Couldn't the Mali or Ethiopians buy horses and cows and what not from Arab merchants?
Or why couldn't they domestic the local fauna? Like Zebras, Rhinos, Hippos etc.
Guns, Germs and Steel advanced the theory that the number one reason Africa did not form societies on par with Europe and Asia is because the incidence and resilence of highly contagious diseases would kill off any population that grew too large. European and Asian cities up until fairly recently in history were fucking disgusting cesspools of filth, constantly frothing over with plague. In Africa the diseases are/were so hostile that keeping that many people alive in one place for long enough was impossible.
But only after reintroduction by European settlers. The first case of Amerindians actually riding horses was when the Spanish started giving them to Aztecs in the 16th century and they were adopted by North American tribes somewhat later. They were previously present on the continent but went extinct like 15,000 years ago. I can't remember the exact reason I was taught but Wikipedia says they died either due to Climate Change or overexploitation by humans.Apache, and Comanche were exclusively horse centric tribes.
You're not wrong about the tribal squabbles of negroes, but regarding England: it's easy to say this in hindsight because the Anglos genocided all of the people who weren't on board with being their subjects.Racism, Not the racism of white outsiders but Africa's own racism and crab mentality. Take a look at the ethnicities of some African countries Nigeria alone has about 250 recognized ethnic groups most tracing their lineage to prehistory. Not only is there conflict between ethnic groups but whenever there's a problem in the country people don't rally for the country but around their own ethnic groups.
Imagine if England constantly had squabbles and uprisings from the multitude of Celtic groups, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Normans, etc. They'd never have amounted to shit.
The Sahel kingdoms and tribes in those areas have strong horse cultures and had fairly well-developed societies (for Muslims at least). The Hausa, Fulani, Borno, etc. were centralized kingdoms with good cavalry. Hell, the Sudan kicked British and Egyptian ass for 13 years before they were defeated.Like i said in another post, why couldn't the Mali or Ethiopians just buy them from Arab merchants?
Only the celtic leadership and soldiers, the majority of civilians were just assimilated or moved east. There's plenty of cultural and genetic evidence that suggests the Anglo Saxon "invasion" was a lot less bloody than historians used to think.You're not wrong about the tribal squabbles of negroes, but regarding England: it's easy to say this in hindsight because the Anglos genocided all of the people who weren't on board with being their subjects.
That's a pretty weak statement. What even is the point of the word "directly"?Melanin concentration may directly correlate with aggression
So what reason was there for Africans for not developing advanced influential civillisations?
Humans are resilient?I think it's the wrong question.
History is filled with extinct species and people. The better question is, why didn't africans go extinct like other people and species? Why do they thrive without influential civilisation? Why was the subjugation of the americas so much more succesful than that of africa?