I was the one saying these states are not sub-saharan....I have never said that the peoples living in those regions did not have a written language.
Wasteland, Eurocentrism, and a petition for an expansion focusing on Africa
- Thread starter mcmanusaur
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I was the one saying these states are not sub-saharan....I have never said that the peoples living in those regions did not have a written language.
It's not in the Sahara proper, no. Most of the major cities of the Niger Interior/Niger bend are in the Sudanian Savannah ecoregion (A region of grass and trees, so...not the Sahara, basically), with a few at the southern edge of the Sahel (a semi-arid region, so while closer to desert, still not nearly as extreme as actual desert). The actual Sahara proper is on the other end of the Sahel, to the north.
Some people coloquially use "Sahara" to describe everything that look yellow-brown on a map of Africa ; they're wrong. If you're using that definition, then your definition of Subsaharan is going to be wrong too. Especially since the Sahara is expanding, so didn't stretch quite so much back in the fifteenth century.
On top of which, Mali?! Mali's heartland was in modern Guinea, near the border with Mali, along the course of the Niger - that's nowhere near even close to the Sahara. It's closer to the Guinean rainforest than the Sahara.
Calling those states anything but Subsaharan is spitting in the face of history.
While two story buildings show that you can build two story buildings, NOT having two story buildings doesn't show that you can't build two story buildings. There are plenty of good reasons not to build two stories building (and some not so good) that have nothing to do with whether or not you can build them.
Some people coloquially use "Sahara" to describe everything that look yellow-brown on a map of Africa ; they're wrong. If you're using that definition, then your definition of Subsaharan is going to be wrong too. Especially since the Sahara is expanding, so didn't stretch quite so much back in the fifteenth century.
On top of which, Mali?! Mali's heartland was in modern Guinea, near the border with Mali, along the course of the Niger - that's nowhere near even close to the Sahara. It's closer to the Guinean rainforest than the Sahara.
Calling those states anything but Subsaharan is spitting in the face of history.
While two story buildings show that you can build two story buildings, NOT having two story buildings doesn't show that you can't build two story buildings. There are plenty of good reasons not to build two stories building (and some not so good) that have nothing to do with whether or not you can build them.
Last edited:
- 5
- 1
You are right in pointing out that there might be some fuzziness about what can be considered Sahara, but from everything I have read, these states are Saharan.
"On top of which, Mali?! Mali's heartland was in modern Guinea, near the border with Mali, along the course of the Niger - that's nowhere near even close to the Sahara. It's closer to the Guinean rainforest than the Sahara."
Okay, let's discuss the Mali Empire, the current existing state of Mali today is named after the Mali Empire, it was in this state and parts of Mauretania that the Mali Empire had it's "heartland", only a small part of the dry northern part of todays state of Guinea was ever part of the Mali Empire "heartland" (I'm assuming you are using heartland as a reference to the territory that spawned the empire).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire#/media/File:MALI_empire_map.PNG <--- Mali Empire in 1350
Now this dry northern part of the state of Guinea and the southern part of the state of Mali are within the Sahara desert.
Then during the centuries up to year 1600, the Mali Empire expanded. (And as you can see from the map, it expanded from it's establishment a 100+ years earlier also).
But I am starting to realize that this conversation is becoming quite pointless, because it's obvious that with "sub-saharan" people usually try to make the distinction between tuareg, berber, arab, mandé, etc and the bantu and other peoples, though the Sahara desert is an very easy marker for this ethnic border.
Now when it comes to the Mali Empire, and remember we have to use the term "empire" very loosely, because it was an extremely decentralized entity, I don't buy much of the history surrounding it, so much comes from oral tradition, many of the buildings in Djenne etc that people praise, like the Great Mosque, we don't even know who built it or when it was built etc, Arab scholars flocked to this area because there was money in this region, not actual coinage since the Mali Empire didn't print coinage, but gold dust. There doesn't seem to be much foundation for the history that is written for these areas, it's like with Norse history, historians rely on a few texts by non-Norse (though there are written relics left by the Norse), and then guess their way to a history that might never have happened. It seems to be that African oral tradition is automatically taken as absolute together with the few written sources that exist. When it comes to Western history we have a much higher standard of "proof", even though there is still a lot of guesswork. The history of these empires is much like the history of legendary kings.
EDIT: And as I responded previously, two-story buildings at least show they had the capacity and organization to build two-story buildings. EDIT2: And just to make it more clear, as you say, a society could have the capacity and organization but choose not to build two-story buildings obviously, I'm simply pointing out the lack of things that require serious organization and capacity. This can be anything.
Last edited:
- 1
I'm well aware of the expansion of the Mali empire over the years (and have access to multiple maps and much better than the Wiki one) ; unlike you it seems, I'm also aware of where it started from and where its capitals were (Niani and later Kangaba, in the Guinea-Mali border region, ie where I said their heartland was). This is also where the last remnants of Mali remained after the fall of the Empire, because it is the heartland of the Mande people, who built the empire.
Much of the key facts about history of the region are verified by archaeology and/or arab (or even European) sources. Mansa Musa's wealth and its impact on the Near East and Europe is confirmed across a wide variety of sources. Neither is the extent of the Mali empire in the 1300s, as we have Ibn Battuta's record of visiting the empire, and specifically noting that he had traveled along the Niger from Niani (Guinea) to Gao, all of which were part of the empire. Arcaheologist have discovered, at the alleged location of Niani, the remnants of a town that correspond to what the Malian capital would be expected to be. Given those, there is no reason to assume that the Tarikh al-Sudan (the chronicle of the history of the region written c.1625) is wrong in the broad lines (since those broad lines fit with the other sources). All the more so for the later history of the empire, which would have been recent history at the time the Tarikh was written.
While many of the details can be left in doubt, especially the more fantastic ones (did Abu Bakir really sail west?), there is very little legitimate ground to doubt the broad lines of regional history.
Much of the key facts about history of the region are verified by archaeology and/or arab (or even European) sources. Mansa Musa's wealth and its impact on the Near East and Europe is confirmed across a wide variety of sources. Neither is the extent of the Mali empire in the 1300s, as we have Ibn Battuta's record of visiting the empire, and specifically noting that he had traveled along the Niger from Niani (Guinea) to Gao, all of which were part of the empire. Arcaheologist have discovered, at the alleged location of Niani, the remnants of a town that correspond to what the Malian capital would be expected to be. Given those, there is no reason to assume that the Tarikh al-Sudan (the chronicle of the history of the region written c.1625) is wrong in the broad lines (since those broad lines fit with the other sources). All the more so for the later history of the empire, which would have been recent history at the time the Tarikh was written.
While many of the details can be left in doubt, especially the more fantastic ones (did Abu Bakir really sail west?), there is very little legitimate ground to doubt the broad lines of regional history.
- 1
- 1
I think you have to remember also (considering you wrote of climate changes), that also peoples move. And I would put forward that whoever started the empire, the tuareg and the Arabs were probably key to making it successful. (And Mandé even today are the majority in Mali). And in Guinea they only live in the north, which supports what I wrote. Let's remember that the province of Kangaba reached over both the current states of Mali and Guinea.
Mansa Musas wealth is a guesswork based on how much he gave away during his pilgrimage, and a few other sources. We don't even know when he died, because the Arab accounts differ, we can't name all the rulers of the Mali Empire.
People moves, but cities and their ruins generally don't. We know where Niani was, and we know it was Mali's capital. No amount of population movement can explain that away.
Mandé being the majority of Mali doesn't help your case, because the majority of the population in Mali doesn't live in the freaking Sahara. They live in the south-western part of the country, the region closest to Guinea, and also the region that's better known as "nowhere near the Sahara".
Reference: http://sedac.ciesin.org/downloads/maps/grump-v1/grump-v1-population-density/mlidens.jpg population density in Mali. Note how the largest population densities are in the south-west corner (aka, "Not the Sahara").
Reference 2 : http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/counprof/Mali/vegmap.jpg (The dotted part is outright deserting ; dark orange is dry steppe so fairly desertic ; medium orange is shrub steppes (not really that desertic), pale yellow is grassland steppes (not desertic at all), pale green is savanna (lush grass and trees), and dark green is forested savanna (as above with more trees). Purple is the Niger flood plain.
Note how the population map in reference 1 put pretty much all the population in the grassland steppes and savanna regions.
Reference 3: http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/counprof/Mali/ethnicmap.htm The mande people in Mali are in olive green - bambara in vertical slice, and the mandinka (the actual founders of the Empire of Mali) in green dots. Note that they are on the Southwest border, right next to Guinea.
Contrast with map 1 (they're in the corner with the most population density) and map 2 (they live in the savannah region, which, once again, at the risk of repeating myself, is not the freaking Sahara.
So, given that.
1)We know, in fact, where the Mandinka and Mande people live today.
2)We know where the capitals of Mali were located (Niani, ruins found, and Kangaba, village of that name remain in that area to this day).
3)We know where the remnants of the Mali empire were located after it collapsed (from the contemporary Tarikh al-Sudan, composed at the time when those remnants would have still existed, so an actual written account of the situation at the time).
And that 1, 2 and 3 all point to the same region around the Mali-Guinea border, we can, with a high degree of certainty, state that the heartland of the freaking Mali Empire was, in fact, the savannah/forest region on the Guinea-Mali border, otherwise known as not the Sahara.
Whether you like it or not.
Mandé being the majority of Mali doesn't help your case, because the majority of the population in Mali doesn't live in the freaking Sahara. They live in the south-western part of the country, the region closest to Guinea, and also the region that's better known as "nowhere near the Sahara".
Reference: http://sedac.ciesin.org/downloads/maps/grump-v1/grump-v1-population-density/mlidens.jpg population density in Mali. Note how the largest population densities are in the south-west corner (aka, "Not the Sahara").
Reference 2 : http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/counprof/Mali/vegmap.jpg (The dotted part is outright deserting ; dark orange is dry steppe so fairly desertic ; medium orange is shrub steppes (not really that desertic), pale yellow is grassland steppes (not desertic at all), pale green is savanna (lush grass and trees), and dark green is forested savanna (as above with more trees). Purple is the Niger flood plain.
Note how the population map in reference 1 put pretty much all the population in the grassland steppes and savanna regions.
Reference 3: http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/counprof/Mali/ethnicmap.htm The mande people in Mali are in olive green - bambara in vertical slice, and the mandinka (the actual founders of the Empire of Mali) in green dots. Note that they are on the Southwest border, right next to Guinea.
Contrast with map 1 (they're in the corner with the most population density) and map 2 (they live in the savannah region, which, once again, at the risk of repeating myself, is not the freaking Sahara.
So, given that.
1)We know, in fact, where the Mandinka and Mande people live today.
2)We know where the capitals of Mali were located (Niani, ruins found, and Kangaba, village of that name remain in that area to this day).
3)We know where the remnants of the Mali empire were located after it collapsed (from the contemporary Tarikh al-Sudan, composed at the time when those remnants would have still existed, so an actual written account of the situation at the time).
And that 1, 2 and 3 all point to the same region around the Mali-Guinea border, we can, with a high degree of certainty, state that the heartland of the freaking Mali Empire was, in fact, the savannah/forest region on the Guinea-Mali border, otherwise known as not the Sahara.
Whether you like it or not.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
No amount of fact will explain to some people that black people are in fact capable of civilisation.
- 6
- 1
Actually, "fix the tech system" is a choice. I know this because I have modded my own game to fix the tech system. (And it would be considerably easier to do this if I could mod the source code.) Your second sentence quoted is, quite simply, completely false.
"Easier-than-historical westernization" isn't even an effective way of making the ROTW compensate for Western tech advantage. It's a terrible mechanism for this. It means that non-European states are at a huge and completely ahistorical disadvantage to European states in the 1500's. It also means that AI states that try to westernize often get mulched by their neighbours that haven't started to westernize yet, because the AI, isn't good enough at perceiving the big picture to recognize when a good strategic opportunity for westernizing comes along.
Coupling the term "Sub-Saharan" with "Bantu" is erroneous and dangerous, so lets just go with the logical georgraphical definition of Sub-Sahara: South of the Sahara. And the Sahel zone lies south of the Sahara, so the Sahel kingdoms are, since most of their dominions aswell as the political and economical heartland laid in the Sahel zone, Sub-Saharan kingdoms.
The Sahara barely touches the nothern edge of the Niger bend.
- 1
- 1
What can be done in mods that only really needs to appeal to its creator (and is at best going to appeal to a niche group of players), and what can be done in a main game that has to appeal to a much broader base, are essentially two worlds.
Game-wise, in my opinion, you need a tech system that's simple, that makes it so a one-step progress in tech is a large advantage over your neighbors of similar tech group, and that advantages Europe because a system where Europe is not advantaged in tech is going to result in a game that people conclude doesn't work (and thus, a system that makes them dump the game). Suggesting a system that accurately represent the intricacies of technological progress in the era is unlikely to ever work, in my opinion.
Mods can get away with far more complex stuff, can afford to favor actual historical accuracy over the expected flavor of "Europe is more advanced", etc. In much the same way that Danubian can get away with fifty thousand provinces or however many he actually has (and I can add as many in North America over what is already there), while the main game just can't add that many wily nily.
- 2
You are getting so hung up on geographics, wherever the Mali Empire started, which I haven't disagreed on if you read my post, though I disagree to the extent that the current state of Mali today is desert, the central and much of the southern part is semi-arid if anything, and even though it's called the Sahel, it's more of a transitional area between the Sahara Desert and the savanna.
Let's face the fact that much of the original Mali Empire (when it was the Empire), was mostly in the Sahara, and the "great" cities of this empire, like Timbuktu, was definitely in the Sahara. It was in places like Timbuktu, Goa, Djenne etc, the Arab scholars flocked too and libraries were built. The peoples of this original empire, were Mandé, Tuareg, Arab etc, then they conquered a lot of tribes, like Fula, Songhai, I think even Igbo etc. And the empire expanded southwards. (And I have already given a map showing how the Mali Empire was mostly in the Sahara).
- 4
- 1
Please go and look at that vegetation map I posted again.
No, "Much of the southern part" is not semi-arid. Semi-arid, eg the transitional Sahel, are the orange (and pale yellow) parts, with dark orange the most arid part and pale yellow the least so. The map explicitly label those three areas as the Sahelian regions. Sahel. Not Sahara, no matter how desperately you want the Sahara to extend that far south.
South of that, pale green, is the Sudanese savanna (which is quite fertile), and still further south, dark green is the Sudano-guinean forested savanna, whjch is a transitional zone between Savanna and rainforest.
Now, Timbuktu and Gao are labeled on the map ; they're both in the pale orange section (which is clearly labeled on the map as part of the Sahel, aka not the freaking Sahara). Djenné is not labelled, but geographically it is south of Mopti, which put its in the pale green section (that is to say, south of the Sahel, to say nothing of the Sahara.
Niani and Kangaba are in the dark green section. They're where Mali started from, and most of their expansion throughout history was actually oriented toward the west, north and east, not toward the south (that's the directly they expanded in the least).
At this point, you are insisting on ignoring any and all evidence to substitute what you think reality should be like.
No, "Much of the southern part" is not semi-arid. Semi-arid, eg the transitional Sahel, are the orange (and pale yellow) parts, with dark orange the most arid part and pale yellow the least so. The map explicitly label those three areas as the Sahelian regions. Sahel. Not Sahara, no matter how desperately you want the Sahara to extend that far south.
South of that, pale green, is the Sudanese savanna (which is quite fertile), and still further south, dark green is the Sudano-guinean forested savanna, whjch is a transitional zone between Savanna and rainforest.
Now, Timbuktu and Gao are labeled on the map ; they're both in the pale orange section (which is clearly labeled on the map as part of the Sahel, aka not the freaking Sahara). Djenné is not labelled, but geographically it is south of Mopti, which put its in the pale green section (that is to say, south of the Sahel, to say nothing of the Sahara.
Niani and Kangaba are in the dark green section. They're where Mali started from, and most of their expansion throughout history was actually oriented toward the west, north and east, not toward the south (that's the directly they expanded in the least).
At this point, you are insisting on ignoring any and all evidence to substitute what you think reality should be like.
- 4
- 2
Look guys, i love to argue with Guillaume, if for no other reason then to piss him off essentially, but when it comes to certain topics, like say Americas or Africa, the guy really knows his stuff. I mean it pains me to admit it, but he really does 
- 3
Let's see what Wikipedia says.
Timbuktu: "is a historical and still-inhabited city in the West African nation of Mali, situated 20 km (12 mi) north of the River Niger on the southern edge of the Sahara Desert"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu
You can also look at a map of the Mali Empire, and look at a map of the Sahara Desert, and look at the overlap.
- 2
- 1
That's a broader than usual definition of Sahara, which flies in the face of traditional eco-regions, but we'll allow it for the time being, so I can point out a flaw in your argument:
If Timbuktu, northernmost major city of Mali, is at the southern edge of the Sahara...the logical inference is that the other cities of Mali (Gao, Djenné, Kangaba, Niani...), further south, are very likely past that edge. Not that all of Mali is in the Sahara.
In fact, since we're quoting the Wikipedia articles, allow me to quote from the third paragraph of the one about Djenné. :
I may also point out (and will) that Niani and Kangaba (again: demonstrably the heartland of the Mali empire, whether you like it or not) are, of course, south of Djenné.
That would, it seem, put much of Mali (and the heartland, and the capital) in sub-Saharan Africa.
If Timbuktu, northernmost major city of Mali, is at the southern edge of the Sahara...the logical inference is that the other cities of Mali (Gao, Djenné, Kangaba, Niani...), further south, are very likely past that edge. Not that all of Mali is in the Sahara.
In fact, since we're quoting the Wikipedia articles, allow me to quote from the third paragraph of the one about Djenné. :
I may also point out (and will) that Niani and Kangaba (again: demonstrably the heartland of the Mali empire, whether you like it or not) are, of course, south of Djenné.
That would, it seem, put much of Mali (and the heartland, and the capital) in sub-Saharan Africa.
- 4