How would west african civilizations and central amerindian civilizations interact would west africans give the gold...

>The Maya might associate them with the Merchant god who had black paint.
-_________-

What about religion would they exchange faiths?

Wow a thread about africa and the Americas that's not a pissing contest cool

Attached: 1520549602492.jpg (1777x1754, 153K)

If that happens, we can argue that a "Colombian exchange" would take place. West Africans could send horses, cattle, rice, iron, science, ideas, cotton... And in the other hand Aztecs would send maize, chocolate, tips for agriculture...
We can imagine how fast west African cultures and civilizations would grow, resulting in huge social and political reforms/changes. More centralized states ? Technological advancements ? More diseases ?
Same in America. But maybe the impact on America would be different, rice and horses would play a great role in their future. Maybe they would conquer some tribes/kingdoms and expand. Hard to see if an islamic aztec empire would make some jihads everywhere ( Although, jihads arised in west Africa not until the 19th century ).
I don't know...

Most of west africa had centralized states like Benin or Oyo and nri

Attached: 2lc1ylj.gif (420x626, 187K)

I think traditional african and Amerindians faiths would be exchanged

Attached: download (17).jpg (309x163, 19K)

Ghanaian could introduce small pox inoculation to them

How cool of a concepts is that

Attached: 1520622672448.jpg (640x457, 62K)

I could image Amerindians being sent as diplomats to visit african kings

Attached: download (19).jpg (279x181, 13K)

And vice versa

Yeah and no m8.
It depends A LOT from which Kingdom/empire you are talking. Yorubas were an exception in West Africa. But i could be wrong, could you give me other examples of highly centralized states.

Hard to know... I don't know a lot about Mesoamerica but in SSA during the mali/songhai empire, the population remained untouched by Islam...
They could be influenced but not exchanged...

Didn't know that. Source ?

Attached: 778acd25b1f935a27e74df2c6c98d2cf.jpg (502x338, 36K)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_Africa
The akan people would make cuts on their arms and put small amounts of pox juice in it until adulthood

I'd think there's be a mixing of culture and religion similar to voodoo

The Ashanti empire

Cool thread

Wow no /pol/ bait or anything

Attached: 1520819977018.png (625x626, 16K)

Mali Empire might have spread Islam there

>Islamic Aztecs
this would not end well

My autism says the maritime travel between west africa and America is too hard for pre-renaissance technologies. Also, old-world diseases would wiped out native americans anyway.

The fact that people omit the sea separation problem seem acceptable for me, but omitting the huge diseases circumstance... how?

I'm just pondering a what if scenario

I sacrifice you in the name of Allah?

It's a interesting what if I'm glad this didn't turn in to a pissing contest

Attached: mexican-skulls.jpg (634x428, 76K)

The exchange would brutalize central america beyond comprehension. Societal collapse tier

How? Most west african kingdoms weren't that imperialistic

No, in Africa there is a lack of centralized state, sometimes societies are even stateless and organized towards clans, lineages and assemblies. There is also a lot of loose confederacy like with Dahomey or Ghana Empire.

To know more about African institutions read "Indigenous African institutions", user on Veeky Forums is not a reliable sources.

Attached: images (1).jpg (713x1080, 36K)

Mali or Songhai we'ren't centralized?

The Ashanti became a centralized state

Read the book please.

Why wasn't Mali centralized the had and emperor Nobles and sub kingdoms

Off topic!!!!!!!

Got a PDF link?

Asante -
"More importantly, the internal structure of the Asante governmental organi-
zation was one of confederacy. “The first feature to note about the Asante system is that it was based on decentralization, which gave a large measure of local autonomy to the smaller units” (Busia 1967, 29). The reason, according to Kobina Sekyi was “the need to give the small states a new force which led to the creating of the Ashanti Confederacy and the Fanti Confederacy which were both conceived on the basis of federal systems of government” (cited in Langley 1979, 442). But Carlston (1968) argued that, since the authority of the asantehene depended upon consultation with his chiefs, the procedure “was closer to a confederacy than to a federal union” (127). Of greater significance was the fact that this system of government was apparently quite widespread on the former Gold Coast in the nineteenth century."

Mali -
I'm not going to copy-paste his long text, you can read it here :
books.google.com.gh/books?id=sW-wCQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA242pg=PA235#v=onepage&q&f=false
(Ghana and Mali political system are similar)

Mali(like Ghana) is a confederacy with indirect rule.

Oyo -
This is a complex system that is impossible to explain in one line, read the book p.245-251

libgen.pw/item/detail/id/5a1f055d3a044650f50fbeed

EDIT :
Oyo -
“internally autonomous in a quasi-federalism” (Smith 1969, 110).

Once again off topic!!!!

>could you give me other examples of highly centralized states.
Zulu Kingdom is the only thing that came to my head, but I'm personally not a fan of highly centralized states, it breeds tyranny and corruption, especially in the ethnic diversity of Africa.

On-topic, we're comparing political structures.

"Abundant historical evidence reveals unequivocally that the peasants recog-
nized the state as necessarily evil. Indeed, the state in recent times has unaba-
shedly proven itself to be an instrument of oppression and the raider of the public
treasury. Recall the quip of the Lesotho chief: “We have two problems: rats and
the government.” Africans have known for centuries, even before the arrival of the
Europeans, that highly centralized government and concentration of power invari-
ably breed tyranny.
A close study of the organizational structure of chiefdoms and kingdom
unmasks a frightening obsession with the need to curb the powers of the ruler and
prevent him from acting cruelly toward his own people. Africans, of course, dis-
tinguished between their own kinship groups and others. But most Europeans
made no distinction. To them, all Africans were the same.
In the indigenous political systems, chiefs and kings were encircled with
advisers and councils, without which the rulers could not make laws. Most
instructive was the elaborate system of checks and balances to curb any autocratic
tendencies of the ruler. Many of these checks were in place well before 1776
when America gained its independence. As noted earlier, so intense was the fear
of tyranny that many African societies, such as the Igbo and Tiv of Nigeria,
elected not to have any state or centralized authority at all. They were called state-
less societies. Why then do modern African elites stress state-formation? Clearly,
the absence of highly centralized states in the indigenous system was not a fail-
ing of Africans. Rather, it pointed to their politically astute desire to avoid tyranny.
What modern Africa needs is not emphasis on state-formation but a dismantling
of the oppressive state behemoth. The illiterates realized this.
Hereditary positions are the fourth weakness"

Ah know I asked what interactions between the central Americans and west africa civs would be like

How were the Malians able to collect taxes on gold goods and salt

They collected taxes on gold and salt, you think it's impossible without centralization? Do you know what centralization mean?

Cont:

The Mesoamericans definitely DO NOT have the capacity for oceanic travel. Them being stone age tier is a meme (they were generally on the level of bronze age/classical antiquuity, such as the egyptians, mesopotamians, persia, ancient greece), but their maritime abilities really were stone age to chalcolithic level: They hadn't even invented the sail.

They did have extensive use of boats, canoes, and rafts in fresh and coastal waters, but they wouldn't be capable of really travelling much past sight of the shoreline aside from in lakes.

See
>Maybe they would conquer some tribes/kingdoms and expand.
Pretty much all of Mesoamerica was cities/towns and state societies, you only really had tribes at the edges of the region: Way up north where it's just desert and arid shit, and in the south/east jungles between the remaining Maya-states/the transition to central america; pic related: Only the stuff marked with "territorio" or in below belize was tribal

Horses would certainly help the azrecs expand and maintain control, though:: They, like most larger mesoamerican states, were a network of vassals/tributaries: the Aztecs generally left their cities to govern and manage themselves as long as sent tribute/services. As such, the Aztec's ability to control their subservient cities relied on the implication of military action if they stepped out of line or switched allegiance, and when armies can only move on foot, that makes managing far off territories difficult. Horses help here.

2/2

Attached: Mesoamerican and central american borders 16th century SMALLER 8192px-Mesoamérica_y_Centroamerica_p (8192x5554, 2.51M)

The west africans would've showed them how to use metallurgy and the inter would've adopted their agricultural methods though I think rice would be of use to the Aztecs and Incas also the exchange of military tactics would interesting to

That's why it's just a what if

Ugh, Ignore this post, I messed up and it won't let me delete it

The Mesoamericans definitely DO NOT have the capacity for oceanic travel. Them being stone age tier is a meme (they were generally on the level of bronze age/classical antiquuity, such as the egyptians, mesopotamians, persia, ancient greece), but their maritime abilities really were stone age to chalcolithic level: They hadn't even invented the sail.

They did have extensive use of boats, canoes, and rafts in fresh and coastal waters, but they wouldn't be capable of really travelling much past sight of the shoreline aside from in lakes.

See
>Also, old-world diseases would wiped out native americans anyway.

Not necessarily. The intial smallpox outbreak was as bad as it was because Tenochtitlan, one of the most densely populated cities in the world, in one of the most densely populated areas of the world (the core of the aztecs in the valley of mexico) was at or near ground zero, and was THE site of central commerce in the region. And that "only" caused 30% population deaths at most: The 95% figure comes over the course of the next 80 years, and was exacerbated/at least partially caused by the stressors of the spanish conquest happening.

If you have more gradual exposure to foreigners around the coasts, then you can have smaller, less devastating outbreaks and build up resistances, or even if you still have a massive 30% death rate intial epidemic, as long as you give the region time to recover like europe did for the black death it should work out fine.

1/3?

I still think the Aztecs Mayans and incans would have benefitted from west african metallurgy techniques

Attached: download (9).jpg (277x182, 5K)

cont:

The Mesoamericans already had cotton and made extensive use of it. I'm also not sure what you mean by "science": the Old World really wasn't any more scientifically minded then the Mesoamericans or Andeans were at this point: They all had a sort of "proto-science" using semi-empirical treatements (the Mesoamericans were better then europe here for medicine and hygine, as well stowards stuff like indexes of herbs and plants and stocking them in botonical gardens ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1805201/) but based on superstitious theories.

>Maybe they would conquer some tribes/kingdoms and expand.
Pretty much all of Mesoamerica was cities/towns and state societies, you only really had tribes at the edges of the region: Way up north where it's just desert and arid shit, and in the south/east jungles between the remaining Maya-states/the transition to central america; see pic in Only the stuff marked with "territorio" or in below belize was tribal

Horses would certainly help the azrecs expand and maintain control, though:: They, like most larger mesoamerican states, were a network of vassals/tributaries: the Aztecs generally left their cities to govern and manage themselves as long as sent tribute/services. As such, the Aztec's ability to control their subservient cities relied on the implication of military action if they stepped out of line or switched allegiance, and when armies can only move on foot, that makes managing far off territories difficult. Horses help here.

>On-topic, we're comparing political structures.
See
For the Aztec's/Mesoamerica's

2/3

Is there MesoAmerican writting systems? A possibility would be that Africans shared Nsibidi(or even Arabic) with MesoAmericans, or that Africans adopted Maya script.

West africans being in the stone is just a meme too sudanic west africa was late middle ages while the forest kingdoms were more akin to the inca a complex state
Though I think it's stupid to shit on africans for their mud architecture

Attached: 1520785234268.jpg (540x377, 42K)

I think african fabric armor would be extremely useful it being steel tipped arrow proof

Cont:

I don't think so., the region was fairly developed in terms of urbanization, infrastructure, and social/political complexity, it really wasn't behind much of europe and asia aside from the most developed parts at the time in most respects; with Mesoamerica's small, medium, and large towns/cities would have been considered the same size by the standards of europe or asia. The Core of the Aztec empire was one of the most densely populated places on the planet, period.

Japan was WAY more behind relativiely speaking to europe prior to it modernized then Mesoamerica was compared to the old world at the time. As long as diseases don't fuck them over I have no reason to think they'd be conquered: The more i've learned about Mesoamerica the more I realize how fucking insane the string of coincidences are that allowed Spain to be successful; it was like a rude goldberg machine.

They already worked and smelted gold, silver, copper, and bronzes (both tin and arensical). The thing is, they valued it religiously, so most of their effort went into making alloys of certain colors, sheens, and sounds when struck rather then mechanical properties. What functional metal items were made were domestic.

Plus, even the spanish abandoned their ssteel armor when they invaded due to the climate: It hindered the development/use of metal armor, and with no metal armor, why would you stop using obsidian weapons, since they are sharper then metal, only more brittle, which isn't an issue against flesh and fibers? Plus, the lack of horses/need to carry supplies on foot also meant that having easy to repair/make in the field stone and obsidian weapons was likely preferable over heavier, harder to replace metal oones

I agree exposure to more extensive utilitarian/military use of metals would be helpful, but don't think they didn't use metals at all. I go into this more starting here: and then in 2 more after

3/4

Attached: 200px-Rytter_fra_Bagirmi.jpg (200x275, 20K)

>west african civilization

This is an oxymoron

What about ivory you think they enjoy ivory carvings

Attached: 1520104828478.jpg (2978x3722, 1.16M)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_West_Africa

Attached: images.png (224x225, 7K)

If the aztecs discovered west africa between 1430 and 1500, they would take them as slaves and loot their gold
if mansa musa in the 1300s discovered the people who would found the aztec empire, he would take them as slaves and steal their gold. Instead, the spanish discovered the aztecs in the 1500s, took them as slaves and looted their gold. Before Musa, west africa wasn't unified enough and central america wasn't developed enough to make meaningful assumptions about intercontinental trade. Before the aztec unification, I don't see how any one of the central american nations could gather the resources to build a transatlantic fleet without being invaded by one of their neighbors, or why they would build one considering they had enough opportunity closer at hand

I think the africans introducing iron working and such world make material harvesting much easier

>Before Musa, west africa wasn't unified
Ghana Empire disagree.

Once again it's a what if a fantasy
Also Mali didn't start with mansa musa it was sundiata keita

Sorry, i'm an idiot about west african unification. but I still hold that slaves and looting would be the response no matter the empire that did the discovery, mostly because the nations that had enough maritime technology to cross the Atlantic were all pretty slavery dependent, as were the Aztecs (although as one user pointed out, they didn't have the maritime technology so it's a moot point)

When people say stone age they mean in everything except weaponry as blacks in modern West Africa behave like wild humans.

Same with most of the third world except for Ghana also take a trip the El Salvador

I still think that the would established trade relations and possibly have cultural exchange most likely a slave gold and salt trade

cont:

Yes, it was one of only 3, maybe 4 places in the world to invent them indepedently: Starting in the late formative/preclassic and into the classic period fowards, most of Mesoamerica used some sort of writing system, though only a few (Maya, Zapotec, and Epi-olmec) were true written languages. Part of the problem is the Spanish burned all but a handful of native books: It's entirly possible there were more true written languages or that some of the ones we know about were more complex then we realize, but there's a very limited pool of samples to work/get evidence from

We know the Tarascan/Purepecha empire almost certainly had a writing system, for instance, but we have zero remaining examples of it so we have no clue what it was like

Didn't mean to imply africa was stone age level, sorry if it came out that way

Boy you really don't know much about Mesoamerican history, you should read the history overview of the region I did here: :there was 2500-2000, even 3000 depending on how you define it; years of civilization and cities in the region before the Aztecs were a thing, they weren''t the first advanced state. "the spanish took them as slaves and looted their gold" really isn't accurate either. The spanish toppled the Aztecs, and ended up in control of the region, yes, but that particu;ar phrasing is insanely misleading and wrng.

There was also no "Aztec unification", the Aztec empire was 3 cities, 1 in particular of the 3, ruling over a bunch of vassal and tributary city-states that still ruled indepdently. And the Aztec empire didn't control every cit-state in the region, either, see or pic related (which unfornately doesn't show the indivual Maya states/territtories, and excludes a LOT of cities and towns to prevent it from being cluttered and unreadable)

Probably, though there was some pretty impressive mining operations already for obsidian in the region

4/4

Attached: Territorial_Organization_of_the_Aztec_Empire_1519.png (3613x2265, 3.23M)

Africans were mining by the 100s of tons infact it's estimated that Mali alone supplied 2/3s of Europe and the Mediterranean gold
So the trading of obsidian for gold would be lucrative

The Aztecs weren't really slave reliant: Slaves existed, though the mesoamerican concept of slavery was fairly different you kept the majority of your rights. Selling onself into slavery just as a way to get quick money and then eventually buying onself out was somewhat common, for instance. That being said, there were "tiers" of slaves, woth those bring the top, and lower ones (either due to being condemned to them as a criminal sentance by a court, due to beign a prisoner of war, etc) were more like true slavery.

Anyways, they weren't slave reliant, as I was saying: They were reliant on their tributary and vassal states: Tenochtitlan, the captial, and the surrodning area was insanely populated: There wasn't enough food produced locally to feed everybody. So they were depedent on their tributaries and voluntary vassals to provide food, goods, and money (in the form of caco beans, clothes, axe monies, gold, etc) to support the core cities, as well as services: woorkers for public construction projects, supplies and soldiers on military campaigns, etc

Similar in Africa slaves even had rights to a certain extent it was often done to pay off debt was more akin to fedaulism also slavery in Africa also wasn't generational

Right, the feudalism/indentured servant comparison is sort of apt for mesoamerican slavery as well, though it was even less exploitative then that would imply (again, unless you were a slave as a result of punitive measures or as a war prisoner)

I'll try to clarify on it further tommorow

As will I

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmares_(quilombo)
here you go. basically an african kingdom in brazil before portos destroyed it 80 years later

also maroon (escaped slave) societies mixed with natives

The introduction of horses and iron weaponry would give a massive advantage to whoever got them first. Musket wars tier constant warfare before the powers stabilize and adapt to the introduction of cavalry and swords.

best post

They'd probably try to kill eachother at some point

It was a small settlement nigga
Jesus christ who the fuck thinks it was a kingdom?

interesting thread

>

ok not kingdom but chiefdom organized according to the political precepts of a central african kingdon/confederation

Ahmed Baba and Islam disagree

Err...
Wouldn't the natives still wind up being fucking destroyed by diseases in this scenario?

This thread is alright

Just think, they come from the sea, say they come to trade, they happen to have a big nosed merchant god with big lips. Don't believe me? search for the Maya God "M'. If they come aggressively and wars break out they'd see them as a warrior people. Again because black paint was pretty standard war paint in the military. Not saying they would view them as Gods or even nonhumans. They'd see them as an outsider group possibly created by the Merchant God or perhaps they would think the Merchant God is their patron. Keep in mind some Maya believed Europeans came from another God, but still viewed them as humans too.

Islam would be problematic I think since the Maya or any Mesoamericans would not be keen on having their idols and images destroyed. But they would be open to taking perhaps non-Islamic parts from Africa.

Well most of the Mali empire was pagan only the upper classes were Islamic

I don't know much about their beliefs in Mali at the time, but it was fairly common for foreign cults to be ingrained and incorporated. The Aztecs even had a temple dedicated to foreign gods. Many of their gods themselves were not of Aztec origin. Tlazolteotl for example is from the Gulf coast. I think Xipe Totec and Quetzalcoatl are also from the Guld coast. The Maya took in the Plumed Serpent from the Toltecs and mixed in Xolotl and Quetzalcoatl from the Aztec with their Monkey scribe deity.

Alot of Malian mythology is kinda dead due to Islam but at the time I could see a few gods spreading like Ogun the god of Iron or maybe Eshu a trickster though these are more general west African then Malian

They mostly practiced animalism

Attached: ec35fca472e1eeb9452ffecc60dc7fe4.jpg (263x320, 34K)

There have been some contacts between Africans and Amerindians before :

youtu.be/ZGHzGrT4BMI

I love this video because it's not Afrocentric bullshits.