 'conquest' if it wanted to. By say 1750 the only thing that will get a European army out of your country is another European army. See Mughals, Crimean tartars etc etc.
 
As it says in the title: how profound would the changes have been if gunpowder warfare had been introduced to the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa far earlier than it was IOTL- at roughly the same time that it was introduced to Europe (in the early to mid-13th century)?

Unlikely to happen. Europeans adapted gunpowder to war because gunpowder weapons served important needs. First, it allowed another way to knock down heavy castle walls. Second, it was useful in piercing European style heavy armor. Europe was also capable to refining and improving gunpowder for war because they possessed the necessary skills to do it - bell making and clock making (precision gears). That's what allowed them to first fashion cannons, and then later gun barrels, and later to develop the intricacies of the firing mechanism.

Africa has neither the reason nor the skills to do so. There aren't huge stone fortresses all over the place dominating war. Warriors aren't clad in heavy steel armor. Gunpowder does not serve a purpose that can't already be satisfied with existing technology. Furthermore, they lack the ability to make the improvements Europe did. It's a very different skill set.

If Africans adapt gunpowder, it's likely to be in the fashion Chinese used it - for fireworks and such. They aren't going to make cannons and guns out of it like the Europeans did.

Eventually, the Europeans will develop gunpowder weapons to the point it changes warfare by the institution of a mass army all carrying guns, but that doesn't happen until the 17th century. In the meantime, Europe still has a real need that gunpowder weapons serve. I don't see the African states having that same need to begin the process Europe did.
 
Top