View Full Version : Sub-sharan africa failed to achieve much??
I wanted to start a debate on sub-saharan africa.
Firstly - I am of the opinon that sub-sahara africa achieved relatively little in the way of civilisation prior european colonisation. that is open to debate and I welcome any opinions on this.
Secondly- asuming the first statement is correct -what can explain this?
For example in the case of australian aborigines I have always understood that the one of the reasons for their relative lack of a settled civilistaion was the aridity of the region and the lack of suitable crops to domesticate( iam possibly wrong here and again welcome comments) - this does not seem to be the case for africa so why did it achieve so little?
Randarkmaan
04-02-2007, 21:37
Well, if you ask me I'd say that it boils down to a sort of necesessity is the mother of all invention. Some of the first places where civilisation began were places where the earth is fertile but it is hard to work it because of a dry climate or something other, for an example Egypt. In Egypt one needed to divert the waters of the Nile to irrigate the farms in order to be able to produce crops, later this led to further improvements and inventions and more concentrated population which led to cities, the first being in Mesopotamia were irrigation also was developed in order to be able to harvest the crops of the fertile earth there. Civilisation in places where this was not as necessary developed because of influence of and learning from those who had already developed it. This is a very easy way to say it, but it is one way.
Well, if you ask me I'd say that it boils down to a sort of necesessity is the mother of all invention. Some of the first places where civilisation began were places where the earth is fertile but it is hard to work it because of a dry climate or something other, for an example Egypt. In Egypt one needed to divert the waters of the Nile to irrigate the farms in order to be able to produce crops, later this led to further improvements and inventions and more concentrated population which led to cities, the first being in Mesopotamia were irrigation also was developed in order to be able to harvest the crops of the fertile earth there. Civilisation in places where this was not as necessary developed because of influence of and learning from those who had already developed it. This is a very easy way to say it, but it is one way.
i dont really think that explains it. There must be many areas in africa where therer are marginal conditions - that would provide an impetus to develop and refine agricultural techniques.
Kagemusha
04-02-2007, 23:26
One example of larger old culture in Sub Saharan Africa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe
I dont think we should say that Sub Saharan Africa was poor culturally.Its same as saying the Eurasian steppe people didnt have any culture. Some Cultures just leave lot less behind to judge them. Usually becouse of the special climates they are situated.
Hmm how about Numidia or Cartage. Or Maybe Morocco, Tunisia a bit later?
Hmm how about Numidia or Cartage. Or Maybe Morocco, Tunisia a bit later?
none of that is sub-saharan
One example of larger old culture in Sub Saharan Africa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe
I dont think we should say that Sub Saharan Africa was poor culturally.Its same as saying the Eurasian steppe people didnt have any culture. Some Cultures just leave lot less behind to judge them. Usually becouse of the special climates they are situated.
greater zimbabwe is only impressive in the context of sub-sharan africa. compare it to anywhere else and it is pathetic. as many as 18,000 inhabitants in the 11th tp 15th century AD, oh wow!
in regards to steppe cultures, note i am not saying that the africans had no culture, and you need to diferentiate between culture and civilisation. steppe culures also never reached I high level of civilistaion - something which requires permenant settlement.
as regards to lack of evidence due to climate - surely any advanced civilistaions would have left some clues with those that followed them. when the europeans conqured africa they mostly fought people fighting naked carrying wooden spears.
Kagemusha
04-03-2007, 01:45
greater zimbabwe is only impressive in the context of sub-sharan africa. compare it to anywhere else and it is pathetic. as many as 18,000 inhabitants in the 11th tp 15th century AD, oh wow!
in regards to steppe cultures, note i am not saying that the africans had no culture, and you need to diferentiate between culture and civilisation. steppe culures also never reached I high level of civilistaion - something which requires permenant settlement.
as regards to lack of evidence due to climate - surely any advanced civilistaions would have left some clues with those that followed them. when the europeans conqured africa they mostly fought people fighting naked carrying wooden spears.
Define "Civilization"? Nomads just dont build large installations,like farmers do. If you think that makes their cultures inferior,thats your opinion and you are entitled to it.
InsaneApache
04-03-2007, 02:01
The library at Timbuktoo.
Marshal Murat
04-03-2007, 02:30
Sub-Saharan Africa wasn't developed as much because of many reasons.
1.They weren't on the main trade routes. The best that 'Sub-Sahara' Africa could do was Ghana gold mines, and those were more in Sahara than below it. The Europeans wanted spices and gold, and China/India/Middle East had spices and gold. The Europeans traded with them. Africa isn't involved, save for Saharan Africa.
2.They didn't foster innovation. Europe managed to advance technologically because there were fifty nations, all with swords and arrows. They kept bashing each other, improving their armies, and improving their life. Cutting away the weak,the nations of Europe were forced to improve, adapt, invent, and thrive. Africa, while culturally diverse and split along tribes, they were unable to take in any innovations of the Saharan Africa, and thus had more lower-tech warfare, and that takes you only so far.
3.Lack of pack/supply animals. There were bulls to do some hard labor, but the rest of the animal kingdom south of Sahara isn't able to perform as well as camels or horses. Those two animals revolutionized warfare, and technology. More could be carried in wagons, pulled by horses, then by human means.
1 really kept the Africans away from main-stream technological flow. While there were trading posts established by Muslims, it wasn't like the bustling cities of Venice, Constantinople, London, Amsterdam, or Kiev. The geological position hampered them from the start.
Sub-Saharan Africa wasn't developed as much because of many reasons.
1.They weren't on the main trade routes. The best that 'Sub-Sahara' Africa could do was Ghana gold mines, and those were more in Sahara than below it. The Europeans wanted spices and gold, and China/India/Middle East had spices and gold. The Europeans traded with them. Africa isn't involved, save for Saharan Africa.
1 really kept the Africans away from main-stream technological flow. While there were trading posts established by Muslims, it wasn't like the bustling cities of Venice, Constantinople, London, Amsterdam, or Kiev. The geological position hampered them from the start.
this just supports the view that the africans were unable to develop without outside help.
the civilisations of mes-america nd peru didnt develop because of trade links with the rest of the world.
Samurai Waki
04-03-2007, 09:25
I think for the most part why Sub Saharan Africa didn't emerge as a great center of civilization is probably because there is a lack of connectivity. All of these cultures were relatively separated by Natural Barriers of Land for thousands of Years, so contact from one tribe to another was probably limited at best. Africa's wilderness tends to be an unforgiving place, where food and supplies were rare, and it only fosters a "Strongest Survives" Mentality. So One Tribe would not be too keen on sharing with another, whether this involved Nomadism, or semi-permanent Villages. The whole idea of Civilization and right by conquest is to absorb your neighbors, and culturally convert them. But in Africa this would have been tricky at best, Great Zimbabwe gave it a go, and failed.
Since Africa didn't share much contact from one tribe to another, Technology progress would be at a Stand Still. The Difference from Pre-Colonial America and Pre-Colonial Africa is that Communication was quite expediant and there weren't many land barriers. But this wasn't always the case, The American Midwest didn't become readily habitable until the introduction of the Horse. But it is evident that Mercantilism was quite healthy before Europeans entered the scene, as Viking Handaxes have been found as far West as Alberta.
The Messai Tribes in Kenya could possibly be the thorn in your theory, as Herding has been a part of their existence far before any European or Arabian entered the Area. I think the biggest difference is that there has never been a necessity to compete, and with a lack of Communication, Technology can't progress. Why should things have changed if they already worked? As far as I'm concerned, Civilization has been a bane on human kind.
The Messai Tribes in Kenya could possibly be the thorn in your theory, as Herding has been a part of their existence far before any European or Arabian entered the Area. .
a thorn how? do you equate herding with developed civilization?
Randarkmaan
04-03-2007, 10:28
Nubia, Ethiopia and Mali had some advanced civilisation.
The_Doctor
04-03-2007, 12:04
What about the Almoravids, they conquered the southern half of Spain.
Watchman
04-03-2007, 12:42
Did that as a bunch of desert nomads, AFAIK. Nomads have always tended to be very good at warfare but not so good at things usually rated as "civilization", until of course they settle down somewhere.
Anyway, I suspect African "stagnation" had something to do with having enough "elbow room" that they didn't need to fight their neighbours tooth and nail over territory and resources all the time, as was the case in Eurasia for example. The first "high cultures" developed in a rather small geographical areas - around rivers mainly - after all and were constantly bickering among themselves, which duly led to the need to create all kinds of adminstrative structures to pay for it all and run the show which in peacetime then also allowed for the accumulation of major surplus that could be invested in various "prestige projects" - pyramids, temples, a large class of priests and other educati who could spare the time to peer at the night sky and ponder the substance of the world and so on.
What about the Almoravids, they conquered the southern half of Spain.
they were more saharan than sub-saharan!
The_Doctor
04-03-2007, 13:45
they were more saharan than sub-saharan!
I suppose so.
But in a way aren't we all sub-saharan.:turtle:
Reenk Roink
04-03-2007, 15:40
I wanted to start a debate on sub-saharan africa.
Firstly - I am of the opinon that sub-sahara africa achieved relatively little in the way of civilisation prior european colonisation. that is open to debate and I welcome any opinions on this.
You hold a view of "civilization" that others don't, and I strongly doubt that you (or anyone else) can actually put forth a coherent case as to why "refined agricultural techniques" indicate higher "civilization".
If you want to say that Sub-Saharan Africa achieved less in the way of "refined agricultural techniques" than Europe, then I would be inclined to agree, but I would also be inclined to not care at all, as "refined agricultural techniques" are nothing to cream your jeans about in my book...
Secondly- asuming the first statement is correct -what can explain this?
Incommensurability.
a thorn how? do you equate herding with developed civilization?
You should first answer the question as to how you equate "refined agricultural techniques" with developed civilization. Once you see how futile it is to do that, you will drop your question.
You hold a view of "civilization" that others don't, and I strongly doubt that you (or anyone else) can actually put forth a coherent case as to why "refined agricultural techniques" indicate higher "civilization".
If you want to say that Sub-Saharan Africa achieved less in the way of "refined agricultural techniques" than Europe, then I would be inclined to agree, but I would also be inclined to not care at all, as "refined agricultural techniques" are nothing to cream your jeans about in my book...
Incommensurability.
You should first answer the question as to how you equate "refined agricultural techniques" with developed civilization. Once you see how futile it is to do that, you will drop your question.
for the sake of convenience here is the definition of civilization given by wikipedia
"civilisation has a variety of meanings related to human society. Most often it is used to refer to "complex" societies: those that practice intensive agriculture; have a significant division of labour; and have population densities sufficient to form cities."
i fear you may be falling intothe trap of equating civilization with culture. i dont believe them to be the m same thing.
Reenk Roink
04-03-2007, 16:45
for the sake of convenience here is the definition of civilization given by wikipedia
"civilisation has a variety of meanings related to human society. Most often it is used to refer to "complex" societies: those that practice intensive agriculture; have a significant division of labour; and have population densities sufficient to form cities."
i fear you may be falling intothe trap of equating civilization with culture. i dont believe them to be the m same thing.
OK, so that's where the definition comes from.
Well, then I continue to support my original view. You see, that definition itself is already slanted towards agrarian societies. Sub-Saharan Africa is not an agrarian society.
It's true that Sub-Saharan Africa for the most part didn't practice intensive agriculture. They didn't have to. The style of life is simply incommensurable...
OK, so that's where the definition comes from.
Well, then I continue to support my original view. You see, that definition itself is already slanted towards agrarian societies. Sub-Saharan Africa is not an agrarian society.
It's true that Sub-Saharan Africa for the most part didn't practice intensive agriculture. They didn't have to. The style of life is simply incommensurable...
incommensurable. just learned a new word reenk!
it is easy to say they didnt need to, but really that is fanciful and romantic and doesnt bear any relation to reality. in terms of life expectancy black africans have never had a great quality of life.
an agrarian society is necesary to develop civilization. it gives people time to think about things other than where their next meal comes from.
the question is why did the africans fail to achieve this?
Reenk Roink
04-03-2007, 17:18
incommensurable. just learned a new word reenk!
:2thumbsup:
it is easy to say they didnt need to, but really that is fanciful and romantic and doesnt bear any relation to reality. in terms of life expectancy black africans have never had a great quality of life.
Actually, my view conforms to geographical and anthropological evidence. They simply didn't need to settle and make complex agricultural systems given their habitat and way of life (and that's why they didn't).
Also, life expectancy in agrarian "civilizations" was not any higher than African civilizations until around 200 years ago. Do you know the average life expectancy in ancient Greece or Rome (paragons of 'civilization', meeting all criteria in the Wikipedia defintion)?
In the 30's...
an agrarian society is necesary to develop civilization.
Given your definition of 'civilization', this is a meaningless tautology.
You are essentially saying: "an agrarian society is necessary to develop those societies that practice intensive agriculture"...
it gives people time to think about things other than where their next meal comes from.
I'm pretty sure that most people throughout the of the history of agrarian societies like Greece and Rome, and Europe until maybe 200-300 years ago thought about this as much as Sub-Saharan Africans.
the question is why did the africans fail to achieve this?
Other people in this thread have given quite good answers to that question based on geography and anthropology, that could cut it for me.
However, I go further and ask: Why did they even have to achieve it?
I am not convinced Africa failed to achieve an agrarian society prior to colonisation. Colonisation came rather late - it only really got going in the last third of the nineteenth century with the scramble for Africa. At that time, some Africa communites were oriented around small holder agriculture, others around herding (a few were hunter-gatherers, e.g. the bushmen, but this was relatively uncommon). Often the two co-existed and had something of a symbiotic relationship, as with the settled Kikuyu and the pastoralist Masai of Kenya.
Unlike the aborigines or the native Americans, the Africans had a fair amount of contact with the outside world through trade etc prior to European colonisation. For example, perhaps the main staple food crop of Africa today is maize, which IIRC originated in the New World.
I am not convinced Africa failed to achieve an agrarian society prior to colonisation. Colonisation came rather late - it only really got going in the last third of the nineteenth century with the scramble for Africa. At that time, some Africa communites were oriented around small holder agriculture, others around herding (a few were hunter-gatherers, e.g. the bushmen, but this was relatively uncommon). Often the two co-existed and had something of a symbiotic relationship, as with the settled Kikuyu and the pastoralist Masai of Kenya.
Unlike the aborigines or the native Americans, the Africans had a fair amount of contact with the outside world through trade etc prior to European colonisation. For example, perhaps the main staple food crop of Africa today is maize, which IIRC originated in the New World.
i agree, but why didnt they move on from that base level of agricultural existence and achieve anything of note?
IrishArmenian
04-03-2007, 18:20
this just supports the view that the africans were unable to develop without outside help.
the civilisations of mes-america nd peru didnt develop because of trade links with the rest of the world.
Don't you think they traded amongst each other?
How else would sea shells find there way inland?
Well, I'm inclined to believe the theory laid out by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel. He states that Africa's inability to develop Eurasian style societies and technologies was due to an agricultural stagnation which was in turn the result of geographic considerations. He mainly focuses on two specific factors; first that Africa had fewer plants and animals that were suitable to domestication, and second that Africa's geography created extremely varied environmental zones that prevented the spead of domesticated plants and animals across the continent. Essentially, deserts, jungles, savanahs, and mountains were all too hostile to each others' indiginous life, which prevented locals from spreading the few domesticated crops and animals they did have beyond their areas of origin. This in turn kept the various African communities isolated and independent, limiting their cultural and economic exchange.
By comparison, Eurasia has a great deal of land from Iberia all the way to Japan which has a climate that is similar enough to allow species from one place to live in nearly all of them. Thus a standardized system of agriculture was arrived at relatively early, which prompted greater population growth and prosperity, which in turn spurred development in social structures and technologies at a greater pace.
It's the best theory I've heard so far, so until something better comes along, I'm inclined to believe it.
Marshal Murat
04-03-2007, 22:07
That is mostly where I based my theory...
Africans didn't develop a highly advanced civilization (Greece, Rome) because they couldn't move past a basic argicultural society.
Nubia and Ghana (Mali, whatever) had gold, something they could trade, and thus were able to trade and prosper.
Well, I'm inclined to believe the theory laid out by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel. He states that Africa's inability to develop Eurasian style societies and technologies was due to an agricultural stagnation which was in turn the result of geographic considerations. He mainly focuses on two specific factors; first that Africa had fewer plants and animals that were suitable to domestication, and second that Africa's geography created extremely varied environmental zones that prevented the spead of domesticated plants and animals across the continent. Essentially, deserts, jungles, savanahs, and mountains were all too hostile to each others' indiginous life, which prevented locals from spreading the few domesticated crops and animals they did have beyond their areas of origin. This in turn kept the various African communities isolated and independent, limiting their cultural and economic exchange.
By comparison, Eurasia has a great deal of land from Iberia all the way to Japan which has a climate that is similar enough to allow species from one place to live in nearly all of them. Thus a standardized system of agriculture was arrived at relatively early, which prompted greater population growth and prosperity, which in turn spurred development in social structures and technologies at a greater pace.
It's the best theory I've heard so far, so until something better comes along, I'm inclined to believe it.
yes i am verytempted to buy that book, when i think i will have time to read it.
( i just bought the entire giles milton form a second hand book store, so it is going to be a while)
Samurai Waki
04-04-2007, 08:13
Well now that I am thinking of it, Sub Saharan Africa has gained quite a bit of noteworthy merit. Although the old ways themselves have by and large died, their hegemony have influenced the world in more ways than you can count, but it hasn't been a development only until recently. We can thank our Sub Saharan African Friends for their music, which was revolutionized into Rock and Roll, Jazz, Blues, and Rap (ugh.) their cultures survived slavery and now live on a heavily outside influenced way, but the roots are still there. You cannot listen to a piece of music written today that hasn't in some way been influenced by our Sub Saharan Partners. The exceptions are Classical and Pre-Baroque period music, as well as Eastern Styles. But I digress...
Rex_Pelasgorum
04-05-2007, 13:11
Warfare was not that common, and the inter-tribal skirmishes where of a rather low scale until the colonials came.
No large warfare activity, so no need for competition.
No need for competition, no technologicall and institutional progress.
And when finally, they where able to organize themselfs in some forms statal organisations, european colonial powers came in and destroyed everything.
Can it be real progress without war ? It is a coincidence that in the XXth century, the century wich marked most progress was also by farr the most bloody century in the history of mankind ?
You're looking at it wrong. There was no large scale warfare because there were relatively few large nations/empires. It requires a large population under a single governing structure to assemble a large fighting force. Without this, wars remain small and isolated. The lack of major wars is a symptom of sub-saharan Africa's slow development, not a cause of it.
MilesGregarius
04-05-2007, 16:03
You're looking at it wrong. There was no large scale warfare because there were relatively few large nations/empires. It requires a large population under a single governing structure to assemble a large fighting force. Without this, wars remain small and isolated. The lack of major wars is a symptom of sub-saharan Africa's slow development, not a cause of it.
Both you and Rex are correct. One phenomenon reinforces the other: lack of large social units means no large-scale warfare; lack of large-scale warfare reduces the impetus towards centralizing political/economic/military power; fewer centralized power reduces large-scale warfare; less warfare...
Chicken or egg, to some extent.
I also would like to add that since the "major knowledge/science" centers and places where important inventions took place either in Europe, Middle East, and Far East and none in Africa then it's another factor to why the sub-Saharan Africa didn't achieve much or even have advanced technology. I mean, how can you even try to build or make something if you don't even know how to make one (let alone exist)?
Reenk Roink
04-06-2007, 03:38
I also would like to add that since the "major knowledge/science" centers and places where important inventions took place either in Europe, Middle East, and Far East and none in Africa then it's another factor to why the sub-Saharan Africa didn't achieve much or even have advanced technology. I mean, how can you even try to build or make something if you don't even know how to make one (let alone exist)?
...and why do you even need to know it exists if you simply have no use for it?
Sub-Saharan Africa had no real need for complex agricultural techniques and therefore they didn't develop the technology associated with it.
On the "major knowledge/science" centers. Timbuktu is in Africa, not to mention all the North African (which is in Africa) centers of learning.
Agriculture and related technology is not the all encompassing thing of knowledge... :no:
...and why do you even need to know it exists if you simply have no use for it?
Sub-Saharan Africa had no real need for complex agricultural techniques and therefore they didn't develop the technology associated with it.
Since they didn't know those kind of stuff then there's no way for them to at least "extract knowledge" or try to make anything useful out of it regardless whether they actually use them or not, and mind you (what I'm talking) these are not limited to agriculutural stuff but wide ranges of inventions and stuff. They could at least "develop better culture" if they did know and had ideas of it, they didn't.
On the "major knowledge/science" centers. Timbuktu is in Africa, not to mention all the North African (which is in Africa) centers of learning.
The maker of this thread's talking about sub-Saharan Africa, which is as some people here has posted, geographically isolated from its Northern part, and not North Africa. And AFAIK although Timbuktu develop relatively "advanced culture", these are relatively nothing compared to many other places at the time.
Agriculture and related technology is not the all encompassing thing of knowledge... :no:
Already explained above
Watchman
04-06-2007, 12:07
Since they didn't know those kind of stuff then there's no way for them to at least "extract knowledge" or try to make anything useful out of it regardless whether they actually use them or not, and mind you (what I'm talking) these are not limited to agriculutural stuff but wide ranges of inventions and stuff. They could at least "develop better culture" if they did know and had ideas of it, they didn't.There would appear to be a logical flaw in this reasoning. Knowledge does not come out of thin air; it has to be sought and developed, not rarely through trial and error. People only divert time and energy for such pursuits, outside practical know-how stemming from necessities, if they can spare it, in other words, the society produces enough surplus to allow the existence of such specialists.
In other words, developed agriculture and certain minimum degrees of organization to gather and redistribute its products are pretty much a prequisite for what you're thinking about.
If there has been no need, or opportunity (due to ecological factors for example), to develop such social hierarchies there duly cannot exist a class of literati as everyone's busy feeding himself and his family. Craftsmen and artists - more or less the same bunch - are still of course required, as are various kinds of religious specialists due to the way the human mind works.
IMHO you also equate "culture" far too strongly with "technology", which is a faulty definition.
Reenk Roink
04-06-2007, 16:24
Since they didn't know those kind of stuff then there's no way for them to at least "extract knowledge" or try to make anything useful out of it regardless whether they actually use them or not, and mind you (what I'm talking) these are not limited to agriculutural stuff but wide ranges of inventions and stuff. They could at least "develop better culture" if they did know and had ideas of it, they didn't.
You're equivocating civilization (in the very narrow terms of "complex agricultural structures") and culture now.
Do you know much about African culture? Probably not. People certainly don't need to know how put seeds in the ground and find ways of bringing water to that ground to develop it. :rolleyes:
The maker of this thread's talking about sub-Saharan Africa, which is as some people here has posted, geographically isolated from its Northern part, and not North Africa. And AFAIK although Timbuktu develop relatively "advanced culture", these are relatively nothing compared to many other places at the time.
I know what the thread says. You said "Africa", and I chose to interpret it in the most strict and uncharitable way possible. With your statement of Timbuktu, I am reassured that I made the right choice.
Can you name me one place in the rest of the Islamic or Christian World that had more learning than Timbuktu during the 15th and 16 centuries and why that is the case? What place in the world could top Timbuktu's salt industry?
I am using your standards of discernment here, and it seems that your statement of "And AFAIK although Timbuktu develop relatively "advanced culture", these are relatively nothing compared to many other places at the time" is completely wrong.
(By the way, as I hold these terms to be too vague and quite useless so I consider Timbuktu's "advanced civilization and culture" incommensurable with other places).
Already explained above
Not really.
Not really.
Oh dear :wall:
Someone should have been able to explain it better than I.
I might type and explain it later...
BalkanTourist
04-07-2007, 08:44
Can it be real progress without war ? It is a coincidence that in the XXth century, the century wich marked most progress was also by farr the most bloody century in the history of mankind ?
Hi there!
What are the majority of the wars fought over? Wealth. Wealth is what drives people. Anytime there is surplus of wealth in a society, new ways to spend it are being found.
That is not to say that warfare does not contribute to advances in technologies. But these technologies are spread through trade. And what does trade like? Geography- location, location, location.
Let's not forget agriculture. But in my opinion no society can achieve great development through agriculture alone. Agriculture provides the bare minimum, the means for existance. Trade generates wealth, allows for communication and exchange of ideas.
Let's look at Africa now, and in particular Sub-Saharan Africa. What about its geography? First and foremost look at the name - Sub-Saharan. Sahara is the greatest dessert in the World. It presents a great barrier between the people on each side of it. It prevents people from interacting, it also prevents like someone said above the spread of plants and animals. Plants and animals are not used for agriculture only. Like we all know, both plants and animals can be used to produce cloths and other items suitable for crafts and trades.
Africa is homeland for the Tse Tse fly responsible for the death of all animals that can be used to transport things on. That means no horses, no camels, no cattle. Of course those animals existed, but they were not in excess and they were used for agricultural work instead.
What was worse was that Africa's rivers are for the most part non-navigable. What is the cheapest way to ferry goods in bulk? Water. Even to this day, ships are the number one way to transport goods or raw materials. We say "to ship" even when we send stuff via ground or air transportation.
Unfortunately Africa's geography is such that it lacks a great deal of rivers that flow permanently (a lot of them disapear in the dry season or srhink).
Take a look at the Zambezi for instance - it is the fourth longest river in the World. The 2,574 km- (1,600 mile-) long river has its source in Zambia and flows through Angola, along the borders of Namibia, Botswana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, to Mozambique, where it empties into the Indian Ocean. What is not so great about that river is the rocky bottom, the numerous falls and subsequent rapids. The drop in elevation makes vast parts of the river non-navigable. Also the Congo - the largest river in Western Central Africa. Its overall length of 4,667 km (2,900 miles) makes it the second longest in Africa (after the Nile). Before it reaches the sea the river falls through a number of cataracts in deep canyons (collectively known as the Livingstone Falls), which again prevent a ship from the sea to venture far in land like the Danube for instance in Europe.
But let me not get distracted, you get the point about the rivers. What could be worse you ask? Well, despite being much larger than Europe and having much longer coast line, Africa's natural harbors are shallow, thus preventing large vessel from nearing the coast. Everything a ship must carry must be loaded on smaller boats first and taken to the ship that awaits somewhere further at sea.
All that is left is for people to carry goods on their heads. They couldn't get really far. Trading was really expensive and risky business. So people didn't really engage in it except for the coastal provinces of Western Africa - the Gold, Slave and Ivory Coast (Ghana, Togo and Cote d'Ivoire) with the Europeans and Kenya, Tanganayka and Zanzibar with the Arab world.
So no trade, no wealth, no need for luxuries, no new inventions, no progress (in Europe what really triggered the Renaissance, Enlightenment and other processes was the excess of wealth created through trade - Venice, Genua 13-15 centuries and the descovery of the New World).
Throw in all the nasty deseases Africa has. The terrain, the jungles, the mountains, the mountainous jungles. Did you know that in Cameroon alone there are about 200 languages? Tribes were naturally isolated from each other.
There you have it. This is why, according to my opinion Africa lagged the development Western Europe had. I am sure I am missing stuff, but it is 3:30 A.M. and I am dizzy. I will be happy to read what you think of my post and discuss it. Sorry that it is so long.
Watchman
04-07-2007, 12:17
Africans in any case got dealt a bad hand when it came to animals - the local branch of horse, the zebra, AFAIK isn't domesticable. That sorta put a major damper on developing overland transport methods, and no horse nomads to make things interesting for their neighbours (I've incidentally read the first traces of defensive walls appeared around ancient Southern Russian settlements around the same time horse riding developed...).
Well, at least they had decent cattle. The Americans didn't get even that - about the closest the Incas and Mayas had was the damn hamster, the local relatives of the camel not being AFAIK too good livestock...
MilesGregarius
04-07-2007, 12:31
Agree with most of what you say here; geography, to a certain extent, is destiny.
Africa is homeland for the Tse Tse fly responsible for the death of all animals that can be used to transport things on. That means no horses, no camels, no cattle. Of course those animals existed, but they were not in excess and they were used for agricultural work instead.
According to Jared Diamond, Africa's abundance of large predators has also contributed to its dearth of domesticatable beasts of burden. Whereas Eurasian work animals such as the horse, donkey, or water buffalo are relatively docile, their African equivalents like the zebra or Cape buffalo, through regular predation by lions and hyena, have become much testier, and therefore less economically viable.
Take a look at the Zambezi for instance - it is the fourth longest river in the World.
Fourth longest in the world? Or Fourth longest in Africa?
BalkanTourist
04-08-2007, 00:05
In Africa, my bad it was late.
One thing, Africa is big and it stretches between north and south (not east and west as Eurasia) so crops cultivated in one place cant spread as easily. Also while the Sahel permits horses (the states there atleast from the 15th century all had cavalry based armies, and horses was something many could gain through the trans-saharan slave trade) further to the south there where the tse-tse fly as mentioned, so no cav for Kongo. Now how good communications did Africa have with the rest of the old world? Across the Sahara, not the best route to transfer ideas quickly, and by sea.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.