If Africa had become the dominant continent

[Silent Hunter]

If this thread turns the least bit racist, I will not hesitate in asking for it to be locked.

A thought occured to me today about what the world would be like if African nations (say the Bantu-speaking people) had made the major technological leaps that make global empires possible first instead of "the West".

Some initial thoughts:
* Place names would be radically different. America would not be called America, for a start (I'll use the actual names to make discussion easier)
* We would not be having this conversation in English. English would probably be a) radically different and b) a tribal language restricted to Germany.
* Geography would be wildly different. You wouldn't have the colonial mish-mash of countries in Africa, but you'd probably have it in Europe and the Americas.
* Britain would probably be a post-colonial state, consisting entirely of the island of Britain. Ireland would be one unified country.
* There would probably have been a slave trade, this time involving Caucasians. We'd probably be referred to as Caucasian-Carribbeans.
* Jesus wouldn't have been sent to Palestine.

Your thoughts?

[entropy]

Assuming they receive the technology faster than their collective mind can get used to it, it would not be anything good. They would kill each other, kill others, and the "empire" would be very short-lived.

Technological advance isn't something that just happens. It is followed by intellectual/cultural advance.

[sappersgt]

There is a series (three?) of alternative fiction novels that proposed much the same thing. The one I read had the North American continent ruled by a Arab/Mogul upper class and their African allies. There were slaves and indentured servants of European extraction. One interesting part was that "white" slaves were purported to be better suited for working in colder climates and so were valued at a premium by land owners. The technology was set at the dawn of the industrial age with metallic cartridge rifles and early steam engines. Interesting read.

[ArmchairGeneral]

If this thread turns the least bit racist, I will not hesitate in asking for it to be locked.

A thought occured to me today about what the world would be like if African nations (say the Bantu-speaking people) had made the major technological leaps that make global empires possible first instead of "the West".

Some initial thoughts:
* Place names would be radically different. America would not be called America, for a start (I'll use the actual names to make discussion easier)
* We would not be having this conversation in English. English would probably be a) radically different and b) a tribal language restricted to Germany.
* Geography would be wildly different. You wouldn't have the colonial mish-mash of countries in Africa, but you'd probably have it in Europe and the Americas.
* Britain would probably be a post-colonial state, consisting entirely of the island of Britain. Ireland would be one unified country.
* There would probably have been a slave trade, this time involving Caucasians. We'd probably be referred to as Caucasian-Carribbeans.
* Jesus wouldn't have been sent to Palestine.

Your thoughts?

Are you assuming that Europe does not make the technological leaps as well? Seems just as likely that at least part of Europe would be something like the more advanced Asian nations, which have caught up to and even advanced beyond Europe and America in some respects.

English would certainly not be a tribal language restricted to Germany, because if it did not develop in England, it would not be English. Without the Latin and French contributions, it simply wouldn't be English.

It's hard to say what the borders would look like in America, as it was sparsely populated to begin with. If the African imperialists sent in enough colonists to overwhelm the native population, as happened in North America and Australia, then you would probably see reasonably stable African style nation states.

As for Britain, well, Britain already is a post-colonial state, many times over. Great Britain was colonized by the Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Danes, and French. Ireland was colonized by the Celts, English, and Scots. I doubt that there would be a unified Britain, though; the Scottish barbarians would see to that.

There was thriving Caucasian slave trade for most of history, in fact. It's hard to gauge what the slave trade in Africa would look like. If we are assuming at least some similarities between our theoretical techno-Africans and historical Africans, there would likely be a thriving slave trade, Caucasian, African, Arab, whatever. Slavery has long been and still is an integral part of many African societies.

And finally, Jesus would certainly have been sent to Israel. He was Jewish, so he would go where the Jews are. Whether Europe or Africa developed first would have no effect.

[FOG3]

Uh, Egyptian civilization evolved before Greece did. So "African" civilizations did get a jump start on Europe.

Or are you talking about the guys to the south who were still almost stone age by the time Europe had the power to move out and influence the world?

[ArmchairGeneral]

Technological advance isn't something that just happens. It is followed by intellectual/cultural advance.

I would say that it's the other way around: intellectual and cultural advance is followed by technological advance. At least to start out with; they probably reinforce each other as well.

[Kansas Bear]

* Jesus wouldn't have been sent to Palestine.

Jesus wasn't sent to Palestine. He was born in Judea.

[zraver]

It's impossible really, the rivers don't connect the various tribes and trade routes are limited so ideas don't get spread. Even if an Africa invented a revolutionary technology it had very little chance of surviving and being spread.


North Africa and the Eastern Coast both were tied into the ancient trade networks never really fell behind until after Islam stagnated. But the interior, South, and West Africa were cut off from humanity as surely as the America's. They got just enough genetic material from the outside to make themselves disease resistant and thus good new world slaves, but almost none of the technological advances. This genetic trade was also almost entirely one way. West Africa was once known as the white mans graveyard because Europeans had no natural immunity to local diseases and parasites.

[chankya]

Uh, Egyptian civilization evolved before Greece did. So "African" civilizations did get a jump start on Europe.

Or are you talking about the guys to the south who were still almost stone age by the time Europe had the power to move out and influence the world?

And the Numidians and the Carthaginians. It's probably worth asking how the world would have turned out if the Romans had lost the second punic war.

[entropy]

I would say that it's the other way around: intellectual and cultural advance is followed by technological advance. At least to start out with; they probably reinforce each other as well.

You are right. In history, they complement each other. Look at the Renaissance. Scientific discoveries boosted thought evolution, which in it's part boosted science.

And the contrary - Islam today. Stagnation of mind leads to the stagnation of technology.

If you boost the technology artificially without letting the collective mind evolve as well, you will not get anything good. If you try to boost the thought without introducing scientific insight, it will not work because the new thought would have nothing to base itself on.

[entropy]

And the Numidians and the Carthaginians. It's probably worth asking how the world would have turned out if the Romans had lost the second punic war.

Excellent point.

[zraver]

And the Numidians and the Carthaginians. It's probably worth asking how the world would have turned out if the Romans had lost the second punic war.

The Carthaginians where not African but started as a phonetician city state and were heavily Hellenized. Plus the fall of Rome would not have upset the Hellenic nations or disrupted the flourishing Celtic civilizations.

[HKDan]

Have any of you ever read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond? While it is only theory, it does give a pretty believable explanation about how it is the geographic features, natural crops, and animals available for domestication that gave Europe and Asia their great advantage. Basically one of his main points is that the east-west layout of Eurasia allowed easier trade and spread of ideas and technology. The layout and geographical features of Africa and the Americas on the other hand made long distance travel far more difficult. That is one of the many reasons that Africa and the Americas didn't develop at the same pace as Europe and Asia.

[chankya]

The Carthaginians where not African but started as a phonetician city state and were heavily Hellenized. Plus the fall of Rome would not have upset the Hellenic nations or disrupted the flourishing Celtic civilizations.

A couple of points about that. From what I've read the only way for the Carthaginians to get the kind of manpower that could have destroyed Rome was to expand into Africa. In actual fact of course Carthage relied heavily on mercenaries. In this hypothetical Carthage expands into and has a policy towards Africa similiar to the actual roman policay towards the Latin states.

In terms of technology Carthage was on par with Rome on most things. The Gauls ,the Germans or Britons didn't really have much by way of technology. What technology they acquired was acquired when they were incorporated into the Roman Empire after the Punic Wars. Again in the hypothetical the technological advantage would have remained on the African continent and diffused in the same way Roman technology diffused through Europe. (Assuming of course that the Carthaginians didn't advance beyond Iberia.) Europe would then have remained considerably backwards for a long time.

The Hellenic states were IIRC never particularly expansive powers. Macedon was different and I'm not sure how they would have fitted in.

In other words my whole historic twist revolves around the Barcid family doing a 180 degree and advocating colonizing Africa instead of an expanding naval power in the Mediterranean.(After the first Punic War) I know thats a lot of IFs and BUTs but hey we were talking about a hypothetical.

Note on why they needed manpower to beat Rome: Most books I've read emphasize that the Roman way of fighting was unique in that it revolved around the idea of one state being utterly destroyed or atleast completely subjugated and reduced to level where it is no longer a threat. And this in itself was one reason first Pyrrhus and then Hannibal (schooled in the Hellenic way of warfare) were unable to translate their battlefield successes to an successful conclusion of the war. They were both unable to comprehend why the Romans would not negotiate terms after complete battlefield disasters

[Dwarven Pirate]

You are right. In history, they complement each other. Look at the Renaissance. Scientific discoveries boosted thought evolution, which in it's part boosted science.

And the contrary - Islam today. Stagnation of mind leads to the stagnation of technology.

If you boost the technology artificially without letting the collective mind evolve as well, you will not get anything good. If you try to boost the thought without introducing scientific insight, it will not work because the new thought would have nothing to base itself on.

I've been reading recently that some scholars are proposing that the actual Renaissance wasn't all it was cracked up to be and that the things we associate with this period were really going on alot earlier, like the 12th century. Perhaps it took alot of time for behavioral and societal thought to catch up.

EDIT: I meant 11th century.