Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Conquistadors in Africa

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Conquistadors in Africa
    Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 15:56

Just a thought. I've always wondered why the Spanish never invaded sub-saharan Africa.

The invaded North Africa, planned to capture Jerusalem. When they went to the far east, they sized up Japan, but thought to tough a nut to crack. The Portuguese grabbed small areas of China, Malaysia and India. The Spanish took the Philipines and of course the new world. Wherever it was possible, they invaded.

So how come not sub-saharan africa. It had gold, precious stones, slaves. Was it too tough, when meso-america wasn't? Any thoughts.....

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Frederick Roger View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jan-2005
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 658
  Quote Frederick Roger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 18:09
Sub-Saharan Africa was already under Portuguese influence when the Castillans and later Spanish began their colonization projects.  

Edited by Frederick Roger
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
  Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 18:48
The Spanish grabed an area near the equator.
Initialy the climate was unfavourable to Europeans, plus Malaria was rampant.
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 20:27

What about the famous pact between the Spanish and the Portuguese where they divided the world into spheres of influence? I believe it is the treaty of Cateau Cambrsis in 1559, which was sanctioned by a papal bull, though I could be wrong.

The Spanish were not supposed to interfere with the Portuguese in Africa, India and Brazil, and the Portuguese were not supposed to interfere with Spanish posessions in the Americas beyond a certain longitude. 

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 22:58

I think the battle of Alcazarquivir in 1578 ended any colonial aspirations the Portuguese, and possibly the Spanish, in Africa.  The Portuguese king, Sebastian, was killed in battle and nearly all of his 80,000 man army was killed or captured and sold into slavery.  Most of the Portuguese (and some Spanish) nobility were wiped out.  There is documentation in the primary source material of the king's pages having to pour water down into his armor because he was literally frying inside the steel suit, from the Morroccan sun!

Similarly, Charles V's African possessions on the Algerian and Morroccan coastline were systematically dismantled by the Ottoman navy and African corsairs.

Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 23:10
Yes, but the discussion here is about sub-saharan Africa. A defeat in Morocco for the Portuguese wouldn't necessarily be fatal to Spanish colonial aspirations in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially given the relatively large Spanish fleet existing before the Armada debacle.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 23:26

Originally posted by Decebal

Yes, but the discussion here is about sub-saharan Africa. A defeat in Morocco for the Portuguese wouldn't necessarily be fatal to Spanish colonial aspirations in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially given the relatively large Spanish fleet existing before the Armada debacle.

You are probably right, but Sebastian's defeat at Alcazarquivir put a check on Portuguese colonization in the world as a whole, at least for a few decades.  Most of the kingdom's military talent and young adult male population were slaughtered in the battle.  They needed military power to sustain and protect the colonies.

Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 10:04

Again, the discussion here is about the Spanish expansion in Africa, or lack thereof, and not about the Portuguese. I do think that the battle does play a role though, albeit indirect, as such:

1. Spain and Portugal conclude treaty in 1559, by virtue of which Spain agrees not to interfere with the Portuguese in Africa, hence not to colonize Africa.
2. Portugal loses battle, and sovereign, in Morrocco in 1578; As a result, they get swallowed up by Spain, after dynastic disputes. Spain is now free to colonize Africa.
3. 1588: Spain loses the "Invincible Armada". They now lack enough ships for maintaing the relations with their important American colonies and pursuing a colonizing policy in Africa at the same time. As a result, they concentrate on their existing colonies in the Americas and leave Africa to the English, French and Dutch.

Spain therefore only had a small window of 10 years to freely pursue a colonizing policy in Africa

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 11:03
 But how about between 1500 and 1559
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 12:54

The spanish were not exactly a great naval power, or very rich; that came right after this period. Between 1500-1559, they had more than their hands full with the Americas. conquering the Mexica and the Inca, as well as the other minor civilizations. By contrast, Africa did not offer easy and rich conquests.

The Spanish possesions in Africa were acquired as follows: Rio Muni and Fernao da Po: acquired from the Portuguese in 1778. West Sahara: acquired as a protectorate in 1884. Canary islands conquered in 1495. Ceuta captured in 1415. So basically, the spanish posessions were either acquired just before their conquest of the Americas and becoming a great power, or at the time when they were a waning power, in the 18th and 19th centuries

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 14:14
Originally posted by Decebal

By contrast, Africa did not offer easy and rich conquests.

Canary islands conquered in 1495. Ceuta captured in 1415. So basically, the spanish posessions were either acquired just before their conquest of the Americas and becoming a great power,

So what exactly made Africa such a tough conquest, compared to other places where they were successful.

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
  Quote Laelius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 16:49
Well I suppose the more fractured nature of the African continent prevented the conquests seen in the America's.  They couldn't simply turn the indigenous tribes against their cruel local overlord as was the case with the Incans and Aztecs.
Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
  Quote Laelius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 16:50
Oh also their greatest weapon, the handshake and sneeze, was inneffective in Africa.
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
  Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 17:30
Equatorial Guniea was Spanish, when did they pinch that one?
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jun-2005 at 00:21
Equatorial Guinea was actually the portuguese colonies of Rio Muni and Fernao da Po, acquired in 1778.

West Africa, except for the interior valley of the Niger Valley, had dificult terrain, lots of disease and small kingdoms without a lot of wealth. East Africa was more accessible, and with more wealthy and attractive targets, especially on the Swahili coast, but it was further and the Portuguese had already gotten most of the spoils by 1580. The Spanish also didn't have much of a technological advantage in East Africa, since the Arabs brought fireamrs quite early in the region.
The biggest probably thing was the disease prevalent in Africa, as opposed to the disease that the Spanish brought over to the Americas. See the Portuguese failed invasion of the gold-rich Monomotapa kingdom in today Mozambique.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Berosus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 17-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 153
  Quote Berosus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jun-2005 at 13:10
You all forgot about the Treaty of Tordesillas, signed in 1494.  That's the one that divided the world between Spain and Portugal.  The dividing line, put at longitude 45 west, gave most of the New World to Spain, and Brazil to Portugal.  All of Africa and all of Asia west of New Guinea were on the Portuguese side of the line, too.

As for the 1559 date, by that time the French were exploring Canada, since they felt it was unfair to let the whole non-European world go to the two Iberian powers.  I suppose by that time Spain wouldn't have been very interested in keeping the 1494 treaty, either.  The reason why they stayed out of Africa is that by then they were bringing home the gold and silver of the Americas, and both Spain and Portugal had discovered new opportunities in Asia.  Compared to that, Africa wasn't worth the trouble.  Cywr pointed out the problem with diseases; the English called West Africa "the white man's grave" until they found a cure for malaria in 1847.  In addition, the African kingdoms were advanced enough and strong enough to defend themselves at this stage, as we saw with the 1578 battle.  The result of all this was that Africa was conquered last by the Europeans, though it had been explored first.
Nothing truly great is achieved through moderation.--Prof. M.A.R. Barker
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jun-2005 at 15:44

Berosus, my mistake: that's the treay that I was referring to. I had forgotten the name of the treaty, only remembering what it stipulated and I did a quick search on the web, coming up with the treaty of 1559. It still doesn't change my conclusion much, I don't think.

By the way, the 1578 battle was between the Portuguese and the Morrocans: an islamic power which cannot be compared to a state from Sub-Saharan Africa at the time, being almost equivalent in technology with the Europeans.

And certain parts of Africa were worth the trouble. The empire of Songhay had fabulous riches in gold, which prompted the Moroccans to invade it in 1680. The Swahili city-states - Kilwa, Zanzibar, etc. on the coasts of Kenya, Tanzania and Somalia were quite wealthy as result of a 1000 year long trade with India, the Middle East and China. The Portuguese were the ones to conquer them in the early 1500's.

Besides, European interests were usually monetary and commercial anyway. The primary commodity to be obtained from Africa in Renaissance and Enlightenment times was slaves.  It was much more efficient and cost-effective to let local African states go out and raid the interior for slaves, rather than for Europeans to do the job themselves.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Degredado View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 366
  Quote Degredado Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 15:09

Originally posted by Decebal

The Spanish possesions in Africa were acquired as follows: Rio Muni and Fernao da Po: acquired from the Portuguese in 1778. West Sahara: acquired as a protectorate in 1884. Canary islands conquered in 1495. Ceuta captured in 1415. So basically, the spanish posessions were either acquired just before their conquest of the Americas and becoming a great power, or at the time when they were a waning power, in the 18th and 19th centuries

Are you saying that it was the Spanish who conquered Ceuta in 1415? 

Vou votar nas putas. Estou farto de votar nos filhos delas
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
  Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 15:41
Portugal.
The Canaries were initialy Portugese, but the pope made them give it to Spain.
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 21:02
Sorry Degredado, didn't mean to offend your Portuguese sensibilities. Portugal conquered Ceuta, and Spain kept it after the end of the dynastic union in 1640.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.