WI: The Inca repel the Spanish

A solution is to make the war last as long as possible and during that time, the Inca would adapt to the European diseases and develop guns. Then, they would be strong enough to resist the Spanish invasion until the Spaniards give up. Some new events that would help:
-The Incan civil war does not happen.
-A crisis in Spain, such as a new Arabian invasion, a worse black plague or a civil war between the people of Castilla and Aragon.
-The Spaniards have less interest in the Incan area (the first explorers could be killed there) and have more interest in North America.
 
Debatable. As atrocious as it was, the African slave trade benefited the chieftains and kings who sold slaves to the Europeans. Recall that Africa was not colonized truly by Europeans until the 19th century, and many attribute that conquest not to the slave trade (which was almost extinct in Europe by this time), but because of industrialization and industrialized weapons that African tribes did not possess. If, for example, the Zulu peoples had access to the machine guns used by the British in the late 1800s, I doubt their colonization of the area would have been a success at all.

And drawn out is probably all the Inca need to survive. They are still reeling from the small pox epidemic that wiped out huge swathes of their population. If the Inca can buy enough time rebuild their population, which though decimated still greatly outnumbered that of the conquistadors, they stand a chance of lasting and modernizing with the rest of the Americas. The slaves they trade will be of conquered peoples, probably from the south, so the Inca population will eventually rebound enough so that an actual invasion of their territory is logistically impossible. We are talking about the Andes after all, not exactly the best place for European-style invasions.


I really do not get this assertion. There were several large African states, like the one ruled by Tippu Tip, which grew to great prominence, used the arms and funds received from Europe to carve out empires and increase their own domestic prominence, and used the slave trade to weaken their neighbors while increasing their own strength by selling excess slaves.

Many of these states even thrived up until the British turned against the trade and survived until European Powers sought to carve up the continent.

There is no question that the African slave trade was an abhorrent chapter in human history by any modern standard, that it resulted in an immeasurable traumatizing impact on the demographics of the country, and that it fundamentally altered the economic network that existed in Africa. However, that is not an excuse to revise history to make it so that no one benefited other than the self righteous Europeans. If African states did not profit from this trade, and profit immensely, then the trade would never have existed. Early attempts to force this trade failed spectacularly and the Europeans themselves were carried off as slaves. The sin of this trade is shared by Europeans and Africans, and so too were the profits. Profits that were only stopped when the trade itself fell out of favor and would later be forcibly abolished by outside powers.


In this case, it has nothing to do with morality or me blaming one side over the other. The slaves-for-guns trade was a total loss for African states and it accelerated their decline against the Europeans.

1. Europeans in most cases traded defective and/or extremely old weaponry for slaves.

2. The slave trade was so lucrative that it completely displaced other sectors of the economy. It became more lucrative to sell people than, say, make leather for example, or mine iron.

3. Depopulation was immense, and led to the stagnation of the African population in the region.

There are other reasons, but basically the slave trade led to African states becoming the equivalent of today's Petro-State, except worse because the goods sold were people, meaning that instead of keeping those people home and using their intelligence and wealth to improve the state, they were shipped away to improve someone else's state. And all of that for guns that were either ancient or defective. That's why most of them collapsed when the trade ended; it was all they knew how to do at some point.

The slave trade, for Africa, was a textbook case of a short-term gain and a long-term loss. I can't see it going any better for the Inca if they engage in it. Which leads me to wonder how the Inca will survive, even if they are able to repel the Spanish initially.
 
In this case, it has nothing to do with morality or me blaming one side over the other. The slaves-for-guns trade was a total loss for African states and it accelerated their decline against the Europeans.

1. Europeans in most cases traded defective and/or extremely old weaponry for slaves.

2. The slave trade was so lucrative that it completely displaced other sectors of the economy. It became more lucrative to sell people than, say, make leather for example, or mine iron.

3. Depopulation was immense, and led to the stagnation of the African population in the region.

There are other reasons, but basically the slave trade led to African states becoming the equivalent of today's Petro-State, except worse because the goods sold were people, meaning that instead of keeping those people home and using their intelligence and wealth to improve the state, they were shipped away to improve someone else's state. And all of that for guns that were either ancient or defective. That's why most of them collapsed when the trade ended; it was all they knew how to do at some point.

The slave trade, for Africa, was a textbook case of a short-term gain and a long-term loss. I can't see it going any better for the Inca if they engage in it. Which leads me to wonder how the Inca will survive, even if they are able to repel the Spanish initially.
I think they might be able to do it if they make alliances with European powers.
 
I think they might be able to do it if they make alliances with European powers.

Even if they made an alliance, most European powers couldn't have sent enough aid to the Inca at this point and time. Perhaps Portugal could have done something but I can't see Portugal trying to wrest control of the region from Spain when they agreed to "divide the world between them". Nor can I see Portugal wanting to piss of Spain in general.
 
Even if they made an alliance, most European powers couldn't have sent enough aid to the Inca at this point and time. Perhaps Portugal could have done something but I can't see Portugal trying to wrest control of the region from Spain when they agreed to "divide the world between them". Nor can I see Portugal wanting to piss of Spain in general.
Given the lines of logistics, if the Inca can hold out against the initial surprise of the Spanish invasion, AND if they get some European tech like gunpowder and ironworking, then I think they stand a good chance at holding their own, for some time at least.

In this case, all the European (English, say) alliance needs to do is provide half a dozen craftsmen of the right sort. If the hypothetical early *Drake I mentioned above had two ships with him instead of Drake's one, he could have left enough men to boost the Inca far enough that the Spanish would find it really, really tough to take them.

Now, if the Spanish get Mexico, build up infrastructure and build a whole navy at ?Acapulco? (is that the one on the Pacific coast?) so they can ferry whole armies, then the Inca are in for a world of hurt. But that would cost a LOT, and it's not necessarily obvious they'd try. Or succeed. Especially if the Inca's independence was guaranteed by a major European power.
 

scholar

Banned
In this case, it has nothing to do with morality or me blaming one side over the other. The slaves-for-guns trade was a total loss for African states and it accelerated their decline against the Europeans.
It was not just guns. Perhaps if that is all there was to the trade, you might have had a much better point.

Where was the accelerated decline when the economies grew, the populations grew, and their ability to fend off the Europeans successfully grew, while their industry and communications increased, their access to cash and food crops increased, technology increased, and even growing scholasticism took place?

Why were there still expansive powerful empires contending with European conquest half a century and more after the Atlantic slave trade ended?

1. Europeans in most cases traded defective and/or extremely old weaponry for slaves.
The relationship was not that simple. The goods sent to Africa were initially fairly good, but as gun technology really took off in the 1800s, antiquated weapons were sent to Africa whenever possible though a number of newer guns did find their way in African hands. The Ashanti were fighting with guns that were modern and guns that were from the American Revolutionary war when Europeans attempted to conquer them.

2. The slave trade was so lucrative that it completely displaced other sectors of the economy. It became more lucrative to sell people than, say, make leather for example, or mine iron.
And they made their own slaves do so, like with Tippu Tip and other warlords, the population stopped doing things themselves and employed human slavery.

That, and this is rather incorrect in most case studies. While it is true that the slave trade caused serious economic disruptions to the continent as a whole, individually those who were slavers were actually able to build economies. Not just on the backs of slaves, but with the revenues and goods received from the West. Most of the states were able to produce fabulously wealthy societies with the production of domestic goods, mostly agricultural, but also some basic crafts and other works. And when there were restrictions on the slave trade (you do not slave your own kind, countrymen, tribe, clan, religion), things worked out even better for them. Look no further than the Sokoto Caliphate:

Economy

After the establishment of the Caliphate, there were decades of economic growth throughout the region, particularly after a wave of revolts in 1816-1817. They had significant trade over the trans-Saharan routes.

After the Fulani War, all land in the empire was declared waqf or owned by the entire community. However, the Sultan allocated land to individuals or families, as could an emir. Such land could be inherited by family members but could not be sold. Exchange was based largely on monetized currency involving cowries or gold and silver coins. Major crops produced included cotton, indigo, kola and shea nuts, grain, rice, tobacco, and onion.

Slavery remained a large part of the economy, although its operation had changed fundamentally with the end of the legal Atlantic slave trade imposed by Great Britain and the United States. Slaves were gained only through raiding and not through a market as had operated earlier in West Africa. The founder of the Caliphate allowed slavery only for non-Muslims; slavery was viewed as a process to bring such peoples into the Muslim community. The expansion of agricultural plantations under the Caliphate was dependent on slave labor. These plantations were established around the ribats, developing large areas of agricultural production around the cities of the empire. The institution of slavery was mediated by the lack of a racial barrier among the peoples, and the potential for slaves to convert and become members of the Islamic community.There are historical records of slaves reaching high levels of government and administration in the Sokoto Caliphate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokoto_Caliphate#Economy

Gandi describes the profession of blacksmithing as the main way of life to people of Assada saying that is belief that anybody who hails from the region must be a blacksmith hence it is a taboo for a person to abandon the occupation of his father and grandfathers. In every family of the Makera Assada, there must be an evidence of blacksmithing. This points to the importance of the craft and its antiquity, among the Assada people. The smiths of Makera Assada are always at their smithing shops and work places. Most of the blacksmiths are not farmers, so they do not go to farm but they have good relationship with the farmers who need their services.

Smithing was particularly a different profession requiring artistic ingenuity and physical strength. Today’s blacksmith is more of an interpreter of the past and artist if you will rather than real item. As such it is hedged about with many taboos and requires long period of apprenticeship. The smiths are known for their use of iron and fire, to the extent that iron weapon or fire cannot harm them.

The blacksmiths offered relief to farming and also supplied technological base. The blacksmiths provides items made necessary by social and day-to-day activities. Since the emergence of blacksmith into western Africa around 1500 BC, they are feared in some western African societies for their powerful skills in metal working, as we mentioned earlier most of the famous blacksmiths, iron weapon and fire cannot harm them, although some consider that as form of magic, but universally revered by West African for their technological pioneering. While common people fear the power of the blacksmith, they are highly admired and hold high social status. Because the trade is so specialized and dangerous, blacksmiths are often requisitioned by towns and villages where there are none.

As such making an axe or a knife or a fireplace crane, bowls (baho) or a set of door hinges are his work. He could also repair door locks or fix the axe that get chipped when it hit a rock. What affected the Makera smiths was the importation of foreign iron wares, large quantities of cheap hardware are now on sale in the local markets. Knives, house utensils like bucket, bowls, necklaces, etc. Door bolts and hinges and other useful materials can be purchased at will anywhere. Formally the people depended for local smith, for the production of these goods. These foreign goods are cheaper and more convenient for its purpose.

Although, the blacksmiths of Makera Assada specialized in all kind of iron work, they did not however, give priority to the production of locally made guns although hunters need them for hunting animals. This is so because of security risk as the government prohibited such production. In other words local weapons like sword, spears etc. are produced there.

Apart from moulding the iron to produce things, some individuals engage in traveling smith. They travels to many places as far as Kano, Zaria, Funtua and even beyond the borders of northern Nigeria, to buy irons that can be put to use, like damage vehicles and planes, pieces of iron rods, oil tanker’s containers and many more. At this metals are brought to Makera Assada until when they are needed any company or individual who want this kind of business or irons will be directed to Makera Assada area.

The occupation diversification among the Makera particularly in their smithing crafts shows their technological prowess and advancement. This was witness during the jihad. In 1839, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in his famous poem, "The Village Blacksmith" praises the blacksmith, “His brow is wet with honest sweat. He earn whatever he can, and looks the whole world in the face, for he owes not any man.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makera_Assada

3. Depopulation was immense, and led to the stagnation of the African population in the region.
Depopulation of their victims, not of the home region which actually saw an increase in population due to the influx of slaves. On a whole, Africa's population was growing faster than it was depopulated, especially due to the Colombian Exchange and the greater concentration of urbanized empires which grew powerful on the slave trade. Since Europeans wanted men for the most part, many women were kept as concubines, wives, and field hands. It wasn't horribly uncommon for a man to have 4 to 10 wives and dozens of children earning great incomes on a mixture of selling slaves and growing crops on large states. All those children would then be exported to newly conquered territories, and in turn would get their 4 wives and their dozen children.

The creation of the Ashante empire can be partially attributed to substantial population growth due to new world crops and the need to expand into other areas.

There are other reasons, but basically the slave trade led to African states becoming the equivalent of today's Petro-State, except worse because the goods sold were people, meaning that instead of keeping those people home and using their intelligence and wealth to improve the state, they were shipped away to improve someone else's state. And all of that for guns that were either ancient or defective. That's why most of them collapsed when the trade ended; it was all they knew how to do at some point.
I think you are misunderstanding the trade. States that enslaved their own people to ship off struggled and collapsed, often times before the trade was outlawed. States that enslaved the people of enemy states depopulated lands that they could then settle and populate. Many of the most talented or most respected individuals who were enslaved were kept and their intelligence was used to improve the state. Their wealth was seized and used to improve the state. Most of these states did not collapse when the Atlantic trade ended, why would it? The European incentive is often overplayed and they had more than enough reason to continue it anyways. Europeans justified their carving of Africa because the slave trade was still thriving and all of the major powerful states of Africa that rejected European advances were slavers. The Ashante, the Sokoto, the Zulu, Zanzibar, Ethiopia, and any state that could fend off Europeans for a time had been part of that previous trade, used the wealth from it to create powerful empires, and then maintained those empires even when the trade ended. Sure, they became less wealthy and lost access to European markets, but advancement was still taking place and the states were actually edging towards low level industry.

---

Again, do not take this as a defense of the trade, but I am not a fan of moralistic revisions to history.
 
Last edited:
I can see the Inca surviving for a 100 years easy, you could even stretch it to the 1800s under some conditions.

They could get horses, better weaponry, but your still talking about an ancient era empire (without writing).

If the Europeans can take over in India, IndoChina, parts of China, North Africa pretty easy, places with much more modern tech than the Incas, it seems likely they will take over the Inca easily, probably sooner than later. (Once somebody has Gatling guns by the late 1800s its all over for sure).

At some point there will be another civil war, a dynastic struggle, or some other native peoples the Inca are opressing ask for protection from some European country. There will always be an opportunity to move in.

----------------------

However if the Spanish don't take over Peru, the POD produces dramatic butterflies. Without gold from the Americas financing things, the Turks are going to do better in the med, European politics are going to be much different.
 
I can see the Inca surviving for a 100 years easy, you could even stretch it to the 1800s under some conditions.

They could get horses, better weaponry, but your still talking about an ancient era empire (without writing).

If the Europeans can take over in India, IndoChina, parts of China, North Africa pretty easy, places with much more modern tech than the Incas, it seems likely they will take over the Inca easily, probably sooner than later. (Once somebody has Gatling guns by the late 1800s its all over for sure).

At some point there will be another civil war, a dynastic struggle, or some other native peoples the Inca are opressing ask for protection from some European country. There will always be an opportunity to move in.
Horses aren't actually all that useful in much of their territories.
They could and, considering how useful it would be for their form of highly-organised government, probably would acquire writing.
And if they can hold out until the late 1800s then it seems likely to me that in their case, as in the cases of China or the Ottomans OTL, the balance of power between the more "advanced" nations would prevent any other empire being allowed to take them over completely.
 
Horses aren't actually all that useful in much of their territories.
They could and, considering how useful it would be for their form of highly-organised government, probably would acquire writing.
And if they can hold out until the late 1800s then it seems likely to me that in their case, as in the cases of China or the Ottomans OTL, the balance of power between the more "advanced" nations would prevent any other empire being allowed to take them over completely.

Difference is china and the ottomans were top dog themselves for generations. They weren't that far behind during the 19th century just worn out and unable to exploit the new technology. Once they got thing strightened out china and what became Turkey caught up quickly. In contrast the incas are an iron age empire, many centuries behind europe and losing most of their population to plague.

The europeans don't really need to do much of anything just wait till smallpox wipes the incas out and move on in. The population of the americas fell something like 90% in the century after contact, and that alone would probably have collapsed the inca state without any invasion being needed.
 
Difference is china and the ottomans were top dog themselves for generations. They weren't that far behind during the 19th century just worn out and unable to exploit the new technology. Once they got thing strightened out china and what became Turkey caught up quickly. In contrast the incas are an iron age empire, many centuries behind europe and losing most of their population to plague.

The europeans don't really need to do much of anything just wait till smallpox wipes the incas out and move on in. The population of the americas fell something like 90% in the century after contact, and that alone would probably have collapsed the inca state without any invasion being needed.

Small pox had already hit the Inca when the Spanish arrived. That's a large reason why they were in the midst of a civil war. And, though it is somewhat downplayed by the Spanish, they would never have been able to conquer the Inca without the help of unhappy tribes under Inca rule.

Divide and conquer.

So, if the Spanish are held off, perhaps the Incan Emperor doesn't get captured by Pizarro and held hostage, the Inca can kill the measly expedition and gain enough time to stabilize before another Spanish expedition arrives. And I think something that people need to remember about the Spanish conquest of the Americas was that, especially in the early days, the Spanish didn't send massive armies over to conquer these relatively large populations, who even though they were decimated by plague, still vastly outmanned the Spanish invaders. The only reason the Spanish were so successful was because of their talent for exploiting inter-tribal tensions and dividing their enemies.

The key really is, at least in the short run, to keep the Inca unified to keep Spanish forces out.
 
Simreeve the Inca actually had developed a written language of their own well before the Spanish arrived. Now I could see them maybe adopting a more Latin style but more than likely they would keep their own.
 
Simreeve the Inca actually had developed a written language of their own well before the Spanish arrived. Now I could see them maybe adopting a more Latin style but more than likely they would keep their own.
No, they didn't.

The Aztecs and Maya did, but not the Inca. They did have quipu, which was a wonderful accounting device, but it was nothing like a writing system.
 
Again, do not take this as a defense of the trade, but I am not a fan of moralistic revisions to history.

I'm starting here. Where in my argument did I make a "moralistic revision" of history? In fact I stated outright that my viewpoint in this case had nothing to do with morality, and I didn't mention anything similar to "this hurt Africa because it was evil". Where is this coming from?

It was not just guns. Perhaps if that is all there was to the trade, you might have had a much better point.

Where was the accelerated decline when the economies grew, the populations grew, and their ability to fend off the Europeans successfully grew[2], while their industry and communications increased [1], their access to cash [3] and food crops increased, technology increased, [4] and even growing scholasticism took place?

Why were there still expansive powerful empires contending with European conquest half a century and more after the Atlantic slave trade ended? [5]

1. Communications stayed at a primitive level until the telegraph; ie when Europe colonized the continent and built telegraph lines. Industry stayed local and artisan, no African state managed to produce guns at a meaningful level, and raw materials (+slaves) always remained the greatest export.

2. Their ability to fend off Europe weakened as they grew dependent on Europe for guns and ammo without being able to A) produce either, or B) control the trade routes to acquire them IN addition to the declining economic diversity the continent suffered.

3. The trade was barter. The bit of cash they gained was only useful in buying European goods, increasing dependency.

4. Where?

5. Those empires only served to give Europe a headache; none of them had the ability to truly kick Europe out. Even Ethiopia couldn't have hoped to dislodge Italy from Eritrea after its stunning success (and sure enough Italy came back for Round 2 and won). No other power came close to the Ethiopian showing.

Those empires were strong, but nowhere near strong enough.

The relationship was not that simple. The goods sent to Africa were initially fairly good, but as gun technology really took off in the 1800s, antiquated weapons were sent to Africa whenever possible [1]though a number of newer guns did find their way in African hands. The Ashanti were fighting with guns that were modern and guns that were from the American Revolutionary war when Europeans attempted to conquer them. [2]

1. So, you agree with me. That "a number of newer guns" made it into African hands doesn't change the fact that most of the weapons they acquired were ancient compared to the ones Europe was using.

2. How does this disprove my point? You bring up an example of what was undoubtedly the most powerful West African state of the time, using guns from the American Revolution, at the time of their conquest in the late 19th century?

And they made their own slaves do so, like with Tippu Tip and other warlords, the population stopped doing things themselves and employed human slavery.

That, and this is rather incorrect in most case studies. While it is true that the slave trade caused serious economic disruptions to the continent as a whole, individually those who were slavers were actually able to build economies. [1] Not just on the backs of slaves, but with the revenues and goods received from the West. Most of the states were able to produce fabulously wealthy societies with the production of domestic goods, mostly agricultural, but also some basic crafts and other works. And when there were restrictions on the slave trade (you do not slave your own kind, countrymen, tribe, clan, religion), things worked out even better for them....

1. You agree with me again. My argument was the Africa lost big in the slave trade. I never said that individual states and people didn't benefit, I said that Africa lost. Which you have just stated above. The argument that because certain polities or people benefited the slave trade wasn't a massive loss is plain wrong. People who shorted stock benefited from the Stock Market Crash of 1929. Means nothing in the grand scheme.


Depopulation of their victims[1], not of the home region which actually saw an increase in population due to the influx of slaves. On a whole, Africa's population was growing faster than it was depopulated, [2] especially due to the Colombian Exchange and the greater concentration of urbanized empires which grew powerful on the slave trade. Since Europeans wanted men for the most part, many women were kept as concubines, wives, and field hands. It wasn't horribly uncommon for a man to have 4 to 10 wives and dozens of children earning great incomes on a mixture of selling slaves and growing crops on large states. All those children would then be exported to newly conquered territories, and in turn would get their 4 wives and their dozen children. [3]

1. And this is better how? All it does is reduce trade partners and doesn't solve the issue, as I've said before, of depopulation as a whole, not of a particular region or people.

2. Barely. Africa had the slowest growth rates of all continents excluding Oceania during the slave-trade period. Some of it can be explained by famine, drought, etc, but the 10-15 million shipped abroad, millions who died on the marches to the coast, and millions lost through "slave-catching wars" certainly didn't help. It can't be explained by primitive agricultural techniques, as everyone was more-or-less on the same page at this time.

3. How is a gender-imbalance a good thing? Also, using polygamy to try and correct that gap doesn't change the problem of healthy men (and women) being shipped away, leaving behind children (although they were taken too) and the old to perform back-breaking agricultural labor and artisan work. If anything, the slave trade created both a gender and age gap.


I think you are misunderstanding the trade. States that enslaved their own people to ship off struggled and collapsed, often times before the trade was outlawed. States that enslaved the people of enemy states depopulated lands that they could then settle and populate. Many of the most talented or most respected individuals who were enslaved were kept and their intelligence was used to improve the state. [1] Their wealth was seized and used to improve the state. Most of these states did not collapse when the Atlantic trade ended, why would it? The European incentive is often overplayed and they had more than enough reason to continue it anyways. [2] Europeans justified their carving of Africa because the slave trade was still thriving and all of the major powerful states of Africa that rejected European advances were slavers. [3] The Ashante, the Sokoto, the Zulu, Zanzibar, Ethiopia, and any state that could fend off Europeans for a time had been part of that previous trade, used the wealth from it to create powerful empires, and then maintained those empires even when the trade ended. Sure, they became less wealthy and lost access to European markets, but advancement was still taking place and the states were actually edging towards low level industry.

1. In the case of the internal African slave trade, sure. In the case of the Atlantic slave trade, the only trade I mentioned in my first post, this is completely wrong.

2. The Atlantic slave trade had a much more destructive effect than the internal African slave trade, for the reasons I've stated.

3. Europeans justified it any way they could: slavery, religion, strategic location, civilizing, whatever. You mention that all the states that resisted Europe were slavers; you don't mention all of those states that totally failed when the Atlantic slave trade ended.


---

I think you've gotten confused; I was specifically arguing that the Atlantic slave trade was what crippled Africa. You seem to conflate the Atlantic and internal trades together. They were two very different beasts in terms of effects; namely that the internal trade kept people in the continent while the Atlantic shipped them elsewhere, weakening Africa and strengthening Europe and its colonies.
 

scholar

Banned
I'm starting here. Where in my argument did I make a "moralistic revision" of history? In fact I stated outright that my viewpoint in this case had nothing to do with morality, and I didn't mention anything similar to "this hurt Africa because it was evil". Where is this coming from?
Not you, the position you are putting forward. Now I am less certain.

I easily wrote four thousand words, bringing up responses to every point you made and even brought in Princeton to say that the population growth of Africa actually increased during the worst of the slave trade. That ranges of total losses to the slave trade traditionally go as low as 7, with outliers saying 5. That same outlier will say 30 or so million on the opposite scale, but depending on which side you want to argue from it is much more complex than that. For instance, by most estimates the total losses in the Belgian Congo were about comparable to the entirety of the slave trade over five centuries. Since you were so careful and keen to preserve that "barely growing population" of the African continent, from this it can easily be argued that the actual damage to the continent is inflated by later European colonial conquests. Further, some people claim over a million Europeans were slaved by North Africans, dwarfing almost any individual tribe or state that suffered from this dark period. That tangent made me uncomfortable, not because it couldn't be argued based from the facts, but because I actually espouse the belief that this was horrible and while the active lessening of the actual consequences could be made, it almost feels like Holocaust denial. So I deleted that and wrote fourteen hundred more.

Africa was not uniformly primitive and the claim that everyone was on the same playing field is patently false at any close regional inspection of the continent. Hell, some historians and scholars wonder if West Africa and the East African Coast should be considered wholly separate from Sub Saharan Africa, or if they should be made into peripheral zones of Islamic and Middle Eastern Civilization, similar to how North Africa and Central Asia were coopted into that category. Many of the states in those regions resembled in some ways Medieval or Reconnaissance States in the process of forming identities that may well have helped bring them closer to Europeans before Europe decided to become hellbent on conquest under the guise of liberation and instilling good old white European values. Elsewhere Pastoralism, Horticulturalism, and even Hunters and Gatherers were the name of the game outside of regions like Ethiopia who had large agricultural networks.

Which leads me to my next, and perhaps most major point. I do not think you really understand the complexities of the African subcontinent. I am still a student to this area of the world, but many of your generalizations seem almost completely unwarranted. Like with your point about agriculture being almost an even playing field, I will talk about your barter and lack of trade parters. Most of these slavers monopolized key points in trade. The Sokoto with the Sahara, Zanzibar with the East Coast and Hinterland, Gold, Ivory, Salt, new Cash crops, new food Crops, native made goods and tools, and so forth flowed through these areas. Trade also was not entirely categorized by barter, as many of these states introduced currencies. Some mixed, others almost entirely based on things the Europeans had no inclination to trade for implying a rich domestic need that was not even remotely supplanted by the Europeans. Cowries were the most common, but there were even fixed sizes of cloth used as currency like in the Congo. I know that you originally brought that up in that the conquest of neighboring people weakened their prospects for Trade, but once closely inspected that is no longer right. In taking over focal points of trade, they opened themselves up to larger numbers of trade partners.

Another point you made was that Africans lost the ability to do work themselves because of the immense wealth coming into the continent from Europe, to the point where it devastated native industries. While many individual trades and productions were lost in different areas, many places kept most of what they had, particularly if they were those powerful slaving empires. After the end of the atlantic slave trade, many shifted gears and allowed for more prominence of agricultural goods and smithed goods for African markets, mostly domestic, but we know for a fact that substantial trade did occur between major states and even major states and little states because of those monopolies. You also seemed to want to make the point that all that immense wealth was actually not all that valuable. A key thing you need to be wary of is general remarks about the slave trade. It was never simple. Multiple nations were involved in the process, and the quality and quantity of goods ranged both within a time and over the course of a few centuries. Towards the end Europeans were stiffing the Africans whenever possible, but even then a substantial number of modern weapons were traded and with the conquests of weapons depots these states were still powerful enough to be able to defeat Europeans. Look to the Ashanti Wars. Britain almost lost West Africa more than once.

Which brings up your other point about them being weak, vulnerable, and susceptible to Europeans. While to a certain extent this is true, the trade with Europeans was profitable and most of their guns were not native born and the ability to produce their own ammunition was limited, traditional African army methods were not lost and were almost always used to augment their current standard. The Ashanti kept a lot of spearmen, the Sokoto a lot of Cavalry of various kinds. So, their traditional ways of warfare were not weakened by this trade at all. They were actually significantly assisted by, you know, the fact that they had firearms now. Which makes the idea that militarily they were weakened seem out of place. Not only were the states much larger and able to field more manpower, they were assisted by powerful technology and a limited ability to manufacture that technology themselves.

Also, building on something else you said, you brought up the Stock Market Crash. The parallel is practically nonsense, a big reason for that would be that four or five powers would need to have doubled in size and tripled in economic growth as the crash was happening. Using that as an example will give you the wrong impression of the slave trade. Especially after you brought up that polygamy was not the right answer. To which I bring up a resounding no for that, in many ways that was the best solution. A married woman or favored concubine was entitled to certain rights, and their children were born free and even capable of inheriting property. The practice dramatically improved the lot of enslaved people. The very young always worked anyways, while the very old were rarely forced to because the slave trade actually saw women gain significant prominence in the actions normally done by men, like back breaking field work. Modern outlook will still condemn that rather harshly, but compared to the Americas it was different. Not to the extent that modern Africans claim in an attempt to absolve themselves from their guilt in the conflict and blame all of the horrors on their later conquerors, but a considerable extent nonetheless.

Now onto more falsehoods. None of the states I mentioned failed miserably when the Atlantic Slave Trade ended. Ethiopia did not fail when the slave trade ended, they failed when Mussolini gassed, artilliaried, and bombed the country into submission. The Ashanti did not fail when the slave trade in the Altantic ended, they failed when the British fought four wars to beat them into submission with a massive alliance of forces, including other African forces, along with Maxim Guns. The Sokoto failed likewise, but was powerful enough to ensure that they retained a sort of almost-autonomous rule under their Sultan.

While I could go on, like in one area where you contradicted yourself by asking where technology improved in Africa after mentioning a big area that illustrates such advancement, I would just like to bring up that you started this by responding to me and my point about how some states benefited from the slave trade, while the entire continent as a whole suffered. You did this by A) most of the time old weapons were traded, something only true in the later stages of the trade; B) that the trade was so wealthy no industry survived and was supplanted by the west, a complete fiction if there ever was one; and C) depopulation was immense and led to the depopulation of Africans in the "region", to which I brought up that depopulation was only of the victims and the slavers themselves had population booms which added further incentive to conquer and enslave. This, in turn, was in response to someone else who said that no state every benefited from the trade with Europeans, which I responded to because it is normally of modern revisioning to history. Like how the role and extent of Fascism in France during and before the second world war is practically whitewashed, or the fabrication of the noble savage who was in tune with nature and peaceful with all things until the white man showed up. Or even the proliferation of downright propaganda as fact in some historical records, like the Romans, Greeks, and Chinese. Things like that annoy me because they serve to masque the truth for political or ideological advancement.

The truth is that the African Slave in the Atlantic was a den of horrors, but it was a partnership in crime through in which many African states benefited immensely. Further, these states were not nearly as dependent as many have claimed, and were thriving well after the abolition of the Atlantic Slave Trade, in part because of their own native industry and the fact that African Slavery was a fundamental part of their civilization, like in the Antiquity of Europe. The loss of their Atlantic outlet, something that had been in declining significance for over a century before its removal, was not all that terminal in the grand scheme of things. Almost all of them fell because Europeans far outpaced their own modest thrusts into modernity and they turned all that focus in destroying them, or subjugating them in the great game of colonialism in Africa. If you agree with this, then there is no issue or cause for further debate.

If you disagree and think I am wrong, please by all means continue and show me why.
 

SpamBotSam

Banned
What if there was no civil war in Tawantinsuyu or the Inca Empire and for that reason they were able to repel the Spanish in their lands, would the Inca stay independent and try to continue to defend itself from European invaders or they try to ally with the Portuguese and be a Portuguese protectorate like Congo?

Maybe Peru wouldn't be speaking Spanish today.
 

SpamBotSam

Banned
Peru being predominately Spanish-speaking was not because of Spanish colonialism but by post-independence linguistic policies set in play by Peru's Europhilic political elite.

Spanish colonialism definitely played a role in Peru speaking Spanish today. Whenever a country colonizes an area, that area adopts it's language. That's what happened with England and the US.
 

scholar

Banned
Spanish colonialism definitely played a role in Peru speaking Spanish today. Whenever a country colonizes an area, that area adopts it's language. That's what happened with England and the US.
The US was colonized predominately by the British, while Peru was more mestizo and native than anything else. The elites all buddied up with the Spanish, and in some ways the Spanish laid heirs to the Inca and even kept the Empire going under Spanish conquest for a time, and from there you had a local elite answering to Peninsulares and Creoles from Spain, who in turn directed and ruled the people. The need for Spanish was not really there outside those intermediary classes until Peru became independent and went about state building. Are we the barbarous heathens who were conquered, or are we the true heirs to Europe in the Americas?

Kind of like French in the Congo, only not really.

Now that's completely reversed. Even near pure-blooded Europeans identify with the older American civilizations since Latin America broke with its love affair with the idea of Europe.
 
Top