Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
In terms of how advanced African civilisation was, how far behind were they when the continent dirt began to be properly explored in the 1440s, and throughout it's exploration and colonisation? This includes their technological advancement, governmental advancement etc. If possible, try and give it as say "when the Portuguese first began the exploration, they were "X" years behind" etc.
I can't find an answer to this when looking it up
>>
File: swedish DLC.jpg (292KB, 495x735px) Image search:
[Google]
292KB, 495x735px
>>2013162
>years behind
Fuck off Johann. Do better work on your DLC
>>
>>2013162
>1440
Less than million of stupid nomadic niggers.
>>
>>2013536
False.
>>
>>2013162
>African civilisation
Which part of Africa are we talking about ?
For western Africa had connections to Europe to the Sahara and the muslims in the maghreb Mali/Songhai even hired spanish merc artillery around 1500, whose decendents can be found to today in Timbuktu
Same go's for east africa they traded with muslims and Indians
The further to the south (west) you go the worse it got
>>
>>2013162
If we're talking about the middle ages then most of Subsaharan Africa was absolute shit compared to Europe and the Middle East. Most of SSA didn't even have metallurgy or proper agriculture, the only exception were some of the Slave Coast despotic kingdoms that got them from the Arabs.
>>
They had iron and steel and developed ways of producing it and other metal artwork and tools despite low urbanization. In west Africa and Ethiopia they had horses and large cities but they were expensive due to the tsetse fly. The Kingdom of Kongo developed a system of agriculture and supported some urbanization closer to the equator. Eastern Africa traded with Oman for centuries.
Their level of development could be compared to the celts
>>
>>2014870
This is false
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2