was there any African Empire that could match a Peak Rome Empire?

[LinusLinothorax]

didn't the Greek geographer Strabo say that the Blemmyes were a peaceful people?

Did he? If so then that was way before the stuff which happened between the 3rd and 5th centuries, when Blemmyes were constantly raiding lower nubia and Upper Egypt. They even had a kingdom there for quite a while (From ca. 394 AD-450 AD).

[RedCap123]

Did he? If so then that was way before the stuff which happened between the 3rd and 5th centuries, when Blemmyes were constantly raiding lower nubia and Upper Egypt. They even had a kingdom there for quite a while (From ca. 394 AD-450 AD).

your right, they were eventually wiped out by the Romans in the 5th century....

what exactly was the Blemmyes goal for trying to agitate Rome? seems like a huge risk, for what reward?

edit: they didn't entirely destroy the Blemmyes but alot of their army...Diocletian made a treaty with them eventually

[LinusLinothorax]

your right, they were eventually wiped out by the Romans in the 5th century....

Actually that was done by the Nobadians under king Silko, who conquered the Blemmye capital Kalabsha.

what exactly was the Blemmyes goal for trying to agitate Rome? seems like a huge risk, for what reward?

Well, Blemmyes are desert nomads, they don't have to fear counter expeditions with tens of thousands of well equipped legionaries. You can't counteract against them, you can simply defend. And during the time they created an own kingdom in Egypt (Eastern) Rome really was busy with other things, like surviving the migration period.

[RedCap123]

Actually that was done by the Nobadians under king Silko, who conquered the Blemmye capital Kalabsha.


Well, Blemmyes are desert nomads, they don't have to fear counter expeditions with tens of thousands of well equipped legionaries. You can't counteract against them, you can simply defend. And during the time they created an own kingdom in Egypt (Eastern) Rome really was busy with other things, like surviving the migration period.

they just didn't have the weaponry and techology on the level to match rome...i mean the books Guns, Germs and Steel explains why Euroasian societies were able to develop and not Africa... It was all about Geography

I was debating an Afrocentrist guy about this a while back, and he was calling me a "racist, eurocentric" when i was just trying to explain the reality of the situation of the role of geography and development

I know that your focus is Kushites and Nubians, Linus but I would like to congratulate for giving an honest and objective answers to these questions

[LinusLinothorax]

they just didn't have the weaponry and techology on the level to match rome...i mean the books Guns, Germs and Steel explains why Euroasian societies were able to develop and not Africa... It was all about Geography

Well, now you sound like there were no advanced cultures in SS-Africa at all. There were, and quite a ton of them. The only thing that was really affected by geography / climate was the fact that Central Africans couldnt keep cattle and horses (tsetse fly) aswell as the fact that the Sahara slowed down the spread of technological innovations, though the latter factor shouldn't be overestimated.

I was debating an Afrocentrist guy about this a while back, and he was calling me a "racist, eurocentric" when i was just trying to explain the reality of the situation of the role of geography and development

Assuming that this guy is from Historum, do talk you about MansaMusa or that Hannibal guy?

I know that your focus is Kushites and Nubians, Linus but I would like to congratulate for giving an honest and objective answers to these questions

Thank you, though a congratulation is not really necessary. All I do, or atleast try, are objective historical studies, doesn't matter if Afro- or Eurocentrists like them and their results or not.

[RedCap123]

Well, now you sound like there were no advanced cultures in SS-Africa at all. There were, and quite a ton of them. The only thing that was really affected by geography / climate was the fact that Central Africans couldnt keep cattle and horses (tsetse fly) aswell as the fact that the Sahara slowed down the spread of technological innovations, though the latter factor shouldn't be overestimated.


Assuming that this guy is from Historum, do talk you about MansaMusa or that Hannibal guy?


Thank you, though a congratulation is not really necessary. All I do, or atleast try, are objective historical studies, doesn't matter if Afro- or Eurocentrists like them and their results or not.

those are the best historians..to be as objective as possible


you don't want to be like Edward Gibbon...hehe

[Cyclops]

Firstly this looks a but like an X vs Y thread so I imagine closure is imminent.

Classical Rome defeated the only significant African powers of its time, Carthage and the Ptolemaic kingdom.

The first was a ding dong struggle that should have been a gradual grind in Rome's favour (because of their enormous manpower base and inclusive political system) but was protracted in the second Punic war by the genius of Hannibal.

The Carthaginians had almost the exact same technology, both states having taken advantage of the delightful Hellenic culture on offer but retaining their own local flavour as well. In the process of these wars Rome definitively evolved from a regional state into an Empire, instituting propraetors to rule the newly created provinces of Corsica and Sardinia, stolen shortly after the first Punic war.

The Ptolemaioi were overawed by the rash of Roman dictators that flourished like toadstools at the diseased end of the republic (now truly an Empire with a developed provincial system). Kleopatra by dint of charm and sophistication protracted the process but ultimately it would have been a shorter war than the Punic ones had it been necessary: in the event Ptolemaic leadership crumbled and the state fell into roman hands like an over-ripe peach.

From a cultural and technological standpoint the Ptolemaioi were streets ahead of the Romans, being at the forefront of Hellenistic civilisation with lighthouses and enormous theatrical penises for their religious parades (something the Romans never came close to).

Neither of these Empires is essentially a "native African" one, and owed their cultural equality or superiority to contacts across the wider Mediterranean world.

Since we seem to have gotten away with X vs Y and deviated from OP by discussing Renaissance Ethiopia I'll go full spacebats and say the late Mamelukes would have chewed up the Romans like billy-o. The Mameluke forces by 1450 fielded cannon (sure to rock the steadiest legionary) and truly elite cavalry (something that often gave the Romans problems in the east) base don an exceptionally fertile province with a dedicated system to support the military elite.

[saxdude]

they just didn't have the weaponry and techology on the level to match rome...i mean the books Guns, Germs and Steel explains why Euroasian societies were able to develop and not Africa... It was all about Geography







you don't want to be like Edward Gibbon...hehe

I don't want to derail the thread but I would really, really, advise to take Jared Diamond with a gigantic grain of salt, at least with regards to the Americas. The guy has a very clear bias for geographic determinism, willfully ignoring key cultural, economic, and societal (among others) traits, whilst massively overstating technological, biological (especially evident in regards to the conquest of the new world) and geographical (to a varying degree) data for the development and collapse of civilizations.
His statements on Mesoamerica and the Andes are lacking to the point of being quite misleading. And from what I gather of critiques on subjects that he's written of (that I admittedly don't know quite as much about), he really does carry that bias around.

But I don't know much about Africa to argue one way or another, just feel you should read the guy super carefully.

[RedCap123]

Linus, could Aksum win a defensive war against Rome at least?

[sumskilz]

I don't want to derail the thread but I would really, really, advise to take Jared Diamond with a gigantic grain of salt, at least with regards to the Americas. The guy has a very clear bias for geographic determinism, willfully ignoring key cultural, economic, and societal (among others) traits, whilst massively overstating technological, biological (especially evident in regards to the conquest of the new world) and geographical (to a varying degree) data for the development and collapse of civilizations.
His statements on Mesoamerica and the Andes are lacking to the point of being quite misleading. And from what I gather of critiques on subjects that he's written of (that I admittedly don't know quite as much about), he really does carry that bias around.

But I don't know much about Africa to argue one way or another, just feel you should read the guy super carefully.

I was going to say the same thing, but didn't for the same reason you had reservations about doing so. I think some of his ideas are dead on, for example it was easier for technology, crops, and livestock to be transferred along the east-west axis of North African/Europe to East Asia (and vice versa) than along most north-south axes. Other things he was completely wrong about. Counter to what he claimed, both zebras and African elephants can be tamed in one generation well enough to ride and pull things. The former could have been selectively bred from there while the latter could have been used exactly as they were in South Asia, in fact they were since the British imported mahouts from South Asia to do just that. In any case, Diamond has added a lot of interesting ideas to the conversation, but yeah, take his work with a grain of salt.

[RedCap123]

Now that I think about it....Aksum doesn't really stand a chance for the simple fact of the extreme size difference between Rome


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires (don't know how accurate this is)
Rome is the 25th largest empire vs. Aksum which is like the 130th or something

size difference, bigger population, more resources...Aksum doesn't really stand a chance

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Aksum allied with the Romans to invade Himyar in the 6th century. The Romans wanted Arabia Felix (which they got but Himyar revolted and then the Sassanids kicked them all out and took it. The fight for Arabia Felix had a lot of influence on the rise of Islam.)

[RedCap123]

Aksum allied with the Romans to invade Himyar in the 6th century. The Romans wanted Arabia Felix (which they got but Himyar revolted and then the Sassanids kicked them all out and took it. The fight for Arabia Felix had a lot of influence on the rise of Islam.)

wait did Rome and Aksum lose to Himyar?

[saxdude]

I was going to say the same thing, but didn't for the same reason you had reservations about doing so. I think some of his ideas are dead on, for example it was easier for technology, crops, and livestock to be transferred along the east-west axis of North African/Europe to East Asia (and vice versa) than along most north-south axes. Other things he was completely wrong about. Counter to what he claimed, both zebras and African elephants can be tamed in one generation well enough to ride and pull things. The former could have been selectively bred from there while the latter could have been used exactly as they were in South Asia, in fact they were since the British imported mahouts from South Asia to do just that. In any case, Diamond has added a lot of interesting ideas to the conversation, but yeah, take his work with a grain of salt.

There is some merit to the geographical limitations provided in human cultural expansion, I did find his arguments for the transferring of domesticated livestock and crops along geographical pathways to be very convincing, or at the very least hard to refute. And it does work to explain one of the reasons why the use of the Llama didn't extend beyond the Andes, so I wont go as far as other I've heard to outright dismiss everything he says as fiction, and warrants more indepth reading. However a lot of his ideas whilst interesting, have sadly become pop culture memes that I have even indulged in myself at one point. A pristine, unvaccinated america, intoxicated by the livestock induced plagues of the oldworld is a pervasive idea for example, but ultimatly fails when placed under scrutiny. Archaeological and osteological evidence point more and more to local plagues and weakened inmunological systems, induced and exaberated by the harsh pressures of european colonialism, as the main culprit of native american population drops.

So yeah, you can't really take Diamond as gospel as a lot of people like to do lately, especially since he's been preaching it hard.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

wait did Rome and Aksum lose to Himyar?

No. Aksum conquered as far as Medina and Mecca, but Himyar revolted and the Sassanids sent a smal fleet with 600 Elitetroops who kicked the Aksumites out. Byzanz only gave logistic support in setting up troop-transport across the read sea.

Findings of Aksumite Artifacts in the hometown of Mohamed gave fuel to the thesis that Mohamed could have been a Christian or Jew before inventing Islam.

[LinusLinothorax]

No. Aksum conquered as far as Medina and Mecca,

Actually, the Aksumite campaign against Mecca is just a legendary Muslim tale which cant be taken for full.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Actually, the Aksumite campaign against Mecca is just a legendary Muslim tale which cant be taken for full.

This thought might be true and believed by scholars for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Elephant

I just found a english summary of an article i read a while ago in "The Spiegel" who inspired me to make my statements in this thread:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-874048.html

Although i have read a bit more in that regard recently. There are for example Aksumite artifacts found near Mecca, although the find situation is not perfectly documented since Saudi Arabia has for obvious reason no interest in such discoveries. After all there was no history before the rise of islam...

[RedCap123]

This thought might be true and believed by scholars for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Elephant

I just found a english summary of an article i read a while ago in "The Spiegel" who inspired me to make my statements in this thread:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-874048.html

Although i have read a bit more in that regard recently. There are for example Aksumite artifacts found near Mecca, although the find situation is not perfectly documented since Saudi Arabia has for obvious reason no interest in such discoveries. After all there was no history before the rise of islam...

Why would Rome help out Aksum during all of this, what do they have to gain?

[athanaric]

Why would Rome help out Aksum during all of this, what do they have to gain?

Control over trade routes to India, and access to incense and potentially other natural resources from Arabia itself.

[Roma_Victrix]

While Rome would defeat Kush in any prolonged, sustained war...Roma_ Victrix what do you think of Linus' thesis that Kush might of had skirmish supremacy and more skilled soldiers on an individual basis?

Sorry that I didn't get back to you on this, but I think this has been sufficiently answered so far. Aside from the throwing of pila, the Romans famously lacked proper skirmishers among their citizen soldiery and legionaries. That's why they were keen to recruit auxiliary skirmishers from among allied foreign peoples and states, in addition to most of their cavalry. The natives of Sudan and Ethiopia, on the other hand, would have no doubt had more experience with a bow than your average Roman (in fact, your average Roman would have most likely had no experience with a bow, perhaps only with a sling). The same can be said for the natives of Syria and the Levant at the time.