Did any pre-colonial Sub-Saharan African Kingdoms/Empires manufacture their own guns?

Joined Oct 2015
275 Posts | 10+
Florida, USA
Last edited:
When the Japanese were first introduced to the European matchlock in the 16th century, they quickly adopted it as their own and even improved upon it, quickly utilizing it to attack their rivals:

Within a year after the first trade in guns, Japanese swordsmiths and ironsmiths managed to reproduce the matchlock mechanism and mass-produce the Portuguese guns. Barely fifty years later, "by the end of the 16th century, guns were almost certainly more common in Japan than in any other country in the world", its armies equipped with a number of guns dwarfing any contemporary army in Europe (Perrin).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanban_trade

HimejiCastle_Gunracks_0461M.jpg


Was there ever a place similar in Sub-Saharan Africa? Many Kingdoms/Empires such as Dahomey, Oyo, Benin, and Ashanti had firearms. Dahomey and Ashanti were the only ones (that I know of) that used them as the primary weapon of their infantry. Anyway I often hear that they exchanged slaves to receive more guns and used those guns to capture more slaves in a vicious cycle. Surely they had the technology and the resources to manufacture their own guns. It just makes me wonder why no one ever did (that I know of). This is the most information I could find in regards to indigenous gun manufacture in Sub-Saharan Africa:

"Until the introduction of guns in the 15th century, traditional weapons like the spear, short sword, and bow held sway. Efforts were made to reorganize a local guild of blacksmiths in the 18th century to manufacture light firearms, but dependence on imports was still heavy. Before the coming of the gun, guilds of blacksmiths were charged with war production—–particularly swords and iron spearheads"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin_Empire

4438179846_4a624a726a.jpg
 
Joined Oct 2012
3,562 Posts | 807+
Z
The answer is yes. Multiple Sub-Saharan African states, especially in West Africa, manufactured their own guns, as well as their own gunpowder.

Quoting from the article "Firearms and Warfare on the Gold and Slave Coasts from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Centuries" (The Journal of African History, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1971), pp. 185-213) by R.A. Kea:

65eNwAu.jpg


Based on what I have read, it seems that the main issue that African states faced was obtaining enough specialized labor to produce weapons on a large-scale, comparable to European and Asian states. Even the most advanced West African states had quite small populations compared to Eurasian states, and faced higher mortality due to a greater prevalence of disease. The actual technical skills of West African artisans were not that far behind the Eurasian world (Asante blacksmiths regularly repaired European firearms and sometimes also manufactured new parts for them), but their numbers were too small to create efficient economies of scale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TerraceOLas
Joined Oct 2015
275 Posts | 10+
Florida, USA
The answer is yes. Multiple Sub-Saharan African states, especially in West Africa, manufactured their own guns, as well as their own gunpowder.

Quoting from the article "Firearms and Warfare on the Gold and Slave Coasts from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Centuries" (The Journal of African History, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1971), pp. 185-213) by R.A. Kea:

65eNwAu.jpg


Based on what I have read, it seems that the main issue that African states faced was obtaining enough specialized labor to produce weapons on a large-scale, comparable to European and Asian states. Even the most advanced West African states had quite small populations compared to Eurasian states, and faced higher mortality due to a greater prevalence of disease. The actual technical skills of West African artisans were not that far behind the Eurasian world (Asante blacksmiths regularly repaired European firearms and sometimes also manufactured new parts for them), but their numbers were too small to create efficient economies of scale.

Great info and citation! However this part right here:


Even the most advanced West African states had quite small populations compared to Eurasian states, and faced higher mortality due to a greater prevalence of disease.

Yoruba states have been densely populated urban centers from ancient times and even to present day. In fact, the capital of the Oyo Empire had over 100,000 people which was huge for that time. They also seemed to have no shortage of labor seeing as their cities were all surrounded by ramparts and moats. They also had many slaves and arguably some of the world's best art and other metalworks.

Sent from my SM-A700K using Tapatalk
 
Joined Oct 2012
3,562 Posts | 807+
Z
Yoruba states have been densely populated urban centers from ancient times and even to present day. In fact, the capital of the Oyo Empire had over 100,000 people which was huge for that time. They also seemed to have no shortage of labor seeing as their cities were all surrounded by ramparts and moats. They also had many slaves and arguably some of the world's best art and other metalworks.

Can you provide a citation for Oyo having 100,000 people in its capital city?

The prevalence of slavery in many African societies existed precisely because of a shortage of labor. The shortage of labor make control of human beings more important than control of land or any other resource, whereas in Europe and China the relative abundance of labor in relation to land by the Middle Ages made territorial control. more important than labor control.

We should not use modern African population densities to envision pre-colonial population densities, since Africa has experienced a massive demographic boom since the mid-20th century. In reality, for most of history Africa was an extremely underpopulated continent with a massive shortage of labor in relation to land. In 1900, the population the entire African continent (including densely-populated Nile Valley and North African coast) was only 113 million, compared to 408 million in Europe and 947 million in Asia. If we focus only on Sub-Saharan Africa, the number would be just 50-60 million, only a small fraction of the Eurasian population.
 
Joined Apr 2016
202 Posts | 0+
Sydney
The answer is yes. Multiple Sub-Saharan African states, especially in West Africa, manufactured their own guns, as well as their own gunpowder.

Quoting from the article "Firearms and Warfare on the Gold and Slave Coasts from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Centuries" (The Journal of African History, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1971), pp. 185-213) by R.A. Kea:

65eNwAu.jpg


Based on what I have read, it seems that the main issue that African states faced was obtaining enough specialized labor to produce weapons on a large-scale, comparable to European and Asian states. Even the most advanced West African states had quite small populations compared to Eurasian states, and faced higher mortality due to a greater prevalence of disease. The actual technical skills of West African artisans were not that far behind the Eurasian world (Asante blacksmiths regularly repaired European firearms and sometimes also manufactured new parts for them), but their numbers were too small to create efficient economies of scale.
Did Kongo manufacture guns? They were apparently the most advanced, centralised, and stable Sub-Saharan state for a few centuries, with strong Portuguese connections. Fascinating post, by the way.
 
Joined Oct 2012
3,562 Posts | 807+
Z
Did Kongo manufacture guns? They were apparently the most advanced, centralised, and stable Sub-Saharan state for a few centuries, with strong Portuguese connections. Fascinating post, by the way.

I have never heard of Kongo manufacturing its own guns. I also doubt that Kongo was ever "the most advanced, centralised, and stable" Sub-Saharan state. What I have read seems to suggest that Kongo was much less stable than states like Benin, and also less centralised and not as advanced. For example, Benin City was larger, more densely populated, and more impressive than the Kongolese capital of Mbanza Kongo (as affirmed by many European travelers, who compared Benin City to leading European capitals), and Benin royal art in bronze and brass tends to be of a markedly higher quality than any art that I have seen from Kongo. In terms of centralisation, the Oba of Benin was powerful enough to monopolize resources such as ivory and pepper as well as to ban male slave exports to Europeans, something with the Kongolese monarchy proved completely unable to do despite the wishes of some of its kings (Kongo ended up being the largest exporter of slaves to the New World, with devastating demographic consequences).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jazo
Joined Mar 2014
352 Posts | 24+
Carthage
Great info and citation! However this part right here:




Yoruba states have been densely populated urban centers from ancient times and even to present day. In fact, the capital of the Oyo Empire had over 100,000 people which was huge for that time. They also seemed to have no shortage of labor seeing as their cities were all surrounded by ramparts and moats. They also had many slaves and arguably some of the world's best art and other metalworks.

Sent from my SM-A700K using Tapatalk

True but I think he talking collectively West Africa was not as urban and collectively Africa was not that populated. West Africa was and regions to the North but it was sparsely populated everywhere else especially S.O.T.S. Many of those coastal and near forest states were pretty small. My ancestors the Dahomey had to compensate by drafting women into the military. They made up a third of the military due to the Dahomey's small size.
 
Joined Apr 2016
202 Posts | 0+
Sydney
I have never heard of Kongo manufacturing its own guns. I also doubt that Kongo was ever "the most advanced, centralised, and stable" Sub-Saharan state. What I have read seems to suggest that Kongo was much less stable than states like Benin, and also less centralised and not as advanced. For example, Benin City was larger, more densely populated, and more impressive than the Kongolese capital of Mbanza Kongo (as affirmed by many European travelers, who compared Benin City to leading European capitals), and Benin royal art in bronze and brass tends to be of a markedly higher quality than any art that I have seen from Kongo. In terms of centralisation, the Oba of Benin was powerful enough to monopolize resources such as ivory and pepper as well as to ban male slave exports to Europeans, something with the Kongolese monarchy proved completely unable to do despite the wishes of some of its kings (Kongo ended up being the largest exporter of slaves to the New World, with devastating demographic consequences).
That's what I get for trusting the Portuguese. Thanks.
 
Joined Oct 2015
275 Posts | 10+
Florida, USA
Can you provide a citation for Oyo having 100,000 people in its capital city?

The prevalence of slavery in many African societies existed precisely because of a shortage of labor. The shortage of labor make control of human beings more important than control of land or any other resource, whereas in Europe and China the relative abundance of labor in relation to land by the Middle Ages made territorial control. more important than labor control.

We should not use modern African population densities to envision pre-colonial population densities, since Africa has experienced a massive demographic boom since the mid-20th century. In reality, for most of history Africa was an extremely underpopulated continent with a massive shortage of labor in relation to land. In 1900, the population the entire African continent (including densely-populated Nile Valley and North African coast) was only 113 million, compared to 408 million in Europe and 947 million in Asia. If we focus only on Sub-Saharan Africa, the number would be just 50-60 million, only a small fraction of the Eurasian population.
I don't deny that Europe had a denser population but you aren't factoring in the fact that over a third of the African continent is barren desert. Many other parts were dense rainforest or thin tropical Savannah soils. On the other hand, nearly all land in Europe is fertile and habitable. The parts of Africa that did have centralized states had populations comparable to contemporary European states.

Sent from my SM-A700K using Tapatalk
 
Joined Oct 2015
275 Posts | 10+
Florida, USA
Can you provide a citation for Oyo having 100,000 people in its capital city?

"During the colonial period, the Yorubas were one of the most urbanized (living in city-like areas) groups in Africa. About 22% of the population lived in large areas with population exceeding 100,000 and over 50% lived in cities made up of 25,000 or more people. The index of urbanization in 1950 was close to that of the United States, excluding Ilorin. The Yoruba continue to be the most urbanised African ethnic group today. Old Oyo linked cities such as Ibadan, Osogbo, and Ogbomoso, which were some of the major cities that flourished after the collapse."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyo_Empire

I know people hate wikipedia but what you don't realize is that it requires you to cite your sources when you edit articles. So you can easily read it straight from the cited source.
 
Joined Oct 2012
3,562 Posts | 807+
Z
"During the colonial period, the Yorubas were one of the most urbanized (living in city-like areas) groups in Africa. About 22% of the population lived in large areas with population exceeding 100,000 and over 50% lived in cities made up of 25,000 or more people. The index of urbanization in 1950 was close to that of the United States, excluding Ilorin. The Yoruba continue to be the most urbanised African ethnic group today. Old Oyo linked cities such as Ibadan, Osogbo, and Ogbomoso, which were some of the major cities that flourished after the collapse."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyo_Empire

I know people hate wikipedia but what you don't realize is that it requires you to cite your sources when you edit articles. So you can easily read it straight from the cited source.

The problem is that the cited source doesn't support your original claim. First of all, the cited source (William Bascom, "Some Aspects of Yoruba Urbanism." American Anthropologist 64 (4): 699–709) doesn't talk about the Oyo Empire, but about Yoruba cities in 1952. Second, even in 1952, Oyo's urban population was not 100,000. Oyo's urban population at that date was 72,133. Here is a table from p.703 of Bascom's article:

Eg8zSWM.png
 
Joined Oct 2015
275 Posts | 10+
Florida, USA
Can you provide a citation for Oyo having 100,000 people in its capital city?

The prevalence of slavery in many African societies existed precisely because of a shortage of labor. The shortage of labor make control of human beings more important than control of land or any other resource, whereas in Europe and China the relative abundance of labor in relation to land by the Middle Ages made territorial control. more important than labor control.

We should not use modern African population densities to envision pre-colonial population densities, since Africa has experienced a massive demographic boom since the mid-20th century. In reality, for most of history Africa was an extremely underpopulated continent with a massive shortage of labor in relation to land. In 1900, the population the entire African continent (including densely-populated Nile Valley and North African coast) was only 113 million, compared to 408 million in Europe and 947 million in Asia. If we focus only on Sub-Saharan Africa, the number would be just 50-60 million, only a small fraction of the Eurasian population.

Also, Portugal (at the time of columbus) only had a population of 1 million people.
 
Joined Oct 2015
275 Posts | 10+
Florida, USA
Last edited:
The problem is that the cited source doesn't support your original claim. First of all, the cited source (William Bascom, "Some Aspects of Yoruba Urbanism." American Anthropologist 64 (4): 699–709) doesn't talk about the Oyo Empire, but about Yoruba cities in 1952. Second, even in 1952, Oyo's urban population was not 100,000. Oyo's urban population at that date was 72,133. Here is a table from p.703 of Bascom's article:

Eg8zSWM.png

I didn't say that Oyo's "urban" population was 100,000 though. The population as a whole definitely did exceed 100,000 and the urban population was over 72,000. Also you have to remember, during this time period, there was probably a considerable decline in population due to the effects of slavery, colonialism, and the world wars.
 
Joined Nov 2012
5,105 Posts | 385+
I have never heard of Kongo manufacturing its own guns. I also doubt that Kongo was ever "the most advanced, centralised, and stable" Sub-Saharan state. What I have read seems to suggest that Kongo was much less stable than states like Benin, and also less centralised and not as advanced. For example, Benin City was larger, more densely populated, and more impressive than the Kongolese capital of Mbanza Kongo (as affirmed by many European travelers, who compared Benin City to leading European capitals), and Benin royal art in bronze and brass tends to be of a markedly higher quality than any art that I have seen from Kongo. In terms of centralisation, the Oba of Benin was powerful enough to monopolize resources such as ivory and pepper as well as to ban male slave exports to Europeans, something with the Kongolese monarchy proved completely unable to do despite the wishes of some of its kings (Kongo ended up being the largest exporter of slaves to the New World, with devastating demographic consequences).

What were the demographic consequences in Congo? Also why didnt Europe not suffer demographic consequences due to the large scale migration to the New World?
 
Joined Oct 2015
275 Posts | 10+
Florida, USA
What were the demographic consequences in Congo? Also why didnt Europe not suffer demographic consequences due to the large scale migration to the New World?

The demographic consequences were a major decline in population due to the fact that Kongo was already a very sparsely populated kingdom to begin with. Almost all of the population lived within the capital. This also led to discontent within the population and caused many rebellions and civil wars which ultimately led to the Portuguese conquest of Kongo. The Portuguese had tried conquest before but failed miserably. Also the reason that Europeans didn't suffer as much demographically is because most of their migration to the New World was voluntary and most of it was for economic purposes which means they provided more money and resources to their mother country than they would have if they were still living within it's borders. Slaves from Africa didn't benefit the African economies as much as they did European economies. An African slave was sold by an African state but took away from potential labor and weakened the economy in the long term. However the same slaves greatly benefited the economy of European states since it was free labor.
 

Trending History Discussions

Top