There were no mansa in igboland, so who where the Igbos reporting to?
You real life have a cartoon idea of Africa, you can't fathom that life developed different from how Europeans developed. You take these European style hierarchies and just draw false links between groups and rulers.
And you almost get the point, a chief is closer to a nobleman, but in his village they look at him like a "mayor/king", can't say king because they weren't always ordained. They usually just worked their way to that position.
Those are the guys you were calling kings, in majority of west Africa.
First of all the Igbo people were a forest belt people that lived no where near Mali or Mande people. From what I have been able to gather the Igbo had a Kingdom called Nri, however from what I have also been able to determine they were not a unified kingdom. So they clearly had a king. I don't know what they called their king, but that is something for you to ask them.
Second of all your supposed knowledge of Africa is straight up comical. At first I thought that you were trolling, but the more that you posted the more that I realized that you really don't know anything about West African people and their empires. The fact that you don't know that a Chief is not a King is just all levels of stupid. I have never known anyone to confuse a chief with a King and Africans definitely would have never confused the two, because that shyt would have been a death sentence for a Chief and possible enslavement for his people; if a King thought that the Chief was undermining the Kingdom. Are you unaware that Kings in West Africa had massive standing armies?
The Kings of England, France, Spain, Portugal, etc., were broke before they started engaging in trade with the Africans. They didn't have any power. So they didn't invade any African countries until over 400 years after they began trade with them.
Africa was not fragmented politically, religiously or socially. The problem with Africa is that it developed a trade imbalance with the Europeans, because the Africans coveted European goods over the goods that Africans produced/made. It was that trade imbalance and greed for European goods that caused Africans to start trading people for European goods, which was the beginning of the destruction of Africa. The trade in people caused massive wars, which weakened kingdoms. Not only did soldiers die and vast tracts of lands were vacated due to wars; but trade ceased and empires to lose their ability to tax. That was the beginning of the end of African societies. Meanwhile Europeans grew stronger due to the products that their purchased of Africans produced and eventually the Europeans invaded the rest of Africa and enslaved the Africans left on the continent.
I am a "Nigerian", I'm just telling how it really is.
The idea of how you think African society worked is not how it worked in reality.
People for the most part don't devolve, so look at the way they're living now and chance are that's how they were living 500 years ago if not worse(probably worse). If they don't exist anymore then they weren't very good at living.
easily conquer?
The colonization of territory in Africa was CENTURIES in the making, and was facilitated by the wealth and technological advances made possible because of the trans. slave trade.
These euro countries are johnny come latelys in the history of the world, and weren't shyt before 1500.
Europe was also fragmented in previous centuries, and "came together" because of the Roman Catholic Church.
People shouldn't be offended, some Europeans were primitive too, some Asians were still living relatively primitive at that point too.
In the 1500-1600s, Europe and Russia still had indigenous hunter-gatherer groups, even after large scale empires established through military conquest.
Why is it hard to believe that West africa had them in a larger amounts without large scale borders and social homogeneity?
I already said you have a a range of societies that existed in West Africa, but people in here are trying to take relatively small examples and say all of West Africa was like that.
I can say I was descended from bushmen, because I'm not ashamed of my history. Hell I take pride in it, because even if they were bushmen, they prospered and thrived enough for me to exist to this day. I don't have to pretend that my ancestors acted like Europeans for me to feel better about myself.
Look at this map, see all the space not covered by an empire? People and societies still existed in those spaces, untouched by the influence of those larger empires.
Even in the spaces covered by empires, people existed outside of the influence and control of those empires.
Now we're going to pretend that there wasn't a clear cut societal and tech advantage when the Europeans landed in Africa?
Some we're.
People shouldn't be offended, some Europeans were primitive too, some Asians were still living relatively primitive at that point too.
In the 1500-1600s, Europe and Russia still had indigenous hunter-gatherer groups, even after large scale empires established through military conquest.
Why is it hard to believe that West africa had them in a larger amounts without large scale borders and social homogeneity?
I already said you have a a range of societies that existed in West Africa, but people in here are trying to take relatively small examples and say all of West Africa was like that.
I can say I was descended from bushmen, because I'm not ashamed of my history. Hell I take pride in it, because even if they were bushmen, they prospered and thrived enough for me to exist to this day. I don't have to pretend that my ancestors acted like Europeans for me to feel better about myself.
In west Africa, even people who lived in rural villages are were still agricultural and not hunter gatherers. The only hunter gatherers in Africa are in the southern regions.
nikkas schooled u in here already but if u wanna be a bushman then have at it breh.
I’m Akan and we had one of the most formidable players Empires along the cost of west Africa.
In west Africa, even people who lived in rural villages are were still agricultural and not hunter gatherers. The only hunter gatherers in Africa are in the southern regions.
nikkas schooled u in here already but if u wanna be a bushman then have at it breh.
I’m Akan and we had one of the most formidable players Empires along the cost of west Africa.
First thing not every group in West Africa could farm, not every group had access to usable farmland.
That's one of the main reason why in Igbo mythology, the ability to farm is so deified. Because all groups of people weren't able to do it. And it was seen as a major development/gift that allowed us to prosper over other groups.
You guys are trying to paint a homogenized view of pre-colonial West Africa, when there were hundreds of different groups of people that simultaneously existed in different tiers of societal development.
Native Americans still had hunter-gatherers in the 1500s, Europe had hunter-gatherers in the 1500s, Asia had hunter gatherers in the 1500s, but the idea that West Africa also had hunter-gatherers bothers you guys so much.
Yes, there were agriculture based societies and cultures, but they weren't everybody, they weren't even the majority.
stop getting your self-esteem from a fantasy of what Africa was like "before the white people came".
Majority of West Africa were hunter-gatherers, like I said, sometimes unified/assimilated into larger empires, regional governments.
But West Africa was always fragmented politically and socially, two groups that lived 5 miles from each-other could have nothing in common.
Even the empires routinely mentioned by people like you, were rooted in religious/spiritual power/relevance, not actual government structure.
Or they were rooted in economic power because they controlled trade routes, but they weren't "empires" in the Western sense.
You probably believe West Africa had "kings" and royalty too.
I've already said on here before, the problem is you guys try to apply European ideas to African societies all while being "Pan-African",
reading books that are third-hand sources based on second-hand European sources.
First thing not every group in West Africa could farm, not every group had access to usable farmland.
That's one of the main reason why in Igbo mythology, the ability to farm is so deified. Because all groups of people weren't able to do it. And it was seen as a major development/gift that allowed us to prosper over other groups.
You guys are trying to paint a homogenized view of pre-colonial West Africa, when there were hundreds of different groups of people that simultaneously existed in different tiers of societal development.
Native Americans still had hunter-gatherers in the 1500s, Europe had hunter-gatherers in the 1500s, Asia had hunter gatherers in the 1500s, but the idea that West Africa also had hunter-gatherers bothers you guys so much.
Yes, there were agriculture based societies and cultures, but they weren't everybody, they weren't even the majority.
Well for my region the Portuguese were the first to arrived in the early 1400s, but they were just interested in trade and slavery versus colonial conquest. Soon other European slave traders arrived.
The British Royal Empire arrived in the 1700s and by 1807 had enough power in the region (what is now Nigeria) to attempt to wholesale ban slavery. The Igbos were the last major holdouts as far as British influence and even then, once the British decided they wanted Igboland too, they were able to remove the then powerful Arochukwu Confederacy from power in less than 5 years and assimilate majority of remaining Igbo leadership into colonialism.
Do you know what an ibibio or an ijaw is? Not after googling,off the top of your head. What about the Annang?
There are thousands of groups scattered through west Africa that you guys don't even know exist til this day even with the advent of the internet.
Most of you guys knowledge of Africa comes from Europeans, that only peacefully interacted with the most developed societies in Africa.
Majority of indigenous west Africa people didn't have writing system to record the fact that the neighboring people were still hunter-gatherers, and I don't think they were as interested in that information as we currently are to even want to record it.
But we do have word of mouth knowledge and stories that were passed down from generation to generation that allowed us to know our history and the history of our area.
Farming was not the norm of the land in majority of those stories, it was seen as mythical... That's how novel it was, it was so rare people had to make up mythology on why we were able to do it. And we weren't a small group of people, we were one of the most populous groups in West Africa.
You guys are the types to go to Nigeria and try and tell the 100 year old elder how his region was 200 years ago based on what the Europeans recorded, and when he tells you what they recorded was wrong, you ask him to provide you proof.
Even the empires routinely mentioned by people like you, were rooted in religious/spiritual power/relevance, not actual government structure.
Or they were rooted in economic power because they controlled trade routes
So, by your own admission, they had religious, economic and military power... Now, you're saying they didn't have any.
You're contradicting yourself yet again.
I'm the oga village/compound he was like a king, but only in that area. He could go 20-30 miles to the west and nobody would know who he is. That's what mean when I compared him to a mayor, the area he has influence over. Versus kings in Europe who controlled entire countries through hierarchy and military might.
Monaco is ~2 sq km (that's 0.780 sq mi) and has 38,682 inhabitants. Is Monaco not a principality? Is the Prince of Monaco not a prince?
Given the fact that a multitude of European kingdoms were smaller in size and in men than African kingdoms & empires, can you still justify that African rulers of these kingdoms were not kings?
In 1312, it is estimated that the Mali Empire was as large as 500,000 sq mi.
At approximately the same time, Mansa Abu Akari Keira II left the empire commanding some 2,000 ships equipped with both oars and sails.
Two centuries later, in 1500, the Songhai Empire: 540,000 sq mi.
France today (and no French king had the control of France as we know it) is 248,573 sq mi.
At the beginning of the 1500s, the King of Jolof had a company of 8 000 to 10 000 mounted men.
Don't these African rulers meet your criteria of "area one rules over"?
Do you realize that you're constantly moving the goalposts? First it's: their power being religiously rooted prevent them from being kings, then you say a king really is just the richest and most powerful politically, now it's about the area one rules over... And everytime, African Kings and Emperors meet the criterias you set and change to knock them down
You guys are the types to go to Nigeria and try and tell the 100 year old elder how his region was 200 years ago based on what the Europeans recorded, and when he tells you what they recorded was wrong, you ask him to provide you proof.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
So basically you're confirming the whole "Africans were primitive" thing? I can't cosign that.
