Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I am no Ghana expert or knowledgeable,(Caribbean is my area), save that if there were plentiful quantities of gold present at the time period in question then Europeans would have invaded to secure this resource. This is the pattern for european investigations of lands away from europe in this period.
Again, countries were not against using military force although in the early era they tended to be joint stock companies working with a degree of government assistance for profit. Profit in the pre-industrial era would be from harvesting natural resources.
The other crops do not compare regarding historical usage to sugar, tobacco or coffee.
The gold of Mali and Ghana was legendary, so much so that the Catalan Atlas shows a picture of Mansa Musa the King of Mali holding gold nugget. I have no doubt that the Europeans very much wanted invade, but the Africans had an insurmountable advantage in the form of diseases. A European attempting to go into the interior of Africa prior to the discovery of various countermeasures to Tropical diseases was effectively committing suicide. West Africa wasn't known as the White Man's Grave for nothing.
Thanks both of you have given me additional reading to do regarding the extent of gold in that region. No it really is interesting why no expedition was mounted if if just for raiding.
Note how gold discoveries worldwide resulted in massive influxes of prospectors.-South Africa, Klondike, California, Black Hills, etc. None to Ashanti land.
Just subsititute precious stones and metals and it still fits.
Thanks both of you have given me additional reading to do regarding the extent of gold in that region. No it really is interesting why no expedition was mounted if if just for raiding.
Note how gold discoveries worldwide resulted in massive influxes of prospectors.-South Africa, Klondike, California, Black Hills, etc. None to Ashanti land.
Just subsititute precious stones and metals and it still fits.
There was an expedition. The Portuguese built the castle fortress of El Mina in 1482 to trade in the region for slaves and gold and other Europeans followed. The area was called the Gold Coast because of the rich gold deposits there. The Europeans just never went inland, because that would have been deadly.
Thanks both of you have given me additional reading to do regarding the extent of gold in that region. No it really is interesting why no expedition was mounted if if just for raiding.
Note how gold discoveries worldwide resulted in massive influxes of prospectors.-South Africa, Klondike, California, Black Hills, etc. None to Ashanti land.
Just subsititute precious stones and metals and it still fits.
Once you check out the texts I linked to, you will find that Iberian Muslims, Jews & Christians; Italians, Turkish speaking Mamluks and others WERE established in both Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa as mercenaries, merchants and slaves. Their level of military technology just was not as advanced to establish political dominance as during the later 19th and 20th centuries.
I'm not doubting that diseases, especially in sub-Sahara, were a contributing factor in the lack of colonization on the scale of the New World.
The texts I have read made a point of emphasizing the martial prowess of the local populations.
Remember outside of the coastal areas of the Maghrib and the Delta of Egypt, the Ottoman Turks had at best nominal authority over the bedouin tribes, even before the majority of them adopted the use of firearms.
It was often the case, the berbers of the desert, the mountains were not able to be subdued until military technology advanced to around the time of WWI.
The Moroccans troops of Tinbuktu were suffered heavy causalities despite their firearms in their contests with certain sub-Saharan and Saharan tribes that were comparatively inferior in terms of military technology.
As was experienced in Vietnam and what my fellow Americans are now experiencing in the mountains of Afghan, sometimes knowledge of the terrain, homefield advantage, and guerrilla tactics can offset the advantages of superior military technology.
I think some of it also had to do with the order established by the Treaty of Tordesillas. The Spanish received the New World, the Portugese received the rest. The Portugese were most interested in finding and dominating a trade route with India that would bypass the Middle East. The Portugese established numerous trade outposts along the African coast and engaged in trade, but their goal was trade, not conquest. The Spanish on the other hand set out with the intent of conquest and conquer they did.
Follow up exploration was directed at finding a northwest passage and trumping the Portugese routes around Africa. The subsequent colonization efforts in the land discovered by those explorations by other nations (primarily France and Britain) were focused on actual settlement as much as they were trade. Settlers from these nations (often escaping persecution) sought out land that was hospitable in both native population and climate. North America's eastern seaboard was perfect for this.
The centuries that followed involved many wars and efforts to control the colonies in the New World. It wasn't until after the Napoleonic Wars and the relative peace of the Victorian Era that Europeans decided to attempt to colonize Africa (truly one of the last frontiers), which was a much more difficult proposition for the myriad reasons listed in the thread than the earlier efforts to colonize the New World.
It was mostly because there was more attractive land in the America's, Siberia and Australia during the "Settler" colony period. It was harder to make money off of colonies in Africa because of disease, climate and strength of the natives. During the early 1900s most of the "easy" frontiers were settled so colonization of Africa began.
As was experienced in Vietnam and what my fellow Americans are now experiencing in the mountains of Afghan, sometimes knowledge of the terrain, homefield advantage, and guerrilla tactics can offset the advantages of superior military technology.
Just some food for thought.
The problem is, is that superior weoponry is not being used by the U.S. Also, this is perhaps the first war, where there is more concern for the lives of native civilians, over the safety of the troops. Thus, the American troops are literally being taught to be trigger shy as well, putting them at even further risk.
Follow up exploration was directed at finding a northwest passage and trumping the Portugese routes around Africa. The subsequent colonization efforts in the land discovered by those explorations by other nations (primarily France and Britain) were focused on actual settlement as much as they were trade. Settlers from these nations (often escaping persecution) sought out land that was hospitable in both native population and climate.
Interesting that you mention this, as at one time in the early modern period (roughly between the 1400s-1800s), the Barbary lands might have received just as much or more British migrants than the New World.
I would also recommend Garcais's text where he mentions European migration (in the millions) as slaves, merchants, converts and mercenaries and one must not also forget the millions of Iberian Muslims and Jews that sought refuge in Barbary from 1492-1620's.
Its amazing that the same forces of slavery, political & religious persecution, and lack of social mobility that drove migration to the New World also occurred in Barbary but there is not as much attention paid to barbary as the New World.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
