| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Africa North V South
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Africa North V South

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Africa North V South
    Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 11:01
Egypt was, 2000years ago, a very well developed country with an efficient system of government, sophisticated military, arts and culture.

The Egyptians knew of the area to their south, they traded there and caught or purchased wild animals. But they never saw fit to develop the southern lands.

There were millions of hectares of fertile land, precious minerals, wild animals suitable for food or domestication and goods suitable for trade.

There were river systems for transporting trade goods.

Why did they not develop the south?
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 11:08
I think the answer is quite simple. The way thru the sahara was problematic. There were karawan routes, but nevertheless not enough to make a conquest to the south possible. The only route south was therefor the Nile valley. But there lived in the south the Nubians, who limited egyptian expansion as well.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 14:16
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

I think the answer is quite simple. The way thru the sahara was problematic. There were karawan routes, but nevertheless not enough to make a conquest to the south possible. The only route south was therefor the Nile valley. But there lived in the south the Nubians, who limited egyptian expansion as well.



If you had consulted an Atlas before posting, you would have seen that from the source of the Nile, or thereabouts, there is fertile land. There would have been no need to cross the Sahara Desert.

By travelling south through Ethiopia and then following the East coast, they had fertile land all of the way.

I can't see the Nubians, who were subordinate to Egypt, posing any real problems, especially as the Egyptians would not have had to travel through Nubian lands.

I'm starting to get the feeling that, as a member of AE, you've set out to challenge every post I make, BUT you don't post any evidence with which to rebut what I write.

In this and other posts, if you wish to challenge me, show some evidence.

Edited for bad language.
Please keep a civil tone - we are not sensitive to arguments, only to behavior.
Thanks.

~ North



Edited by Northman - 17 Feb 2014 at 20:44
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 17:27
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:


If you had consulted an Atlas before posting, you would have seen that from the source of the Nile, or thereabouts, there is fertile land. There would have been no need to cross the Sahara Desert.

I studied geography, thanks. I think it works without an atlas, too. Egypt ended more or less in the region which is now the Assuan dam. It is a long way south from there to the savannahs. You should keep as well in mind, that the savannahs are a completely different climatic zone.
Satellitenaufnahme des Nil

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

By travelling south through Ethiopia and then following the East coast, they had fertile land all of the way.

This is not different if one follows the blue nile into the Ethiopian Highlands.

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

I can't see the Nubians, who were subordinate to Egypt, posing any real problems, especially as the Egyptians would not have had to travel through Nubian lands.

Kerman wasn't conquere till Thutmoses I around 1500. But even the it was still away from the savannahs.

But very soon there was the Amarna period, with the Akhenaton phase. Sethos had problem with the Hittites and in Syria. During the 20th dynasty there were the sea-people storm. So Egypt had not only geographical problems, but as well political.

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

I'm starting to get the feeling that, as a member of AE, you've set out to challenge every post I make, BUT you don't post any evidence with which to rebut what I write.

I am not more related with AE than with WH. Your feeling is unfounded.

Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
~ Scylding ~

Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 10426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 20:48
We have so few threads about fascinating Egypt so please keep it civil and don't make us close the thread.

Please continue to inform us.

Thank you.

~ North



   
   If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.    (Albert Einstein)
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 01:50
I'm well aware of the climatic differences, the differing terrain and vegetation.

I still wonder why they did not persist in a southern spread, there were many advantages in them doing so.

Why go into the Ethiopian Highlands, which lead partly to Sudan, when they would have had easier travelling by going due south?

There is evidence of a large stone or mud building in central Africa-I've forgotten where it is for the moment- which is unlike any other construction in that area in ancient times. Could this have been an Egyptian outpost?

You have not provided anything which answers my original question.

Edited by toyomotor - 18 Feb 2014 at 01:52
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 08:53
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

......
Why did they not develop the south?

Well, that was your question. I think I have shown, that a) the centres of Egypt, Theben and the Delta were far away from the savannah belt. That b) Karma or Nubia were not weak enough to keep them permanently under controll. That c) The egyptian politics had as well exterior and interior problems, which avoided a wide-scale conquest of the south. And I can add d), that Egypt's cereal production was widely based on barley, amelcorn and in smaller numbers wheat. All those cereals came from Asia and are not native to Africa. Barley e.g. does not grow south of a line Khartoum. So the Egytians had to adopt the cultivation of sorghum e.g. like it was practiced in Ethiopia.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 09:01
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:


Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

I think the answer is quite simple. The way thru the sahara was problematic. There were karawan routes, but nevertheless not enough to make a conquest to the south possible. The only route south was therefor the Nile valley. But there lived in the south the Nubians, who limited egyptian expansion as well.



If you had consulted an Atlas before posting, you would have seen that from the source of the Nile, or thereabouts, there is fertile land. There would have been no need to cross the Sahara Desert.

By travelling south through Ethiopia and then following the East coast, they had fertile land all of the way.

I can't see the Nubians, who were subordinate to Egypt, posing any real problems, especially as the Egyptians would not have had to travel through Nubian lands.

I'm starting to get the feeling that, as a member of AE, you've set out to challenge every post I make, BUT you don't post any evidence with which to rebut what I write.

In this and other posts, if you wish to challenge me, show some evidence.

Edited for bad language.
Please keep a civil tone - we are not sensitive to arguments, only to behavior.
Thanks.

~ North



Northman:

I've sent you a PM re this editing.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 09:16
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

......
Why did they not develop the south?

Well, that was your question. I think I have shown, that a) the centres of Egypt, Theben and the Delta were far away from the savannah belt. That b) Karma or Nubia were not weak enough to keep them permanently under controll. That c) The egyptian politics had as well exterior and interior problems, which avoided a wide-scale conquest of the south. And I can add d), that Egypt's cereal production was widely based on barley, amelcorn and in smaller numbers wheat. All those cereals came from Asia and are not native to Africa. Barley e.g. does not grow south of a line Khartoum. So the Egytians had to adopt the cultivation of sorghum e.g. like it was practiced in Ethiopia.


You still offer no explanation to the original question.

That certain cereal crops were not native to Egypt is not germane to the discussion. What I'm suggesting is that considerable wealth was in their reach and they didn't capitalise on it.

They possessed vessels which were suitable for coastal trade, they'd been trading with southern European countries for God knows how long.

Egypt had the opportunity to develop south eastern Africa but failed to do so, and the window of opportunity remained open not just for a few years, but for millennia.

For that matter, we know that Rome made forays into North Africa, but again, they didn't seek to capitalise on the wealth to be found further south.

The reason that two great empires failed to exact what was there for the taking doesn't, imo, make sense.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Feb 2014 at 14:43
Is there no one else out there with a competing theory?

Come on folks, let's mix it up a bit!!
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Feb 2014 at 17:22
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Is there no one else out there with a competing theory?

Come on folks, let's mix it up a bit!!
So what is the theory here? Before that is made clear how can there be any competing one?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 03:23
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Is there no one else out there with a competing theory?

Come on folks, let's mix it up a bit!!
So what is the theory here? Before that is made clear how can there be any competing one?


OK, the question is that, despite making small forays into the African continent, the Egyptians failed to capitalise on the vast riches that were there for the taking.

Why?
(OK, so I used the wrong word in "competing".)

Let's see your reasons.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 13:48
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Is there no one else out there with a competing theory?

Come on folks, let's mix it up a bit!!
So what is the theory here? Before that is made clear how can there be any competing one?


OK, the question is that, despite making small forays into the African continent, the Egyptians failed to capitalise on the vast riches that were there for the taking.

Why?
(OK, so I used the wrong word in "competing".)

Let's see your reasons.
First, since I am not an expert, take my answers for what they are.
Second: I think part of the question is not so much about ancient Egypt and Africa, as about where are the means in more recent times, and what kind of research has prestige. At least that is a possibillity.
It could be, that Africa outside Egypt are far less explored by archaeologists, and scientists, so we simpky know less about it. Since ancient Egypt from old times has prestige we - outside the specialist communities, also know more about them.


Edited by fantasus - 20 Feb 2014 at 13:56
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 23:41
Some points to ponder here:

1) The urge to explore and exploit have psychological as well as rational economic inputs. Needless to say, these vary considerably through time.

2) Today we are aware of various resources available in Africa. The Egyptians may not have been, or have not valued what was seen, or may have not thought what was there was worth the efforts needed to get it.

3) In the past, explorers were not just limited by technology, but also by prevailing mindset. China could have colonized much of the world in the 15th century, but chose not to. When the rest of the world eventually came to them, many there still considered there was no economic or intellectual value in contact.  Japan also turned inward for a long period. Today we tend to look at the past as one long unbroken string of expansion, exploration, and exploitation. But there were many cultures that showed little or no interest in going beyond what was already established.

4) Low hanging fruit tends to look tastier than that in the uppermost branches. Many likely considered they had a full plate with trade in the Mediterranean and North African regions, so why risk long uncomfortable journeys, exotic fevers, and angry tribesmen with spears in order to expand?

5) I may be off base with this point, but doesn't the terrain become rather forbidding near the sources of the Nile- lots of swamps in South Sudan, and rugged highlands in Ethiopia?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 05:41
Captain:

I have no argument with what you've posted.

By skirting the Sudan altogether and travelling through Ethiopia, past Lake Tana and on southwards, I think they could have had a reasonable trip.

Personally, I haven't got a clue-but I thought it was a bit odd that they didn't take what was there for the taking.

The whole point of my post was to solicit other members views on the topic.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 07:27
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Some points to ponder here:

1) The urge to explore and exploit have psychological as well as rational economic inputs. Needless to say, these vary considerably through time.
Thumbs Up

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

2) Today we are aware of various resources available in Africa. The Egyptians may not have been, or have not valued what was seen, or may have not thought what was there was worth the efforts needed to get it.

No, the Egptians trades several things from Nubia or via Nubia, ivory e.g. So they knew, but as I said, they knew as well, that it was far away.

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

3) In the past, explorers were not just limited by technology, but also by prevailing mindset. China could have colonized much of the world in the 15th century, but chose not to. When the rest of the world eventually came to them, many there still considered there was no economic or intellectual value in contact.  Japan also turned inward for a long period. Today we tend to look at the past as one long unbroken string of expansion, exploration, and exploitation. But there were many cultures that showed little or no interest in going beyond what was already established.
Thumbs Up

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

4) Low hanging fruit tends to look tastier than that in the uppermost branches. Many likely considered they had a full plate with trade in the Mediterranean and North African regions, so why risk long uncomfortable journeys, exotic fevers, and angry tribesmen with spears in order to expand?

That is probably correct. From the delta it was much more easier to go into Palestine or to trade with Cyprus, the Libanon or Greece.

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

5) I may be off base with this point, but doesn't the terrain become rather forbidding near the sources of the Nile- lots of swamps in South Sudan, and rugged highlands in Ethiopia?

Thumbs Up
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 19:07
I suspect that many ancients got around more than we know, but there is no record of it. Records could have been lost, or, the journeys simply not remarked upon, or the generators of much interest.

In a world before methodical scientific procedure, where magic was ever lurking, viewpoints on exploration and trade would likely have been very different from today. If it was assumed (and it probably was by many) that the world was huge, and full of all kinds of things one would never see, it would be no surprise to have someone come and say there is land out there you haven't seen. And with a limited base of knowledge, the exclamations that said lands contained riches would or would not be accepted on a purely subjective basis, probably the marketing skills of the traveler in question.


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 23:57
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

I suspect that many ancients got around more than we know, but there is no record of it. Records could have been lost, or, the journeys simply not remarked upon, or the generators of much interest.

In a world before methodical scientific procedure, where magic was ever lurking, viewpoints on exploration and trade would likely have been very different from today. If it was assumed (and it probably was by many) that the world was huge, and full of all kinds of things one would never see, it would be no surprise to have someone come and say there is land out there you haven't seen. And with a limited base of knowledge, the exclamations that said lands contained riches would or would not be accepted on a purely subjective basis, probably the marketing skills of the traveler in question.



Thanks for your input. I don't have argument with what you've said and your points are valid.

But it wasn't just the Egyptians who had the opportunity, the Romans were expansionists, the Phoenicians were traders around the area etc.

Do you have any comments on other people who could have "civilised" (and I use the word carefully) southern Africa, and set up trade.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 01:39
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

I suspect that many ancients got around more than we know, but there is no record of it. Records could have been lost, or, the journeys simply not remarked upon, or the generators of much interest.

In a world before methodical scientific procedure, where magic was ever lurking, viewpoints on exploration and trade would likely have been very different from today. If it was assumed (and it probably was by many) that the world was huge, and full of all kinds of things one would never see, it would be no surprise to have someone come and say there is land out there you haven't seen. And with a limited base of knowledge, the exclamations that said lands contained riches would or would not be accepted on a purely subjective basis, probably the marketing skills of the traveler in question.



Thanks for your input. I don't have argument with what you've said and your points are valid.

But it wasn't just the Egyptians who had the opportunity, the Romans were expansionists, the Phoenicians were traders around the area etc.

Do you have any comments on other people who could have "civilised" (and I use the word carefully) southern Africa, and set up trade.


Africa endured a certain amount of isolation due to its geography. Few natural harbours, dangerous surf landings, and in the interior, lots of jungle, swamp, desert, and other environments not destined to appear in travel ads. There were also bugs that northerners did not have immunity to. Given this, there were practical reasons why historical peoples stayed away. Much easier to sail the relatively calm Mediterranean, or even traverse the Silk Road, that hack one's way down to the Congo, with one's fellows dropping like flies.

We can also take a step back, and try to see things through contemporary eyes. Today, with our long history of exploration and rational inquiry, it is easy to spin the globe, see a spot that is ill understood, and completely understand why missions are underway- even at great cost- to do so. Was this the case in the time period you are interested in? I think not. In times past, the world was all about magic, mysticism, and dogma. No one could see a globe. If the world was a plate held up by a giant tortouse, what was the point in going to the edge? That would have been dangerous, and not likely to bring wealth.

Perhaps you think this a bit facetious, but actually things have only evolved so far today. Cosmologists today come up with radical ideas about the universe, and are often met with nay-sayers, from the Vatican, the Texas school board, and all the way down to Molecule, Alabama.

So- who knows? There is some literature that suggests Egyptians circumnavigated Africa, but my guess is that the vast majority in Africa did not know anything of the outside world, until Arab, and slightly later, European slavers came for them.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 04:59
Yes, I agree with what you've posted.

I'm pleased to see some input from someone else.

Thanks again.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.