Topic. As I understand, northern Africa has always been poor except for Egypt, yet in CK2, they're some of the wealthiest counties in the game at the earliest start. This is confusing, as it means the best place to raid as a viking is Africa. *eyes spinning* Does not compute, especially in the Dark Ages.
Why does Northern Africa start more developed than other places?
- Thread starter JuliaArcher
- 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.
Well, you've been misinformed. North Africa was pretty wealthy back in the day.
The region always had ample access to both Mediterranean and trans-Saharan trade, so they had a steady stream of income. It had fairly well developed infrastructure due to being controlled by Rome for so long as well. They had very good irrigation systems and water ducts which help to support extensive agriculture.
It's development and access to trade carried on into Arab rule. They maintained and expanded upon Roman architecture and infrastructure. Islamic civilization was also flourishing at the time, making great strides in science and culture, so it also benefited from that as well. It was only more recently that it began to fall behind.
For these reasons, it was a historically ripe target for viking raids.
The region always had ample access to both Mediterranean and trans-Saharan trade, so they had a steady stream of income. It had fairly well developed infrastructure due to being controlled by Rome for so long as well. They had very good irrigation systems and water ducts which help to support extensive agriculture.
It's development and access to trade carried on into Arab rule. They maintained and expanded upon Roman architecture and infrastructure. Islamic civilization was also flourishing at the time, making great strides in science and culture, so it also benefited from that as well. It was only more recently that it began to fall behind.
For these reasons, it was a historically ripe target for viking raids.
Last edited:
Really? Whoa. I would like to look into that. While I love history, that isn't a region I have studied (I was always more into Asian history myself). Vikings really went down there to raid? I always thought they stuck near the British Isles, France, and northern Spain previously.
Is there somewhere online I could learn more? Google has more or less failed me on this, and American schools certainly don't teach it lol.
Hmmm look up trans-saharan trade. That should get you in the neighbourhood of info you need.
That's fair! The history of the North Africa after the fall of the Western Roman Empire isn't very well known in the west. Honestly, I only know a little bit.
I don't know many specific sources that I didn't find on Google, but here are some I do know about:
This article mentions Viking raids in Morocco. This one suggests Vikings made it as far North Africa as well (although it fails to provide it's own sources.)
This image on Wikipedia suggested they got as far as Tunisia in North Africa by the eleventh century.
This one is by far the best source I could find. It cites two sources (one Irish and one Islamic) talking about a Viking raid on Morocco in the mid-ninth century in which they took a large number of slaves.
You might also ask elvain. He's kind of the resident expert on Islamic and Middle Eastern history around here. He also did a really nice writeup on the Middle East that talks about the population density and power of the Maghreb and the rest of the Middle East and how they might have been improved pre-HF.
North Africa peaked during the Carthaginian-Roman era. Cartage became very rich through the trade with classical Egypt, the Achemenid Persia, Greece and the later Hellenistic kingdoms.
Roman North Africa became the main source of grain from the Roman West, and thus became of great interest for the Republic and later the Empire. Since it had to feed italy, senators and emperors heavily invested on their provinces' infrastructure, on top of the benefit of trade that it still enjoyed, albeit a that time the trade lines had moved more to the east (Antioch, Alexandria) and north (Rome).
The collapse of the Western Roman Empire started the region's decline, as the market for the north African grain (Italy) seemingly vanished. The Vandals weren't able to keep the irrigation infrastructure in the same shape that the Romans-Numidians did, and agriculture slowly started to decline. The arabic invasion only worsened this, as the irrigation canals were heavily damaged during the wars between the arabs and the Berbers. However, the trade with the East, and now, with sub-Saharian African somehow keep the region afloat, in spite of the gradual collapse of the agriculture system.
Sadly, while that meant that the region became somewhat more prosperous during the High-Late Middle Ages, it never recovered the glory that it had during the Classic Ages. And eventually, when bigger routes of trade opened during the Early Modern era, now without their grain marked, the region gradually became impoverished.
Roman North Africa became the main source of grain from the Roman West, and thus became of great interest for the Republic and later the Empire. Since it had to feed italy, senators and emperors heavily invested on their provinces' infrastructure, on top of the benefit of trade that it still enjoyed, albeit a that time the trade lines had moved more to the east (Antioch, Alexandria) and north (Rome).
The collapse of the Western Roman Empire started the region's decline, as the market for the north African grain (Italy) seemingly vanished. The Vandals weren't able to keep the irrigation infrastructure in the same shape that the Romans-Numidians did, and agriculture slowly started to decline. The arabic invasion only worsened this, as the irrigation canals were heavily damaged during the wars between the arabs and the Berbers. However, the trade with the East, and now, with sub-Saharian African somehow keep the region afloat, in spite of the gradual collapse of the agriculture system.
Sadly, while that meant that the region became somewhat more prosperous during the High-Late Middle Ages, it never recovered the glory that it had during the Classic Ages. And eventually, when bigger routes of trade opened during the Early Modern era, now without their grain marked, the region gradually became impoverished.
Poor Carthage, was blooming again under the Byzantines supplying most of Constantinoples grain(Solely alongside Sicily after the lost of Egypt) and then met its complete destruction again in 698 by the Arabs.
This is why you should never make historical assumptions based on present situations.
Why the Downvotes? The city was ravaged in 698. The walls were torn down and the harbor destroyed. From then on Tunis would be the major city in the region, I don’t see the problem with this bit of info. North Africa continued to be a relatively rich region but it declined from its peak in Antiquity with the In coming desertification and Bedouin nomads.
Had that Berber queen been able to withstand the arab invasion long enough to form an alliance with the Eastern Roman Empire, and the invaders may have been expelled from the area. Perhaps the desertification could've been avoided with the restoration of the irrigation systems.
North Africa was a wealthy and prosperous realm for centuries still after Islam arrived. Blaming its regression on Arab Muslims is just silly.
I’m not blaming Arab Muslims, Im blaming the Bedouin Arabs and Mother Earth for the Desertification that arrived in the region during the Middle Ages. The Arab Muslims did however destroy Carthage, introduced the Bedouins to the region and cut the region off with trade from Europe and Constantinople for a while. Elvain would agree with me.
A Mongol invasion or a similar destructive force, would caused the same gradual desertification and impoverishment. Look at Mesopotamia after the destruction of its irrigation channels. Berbers were doing okay-ish until the arabic invasion. Better than the Vandals, at least.
With their irrigation system gone, Berbers had to raise cattle to survive, leading to the gradual overgrazing of the fertile/arable land, turning it into drylands. Pre-Islam Berbers had some level or knowledge of mantaining the agricultural structure, but the tribes that survived the invasion were those that used to live on the mountain ranges, and thus were much more focused on raising cattle.
With their irrigation system gone, Berbers had to raise cattle to survive, leading to the gradual overgrazing of the fertile/arable land, turning it into drylands. Pre-Islam Berbers had some level or knowledge of mantaining the agricultural structure, but the tribes that survived the invasion were those that used to live on the mountain ranges, and thus were much more focused on raising cattle.
You can hardly claime that areas such as Tunish and Algiers were not agricultural in nature. And they thrived until far beyond the Medieval period.
Again, sustainable irrigation was the key. And, while they weren't paradisaical grasslands, they weren't as arid as they're now. On the classic era, North Africa had the grain and the trade. On the Middle Ages, they only had the trade. Once America appeared on the maps, the trade value of the region was bound to dwindle.
Your wrong and theres a reason why you are wrong. The romans noticed the desertification in the 200-300s. They countered this by planting olive trees on the edges and stopped it. When the Berber arab muslims came through north africa like a tidal wave all the way to morroco, they destroyed the trees. It was deliberate. Theres a reason north africa stopped being able to grow shed tons of grain and suuccumbed to the desert: that reasons is the deliberate acts of the invaders.
One can only wonder how places like Anatolia or North Africa would look like if they would've stayed under roman rule. Romans once said that places like Hispania were so heavily forested that an squirrel could cross from the strait to the Pyrenees hopping from tree to tree, albeit this is probably a myth.
The Romans would probably not have been any more ecologically friendly than others, judging by what they did to wildlife in for example North Africa.
"Berber Arab Muslims". I think you may have mixed up a few things.
I recently read a very good book called 'Why the west rules the world...for now' by a Geographer/Historian called Ian Morris. It's a pretty long book, but it does contain lots of graphs that compare technological and social development between the East and West over the course of history. It's a pretty crude visual indicator, but the attached graph tracks social development from 14,000bc - 2000ce in the 'East' vs. 'West'.
In the CKII early starts most historians agree that Eastern cultures were significantly more developed than Western ones, hence why the west oftern refers to this period as the 'Dark Ages'.
In the CKII early starts most historians agree that Eastern cultures were significantly more developed than Western ones, hence why the west oftern refers to this period as the 'Dark Ages'.
Last edited: