What would Africa be like today if colonialism never happened? Were any regions rising to developing nation status?
impossible to say
>>472854
lol no black ones. arabs and berbers sure.
>wewuzkangs.jpg
>>472854
lol no the closest thing was the Zulu empire but that was pretty underdeveloped in its own right
Considering how shit Ethiopia and Liberia are, I suspect that it wouldn't be good news either way.
>>472854
Dunno. Same as America, I guess?
Even if they weren't colonized their economies would have still have tanked around the time the Brits started picking up steam: they would be trading their raw goods for finished goods, same as irl. Though maybe they'd be less militarized, more politically stable. Their borders would make more sense.
>>472886
>Same as America, I guess?
btw I mean african civs would be like native americans civs, which also didn't make it into the present.
>>472854
Yeah the Male of Brazil were consolidating their Co religion is the and ethnic kin and had already gained the accumulative knowledge to form a nation-state in the modern sense.
>>472854
less developed (y the standards of the rest of the world and more a laughing stock than it currently is.
>>473002
>less developed
And yet more stable, culturally independent and posed to develop at a faster rate once the world started becoming more interconnected.
>>472854
Like this, senpai. File's too big so have a linkg
https://developmentdaily.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/alkebu-lan-1260.jpg
>>472854
Would the Triangle Trade still happen?
>>472854
They just would still be killing themselves with spears instead of guns.
>>473147
>implying the Scramble for Africa introduced guns to Africa
>tfw no jewish Ethiopian merchant republic
What would Africa be like today if colonization ended last year?
>>473136
Trans Atlantic slave trade was an inevitable need be
>>472854
One Big Muslim Caliphate
>>473165
Okay then the West African slaver nations would grow like they did in reality and would collapse when Europeans stopped buying slaves. West Africa would rebuild without Europe moving in and conquering the collapsed kingdoms.
Southern Africa would still get maize from the Americas and the population would explode. There would be a migration to southward but there would be no whites.
Would the Portuguese still control the east African coast?
>>473120
Damnit I wish someone would make a version of that with the conventional map orientation. It looks interesting as fuck, but my brain won't accept it.
>>472854
Look at Ethiopia.
Even without getting conquered, it still became a fucking shithole, due to Soviet meddling.
So, the commies would have taken over eventually, basically. MAYBE Mali might've done well, though. Good history, just had bad luck IRL, probably could've whored itself out to the US or Europe.
>>473258
well actually Mussolini did a lot of shit to Ethiopia, ranging from chemical warfare to killing the anti-Fasci teachers
And secondly Ethiopia is on the rise compared to most of Africa
>>473185
Portuguese would still get their ass whooped by Omani.
>>473258
>Look at Ethiopia.
>Even without getting conquered, it still became a fucking shithole, due to Soviet meddling.
>due to Soviet meddling
>Sauce
Sauce
>>473298
>Omani
I don't know shit about Omani.
>>473300
....look up the fucking Derg you tard
The Benin Empire under Portuguese influence was pretty fucking dope, they made huge advancements in metal work that rivaled the best European works.
>>473303
Here is a rundown of Coastal Southeast Africa
Khoisan
Roundbowl Culture + traders
Proto-Bantu Farmers and Traders
Black Persian prince marries into Bantu trading town forms Kilwa
Portuguese
Omani
English (tiny portion German for a moment)
Independence
>>473306
Yeah they supported a coup and it became a communist state during the 70's and 80's. That's not the point you made. You stated that the soviets are ultimately responsible for the negative state of ethiopia.
And you still haven't provided a source. In the next post you'll appeal to conventional wisdom and state that all communist states end up as "shitholes" (without quantifying that word in any way), you might mention the red terror/deportations, without pointing out the exact mechanism by which that leads ethiopia to be in a bad state today. You'll just say that it obviously does, and that I'm an idiot for not realising this.
You definitely won't mention the Revolutionary Democratic Front, the current government of Ethiopia which is supported by the US, or any of it's policies or their effects on the country.
There'll probably be some ad homs.
Or maybe I'll just get a one line ad hom with no content. Yeah, it's gonna be a one line ad hom.
>>473086
>more stable
explain. tribal warfare has always existed in Africa, additionally once Europe pulled out the former colony's were free to change their shapes / give or take land to accommodate ethnic / tribal boundaries as they pleased.
>culturally independent
both irrelevant and false. Western (and specifically USA) culture is not spread at the end of a sword, it is spread with tasty burgers, television and music. This is especially true of countries that eat up USA culture despite not having been invaded by the USA, such as much of Africa.
>posed to develop at a faster rate once the world started becoming more interconnected.
Africans showed little interest in developing like the rest of the world before colonization, why would they do it without colonization?
Africans showed little interest in building roads for instance, why would they have done this if left to themselves longer?
Africa is developed, for better or for worse, BECAUSE of European (and Arabic) colonization, not despite it.
>>473399
https://books.google.com/books?id=RcVFXUwraxsC
https://books.google.com/books?id=IwZ1Xb-w45oC
Here are some sources. Communist mismanagement lead to a worsening famine that lead to the deaths of tens of thousands. The Ethiopian gov. relied too heavily on a Soviet Union which didn't particularly care about them.
Alexander De Wall - Evil Days, 30 years of war and famine in Ethiopia
Alexander De Wall - Famine Crimes: Politics and the disaster relief Industry in Africa
>>473258
You do realize they kinda got destroyed in WWII right?
They were doing fine until Mussolini decided "it's ours" and the rest of Europe went "meh."
They were ravaged and chemically attacked, and with no relief efforts after the war was over too.
>>473322
Much appreciated, /his/torian.
>>472854
>rising to developing nation status
That's the fallacy of progress; your mind has been poisoned by the capitalists, my friend.
The King of Mali used to be one of the richest men in the world. Africa had plenty of cities and nation-states before colonialism.
>>473652
So did South Korea. It's now one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Why isn't Ethiopia?
Ethiopia received hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, it was just all squandered on useless military crap.
>>472854
OK, the situation is that without foreign intervention, Africa would have modernized, and quite rapidly.
It would continue to lag behind the rest of the world, quite severely.
And Imperialism and Colonialism would have still been huge problems, just of an intra-african sort.
Ethiopia, the Great Lakes, Zululand, Egypt, Somalia, Arabized East Africa and if they could unfuck themselves from the earliest era of colonialism, west african peoples like the Igbo and at the mouth of the Congo River would have been the basis of it.
Ethiopia itself pretty much went on an conquest spree during this era, subjugating Gonder quite brutally.
So you'd see something like South East Asia on a massive scale: still huge ethnic issues, brutality and military rule based around archaic kingships, punctuated by soviet interference.
On the other hand, the states would be stable, and economically rational, if not developed.
this video shares some insight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnN0RurtJWc
of course, its difficult to say because modern africa is almost entirely the result of european influence except for the deepmost rural areas and indigenous tribes.
That depends on countless factors.
Shaka Zulu wanted advisors to help modernize Zululand before his mom died and he lost it.
The king of the Yorubas had the guilds of blacksmiths start manufacturing firearms.
The Kanuri asked for Ottoman help in updating their tech and got it.
Even the late Ashanti king scorned the superstition of his people and wanted to adopt european rationalism.
>>473418
>>more stable
>explain. tribal warfare has always existed in Africa
This always takes place at a much smaller scale than inter-state war or civil-war. When you account for the growth in population that living in an empire/nation gets you, the effect on stability of tribal conflict is much smaller than post-colonial conflict both absolutely and per capita.
>once Europe pulled out the former colony's were free to change their shapes / give or take land to accommodate ethnic / tribal boundaries as they pleased.
That's only true in the sense that the Europeans wouldn't stop them from swapping land and changing borders. Very rarely will a state willingly give valuable territory to another. The european colonial administrative regions certainly didn't foster a culture of peacefully swapping land. In effect, post colonial borders were static, without respect to war.
>>culturally independent
>both irrelevant
To their development in an economic sense? Sure, I'll concede that. I guess I was making a seperate point about how (I think) colonisation stagnated the native culture and allowed the european ones to supersede them, at least in urbanised population centres. Up to you if you want to open that front of the discussion (although of course depending on your pov I may have already done so).
>and false.
I don't think so. Again, up to you if I should elaborate this, which is probably a different point, though interrelated in some (small?) ways.
>Western (and specifically USA) culture is not spread at the end of a sword, it is spread with tasty burgers, television and music.
False dichotomy - culture does not have to be spread militarily in order to dominate other cultures. It is often more successful if it isn't. Although since the europeans annexed almost 100% of africa, and held it for several decades, I'd class that as spreading at the end of a sword, unless there's some very clever nuance I'm missing.
>>473418
>>473773
>This is especially true of countries that eat up USA culture despite not having been invaded by the USA, such as much of Africa.
None of africa has been invaded by the US, unless I'm mistaken. But conversely, the europeans invaded all of africa. I'd argue that since european culture is very similar to american culture when compared to the native ones, the european colonisation acted as a gateway to spread of US culture to africa.
Again this is obviously not related to the point about economic development.
>>posed to develop at a faster rate once the world started becoming more interconnected.
>Africans showed little interest in developing like the rest of the world before colonization, why would they do it without colonization?
They had no access to the knowledge and technologies that allow empires and nations to develop industrially. They would have got them eventually either way, whether through proliferation by trade or invasion. I stand by my point that in the long term the trade scenario would have benefitted their development more.
>Africans showed little interest in building roads for instance, why would they have done this if left to themselves longer?
Again, they didn't have access to the knowledge of the utility of roads, or at least that knowledge hadn't proliferated to a useful extent. They would have got it through trade or invasion, and I believe that the trade route would have benefitted them more.
>Africa is developed, for better or for worse, BECAUSE of European (and Arabic) colonization, not despite it.
I don't think it's fair to compare european to arabic colonisation in this sense, as the europeans held africa for less than a century and used it mostly for resource extraction, whearas the arabs assimilated the natives of north africa, and integrated the territory fully into their empire.
>>473418
>>473773
>>473777
The European colonial regions built infrastructure for the sole purpose of extracting resources, and to a secondary degree supporting coastal cities which existed to facilitate the removal of these resouces. This infrastructure does not greatly benefit the africans today. In most places, they do not have the means to reproduce it themselves. They are left with the roads and buildings which the europeans built, and they often cannot maintain them. They are also left with less natural resources.
>>473700
even before colonization africa didn't have a relevant empire or culture for mankind. why do you think it would naturally happen without outside interference?
>>473120
> That feel when your ancestors' tribe appears on that map (Nzakara)
> That feel when they now only number in the thousands because women are infertile due to living on naturally radioactive land
Literally WE WUZ KINGZ, I never knew the tribe had been that significant at some point in history.
What's the source for the map?
>>473120
Why the fuck is it upside down, was the guy drunk when he made this map?
>>473790
You couldn't be more wrong.
>>473790
and there you have it, another /his/ anon that knows nothing of colonization of Africa, African cultures, or the history of Africa in general. Read a book or at least an internet page on the topic you are commenting here before coming here, plz
>>473813
Not the anon that posted it, but iirc it was to make a point about how north=up was arbitrary, and since a lot of africa is in the southern hemisphere they may have ended up with south=up. I hope someone photoshops it the conventional way round though.
>>473814
>relevant
>>473832
Define relevence anon. Where are you gonna draw the line and what variable(s) are you gonna use?
>>473773
>This always takes place at a much smaller scale than inter-state war or civil-war. When you account for the growth in population that living in an empire/nation gets you, the effect on stability of tribal conflict is much smaller than post-colonial conflict both absolutely and per capita.
Your argument is unclear. Is your argument that African tribes grew to quickly under imperial rule and this decreased stability?
If this is your argument than it is false. The growth of African native population under European rule was due entirely to increases in farming output with in the colonies. The Europeans didn't ship food to Africa for Africans. (at least not in any appreciably large amounts) African native growth is not a problem so long as they have enough food to support the growth -which they did. If the Africans abandoned techniques taught to them by Europeans this is not the fault of the Europeans naturally, and still - the additional workforce and population allowed for an increase in GDP during colonization - that is, net increase in development. Also, inter-African tribal was was clearly kept down by the Europeans. African colonies were far safer from inter-African conflict under European rule.
>That's only true in the sense that the Europeans wouldn't stop them from swapping land and changing borders. Very rarely will a state willingly give valuable territory to another.
It's true in exactly the sense I explained. Africans are not Europeans. Having just been given nation states, you can't predict what they would or would not do with them. These are new things to them. The Europeans had no idea (and didn't frankly care) what African former colonies did. Additionally, many, many times in history territory swaps have happened peacefully.
>The european colonial administrative regions certainly didn't foster a culture of peacefully swapping land. In effect, post colonial borders were static, without respect to war.
This is complete opinion.
>>473843
This is an interesting discussion. I'll get back to you tomorrow if the thread is still alive.
>>473773
>The european colonial administrative regions certainly didn't foster a culture of peacefully swapping land. In effect, post colonial borders were static, without respect to war.
Compared to who or what? If post colonial borders were static, is was completely the effect of the Africans, not the Europeans. This is important, because the Europeans handed their former colonies development 'no questions asked' because they were forced to.
>I guess I was making a seperate point about how (I think) colonisation stagnated the native culture and allowed the european ones to supersede them, at least in urbanised population centres. Up to you if you want to open that front of the discussion (although of course depending on your pov I may have already done so).
How does a culture manage to supersede another culture? How does anything manage to supersede anything else? By being superior. Cultural relativity is a silly joke, African cultures were necessarily weak if they could not survive contact with the outside.
>I don't think so. Again, up to you if I should elaborate this, which is probably a different point, though interrelated in some (small?) ways.
African culture was smashed relatively efficiently by European and USA culture without us trying, while African culture never caught on in a meaningful way in Europe / USA
>culture does not have to be spread militarily in order to dominate other cultures. It is often more successful if it isn't.
That is exactly my point. USA did not spread its culture militarily - though it could have. African culture would have succumbed to USA culture regardless, if not through colonization, as per the OP's question, then by the force of our media.
>>473777
>None of africa has been invaded by the US, unless I'm mistaken. But conversely, the europeans invaded all of africa. I'd argue that since european culture is very similar to american culture when compared to the native ones, the european colonisation acted as a gateway to spread of US culture to africa.
my point exactly. USA didn't invade or colonize, yet their culture spread throughout.
However, European culture is quite different than USA culture. Germany and France show tits all over the place, have different languages (obv.) and have very different national identities to USA. I use these 2 countries specifically as examples because their governments are both publicly unhappy about the spread of USA culture in their countries, with France having 'french' quotas for movies, songs etc.
>They had no access to the knowledge and technologies that allow empires and nations to develop industrially. They would have got them eventually either way, whether through proliferation by trade or invasion. I stand by my point that in the long term the trade scenario would have benefitted their development more.
They had access to the knowledge and tech, they had no interest - or much less interest than the rest of the world.
>Again, they didn't have access to the knowledge of the utility of roads, or at least that knowledge hadn't proliferated to a useful extent. They would have got it through trade or invasion, and I believe that the trade route would have benefitted them more.
But they did - with north africans having access to the knowledge from ancient times through Rome and Roman ruins. It is not access to the knowledge - it is interest in it. Africa and Africans showed (and show today) little interest in technology and advancement compared to the rest of the world.
>>473444
Thanks for the reading material, I'll look into those.
I concede the point for the purposes of this thread.
>>473777
>I don't think it's fair to compare european to arabic colonisation in this sense, as the europeans held africa for less than a century and used it mostly for resource extraction, whearas the arabs assimilated the natives of north africa, and integrated the territory fully into their empire.
The timing is different but the motivations are very similar. The Arabs used Africans as slaves, to extract resources, as soldiers etc. The Europeans were doing the same things -but at a much quicker rate due to advances in tech because of the later period.
>>473782
>The European colonial regions built infrastructure for the sole purpose of extracting resources, and to a secondary degree supporting coastal cities which existed to facilitate the removal of these resouces. This infrastructure does not greatly benefit the africans today. In most places, they do not have the means to reproduce it themselves. They are left with the roads and buildings which the europeans built, and they often cannot maintain them. They are also left with less natural resources.
This is the big one - European colonial powers built roads from resources to coastlines, they built 'cities' if you will, for the purpose of extracting resources and trading them. But this is how they build their own cities. This is the European model. The only difference - is that the 'trade' they did with the colonies was 1 sided. When the Europeans pulled out they left fully intact cities that could be used for trading, and in fact were built for trading. European economic policy was based on extracting and producing, their home countries needed the raw materials and they were forced to buy them from former African colonies. Now, the Africans had access to schematics, all the information they needed to maintain these things - and even if the Europeans did not play nice (they did- they were forced to by the UN) the Soviets and Arabs were eagerly awaiting to help post colonial africa
>>473782
The point is - the development of Africa was done by European colonization. Africa before colonization was, by all historical accounts, not interested in developing in the same way the rest of the world was. While colonization was of course bad for the Africans, the Europeans being forced to hand over their colonies was a god-send. This had never happened before. Typically if an empire is going to lose their colonies, they torch them, they smash them. Additionally, Africans had access to information to develop and did not choose to use it.
>>473690
Different scenarios dumbass.
>Ethiopia received hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, it was just all squandered on useless military crap.
Yeah it helps that having an incompetent fuck like Haile Selassie would do that?
>>473843
The colonial governments did a lot of violence to keep the order of things on top of bad agricultural policies that aggravated sevea>>473891
>Africa and Africans showed (and show today) little interest in technology and advancement compared to the rest of the world.
You really know nothing about modern Africa.
Like really you think people are stuck in the 50-70's?
>>473832
>>relevant
didnt the mali empire produce half of the world's gold at one point?
>>473843
>The Europeans had no idea (and didn't frankly care) what African former colonies did.
wrong
let's look at the french for an example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZKHZVVRITY&list=PLwOdBR6SDRHT9cEwrY_NvahNLl3Qz0x7A
>>472854
It be less shit for the people living there, that's for sure
also less infighting
>>474157
>also less infighting
i hear this a lot, is there any proof that there was nothing but infighting throughout african before the europeans came? And if so why would this be considered bad, weren't europeans killing eachother for much of their history? How do we know that they wouldn't have eventually stopped like europe did?
>>474174
It's not like Europeans stopped killing one another a long time ago. They only stopped after World War 2.
>>473444
>Earth uses famine against Communists
>IT'S SUPER EFFECTIVE!
>>474174
disputes resultant from foriegn intervention. I never said they would stop altogether as that is absurd; people will always kill each other. dont act stupid and pretend the needless complications that arose from imperialism aren't the catalyst that began the process of making africa the warzone it is now.
>proof that africa was nothing but infighting before
All you would have to do is refer to wikipedia's pages on african kingdoms and empires, friend
>>474157
there would still be conflict between nations, but the nations would have formed around tribes and similar social groups. this, rather than foreign powers just drawing arbitrary borders and forcing people to stay quiet, at gunpoint. that said, it would probably be more of European style wars that can peacefully end with either economic interdependence, or just growing the fuck up. As opposed to endless genocide and tribal hatred.
I also think African countries would be better off because the current crop of leaders are largely in power because of their roles in fighting off colonialist powers. the "Big Men of Africa" siezed power in the 60's, or whenever, and have been corrupt, brutal tyrants ever since. Had Africa been allowed to develop its own systems of government organically, I really doubt the leaders would be such useless shitbags.
having said all this, I am not a scholar of African history. just fairly well read
>>473700
>On the other hand, the states would be stable, and economically rational, if not developed.
so, basically what the vast majority of African nations are these days? The days of most of the continent being absolute shit have long since passed, stability is the norm for more parts than not.
Always important to remember how giant these countries are, the USA could fit in it 3 times over. Certain regions of Africa are shit (Congo, Somalia, Libya) but most are getting by and improving rapidly.
>>473790
relevant is a tricky word. Africa may have had incredibly rich cultures, but they did not have writing. when European powers came in, there is no way to know what they destroyed. we only have ruins and artifacts.
from what I understand, Africa was about on level with North and South America. are the Plains Indians relevant? the Aztecs? I bet they would be pretty relevant, today, if the Europeans had decided to trade with them, rather than wipe them out.
eh... not saying that every European person was a genocidal asshole, nor that every European nation, at every point in time, was exploitive and vicious. I am just saying that there was not a continuing, conscious effort to treat indigenous peoples with respect
>>474258
>did not have writing
What are you basing that on?
>>474258
>Africa may have had incredibly rich cultures, but they did not have writing
west and east africans did.
>Africa was about on level with North and South America
they were on the level of north africans
>>473832
It's pretty relevant to the people living there & other Africans, don't you think?
>>472854
The same, only more populated and less developed.
Was the Mediteranean the best place on Earth for humans to develop naval tech before getting to the point of transoceanic sailing?
>>474258
and, let me also say that those cultures were pretty fucking relevant to the people who lived them and were reduced to the level of dogs when they were destroyed
>>474318
>Was the Mediteranean the best place on Earth for humans to develop naval tech before getting to the point of transoceanic sailing?
Nope.
Hell, the Mediterranean was fucking calm as shit.
>>474264
not much, admittedly. some poorly remembered chapters of Guns, Germs, and Steel. IIRC, writing only rose up in a handful of places and spread. the Americas and Africa was not one of those places.
then again, I could be wrong.
>>474318
no. the Polynesians developed that centuries before. its how they became Polynesian, in fact.
>>474340
>>474346
The Polenysians didn't have the most advanced naval tech, they just had the biggest balls. And the Pacific was a horrid place to sail. It has huge storms and you can't even be sure what's over the horizon. The Mediterranean by contrast doesn't have huge oceanic storms and was very easy to map. People just sailed around the coasts and any and all islands just by looking at the horizon. Also there were a lot of useful regions with useful materials to trade.
>>474336
Uh, yeah, that's the point. Everyone around the Mediteranean used ships because it was safe and efficient. If it was horribly dangerous then no one would use it and no one would gradually create better ship tech.
>>474071
>You really know nothing about modern Africa.
I know GDP, lit %, Mortality rate, and any other standard measurement across nations available online through the UN - and Africa is at the bottom of them all m90
>>474406
There's technology in Africa. Startups, isps telecom, venture capitalists, Internet culture and start ups and apps. Fuck their cellphone Penetration is pretty high that defies people's expectations.
Yes Africa is behind in social barometers but saying it's completely barred from modern tech and the world is retarded l.
>>474487
Saying that they aren't interested in modern tech is just insane.
>>474552
>Africa and Africans showed (and show today) little interest in technology and advancement compared to the rest of the world.
is not the same as saying
>but saying it's completely barred from modern tech and the world is retarded
>Saying that they aren't interested in modern tech is just insane.
thanks for gathering the quotes for me.
>>472854
>What would Africa be like today if colonialism never happened
Dindus killing each others with spears in mudhuts villages instead of dindus killing each others with firearms in cities
>>474578
>>Africa and Africans showed (and show today) little interest in technology and advancement compared to the rest of the world.
Can you post an example of the greentext being true or in action.
>>474833
Africa's state in early 19th century
i'm going to say what people in this thread are afraid of spitting out: they're niggers so they'd still be living in huts and fighting just to survive.
>>473814
>unironically the only kingdoms in africa that has produced something positive for mankind is greeks
>b-but they invented fried chicken n shiiet
>>472854
they'd all have something like the meiji restoration, we wuz kaingz n shit
>>472881
Ethiopia was alright pre war a d Love Liberia was Americas colonial fuck up
>>472881
Ethiopia is shit, but it's still in a far better state than its neighbors. Liberia was/is a European creation, not an independent state like Ethiopia. It was basically the same as a colony except without any of the good parts.
>>473162
Calm down, CKII.
>>473303
They're Ibadi muslims from the southeast Arabian peninsula, they held a long strip of the East African coast from Kenya down to Mozambique.
Let me just look into my fucking crystal ball to find your answer.
>>472854
A clusterfuck of undeveloped and uncivilized tribes.
>>474205
>Europeans stopped killing each other after WWII
What are the Yugoslav Wars?
>>474318
It was better than what the Chinese and Americans had to work with, but Polynesia is far better.
>>472854
Ethiopia, the entirety of North Africa, Madagascar the Swahili coast and to a lesser extent Nigeria were slowly developing.
Had colonization not happened I imagine some African nations would have pulled a Japan and taken all their surrounding areas that weren't as modernized as they were. So Africa would have much fewer countries in it.
>>475051
I don't know why, but I always thought the Aztecs invented deep-fried food.
>>475973
Probably because Mexicans are so fat.
>>475978
Yeah, probably. Apparently it was the Egyptians though.
>>474108
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_I_of_Mali
>But Musa's generous actions inadvertently devastated the economy of the regions through which he passed. In the cities of Cairo, Medina, and Mecca, the sudden influx of gold devalued the metal for the next decade. Prices on goods and wares greatly inflated. To rectify the gold market, Musa borrowed all the gold he could carry from money-lenders in Cairo, at high interest. This is the only time recorded in history that one man directly controlled the price of gold in the Mediterranean.
He is considered today as the richest man in history.
>>472854
The most powerful empire before the whites came in had amounted to little more than cloth shields and spears. Mud huts were pretty much it for commoners. It's amazing that slavery was the best thing that ever happened to the people of that continent.
>>476048
>Reading the list of richest historical figures
>Mansa Musa I: 400 billion
>Crassus: 2 trillion
>Augustus: 4.6 trillion
Where does Augustus' number come from? And I thought that Alexander the Great and various Achaemenid Emperors were near the trillion mark.
>>476072
Please stop trying to talk about things you know nothing about
>>476096
Prove me wrong.
>>476091
The source is her : http://time.com/money/3977798/the-10-richest-people-of-all-time/
>Not only was Augustus Caesar in charge of an empire that accounted for 25% to 30% of the world’s economic output, but according to Stanford history professor Ian Morris, Augustus at one point held personal wealth equivalent to one-fifth of his empire’s economy
>>476096
d a m a g e c o n t r o l
>ugh, i mean, its 2015 come on, your facts are racist, people indoctrinate yourself accordingly.
>>476325
holy memes son, i like how none of those buzzwords are related to the post you quoted, are you sure the title of buzzword master doesnt apply to you instead?
>>474844
There were states that were modernizing or attempted to modernize.
>>475959
>slavs
I said Europeans.
>>475967
>Polynesia is far better
The Pacific has powerful storms and no large areas of fertile land to build civilizations to trade with. The Mediterranean is FAR better. It was the perfect place for naval tech to develop.
Liberia was a nice place until the coup in the 1980s. Ever since then it has been a series of conflicts and ebola.
>>472854
Similar to this day. Maybe with less civil wars after few Iraqi-Iranian war scale conflicts between various keengdums an shiet.
Maybe little closer to South America though, as in more companies would outsource their production here.
>>476885
There's an old quote about the deepest desire of a slave not being freedom, but having a slave of their own, and it applies pretty well to Liberia's early history.
Hilariously naive, people thought it would be a good idea if freed slaves were sent back to Africa, where they'd be able to integrate with the local tribes.
What actually happened is the African-Americans took over the local tribes and set themselves at the top almost instantly, and completely controlled the country's politics until the 1980s when they were violently overthrown.
Not saying it was right or wrong, just that people being former slaves doesn't actually install any kind of egalitarian mindset.
>>474376
>If it was horribly dangerous then no one would use it
The English Channel is one of the rougher seas out there and it allowed the UK to test ships under harsh conditions time after time. What you get is a lot of short-term failures but long term successes. So yes nations on the Med like Rome, Greece etc would do well at the start of civilisation but after a while other nations like the UK would be entering the scene with ships ready to take a beating and therefore eventually take-over, hence how the UK where Mussolini's greatest threat to his Med ambitions and not another Med another.
>>476758
>West Africa in the Middle Ages
Is that even relevant? Rome was the greatest empire the world had ever seen, but it failed, so who cares? Oh, wait, at least they had a lot of knowledge of the sciences that we built up. I don't think that I want to learn how to steal a car from Africans now. Most of the former colonies are independent countries. Do you know what they've done since then? Build their mud huts, rape children to cure their AIDS, and get ebola. And what have their immigrated descendants done? Ooga booga, gibz me dat, we wuz kings and shiet. The sad thing is how they used to have a few good empires, fell down and stayed down.
>>477920
I can't say I expected an intelligent response
>>477920
>Rome was the greatest empire the world had ever seen
I want this meme to die.
>>478245
Rome was on par with China. China just went longer because of two reasons. Physical isolation against migration eurasian steppe people or others. The conquerers of China wanted to rule and become China. Where as in Rome the goths, huns, slavs, etc just wanted to carve out a chunk of Rome.
