Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Poll: Impact of Roman Occupation in sub-saharan Africa on the Empire

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vaguely? By the Beach; more specifically? a Mediterranean beach; precisely? I'd rather not say :)
    Posts
    109
    Post Thanks / Like

    If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact today?

    Many nations of the western world have been shaped by the ideals of the Greeks and Romans; from ethical values, political ideologies, societal norms, religious beliefs, customs, and architecture. During the reign of the Roman Empire, the western region controlled much of present day Europe and part of North Africa. If the Romans had conquered the rest of Africa, and in their usual fashion created a military outpost and huge settlement on the continent, what do you think would have been the biggest impact?
    Technology is my lawful wife but literature is my mistress ~ adaptation to Anton Chekhov's view of the world

  2. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,101
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    I think the biggest change would be a much more developed Africa. In the extreme, I think we would still have the remnants of a roman Government.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    Well, there's a reason why they never went south. I don't know what that reason is, but it must have seemed a more reasonable choice to the Romans to go as far as Brittania, but never farther south than Egypt, to my knowledge.
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    Well, there's a reason why they never went south. I don't know what that reason is, but it must have seemed a more reasonable choice to the Romans to go as far as Brittania, but never farther south than Egypt, to my knowledge.
    Mainly comes down to tropical diseases in effect acting as a barrier - 'the graveyard of the white man'.

    The diseases in the likes of Britannia/Albion, were largely common to those in and around Rome - so there was some immunity/resistance.


    Now if I could select 2 options, they would be the last 2 regarding the Poll, IMHO they would have acted together to confound any settled inclusion in the 'Empire'.
    Last edited by FruitandNut; June 16th, 2011 at 01:37 AM. Reason: Addendum.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vaguely? By the Beach; more specifically? a Mediterranean beach; precisely? I'd rather not say :)
    Posts
    109
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    Thank you all for the votes. I found this topic very interesting, yet it hasn't been covered much by historian scholars or archeologists. I have not found even a widely accepted, though speculative, opinion as to why the Romans did not travel further south. I think that tropical diseases played a big factor, but if their early occupation and association with present day India is anything to go by, then it couldn't have been such a big issue. From what I gather, the Romans were not only out to dominate trade and commerce, to some extent they were explorers so its seems almost counter intuitive of their perspective and ideals to not at the very least use their ships to navigate and explore regions of the continent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    Well, there's a reason why they never went south. I don't know what that reason is, but it must have seemed a more reasonable choice to the Romans to go as far as Brittania, but never farther south than Egypt, to my knowledge.
    Their influence stretched to present day Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco etc. I don't know if it is a coincidence or not, but every African country that the Romans touched is today mostly an Islamic state. Even so, the western Empire had been fighting the moors for control over the Iberian peninsula for centuries, i'd imagine the most basic rule of military strategy is to 'know you enemy'; and this should have encompassed there culture, where they lived, there ideals etc.

    In my opinion (having done further reading), i suspect it was the unfamiliarity with the terrain that impeded their efforts. They probably had never had to fight a war over a desert as vast as the Sahara and no other region in the Empire could provide that sort of experience needed to cross it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think the biggest change would be a much more developed Africa. In the extreme, I think we would still have the remnants of a roman Government.
    It was my thinking as well, but after reading about what the Ottomans did to Byzantium and in such a short period, it is hard to believe that any of those political ideals would still remain. However, there would be a better basis on which civilization would have flourished in Africa had they been present; and this, i believe, would have had a huge impact on the conceited colonization efforts of many European states during the scramble of Africa in the 1900s.

    In effect, i would blame the Romans for their lack of enthusiasm to perhaps do what they did best (conquer), for the massive disparity both economically, socially and politically between developed nations and developing nations, though that is a discussion for another time
    Technology is my lawful wife but literature is my mistress ~ adaptation to Anton Chekhov's view of the world

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Walsall, UK and various cities in Asia, including Saigon
    Posts
    34
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    I think there are a few reasons why an attempt wasn't made.

    The Sahara forms an effective barrier to overland exploration, so the only practical routes are down the west coast (like the later Portuguese) or by following the Nile through the Nubian desert. Neither are easy, especially the Nubian route with hostile tribes and geographical hardships. I don't think Roman shipping was capable of dealing with the Atlantic either, especially considering it would have to be quite substantial if territory was to be gained and held.

    The second factor was the ignorance and fear of the unknown. Not much of Africa was charted at all then and it is likely that many individuals that went looking in that direction never came back.

    I think the Arabs filled the vacuum in North Africa. The Vandals had effectively wiped out Western Roman authority in the locality by the 400s and by the time the Arabs exploded West, the Roman empire had been significantly diminished by other Germanic tribes from the North.

    The Byzantine empire enjoyed a bit of a comeback in the area with the help of the general Belisarius, but this was short lived.

  7. #7
    pacis
    Guest

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    Well, there's a reason why they never went south.
    The reason they never traversed farther south is that they would have had to cross the Sahara desert which would have been by walking it. Such a journey would take countless lives and with an unknown reward they had little to no incentive to try.

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    The most obvious answer is the that the Sahara posed to big of a barrier to any conquering empire. Taking a land army composed primarily of Heavy Infantry (Roman Legions) would have been suicide in such an environment. Even the Caliphate in later centuries, whose armies were desert troops, did not extend past the Sahara to any significant extent. It would not be until later centuries, (primarily the 1800s) with the advent of sea exploration by Europeans, that there would be any serious attempt at conquering sub-sahara Africa.

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    145
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    After the fall of Rome, Europe entered the dark ages. The sub-Saharan entered an age of enlightenment. Had Rome conquered both I would think things would have been slightly better for Europe and much worse for the Sub Saharan.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vaguely? By the Beach; more specifically? a Mediterranean beach; precisely? I'd rather not say :)
    Posts
    109
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    Quote Originally Posted by Kong View Post
    After the fall of Rome, Europe entered the dark ages. The sub-Saharan entered an age of enlightenment. Had Rome conquered both I would think things would have been slightly better for Europe and much worse for the Sub Saharan.
    Please expound on this; how would things have been worse for Sub-Saharan Africa?
    Technology is my lawful wife but literature is my mistress ~ adaptation to Anton Chekhov's view of the world

  11. #11
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    The enlightenment he mentions for Sub-Saharan Africa is largely a product of African-Studies departments on US campuses. While some kingdoms did flourish especially along the Gold Coast, there wasn't a revolution in thinking, governing or anything that usually indicates a major change in culture. The tribal states were simply a little richer and a little bigger than the average size before and after.

    I think the Sahara is of course a good reason for not going south, but lets remember that the Romans did enter Ethiopia along the Nile and could have shadowed the coast by either land or sea in the west. If you look though at Roman expansion you rarely see a pattern of overt conscious decisions being made to extend the empire. Rather, they are usually minding their own business being successful and come into conflict with a neighboring culture, invade and destroy that group then come into contact/conflict with all of its neighbors. That is how they ended up in Britain, Gaul, German and Palestine.

    Take the historical map of this region and you'll notice a couple of things, the Sahara was much smaller back then and more importantly, their aren't any monolithic or large cultures at the time in S. Ethiopia or just south of Morocco. The peoples in these areas were nomads and largely didn't come into contact with the Romans and didn't then draw them into any kind of warfare leading to expansion.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    145
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The enlightenment he mentions for Sub-Saharan Africa is largely a product of African-Studies departments on US campuses.
    You are saying this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Islam is false propaganda?
    Have any evidence? I know similar claims are often just propaganda but I have never heard anything about this being fake.

    Quote Originally Posted by theJackal View Post
    Please expound on this; how would things have been worse for Sub-Saharan Africa?
    The Middle Ages were not good for Europe.
    The Middle Ages were initiated by the Fall of Rome.
    The similar time period was called the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Islam in the Sub Saharan.
    Had that area been conquered by Rome then the fall of Rome would likely have done the same to that area as it did for Europe.

  13. #13
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    Quote Originally Posted by Kong View Post
    You are saying this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Islam is false propaganda?
    Have any evidence? I know similar claims are often just propaganda but I have never heard anything about this being fake.
    First, Islam had almost no connection with Sub-Saharan Africa especially during its so-called "Golden Age." Islam didn't really even reach Sub-Saharan Africa until well into what Europe called the Age of Enlightenment.



    Finally, as to the supposed Islamic Golden Age, yes it is propaganda. It consisted solely of absorbed learning from conquered neighbors both in the form translated documents and scholars who while living in the Islamic world, but who were not Muslims.
    First, the Muslim world benefited greatly from the Greek sciences, which were translated for them by Christians and Jews. To their credit, Muslims did a better job of preserving Greek text than did the Europeans of the time and this became the foundation for their own knowledge. (One large reason for this, however, was that access by Christians to this part of their world was cut off by Muslim slave ships and coastal raids that dominated the Mediterranean during this period).
    Link Link2

    A key to the above is a quote by Bernard Lewis the greatest living historian on the Islamic World;
    "We know of no Muslim scholar or man of letters before the eighteenth century who sought to learn a western language, still less of any attempt to produce grammars, dictionaries, or other language tools. Translations are few and far between. Those that are known are works chosen for practical purposes [philosophy being considered a practical discipline] and the translations are made by converts [who knew western languages before conversion] or non-Muslims."
    http://www.patrickpoole.com/2006/06/...slam-myth.html

    Further the role of Islamic scholars having "saved" Greek learning for the west has been highly exaggerated. The majority of all Greek texts were translated by Christians directly from the Greek into Latin. Not a single work of Aristotle's for example was ever translated into Arabic. http://westerncivilizationandculture...m-is-myth.html

    Also from Bernard Lewis: the Moslem Empire inherited "the knowledge and skills of the ancient Middle east, of Greece and of Persia, it added to them new and important innovations from outside, such as the manufacture of paper from China and decimal positional numbering from India." http://westerncivilizationandculture...m-is-myth.html

    Interestingly, an analysis of the decline of the Islamic world found that the rapidity of decline was directly proportional to the percentage of Muslims in the population.

    So this is not to say that the Islamic world was totally bereft of thinkers, it certainly wasn't. But almost exclusively the knowledge that was produced during the "Golden Age" was from outside of Islam and/or produced by Non-Moslem thinkers.

    Regardless, all of this has nothing to do with this debate since Sub-Saharan Africa was not Islamic at the Fall of the Roman Empire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kong
    The Middle Ages were initiated by the Fall of Rome.
    Quick question, are you implying that the Dark Ages were caused by the Roman Empire? If so could you support that directly?

    I think you might be under a misunderstanding on what the Dark Ages were. The "dark ages" was the result of not having access to Roman knowledge, skill or protection. The culture simply reverted to where it was pre-Rome it didn't somehow sink lower than it had ever been.

    So in a way you might be right, Africa would have experienced a decline if it had been part of the Roman Empire, but that is only because the Empire would have raised their standard of living during its existence.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    To hypothesise upon the consequences of a sub-Saharan conquest by the Romans would firstly necessitate their overcoming the real and serious barrier of tropical diseases and other physical ailments. The Sahara itself could likely be overcome, but mosquitoes and gnats and midges etc. would be the barrier that would have defeated them, IMHO.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  15. #15
    Bashir69
    Guest

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    Salaam.

    A few things: Enlightenment in Europe or the US if their was such a thing started at the end of the 18th Century. Islam had made serious inroads in Sub-Saharan Africa from West Africa to Ethiopia:"As far as Africa is concerned, Islam entered into East Africa at the very beginning of the Islamic period but remained confined to the coast for some time, only the Sudan and Somali land becoming gradually both "Arabized" and "Islamized". West Africa felt the presence of Islam through North African traders who traveled with their camel caravans south of the Sahara. By the 14th century there were already Muslim sultanates in such areas as Mali, and Timbuctu in West Africa and Harar in East Africa had become seats of Islamic learning. Gradually Islam penetrated both inland and southward. There also appeared major charismatic figures who inspired intense resistance against European domination. The process of the Islamization of Africa did not cease during the colonial period and continues even today with the result that most Africans are now Muslims carrying on a tradition which has had practically as long a history in certain areas of sub-Saharan Africa as Islam itself".
    The 14th Century (1300-1399) is well before the 1800 I would think.
    These statements as you find above are historical facts not PC propaganda but you are free to believe that it is propaganda if that makes you feel comfortable. It is your right to make any statements and so will and can I.

    A ruler from Mali went on Hajj in 1324 His name was Mansa Musa.

    Now to your Renaissance: this started in the 14th century and was nothing more than a rehashing of Ancient Greek, Persian and relatively new Arabic ideas or concepts on science and philosophy.
    By that time there were various nation-states or city states in Sub-Saharan Africa whether they were Islamic, Christian or pagan for that matter.

    Italy and Germany only became nation-states by ca. 1871 That is well after the so-called age of European Enlightenment. You would know that, would you? I am not getting this information from Wikipedia. Most of this stuff I know since High School and I was trained in Holland where I was born by the way and we don't have African Studies or Black History on high schools. I had to read books (find them first) and not just copy paste whatever is to my liking from the internet. (I am 44)

    I don't know if any of you are still following this thread but I just came across it today and I just had to react: I hate it when people think they have the monopoly on knowledge and are than willing to conceded a few crumbles to the people without history... And yes that also is the title of a book called "Europe and the people without history".


    You can contact me any time if you want to be enlightened...

    Thanks for now

    ---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 PM ----------

    Your so-called wittiness is totally so besides the point because the point was not Islam and Sub-Saharan Africa but the implied benefits of "Romanization" to black Africa. Do you people on American campuses whether they offer "black studies" over there or not get your time-tables right? By the time of the fall of the Roman Empire (the western part) around 476 there wasn't even a religion called Islam.
    The man/woman who posted that the dark Ages followed after the fall of the Western Roman Empire has a point. A point which every kid (at least in Europe) gets by the time they are in year 5 of Primary School. That is...if they pay attention but then again I am 44. Back then we did not have PS3 AND/OR internet...
    So you are mixing-up so many different concepts/ideas in such a way that it becomes unclear how and why you think you have anything meaningful to state. Another example You don't know whether the standards of living in Africa would be higher thanks to the Romans just because they built some sewers that still function in parts of Europe....For the simple reason that Rome was a colonial power and infrastructure was built to take the goodies out of the periphery to the centre. Most of the world outside the US and Europe "enjoyed" imperialism and if you look at the few railroads that these western powers built (with forced labour) to confirm my point just look on any (pre-1960) map that shows railroads in Africa and you will see that the English or the French had them laid from the coast to the places inland where the primary goods where to be extracted/taken.

    The Roman Empire though they had no rail roads of course operated the same way. I wonder if the Africans, Asians or South-Americans were happy with their "wages" and living standards while toiling on the plantations...to produce commercial crops. The Dutch forced the Indonesians to grow sugar only so these poor people were starving because they were not given time and their own land to grow food. The French did similar stuff in Africa as did the English when "they" built the rail roads. It was actually Africans forced to do the building and not being able to grow there own food while doing so. Thus being forced to eat and i.e. import food from their European masters... So what are the benefits and higher living standards an Empire can offer? Enlighten me please because your Roman Empire which you so romanticize had a very dark side... And it was not "African".
    By the way "Africa" was the name the Romans gave to an area that they conquered in what is now North Africa. To conquer it they promised the Carthaginians peace and when these poor duds bought the story and handed over their sons and weaponry, the Romans razed their city PLUS harbour to the ground, sowed sea-salt in their surrounding fertile lands and sold the women and children into slavery...Now that's a higher living standard by what measure? There is infrastructure for you.

    I think that not becoming part of the Roman Empire was a blessing in disguise for it would have set-back Africa earlier than its encounters with Europe from the 15th/16th century did. Note that all these humanist ideas of the renaissance (which is NOT the Enlightenment Era) were conveniently forgotten by those who traded in human cattle. These traders were quite willing to (with the profits from this respectable trade) have renaissance paintings and statues made in their honour to immortalize themselves.

    Is this is also propaganda or PC stuff from US universities? I hope not because I would have to ask a refund if my universities (Universiteit van Amsterdam and Universiteit van Leiden) had been infiltrated by US institutions where they teach conjecture and by reading the above comments I'd say do an excellent job!

    I actually have to prepare lesson plans and lessons but what I read today was so outrageous that I just had to react. I haven't engaged in an online discussion like this since at least 2003 or 2001, I forgot but I am so appalled by the ignorance which seems to go for knowledge that it was imperative to react and I hope somebody reads this...

    ---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 PM ----------

    As for your Greek Culture...outside US campuses it is well-known that Greek Culture, Science, Philosophy in short the cradle of so-called European civilization are heavily indebted to Egypt. Egypt is NOT part of Asia or Europe and the Egyptians themselves as in the ancient or classic Egyptians claimed they came from the South. This fact has been repeatedly written on many an obelisk perhaps even the ones that are being paraded in the US and of which Americans think they are ornaments from the British Colonial era in the US of A. or whatever you think is the case. Most modern Egyptians in the North will do anything to be called white but in the south where you have Luxor, the valley of the Kings and other places that may or may not be familiar to you the people look rather black. Or as your English cousins would say fuzzy-whuzzy (a reference to the hair and colour of the people there).

    Yes, I went to the Egyptian National Museum in Cairo and was told that if I saw a black statue of kings/pharaohs this colour was donned on the artefact by the ancient Egyptians to show that the person was dead.... Black being the colour of death. I also know for a fact that Egyptian scientist who were supposed to DNA-test king Tut, claimed he was of Caucasian descent even though they had the result stating that he was of the Somali/Ethiopian type. Now comes the funny coup de grace even in Libya they found mummies (from 3000 BC) of the same type but these mummies were not mummified with the ancient Egyptian method and they were also of the Somali/Ethiopian type. You do know that Ethiopia stands for people with sun-burnt skins and that most people who live there are (excuse the pun, fairly) black....? I doubt if anyone of them could become a member of Storm Front.... yet now they are Caucasians?

    When this was found out your "scientists" claimed that white men share 80% of DNA material with Egyptians so there was no contest. Which is true if you take the modern-day Egyptian as reference and only then....
    I still think that few of these honourary white Egyptians would be allowed to join Storm Front but maybe I am just a tad pessimistic.

    By y'all
    Last edited by Bashir69; August 31st, 2013 at 05:06 AM.

  16. #16
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    Hi Bashir.

    Can you point to a single novel intellectual advancement made by an arab thinker? IE an intellectual discovery made by an Arab (as opposed to someone who has simply assumed an arab name) and that is not a rehashing of earlier ideas?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #17
    Bashir69
    Guest

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    Salaam Squatch.

    You should ask an Arab because I am not here to defend the Arab cause. Bashir is my name I hope that Squatch is your assumed name...I am just a Muslim. Not every Muslim is an Arab and in fact Indonesians are with 200.000.000 the biggest ethnic group within Islam. There are many Bashir's there as well by the way and you should not assume I am an Arab or a wannabe-Arab for that matter. I do take offense of that but I think that was the idea to begin with...
    I am going to pray and then we can further discuss this, if you want. I will not detonate myself so you have time to think about the point(s) you were trying to make give or take 2 years ago.
    I am not going to answer the question I don't think any Arab did and I am not an Arab-lover or Arabist or whatever you may think or not think about me. I want to stick with the topic.

    Thanks

  18. #18
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    Quote Originally Posted by Bashir69 View Post
    Not every Muslim is an Arab
    A fair point.

    But it was my impression that you were discussing the Islamic Golden Age and my counter argument (which I laid out earlier, I think in this thread) was that whatever achievements we could ascribe to that period are better explained by two other realizations.

    1) Rehashed discoveries from previous cultures. The Islamic Conquest of these areas generally rehashed and used existing cultural achievements as their own.

    2) Absorbed educated people from conquered cultures. Virtually all great Islamic thinkers in areas outside of theology were only Islamic in the sense that they had converted after conquest. Most of them had been residing in the region prior the conquest. This is especially telling when you notice that the number of great mathematical, astronomical, and other thinkers drops to nearly zero in an area after two generations of Islamic rule.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #19
    Bashir69
    Guest

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    OK now it's clear... I must admit that had Sub-Saharan Africa been connected with Eurasia before the slave-trade and subsequent colonial/imperial period its development might have turned out differently.
    Black Africa might have shared and/or even contributed to an industrial revolution. Thanks to the Sahara at least West-Africa didn't know the wheel before the coming of the Europeans or maybe the Moroccans. Even though smelting of iron in mini versions of industrial furnaces was known. There was no large scale attempt to modernize craftsmanship (industrialize). There was no need for it either (both wheel or modern industry) but this became a major disadvantage as it was for most of the non-European world after Europe industrialized and used its industrial power in a military fashion. The fact that western powers found a way to fight cure formerly fatal diseases opened up Africa and the rest of the world outside Europe and North-America...

    Now as for your second point: This is what I partly answered in my first 5 lines or so... Sub-Saharan Africa was not connected to Rome, Greece or Persia except for some trade with Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Somalia and Eritrea) but since it was not absorbed into the Hellenic/Roman or Persian realm it could not share the intellectual or cultural interaction which is needed to develop. This does not mean there were no ideas or philosophies coming from these places or anywhere in Africa but writing was confined to certain classes (the clergy and nobility) so the thoughts/concepts could not be popularized and there was also no working press which was known in Europe since the 16th century. In Africa the ruling classes also knew the power of the written word....and they decided that it should be kept well-guarded.

    Actually the Chinese had invented a rudimentary form way earlier and they needed that badly because of their very sophisticated if not over-complex way of recording words. It was this dissemination of ideas whether on the arts, politics and crafts in the West thanks to the printing press that really helped Western Europe to race forward. Let's face it China, India, Africa and The Americas have known great civilizations until the 16th/17th century but they failed to progress because power was not democratized and they preferred to stare at their navels.
    Even the Arabs fell in that trap and because this was done in their case because of religion...even though Islam is for progress, science and higher learning, the Muslim (Arab) world became a mockery of itself and the Islamic Golden Age will continue to become more and more an ever increasing distant thing of the past unless Arab or Muslim states in general do the same what Europe did when it got rid Catholic doctrines that impeded progress: The earth is flat, the Earth is the centre of the Universe, no dissecting of humans, to name a few. All notions that had nothing to do with the teachings of monotheist religions. Now I am not saying that Muslims ever believed that the earth was flat or that earth is the center of the Universe but even though Muslims in the Golden age were dissecting bodies for scientific reasons now there are some Islamic scholars that want to stop this and every other scientific development in the medical sphere that would involve (the horror ...) naked bodies! In fact even though Islam allows and sanctions abortion they call it an aberration.

    As you may know some Muslims in Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan to name a few countries are violently fighting what they perceive as western education even though I would call it universal education. They want to keep half the population naked, bare feet, pregnant and in the kitchen...This is another reason why you can't have development. Malcolm X once said: if you educate a man you educate an individual if you educate a woman you educate a nation.... With female literacy between 20 and 50% in most developing countries (The 3rd world) which often happen to be Muslim countries as well, you can imagine that Muslims have a long way to go...

    I for one am convinced that Hitler could have one the war if not for two mistakes: waging war against the combined might of the US and the USSR without provocation AND keeping women at home to conceive cannon fodder and more girls lusting for semen (not for recreation but procreation only). Thus forcing men that were needed to fight at the front to work in industries at home that could have been "manned" by women. By the time the Nazis saw the light it was too late because German women were not keen to go out in the cold and get their hands dirty. But I am wandering off topic and I don't think that Hitler was a nice man and I doubt I would be alive had God allowed him to succeed...

    I am more than willing to concede that Africa missed the boat (except when it comes to its active part in the slave trade...) after the 16th century or so. In fact the slave trade and the way that Africans co-operated or collaborated were the final nail in the coffin in the already arrested development of Africa (see my/your point about interaction and spread of information) for now there was a brain-drain as well. For you will agree with me that men an women were wanted because they had skills to farm (in Louisiana) and mine (Argentina). The white traders/settlers had no reason to buy morons with muscles...

    ---------- Post added at 07:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 PM ----------

    I got to go... I hope we can keep in touch this is an interesting site....

  20. #20
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If the Romans had conquered sub-saharan Africa what would have been the impact to

    Quote Originally Posted by Bashir69 View Post
    There was no large scale attempt to modernize craftsmanship (industrialize).
    And what factors do you think contributed to that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bashir
    In Africa the ruling classes also knew the power of the written word....and they decided that it should be kept well-guarded.
    That is partly because their languages like Sumerian and Egyptian were sylabic, meaning they were incredibly difficult to learn and leading to a high illiteracy rate. That lack of written progress definitely held them back.


    [quote=Bashir]It was this dissemination of ideas whether on the arts, politics and crafts in the West thanks to the printing press that really helped Western Europe to race forward.[quote] That is part of it, capital formation, private property rights, individualism and scientific inquiry (both results of the Christian revolution in Europe) all played a part as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bashir
    even though Islam is for progress, science and higher learning,
    Islam had an early question to this point. The problem for the Islamic world was that it sided with the idea that Allah independently made very moment and could well change things from one moment to a next, hence discovery of physical laws to study God became moot in the Islamic world.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bashir
    Europe did when it got rid Catholic doctrines that impeded progress: The earth is flat, the Earth is the centre of the Universe, no dissecting of humans, to name a few.
    Part of the problem is that most of these examples aren't real. The scientific method owes a lot to Christian thought, which told us that we should explore the world to better understand Him. The Catholic Church was a primary sponsor of scientific advancement for most of European History. It never held that the Earth was flat (no one really did, you can see a mast sink over the horizon btw), it was relatively neutral on the geocentric model (the Galileo incident is for publishing theological concepts unrelated to his scientific work and publishing his documents as "fact" when they were in fact largely incorrect).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bashir
    I got to go... I hope we can keep in touch this is an interesting site....
    I agree, you have an interesting post and I look forward to hearing from you again.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •