Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Why Europeans failed to settle Tropical Africa |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
||||||||||||
Guests 
Guest 
|
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Why Europeans failed to settle Tropical AfricaPosted: 22-May-2009 at 20:09 |
||||||||||||
This point doesn't make sense. It simply ignore the fact hundred of thousand, perhaps millions, or Europeans died fighting in the Americas. No matter not all Amerindians resisted, the ones that did were superb in the arts of war.
That could be an interesting point. However, density of population didn't prevent Europeans to conquest India or China, countries a lot more advanced technologically than tropical Africa.
But you forget Europeans usually stayed along the coasts in tropical areas.
That was the point of the tread. That's the most important reason.
|
|||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||
|
Mayra
Janissary 
Joined: 15-Jan-2007 Location: Nigeria/Brasil Online Status: Offline Posts: 29 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-May-2009 at 23:40 |
||||||||||||
|
Originally posted by Cryptic
-Climate: American climate was generally better. But.. the Europeans did move into Brazil, Venezuela etc.
Oh you men are having such a fine time fighting amongst yourselves. I don't have much to contribute but wanted to say that okay, well the dutch and the portuguese DID move in to brasil but they sure as heck did not move in very far. The amerindians here were wayyyyy too smart and lazy to work for the portuguese and they simply just refused to work. The portuguese simply couldn't get them to work or control them. You can't keep mass butchering people...so they had to bring the enslaved africans in...Even til today the huge masses of population are here along the coast line. With exception of gold towns, the land and climate was just too hostile to move inward. The Dutch actually did a great service to the northeast, specifically the capitol of pernambuco, recife, building its best infrastructure of canals, waterways and city center still in use until today. The country would have been better off had the dutch remeianed in power, as the portuguese had a kind of manic love/hate with their "colony"...trying to squeeze out what it could with minimum investment. The Dutch brought wives, but actually reports of them putting their african concubines on their horses behind them fleeing the ports,. dutch wives on foot straggling behind, exist...how's that for some marital happiness? If you are comparing here to africa, the amerindians have a completely different world view than african would. Tho they do take part in inter tribe trading, life is way more laid back than the hearty trading africans and their incessant growiing or crops, manufacturing by hand artisan goods and wares and long long trading history. The amerindians just simply vanished further in to the forests, much like they are still having to do today....
|
|||||||||||||
|
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
" I have no particular talent. I am merely inquisitive". Albert Einstein |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-May-2009 at 02:18 |
||||||||||||
|
Are you describing Tupi-Guaranies? In the case of the Mapuches of my country, they simply crashed with Spaniards, copied the military techniques, robbed horses and striked back. They killed more Spaniards in my country than in all the other Spanish colonies together.Mapuches killed the conquistador himself! and eat his heart rough! Yeahhh, they did!
We, Chileans, are very proud of them! The finest native warriors of South America
Edited by pinguin - 23-May-2009 at 02:19 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke 
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1962 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2009 at 18:21 |
||||||||||||
Hundreds of thousands, millions? That is a huge exaggeration
 . All of North America was conquuered with the loss of a few tens of thousands of European lives (military, paramilitary and civilian). The Europeans suffered more casualties in Meso America and South America, but no where near hundreds of thousands or millions.
No, but the lack of shock and awe over 15th to 16th century European weapons, horses etc. did delay the Euroepan conquest of China and India for centuries. Eventually, the Europeans did obtain a large enough technological advantage to colonize them. This came much later and with less shock and awe.
Yes, of course, the shock and awe did wear off. The Europeans could be killed. But at the end of the day and on a continental scale, the Native Americans were not going to be able to put up a lot of effective resistance.
Mayra,
When and how did Portuguese take North West Brazil way from the Dutch? Edited by Cryptic - 26-May-2009 at 18:29 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2009 at 20:35 |
||||||||||||
|
Your "shock and awe" thesis is balooney. You know it well.
Please, don't repeat over and over again stereotypes of the yellow press.
Do you know how many Spanish soldiers died in Chile? You better find out before we continue.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Ikki
Chieftain 
Guanarteme Joined: 31-Dec-2004 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 1378 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2009 at 22:07 |
||||||||||||
Oh this is a huge exageration...
I agree here with our fellow Cryptic, with the tropical disease the military abilities of the Africans were a crucial factor, with the exception of hunter-gatherers, the subsaharan peoples was superior in military terms the amerindians because several reasons: better weaponry, better fortification systems, many of they had cavalry, used more complex tactics than amerindians and what is more important they had a tradition of total war approach to military affairs, you won't see here natives triying to take prisoners to the conquerors in the middle of the battle, as the mexicas did. You have a very short knowledge of african warfare pinguin, i recommend to look info about this matter. The affairs for example of the portuguese in Zimbabwe and Angola in 16-17th centuries, plenty of battles and sieges, show that they were capable to win, but too to be crushed, and never their victories were sufficient for a trully conquest of the territory. In fact, the performance of africans in single battles and in overall wars allowed they to adapt slowly to european warfare.
Mapuches or apaches could resist the europeans attempts of expansion, but their territories were poor and had few resources to offer to the conquerors, if they were defeated as mapuches were in the war of 1630-1640 europeans wasn't interested in follow the war and prefered to sustain deffensive positions. Zimbabwe or the regions in the Guinean Gulf were far richer countries, plenty of gold and population, but europeans couldn't achieve anything until the arrival of medicines and new weaponry in the 19th century. Edited by Ikki - 26-May-2009 at 22:07 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2009 at 22:20 |
||||||||||||
I am amazed on the ignorancy on the history of the Americas. All you guys apply are stereotypes. Amerindian civilization had a higher level of civilization and organization than subsaharan Africans by far. There was plenty of resistence, and in several places Europeans couldn't conquist.
It is simply ridiculous to compare situations and army efforts without knowing the political realities of the Aztec and Inca empires.
And for sporadical rebelions, like Angola, check Tupac Amaru. There were quite a bit in the Americas; everywhere.
You really have no idea about the history of my country. Chile was called the "Flandes of the Indies" because it was in permanent war. Spaniards died easily here than in Europe, and no African resistence can compare to that. Please check the "War of Arauco".
Yeap. Those cultures have more germs that killed Europeans, so resisted better.
Edited by pinguin - 26-May-2009 at 22:23 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Mayra
Janissary
Joined: 15-Jan-2007 Location: Nigeria/Brasil Online Status: Offline Posts: 29 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2009 at 23:18 |
||||||||||||
the sound isnt working on this video but you can see the fort at least.
The history is so strange in Recife in particular. Like a real soap opera, it had the native amerindians going over to the side of the Dutch to go against the Portuguese ( in the very beginning at least), the Jews wanted the Dutch, the dutch were bankrolling the brazil sugarcane plantations and got greedy. There were spies, counterspies, bloody battles. They spread themselves too thin wanting too much of a good thing, but did not know how to run the plantations, could not adapt and deal with the natives, slaves and portugues. I don't remember what year but was in the 1990's, in the old historic district of Recife there was uncovered a jewish bathhouse from the 1600's during a remodel. There were Scotts, French and obviously Dutch who clamored to get a piece of the lucrative sugarcane action in northeast brasil. There is hardly any native Atlantic forest left all along the coast, just small bits and pieces, and inland is even worse where the sugarcane still reigns. Even around waterfalls they cultivated right up to the steepest possible edges. There were two decisive battles that got rid of the dutch finally, the Battle of Guararapes. I have been there on the mountain. There is a church now standing there with a commanding view, it is a very lonely feeling place. The two battles of guararapes are taken as the true beginning of the patriotic brasilian army. It was the pulling together of the amerindians, the africans and the portuguese that routed the Dutch. The Dutch were not occupying further south in Salvador, Bahia, and the portuguese received supplies and weapons from Salvador, going up the coast through a locale called Cabo and upwards to Recife. They passed between two mounts, the monte de Telegrafo, and Morro do Outeiro, and whoever controlled that bottleneck controlled the destiny.
In 19th of april 1648 the Dutch under Von Schkoppe decided to take position on the mounts. Until this time they were fortified in various forts within the city and along the coast. The Portuguese perceived the movement and during a long night march beat the Dutch to the area. Francisco Barreto de menezes commanded the patriot troops. The right flank was protected and headed by the amerindian Felipe Camarao, hidden in the woods. The left flank was protected and headed by the african Henrique Dias, occupying the central part of the Mount of Oittizeiro. In the center Fernandes Vieira had the core white troops on a main corridor, and in reserve was the group of Vidal de Negreiros. The first launch of men was between 200 and 300 who made contact with the Dutch. They lured them further to the mouth of the corridor making them think they were fighting the principal patriot force. The Dutch commander, not knowing the true situation, threw himself against the patriots and sent out his flanks to the mounts to take the patriots. There he encountered the africans of
Henrique Dias. They pushed the Dutch towards the mouth of the corridor where the main regiment were fighting. They became pushed in to space of less than 100 meters, or 300 feet or so. There followed a great confusion when the Dutch realized they were fighting forces ten times bigger than they had thought. Disorganized, the Dutch ran for cover and retreated. The left flank of the Dutch was completely destroyed by the indians of Felipe Camarao. The right flank of the Dutch was getting great resistance from the africans of Henrique Dias. The dutch retreated to recompose forces. Later, with the dutch reserves, Van Der Branden of the right flank advanced again and conquered one mount, and was reorganizing to continue when he receieved word that General Schkoppe was wounded and to remove themselves back to Recife. The Dutch had 1,038 of their men wounded, with 515 dead out of total troop of 4,500 whereas Portugues had 480 of their men wounded out of 2,200 with only 80 dead. A year later at same place occurred the decisive battle where the Dutch were completely destroyed and wasted away inside their citadel forts until 1654 when they finally gave up.
The Dutch in history are not treated so much as invaders, I guess in true brasil style, accomodates, and the feats of Mauricio de Nassau are sung of and proclaimed even during Carnaval. There are many wonderful public works that the Dutch gave to Recife and twin city Olinda. Recife is actually sits below sea level and who better than the Dutch to remedy this? They built a great series of canals and waterways, beautiful bridges to connect the city. Edited by Mayra - 27-May-2009 at 01:19 |
|||||||||||||
|
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
" I have no particular talent. I am merely inquisitive". Albert Einstein |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1962 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2009 at 23:58 |
||||||||||||
Alot less than hundreds of thousands. Your admiration of the amerindians prevents you from viewing this objectively. European casualites in the Americas were very light, especially considering the fact that they conquered two entire continents.
Thanks for the support
 . I think that Africans understood the concept of mobilizing all the recesources of a society for a war of conquest. Almost all amerindinas viewed warfare as a series of raids for goods, honor, revenge etc. This approach was no match for the "total society war" of the Europeans. Then factor in technology (guns, steel, horses) that the amerindians had no exprerience with. 400 Years later, the arabs fought the Israelis "Amerindian style" in 1948. The Israelis fought European style as a total society and the Arabs were crushed. Mayra,
Thank you for the information. I know little of Brazillian history and need to learn more. Edited by Cryptic - 27-May-2009 at 00:24 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2009 at 02:26 |
||||||||||||
Nonsense.
See the link on the War of Arauco,
Read it first and then continue. Before you say that 42.000 Spaniards are so few, you should consider the total population of Chile in the 17th century was less than half a million, and the native population circa 200.000. And that was in Chile alone.
You admiration for black Africans prevent you from viewing this objectively. The fact is blacks were easily dominated and enslaved by the Moors, and then by Europeans. In fact, Iberians preffered Black African slaves instead of Moors (also under theirs dominion) because they knew the second were a lot more rebelious and dangerous people.
There were some couragious African people that I personally admire, like the Masai and the Zulues, but they were more the exception than the rule.
Well, Mapuches adopted European tactics in a couple of years after the initial Spanish crash.
I know little about Brazil as well, but if you ask me about Hispanic America or Amerindian matters, I can help
 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Carcharodon
Baron 
Joined: 04-May-2007 Location: Sweden Online Status: Offline Posts: 486 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2009 at 02:39 |
||||||||||||
Once again, let us not forget the Ethiopians who ousted the Italians. As a matter of fact Ethiopia never became a colony. |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2009 at 03:13 |
||||||||||||
|
We are not talking about Ethiopia in here, a country that has been in contact with Eurasia since 3.000 years ago at least, and that had the same technology of Arabs, Middle Easterns and everybody else.
Yes, the Moors of North Africa and Ethiopians were tough fighters, bet you can compare the Americas with those regions. The comparison was between tropical Africa and the ancient Americas, and somebody suggested ancient Subsaharans were either more couragious or more organized that Amerindians, and that's false, because forget the long struggle for freedom of the Amerindians.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan 
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2009 at 04:29 |
||||||||||||
|
That's not really true. Numerous groups in the Americas comprehended total war. Some even took it further than European societies. Total genocide of the entire enemy population was the standard method of Iroquian warfare, for instance; it's even codified in their oral constitution. Europeans didn't practice this method of warfare, and found it quite terrifying. When Britain fought America in the Revolutionary War and later in the War of 1812, they used the threat of massacre from their Iroquian allies as a potent weapon to strike fear. See, for example, the Siege of Detroit; the city was surrendered without a fight after Brock sent this message: "The force at my disposal authorizes me to require of you the immediate surrender of Fort Detroit. It is far from my intention to join in a war of extermination, but you must be aware, that the numerous body of Indians who have attached themselves to my troops, will be beyond control the moment the contest commences…" As far as percentage of the population that could be mobilized, practically all of the native societies - tribal or urban - could mobilize a greater proportion of their able-bodied men for war. Most tribal groups could mobilize their entire male population for war, and the urban groups, though short of such complete mobilization, could still field massive armies (the Inca, for instance, kept armies of up to 100 000 in the field and supplied during conflicts - by comparison, European armies in the same period generally ranged 20 000 to 40 000). Europe actually didn't develop any notion of mobilizing society as a whole until well after the period of initial colonization. Most warfare in Europe in the 16th century was conducted by elites backed up by large numbers of foreign mercenaries, not citizen-soldiers at all. Natives were not naieve or innocent whatsoever when it came to warfare. And they were generally capable of putting larger percentages of their population under arms than European nations, where only a tiny fraction of the population would be engaged in soldiering. There are different reasons for European victory in every area. When the US expanded west, for instance, clearly they had a big advantage in numbers. But in the 16th century, Europeans were heavily outnumbered; tiny colonies or expeditions of hundreds or a few thousands pitted against tens or hundreds of thousands of enemy combatants. It was under these conditions that Europe established its beachheads in the Americas. As for why they didn't settle in Africa, I don't think it had anything to do with a greater level of resistance, because there just wasn't. Resistance in Africa and the Americas was equally fierce. The Europeans easily prevailed in both cases. The difference was in terms of settlement. Africa wasn't settled for the same reason Europeans didn't want to settle the Amazon basin, they didn't like it there. It was perceived as difficult to farm and the climate was thought to be very unpleasant. Places like Nova Scotia or New England were perceived as having climate very similar to home - if a little better, even. Edited by edgewaters - 27-May-2009 at 04:55 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Omar al Hashim
King 
Suspended Joined: 05-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5697 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2009 at 08:11 |
||||||||||||
European colonisation of India (and their influence in China) has nothing to do with technological superiority and certainly nothing to do with numbers. It had everything to do with organisation and determination. As has been said, disease was a major factor in keeping the Euros out until the 19th century. But also we should think of it from the Europeans point of view, why would you want to go to Africa? It was "old world", was not famous for riches (undeservedly), and wasn't the source of all the spices the Europeans were after. It wasn't until the 19th centuary that the idea of conquoring for conquoring's sake became popular. It was the British and the French that conquored because they could, and then only in the latter periods, not the Spanish and the Portugese.
I'm not sure I like what you are implying here. The 15-17th century African states - especially in places where Europeans were interested in like west Africa - were just as organised and powerful and any European or Asian power. Nigeria-Chad-Sudan, for example, hosted Burno, which was famous for its military power. I'm not saying that there weren't Amerindian powers that didn't hold off the Europeans too. There were, some only fell to modern states after Independence (as I'm sure you know far better than I), but there were more soft targets when the Europeans arrived in America, than there were in Africa. When soft targets did present themselves in Africa, India, or China, there was a colonial power to take advantage of it, but the Europeans generally did not, and could not, take on major powers unassited outside Europe at any stage before the 19th century. Its all about what Europeans believed would earn them the most benefit, what countries were sufficiently disorganised or hated for them to be able to take over, and what countries they could only trade with. There was nothing to interest them in central africa, north of Congo the Empires were too powerful and they could only trade, the Cape was taken and settled. In America, the Aztecs and Incas fell almost too easily, and provided them with so much loot. They had a foot hold and an idea that there was profit to be made by conquoring Indians rather than trading with them. |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Carcharodon
Baron
Joined: 04-May-2007 Location: Sweden Online Status: Offline Posts: 486 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2009 at 10:17 |
||||||||||||
Actually nearly the whole coast of East Africa had been in contact with Eurasia for at least two millenia.
Even Moors finally got colonized, and of course the whole of the Americas got more or less overrun by the invaders. But Ethiopia never became a colony (even if they got themselves occupied in the 1930ties).
Hard to measure courage, one have take into account every situation by itself. And there were more pockets of resistance than just the Zulus in southern Africa.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2009 at 13:55 |
||||||||||||
Nothing that Europeans couldn't destroy in a month.
False. The problem is that Europeans didn't want Africa; they wanted the Americas because its land was better suited for Europeans. That's the hard truth
Europeans wanted to have new lands. The best real state in the world those days; and today as well, were the Americas and Australia. India and China were already crowded, and tropical Africa too hot and unhealthy. Besides, there was the advantage for Europeans to come to a continent with low density of population.
That's why the Europeans invaded the Americas, Australia and South Africa and didn't care about invading tropical Africa, up to the end of the 19th century.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme Joined: 31-Dec-2004 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 1378 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2009 at 17:52 |
||||||||||||
I'm amazed about your ignorance of subsaharan cultures. A quick research in military affairs and political evolution of those cultures will give you some answers to the topic question.
I know very well that war, it was hard but basically because two reasons: very short spanish resource, very uninteresting territory for they; after a while Mapuches could adapt to spanish warfare, but opposite to this example, many african territories were rich and had gold.
I know too that date of deaths (only half due to the war, the other half because other reasons) but allow me to say that is surelly wrong, Chile didn't attract but a tiny fraction of spaniards and between 1550 and 1650 probably no more than 250.000 spaniards traveled to America. It's totally false that was easier to die there than in Europe, the Flanders Wars between 1571 and 1609 costed between 70-80 thousand spaniards, a single disaster in Djerba costed 7000 deaths and the mediterranean front had many more of this.
Yeap. Those cultures have more germs that killed Europeans, so resisted better.
I'll post another example which easily explain what happened in África, in the XV century, portuguese were uncapable of stablish in African coast as the supreme power, because they were defeated by natives several times. They stablished there under the native acquiescence, because they were interested in the trade of european goods directly in the coast and not going trow the Sahara
This is racist comment. They weren't easilly enslaved by moors, they were enslaved basically but the own blacks and not without war, the slave states of Guinean Gulf or in the eastern coast wasn't military powers because of nothing, they need to be very strong to make slaves in other states.
"More the exception than the rule", pure ignorance or biassed comment. Mali-Songhai armies, Fulbe and Mande armies in the western coast, Benin warriors, Kongo warriors, Zimbabwe armies, Masai, Zulú, Kanem Bornu armies... all they and many more were very strong and fierce. Portuguese tried to dominate several kingdoms there, as Zimbabwe, but they couldn't; look the affairs in Kongo and you will see your "destroyed in months" states.
What you don't understand is that africans were so powerful that europeans hadn't the sufficient technological advantage to impose there. In América, europeans could stablish well because a soft initial opposition so the kind of wars of the Mapuches or Apaches was possible. In África, africans didn't allow to europeans a presence of such characteristics, they were always in the edge of the anhilation so it wasn't possible very long wars.
It's difficult to say what empires were better organized, but armies of Ethiopia (which you exclude from the rest of the subsaharan states too much easilly), Niger's empires and several more were more dangerous than those of América. The explanation is simple, iron-steel weaponry, cavalry in sudanese empires, and an approach to warfare more practical and not less blody than the european warfare, in comparation with most of amerindian societies (in a first stage).
False. África had gold which was the more important key factor here, and had large populations and large farming areas, which conquistadors wanted for they dreamed feuds.
But they couldn't because two reasons, illness and military opposition. Edited by Ikki - 27-May-2009 at 18:01 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2009 at 20:12 |
||||||||||||
I know them well.
Don't you see, you aren't informed? It is true my country lacked easy cash. But it is FALSE (with uppercases) the Spaniards weren't interested on it, or lacked armies. The fact is the largest military posts of the Spaniards in the Americas, outside the Caribbean, were here down south, stopping pirates and brits for entering the Pacific.
The War of Arauco wasn't a piece of cake at all.
You aren't informed well, then.
They weren't interested. Immediately after the discovery of gold in the Americas, Zimbabwe and the Guinea Gulf societies were eclipsed.
Those places were plenty of populations, indeed, but the richess your imagine are more in your imagination than in the resources the area displayed.
Portuguese controlled Angola and Mozambique. So, what you are talking about.
It is exactly the same comment you made about N.A.
Look at Mauritaria today. The Moors invaded West Africa and started that evil trade.
How many Portuguese went there? I bet not many.
Wishful thinking. North Africans, of course. West Africans didn't even knew writing or the wheel. They were tribal peoples, no more advanced that more Native Americans, at least that you believe in movies of Eddie Morphy
A single carivan of Boers with old fashionated muskets killed a thousand of Zulues in hours.
Ethiopia is another matter, as I said before.
False. The Americas had a lot more gold and silver than Ghana or Zimbabwe. That's for sure. The only thing that Europeans bought from Africa were slaves, as shows the commerce triangle between the Caribbean, Europe and Africa.
They didn't go to tropical Africa simply because disease and inhuman weather. That's all.
Edited by pinguin - 27-May-2009 at 20:18 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1962 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2009 at 20:14 |
||||||||||||
The issue is a matter of has nothing to do with courage and has everything to do with prior experiences. Tropical or subtropical Africans (Senegal, Guinea) had experience with 15th to 16th century Europeans, their weapons, horses, etc. They were more likely able to cope with these Europeans and this made them a more difficult target. At the end of the day, 300 Europeans were not going to topple an empire in tropical / subtropical Africa.
I dont know about India, but in China, the widening European military technology gap was a big factor and was applied very effectively. The constant theme was that the Chinese military could not stop small numbers of lethally experienced Europeans and their advanced weaponry from forcing more and more trade concessions, opium imports etc. The prestige of the Emperor and of China as a nation then collapsed.
Point well taken. I was applying the raiding warfare of nomadic or semi nomadic plains tribes to all amerindian cultures. There seems to be a link between agriculture and total warfare. I guess with nomads, prisoners (slaves), land, potential settlement oppurtunities etc. do not have the same value concepts with nomads as they do with settled peoples. Perhaps total warfare is therefore less likely to develop with nomadic groups.
Edited by Cryptic - 27-May-2009 at 21:40 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Carcharodon
Baron
Joined: 04-May-2007 Location: Sweden Online Status: Offline Posts: 486 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2009 at 20:39 |
||||||||||||
There are also the matter of logistics, resources, surplus and similar. A larger sedentary farming society can many times wage war for a longer time since they can amass food and other rescources that can can feed the soldiers for a longer time (even if many armies also partly can live on the land). Many smaller societies and nomadic and semi nomadic peoples cannot always muster the material resources for longer campaigns. One can see this in some of the wars between American Natives (both forest peoples in the east and later plain peoples in the west) in North America and the whites (European colonial powers and the US). Many times the Natives had to interrupt campaigns just to go and harvest their crops or go hunting or fishing for subsistence.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12345> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.
