My question is, when and why did the Africans start their decline in world power and order? What I mean is that right now, most countries in Africa don't have any say in any world affairs, they don't have strong militaries (maybe with the exception of Egypt, if you count that as North Africa), African countries' economies are in shambles, and the education of Africans is horrible. Don't forget there are a few African countries in a civil war. Was this because of slavery? Was it because of foreign invasion? We know that Africa was the home of great kingdoms/civilizations like that of Egypt and Mali, but what happened to all that development?
Why did the Africans not develop?
- Thread starter Capulet
- Start date
- Status
Achinz
Hermit of Huangshan
Jared Diamond (in "Guns, Germs and Steel") gives a detailed theory for the backwardness of central and southern Africa compared to Eurasia based on the absence of significant numbers of large domesticatable animals like cattle and horses endemic to the continent, among many other factors. Worth reading the book if you haven't already.
IMO, the Sahara empires (Mali, Ghana, Songhai etc) fell victim to climatic changes (gradual drying up of their lands, with the Sahara pushing southwards).
Whereas further south, there're no significant floodplains, to foster an early civilisations, or elsewhere too isolated fr the main lines of the world trade routes for new ideas to arrive (except perhaps for Arab-influenced E Africa; like Zanzibar).
Whereas further south, there're no significant floodplains, to foster an early civilisations, or elsewhere too isolated fr the main lines of the world trade routes for new ideas to arrive (except perhaps for Arab-influenced E Africa; like Zanzibar).
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
IMO, another great factor is that out of everyone that was colonised, the Africans were the most exploited.
Also, I don't think domesticated animals had anything to do with the decline of the sub-Sahara (Mali, Songhai, etc.) as at one point these kingdoms were more advanced and richer than Europe and the Middle East. I think they fell victim to desertification (much like Ethiopia) and constant warfare.
Also, I don't think domesticated animals had anything to do with the decline of the sub-Sahara (Mali, Songhai, etc.) as at one point these kingdoms were more advanced and richer than Europe and the Middle East. I think they fell victim to desertification (much like Ethiopia) and constant warfare.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Like when?
I'm all for promoting the qualities possessed by civilizations not in the ken of "popular history"...but let's not exaggerate. But if you'd care to explain, then please do so ...
Where to start... there are many factors involved:-
1.Tribalism
There are many and varied tribal groups in Africa who have a long history of inta-tribal warfare not a factor to help in the devlopment of great civilizations.
2.Slavery
The removal of vast numbers of the population undoubtedly palyed a part
3.Early conquests
The domination by early civilizations such as Egypt and the Islamic empires effectively prevented the devlopment of other civilizations
4.Empires and colonies
The various world empires of later years (English/French/Dutch) etc prevented local civilizations from developing by imposing outside rule, preventing the formation of local military and the removal of wealth and resources held back development in Africa.
5.The cold war era
The spawing of communist goverenments and the constant tensions of the cold war had a big impact in Africa - add in the outside influences promoting revolutions and instigation civil wars and you have a recipe for keeping African countires poor.
The geography of Africa has also had a big impact with limited farming land and vast tracts of unprofitable land make the development of large civilizations difficult except in very localised areas (such as the Nile valley) - a civilization can only become truly developed when there are surpluses of food and other basics to allow for non-essential work to be undertaken.
The factors mentioned in earlier posts undoubtedly played a part as well.
1.Tribalism
There are many and varied tribal groups in Africa who have a long history of inta-tribal warfare not a factor to help in the devlopment of great civilizations.
2.Slavery
The removal of vast numbers of the population undoubtedly palyed a part
3.Early conquests
The domination by early civilizations such as Egypt and the Islamic empires effectively prevented the devlopment of other civilizations
4.Empires and colonies
The various world empires of later years (English/French/Dutch) etc prevented local civilizations from developing by imposing outside rule, preventing the formation of local military and the removal of wealth and resources held back development in Africa.
5.The cold war era
The spawing of communist goverenments and the constant tensions of the cold war had a big impact in Africa - add in the outside influences promoting revolutions and instigation civil wars and you have a recipe for keeping African countires poor.
The geography of Africa has also had a big impact with limited farming land and vast tracts of unprofitable land make the development of large civilizations difficult except in very localised areas (such as the Nile valley) - a civilization can only become truly developed when there are surpluses of food and other basics to allow for non-essential work to be undertaken.
The factors mentioned in earlier posts undoubtedly played a part as well.
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
Climate, and as a corollary, food. It's a simple as that.
LouLong
In love with Rei Ayanami
No it is not that simple. Other areas suffered fom desertification as well which drove people to still fertile areas (such as the Nile river or Mesopotamia) and these encounters are partly at the origin of some great civilizations of the world.
Desertification could be considered as an element since the increase of Sahara size created a large frontier between North and Black Africa, isolating the latter.
But even that is not completely true. Egyptian influence went up the Nile, Carthaginians knew of Senegal areas, Chrisitanism reached Ethiopia and Arabs created kingdoms and created a kind of civilization on the Eastern coast "united" by a "lingua franca" : swahili.
Here we touch another issue : can black Africans unite politically ?
They did sometimes by themselves (Monomopata, ....) but these did not last very much. Why ? One reason is probably because they lacked writing which is essential to the building up of a civilization through the administration. Here they relied mostly on one person/short dynasty whose ending would mean end of the kingdom/"civ".
Therefore some say the ethnic clans are one of the main pbs of Africa. But do not focus only on ethnic clashes such as Congo or Rwanda-Burundi. Historically speaking tribes have been soft elements that could adapt or change or evolve. It is the meeting of these ethnies with "western" modern nationalism and mostly the issue of the redistribution of the wealth on ethnical therefore political grounds that cause many of the recent pbs. That and the exploding population which makes wealth disribution even more important, especially in cities where ethnic solidarity should have been more difficult to see.
Some say it is the food. It is true that the land is often not that good, either too dry or too wet, rain washing the soils (which gives the red colors so typical of areas such as Cameroun) but it was enough to support much more people than were present historically. It seems the choice was to go for extensive resources either through exploiting new areas (such as through inner nomadism (the Bantu migration) or nomadism (cattle if very dry or burning agriculture in forested areas). Africa nowadays cannot feed itself for economical/social/political reasons, not for basic agricultural reasons.
Some say it is called by the lack of population that did not enable the building up of civilizations. The population being too limited to need to organize itself.
But there are and have been high concentrations of population : ex the inland of the Guinea gulf and especially the mountaineous areas of Ethiopia or Rwanda-Burundi (400 inh/sq km now so as much as Netherlands).
Some say there was no trade network nor merchants to create the "routes" of civ. That is not true either for apart from the trade with local neighboring civs (Egypt, Maghreb, Arabia, India) there were merchants within black Africa : ex : the Haoussa confederacy.
Some say it is the lack of religion that would give a feeling of unity. But islamized areas, or christianized "Kongo" or even the common animism did not work efficiently for that.
Some say it is the slave trade or the general predation of other civs. Well Africa is not the only area that has been predated, the slave trade touched only limited areas and if it was completely destructive for some local tribes it was very constructive for new civs, especially on the seaside, an area hardly used by Africans prior to that. Albeit very hype and politically correct at the moment, slavery did touch many other areas with probably as strong an effect on the long term.
Some thought (mostly in the XIXth century) that it was because tropical climate was debilitating. One must say Africa is the home of lots of bad tropical diseases but nobody serious believes tropical climate is soft enough for people to lack the motivation for doing anything). Anyway Khmer, Vietnamese or Mayas created great civs in tropical areas. So ?
Either it is culturally (kind of choice not to forecast or choice of extensive production rather than intensive) (after all, lack of exposure to civilization is showing now in their impossibility to adapt to the modern world, at least before a while) or it is a mixture of absence of writing, isolation (such as lack of maritime contact) and thus its corollaries (lack of tech-improvment which itself causes lack of production and/or food improvment) ....
You pick your choice.
Personally I think the ancient ethnic leaders that have become political leaders and gather then redistribute the wealth (coming from export products and/or foreign aid at 99%) keep on the long tradition of redistribution which is person-based and not skill/value-based are the top responsible.
Desertification could be considered as an element since the increase of Sahara size created a large frontier between North and Black Africa, isolating the latter.
But even that is not completely true. Egyptian influence went up the Nile, Carthaginians knew of Senegal areas, Chrisitanism reached Ethiopia and Arabs created kingdoms and created a kind of civilization on the Eastern coast "united" by a "lingua franca" : swahili.
Here we touch another issue : can black Africans unite politically ?
They did sometimes by themselves (Monomopata, ....) but these did not last very much. Why ? One reason is probably because they lacked writing which is essential to the building up of a civilization through the administration. Here they relied mostly on one person/short dynasty whose ending would mean end of the kingdom/"civ".
Therefore some say the ethnic clans are one of the main pbs of Africa. But do not focus only on ethnic clashes such as Congo or Rwanda-Burundi. Historically speaking tribes have been soft elements that could adapt or change or evolve. It is the meeting of these ethnies with "western" modern nationalism and mostly the issue of the redistribution of the wealth on ethnical therefore political grounds that cause many of the recent pbs. That and the exploding population which makes wealth disribution even more important, especially in cities where ethnic solidarity should have been more difficult to see.
Some say it is the food. It is true that the land is often not that good, either too dry or too wet, rain washing the soils (which gives the red colors so typical of areas such as Cameroun) but it was enough to support much more people than were present historically. It seems the choice was to go for extensive resources either through exploiting new areas (such as through inner nomadism (the Bantu migration) or nomadism (cattle if very dry or burning agriculture in forested areas). Africa nowadays cannot feed itself for economical/social/political reasons, not for basic agricultural reasons.
Some say it is called by the lack of population that did not enable the building up of civilizations. The population being too limited to need to organize itself.
But there are and have been high concentrations of population : ex the inland of the Guinea gulf and especially the mountaineous areas of Ethiopia or Rwanda-Burundi (400 inh/sq km now so as much as Netherlands).
Some say there was no trade network nor merchants to create the "routes" of civ. That is not true either for apart from the trade with local neighboring civs (Egypt, Maghreb, Arabia, India) there were merchants within black Africa : ex : the Haoussa confederacy.
Some say it is the lack of religion that would give a feeling of unity. But islamized areas, or christianized "Kongo" or even the common animism did not work efficiently for that.
Some say it is the slave trade or the general predation of other civs. Well Africa is not the only area that has been predated, the slave trade touched only limited areas and if it was completely destructive for some local tribes it was very constructive for new civs, especially on the seaside, an area hardly used by Africans prior to that. Albeit very hype and politically correct at the moment, slavery did touch many other areas with probably as strong an effect on the long term.
Some thought (mostly in the XIXth century) that it was because tropical climate was debilitating. One must say Africa is the home of lots of bad tropical diseases but nobody serious believes tropical climate is soft enough for people to lack the motivation for doing anything). Anyway Khmer, Vietnamese or Mayas created great civs in tropical areas. So ?
Either it is culturally (kind of choice not to forecast or choice of extensive production rather than intensive) (after all, lack of exposure to civilization is showing now in their impossibility to adapt to the modern world, at least before a while) or it is a mixture of absence of writing, isolation (such as lack of maritime contact) and thus its corollaries (lack of tech-improvment which itself causes lack of production and/or food improvment) ....
You pick your choice.
Personally I think the ancient ethnic leaders that have become political leaders and gather then redistribute the wealth (coming from export products and/or foreign aid at 99%) keep on the long tradition of redistribution which is person-based and not skill/value-based are the top responsible.
I would say that the lack of centralised government could have been a contributing factor. Compare the influence of Rome on North Africa.
Compare to that the influence of Rome on Britannia. The two are not much different but if anything, North Africa did much better and thrived.
But following the fall of Rome, the celts and their african counterparts took completely different paths. I'm not sure what happened in Africa but everything fell to ruin and laid to waste.
In contrast, the celts retained their skills and built ontop of the Roman installations - See Chichester, Londonium and other Roman settlements.
Slavery was part of the local culture. Afaik, they had no prisons and slavery was the equivalent punishment. European traders started by purchasing those slaves on the free market.
I'm not saying what happened afterwards was not a contributing factor to the question, simply pointing out that slavery and removal of rights existing in Africa before European and American influence.
Actually, I count Egypt as the greatest of African civilisations. It's the jewel in the continent's crown so don't like view that it prevented development.
What I don't understand is why Egypt didn't continue to expand into southern Africa..
I think to find the answer requires one to look to events from before colonial rule.
Sorry, but having spears and wooden shields in industrial age does not make me think their progress was hindred by external influence.
What resources are you talking about?
Nigeria is a clear example of how African nations can develop well in the post-colonial commonwealth era; the economy has enjoyed significiant growth. Compare Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique.
Wars always cause problems, but wouldn't the lack of centralised government, economic prosperity and social security be the cause of uprising?
I agree that civilisation develops more efficiently where wealth allows for non-essential work can be undertaken, but not on the issue of the land being unsuitable for farming.
The land is fertile, the colonial powers demonstrated this when they grew whatever they wanted.
Today, many Africans starve because they do not have the economy to support farms or trade for the food. It is simply bad government.
Consider South Africa, the worlds 6th largest exporter of food. The population average food consumption is at 117% of the UN recommendation.
Clearly no shortage of farming land, yet the people starve!
It's an economic problem, not a geographical one. Less than 2% of that population can afford to buy the food they need.
2.Slavery The removal of vast numbers of the population undoubtedly palyed a part.
I would think the opposite, actually. The Indians, Arabs and Europeans who developed the African slave trade simply plugged into an existing local phenomenon - slavery practiced through war captives - and exploited it. Rarely, at least before the late 18th century, did they bother penetrating into the African interior. They set up shop on the coasts and cut deals with local tribes and/or kingdoms to buy/trade slaves brought from the interior. This helped foster longer-range trade within Africa and also helped develop some fairly sophisticated African coastal kingdoms like Duhomey (modern Benin).
Overlooking the immorality of the African slave trade for a moment, what happened is foreign powers discovered a local economic practice (slavery) and exploited it, turning it into a global export business. The coastal kingdoms did benefit from this trade, though it probably created strife in the interior as tribes scrambled to trade the one valuable commodity the coastal kingdoms wanted - slaves. But the coastal kingdoms, through the slave trade, were introduced into the world economy and all the goods, technologies and philosophies tied to it.
The British shut down almost all of the west African slave trade in the early 19th century but it lingered with Arab traders in eastern Africa until almost the 20th century. (David Livingstone of "Dr. Livingstone, I presume" fame spent his last demented years harrassing Arab slave traders in eastern Africa in the 1880s.) In the west I think Brazil was the exception, continuing to import huge numbers of African slaves until the 1880s. In our modern moral sense it is indisputable that the African slave trade was immoral and unconscionable, but the historical fact is that many parties benefitted from that trade; in Africa, in Europe, in the Americas, in India, and in Arabia. The benefits were not just in terms of realized profits, but more importantly in establishing global economic relationships and being forced to develop crucial technologies to deal with transportation, finance, communication, valuation of exchanges, etc. The African slave trade is a crucial link in the historical development of the world economy. The point of history isn't so much to pass moral judgements on peoples or events as to understand them and the role they played in creating the world we have today.
This is not to be a moral relativist and overlook the fact that this critical development for the world took place through the enslavement and often the deaths of vast numbers of sub-Saharan Africans, rather it is to say that the immorality and, in our moern terms, criminal nature of this trade should not stop us from understanding its full impact on world history. It changed the world.
I would think the opposite, actually. The Indians, Arabs and Europeans who developed the African slave trade simply plugged into an existing local phenomenon - slavery practiced through war captives - and exploited it. Rarely, at least before the late 18th century, did they bother penetrating into the African interior. They set up shop on the coasts and cut deals with local tribes and/or kingdoms to buy/trade slaves brought from the interior. This helped foster longer-range trade within Africa and also helped develop some fairly sophisticated African coastal kingdoms like Duhomey (modern Benin).
Overlooking the immorality of the African slave trade for a moment, what happened is foreign powers discovered a local economic practice (slavery) and exploited it, turning it into a global export business. The coastal kingdoms did benefit from this trade, though it probably created strife in the interior as tribes scrambled to trade the one valuable commodity the coastal kingdoms wanted - slaves. But the coastal kingdoms, through the slave trade, were introduced into the world economy and all the goods, technologies and philosophies tied to it.
The British shut down almost all of the west African slave trade in the early 19th century but it lingered with Arab traders in eastern Africa until almost the 20th century. (David Livingstone of "Dr. Livingstone, I presume" fame spent his last demented years harrassing Arab slave traders in eastern Africa in the 1880s.) In the west I think Brazil was the exception, continuing to import huge numbers of African slaves until the 1880s. In our modern moral sense it is indisputable that the African slave trade was immoral and unconscionable, but the historical fact is that many parties benefitted from that trade; in Africa, in Europe, in the Americas, in India, and in Arabia. The benefits were not just in terms of realized profits, but more importantly in establishing global economic relationships and being forced to develop crucial technologies to deal with transportation, finance, communication, valuation of exchanges, etc. The African slave trade is a crucial link in the historical development of the world economy. The point of history isn't so much to pass moral judgements on peoples or events as to understand them and the role they played in creating the world we have today.
This is not to be a moral relativist and overlook the fact that this critical development for the world took place through the enslavement and often the deaths of vast numbers of sub-Saharan Africans, rather it is to say that the immorality and, in our moern terms, criminal nature of this trade should not stop us from understanding its full impact on world history. It changed the world.
LouLong
In love with Rei Ayanami
Nice point Vrylakas. A bit off-topic as far as the thread title is concerned but quite important here to avoid the common "blame black slave trade for everything" trend.
Just one point : AFAIK Dahomey would be it rather than Duhomey ?
As I said in my post it allowed state-building, especially on the coast that had become the new trade interface with the rest of the world, that's where it finds its place.
Just one point : AFAIK Dahomey would be it rather than Duhomey ?
As I said in my post it allowed state-building, especially on the coast that had become the new trade interface with the rest of the world, that's where it finds its place.Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
Originally posted by calgacus
Like when?
I'm all for promoting the qualities possessed by civilizations not in the ken of "popular history"...but let's not exaggerate. But if you'd care to explain, then please do so ...
I guess you're asking about the 'more technologically advanced' part and not the 'richer' part as I've no doubt that you already know the Mali and Songhai empires were infamously rich. Well, basically, there were great university cities and libraries all throughout those two empires (the most famous being at Timbuktu, but there were also significant ones at Gao, Odienne, D'jenne, Niani and Niandan Koro, to name a few). Being more advanced than Europe goes without saying as they were the least advanced for most of the Middle Ages. As for the Middle East, from about the 10th Century onwards, the Arab religious leaders turned against science and so forth so many of the intellectuals and thinkers emigrated to sub-Saharan Africa. By the 11th and 12th Centuries, even Europeans and Turks were going to the great universities, and were copying books from the great libraries (only those which didn't clash with the Roman Catholic church mind you, so that would probably be about 5% of all written material actually being taken to Europe in the end)
Wasn't strong enough. At times Nubia dominated large parts of Egypt and Egypt had many other problems, Makedon, Hyksos, Persia, Rome. No matter how powerfull your civilisation, without efficient enough comunications your empire can extend only so far.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
I know they were famous for having lots of gold...but that doesn't make them rich, since they had monopolies of several large gold deposits.
Having libraries doesn't make you advanced either, but W. Europe had hundreds of small libraries in this period. TBH, I don't happen to buy into the "backward medieval Europe" argument, since having actually studied other Eurasian civilizations in the period, it's plainly apparent that this is PC exaggeration.
What Europeans copied books? For what purpose?
I must say you haven't convinced me. Perhaps you could tell me about their literary culture, scientific output, architectural achievements, military technology, etc.
Nice point Vrylakas. A bit off-topic as far as the thread title is concerned but quite important here to avoid the common "blame black slave trade for everything" trend.
Yup. I was actually just racting to the point I quoted in my post. I simply don't know enough about sub-Saharan African history to be able to answer the original question adequately, though I am intrigued by the fact that prior to the growth of the slave trade in the 13th century, several quite advanced kingdoms did arise in Africa: Ghana, Ethiopia, Kush, Zimbabwe, etc. The answer is not in contact with the monotheistic religious cultures, because some - Ghana in particular - thrived through its contact with the Islamic world. However, around the time of the Indian and Arab exploration of the eastern African coast, something seems to ave gone wrong for Africans and their former achievements seemed to have evaporated to the extent that Arabs and Europeans alike could not imagine for centuries that Africans had once had their own kingdoms. Climate changes? (Europe did experience dramatic climate changes from 14th-18th centuries.) Outside aggressions? Internal strife?
Just one point : AFAIK Dahomey would be it rather than Duhomey ? As I said in my post it allowed state-building, especially on the coast that had become the new trade interface with the rest of the world, that's where it finds its place.
D'oh! With some more obscure (to me) geographic names, I either rely on Polish spellings which I try to transplant into English, or I must rely on an aging and faulty memory...
Yup. I was actually just racting to the point I quoted in my post. I simply don't know enough about sub-Saharan African history to be able to answer the original question adequately, though I am intrigued by the fact that prior to the growth of the slave trade in the 13th century, several quite advanced kingdoms did arise in Africa: Ghana, Ethiopia, Kush, Zimbabwe, etc. The answer is not in contact with the monotheistic religious cultures, because some - Ghana in particular - thrived through its contact with the Islamic world. However, around the time of the Indian and Arab exploration of the eastern African coast, something seems to ave gone wrong for Africans and their former achievements seemed to have evaporated to the extent that Arabs and Europeans alike could not imagine for centuries that Africans had once had their own kingdoms. Climate changes? (Europe did experience dramatic climate changes from 14th-18th centuries.) Outside aggressions? Internal strife?
Just one point : AFAIK Dahomey would be it rather than Duhomey ? As I said in my post it allowed state-building, especially on the coast that had become the new trade interface with the rest of the world, that's where it finds its place.
D'oh! With some more obscure (to me) geographic names, I either rely on Polish spellings which I try to transplant into English, or I must rely on an aging and faulty memory...
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
When the Emperor of Mali went on the Hajj, he took so many thousands of slaves and so much gold and gave them out along the journey that the entire economies of the nations along the route he took were upset for over 100 years. In both Mali and Songhai, they had so much of every precious commodity that the only resource that had any real value was salt. By one stage, more than 80% of all gold in Europe and the Middle East had come from Mali and Songhai.
As for the great Malian scientists and universities, I'ld have to some research on them because I don't know their names and dates that well. But I remember that the University of Timbuktu in particular had great fame and prestige across the known world, and that even Europeans went to it.
Books were copied because they were simply more advanced than the current ones. Books on mathematics and philosophy were the major ones taken back to Europe. Theology, medicine and engineering were on the other hand greatly shunned.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
More than gold, it was salt that was at the heart of Mali's true power.
Mali's gold was of course much desired (as it was a primary source of gold for the old world as MC pointed out - they just plain needed it), but it was the combination of their being on the south end of the Sahara (a desert which you needed salt to survive), and their having control of the salt mines (already a very precious commodity) that allowed them to become a big gun of economy.
The killing blow to their economy was in great part the spread of navigation in the late medieval and renaissance era - once people could bypass the Sahara, they needed their salt a lot less, and the weakened empire crumbled. Even had it survived, its gold would have lots its importance soon too with the New World showing up on radars by that point.
Mali's gold was of course much desired (as it was a primary source of gold for the old world as MC pointed out - they just plain needed it), but it was the combination of their being on the south end of the Sahara (a desert which you needed salt to survive), and their having control of the salt mines (already a very precious commodity) that allowed them to become a big gun of economy.
The killing blow to their economy was in great part the spread of navigation in the late medieval and renaissance era - once people could bypass the Sahara, they needed their salt a lot less, and the weakened empire crumbled. Even had it survived, its gold would have lots its importance soon too with the New World showing up on radars by that point.
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
So far, everybody skips the highly taboo-ed factor about race.
Can we discuss that without becoming racists here?
I find it pretty hard to believe it has had no influence at all.
Can we discuss that without becoming racists here?
I find it pretty hard to believe it has had no influence at all.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I find it easy enough given that there is virtualy no worthwhile genetic basis for the whole concept in the first place.
Now, if you want to argue that there was something in CULTURE that made the difference, yes, that I can get along.
My take on it? Mali's fate was essentialy (in shortened form) China's - they were a large, essentialy satisfied nation that had little in the way of rival empires to propel it forward, unlike the European states.
The division of Europe in many small countries to my mind served to propel Europe forward in two maneers :
1-Give the nations rivals with which to compete - essentialy, Europe came out in a situation of diplomatic darwinism, a highly crowded (politically) area were either your country had to be a top dog, or else wind up eventually eaten up by its neighbors.
2-In a mosaic Europe, there was not one official line of thought on any numbers of topics - unless you happened to really cross the church, and even then Luther got away with that one - chances were you'd wind up able to find a prince or patron who would protect you somewher. Whereas in large single-empires area like China, finding a patron for your work if you challenged the "Official Way of Thought" was hell.
Now, if you want to argue that there was something in CULTURE that made the difference, yes, that I can get along.
My take on it? Mali's fate was essentialy (in shortened form) China's - they were a large, essentialy satisfied nation that had little in the way of rival empires to propel it forward, unlike the European states.
The division of Europe in many small countries to my mind served to propel Europe forward in two maneers :
1-Give the nations rivals with which to compete - essentialy, Europe came out in a situation of diplomatic darwinism, a highly crowded (politically) area were either your country had to be a top dog, or else wind up eventually eaten up by its neighbors.
2-In a mosaic Europe, there was not one official line of thought on any numbers of topics - unless you happened to really cross the church, and even then Luther got away with that one - chances were you'd wind up able to find a prince or patron who would protect you somewher. Whereas in large single-empires area like China, finding a patron for your work if you challenged the "Official Way of Thought" was hell.
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
But in Mali, they supported differences in thoughts, and different religions. Mali's fate IMO also included a weakening of the central administration, coupled with a series of weak and ineffectual rulers. This eventually led to the 'subject states' (Mali was more of an alliance between 3 great kingdoms and something like 19 smaller ones rather than one big central empire) breaking of. IMO Songhai on the other hand suffered environmental catastrophes and a loss of trade due to the New World. They also suffered greatly from Moroccan war-mongering across northwest Africa.
- Status
Similar threads
