You know what? I give up. Your argument basically amounts to 'but they're black, they CAN'T'.
Ah, the old "You're disagreeing with me because you're racist". I did miss it (not).
You're not the first, or the last, to try this but at this point, I can safely defy anyone to point such in any of the posts I made the years I passed on this board. Go on, give it a try.
If it makes your day, please, do indulge in this fantasy. But if you have would it be an atom of rationality, you won't.
I didn't make the comparison between the Bantu and the Early Caliphate, at any stage.
Indeed, I confused your mention of it.
Even so, the Islamic conquests are still sufficient for the Islamic Caliphate to seize control of the primary Silk Road trading routes between China, India, Central Asia- and ITTL
My bad. But at this point, I'd think the appearance of a Bantu hegemony (and subsequent changes in ancient African geopolitics) would have fair chances to butterfly it.
However, I did say that while Africa ITTL would militarily be more powerful, with stronger and more fiercely competitive African kingdoms and empires emerging as a result
I get that, but as I said above, I doubt steel weaponry would be enough of an advantage on this regard. Hence my proposal to boost existant protohistoric cultures.
Wait. I forgot I'm racist. Proposal to boost black cultures up to forming ancient Empires isn't something I should do. My bad, forgot to stuck to your baseless accusation.
And I've addressed every single one of the non-issues which you've brought up, time and time again.
Nope.
You didn't explained how these empires would magically appear because of
steel!, how they would cross Sahara and tropical rainforest just because (Bantu zepplins maybe?) and how it would lead to taking over the world.
And just like the Europeans' colonisations of Africa, India and South-East Asia IOTL, you need to accept that the Africans ITTL DON'T need to take everything in between themselves and Europe to get there.
I don't *need* to accept, I *need* to be convinced. There's a huge difference.
(At the point your argument is the people *need* to totally agree with you just because, there's an issue with your argument.)
IOTL, the African Empires (whatever North or subsaharian) had indeed to take part of the desertic and semi-desertic regions (that otherwise formed an efficient natural border). Ancient Egypt or Almoravids are good exemples.
Giving that you argued of a weakened Europe and Middle-East in the XIVth century, a certain dose of territorial continuity is needed, as a priori you're not talking of an industrial empire (if we were talking about such, the lack of coal, for exemple, represent an obstacle).
How many times do I have to say that the Bantu WON'T be conquering the entire world, or even necessarily their immediate neighbours?
yourself said:
Because the Bantu Africans who do gain the technology to produce carbon-steel first (along with gunpowder ITTL?) are going to use it, and their increased military capabilities, to carve out more territory for themselves.
Your whole point, so far, is having Bantu expansion being strong enough to push other African Empires (after they appear for some other reason) to compensate their territorial losses by taking on the world each on his own side.
As we're talking of conquering entiere continents or sub-continents; the territorial losses must certainly have been important.
This is effectively an AHC, and that's the WHOLE POINT of an AHC in the discussion forum.
Nope. The whole point of an AHC discussion forum is about discussing on Alternate History (critically with AH.com that have a reputation to be wary about plausibility).
That said, TL threads aren't generally discussion thread : if you want to deepen and devellop your point by making one, you're totally entiteled to.
Not to deride others simply for attempting to come up with a solution, simply because you yourself don't have the vision or the aptitude to even try.
I think you're taking it far too much personally. When I disagree with your TL, it doesn't mean I disagree with you, critically when I don't know you yet (even if what you just did doesn't exactly makes me appreciate you).
Putting it simply : your TL isn't you.
I don't see even see the reason why you think it's personnal : contrary to what you made above, I never (and not even tought about) insulting you as a person.
You think it's stupid, or impossible? Leave it alone, and pick a different thread. It's just good manners.
You seem to have missed a point. This is a discussion forum.
Discussing mean we speak on things, not "how you dare disagree with me".
If you don't want to see it, either don't post or ignore posts that you don't agree with, and stop
victimize yourself.