Why didn't Africa develop before the modern era?

[keynes2.0]

I'm sorry I seem to remember a book where he said that the geography of China inevitably lead to the creation of a large empire that would stifle exploration because lack of competition between nation states. Thus the Chinese were guided by the invisible hand of Diamond to not develop all the cool shit they invented but Europeans exploited. Am I thinking of a different book? Did he not say that the geography of China lead to that result?

 

[gagenater]

I'm sorry I seem to remember a book where he said that the geography of China inevitably lead to the creation of a large empire that would stifle exploration because lack of competition between nation states. Thus the Chinese were guided by the invisible hand of Diamond to not develop all the cool shit they invented but Europeans exploited. Am I thinking of a different book? Did he not say that the geography of China lead to that result?

Honestly I think you are considering "William H McNeill; The Pursuit of Power"

 

[keynes2.0]

Never heard of it.

 

[nerd]

I fall into my habit of letting the post industrial world dominate my thoughts once again. The stuff he's talking about is all the stuff that lead to industry and he talks about economic domination in the opening sections so my positronic pathways base the potential of my interest around that paradigm.

My real bone to pick is the "inevitability" nonesense. European history is hardly a straight and narrow path and his reasons for disqualifying other places are all post-hoc explanations. It's circular reasoning, we can't see the emergence of this type of culture in Korea or Louisiana or southern China or the Great Lakes because we never saw it emerge in those places. And we didn't see them emerge because we can't see them emerge. Unless Diamond is secretly Shiva in disguise and has actually tested this theory on thousands of iterations of Earth it's an extremely fallacious line of reasoning.

I would agree with the assessment that there seem to be some geographic features that would help promote some cultural features but he takes that statement and cranks it up way past 11 to over 9000.

Iirc, A key item in the dominance of the Fertile Crescent was the coincidental occurrence of two mutations to wheat, that made wheat an arable crop rather than a "gathered" crop.

 

[gagenater]

Never heard of it.

You must have read it, or more likely read historians who follow his school of thought. He is a hugely influential historian and his central thesis is that Europe rose compared to the Middle East, India and China as a result of cultural differences and differences in political organization between these regions. The whole 'China fell behind due to over centralization' is one of his key theses - or rather more accurately: 'places which are Balkanized politically advance most rapidly in the military arts'

 

[nerd]

Honestly I think you are considering "William H McNeill; The Pursuit of Power"

Needham argues that the existence of 4 defined agricultural regions in modern China, all roughly equal and separated by difficult travel passes kept any one from dominance for any extended time.

 

[Druplesnubb]

Nothing - look on a map for yourself at all the great coastal trading cities In that region on river mouths or in good natural harbors The count is one; Zanzibar, and it didn't take off until it got tied in to the spice trade in the 15th or 16th century, since you can't have a local trade network with only one point in it.

Zanzibar was not the only city in East Africa. There were others like Mogadishu and Mombasa and probably some others that I don't know about.

 

[joak]

I'm sorry I seem to remember a book where he said that the geography of China inevitably lead to the creation of a large empire that would stifle exploration because lack of competition between nation states. Thus the Chinese were guided by the invisible hand of Diamond to not develop all the cool shit they invented but Europeans exploited. Am I thinking of a different book? Did he not say that the geography of China lead to that result?

You are thinking of a different book or books. This isn't in Diamond at all. His explanations "end" for all practical purposes in the 16th century; everything he talks about in the in argument is about the rise of Eurasia. Industrialization doesn't enter into it. The question he is trying to answer is basically why the Spanish and Portugese outmatched Central and South American indigenous populations, not about why the British eclipsed the Chinese a few hundred years later.

There are literally like two pages at the end, as he wraps up, where he speculates on what other factors might have led Europe to industrialize but not China, but it's open speculation and disconnected from his main thesis. (FWIW, he say maybe centralization, but there's nothing inevitable about it and not explained by geography.)

 

[trybald]

People say "Guns, Germs and Steel" too often in response to questions like this, but this is the exact question that that book answers well. Basically (and including a few other things):

- Climate. Not that it's uniformly bad, but the change in the conditions as you go north/south means innovations (like specifics on agriculture and animal husbandry) can't 'diffuse' easily.
- Native biodiversity. There don't seem to be large numbers of domesticable plants and animals in Africa. Unfortunately, since "Bantu heavy cavalry riding domesticated war rhinoceroses" would be the coolest thing ever. Even today we haven't managed to do much
- Malaria, sleeping sickness, and other diseases. Domestic animals you import from other continents often don't do well. Again, still a problem today.

Combine them all and Africans were having trouble getting the surpluses you need for a 'classical' style civilization when Eurasia was getting going, *and* imported ideas didn't translate as well, *and* there don't seem to be easy way to use local resources to improve the imported ideas.

Wasn't that book dismissed long ago as a bunch of nonsense and oversimplifications?

The climate could hardly be a factor, since similar climatic conditions did not prevent civilizations from rising in places like SE Asia or Central America. Moreover, I fail to see how Africa's climate provided more challenge than the one in Northern Europe. N Europeans had to cope with only one, short vegetation period and often harvest failures leading to famines. The innovations could have very well spread along the coasts, even if we somehow assume that the Sahara desert was an impassable barrier (which it wasn't).

Biodiversity is actually much greater in Africa than in Europe and I somehow fail to see how African species of bovines, horses, canines etc. could be less susceptible to domestication than their Eurasian counterparts. That "rhino cavalry massacring Europeans" argument is actually one of the most retarded statements from that book. As far as we know, elephants were extensively used in warfare and rather underperformed comparing to foot soldiers or (horse) cavalry once the initial shock had passed.

Eurasia had her own share or deadly diseases, from smallpox to the plague.

 

[Imgran]

People organize into societies for 3 big reasons. Defense, trade and religion.

South Africa was not seriously invaded or colonized until the rise of the great European empires, and until the rise of the Zulus most of the time wars between the tribes were heavily formalized and not really designed to kill the enemy tribe so much as settle a dispute through what might best be described as a rather disorganized tournament grand melee. The tribes were largely self sufficient with no serious native surpluses and no desperate needs which severely limited oppotunities for trade, and from what I can tell the native religion in South Africa did not demand massive cultural organization or a central worship point.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Wasn't that book dismissed long ago as a bunch of nonsense and oversimplifications?

Yes. Or more realistically, never really accepted.

Although there's also a bit of "the bleedin' obvious" mixed in there too to give the rest of the claims some measure of plausibility.

 

[Sorenzo]

I have a few suggestions for factors that might have played a part.

Firstly, I should disclaim that I am obviously generalizing. This thread might be better off talking about specific regions instead of the continent as a whole, but it's not doing that, so I'll generalize.

Firstly, I think Africa is relatively lacking in waterways. Europe and China are criss-crossed with giantically long rivers, as is North India. Europe has enormous amounts of coastline for its size, and places like the Arabian/Persian gulf and Mediterranean Sea were hugely important to early and later civilizations - as is the Nile, which is African, of course.
Also, I believe there are many parts of tropical Africa where rivers were pretty heavily infested with bugs and parasites, which would disincentivise settling near them (or traveling on them).
I would suppose that tropical or sub-tropical climes tend to encourage the evolution of nasty bugs and parasites, but I am not sure I have a scientific rationale for thinking so... I would think it isn't blind luck that North America and Europe don't seem to have many... Denmark's most deadly animal is the bee (and our bees are very docile). I would guess that tropical areas simply create very bacteria-friendly freshwater bodies, which promotes the spread of viruses (which eat bacteria) and cause otherwise harmless bugs to be extremely dangerous disease vectors. Whereas in the North, the growth rate for bacterias are lower, which aids the growth of freshwater plants and algae, which in turn creates food for animals instead of diseases to be vectored.

The Nile and Mediterranean are famously easily navigable waters, to my knowledge, and the Baltic and North seas are not much harder. This encourages trade and the exchange of ideas, like the Silk Road, but several times faster.

My understanding is that historical African nations were relatively well-developed on the coasts, but were always subject to mass migrations from inland areas, which supported enourmous populations. This could cause destabilization in regions that were well on their way to becoming well-connected trade empires, but had much too little manpower. This is not unusual, though. The Dark Ages could be described in similar terms (Massive numbers of North, East, and Central European tribesmen migrating West, eventually taking over Gaul and Italy).
Another problem for the African nations that were seafaring is that it takes them longer to reach anything. It's hard to link up with Indian and European trade routes if you're on the other side of a continent. And even if you're in the East African region, the Arab and Indian trade routes are still farther away. If you're in Mali, your trade outside of East Africa is still controlled by North African Muslim states and European heathens. And Brazil wasn't that interesting at the time.

Also, there's an extent to which modernity can really only happen once. If you're *almost* ready to start building a major empire with massive warfleets with cannons, but the British get to you before you do, what happens? They can bombard your cities and shipyards from a range you can't even reach. I think the "race" to global supremacy was always going to be won by whoever could field a large navy capable of reaching halfway across the world. Because at that point, Britain could win any war with any smaller or less technologically advanced nation, and then use that victory as a way to leverage more power and expansion. In other words, it's a snowball effect. So African nations might've been nearly as advanced as most anyone else, but their development was immediately halted when British gunboats started blowing up forts over trade disputes and minor diplomatic insults.

In other words, the great empire was always going to go to whoever got into the position of taking it first, which is why Queen Elizabeth II (yes, the one who still lives) has been the queen of Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Austrialia, India and Pakistan (Including Bangladesh, "East Pakistan").

Which means that the native technological or social development of Africa might've actually done a reasonable job keeping pace with that of Europe, but was immediately halted because they didn't reach the goalpost first. In other words, our image of Africans as being developmentally "behind" is not caused by Africa being much slower to develop - Rather, they were *a little* slower to develop, and then the British won the race, was awarded a large cannon, shot the other runners in the legs, and kept going.

Not to say that colonialism caused every problem. But if you had had a thousand ships off the coast of the British Isles in 1550 crewed by the Malinese Royal Navy, the world would look rather different today.

 

[Arilou]

See thread title.

As I understand it the main catalyst for development across Eurasia was the Silk Road trade routes between Europe, India and China. This meant that any major innovation in one place was invariably transmitted to the rest of the continent, meaning that the whole continent continued to advance if any one area of it was experiencing prosperity. I think that sytem largely broke down after the decline of the Mongol Empire into warring states, which stopped the continuing advances in Europe from being transmitted back to the East until it was too late (OK, it's probably more complicated than that).

What I don't understand is why much of Africa south of the Sahara remained largely tribal and underdeveloped. There were trade routes across the Sahara, and some rich kingdoms (Mali of course). And there was sea trade along the Indian Ocean coast, with ivory and exotic animals being major exports. Yet much of Africa seems to have stayed tribal until it was colonised by the Europeans in the 19th century.

Why was this? Was the geographic separation just too great? Why didn't they pick up the technology of the Indian and Arab civilisations?

Or am I just ignorant of African history?[/QUOTTheE]

"Tribal" is a bit of a problematic word. There were mariginal areas that were outside state control, but the majority of africa (certainly population-wise) was controlled by states. Often fairly sophisticated ones. There wasn't *that* big of a difference between say, Mogadishu and Venice, or Songhai and the Timurids. Sure, there were differences but they weren't at the point where an inhabitant from one area couldn't perfectly well understand the other.

Now, Africa did have mariginal areas that were effectively outside state control, but the same was true of Europe (look at people like the sami, various minor russian minorities, etc.) Africa is of course significantly larger than Europe, and the mariginal areas were correspondingly larger as well.

There's also the matter of the slave-trade, and to some extent it's collapse in the 19th century, that lead to a lot of destabilization. The europeans to some extent came in at a point were a lot of african societies were in flux, and this combined with european prejudices skewed the picture of Africa.

 

[The Super Pope]

Wasn't that book dismissed long ago as a bunch of nonsense and oversimplifications?

The climate could hardly be a factor, since similar climatic conditions did not prevent civilizations from rising in places like SE Asia or Central America. Moreover, I fail to see how Africa's climate provided more challenge than the one in Northern Europe. N Europeans had to cope with only one, short vegetation period and often harvest failures leading to famines. The innovations could have very well spread along the coasts, even if we somehow assume that the Sahara desert was an impassable barrier (which it wasn't).

His point about climate was mostly that Africa is oriented North-South, i.e. across different climate zones. Eurasia is East-West, so crops and animals can be moved widely without experiencing too much in the way of temperature variation

Biodiversity is actually much greater in Africa than in Europe and I somehow fail to see how African species of bovines, horses, canines etc. could be less susceptible to domestication than their Eurasian counterparts. That "rhino cavalry massacring Europeans" argument is actually one of the most retarded statements from that book. As far as we know, elephants were extensively used in warfare and rather underperformed comparing to foot soldiers or (horse) cavalry once the initial shock had passed.

Eurasia had her own share or deadly diseases, from smallpox to the plague.

You may fail to see it, but its reality. African wild dogs, for instance, cannot be domesticated. Nor can zebras. Your point about elephants is irrelevant, because the elephants in question were Indian or the extinct Forest elephant. None of Africa's large animals were domesticated, and I seriously doubt it was for lack of trying.

Plague wass devastating to Europe, but it was an occasional, random occurence which would vanish after an epidemic. Malaria is a constant.

 

[trybald]

His point about climate was mostly that Africa is oriented North-South, i.e. across different climate zones. Eurasia is East-West, so crops and animals can be moved widely without experiencing too much in the way of temperature variation

Both in Eurasia and Africa climate zones are located horizontally, i.e. along parallels. And both Africa and Eurasia were largely North-South oriented, i.e. across climate zones. In Europe the trade between the North and South was always far more important than the trade with China. Same goes for East Asia, which had for most part more intensive relations along the North-South axis than along parallels. In Africa climate zones aren't impassable barriers either, even Sahara was constantly traversed by trade caravans.

You may fail to see it, but its reality. African wild dogs, for instance, cannot be domesticated. Nor can zebras. Your point about elephants is irrelevant, because the elephants in question were Indian or the extinct Forest elephant. None of Africa's large animals were domesticated, and I seriously doubt it was for lack of trying.

This is beyond ridiculous. Somehow Eurasian (and American!) species from diverse animal groups are domesticable, while their close African cousins are not. "Magic" may be the only explanation for such a phenomenon if only it was true. Why for example zebras aren't domesticable? What makes them so special and different from Tarpan-like Eurasian wild horses that were domesticated after centuries of selective breeding? Why Eurasian Phasanides like chicken could have been domesticated, while their African relatives couldn't have? Are the latter somehow magically resistant to artificial selection?

Plague wass devastating to Europe, but it was an occasional, random occurence which would vanish after an epidemic. Malaria is a constant.

The plague was endemic in Eurasia with a few sudden "spikes" in virility and mortality due to random mutations. Smallpox was always endemic. Perhaps you aren't aware, but malaria was also endemic in large parts of Europe until the large-scale draining of marshlands in the industrial era. It was encountered as far north as in Poland.

 

[Arilou]

Both in Eurasia and Africa climate zones are located horizontally, i.e. along parallels. And both Africa and Eurasia were largely North-South oriented, i.e. across climate zones. In Europe the trade between the North and South was always far more important than the trade with China. Same goes for East Asia, which had for most part more intensive relations along the North-South axis than along parallels. In Africa climate zones aren't impassable barriers either, even Sahara was constantly traversed by trade caravans.

Trade isn't what he's talking about. He's talking about crops. Europe and asia *largely* can grow the same crops (with some exceptions, eg. no rice in the far north) wheat can be grown over most of the area.

Africa has at least three major climate zones south of the Sahara, with very different crops. Mediterrenean crops (and they're really the staple for most of the world) doesen't grow in Central Africa. (they do grow in south africa, but since the central-african tropical zone is in the way, they didn't actually get there until the europans brought them) the major crops that does grow well in tropical climates, maize, is of course an american crop, and again, reached africa via the europeans.

Africa did remaine significantly less densely populated than Eurasia, and that's with the gigantic Siberian wilderness poking about. The lack of easily scaleable crops is a big part of this.

 

[trybald]

Trade isn't what he's talking about. He's talking about crops. Europe and asia *largely* can grow the same crops (with some exceptions, eg. no rice in the far north) wheat can be grown over most of the area.

The talk was about spreading innovation, which was somehow impossible in Africa due to climate zones and general Deus ex machina.

But since you are at that, in Eurasia different cereals were grown in different parts until really recent times. Rice in East Asia, rye in Central Europe, different types of wheat in different places etc.

Africa did remaine significantly less densely populated than Eurasia, and that's with the gigantic Siberian wilderness poking about. The lack of easily scaleable crops is a big part of this.

The relative low population density in Africa is the result rather than the cause. We can safely assume that population densities in Northern Europe in pre-late Roman times were far lower than in Subsaharan Africa. The question is why and how Africa failed to develop/adapt more efficient production methods to allow for sustained population growth and accumulation of surplus.

 

[gagenater]

The talk was about spreading innovation, which was somehow impossible in Africa due to climate zones and general Deus ex machina.

It takes both - spread of innovation AND widespread stable production of a considerable agricultural surplus to create civilization

But since you are at that, in Eurasia different cereals were grown in different parts until really recent times. Rice in East Asia, rye in Central Europe, different types of wheat in different places etc.

That's not entirely true though - rice was NOT just in East Asia - it was a consistently important crop in India, and Persia in ancient times. Rye was and is important in the middle east and China - not just in parts of Europe. The different types of wheat grown throughout Eurasia ALL originated within the fertile crescent of the middle east.

The relative low population density in Africa is the result rather than the cause. We can safely assume that population densities in Northern Europe in pre-late Roman times were far lower than in Subsaharan Africa.

Quite likely - that's what the book is about - why this changed.

The question is why and how Africa failed to develop/adapt more efficient production methods to allow for sustained population growth and accumulation of surplus.

Which is exactly what the book addresses.

 

[gagenater]

Both in Eurasia and Africa climate zones are located horizontally, i.e. along parallels. And both Africa and Eurasia were largely North-South oriented, i.e. across climate zones. In Europe the trade between the North and South was always far more important than the trade with China. Same goes for East Asia, which had for most part more intensive relations along the North-South axis than along parallels. In Africa climate zones aren't impassable barriers either, even Sahara was constantly traversed by trade caravans.

Trade is of course most profitable for the individual traders when it is between different regions/climates for the traders. However in the long term, the benefits for the development of a civilization as a whole come from the mutual addition of different things to one place. So (for example) two places get silk clothing from China - Europe and Subsaharan Africa. Both can acquire them via trade on similar terms based on distance from the source, and the goods they have to offer in exchange. In the long run though, the Europeans can eventually establish their own mulberry groves and silkworm plantations, because they share a reasonably similar climate with China. the Subsaharan Africans cannot.

This is beyond ridiculous. Somehow Eurasian (and American!) species from diverse animal groups are domesticable, while their close African cousins are not. "Magic" may be the only explanation for such a phenomenon if only it was true. Why for example zebras aren't domesticable? What makes them so special and different from Tarpan-like Eurasian wild horses that were domesticated after centuries of selective breeding? Why Eurasian Phasanides like chicken could have been domesticated, while their African relatives couldn't have? Are the latter somehow magically resistant to artificial selection?

This phenomenon IS true. You can call it 'magic' if you like, but the fact of the matter is that htere are a tremendous number of animal species within the continent of Africa that would be of enormous value to humans if they could be domesticated, but they couldn't be.

The plague was endemic in Eurasia with a few sudden "spikes" in virility and mortality due to random mutations. Smallpox was always endemic. Perhaps you aren't aware, but malaria was also endemic in large parts of Europe until the large-scale draining of marshlands in the industrial era. It was encountered as far north as in Poland.

Malaria (and many other diseases) in Europe and Asia were often not as severe as they were in Africa. To use your example, Malaria in Poland is something that might happen once every other summer on an epidemic basis, and infect maybe 5-10% of the population each year. By contrast Malaria in many African countries today with at least some access to modern remedies and avoidance action takes place year round and affects perhaps 10% of the population simultaneously at any given time, and perhaps 90% of the population in each year. Each person can expect to get Malaria 2-3 times a year on average. This is a tremendous difference in incidence, and merely to state 'they both have malaria' gives you no idea of how bad one situation is compared to the other.

 

[dragoon9105]

I have a feeling Part of it is Africa doesn't have the right mix of suitable land or need to make Pastoral Nomadic life a possibility which is where Domesticated Animals come from. The Wildlife is Africa is generally more aggressive as well I'd say, what with all the Predators, Venomous animals, lack of Food in certain areas, ect.

The better theory is Africa being a Hellhole from Disease and Climate that African civilization just had a harder time growing to a point where they needed to evolve beyond the tribal state and do things like Domesticate native wildlife and farm on a wide scale.