WI: Europe was Black

SinghKing

Banned
The very same empire that demonstrated a deep desinterest in sub-saharian Africa (arguably, you had nothing of interest to them but sand, and some really early tribal confederacies in Niger, that had the huge disadvantage to not being on trade roads (the only trans-african "international" trade road being along the Red Sea at this point)?

You'd need a reason why they would want to go there in first place, bamely by an earlier protohistoric/historic development of Africa as described above (and it's a PoD that have the huge advantage, at least for me, to be an afrocentric PoD, rather than "Let's make Africa a more European entity to have some hope to them to take over")

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. And then the peoples who they use it against, and who they have solid trading links with, are going to develop it as well, and put it to use themselves. And so on, until it spreads across Africa and beyond. And the first step in spreading the innovation and military utilization of carbon-steel (and gunpowder) beyond Africa to the rest of the Old World at this stage in time would have been via the Roman Empire- the southern-most Empire in Europe, which possessed vast swathes of territory across the entirety of North Africa's Mediterranean coastline. And thus, the Roman-wank commences- not against the Africans, who already have possess the Roman's newly acquired carbon-steel and/or gunpowder military production capabilities, but against everyone else in Europe, and indeed against those in West Asia as well. But the larger and more successful that an Empire gets, especially in that historical era, the more inevitable their inevitable spectacular demise.
 
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.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how "Once Rome take-over, natives are going to be stronger and take over Rome" would be a motivation for Roman Empire to expand southwards in first place.
Even assuming the whole "carbon-steel" semi-industrial feature was a systematical thing in Romania (it wasn't), you need a reason for Romans to expand in Africa in first place, possibly taking over Maurs (something they never managed to really do, because being Barbarians doesn't mean you couldn't get organised, and kick Roman asses in semi-desertic, if not desertic terrains, something where Roman armies aren't going to do that much well).
Then, after beaten Maurs and nomadic confederacies, this empire have to deal with Sahelian entities, being really far from their bases (and the huge desert between them and these bases aren't going at all to easy things). Then to cross tropical forests that isolated the second and third thirds of Africa, praying really hard to not fall to natives Teutoburg-way or simply to mosquitos.
And then, in a most probably much MUCH weakened army, taking other the third third of Africa.

Not even mentioning the plausibility of the move, you'd need a *huge* reason for Romans to at least trying this and not let the expedition crumble under its own pointlessly existance. Expanding for the lulz is simply not enough.
 

SinghKing

Banned
I'm sorry, but I don't see how "Once Rome take-over, natives are going to be stronger and take over Rome" would be a motivation for Roman Empire to expand southwards in first place.
Even assuming the whole "carbon-steel" semi-industrial feature was a systematical thing in Romania (it wasn't), you need a reason for Romans to expand in Africa in first place, possibly taking over Maurs (something they never managed to really do, because being Barbarians doesn't mean you couldn't get organised, and kick Roman asses in semi-desertic, if not desertic terrains, something where Roman armies aren't going to do that much well).

Read the full post please.
 
Read the full post please.

Please do the same : what's the point for Rome to go there, expect for "Roman strong"?
You had no trade road worth mentioning at this point that either crossed Sahara or went further than Somalia, that may have tied Rome and sub-saharian Africa. Nada.
Having these inexistant trade roads allowing the transmission of a semi-industrial feature that wasn't even present everywhere in Mediterranean basin would already be problematic; without mentioning Roman interest advancing South, something that they never ever tried to do, because there was nothing that really interested them in first place. (They were content with more or less clientelizing Nubian states, for exemple)
 
Last edited:

SinghKing

Banned
Please do the same : what's the point for Rome to go there, expect for "Roman strong"?

I'm saying that Rome AREN'T going to go through Africa. I'm saying that the Bantu Africans' knowledge of the technology needed to produce carbon-steel (along with gunpowder ITTL?) would eventually be transmitted outwards through the rest of Africa- both the easy way, through the migration of traders and craftsmen, and the hard way, through their military engagements, and resulting territorial acquisitions, from their enemies and rivals on the African continent (with the Sahelians first in line to be on the receiving end). The non-Bantu African empires are still going to want to expand their own territories- probably even more so, to make up for the territories lost to the Bantu's super-expansion; and which way are the Sahelian empires going to expand? Southwards, against the far more powerful Bantu? Or northwards, towards the relatively weakened peoples of Northern Africa? And eventually, at this time, the only way for the technology to be transmitted out of Africa (which it unavoidably would be at some stage) would have been through the Romans' territories in North Africa. They'll come on the receiving end of the African's enhanced military technological capabilities, and they'll find it tough going at first- probably losing a decent amount of their African territory in the process. But once they've managed to work it out for themselves (which they should be able to do swiftly enough), the whole of the rest of Europe, the Middle East and West Asia are going to be at their mercy.
 
eventually be transmitted outwards through the rest of Africa- both the easy way, through the migration of traders and craftsmen, and the hard way, through their military engagements, and resulting territorial acquisitions, from their enemies and rivals on the African continent (with the Sahelians first in line to be on the receiving end).
And geographical features are still going to play fully : tropical rainforest, huge desertic areas, etc. Even during the Scramble for Africa, naval access was eventually favoured by colonial powers because the alternative was hugely impractical.

I've to wonder as well how this Bantu Empire will hold on the long run. You made the comparison with Early Caliphate, but these crumbled out on their own weight eventually, and they still had to base themselves on old and established roads, develloped lands, etc.
Sub-saharian African structures would essentially be to be built, in order to make Bantu ruling on something other than immediate tribal entities or confederacies.
Before even thinking to go trough the Sahara or tropical forest, you'd have to devellop imperial structures (politically) but as well economical structures able to support it, or you'd end with several post-Bantu tribes with steel weapons quite quickly.

Again, the key is trough cultural and structural development in Sahelian entities (or Indian Sea, admittedly) where it could be in contact with either mediterranean or asian economical basins and have access to an hinterland they could develop at their benefit. (For exemple, Nok playing the role of a West African Egypt, something not far-fetched with the possible mesopotamian and egyptian influences in Chadian entities IOTL).
That alone wouldn't be a recipe for Sub-Saharian domination in Europe and rather make it equally powerful to northern imperial structures, but it may lead to the latter's appearance that wouldn't be tied up to historical circumstance (meaning, under Arabo-Islamic thumb).

It could allow eventually a takeover of North Africa, and possibly (but that would ask to deepen the PoD's consequence) on Mediterranean basin.

And eventually, at this time, the only way for the technology to be transmitted out of Africa (which it unavoidably would be at some stage) would have been through the Romans' territories in North Africa.
I can think of Arabia relationship with North-Eastern Africa, and then to Indias and Persia.
Or directly from Somalia to Indias.

the whole of the rest of Europe, the Middle East and West Asia are going to be at their mercy.
Why? Steel weapons aren't that of an advantage that it allows full conquest of an entier continent by a few empires.

Romans had access to such and backed by one of the main economical continuum of their age, and never were able to conquer all of Europe (even if they have wanted to, which they didn't).

If you allow me the meme.

1. Bantu discovery of use weapon
2. Takeover of surrounding entities
3. ????
4. WORLD CONQUEST!

For what it's worth, and at the exception of Southern Africa, lack of coal deposits in Africa as a whole represent quite an issue when it comes to industrial domination (the key of Western colonialism IOTL)
 
Last edited:

SinghKing

Banned
And geographical features are still going to play fully : tropical rainforest, huge desertic areas, etc. Even during the Scramble for Africa, naval access was eventually favoured by colonial powers because the alternative was hugely impractical.

I've to wonder as well how this Bantu Empire will hold on the long run. You made the comparison with Early Caliphate, but these crumbled out on their own weight eventually, and they still had to base themselves on old and established roads, develloped lands, etc.
Sub-saharian African structures would essentially be to be built, in order to make Bantu ruling on something other than immediate tribal entities or confederacies.
Before even thinking to go trough the Sahara or tropical forest, you'd have to devellop imperial structures (politically) but as well economical structures able to support it, or you'd end with several post-Bantu tribes with steel weapons quite quickly.

Again, the key is trough cultural and structural development in Sahelian entities (or Indian Sea, admittedly) where it could be in contact with either mediterranean or asian economical basins and have access to an hinterland they could develop at their benefit. (For exemple, Nok playing the role of a West African Egypt, something not far-fetched with the possible mesopotamian and egyptian influences in Chadian entities IOTL).
That alone wouldn't be a recipe for Sub-Saharian domination in Europe and rather make it equally powerful to northern imperial structures, but it may lead to the latter's appearance that wouldn't be tied up to historical circumstance (meaning, under Arabo-Islamic thumb).

It could allow eventually a takeover of North Africa, and possibly (but that would ask to deepen the PoD's consequence) on Mediterranean basin.


I can think of Arabia relationship with North-Eastern Africa, and then to Indias and Persia.
Or directly from Somalia to Indias.


Why? Steel weapons aren't that of an advantage that it allows full conquest of an entier continent by a few empires.

Romans had access to such and backed by one of the main economical continuum of their age, and never were able to conquer all of Europe (even if they have wanted to, which they didn't).

If you allow me the meme.



For what it's worth, and at the exception of Southern Africa, lack of coal deposits in Africa as a whole represent quite an issue when it comes to industrial domination (the key of Western colonialism IOTL)

You know what? I give up. Your argument basically amounts to 'but they're black, they CAN'T'. I didn't make the comparison between the Bantu and the Early Caliphate, at any stage. 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, Africa ITTL would also initially be relatively poorer, with a slightly lower population and a greater number of competing kingdoms, a great many of which will fail along the way due to the increased prevalence, frequency and brutal efficiency with which wars will be waged in Africa.

And I've addressed every single one of the non-issues which you've brought up, time and time again. You need to acknowledge that nothing in an ATL, least of all in an ATL with a relatively ancient POD, takes place in a vacuum. 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. How many times do I have to say that the Bantu WON'T be conquering the entire world, or even necessarily their immediate neighbours? I plotted out a potential route for an ATL in which the Africans could conceivably be in a position to be capable of colonising the entirety of 'Europe', with multiple pre-requisite stages along the way, specifically to try and make the OP's desired outcome theoretically possible. This is effectively an AHC, and that's the WHOLE POINT of an AHC in the discussion forum. 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. You think it's stupid, or impossible? Leave it alone, and pick a different thread. It's just good manners.
 
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.
 
Top