The Reasons Why Africa Was "Behind" Europe and Asia 

I got a few documentaries on my pages playlist

Wait who is metatron

@@PaintedHoundie Metatron is a youtuber from Italy who talks about history, lots of Roman stuff, but he covers a lot of different subjects.

Excuses & more Excuses Ancient pre Aryans invaded the America's giving rise to the Aztecs Mayans & inca plus they were isolated from the rest of the world

@@fightfannerd2078 Dear Bot, why do you copy comments and then post them out of context in random threads?

In Europe and Asia, though, caloric surplus after agriculture allowed for the development and diversification of human societies. There must be, for the native Venezuelans, something else that impeded their (relative) advancement other than a shortage of food.

@@sergpie Keep in mind that Europe didn't start out that way. War was already an integral part of European culture due to the harsh climate long before agriculture arose in the region. It just continued afterward despite the newfound abundance.

Lol wars were not fought for necessities

@@nirvanic3610 Are you saying that no wars were fought over necessities? Because that would be incorrect and dumb.

@@kayode8428 no, but I'm saying the greatest and most wars are fought for wealth and power.

And if Hannibal had sacked Rome we may be having a very different conversation. Forgot about Julius Ceasar. If those kidnappers had killed him or he was never assassinated Rome would have been very different.

There is no reason to believe a white enclave in Africa practicing endogamy would magically up and transform into a so-called black phenotype over time.

@@crescendyr8438 evolution?

@@Joker-yw9hl That's not what evolution is nor how it works. Europeans aren't "evolved" Africans. Black Africans are perfectly capable of living in Europe and White Europeans in Africa without any phenotypical change. What you are describing is transformation, not evolution.

@@crescendyr8438 I didn't imply that Europeans are evolved Africans. If anything, the other way around. Don't come at me from that angle. If you're serious then you are carrying some serious chips on your shoulders and harbouring some extreme victim mentality. That was toxic. PS, that's exactly how evolution works. There's a reason races outside of Africa are no longer dark skinned when their ancestors once were, and why Polynesians and Aboriginal people remained darker skinned. There's a reason why Australia has the highest skin cancer rate in the world per capita (because so many fair-skinned people inhabit such a hot country). Life, uh, finds a way. Give it enough time (thousands and thousands of years) and change would take place. This doesn't really need explaining does it

It was the thing I find most odd, Africa is extremely hard for people to live in. The ideal climate is that of the Levant and all regions like it.

@@tylerrobbins8311 that seems like the ideal climate for agricultural civilizations. Humans came out of the tropical highland plains of Ethiopia, which there's a lot of in subsaharan africa, maybe that and thicker forests are better for hunter gatherer peoples?

No way, dude. I must be jinxed bc I just watched your videos and I gotta say I'm impressed by your work and the Minecraft server you put together. I too am working on several fantasy maps/worlds and your tips helped alot. Thanks, and keep up the work!

I wouldn't really agree with that. Africa is hardly easy. Both Africa and Eurasia are extremely climatologically diverse, and Africa also contains many harsh environments, such as deserts, savannas that are dry for half the year (over a lot of sub-Saharan Africa), seasonally dry forests, and rainforests that have their own challenges, all of which require human innovation to survive. I do agree with many of the other explanations in the video do though (much of the same/many of them would also appy to the native cultures of the Americas).

@@Stoneworks Ethiopia is also a harsh land. Humans are best suites to temperate lush hills not so much highlands. Aside from just the climate there is also fauna an flora to consider which Africa is very dangerous. Crazy to think people have thrived in African considering how dangerous it is.

A couple of things. 1. Why did you start at 16th century? 2. Why do you think other areas, outside Europe and in Africa, didn't engage in warfare to the same degree? Constantly fighting each other.

I can agree on that, that's why China didn't catch up as they closed their borders since there no match for them they subdued the small kingdoms around them and just stay out of things. Can u believe when the British reached the court of the emperor they replied to him with Latin!! Since they figured he was European then he might speak Roman

@@willek1335 It was around the 15th and 16th century that the European nations started to centralize instead of being patchworks of lordships who nominally recognised a king. Because of the divided nature of these realms there wasn't that much large scale warfare between nations because kings would have to struggle with their vasels to get enything done. With centralization, European states looked beyond their boarders for more opportunities which brought them into conflict with one an other more often, hence why this armes race probably began in the 16th century. The 16th century was also the time that traditional medieval armies were being abandoned in favor of fire arms and more modern tactics. If European nations wished to keep up with their neiighbors in these changing times, they had to constantly innovate. As for why there was more warfare in Europe then in other places. I don't know for sure but my theory is that it has to do with Europe's small size and the fact that the nations bordered each other more often then nations in other parts of the world. The lack of formidable natural boarders like jungles, desserts and large mountain ranges may also be a factor.

@@thefrenchkiwi9435 a mixture of the dark ages, collapse of the Roman Empire ans size of Europe as you said would be a major reason for why their was alot of warfare.

@@thefrenchkiwi9435 I get that we have access to more European documents than documents from other regions, but how can we tell if it in fact occurred more war in Europe? I don't know how we could realistically measure it.

I mean you are partly correct but also incorrect at the same time omus the vast majority of African states were not "Tribal"

@@tauempire1793 Yes many were, even the empires and kingdoms had tribal clans. There were also tribal kingdoms, lol. Tribalism was and is still part of Africa. What's to be ashamed about that?

Africans did not have "better land management", just more land. "There were no "better disease prevention lifestyles" you only need to look at traditional medicines to see this. "And there certainly wasn't any greater "spiritual or social evolution". Much of society that we have records of was either backwards or in line with what happened at the time. You have a romanticised notion of Africa when that wasn't the case. "Mass genocides, slavery, famines, or plagues" Yeah, those existed. And in many of the more advanced societies human sacrifice was a fact of daily life.

@@introspectiver1787 Many African Nations and Tribes practiced disease prevention. These included burning settlements as a disinfectant and shifting settlements to new locations. Social distancing was practiced by dispersing settlements - Archaeologists. And many living in the jungles and wetlands build their settlements away from waterways such as rivers, lakes and swamps to avoid malaria outbreaks. They learned this from earlier pandemics such as small pox and so on.

@@introspectiver1787 Human sacrifice was practiced by some Pagan Tribe cultures across Europe, mostly with the Viking and Druids societies. But Human Sacrifice was heavily practiced in Rome and by the Catholic Church, they committed more sacrifices than all the world combined. Europe also had tribes that were for the most part peaceful such as the Sami, all continents has their share of peaceful Tribes at some point.

Good point healthcare is more important for survival in africa since there are more diseases in the tropics

@@Capta1nAfrica I was being general since lacking the wheel is one of the things people talk about when they say Africans are “behind”

Agreed. But I think he meant as far as technological like the gun and political advancements like an empire expanding past its natural barriers.

Spot on

Perfectly well said

Most of which never came to become as advanced as Eurasia's empires. A lot of them were pretty developed, but they never caught up with the sociological and technological progress of Eurasian nations. A shame, really.

@@alexrexaros9837 that's part of the problem. Assuming history is a measuring contest when it's not. Africa didn't have a bronze age and many of them had medical traditions completely unique to them until Europe adopted them later. And many had trade routes spanning the Indian Ocean for 2000 years. We should take the history of these regions around the world on a case by case basis. Because pining them against each other breeds disingenuous discussions that lack nuance.

Complex? 😂😂😂😂

@@prophetofbara1214came to say the same thing. There are different priorities of cultures. My favourite example is that while the British were too busy with conquering the world, some Eastern Europeans made sure every house has a bathroom. The British were using communal bathrooms until the 1980’. It’s all about priorities.

None of them lived as long as or accomplished as much as what happened in Eurasia and were backwards in many aspects (technologically) to what occurred abroad. Yes it was because of Africa's isolation and climate but it still remains the truth.

Europeans and Asian don't and never have compared themselves to Africa. African nations were never a threat to them. Get real, your statement itself reveals your own insecurities.

@@TDK2K piss off Africa was a threat if they weren't it would have ended like south America when Europeans invade during the 13th century, futhermore Europeans tryer multiple times in the 14 and 15th century to take over but failed for the most part such a Mali, Ethiopia, and Matope to Somalia. Also people love to joke about wankada or we wuz kangz everytime something that not shaka Zulu is mentioned.

@@tompossessed1729 they invaded America during the 15th and 16th century but yeah I agree

@@tauempire1793 Damn but that correction actually reinforced my point since their were no repeated attempts to invade

Well, so is Australia…

Three oceans including the Saharan? 🤣🤣

@@Dhruv_Dograhe was making a point, obviously the Sahara is not an ocean but effectively cuts them off in the same way

@@MsAaprill And Austarlia didn't start developing until Europeans came.

They rather just blame it on race and call it a day instead of looking at the information objectively

@@greatestindanationwide8332 the race one is stupid because occam's razors shows thier too many variables like how cold winter are inconsistent with innovation

I believe the Sahara Desert stopped the progress of the Bubonic Plague, and thus it never spread south.

@@cavaugnsharkey2699 Actually you may want to revisit that, I thought this was the case but found out differently a few yrs back. Put the following highlights in your search engine. *The Black Death may have transformed medieval societies in sub-Saharan Africa* *By Lizzie WadeMar. 6, 2019 , 12:00 PM* *Science*

@@mrnancy1114 Well thats new i never thought it entered passed the Sahara.

@@admirekashiri9879 Yeah I only became aware of it being in Mali and perhaps the Gambia a few yrs ago.

@@mrnancy1114 Thanks bro, I haven't really studied much about the Black Death and its effects across the world. Good to have viable information.

Nah. When you got racists telling you that black people have low IQ and use that to justify doing horrible things to blacks it kinda is like that. Don't get me wrong you shouldn't get obssessed with it though.

@@some1350 I get both your points, but the very idea that racists can say with their full chest that a "more intelligent" group should ruthlessly exploit a "less intelligent" one up to enslavement and genocide just goes to show how demonic they are.

Some asain Thai clown tried telling me africa was nothing compared to eurasia, lol. I couldn't take him seriously😂.

Right you are. Im even having an argument with some kid on IG who said that african civilisations are "nothing" in comparison to Asia and Europe. He even said that a small village In Italy is "better built and has better history than all of 'sub saharan' africa combined", along with insulting african civilisations like G. Zimbabwe and mali calling them "mud huts" to put it simply. Should I give this guy anymore attention?.

​@@Speedofdark339the guy who said that European and Asian cultures are more developed than African ones is clearly right. You have to be stupid to disagree with this thesis. If it weren’t for colonization, black people would still be running around with spears

100% agree with the archaelogy point. God knows what is waiting in Africa's soil to be discovered by scientists.

In Europe besides Greeks and Romans, there were celts,Tracian,Dacia, Scythian, who had their own civilization.

@@Kannot2023 These might be considered "cultures" rather than "civilizations".

@@micha2909 I mean the term civ is abit bias like th4 Nok weren't necessarily a civilisation rather a culture similar to the Celts but we regard them as a civilisation. Civilisation is a bias term as I said and it depends upon the context we are comming from

@@tauempire1793 Sure, it is a bit of a judgment.

best comment!

Being a Zimbabwean I have heard the Mwene-Kongo (King of Kongo) and Mwene-Mutapa (King of Mutapa aka Great Zimbabwe), yep there is indeed a link in the language and royal titles but they had contact and trade according to a Zimbabwean historian I know. How extensive i don't know though.

@@admirekashiri9879 Yes , this type of history is poorly understood by many, including myself, peeling back the vast layers of African history will take time , for Africa does not give up it's secrets easily.

@@mrnancy1114 exactly there is so so much we don't know certain conclusions without more research can't be made we keep being show new stuff with the growing number of researchers and excavations looking into Africa.

@@admirekashiri9879 Zimbabwean did they have body armor like north Africa, Asia and Europe. did any medieval city or ancient city with old building like London, Cordoba, Fez, Cairo, Jeddah, Damascus, Rabat, Granada did any building or monument building in Zimbabwe in pre-Europe and Arab like Taj Mahal, Castle, Petra, Madain Saleh, Colosseum, Angkor Wat and Borobudur, any university, sewer system, palace? so it similar to Papuan, Australian aboriginal do not have any great achievement

Asia is huge too, Mesoamerican are isolated yet they do better and created great civilization and writing script, great city too, with astronomy, calendar and others, American Maya did better than sub-Saharan black

@@safuwanfauzi5014 China mainly developed on the east. The west is unproductive land. So transfer was centralized in the restricted fertile area. West Africa did quite well benin city, Timbuktu, lots of kingdoms empires, however the area was still vast with many different peoples that didn't have time to consolidate. The south Americans were dealt an even worse card. Very limited animals, no iron weapons, cultures built upon human sacrifice fostered deep hostility internally. So when the Europeans came in with diseases it was a wrap.

@@user-vw6bk4pb4l Maya did have gold, silver n coppper, did have calender, writings script, but no iron, steel n wheel, no horse. but more advance than bnin, ashanti n zulu. ethophia are semites, sudan because of egypt,

@@safuwanfauzi5014 dude what?

@@safuwanfauzi5014 the may was not more advance, you need to read up on West African history

Oh yeah the split in Africa, that's millions of years away tho 😢😢😢😢

I mean tbf it does depend on what you consider a "Rome" style nation. The average Size of African Kingdoms and Empire's generally were much larger then their European and even to an extent many of their Asian counterparts. Axum was over 1 million in kilometres and so was Songhai and Mali and there are others not too far behind. You can't really compare anything to Rome, few nations reach such a size.

@@tauempire1793 yeah but unlike the Romans they neve left a unified language, culture and religion like the Romans did. Auxum didn’t even accomplish this otherwise we wouldn’t be having issue in Ethiopia and Eritrea regarding tribalism religion and language.

@@makeytgreatagain6256 To be honest askum really put itself in bad situations when they were christian rights when Arabia became mulsim

@@tompossessed1729 how is that?

@@makeytgreatagain6256 That was an inadequate reply, didn't Rome split into two political spheres with two variations of Christianity. Persia had a huge empire rivaling Rome in size yet how many far flung peoples of that once great empire speak Persian or Farsi. Ditto for the Ottoman Turks.

Similar to the Aztecs the Congo kingdom was basically that same way like Yoruba and Igbo both accomplished a lot being very isolated. African kingdoms could had been just like everyone if the climate was a lot different

*Sigh!* again folks are under this misconception that Africans lagged behind in Trade, according to Christopher Ehret of UCLA, West Africans actually started out being long distance traders and not by royal charters either , but by groups of Individuals often specialist . The Proto Wagadu cities 2500 B.C were developed in wards, producing different items for trading and was long-distance in nature, matter of fact one by product of this far flung network maybe seen in the Tumulus burials from the Senegal river to the Niger and the Nile. And oh by the way they did this by making use the Donkey an African domesticated beast of burden, which incidentally found it's way to Sumer. So it was no accident that when North Africans and later Arabs came on the scene thousands of yrs later, they found a well developed system of trade in the area. We just don't know enough to make such assumptions.

I am from southern Nigeria, I can confirm that most knowledge and written systems were kept within secret societies that still exist today.

Well they had to skip bronze . In Europe in was a thing till the early middle ages because both copper and tin were accessible. It took the rise of Islam , and the cutting of from the Syrian foundries, which forced the switch to iron. Regarding the size of territory aspect it is only partially true. Yes Africa had kingdoms of a very large size, but the same the density of population was much smaller. It is like Russia and most of its population living in the pre Ural regions , but most of the countries territory being Asian.

@@piotrjeske4599 oh yes this is a reaosn why copper smelting comes later but Iron smelting comes early in Africa and to a degree yes population is partially true though in terms of population there was still more people living within African states then there were European states it's just that the density may of not been as high in certain areas and so on so fourth but my point still persists. I'm not saying Africans inherently were better to do these things no there are reasons why group rise and fall and why some are able to advance more then others and there is nothing inherent about the people that makes them advanced as humans are the same. We have to keep in mind that there are environmental reasons for why Africans states and civilisations had many benefits and advantages compared to much of the world but also many flaws and disadvantages. I'm just stating the fact that Africa has usually been on par with the rest of the world until roughly the 1500 century and after and even then that's arguably not fully correct. Large Empire's like Songhai and Mali would've dwarfed that of England and were still more populated. Of course the density or population in Europe wasn't that far behind but because Africa was the birth place of humanity and that the local resources allowed for the growth of large states, far and extending trade routes and overall good diets until after European Colonisation we can see that the amount population was also ahead of Europe for much of it's time and this was not the case everywhere no, but it was the case in many places with centralised states, for example kongo and portugal had a population similar to eachother meaning the populations of Africa weren't small and Mali had a larger populations then France at the same time period. We just have to remember these things.

@@piotrjeske4599 also Iron metallurgy in Europe goes back a far bit during the bronze age collapse in greece. And of course the rise of the Greek and Roman Empire's which was before Islam. Now for Africa Iron metllurgy is also older then Islam and infact, when the Kushites were pushed out of egypt they adopted Iron into their full scale arsenal for their forces after such event and most Iron making in Africa was rather independent. Infact the oldest site in the world for iron making is Central Africa that goes back to 2000 BC and these are mostly independent creations with North Eastern and Northetn Africa of course being exceptions due to them being exposed to Eurasia.

@@tauempire1793 actually the oldest iron making in the world is somewhere in present turkey which dates from 2500 BC which is a iron dagger made in ancient Anatolia.

@Stratos I in Africa there was armor depending on the area in central and South Africa the armor was rare and if it was it would be at best leather or quilted armor because of the environment in a hot and humid environment heat retention is not something you want to have considering that Metal armor would retain a lot of heat. Only in Western, Northern, and Eastern Africa metal and quilted armors depending on culture and environment they were, those types of armor were more prevalent because of trade, just because africa was not just as advanced in most areas does not mean that they were as primitive as you would claim to be they used shields because they did not wear much armor in hotter and more humid environments.

​@Stratos I The fact that we have proof of Europeans literally destroying all evidence of ancient African civilizations (again, go look up the folks who dug up the ruins of Zimbabwe or the folks who burned the Edo/Mali empire to the ground) is what makes this a logically tenable and reasonable position. It's not at all ideal, because the lack of evidence means we may not ever be able to say for sure either way. That's exactly what makes this such a tragic and sobering possibility to keep in mind. "Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence". I would never go so far as to say these civilizations had spaceships or some crazy stuff, but we cannot simply assume they never did anything just because we can't or haven't yet found any evidence. If anything, I think we should be more meticulous and actually sponsor more research in this area in order to find anything that might have been saved, overlooked, or hidden. Because, as of now, very few people are even bothering to look, which means any evidence people might find is dismissed, privatized, or destroyed before it ever sees the light of day.

​@Stratos I Ah, therein is your assumption and obvious agenda. I don't know CRT talking points nor do I care. I am not an afrocentrist nor am I presuming that Africa was better than anywhere else. I am only justifiably pointing out the huge oversight in the anthropological data. And in fact, I do think the same goes for almost every other aboriginal society. We see hints of societies all across the world being more advanced than the obviously racist and/or statist societies claim them to be. Wengrow and Graeber's recent book, The Dawn of Everything, begins to shed light on this matter as well. It is a fact that many, many cultures previously dismissed as 'barbaric' or 'savages' actually had very advanced methods of governance, sustainable food production/foraging, and even construction and medicines. Again, I am not saying they were as advanced as what we have today, but they were certainly more advanced than they are given credit today. And there is still much we could learn from these societies if people (perhaps like yourself, though I dont want to presume) stop ignoring the obvious gap in our knowledge. So your wager is wrong. Are you going to admit as such or will you double down?

​@Stratos I Now I know you're not even up to a reasonable debate. Didn't the British get absolutely demolished in that battle?? Despite having 'superior weaponry', they were still torn apart by the Zulu? Much of Africa (and many other indigenous societies) did not fall merely due to the Europeans use of guns. They fell due to infighting just as much if not more than guns. And it was certainly not 'because they were backwards' whatever that means under your thinly veiled racism. Authoritarian regimes, no matter where on Earth you find them, all end the same way: through infighting that fractures further due to external pressure. Civilization is indeed defined by statist powers who wish to legitimize their autocratic way of life against other, much longer lived egalitarian societies deemed as 'uncivilized'. But human history (and even 'prehistory) is riddled with hints of civilizations that don't follow the common definition. Not because they didnt organize themselves into what could be considered a 'civilization', but simply because people like you just don't want to include them. Perhaps because it doesnt fit into your own ideology you have ironically been massaging? The fact that you said 'it has all been mapped out by archeology for centuries' is yet another blatant lie screaming your ignorance and/or misjudgments. Literally every year we discover new things that force us to reconsider what we thought we knew about human history. In 2021 we discovered clues that humans migrated to the Americas a few thousand years earlier than we thought. These are very strong clues that will most likely disprove the Clovis theory that has been popular till now. We also discovered evidence that some societies treated nonbinary and disabled people in high respect, which disproves the idea that gender neutral expressions are recent, and that prehistoric cultures were not able/willing to take care of the disabled. I highly suggest you go take a look at channels like Stefan Milo or HomeTeam History. Or even just google recent archeological discoveries before coming back here to spout more nonsense. I greatly enjoy being wrong and discovering new things, but you aren't even making this an interesting discussion. Good day sir/ma'am!

Wakanda isn’t a real place you know

@@sdrrshock5594 asgard and olympus arent real either racist

Military techonically, and ideal economic theory, wheel and writing yes it algged behind for the majority part.

@@Drgguv Military technology and economic theory as compared to whom and when in Africa and whom and when in Europe and Asia.

Africa has always had very strong and capable civilisations throughout its history. I think it's fair enough though to say that the Sahara Desert pretty much excluded most of Sub-Saharan Africa (especially the interior) from the outside world/Eurasia, and Eurasia was where it was at (primarily because of Asia). A lot could be gained from access to the Silk Road, and Africa (Sub-Saharan) simply wasn't a part of that (not in the same way as Eurasian economies). It is also fair to point out that apart from the fertile lands of West Africa where food could be grown in sufficient quantities, the lack of a *proper* winter makes it *much* more difficult, expensive and time consuming to grow crops than it does in a temperate climate like Northern Europe. One of the main functions of winter is to kill all the insects and wipe the slate clean for a fresh start. Without that you get problems which still persist to this day. Locusts, flies, mosquitos carrying diseases etc etc.. and not to mention there isn't a huge amount of interconneted navigable rivers in Africa like the Mississippi basin in America for example, which runs right through the continent in a way which is hugely beneficial for the Americans, both in terms of the economy and for arable land. Even Europe has no integrated River system - their rivers are all in their own economic zones which correspond with national borders. The Seine for example is not connected in any way to the Rhine, the Danube or the Volga. For this reason it's much easier to integrate the United States than it is to integrate Africa or Europe. But like I said in my own comment on this video, no peoples are inferior or superior to one another. It's all about geography and circumstance. The Germans for example are more industrious and hard-working than other Europeans because of their geopolitical situation in the centre of Europe, surrounded on all sides and with Russia to its east, France to its west and Britain hanging offshore able to stick its nose in whenever it wants. It bleeds into their culture. It happens all over the world. Americans can afford to be ignorant and silly because their geographic advantage and overall protection is so great that they couldn't screw it up if they tried. Britain could afford to play about with ideas like Parliamentary Democracy and the Industrial Revolution because of its geographic protection (so long as it controlled the local seas and played the Europeans off against each other, which wasn't hard as they often shared land borders and mutual distrust/competing interests). It's all relative I suppose is what I'm saying. Different continents had different challenges and advantages and that's just the way it is. China is also an interesting case study as its geography lends itself to central authoritarian rule to keep all the regions in check, and then periods of mass instability and civil revolt. It's almost cyclical. It's incredible really how much geography plays a role in civilisations

You said [ It is also fair to point out that apart from the fertile lands of West Africa where food could be grown in sufficient quantities, the lack of a proper winter makes it much more difficult, expensive and time consuming to grow crops than it does in a temperate climate like Northern Europe.] Northern Europe was never a temperate zone, and you are not looking at the fact that, much of East and central East African economies was based around large cattle herding, and had very little interest in being farmers which they tend to loathed, even in the mixed economies of Southern Africa, cattle was the primary focus, so cultural determinism ie. choice, have a lot to do with it .

@@mrnancy1114 yeah I feel like that proves my point if anything but you are absolutely correct (edit: about the cattle, while Europe is a temperate climate but yeah).

I agree in the 14-15 century African civilizations were actually catching up and was on its way to be like muli state civilizations especially the seheal region but then the slave trade stopped all of that. Pretty much these states never became completely established long enough before Europeans came

I agree Africa could have caught up if the larger states didn't collapse and destabilize certain regions (example songhai) If timbuctu continued to receive proper support it would have helped drive innovation in west Africa and the rest of the continent

@hunter christensen That’s true. But what I mean when I say “naturally” is in reference to the difference between colonialism and traditional expansion. When we look at what the Romans did to Gaul( now France) they incorporated it as a direct part of their empire/State. They developed it, took influence from it, settled it, etc etc. Furthermore, from what I understand, the technology gap wasn’t nearly as wide. When we look at what the British did to Nigeria and most of Africa there’s a stark difference. Rather than incorporation we see plunder and exploitation (for example, most colonial infrastructure was for the purpose of getting goods from the interior to the coast, rather than development of the colony). Exploitation and plunder, of course occurred under the romans and all other empires in history; but I think during colonialism it was especially bad due to the fact that during this age there was no driving force to consider these conquered people as “people” and a lot of these conquests occurred remarkably quickly( within a century) and the conquests were much more efficient. So no group really had the chance to catch up or learn. When we look at why Europeans felt no need to directly incorporate much of their colonial holdings directly (France being an exception) it’s likely due to the rise of social Darwinism. Which at the time was seen as natural and factual. Despite in the past racism existing, it rarely got to the point that the humanity of a people was ignored or done away with by even the intellectual strands of society-at least that I know of. So in summary, yes no region really developed naturally. But I don’t think any region has been conquered so quickly nor as thoroughly as Africa.

Another important thing to mention is that a lot of Pre-colonial African states were still in the process of being forged. When we look at the Ashanti, they were still largely expanding, as were the Songhai, as were the Zulu, etc etc. European colonialism largely interrupted the process of state building that likely could have facilitated development in its own right. We see this lasting into today, with many African states struggling to develop a proper sense of nationality-the North African states being an exception. This isn’t something special to Africa, many other regions have had states destroyed in the middle of the nation building process, I just thought it was kinda interesting. Another thing to note is that of the states that did properly forge a national identity, they typically went on in attempts to expand on the continent. I bring this up because Egypt under Muhammad Ali attempted to expand southward and annex bits of Ethiopia. But Ethiopia had the chance to develop new tactics and adapt to this new age of warfare quicker than other African states. And so the conquest failed. But in places like Sudan, and parts of Uganda, Egypt consumed them and incorporated them into her empire. In summary, I think one of the reasons Africa is struggling into modern day is because very few of the modern countries have a sense of nationhood-they were largely stitched into existence by colonialism-but on the other hand, very few precolonial entities can be reconstructed or pointed to as a direction to head in-since they too were conquered. This leaves a lot of Africans in a kind of limbo; they modern states can’t quite integrate their population and their population can’t really return to their old states. Over time it’ll reach whatever conclusion and amend itself, but as for now this is how it is.

@@NeinSquared Thats true Egypt made it the furthest in thier industrialization process and still fell (they could mass produce rifles but I'm not sure about thier warship production ) although I think that's more because their geography isn't very defensible without a large navy. Also Ismail pasha wanted all of Ethiopia he wanted to make an empire all the way to the horn like the old punt empire

Hahahaha.

Bingo!

Differently behind*

Great analysis

@@FromNothing Thanks.

@@FromNothing It occurred to me that the competition that made Europe great has been internationalized by modern globalization. The rest will catch up with the west.

@@zacmarulo8721 india built world's first two University which show the focus on education, education is the jey if success

whats your hypothesis? serious question.

Gunpowder was definitely not the only one. I named several in the video.

@@FromNothing only one that mattered

@@jaybeeeasy ok

@Andree De haan that’s not what he’s saying though

@Andree De haan that wasn't what he was saying

@Andree De haan but you can't say Europe was more developed than Africa and vice-versa when considering what we mean about development and the time period.

@Andree De haan Depends on the technology/time period you’re speaking about. Development isn’t a linear thing.

@Andree De haan If it was linear than all civilizations would look and function the same. They obviously don’t because there are millions of factors that go into a civilization’s development thus making it non-linear.

Guns germs and steel has been debunked multiple times it’s a scam book

@@f1i273 No it hasnt without the silk road and trade and war between euroasia there would be no Europe.

@@f1i273 it has never been debunked while your opinion is just Propaganda. besides what made the Europe so powerful is the combination of Asia trade and war. what E Pluribus Unum forgot one key aspect is the Europe without Asia War and Trade there would still be Europe but would be either like central or southern africa in terms of development at best but with poor resources.

@@EPUEPUEPUEPU do not forget that African students are learning in European and American colleges and universities and bring their knowledge back to Africa meaning that some African Countries will become major world powers. besides African Population will grow till early 2100s but thein it will either stabilize or decline like in the rest of the world but by then Nigeria will become a Major Economic Power rivaling US India and China the second Richest African Countries might be either Ethiopia or DR Congo.

Africans north of the forest zone did have horses. Even some in the forest zone did like the Benin kingdom. This region was also host to Africa's largest empires.

@@FromNothing that only proves my point. Horse domestication is crucial thing that most of Africa lacked.

Except I'm black and I don't live in Europe... Also based on your comment I'll assume you didn't even watch the video.

@@Kemetyu-Centered36 Just shut up

@@Kemetyu-Centered36 your opinion is totally irrelevant so please shut up and lay down your drugs man.

@@FromNothing You have been educated by european, normaly you do good videos but this one is trash, when there is so much knowledge out there, this is a dispointment.

The website is literally the first thing on his linktree.

@@YaBoiDREX in the description there's no link. I also looked at the website, but the sources for the video aren't up yet.

@@djbioman4898 the link is the last sentence in the description

@@YaBoiDREX regardless he says at the start that this video is his own thoughts. Then goes on to outline a summary of Guns, Germs and Steel by Jarrod Diamond. In some places that's considered plagiarism. Hence why I said he SHOULD give a reference.

@@djbioman4898 Jared Diamond didn’t invent this argument dude.

Yep they got too comfortable that was the issue they should have had cultures of continuous improvement and continous growth.

ancient Mesoamerica did have the wheel and used it for children's toys but it is simply useless without livestock to use it for ploughing

That's why I put the word behind in quotes.

@@FromNothing you my friend is great. Just binging your videos.

Yep and I totally disagree with him. Africa had complex civilizations and was technologically progressed.

@@bigfan2452 perhaps Africa north of the Sahara, yes, as they had been trading with the Middle East, Asia, and Europe for millennia. But subsaharan Africa was and still is significantly less technologically advanced than most of the rest of the world.

@@Theodorebenevolent Sub-Saharan Africa includes regions such as Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, West African kingdoms like the Ghana Empire, Santo empire among many other areas.

The Sahara needs better transportation and more hospitable climate.

Because humans evolve for that enviroment, they just aren't that hard for people that live their

They were. The Sahel region, at least, which is right below the Sahara. This is where the pottery from 9,400 BC was found. The general location of Nigeria is where the greatest population of Africans has always been. The actual Sahara isn't just hostile, it's borderline uninhabitable without a godsend like the Nile to support life and trade, which is why the Nile ended up being the most advanced.

That Africa wasnt behind? Dont start with communist dogmas, all human cultures arent equal and geography plays a strong part. Parts of Africa were certainly matched in tech, the ones better comunicated with Eurasia, but the ones who werent...

I’m actually working on a similar premise. What if the African Humid Period restarted 2000+ years ago. It basically revolves around West African Monsoon turning the Sahara into a savanna like the Sahel region. Kingdoms like Garamantes and Nubia will have to put up one hell of a fight since Rome is within matching range. While the numerous nomadic tribes will become the arbitrators trade and war.

I think the Aztecs had knowledge of the wheel. It was definitely the Incas who knew nothing of it (and yet built Macchu Picchu).

@@kafenwar actually no thr Inca made the wheel though it was only for toys the Aztecs didn't know it though at all as they had no true need for it

@@tauempire1793 But Aztecs did create artifacts utilizing a wheel-like design.

@Tau Empire yeah you got it backwards. It was the Aztec who made wheel toys, not the Inca.

They literally sacrificed/murdered millions of their own people every year. But hey, Europe was the shithole.

Thing is though, on the whole Africa (because of it's size) was suitable for humans. One didn't have to challenge the desert because the savanna land was on average always suitable. And the savanna dry season was stable and you always knew when it would come so that wasn't a problem. Furthermore, because of these things people didn't really have an incentive to stick together. If clans quarreled they could always move elsewhere.

@@introspectiver1787 What you decribe also applied to Eurasia for much of history: winter is predictable too (both dry seasons amd winters must be prepared for and require innovation and cooperation), and Eurasia too has its hot zones. In Eurasia, clans, tribes, and other subgroups could also move elsewhere for much if its history (especially its early history, which was mainly what was being referred to) - but, as in Africa, there was often the chance of encroaching onto land inhabited by others (which could be dealt with in various ways).

@@skellagyook Not really. The dry season in Africa coincides with the (is the) harvesting season for many areas. You literally just have to wait for your crops to fully mature. You can also still plant (certain plants do not require as much water) esp if you are in the tropics or near a river (where the dry season is so mild that you still see greenery everywhere). Because of the rainy season often you'll have a surplus and can store it without much worry. If push comes to shove you can also still relatively easily fish, or hunt. You can't grow crops in winter, and hunting and fishing are more difficult in winter. As for hotspots. Eurasia's main hotspot (the Steepes) are nothing like what goes on in Africa (the desert is dry and cold and lacks the moisture that circulates even in African hotspots barring the Kalahari and Sahara). The Arabian peninsula is almost an extension of the Sahara (hence why it was sparsely populated until recently) and other areas of the Middle East have the advantage of the Mediterranean currents and the major rivers like the Tigris. Even then the land remains fairly flat and even and similar in temperature compared with Africa. Clans could move yes but for the Middle East and India the areas where one could thrive as a large group were limited and this incentivised groups to form around those areas (like major rivers) which was why they did. In Africa, because its so large you can go anywhere and you will find more areas that are relatively comfortable to live in. As for neighbours, because competition isn't as strong, fighting isn't as strong either and many groups adopted an almost "we ignore them they ignore us" policy. Most conflicts arose really only when pastoralists met agriculturalists (in the East-Africa) and many groups solved this by essentially marrying into each other and adopting both.

@@introspectiver1787 In many areas the dry season lasts several months and crop storage is needed to prepare for it (crops from the previous season must be stored in grannaries, which is a common traditional practice in many West African cultures). In temperate zones, crops were stored in preparation for winter. Normally the harvest season comes before the dry season (I am mainly thinking of the savanna and savanna-bordering forest/woodland savanna regions of West Africa). One could say that Winter also coincides with the harvest season (i.e. Autumn, which precedes it). Regarding migration, I was referring mainly to Eurasia's early history (the video was referring to prehistory and early history) during which Eurasia was also inhabited mainly by tribal groups. It is true that (though far from all) of the Near East and India was significantly more densely populated after the Neolithic (though not necessarily before), but that was not the case for most of Europe and much of central Asia and East Asia (perhaps outside of nascent population centers along certain rivers in China) in their early historird. Some centers of relative population density, often near rivers and Lakes, existed in Africa as well (though thise kinds of navigable waterways were rarer and generally shorter in Africa than in Eurasia), such as near the Niger, Bani, and Benue Rivers in West Africa, the Limpopo Southern Africa, the Great Lakes in/near Uganda/Rwanda, some areas near Lake Chad, and certain parts of Nigeria, those being among the places in Africa where more advanced societies developed.). When I said hot zones, I was refering to temperature. Substantial regions of Eurasia such as the Near East, South Asia, and Southeast Asia are warm/hot (some being moist), as is much of southern Europe (to a lesser extent). The Eurasian steppe (in Central Asia-Eastern Europe is more temperate to cold. Even in the moist regions of Africa (like the grester Congo) there were challenges to survival, deadly animals and diseases being among them (and large dangerous animals were present in Africa), to which local peoples had to adapt. I do not think it can really be said that Africa was "easier" than Eurasia (too great a diversity of environments and cultures existed in both). It seems to simplistic. The Americas had many cold and temperate regions as well and also could be said to have "lagged behind" Eurasia (for some reasons comparable to Africa in certain periods). The most advanced civilizations in the Americas tended to bein warner areas (with one exception being Andean cultures). In Eurasia, advanced cultures developed in the warm river valleys of the Near East and India.

@@skellagyook Someone also raised an interesting point. Part of the reason why we don't see too many African civilisations around rivers either may be because of Nile crocodiles and hippos (both highly dangerous and aggressive). West african crocs are smaller and less aggressive, which may account for why they are seen more positively in West Africa and why the rivers there are more navigable.

same with the Americas

@Andree De haan I know, I sometimes wonder what would happen if these kingdoms, empires or civilizations emerges much earlier, it probably be similar to the Americas, Pre-Columbian Civilizations.

@@scorchinggoat9589 Right

@Andree De haan Yeah that true

But in spite of that, they still created some interesting architectures and cities like Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan, imagine if the ancient Yoruba city of Ife or Edo (Capital city of the Benin Empire) last longer then they did. They might had built something just as interesting and impressive as the Benin Bronzes or Yoruba Sculptures. Ghana Empire and even the Gao Empire has some stone structures with Sahelian architectures. I don't think every civilization have to be recognize for their architecture or city but for me I always wonder what these kingdoms would had made with some more time.

cant have no data if nobody is gathering it!!!!

“Millions of years.” More like thousands since humans didn’t exist millions of years ago. We’ve really only been around for about 200,000 years.

I mean depends upon your term of advancd there are many apsects within Africa we dislike and as Eurasia Africa was not perfect or a paradise in itself and there is evidence for it

Keep dreaming 🍼....

@@mcamara488 Nabta Playa

Bantu is a language from which many ethnic groups speak. Not all of those groups were nomadic either. In fact, they established some of the most powerful and centralized kingdoms in Africa such as the Kongo and Great Zimbabwe.

Well firstly, "The Americas" is two entire continents, compared to just one, Africa. Secondly, Africa too had complex civilizations like the Americas. However, what both Africa and the Americas have in common is that these complex civilizations were relatively isolated and less widespread. Europe and Asia as a whole shared many of the same developments and cultural practices while Africa and the Americas' complex civilizations remained relatively confined to certain regions.

@@FromNothing One thing I've pointed out is that sub-Saharan Africa seems to have less history to many because their history is less visible. Since not many sub-Saharan Africans built ancient structures that are still visible and didn't leave many written records this I think makes their history less visible. That's different in comparison to those Native Americans I mentioned. People know the Maya and Inca have a history based on their ancient structures and writing which are still visible. I think the reason ancient peoples built structures seems to have been for either religious or security reasons. Maybe not many sub-Saharan Africans had any particular religious or security reasons to build many structures? Mayan and Egyptian pyramids were built for spiritual reasons. Machu Picchu and China's Great Wall were built for security reasons.

@Lite-Wing Gift and native American natives had an environment that was manageable. I don’t rlly understand what the comparison is for

@@FromNothing I genuinely feel like we had multiple languages and writing systems. Like they say “history starts with writing meaning history starts with Europeans” bs if u ask me

I recommend you watch my video called: "Why Africans Never Invented the Wheel."