How come people don't talk about these empires?

The map was made by someone with a sparse understanding of pre colonial Africa

FFS "Akan" was not an empire, unless you're using it as a synonym for Ashanti

If my autism allows I'm going to create a better map

Central Africa (particularly the jungle) was largely depopulated save a few Pygmies and river folk

And Swahililand isn't even included on the map

Amateur work

More like 1/4th

The other half is grassland

And the last quarter is jungle

This is a map of the currently arable land in Africa. Notice how the best areas match up to the kingdoms?
Most of modern day Africa is either Desert or impenetrable jungle, which has shitty soil anyway. And "small" kingdoms is a stretch. They look small because Africa is huge.

AYO HOL UP
IS YOU SAYIn
THAT WE WUZ KANGS N SHIET???
SHIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET

What are people thinking when they spam posts like this on a history board?

People forget this over and over

The Songhai empire at its apex was the size of western europe

Autists love repeating catchphrases

Can you honestly call some of these Empires?
Mali, Songhai, and Ethiopia maybe, but the small shits everywhere?
lol great zembabwe empire.

Seriously though, there are a few states worth learning about pre 1500's and that's about it.

This. Judging by the OP map, it's close to the size of the continental US, lengthwise anyway.

Go away, pseudo-intellects

An empire is an extensive collection of states rules by one supreme authority

They do homie

Dumbass who knows nothing
Most of Africa that wasn't desert was dominated by small banana farmers barely with only a short history in the equatorial and the rest were pastoralists by about 2K-1.5k years ago in southern Africa.

Mind you the miombo is still rather tsetse infested

good post

bad posts

There's nothing pseudo-intellectual about pointing out the fact that you can't dicuss African history without some shitposter going "WE WUZ KANGZ"

Okay, those are fair points to call them empires. I guess ruling such a large area under tribal governments is pretty impressive.

Because they're obscure and irrelevant.

Your home board is /tv/

You niggers are worse than /v/, /sp/, and /pol/ combined

At least they're funny and don't force memes

Fair enough, that statement was mainly aimed at the second poster who was blatantly circle-jerking

close, i can give you 2 more guesses

The Romans were divided into tribes, as were the Greeks

Does that imply a lesser degree of political organization?

Is extensive unilateral according to scale?

Kill yourselves /int/

>Songhai empire
>tribal government

No

They don't matter

Not necessarily

almost there, 1 more guess

>Horseshoe theory is real
Cancer, an hero immediately

What's not necessary?

On the village level yeah

Anything above that was run by various governors and bureaucrats

The population of a specific area at a specific time? Probably seemed extensive to them. No?

A state is a state

Extensive refers to the number of states, not their populations

Rome began as a powerful city, but it couldn't be called an empire until it directly ruled 7 or more states

Or until someone called it an empire and a bunch of people agreed. Extensive means wide spread. People on foot and people on horses might have a different perspective

So you agree

I honestly have no clue and won't pretend to. I think the world is quite small after learning how extensive the universe is.

I find Makuria interesting because they stopped the Arabs in their tracks despite being a bunch of nobodies. I guess having an army that hasn't been destroyed by plague and 30 years of war really helps.

The Songhai Empire didn't exist until around the time the Roman Empire finally fell. And I mean the ERE.

For a little context.

>The Songhai Empire

Lasted about 150 years and it's one notable "achievement" was mining so much gold that their kings bankrupted the near east when they went on Hajj. And this is one of the "African Empires" that is actually somewhat legit!

That guy actually ruled Mali. His father also tried to sail across the Atlantic and never returned, which is kind of cool.

Askia ruled Mali? You sure about that?

Sorry, I thought you were talking about Mansa Musa.

>bankrupt an entire region because your empire has too much bling

God damn, those guys knew how to party.

Because they suck, and dont contribited in nothing to western society

Not an argument.

>Zimbabwe
>Best it can do is tan, mostly brown
It still hurts, my brus

Nations that didn't develop their own written language are clearly inferior and don't deserve to be discussed.

There are literally five civilizations in the entirety of pre-modern history who independently developed a system of writing.

So inferior tgeir people are making Wgite males an endangered specie

So inferior their people are making White males disappear from the planet

Don't forget the Bamum kingdom !

This.

what do you mean op? people talk about the persian empire and ptolemaic egypt all the time?

So Ethiopia deserves to be discussed?

They're not talked about because they didn't have guns germs or steel. Or farmland. Or domesticateable animals.

they had pyramid space stations though

and everyone was kings and queens back then

You know when talking about an EMPIRE I would expect something more grand than a bunch of huts encircled by a wall.

At least it's a proper stone structure and not a building made out of mud.

Yeah, but does it deserve to be called an empire? One would think the requirement for empire should be higher than "it's better than a mud hut."

>hunter gatherers
So why call them "empires"?

>no dif than a map of the roman empire with a big bunch of nothing above it in germany
Except nobody's going to call Roman-era Germanic areas "empires".

...

This is a huge myth.

Zimbabwe for instance used to be known as "the breadbasket of Africa" back when whites ran it, and it's a barren wasteland now.

Never said it did. None of the subsaharan states outside of eastern africa come anywhere close to Eurasian or Mesoamerican civilizations.

Good try

That is one of the more hilariously deluded things I've read recently.

>the Sahara is a myth

Arable land is made.

Also note the deep green areas along South Africa's east coast, which was left unused just like the rest of the continent, and never even had an "empire".

The makurians had an treaty with the arabs that prevented the muslims from attacking in exchange of slaves and economic/trade privileges. I'm not trying to say they didn't stop the arabs, the nubians had to defeat the caliphal armies in battle to achieve this situation, but it's a correct assertion that nonetheless can't be made without further explanation.

Why?

>Lasted about 150 years
Longer than the mongols, Alexander's empire, Aztecs, Incas, Swedish empire, the German empire, etc. and they're discussed here all the time.

>and it's one notable "achievement" was mining so much gold that their kings bankrupted the near east when they went on Hajj.
That was Mali my friend

>the Sahara is 3/4 of Africa

wew lad

More like controlled a vast amount of jack shit. People sometimes think real life is a Paradox map painting game or something and don't comprehend population destiny. Pic related is the population density of Roman empire, outside of Anatolia and the coasts it was mostly nothing.

>destiny

Density hurr

>they're discussed here all the time.
That's because they're actually interesting and meaningful.

This map was done in MS paint with the spraycan tool

Where's that map from, friend?

Indeed. Your point?

I wipe my ass with it

Great post user.

Alexanders' Empire is discussed it marked the end of the world's previous record holder, because it's immediate successors lasted 150-300 years spanning from Greece to the Punjab, Hellenized North Africa, the Levant, and Anatolia, and spread Greek culture to Afghanistan and India and Persia.

Greek continued to have a major presence in the Hellenistic East until the 7th/8th centuries AD, when it was absorbed into and influenced early Arabic literature and mathematics.

It had major implications for Buddhism, for Christianity, and birthed Stoicism and Epicureanism.

Songhai was still building mudbrick structures when the Aztecs and Inca were building pyramids and shit on par with or exceeding the size and worksmanship of Egypt and Sumeria.

The last Egyptian mubbrick monolithic structures are like 3100 BC, or 4500 years before the Songhai.

Africans are worthless.

Because, while THEY WUZ KANGS, these empires aren't as note-worthy as Ancient Egypt.

>Alexander's Empire is discussed
Then we're not discussing it at all if we're referring to it's successor states who all did far more than the Macedonian empire. Collectively attributing these successor states to Alexander is akin to claiming the barbarian kingdoms of Western Europe are Roman.

Alexander was a shitty empire builder and definitely doesn't deserve credit for what is known to be the work of others in perserving Hellenistic culture in the Middle East (Ptolomie, Seleucus)

>Mudbricks
This is actually very useful material in their environment that they were fine with and they were better than Sumeria.

>Africans are worthless
Is that why Timbuktu was a great center of learning? Or why one of the Malian Empire's Emperors was extremely wealthy beyond thought? You also have Ethiopia and the Swahili city states

>was a great center of learning

speaking of which, I hear islamists destroyed everything last year. Also slavery.

members.home.nl/peetershans/rome.htm

ye

>Collectively attributing these successor states to Alexander is akin to claiming the barbarian kingdoms of Western Europe are Roman.

Not at all. Alexander conquered the territory and upon his death it was split among his generals and officers. At best it represents dynastic shift rather than cultural and political discontinuity.

>Alexander was a shitty empire builder and definitely doesn't deserve credit for what is known to be the work of others in perserving Hellenistic culture in the Middle East (Ptolomie, Seleucus)

Wrong. Alexander was a pretty adept Empire builder, as is seen by his massive efforts to colonize the East, build Hellenic cities, and integrate native Persians into the ranks of his army.

He had plans for massive population transfers from Greece into Persia and vise versa to advance an agenda of a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural Empire.

The #1 reason the Hellenistic successors faltered so much, besides their inflexibility in battle, was their utter rejection of Alexander's plans which ushered in a segregated class system.

>This is actually very useful material in their environment that they were fine with and they were better than Sumeria.

>better than Sumeria
You're going to have to provide proofs for population size, density, agriculture, craftsmanship, and technology.

>Is that why Timbuktu was a great center of learning? Or why one of the Malian Empire's Emperors was extremely wealthy beyond thought? You also have Ethiopia and the Swahili city states
latetotheparty.jpg

>GREAT ZIMBABWE EMPIRE

How? It's so far down...

Empire of Mali and Morocco were pretty cool

>Dynastic Shift
It was never intended. It was a full on war among his generals and just shows Alexander's lack of premptivness to pick a heir. Again the barbarian of Europe can claim to be Roman but their achievments can't be attributed to the Romans as they directly had nothing to do with it.

>Wrong
All the stuff you listed were characteristic of the Persians. He never innovated or contributed to empire building unlike what the Romans had. Also, you're forgetting that Alexander was massive Persiaphile and I doubt these Iranic biased forms and population exchanges would go well with the Greeks who hated the Persians.

>Faltered
They may have been decedent but still carried on the task of preserving Greek culture. Remember the Library of Alexandria? Flourished under Ptolomie control.

>Provide proof
I'm on a shitty phone with slow internet so it will take some time but I am defintely sure that Africans were adept to architecture than the fucking Sumerians.

>Latetotheparty.jpg
What do you mean? As in why Africans took so long to have accomplished something? You have the Nok culture as well as Kongo.

Why do people on a history board of all places only care about history when it's "important"?
Shouldn't someone genuinely interested in history want to know it all, get all perspectives and uncover all that was concealed? Isn't learning for the sake of it a reward enough?
Why does a civilization have to have influenced our own western culture in order to be "important" enough to discuss? Seems like a stifling world-view to me