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.
I can't remember where but there was an example of a new world population only being able to fight back against colonization after an earlier wave of invaders introduced a diesease that a newer group was not able to fight off and it helped them resis for a bit.
I think it was malaria or typhoid or something might have been about the maroons in jamacia (it was somewhere in the carib.)
The Maroons in Jamaica were of African and Native descent and thus had disease resistance. The Tainos, Arawaks, and Caribs were either exterminated or intermarried with Europeans and Africans to the point that they ceased to exist, or are at least very diminished.
The Maroons in Jamaica were of African and Native descent and thus had disease resistance. The Tainos, Arawaks, and Caribs were either exterminated or intermarried with Europeans and Africans to the point that they ceased to exist, or are at least very diminished.
Na I know that here this is what I meant
Guns Germs And Steel page 194 by J.Diamond Ill quot the whole para for context
"germs did not act solely to Europeans' advantage. While the
New World and Australia did not harbor native epidemic diseases
awaiting Europeans, tropical Asia, Africa, Indonesia, and New Guinea
certainly did. Malaria throughout the tropical Old World, cholera in
tropical Southeast Asia, and yellow fever in tropical Africa were (and still
are) the most notorious of the tropical killers. They posed the most serious
obstacle to European colonization of the tropics, and they explain why the
European colonial partitioning of New Guinea and most of Africa was
not accomplished until nearly 400 years after European partitioning of
the New World began. Furthermore, once malaria and yellow fever did
become transmitted to the Amencas by European ship traffic, they
emerged as the major impediment to colonization of the New World tropics
as well. A familiar example is the role of those two diseases in aborting the
French effort, and nearly aborting the ultimately successful American effort,
to construct the Panama Canal."
Seriously, the Europeans sailed across the ocean in 1492 and colonized the Americas (prior to 1492 actually, if you count the Vikings), but they couldn't colonize the continent directly below them until 400 years later? That doesn't make sense, the only reason I can think of is that the great Ottoman Empire kept them at bay. But seriously, why did it take them so long?
Actually, the Iberians were long embroiled in wars with the Moors, both in Spain itself and North Africa.
In fact Spain and Portugal established their empire, or rather spheres of influence along the coasts and islands of Africa before 1492.
This was done to cut off the Iberian Moors from receiving aid and support from the African Moors.
You are partially correct in that Ottoman support stopped the Christian advance in its tracks.
But it is often overlooked that Morocco, largely through its own initiatives, was able to acquire, adopt and apply its own innovations in the early era of gun powder warfare. The battle of the 3 Kings greatly enhanced Moroccan prestige internationally.
Oh and Bovill is also a good source for the difficulties even early modern armies with guns faced when dealing with peoples well versed in guerilla warfare using poison darts and arrows.
Poor harbors, unfavorable prevailing winds were important in an age of wind driven sail ships.
No material gain-gold, silver, emeralds in New World. Land not suitable for cash crops later-sugar, tobacco as was the NW. Even the forests did not produce quality timber nor extensive offshore cod reserves as in the NW.
Disease and warlike tribes.
Spaniards came in large number only after they found massive mineral wealth-Aztec/Inca empires and needed an apparatus to govern. Other countries came to prey and trade with the Spaniards. Then spun off to their own cash crops and other colonies.
I should also mention the impact made by the discovery of corn and potatoes is not to be understated as well as the cod mentioned.
So, in a way, an european country taking the plunge and colonizing brought others in as well. No european country made an effort at sub-saharan Africa except for coastal enclaves.
Poor harbors, unfavorable prevailing winds were important in an age of wind driven sail ships.
No material gain-gold, silver, emeralds in New World. Land not suitable for cash crops later-sugar, tobacco as was the NW.
I would have to disagree on the no material gain statement.
The Reconquest was just as much about tapping into the African gold trade networks as it was about waging a holy war.
The agricultural potential of Morocco and the rest of Barbary was also a tantalizing factor.
The Sus valley of southern Morocco was transformed by the Saadian dynasty into a hub of international trade by its exports of silver, cotton and other products to non-Iberian European traders.
Plus the Portuguese in particular had a purpose in maintaining its coastal African possessions as it was tied to its ventures in the Indian ocean. The Iberians very much so, had reasons to intervene in local affairs to protect their commercial and military interests in Africa.
I would have to disagree on the no material gain statement.
The Reconquest was just as much about tapping into the African gold trade networks as it was about waging a holy war.
The agricultural potential of Morocco and the rest of Barbary was also a tantalizing factor.
The Sus valley of southern Morocco was transformed by the Saadian dynasty into a hub of international trade by its exports of silver, cotton and other products to non-Iberian European traders.
Plus the Portuguese in particular had a purpose in maintaining its coastal African possessions as it was tied to its ventures in the Indian ocean. The Iberians very much so, had reasons to intervene in local affairs to protect their commercial and military interests in Africa.
All good points but... There really is a distinction between Mediterranean African states and those south of the Great Desert and we are dealing with the period from 1492 thru mid/3rd quarter 1800s.
Other than coastal enclaves there was no European penetration into the interior of subsaharan africa because of the factors mentioned. Even the English had to relinquish their Tangiers enclave as not worth the investment.
Argument still stands I believe as I think we are dealing with the non-Berber/non-Arabic portion of Africa.
All good points but... There really is a distinction between Mediterranean African states and those south of the Great Desert and we are dealing with the period from 1492 thru mid/3rd quarter 1800s.
I realize that distinction has largely been the accepted standard of Western academia, but there are many historians and archaeologists that are challenging that Sahara divide paradigm.
Mcdougall has a great essay on this, Ahmida and Ghislaine Lydon especially, shows the interconnections and relations between Africans within (in actuality, the Tell of the Maghrib along with valley and delta of the Nile are desert oases created by rivers and mountains) and below the Sahara.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C
Other than coastal enclaves there was no European penetration into the interior of subsaharan africa because of the factors mentioned. Even the English had to relinquish their Tangiers enclave as not worth the investment.
I suggest checking out the Newitt text I linked to for European involvement in the African interior even before the 15th century Iberians, though I am in agreement that inland ventures were very dangerous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C
Argument still stands I believe as I think we are dealing with the non-Berber/Arabic portion of Africa.
Well the OP said Africa and I am not in total disagreement with you on the coastal spheres of influence.
That's why I suggest reading Newitt and the other authors I linked to as they show the Portuguese influence was not limited to the coasts and importantly, their coastal African forts were essential stopping points for their trade and military ventures in the Indian Ocean.
I would have to disagree on the no material gain statement.
The Reconquest was just as much about tapping into the African gold trade networks as it was about waging a holy war.
The agricultural potential of Morocco and the rest of Barbary was also a tantalizing factor.
The Sus valley of southern Morocco was transformed by the Saadian dynasty into a hub of international trade by its exports of silver, cotton and other products to non-Iberian European traders.
Plus the Portuguese in particular had a purpose in maintaining its coastal African possessions as it was tied to its ventures in the Indian ocean. The Iberians very much so, had reasons to intervene in local affairs to protect their commercial and military interests in Africa.
I agree about resources there was plentiful gold deposits in Ghana, ivory was another sought after resource, not to mention the best land for vanilla and Cocoa is there.
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.
Seriously, the Europeans sailed across the ocean in 1492 and colonized the Americas (prior to 1492 actually, if you count the Vikings), but they couldn't colonize the continent directly below them until 400 years later?
You're dealing in some huge generalizations there! Portugal began colonizing Africa in the 16th century, for one thing.
The big land grab didn't get started until late in the 1880s, it's true, but there were outposts centuries before then.
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.
