 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:29
|
|
During my vacation, I've taken a little bit of interest for the precolonial African empires such as the Ghana/Mali/Songhai, the Ethiopians and the Zulu. (Mind you, I didn't put enough energy into it to actually buy books  )
I am not talking about Egypt here, but about subsaharian African Civs.
Argguably save for the Zulu, these empires took most of their 'civilised' traits (technology, weaponry, political structure) from the Arabs or other influential mediterranean powers. Even Ethiopia owes its success to its Arab-influenced political structure.
Besides, they almost systematically got their butt spanked by non-African countries or tribes. Heck, even Timbuktu the golden Capitol was unable to defend itself from desert raiders. Sure they have put some resistance to the European all-out invasion, but modern Ethiopia was the only successful African nation against a non-African one ever.
Subsaharian Africans developed their way to the top of the food chain, and had dropped nomadism for a very long time, without any influence from the outside. Tribal wars were many, yet the Africans barely developped tech / efficient political structures by themselves.
How come ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:29
|
|
say what?
you apparently didn't read enough if you came up with this stupid, horribly wrong conclusion that sub-saharan africa was primitive
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:29
|
|
and i agree with az here, ethiopia owes almost nothing to arabs, in fact its isolation (and some timely portuguese aid) is really what kept it alive as a state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:29
|
|
During my vacation, I've taken a little bit of interest for the precolonial European empires such as the English/French/Germans, the Romans and the Swedes. (Mind you, I didn't put enough energy into it to actually buy books )
I am not talking about Alexander's Greece here, but about European Civs.
Argguably save for the Swedes, these empires took most of their 'civilised' traits (technology, weaponry, political structure) from the Greeks or other influential mediterranean powers. Even Rome owes its success to its Greek-influenced political structure.
Besides, they almost systematically got their butt spanked by non-European countries or tribes. Heck, even Rome the golden Capitol was unable to defend itself from nomadic raiders.
Europeans developed their way to the top of the food chain, and had dropped nomadism for a very long time, without any influence from the outside. Ethnic wars were many, yet the Europeans barely developped tech / efficient political structures by themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:29
|
|
albert, seriously, read some history.
az, i'm not entirely sure about exact origins of their writting, but i always thought it was the written form of ge-ez (old ethiopic), they certainly had it by the time the first portuguese found them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert Speer
say what?
you apparently didn't read enough if you came up with this stupid, horribly wrong conclusion that sub-saharan africa was primitive |
Not primitive.
I know it was mostly agricultural and sedentary, and hunting-gathering was nearly inexistent except in underpopulated jungles. I know the Africans had no trouble remaining at the top of the food chain. I know there was such a thing as politics in Africa, with the complexity of lineage societies (which btw were opposed to the possibility of a centralised power). I know Africa had its own religions and rites. Subsaharian Africans definitely knew how to trade as well: they traded slaves easily, and the Niger Delta empires took their wealth from trading gold with North Africa.
However, it seems subsaharian Africa didn't develop technology on its own past this neolithic stage. The few elaborate weapons (starting with iron swords) used by subsaharian empires were bought to the Arabs. Ethiopia's centralized power was directly inspired by the Arabs, and founding myths of the Ghana empires talk about Jews fleeing to southern Sahara and creating an empire.
Subsaharian Africans have always supplied slaves to foreign powers, starting with the Nubians and their yearly supply to Egypt.
I've read here about the "spear principle" (I think that's the name) : intelligent species may develop enough tech to move to the top of the food chain, but no further, because nobody's challenging them. This theory implies that the intelligent species is peaceful, and not oriented towards killing itself (this is obviously not the case for the human being).
Africa was everything but peaceful, so the 'spear principle' doesn't apply there. So, I reamin clueless to why the technology tree seemed to stop about before bronze age for subsaharian Africa, and why the empires spanning there didn't seem to be able to develop techs by themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:29
|
|
no, Cockney, i suggest you read some history...
if you take Spiffor's first post as legitimate, then so is my alteration about europe... all european civilization is is a rehashing of ancient mesoptamia and ancient greece... even the mighty Romans couldn't even beat off the Huns... stupid europeans... why they remained so backward?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:29
|
|
yes but albert while we took a lot of ideas from others, we developed them and had our own as well, how else do you think we took over most of the world? africa didn't, that's the difference.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:29
|
|
actually small correction spiffor, africas did find and use iron, tools and weapons etc. on their own. 'great zimbabwe' springs to mind. although they never used bronze or copper, they jumped straight from the stone age to the iron age
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert Speer
no, Cockney, i suggest you read some history...
if you take Spiffor's first post as legitimate, then so is my alteration about europe... all european civilization is is a rehashing of ancient mesoptamia and ancient greece... even the mighty Romans couldn't even beat off the Huns... stupid europeans... why they remained so backward? |
Many European civilizations sure were late in comparison to what has come from the mediterrannean. However, even 'backwards' Civ did develop technology on their own and continued to do so : the Celts had the best distribution system of iron for the time, and taught quite a few things to Roman weaponmakers. The Vikings did develop their own writing, but it was too scholastic and mysterious to be convenient in any mundane use (such as finance).
In other parts of the world, such as eastern Asia, advanced Civilizations developed without any influence from Mesopotamia and Mediterranean, even in the jungle-ridden Cambodia. Same thing for central and south America.
I don't think Africans are stupid. I'm sure that Africa will one day be a full-fledged actor on the international scene, and its scientists will bring as much knowledge as scientists from any other continent. I don't think it is in the genes of Africans that they didn't develop technology past neolithic ones ; but I think there was something in Africa that made it so. I wonder what it is.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert Speer
During my vacation, I've taken a little bit of interest for the precolonial European empires such as the English/French/Germans, the Romans and the Swedes. (Mind you, I didn't put enough energy into it to actually buy books )
I am not talking about Alexander's Greece here, but about European Civs.
Argguably save for the Swedes, these empires took most of their 'civilised' traits (technology, weaponry, political structure) from the Greeks or other influential mediterranean powers. Even Rome owes its success to its Greek-influenced political structure.
Besides, they almost systematically got their butt spanked by non-European countries or tribes. Heck, even Rome the golden Capitol was unable to defend itself from nomadic raiders.
Europeans developed their way to the top of the food chain, and had dropped nomadism for a very long time, without any influence from the outside. Ethnic wars were many, yet the Europeans barely developped tech / efficient political structures by themselves. |
This is completely incorrect:
You can't take greece out of europe. classical greece has a very important influcence of europe, and IS a part of europe.
Europe is probably the greatest force in the history of mankind, Either Europe or China.
Europe has dominated the ME for a thousand years, from Alexander to the rise of the muslims.
Sub-Saharan Africa was never a force to be reckoned with in the global arena. it still isn't.
The only countries in africa that were on par with the classical world, ME, the subcontinent or the orient were Egypt, Nubia and Ethiopia, ( and Carthago, but that's our boys.  ). And they were deeply connected with Europe and the ME.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
Carthage was Phoenician. Them boys related to hebrews?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-07-2003 22:29
@ Krux 
), so no records could be kept, no knowledge stored in book, everything had to be handed down orally.
I stand corrected. I found very little information about the Civs southern of the equatorial jungle, so I did only know about great Zimbabwe's size, and not technology...
|