Eh, the Malians never converted to Christianity. They were fairly powerful until they were invaded by the Moroccans and the empire was split up.
WI Africa is 'the New World'
- Thread starter Morty Vicar
- Start date
Eh, the Malians never converted to Christianity. They were fairly powerful until they were invaded by the Moroccans and the empire was split up.
I meant the Inca whos empire had broken up into small warring city-states and kingdoms.
Morty Vicar
Banned
Or large parts of Africa.. Other areas, such as in South America and of course the arctic circle, although strictly speaking not the USA, were colonised by European powers. Just saying..
So how do Arabs, Berbers and Nomadic tribes become not just the majority in North Africa but in large areas the only population there? If a european settlement, no matter how small, can exist in Rhodesia, the Kongo etc (as in the coast of Brazil) then that can be increased incrementally to a majority population.
Which era specifically? The population of Native Americans decreased over generations, in Africa there was slaughter on a massive scale too, the number of Africans killed in the zulu and boer wars, slave trade etc suggests to me that had they specifically intended too, any one of the major european powers alone could have devastated massive populations of Africans. And furthermore I cannot find much evidence of european armies in Africa, subsaharan or otherwise, dying off at any greater rate than those in the Americas.
I'm waiting for Moonstruck to move this topic to ASB, in the meantime the disease aspect has been covered as far as I'm concerned, lets just take your suggestion of an ASB european plague (say the black death for example) and move on from there.
Local and foreign populations, yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diseases_caused_by_insects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parasites_of_humans
But taking the example of sleeping sickness (maybe not the best example as it was most prevalent in the early 20th century) it was transmitted by the movement of Arabs across Africa, and as you say deadly to the local population (in this case 250,000 Africans in Uganda). Malaria would have been deadly too of course, it was once endemic in the americas and europe, and has been speculated to have contributed to the decline of the roman empire. Although the genetics of people in east africa, India and Greece were resistant to Malaria, there were no Greeks in the British Army and Indian troops were mainly posted to South Africa. As mentioned the only early effective treatment was the use of the cinchona tree by the indigenous peoples of peru, and was taken to europe in the 1640's.
Thats a good point, all I can think of is that wildebeest take the place of the american bison, although they are not as widespread if the european powers are centralised they can make use of wildebeest populations to supply a longer trade route into the heart of africa.
Thats interesting, perhaps an ATL USA is actually not just a mixture of Europeans, with small amounts of African and Native American heritage, but actually more like the 'melting pot' in modern day south america, or the 'coloured' populations of South Africa.
Yes I'm not saying non-discovery of the Americas is canon, I just put that in to pre-empt the inevitable suggestions that Africa would be dismissed in favour of the Americas, as they are seen in the OTL as a more exotic and intriguing place. The distances to South America to me suggest that the Transatlantic slave trade could almost have worked in reverse, the journey to North America to capture or buy slaves (some Native American tribes practised slavery also) and bring them to Africa to work. The fruits of their labour are then easier to transport back to Europe, or vice versa.
Thats the beauty of the roman model of empire, to assimilate the locals into your empire to effectively control the area from you, meaning all you have to do is collect taxes essentially. I'd postulate that this would work better by subjugating small African tribes (who were still at war with one another right through european occupation) than say the Incas who apart from one notable civil war seemed to have a fairly unified resistance to Spanish imperialism.
Will do, I'll get back to you on that. My current understanding is that the European powers divided Africa to avoid war spilling over into Europe, wheras the wars in the Americas between European colonial powers were agreed to be settled in the new World and not in Europe. The proximity of Spain and Portugal to Africa makes supply routes etc rather more difficult for other European powers, perhaps some sort of agreement such as the treaty of Utrecht as applied to Gibraltar could be enacted.
If you read my previous posts I'm not dismissing them, I've already conceeded to their arguments three or more times, and suggested the moderators move this entire topic to ASB if they have the time or compunction to do so. In which case my timeline might not be plausible, but ASB is valid on this site nonetheless.
Absolutely not, in my initial question I should have specified that what I am interested in is not an exact replica, but where the United States of Africa would have differed from the United States of America. I'll go back and change that as you're the second person to highlight this. As for ugly undertones, well yes all of human history has ugly undertones, the history of north America and African colonialism is no different sadly.
New York was originally settled by Dutch colonists, not unlike in South Africa, and formed an integral part of the origin of the USA. However if you'll bear with me as I explain this to you in this scenario the wave of migration from Europe to NA is in this case duplicated to Africa, ie the same people, the same cultural make up, the same technology, the same religions. Of course they won't be exactly alike, but thats the whole point of AH surely?
Thanks for your patronising tone once again, perhaps with your extensive knowledge you could help me to do so rather than just throwing cold water on everything I have said. I mean its fairly easy to dismiss almost anything as impossible, if in some alternate ww2-free universe I suggested the rise of a nazi state in Europe people would dismiss it offhand as impossible. And yet history often shows itself to be more remarkable than fiction.
Many tribes in Africa were conquered and converted to Christianity also, in fact most of Africa has been either Christian or Muslim for a long time.
Still 80,000 troops is fairly remarkable, even the huge Zulu Kingdom only mustered 35,000 against the British. And this is after fighting the Inca civil war.
Last edited:
If you're being intentionally snarky, please don't. I was merely expressing my (no doubt hasty, for which you have my apologies,) opinion as to the general influx of, as I see it, ill-considered and rather ASB ideas in Pre-1900 AH. I do have a habit of being a wee bit touchy, so you're free to take whatever I spew out with a grain of salt, however.
If you're being serious, I'm a wee bit curious as to how exactly you'd have a two-months old newbie move your thread.
Morty Vicar
Banned
It was a slightly sarcastic post, sorry. Although I registered a while ago, I've only really started using the forum in the last couple of days to any great extent, and found that my posts (and some other's posts too) were simply flamed and nitpicked without much constructive criticism or otherwise helpful contributions. So yeah I was also irritated, so apology accepted and please accept my apology too. I'm not alltogether familiar with this forum generally or any individual section or the rules pertaining to each. So sorry if I have made an innapropriate post for this section, in which case I reitterate my request for the mods to move it so we can hopefully move on from this controversy. I was aware of ASB but it seemed at a first cursory glance to be focused more on fictional universes (ie Star Trek etc) so thats what I assumed the section was for. Could you please clarify what is ASB and what isn't? I assume things that are impossible, implausible or unlikely belong in the former category, but I'm not 100% clear on the distinction. Thanks.
ASB means anything that can't happen without the intervention of some supernatural beings, magicians, or incredibly advanced aliens. (ASB stands for Alien Space Bats). It also includes geographic and geologic speculation (what if there were a naturally occurring Panama Canal, for example?), and unusually convenient comets, asteroids, and natural disasters selectively killing off nations, states, cultures, peoples, or races that are getting in the way of a scenario.
Your scenario is ASB because (1) it requires Europeans not to discover the New World, (2) it requires some new disease that kills Africans at historically unprecedented rates while not bothering Europeans that much, (3) it requires Europeans to be granted a resistance to African diseases and parasites that they didn't have in real life.
When you put this in the non-ASB section and phrased as a question, people naturally enough expected that you wanted realistic answers. And the realistic answer is, no, Africa can't be a close parallel to the New World. When people started explaining the stuff you didn't know about how the New World and Africa *aren't* parallel, they weren't being nitpicky, they were answering your question.
In general, outside the ASB section, this site puts a pretty high premium on plausibility and historical fidelity. You can get away with stuff that's cool but sorta implausible if you are writing something pulpy and wildly entertaining, but if you're just asking a WI, you'll get plausible, historically faithful answers.
I've generally found that people are pretty helpful about brainstorming ways around historical obstacles to certain scenarios. Usually if you get lots of responses but not many helpful suggestions, its because you're asking for something that is close to impossible.
My belief is that asking for Africa to be majority European descent requires literally magical diseases; some kind of wildly improbabe series of natural disasters/comets that wipe large areas of sub-saharan Africa clean of human life while improbably not screwing up the rest of the planet; or deliberate genocide, which requires levels of organization and technology that Europeans don't have until late in this time frame, levels of inhumanity that Europeans do not and will not have on a consistent enough and prolonged enough basis, and a prolonged preference for settlement over other more immediately rational forms of economic exploitation that is also not plausible.
Edit:
Also, if you're doing ASB suppositions, its usually good to spell them out right away in your opening post. Example: What if sub-saharan Africans were given New World lack of immunity and lack of diseases in 1492? ASBs also keep Europeans or Asians from discovering the New World.
Your scenario is ASB because (1) it requires Europeans not to discover the New World, (2) it requires some new disease that kills Africans at historically unprecedented rates while not bothering Europeans that much, (3) it requires Europeans to be granted a resistance to African diseases and parasites that they didn't have in real life.
When you put this in the non-ASB section and phrased as a question, people naturally enough expected that you wanted realistic answers. And the realistic answer is, no, Africa can't be a close parallel to the New World. When people started explaining the stuff you didn't know about how the New World and Africa *aren't* parallel, they weren't being nitpicky, they were answering your question.
In general, outside the ASB section, this site puts a pretty high premium on plausibility and historical fidelity. You can get away with stuff that's cool but sorta implausible if you are writing something pulpy and wildly entertaining, but if you're just asking a WI, you'll get plausible, historically faithful answers.
I've generally found that people are pretty helpful about brainstorming ways around historical obstacles to certain scenarios. Usually if you get lots of responses but not many helpful suggestions, its because you're asking for something that is close to impossible.
My belief is that asking for Africa to be majority European descent requires literally magical diseases; some kind of wildly improbabe series of natural disasters/comets that wipe large areas of sub-saharan Africa clean of human life while improbably not screwing up the rest of the planet; or deliberate genocide, which requires levels of organization and technology that Europeans don't have until late in this time frame, levels of inhumanity that Europeans do not and will not have on a consistent enough and prolonged enough basis, and a prolonged preference for settlement over other more immediately rational forms of economic exploitation that is also not plausible.
Edit:
Also, if you're doing ASB suppositions, its usually good to spell them out right away in your opening post. Example: What if sub-saharan Africans were given New World lack of immunity and lack of diseases in 1492? ASBs also keep Europeans or Asians from discovering the New World.
Morty Vicar
Banned
In retrospect, I'll pose this as a sort of ASB AHC thing. As far as I'm aware this topic doesn't fall into any of the above categories, with the possible exception of killing off peoples (albeit in a way which did happen OTL)
(1) Not necesarily, although that is of course implied by my use of the term New World what I was getting at is the prevailing attitude to the Americas is applied to Africa, effectively switching the roles of new world colonialism and the scramble for africa.
(2) Smallpox, which killed 25-50% of Native Americans, could possibly be compared to Sleeping sickness, which although some East Africans were immune to it nevertheless in Uganda it killed about two thirds of the population, along with smallpox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_trypanosomiasis#History
Now Europeans were by no means immune to sleeping sickness (nor for that matter smallpox, which killed 400,000 europeans every year in the 18th century) but merely introducing it wipes out two thirds of the population of the area, with the exception of east africa, so over the entire continent a similar picture emerges. As for the european population as previously mentioned they were subject to a constant influx. Here is an article mainly about the twentieth century, but clearly shows the devastating effect smallpox could potentially have had in Africa.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668906/
(3) Most diseases originating in Africa had already plagued europe, so they were already aware of them even if they could not prevent or cure them. Moreover Europe was subject to diseases of asian origin such as leprosy, cholera, influenza which could theoretically have been transmitted to Africa.
My question was
I don't have an issue with people pointing out the inherant difficulties that are presented by any alternate timeline, as you can see I'm happy to discuss them, or have them 'explained' to me if you will, but I didn't envision a whole thread about them. In a nutshell my question was 'WI Africa was the new World' and the only answers I got were 'it can't be' (to paraphrase). Do you understand where I'm coming from?
I certainly hope so! Maybe its time for me to take the initiative and expand the AT myself..
I did pose this as an AHC, maybe I should have put it in the thread title as some people just read that and respond. As I see it its not close to impossible, the only barrier to the possibility suggested thus far is disease, although in my inexpert opinion I happen to disagree, I have stated already that we can move this to ASB ad nauseum.
I don't know if smallpox was a magical disease, but it certainly wiped out huge populations of Native Americans.. And Europeans, and Africans, but I digress.. Comets are hardly necessary for NA colonisation, nor for that limited colonisation which took place in OTL. Deliberate genocide in US history has been debated endlessly, although I'm more pessimistic about the impact of disease versus displacement, war, famine, trail of tears etc had on native Americans I'm not going to fan the flames on that one. But what whatever happened or didn't happen in the US in this case can equally take place or not in Africa. The only other thing I'd like to say at this point is the transatlantic slave trade took some degree of organisation and inhumanity imo.
Firstly I don't know of many examples of diseases to which sub-saharan Africans were immune, and Native Americans were not, although I'd be interested to learn. Secondly I've stated for the record that non-discovery of the new world is not canon for this ATL.
Look, its been explained to you over and over again why the situations in sub-Saharan Africa and the New World are different, especially in connection with disease.
If you keep insisting that Europeans are somehow magically going to decide to colonize Africa instead of the New World, and the Africans are somehow going to die like flies, be my genocidal guest.
If you keep insisting that Europeans are somehow magically going to decide to colonize Africa instead of the New World, and the Africans are somehow going to die like flies, be my genocidal guest.
Smallpox-As immune as Europeans were, although they were exposed to it long before Europeans came to Africa. Smallpox may very well have originated in Africa, and was home to some strains that were actually less lethal than those in Europe.
Malaria-Not immune to it per se, but sickle-cell trait ensured that a higher proportion of black Africans could survive when exposed to Malaria than Europeans or Native Americans.
Yellow Fever-African slaves in the New World would have been exposed to this disease as children, while when it was first introduced to the New World, Native Americans hadn't been.
Measles-This is an exception. Measles was not common in sub-Saharan Africa before the Europeans began to colonize the world, and was instrumental in eliminating many of the Cape Khoisan, which allowed for Dutch settlement in the Cape of Good Hope.
Morty Vicar
Banned
yes sir, sorry sir
I didn't actually say Africans need to die like flies
but like the Native Americans they would be segregated onto reservations, and many would die in the process. Add to that the numbers killed by disease (as demonstrated) then the populations could be comparable to those in South America or Canada. However the population of native americans could be far greater, and still the USA pretty much as we know it exist today.Smallpox killed a huge number of Africans in later centuries, my argument here is that had there been greater numbers of europeans to transmit the disease (as they did in North America) the effects would have been similar as they were there in the OTL.
Thats a fair point, one third of sub-saharan Africans have the sickle-cell trait. However this in itself has a high mortality rate.
Fair enough, but given the contemporary mortality rates of the disease in Africa there's no justification to say they are any more immune than Europeans.
Thats interesting, do you think measles would have affected other African populations in the same way? Assuming of course there was a dense enough concentration of European settlers with enough contact with the natives to spread the disease?
Although it's still subject to some debate, Africa north of the Sahara seems like it was never occupied by Blacks.*Either the Berbers are the decedents of the indigenous stone-age population, or else farming populations from the Middle East swept aside a hunter-gatherer population which was very thin on the ground. Arab-speaking Egyptians and Maghrebis are by and large Arabized-natives, meaning they're mostly the descendents of Berbers as well who shifted to speaking another language.
* Egypt is the partial exception, as the Nile provided a corridor between the two areas, and Ancient Egyptians were probably a hybrid culture roughly between Berber and East African.
Is the "US" the "US" because it is majority white, or is it the "US" for another reason? Really I think the US is what it is because of the Federal Structure of its government and the tradition of free trade?
It would be quite a thought experiment to have them develop indigenously. Perhaps Revolutionary France conquers Europe and learns from the Haitian experience that Africans have a right to freedom as any man. They then set up a United States of Africa to fight English Imperialism.
It would be quite a thought experiment to have them develop indigenously. Perhaps Revolutionary France conquers Europe and learns from the Haitian experience that Africans have a right to freedom as any man. They then set up a United States of Africa to fight English Imperialism.
Look, you can't replace Native Americans with Africans and say that history will proceed "as usual." They're massively different groups of massively different cultures.
Even if you invent a Magical Disease of Plot Device to cut down on African numbers- which for some reason doesn't make the business of settling sub-Saharan Africa even more dangerous for Europeans than it already is- the people who are already there are going to distort your plan for a transplanted New World colonisation.
The Incas are not the Zulus are not the Kongolese are not the Ashanti are not the Iroquois. This is what I mean by your premise having ugly undertones- you're handwaving away the fact that these are peoples with their own different responses to events, and they are not going to behave in a way that fortuitously grants you a United States of Africa.
Also, if you want to have European agriculture on a widescale in Africa before the twentith century you'll have to do something about the Tsetse fly.
Moreover, you still haven't explained why there will be an actual pressure to colonise Africa in this timeline. Even if we assume that America is not discovered because everyone on the Atlantic coast magically forgets how to sail a boat, they're not going to descend upon Africa in swarms anyway.
The Spanish aren't going to send Conquistadors because the right confluence of circumstances that led to the conquest of Mesoamerica and the south isn't there. There's no easily accessible resources which have already been partly developed by urban civilisations that are engaged in internecine civil war- so no equivalent to Mexico or Peru.
There's no Tobacco or Cotton, no fisheries, no fur trade- nothing to draw the English or the Dutch or the French to an equivalent of North America. Sure, Africa has plenty of resources- but the ones that Europe cares about it is already getting through trade.
And I was going to post about the Portugese, but I suddenly wonder- if Europe has lost the ability to spot the Americas, how is this going to play with the trade to India? I mean, it is possible- albeit very slowly- to get to India by hugging the African coastline. Bartolomeu Dias and Vasco da Gama navigageted a route down to the Cape that way. But it's going to be far slower without the passage across to Brazil.
If you take away the New World then Europe's economic and political relations with the far east are going to be massively affected, to an extent that will completely supersede any great national projects to colonise Africa. It'll be far harder to get to India and China and Indonesia, which will affect the rise of Amsterdam as a commercial juggernaut which will change European political history.
Of course, you could keep the currents in play and easily discoverable from the Canary Islands, but as soon as anyone hits Brazil they're going to realise that hear is a far better proposition than trying to eke out a settlement in Dahomey or wherever.
Look, I'm not trying to be patronising, but I honestly don't think that you've thought this through. There's simply too many considerations for this to be plausible. Now, if you want to write it as an ASB scenario, enjoy yourself- and I don't mean that sarcastically. But I don't see how this will work as a straight timeline.
"Beware, beware, the bight of Benin/where one man came out, fifty went in."
Even if you invent a Magical Disease of Plot Device to cut down on African numbers- which for some reason doesn't make the business of settling sub-Saharan Africa even more dangerous for Europeans than it already is- the people who are already there are going to distort your plan for a transplanted New World colonisation.
The Incas are not the Zulus are not the Kongolese are not the Ashanti are not the Iroquois. This is what I mean by your premise having ugly undertones- you're handwaving away the fact that these are peoples with their own different responses to events, and they are not going to behave in a way that fortuitously grants you a United States of Africa.
Also, if you want to have European agriculture on a widescale in Africa before the twentith century you'll have to do something about the Tsetse fly.
Moreover, you still haven't explained why there will be an actual pressure to colonise Africa in this timeline. Even if we assume that America is not discovered because everyone on the Atlantic coast magically forgets how to sail a boat, they're not going to descend upon Africa in swarms anyway.
The Spanish aren't going to send Conquistadors because the right confluence of circumstances that led to the conquest of Mesoamerica and the south isn't there. There's no easily accessible resources which have already been partly developed by urban civilisations that are engaged in internecine civil war- so no equivalent to Mexico or Peru.
There's no Tobacco or Cotton, no fisheries, no fur trade- nothing to draw the English or the Dutch or the French to an equivalent of North America. Sure, Africa has plenty of resources- but the ones that Europe cares about it is already getting through trade.
And I was going to post about the Portugese, but I suddenly wonder- if Europe has lost the ability to spot the Americas, how is this going to play with the trade to India? I mean, it is possible- albeit very slowly- to get to India by hugging the African coastline. Bartolomeu Dias and Vasco da Gama navigageted a route down to the Cape that way. But it's going to be far slower without the passage across to Brazil.
If you take away the New World then Europe's economic and political relations with the far east are going to be massively affected, to an extent that will completely supersede any great national projects to colonise Africa. It'll be far harder to get to India and China and Indonesia, which will affect the rise of Amsterdam as a commercial juggernaut which will change European political history.
Of course, you could keep the currents in play and easily discoverable from the Canary Islands, but as soon as anyone hits Brazil they're going to realise that hear is a far better proposition than trying to eke out a settlement in Dahomey or wherever.
Look, I'm not trying to be patronising, but I honestly don't think that you've thought this through. There's simply too many considerations for this to be plausible. Now, if you want to write it as an ASB scenario, enjoy yourself- and I don't mean that sarcastically. But I don't see how this will work as a straight timeline.
"Beware, beware, the bight of Benin/where one man came out, fifty went in."
Morty Vicar
Banned
Conventional history suggests Arabs conquered and occupied large parts of North Africa, and extensive subsharan regions too.
Agreed. I was actually about to reply to a post mentioning the 'white majority' to suggest thats not exactly what I was getting at, whats more important to this ATL is the same influx of people, but not necessarily segregated as they were in the US, perhaps a more multicultural population as in South America, Angola, Somalia, parts of South Africa etc.
I don't think anything so drastic is necessary. Although British rule would bring this ATL as close to the US OTL as is conceivably possible I think Spanish and or Portugese rule is more likely, given their advantageous location, slightly easier adaptation to tropical climate than more northerly europeans and a certain experience in fighting against the Moors.
Erm, maybe I'm missing something, isn't that the point of alternate history? I said in a post earlier I'm not trying to exactly replicate the USA in a different location. Where's my lawyer?!
Estimates of deaths in the Congo Free State range from 5 to 20 million, although there is no census data to confirm the death toll. Roger Casement noted that the depopulation was caused by "indiscriminate war", starvation, reduction of births and diseases.
So what you're saying, essentially, is that Native Americans welcomed the European colonials, surrendered and handed over their land at the first opportunity, wheras African tribes would fight to the death in one concerted resistance movement? It really doesn't work like that, in north America and in Africa some tribes allied with the invaders in order to further their own ambitions, some fought them to the death. Some African tribes worked tirelessly rounding up slaves for sale to europeans, wheras some sacrificed thousands of lives to fight against the colonials. I think you've actually described your own viewpoint there, you're saying that one set of people in one hemisphere, with essentially the same weaponry and tribal structures, could be easily conquered, and with the other it would be near impossible.
Mosquito nets. Fix'd. What will you do about the huge variety of poisonous snakes and spiders in South America and Australia? Europeans will never be able to colonise those places!
Why would there be a pressure to colonise the New World? There's your answer, look it up. Why was there a scramble for Africa for that matter? Once again non -discovery of America is not a prerequisite to this ATL, in many ways it makes much more sense to colonise Africa.
The right 'confluence of circumstances' being mainly rampant imperialism, rumours of cities made of gold etc could be applied to Africa. Can you be more specific about the easily accessible partly developed resources please? There were plenty of civil wars happening in Africa too, which the europeans exploited to their advantage.
Tobacco would either be brought to Africa, much like the potato was brought to europe, or if America had not been discovered then nobody would know any different or particularly care. Cotton is not a south American plant it was mainly grown in asia I believe. Fish, yes there are fish in and around Africa, fur too, people still trade in big cat skins, ivory etc (there's a point, the african elephant would probably be extinct). If the point you have italicised is true then why colonise the Americas?
See above re America, I think I may have mentioned it once or twice by now. Even so trade would have continued as it had, or they would have reached some agreement with the Ottoman Empire. Its not imperative to this ATL imo.
For the last time, THIS TIMELINE DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO MEAN NORTH AMERICA IS NOT DISCOVERED, THAT WAS MERELY A SUGGESTION I MADE IN THE OP AS TO HOW THIS ALTERNATE HISTORY MIGHT COME ABOUT!
Of course, history is usually changed in an alternate history. But necessity is the mother of invention! The Romans managed trade with India so is it really so unthinkable? Not that I see the relevance frankly but if its so vital perhaps they make an early attempt at the Suez Canal.
Easily discoverable perhaps, with a few spare months and a crew crazy enough to risk falling off the edge of the earth. I would say the climate and geography of Brazil is comparable to that in Africa, and unless they have alien space bats that can read the future and see that 'hear bee natives what will all die from our diseases that we barely feal bwahaha' then nah I don't see the advantage personally.
Well then go find one that is, no offence.
Last edited:
OK, rereading the thread I missed this part of your first response- my apologies. But I do think that the talk about trying to make the Boer states an analogue in terms of War of Independence is over simplifying.
I'm not sure you put this in the right place, I'm afraid I don't see what you're trying to say here...
Now you're making me a strawman. I said nothing of the kind, and you're trying to characterise my viewpoint as being racist and dismissive so you can ignore what I'm actually saying.
Again, you're not actually replying to my point. I am asking you how you think a pre-1800 settler society in Africa would deal with a major agricultural problem. You are talking about Funnelweb spiders.
And those reasons are? I asked you a question, politely. You're responding aggressively and dismissively. If it made so much sense to colonise Africa before the 1870s, why wasn't large scale colonisation attempted?
The eaily accessible resources refers to the gold and silver mines of northern South America and Central America, which became hugely productive very quickly under Spanish rule. By contrast, resources like the Diamond reefs of South Africa weren't discovered by Europeans until the final decades of the ninteenth centuries. Civil wars happened in Africa too, but I was referring to the vast urban civilisations of the Incas and Aztecs already being hugely weakened politically (to say nothing of pandemics) just when Europe arrived. While divide-and-rule tactics paid big dividends in the Scramble, I'm not aware of any simiarly fortuitous (for imperialists) circumstances on that scale.
I realise cotton is grown in Asia- and yes, that shows that goods could be transplanted to other continents. It's concievable that Europeans could bring a plant like that to Africa to farm. But what gets them there in the first place that they decide to embark on that type of economic development?
I agree it's not imperative, it was just a thought about something that would have to be looked at if you make this a full timeline. It's not a major point right now, I agree.
And it was a suggestion with serious problems. If you've backed away from it, fine, but as you say I was responding to something you put in the OP! By the way, up until now I was trying to have an actual discussion. You're the one who has ignored people's arguments, put words in their mouths and now you're doing the net equivalent of screaming at the top of your lungs. If you're going to be so bloody rude, why the hell should anyone try to have a conversation with you?
The Romans did not trade with India on the scale that Europe did in the Renaissance. Contact with the east was a transformative experience for European society, it affected their economies, the balance of power and their written culture! Now, as you so brilliantly pointed out this is an alternate history site so history is going to change- which is why I'm asking, in your timeline how is this huge depature from OTL going to affect your colonists?
Oh, by the way, your throwaway remark about Suez- the Scramble for Africa in our timeline was in large part touched off by events in Egypt in the ninteenth century. Perhaps you should look at that, and why our timeline went the way it did before you begin yelling at people on message boards. I have been trying to discuss this POD with you. I suggested some reading, because I thought that you had an interest in the subject. If instead you want to belittle everyone who doesn't tell you you're a genius, be my guest! But if you want to change history, you have to know what our history actually is!
QUOTE=PRFU;5496341]
Easily discoverable perhaps, with a few spare months and a crew crazy enough to risk falling off the edge of the earth. I would say the climate and geography of Brazil is comparable to that in Africa, and unless they have alien space bats that can read the future and see that 'hear bee natives what will all die from our diseases that we barely feal bwahaha' then nah I don't see the advantage personally. [/QUOTE]
Easily discoverable for people with Renaissance-era nautical technology and who hit the big bloody ocean current. Like, you know, they did in our OTL. And if vast numbers of ships are going south to colonise Africa, they are going to hit those ocean currents.
Look, you can respond to this, or you can ignore this, or you can spend more time trying to make me a straw man. Whatever your decision is, mind telling me so I know whether it's worth hanging around in the thread or not? Arguing on the internet is surely a waste of both our time.
Morty Vicar
Banned
In my defence thats a little out of context perhaps, it was suggested as one of a few possible starting points, but in my initial post I was trying to create an AHC for the topic as well as leaving it open to interpretation, I usually find people are more enthusiastic than when given a very specific and narrow framework. And more possibilities is usually more exciting to explore.
The statistics I posted were estimated death tolls of native Africans in the Congo Free State from a range of factors, including sleeping sickness. Its the not the magical disease required admittedly, and the statistics may be exagerated, but I think reasonably supports a hypothesis that a workable colony is possible, whilst inadvertantly causing somewhere near the death toll required (in this specific case its compounded by the brutality of the regime in question of course) although in this case it was in a relatively short term so I'm not offering it as conclusive proof as such.
To be honest I didn't understand clearly what point you were trying to make, I never intended to suggest you were racist in any way, although your post did come across as dismissive. What I read into your post was that I was ignoring the civilisations in question ( Incas, Zulus, Kongolese etc) when in fact I gave a specific example (the Inca empire) so even if that example was wrong it was unfair to say I was handwaving away the facts. I saw your post as something of a reductio ad absurdum, so I simply responded like for like. As for the ugly undertones, well all history has ugly undertones, this isn't some megalomaniacal fantasy I'm just interested in how a modern USAfrica might look. If its personally offensive to anyone then I'm truly sorry, its something that I hadn't really considered.
As I said I probably misunderstood your point, but there was a serious point in my response it was that although different tribes behaved differently, overall I'd imagine the reactions to be fairly similar. To my knowledge colonial european powers in both Africa and North America had tribes they viewed as allies, in both cases critical to their survival at times, and other tribes whom they fought and subjugated. Some were smaller tribes, some larger empires, some were loosely affiliated tribes, some were very strict hierchical monarchies (for lack of a better word offhand).
Ancient Egyptian civilisations used mosquito nets, its perhaps unlikely but if they read up on the history and followed suit it would have made a siginificant difference. Even if they were unaware of the tsetse fly's relation to Malaria they would still be found more comfortable to the colonists who wouldn't be used to mosquitoes and other parasites. This alone might give the colonists a considerable advantage. There were Chinese medicines for the treatment of Malaria too, although I'm not sure if they were effectve. By the early 17th century conchona trees had been brought back to europe if we go with the Americas discovered scenario. Incidentally just to pre-empt the argument thats come up here, this doesn't have to be a choice as such, the new world excitement could be applied to Africa as well as North America and Oceana. Again just a possibility..
I tend not to read tone into peoples posts, unless they say something specifically patronising or insulting (there are posts here which seem to insinuate I am stupid, which is why I have maybe been somewhat defensive in general with my answers). Its all too easy to misread the intent of text, for instance your post "Even if we assume that America is not discovered because everyone on the Atlantic coast magically forgets how to sail a boat" I initially read as sarcasm.
But I'll rephrase my post in a more constructive manner, if of course you are genuinely interested in overcoming these obstacles as far as possible and then furthering the timelime, not just proving me wrong as again perhaps I have misread your intentions to be.. I did write some of my replies rather hastily, as I'm trying to answer several different posters with different lines of tack.
Basically what I was trying to say before was that the myriad reasons for settlement of the Americas could almost all be applied here to a greater or lesser extent, that lesser and greater shaping the demographics of the fledgling state. Admittedly of course agriculture is more limited, but gold and diamond mining, arguably big contributing factors to later emigration the Americas, could play a role. Religious persecution, or the desire to set up religious communities could apply to Africa as well, although OTL in Africa this took place more in the form of conventional missions than in the Americas, where there were various examples of religiously-motivated settlements (eg Puritans). I accept that these communities may be more vulnerable to attack in Africa, with the native African's experience of encroaching settler communities they may be less tolerant. Another factor is through humanitarian and natural distaster. A basic example is the Irish potato famine (perhaps not a good one, considering the later period, and reliance on importation of potatoes from the new world, but anyway..) which brought a huge influx of settlers. Other things like the Highland clearances left people homeless and desperate for refuge, caring little where they ended up. Lastly, if all else fails, it begins as a colony for felons as per Australia and parts of the Carribean.
I'd argue that the diamond reefs would have been discovered earlier with colonisation and expansion, there was arguably more knowledge (and legend) of wealthy African kingdoms (the gold coast comes to mind) in the very early stages.
But even during the civil war the Incas (the victorious side) had an army of 80,000 troops at their disposal. Compare that to (for example) the Zulu nation, which had less than half that at 35,000 troops for the anglo-Zulu war. The Ashanti-Fante war could be viewed as foruitous, in the sense it allowed two competing european powers to build up relations, provide a convenient excuse to move in armies, and substantially weaken two fairly sizeable armies at the same time. A win-win for european colonialism as a whole.
I'd argue its all the way its presented to european populations of the time. It was certainly advantageous to American colonists to have a sizeable European population nearby (for soldiers, farmers, doctors etc) and they actively encouraged settlement. In North Africa there's no such great need, being a mere hour away, but (and yes its another big but) if the colonisation took place from the Cape colony upwards (lets work from the premise that it is correctly viewed as more fertile and hospitable than sub-sharan Africa, for the reasons mentioned above, and North Africa because of it being largely desert populated by infamous peoples like the Moors, and not far from antagonising the mighty Ottoman Empire either) then certainly a small population would be required considering the distances involved. At the very least enough to support a small reserve army to protect any mining operations etc.
If America was not discovered, and the Red Sea route blocked, the length of the journey to trade with India would provide a great incentive to create agricultural colonies in Africa. Some potential cash crops would be tea (Kenya, Malawi and Uganda are among the top exporters of tea globally today) coffee, cotton (Burkina Faso, Mali, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Benin and Cameroon are amongst the top 20 exporters of cotton globally, and incidentally they wouldn't have the boll weevil problem later on) and possibly opium and tobacco. Cocoa is native to South America, but the current largest producers are Ivory Coast and Ghana.
What do you mean back away from it? I admitted I may be wrong from the start if thats what you mean, I'm still entitled to express my viewpoint however. If you mean I should have left the thread alone, well that wouldn't be much of a discussion!
I think I have responded to every point in every post thus far, please highlight if I have neglected to answer anybody. As for putting words in peoples mouths, again you'll have to be more specific..
If you mean my point about Native Americans compared to Africans, then again sorry if it seemed sarcastic but I was genuinely trying to understand what your poiint was.The highlighted part wasn't aimed at you specifically, it was basically because I'd answered the same point over and over it seemed, ie the non-discovery of America. Perhaps I should have made it clearer in the OP, I understand that not everyone has time to read through the entire thread.
The POD comes during the late renaissance, contemporary to OTL discovery of America, so I don't see much change in europe-India relations at that stage. Perhaps an alternate transatlantic slave trade could take place from India to Africa, or even the Americas to Africa? I suggest this tentatively as I'm not sure I really want to explore that avenue.
First of all I have never belittled anyone, if it seems I have then it was not my intention. A lot of people have patronised or insulted me itt, so yes I can be patronising right back but I don't intend to hurt anyones feelings, I'm only here to discuss AH because it interests me. I have no interest in cyber bullying or pointless arguments. I actually thought I was doing rather well not taking the bait for the most part..
re: Scramble for Africa; there are various possibilites, one is that the whole OTL American colonial period is shifted to the later scramble for Africa period, alternatively the periods of new world colonialism and the scramble for africa are switched (ie African colonialism then a later scramble for the Americas). Lastly (though the least likely imo) is one of the early european colonies in Africa such as the Greek, Roman, Vandal or Byzantine surviving the Arab conquests of the 7th century.
More info here
First of all if you're suggesting they will discover America by accident, I'm sceptical, especially with, as you say, renaissance era nautical equipment. If they were adrift rations required to reach Africa would not last out until they reached America, and besides they would sail back as soon as they could.
Calm down! As far as I'm concerned this was simply a rational debate/ discussion. I'm not out to strawman you or whatever I'm genuinely interested in your opinion, which is why I ask a lot of questions. Its a waste of time arguing with someone who already has preconceived ideas, but I don't which is why I also posed this as an AHC. I have also admitted to being wrong in various regards.
Last edited:
A few points:
a) The Mayan Empire was never "huge", by any standart (It wasn't even an empire, just a colection of city states, ...but let's leave that aside)
b) The Mayans lived in modern Guatemala and Southern Mexico (Chiapas and Yucatan). They occupied only a very small fraction of the America's landmasses
c) Their territory was in Central America (or in North America, according to your deffinition), North of the isthus of Panama, that is, not in South America
I think he was thinking of Incas, not Mayans, but even then, its only a little beyond Peru, which is big, but not an invincible juggernaut.
Morty Vicar
Banned
Yes sorry for the confusion, I meant Incas. And weren't invincible by any means, but comparable in numbers to the largest African armies at the time.
Look at it this way several African Nations where beating Europeans in the 1800s even while the natives lost most struggles, hell Ethiopia resisted well into the 1900s on a simple technological basis the Africans would be able to put up a better fight.
Morty Vicar
Banned
In the 16th Century the Portugese equipped Ethiopia with 400 soldiers and firearms to defeat the invading adal sultanate. Not only did this considerably weaken both empires for the next couple of centuries, but some historians consider this conflict proved the effectiveness of firearms such as the matchlock musket, arquebus and cannons over traditional weapons. It may even be that some of these same weapons were later used to successfully defeat the Italians.
In the 17th Century Ethiopia underwent a series of rebellions when King Susenyos converted from Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity to catholicism, perhaps because he wanted a stronger alliance with Portugal and Spain. At this point with reinforcement from Portugal Susenyos could have quelled the rebellion more effectively, although the losses on both sides considerably weakened Ethiopia as whole. Portugese occupation (with the motivation of spreading and protecting the emergent Catholic nation, and general opportunistic imperialism of the time) would then be fairly easy, particularly as initially they are seen as allies and able to set up their encampments and defensive preparations essentially unhindered.
Susenyos successor Fasilides declared Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity as the State religion, expelling and banning Jesuits and European missionaries. Again at this point Portugal could well have intervened, perhaps even with papal sanction(and therefore Spanish co-operation to an extent) as per South America.
From then until the 19th century Ethiopia is controlled by local warlords, and only in 1855 is Ethiopia reunited and the Emperor restored to power. Even then they are plagued by rebellions from within Ethiopia, and incursions from Egypt and the Ottoman Empire.
In 1868 the British defeated an Ethiopian Army with only two deaths, and ransacked their capital at Magdala. However the expedition was merely a rescue operation for several British hostages taken by Tewodros II, also described as 'one of the most expensive affairs of honour in history'. In gratitude for the support of Ras Kassai they gifted him mortars, howitzers, muskets, rifles and ammunition. Largely thanks to this weaponry, and the advice of British adventurer John Kirkham, Ras Kassai then defeated his rivals and became the first Emperor (Yohanes IV) over all Ethiopia since Fasilides. He asked for British help to defeat Egyptian and Turkish troops which invaded the north of Ethiopia, but managed to defeat them without help. However the only serious attempts to colonise Ethiopia came from Italy, arguably one of the less powerful European states of the time. They signed a treaty with Menelik II agreeing to Italian control over Eritrea and the Red Sea coast to the northeast of Ethiopia, and although the Italians lost the first Italo-Ethiopian war over the treaty the Italians retained control over Eritrea. A major part of the reason for this is because the French, British and even the Italians themselves had given Ethiopia modern weaponry, in order to prevent the others from colonising the region, and as part of a proxy war with Sudanese Mahdists. Added to this the Italians had expected some help from rebellious factions within Ethiopia, which never came to pass and left the Italians greatly outnumbered, and the decisive victory at the Battle of Coatit led them to underestimate their foes. Later in 1888 the great Ethiopian Famine cost it about a third of its population.
tl;dr Ethiopia was not unified for much of its history, a lot of the time weakened by internal struggles and sporadic invasions from neighbouring powers. The only european power to make any serious attempt to colonise it was Italy, arguably not a very powerful state at that time. Its european allies included Portugal, Great Britain, France and Russia, all of whom also provided modern weaponry, soldiers and training to Ethiopia at various points in their history. For the most part, as a Christian country Ethiopia was maybe given some respect that other African nations were not, and they were crucial to the proxy wars happening at the time as well. If the Portugese, Spanish, French, Dutch or British had attempted to colonise Ethiopia early on my guess is they would have been successful.
However even if not we could perhaps take the example of Hawaii as a later addition to the USA.
Last edited: