Why wasn't sub Saharan Africa colonised way before the 19th

>>2808275
For the same reason the Amazon wasn't colonized.

And malaria.

File: ggs.jpg (26KB, 228x346px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 228x346px

>>2808275

>>2808275
African diseases are to Europeans what European diseases are to Indians

>>2808289
fuck off jared

Prior attempts of conquer especially by the Muslims would always end up in disease.

It wasn't worth it.

>it's a people completely ignore Portugal's 16th century adventures in central Africa episode
/his/ is so shit

>>2808275
I find it funny that Africa was the last continent to get colonized because it was so shit, that everyone would rather fuck off across the ocean than try to settle there. They only did colonize it as a last desperate attempt to get some clay in 19th century.

>>2808324
They stole our richness !

>>2808275
Because europeans couldn't possibly have had the resources to simultaneously colonise two massive continents. One, sure. But two? And subsaharan Africa wasn't unexpectedly depopulated which ended up being an important component in repopulating the Americas, as colonial economy would've otherwise been hindered by a labor shortage. As already stated, equatorial Africa is fucking jungle and europeans can't handle the heat or the diseases. I guess it also counts that Africa wasn't new and exciting.

>>2808275
Africa was deadly to Europeans.

>>2808324
Africa was the first continent to be colonized, just not by white people, because their immune systems were to weak, and skin was too fair.

>>2808349
Why are white people(germanics) so insecure that they feel the need to larp as Africans.

File: Portuguese+Empire+Map.png (134KB, 800x406px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 800x406px

>>2808275
*triangle trade*

>>2808275
Because it wasn't economically worth it, that's all colonisation was
Cape Verde is technically sub Saharan and was one of the first places colonisedby Portugal
Slaving posts were owned before hand and that's all that was needed
Zulu wars happen because diamonds are found there
Basic history m8

>>2808275
>the same way it was done with the Americas
Only the Spanish colonized extensively the Americas before the 19th century like you're claiming.

>>2808275
1_ this >>2808788

2_ The muslims

3_ A lot harder to do

>>2808275
>Why wasn't sub Saharan Africa colonised way before the 19th century the same way it was done with the Americas?

Because:

A. The Africans were generally more advanced than most of the Amerindians.

B. There wasn't a convenient plague to kill off 95% of them and leave an empty continent.

C. The gap in technology wasn't sufficient enough yet. In the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries most fighting was still done with regular polearms, swords, etc. and it wasn't impossible just to get ambushed in a jungle out of formation.

The 18th to 19th century was the earliest time taking over the continent was militarily feasible. It's not like they didn't try earlier. You know how we know that e.g. the Gold Coast natives would have handed the Europeans their ass in their limited numbers far from home? Because they actually fought a war against the Dutch and won. It proceeded to remain unconquered for hundreds of years despite the massive amount of, well, gold present for the taking, which everyone knew about.

Meanwhile it took 25,000 men equipped with repeating rifles and cannons for the Brits to conquer the Zulu, and they still had some trouble there, suffering thousands of casualties. It took three wars to conquer the Ashanti. They deployed nearly 20,000 men in the last one in four separate increasingly large expeditions. It took nine wars and tens of thousands of troops to put down the Xhosa. Et cetera. Earlier than that the European powers were wholly incapable of deploying armies this large there and maintaining them before they were withered by disease and malnutrition. Cortez's easy conquest of the Aztecs warps our perspective sometimes so that we see that as normal rather than a combination of an apocalypse hitting the Aztecs plus a combination of Aztec incompetence and a precarious political situation that Cortez expertly exploited.

>>2809174
>White supremacist and white supremacist larping as SJWs on suicide watch.

>>2809174
>A. The Africans were generally more advanced than most of the Amerindians.
True if you count North Africa and Eastern Africa Ethiopia and Somalia/Islamified nations, not true if you count the tributary and tribal kingdoms of the reste of it, the Incas and Mayan were way ahead of them in everything, even metal working with they bronze than was more advanced than the African way of gettin iron.
3. European armies broke Native African armies lots of times, like when a bunch of Andalusian, Renegade Christians and Morocans lead be a Eunuch broke the most powerful Western African kingdom scaring the cows than the Songhay tried to loose vs them.
And Africa was already colonized, lots of portuguese ports all over Africa.

>>2809194
>Comparing the most advanced South Americans to the least advanced Africans.

>>2809194
>And Africa was already colonized

It wasn't. Heaving a few ports for trade isn't the same as having the entire continent colonized. Which various powers tried and failed to do prior to the 19th century. There is a very good reason no one took over the Gold Coast for hundreds of years until the British finally did, despite the massive profits it could bring.

>>2809194
>European armies broke Native African armies lots of times, like when a bunch of Andalusian, Renegade Christians and Morocans lead be a Eunuch broke the most powerful Western African kingdom scaring the cows than the Songhay tried to loose vs them.

Because the Moroccans (not Europeans by the way) had a better strategy. Could have happened in any fight. Anyway, if you seriously don't see the difference between defeating an empire on your border with 5,000 troops for a quick raid vs attempting to control an empire hundreds to thousands of miles away from you, you're dumber than I thought. Especially since the case of the Moroccan-Songhay War actually proves the point that it was impossible to conquer African empires so easily this early on. Again, despite Morocco being way closer to Mali than Britain or France was to most of Sub Saharan Africa, Morocco proved unable to assert a firm control over the area due to the vastness of the Songhai Empire and difficulties of communication and resupply across the Saharan trade routes. They had to withdraw.

>>2808275
It was 4 centuries of Europeans interesting themselves within the fabric of African polities.

What the fuck do you mean? How do people post about this and not know shit except >>2808321 who even doesn't mention Portugal's West African dynamics?

>>2809206
>comparing a post dedicated to an exception to the ideal of a well-rounded one

>>2809174
This

it's also worth noting that tropical diseases such as Malaria and yellow fever plagued European armies once they tried to advance anywhere beyond the immediate coastline. Trying to establish forts or settlements further inland was a death sentence until effective treatments for malaria were discovered in the mid-19th century.

also North Africa wasn't colonized because the Ottomans held the territory and were still a massive empire that could trade blows with the rest of Europe, but once the Turks became the sick man of europe, the European powers jumped at the opportunity; with France, Italy, and Britain taking Algeria, Libya, and Egypt respectively.

>>2808275
>He STILL has this relentless black and white "colonisation is about wealth" thinking
Fuck's sake.

>>2810095
Hadn't Egypt basically revolted against Ottoman rule on its own by that point?

>>2808275
The jungles of Africa are annoying as shit to navigate through and have too much diseases.

>>2808490
Humans like Algerians have been in North Africa since 20,000 B.C meaning they are native to that area of the globe thus Africa was never colonized by a non native group.

>>2808279
Why are you such an anglo?

File: 1494252996010.gif (3MB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 360x270px

>>2810095
These*

plus the whole reason for New World Colonization and Portuguese exploration was to circumvent
the Arabian Control of Africa

And if you look at a map Arabia is the only land route into Africa

Of course they tried to go around Africa which led to the cape of good hope and >>2808321, but in general the foothold in Africa couldn't be secured by the Europeans until:

1.You destroyed the Arabians's control (Master)

2.You Destroy the African's resistance (Expert)

Sidenote:
Historical cheat-code's used by the Euro's

Africa/Arabia: Guns (30% strength boost)

Americas: Guns (65% strength boost) + Death Plague (95% of your enemies die on contact)

China: Better Guns (7% strength boost) + Opium (Enemies population permanently stunned)

Japan: Mandingo Boat (40% chance Instant surrender attribute)

>>2811206
Forgive me
Arabian control of Indian Ocean spice trade

>>2809174
>The 18th to 19th century was the earliest time taking over the continent was militarily feasible. It's not like they didn't try earlier. You know how we know that e.g. the Gold Coast natives would have handed the Europeans their ass in their limited numbers far from home? Because they actually fought a war against the Dutch and won. It proceeded to remain unconquered for hundreds of years despite the massive amount of, well, gold present for the taking, which everyone knew about.
>Meanwhile it took 25,000 men equipped with repeating rifles and cannons for the Brits to conquer the Zulu, and they still had some trouble there, suffering thousands of casualties. It took three wars to conquer the Ashanti. They deployed nearly 20,000 men in the last one in four separate increasingly large expeditions. It took nine wars and tens of thousands of troops to put down the Xhosa. Et cetera. Earlier than that the European powers were wholly incapable of deploying armies this large there and maintaining them before they were withered by disease and malnutrition. Cortez's easy conquest of the Aztecs warps our perspective sometimes so that we see that as normal rather than a combination of an apocalypse hitting the Aztecs plus a combination of Aztec incompetence and a precarious political situation that Cortez expertly exploited.
Just a reminder of how heroic our ancestors were.

>>2811206
>Japan: Mandingo Boat (40% chance Instant surrender attribute)
explain

>>2811253
Bit of an obscure reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Ships

>P.S I am aware that Deeming the advancements of the Europeans as "Cheat-Codes" does take away the distinction of their accomplishments and I do apologies

>>2811307
>P.S I am aware that Deeming the advancements of the Europeans as "Cheat-Codes" does take away the distinction of their accomplishments and I do apologies

It was pretty funny

Unvaluable and disease ridden land.

Lack of technology made it too difficult.

You needed breech-loading cartridge rifles, steam ships to navigate the many rivers, and especially malaria medication. These things allowed for colonization.

An attempt by like Portugal to colonize whole swathes of Africa in the 1500s would have ended in a disaster. They wouldnt have had the luxury of all the locals dying of disease like they did in America.

Most of Africa wasn't even accessible until the late parts of the 19th century and the parts that were 'colonisable' were already established kingdoms and strong ones in the late medieval era. All in all, it was either not possible or not worth the bloodshed.

Portugal started colonizing sub Saharan Africa in the 1500's