mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Jan 12, 2006 18:05:51 GMT -5
According to the encarta encyclopedia, a black african super-state colonized berber settlements in the 14 and 1500's, interesting..........
i'm not doing this to "race bait", I just find it interesting because it is one of the few instances I know of in terms of an african-initiated colonialism. I imagine there was significant male-mediated gene-flow into these towns. I did'nt know the songhai empire had colonies.
Wow.
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on Jan 13, 2006 13:30:33 GMT -5
i know parts of saudi arabia and stretching as far as persia belonged under the axumite empire for a while - that was an african empire.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 13, 2006 14:11:28 GMT -5
www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/sghi/hd_sghi.htmThese Berber towns were in the far outskirts. I believe there are blacks roaming around in that same area that are culturally Berber and with some limited amount of Berber ancestry. Maybe the Berber posters can say something about that. It wouldn't be an empire without colonies, I would think.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 13, 2006 14:18:10 GMT -5
mainly Taureg berbers and a few Arabs in the area i think Anodyne. Their leader was heavily Arabized.
|
|
|
Post by wadad on Jan 13, 2006 14:32:42 GMT -5
i know parts of saudi arabia and stretching as far as persia belonged under the axumite empire for a while - that was an african empire. Yea alot of south and southwestern Arabia (yemen and Asir region of Saudi Arabia) were colonies of Axum..but nowhere near Persia was ever part of Axumite control. Matter fact Arabians seeked persian help in expelling the Abyssinians in 545 AD
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 13, 2006 14:34:42 GMT -5
Thats cause their where no Romans their to keep them in check.
|
|
|
Post by wadad on Jan 13, 2006 14:44:01 GMT -5
Thats cause their where no Romans their to keep them in check. Wrong, Byzantines and Axum were actually allies
|
|
mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Jan 13, 2006 14:57:42 GMT -5
That guy is such an idiot LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 13, 2006 15:12:05 GMT -5
thats not what I'am talking about,the Romans kept the peace in the region for trade value ect,they wanted stability not rival empires.
The Eastern Roman Empire is a different matter.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 14, 2006 6:45:36 GMT -5
The Kanuri empire at its height colonized parts of Libya also.
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on Jan 14, 2006 8:07:02 GMT -5
i know parts of saudi arabia and stretching as far as persia belonged under the axumite empire for a while - that was an african empire. Yea alot of south and southwestern Arabia (yemen and Asir region of Saudi Arabia) were colonies of Axum..but nowhere near Persia was ever part of Axumite control. Matter fact Arabians seeked persian help in expelling the Abyssinians in 545 AD oops
|
|
|
Post by kaoussen on Jan 14, 2006 11:24:57 GMT -5
the songhay empire conquered berber villages. Timbuktu was an Imuhag (Tuareg) settlement at first. They had one of the richest places of culture in Sahara area, because they brought valuous scripts and books from Al-Andalus.
|
|
|
Post by atlantis on Jan 14, 2006 13:13:52 GMT -5
According to the encarta encyclopedia, a black african super-state colonized berber settlements in the 14 and 1500's, interesting.......... i'm not doing this to "race bait", I just find it interesting because it is one of the few instances I know of in terms of an african-initiated colonialism. I imagine there was significant male-mediated gene-flow into these towns. I did'nt know the songhai empire had colonies. Wow. First of all: BERBERS ARE AFRICANS!!!! Regarding the topic, Saharan Berber towns = Tuareg settlements = a tent and a few camels I not trying to downplay the event, but that's what it really was. BTW, when a Moroccan king grew sick of Songhai he had send a small cavalry to destroy it for it never to resurrect again. How is that for your mighty Songhai Empire ;D
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 14, 2006 13:22:31 GMT -5
According to the encarta encyclopedia, a black african super-state colonized berber settlements in the 14 and 1500's, interesting.......... i'm not doing this to "race bait", I just find it interesting because it is one of the few instances I know of in terms of an african-initiated colonialism. I imagine there was significant male-mediated gene-flow into these towns. I did'nt know the songhai empire had colonies. Wow. First of all: BERBERS ARE AFRICANS!!!! Regarding the topic, Saharan Berber towns = Tuareg settlements = a tent and a few camels I not trying to downplay the event, but that's what it really was. BTW, when a Moroccan king grew sick of Songhai he had send a small cavalry to destroy it for it never to resurrect again. How is that for your mighty Songhai Empire ;D The Songhai simply fought a retreating type of fight because the Morrocans had weapons and also used Spanish soldiers. No matter what, they were never able to repa any riches from Songhai and their occupation was short.
|
|
|
Post by atlantis on Jan 14, 2006 13:42:23 GMT -5
The Songhai simply fought a retreating type of fight because the Morrocans had weapons and also used Spanish soldiers. No matter what, they were never able to repa any riches from Songhai and their occupation was short. Morocco left it to the Moroccan soldiers who stayed there, these soldiers intermarried the locals and their descandents would form the new elite. Morocco had no interest in a stable Songhai, they just wanted cheap (for Moroccans this means free ;D ) gold and slaves.
|
|