What if Africa had more domesticable animals?

mansamusa

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
3,308
#31
I did not say that land trade routes did not exist. I said they played little if any role in development of civilisations and empires. And that is easy to find out just by looking at geography of those empires.
I never accussed you of making the claim that land trade routes did not exist. I just don't see how you are able to measure these things in a way to draw such a strong conclusion in favor of water transport.

And you are stating bald and downright incorrect opinion in this claim that land routes did not lead to the development of civilizations.
 
Apr 2010
16,748
Slovakia
#32
Your point about Kongo, Egypt and Libya seems unrelated to any meaningful point.
Why? Because there is little in common between Libya and Egypt -and Kongo besides all being on the same continent?

Continental borders are arbitrary boundaries designed by people to describe geography, not human society. They may or may not coincide.
 

mansamusa

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
3,308
#33
Why? Because there is little in common between Libya and Egypt -and Kongo besides all being on the same continent?

Continental borders are arbitrary boundaries designed by people to describe geography, not human society. They may or may not coincide.
But Kongo is one country in Subsaharan Africa. I don't see how Egypt or Libya is closer to Greece than to the Islamic empires of the Western Sudan(such as the Songhai) or even Somalia during the middleages, when Greeks are infidel christians and Songhai is part of the umma--the global Islamic world.

Or better yet , even when parts of Libya, such as the Fezzan are part of central African empires such as Kanem Bornu, based in Chad/Nigeria.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanem-Bornu_Empire

Its really hard to get more subsaharan African than Chad or Nigeria or Somalia.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2010
16,748
Slovakia
#34
But Kongo is one country in Subsaharan Africa. I don't see how Egypt or Libya is closer to Greece than to the Islamic empires of the Western Sudan(such as the Songhai) or even Somalia during the middleages, when Greeks are infidel christians and Songhai is part of the umma--the global Islamic world.

Or better yet , even when parts of Libya, such as the Fezzan are part of central African empires such as Kanem Bornu, based in Chad/Nigeria.
Kanem-Bornu Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its really hard to get more subsaharan African than Chad or Nigeria or Somalia.
Well funny enough, Islam originate outside of Africa and came to Sub-Saharan Africa from Northern one. It is foreign influence.
 
Jun 2013
149
Germany
#35
The Fulani did a good job at conquering various Hausa emirates (organized city-state polities) in Northern Nigeria. The Mongols were an anomaly, and aside from the Russians nobody has ever come close to repeating their success.



You're forgetting about the tsetse fly, which made the use of horses in most of Africa an impossibility. If you can't use horses, the movement of goods and materials become more difficult.

The Fulani people were from East africa cushtic people! WHO captured the rest of Africa!! but intermixed later..

they have stil the proud attitude...:D
 

mansamusa

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
3,308
#36
Well funny enough, Islam originate outside of Africa and came to Sub-Saharan Africa from Northern one. It is foreign influence.
Islam was possible as a result of a subsaharan African country --Ethiopia--granting refuge to the first believers of Islam. Ethiopia, although a christian country has had a special place in Islamic religion and scholarship ever since.

And Islam by your standard is foreign to every country except SaudiArabia.

Anyway I don't see your point. Islam is as much foreign to subsaharan Africa as Christianity is to Western Europe. There are subsaharan states where Islam may well be older than Christianity in certain parts of Europe, notably Scandinavia.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2010
16,748
Slovakia
#37
Anyway I don't see your point.
My point is that the cultural attribute which Northern and Sub-Saharan Africa are sharing most do not even originate in Africa. And ironically this attribute (Islam) makes North Africa closer to Middle East than to rest of Africa itself. Islamic Sub-Saharan Africa including.
 

mansamusa

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
3,308
#38
My point is that the cultural attribute which Northern and Sub-Saharan Africa are sharing most do not even originate in Africa. And ironically this attribute (Islam) makes North Africa closer to Middle East than to rest of Africa itself. Islamic Sub-Saharan Africa including.
You made an earlier claim that throughout recorded history that N. Africa civilization was separate from subsaharan civilization. This is erroneous, as throughout Ancient history, the languages and populations of N. Africa have deep links and even origins from subsaharan Africa or the Sahara desert itself.

It doesn't matter if Islam did not originate from Subsaharan Africa. I just don't see how in the premodern era that countries like Sudan, where they spoke Arabic and practised sharia was less close to Libya or Egypt than Greece. This is what you seem to be claiming: mostly that subsaharan Africa as a whole was less close to N. Africa throughout recorded history.

The unity or cohesion within the Arab world today is more likely than not the result of Arab nationalism of the late 19th century or maybe later and has nothing to do with the medieval era of ancient times.
 
Oct 2012
8,545
#39
OK, this whole thread is nonsense.

-What allowed most ancient and early modern civilisations to develop was not horse, rhino or any other animal but SHIP.

-Ancient civilisations appeared along waterways: rivers, seas, later even oceans, not along inland routes.

-Until railroad most of the transport and trade was done by SHIP not horse, rhino or pigeon.

-Until railroad, water was mean of transport and communication and land was obstacle.

-Africa newer was single civilisation. North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa were always (or at last as long as we have some records) two different worlds. North Africa was always and till this day is part of "Mediteraean" and "Middle-Eastern" "world", civilisation or civilisations. Libya or Egypt are culturally, economically, politicaly even racially more close to Greece than to Kongo.
I agree with you, a ship can travel 100+ miles in a day, somewhat reliably (allowing for wind). A man on horseback, 50-60 miles, pulling a cart on good roads, such as a paved Roman road, maybe 30 miles, pulling a cart on a typical ancient road, maybe 10-15 miles. And that's not even taking into account how much more a ship can haul than a cart, it's a much more efficient means of transportation. As far as human civilization goes, it makes more sense to divide the world by hydrological divides than continents, this being a grand overview separating the world by ocean drainage:



Of course, this is just a grand overview and there are other important factors like the density of rivers and the navigability of the seas (the northern Indian Ocean and West Pacific are easier to navigate than the East Atlantic, especially off the coast of Africa, allowing trade to spread further and crossing across open ocean is by far the most difficult navigational task). But it does a much better job of dividing peoples and civilizations in a meaningful way than continents. And those who can control the nexus between these hydrological divides have the potential of acquiring great wealth.
 
Apr 2010
16,748
Slovakia
#40
Nice map constantine, it demonstrate nicely relation between waterways and civilisations. And I agree with what you wrote.