If civilizations emerged all around the world, why was Africa so far behind when the Europeans came to conquer

Answer 1

Caucasians are the most aggressive and invasive race in the world.Africans are by nature not empire-oriented --a little power goes a long way for Africans while Caucasians remain ever power- hungry.
l don't know why this should be so.But it is.
Caucasians created empires around the world,from Caesar to Alexander the great to Napoleon,down to the cutting up of Africa and Asia into different colonies.
Great African leaders like Sundiata or Chaka Zulu were content to conquer other tribes,and as long as they had enough to feed themselves and their tribes,they were satisfied.
As the above answerer said,a war -like and aggressive civilisation is not always more advanced but it ALWAYS dominates and subdues others.

Answer 2

The Europeans where not that more advanced then the Africans, they only had one major (and the most important) advantage, GUNS. There are different areas in society and each of these areas get different attention in different societies. Europeans (and western cultures) concentrate on war and defence first (hence why most western and European countries have the most powerful armies in the world). The Africans at that time were more concerned with agriculture and social building. As a result they had spears and wooden Armour. The same happened in central America, and the orient. Play Sid Meier's Civilisation 4 and specialise in weapons and you will see that you will take over the world quite quickly, though keeping your new subjects happy will be hard.

Answer 3

What makes you think they were behind? The Egyptians were Africans and Africa is where the oldest human remains were found. Cultures adapt to their environments, those that survive in desert conditions must move around to grow food, wear less clothes because of the temperature, run very fast and for long distances to hunt or flee in wide open spaces. They seemed to have survived quite well considering their circumstances. The Europeans evolved in cold temperatures, less daylight hours, and in greater population areas that stayed mostly inside. You have to examine each culture individually to see it's strengths and weaknesses. When is the last time that you know a non-African won a marathon? When is the last time a European didn't win the slalom? We each have our own gifts.

Answer 4

The type of existence which developed in Africa was probably best suited to the climate and conditions over there whereas the European way of life was best suited to Europe. This was potentially the most sustainable way for humans to live in Africa compared with the problems in Africa today. Maybe we should ahve just left them to their own devices instead of conquering them.

Answer 5

The first point you need to understand is that civilisations did not emerge all around the world. Civilisations emerged in only three places: Northern China, Mesopotamia (now Iraq) and Mexico. That is it. Civilisation was then carried from those three centres to various other parts of the world.

The second point you need to realise is that Africa was only behind for a very short period. For much of history Africa contained ht most advanced cultures of the world. Most notably Egypt was THE world super power for almost 1000 years. In contrast European dominance has only existed for 300 years and American dominance has existed only 60 years. So culturally and technologically Africa is the second most dominant continent, second only to Asia.

Why was Africa so far behind at the time of European colonisation? That’s a very complicated issue but it can be divided into two subsection: sun-Saharan Africa and North Africa

Most of Africa was effectively isolated from the rest of the world by the Sahara desert. There was ongoing trade with the rest of the world via shipping, but the desert made it impossible to march troops into sub-Saharan Africa. Europeans only colonised when they had developed large ocean-going craft capable transporting the large numbers of troops necessary for invasion and for transporting their plunder back home. Prior to that invasion was impossible was. Because of that there was little pressure on sub-Saharan nations to develop or adopt technological advances. Kingdoms could exist without needing to adopt foreign practices so they did. In contrast in Asia and Europe anyone who didn’t adopt the latest miliyary technology was very rapidly swallowed up by those who had.

That same isolation also meant that African nations in many cases they never had access to those technologies. While people may have been trading silks or firearms with Africa they never traded the manufacturing technology or even basic technology like writing. As a result sub-Saharan Africa remained a cultural backwater.

The second big strike against Africa was the widespread problem of Malaria and sleeping sickness. Those diseases make large permanent cities almost impossible without modern engineering and pesticides and as a result sub-Saharan Africa produced only a handful if real cities. The development of the city-state was essential to the development of civilisation in the America, China and Middle East but cities couldn’t develop in sub-Saharan Africa so civilisation never developed.


In contrast North Africa was one of the earliest centres of civilisation and remained one of the most advanced centres of the world until 200 years ago. It then lost out to Europe because Europe is quite simply more productive. North African agriculture depends almost entirely on inundation of river valleys. Agriculture outside of riparian areas is marginal. That dependence on small areas made the control of North Africa very easy. Whichever army held the few key river valleys controlled the entire landmass. In Europe however almost all the land is productive. To control an area an army needs to occupy the entire area. That led to Europe being divided into numerous small fiefs and kingdoms each competing with its neighbours. That in turn produced rapid technological competition and advancement which left North Africa and the Middle East standing still.

Answer 6

There are many parts of africa that had quite advanced civilizations. Ethiopia comes to mind. However, they have an encroaching desert and the some of the most vicious circumstances in which they could live.
I think one of the most common misconceptions is that more warlike=more civilized. That doesn't even make sense, frankly, but it is a common belief, and I suggest you look into what makes you think that.

Answer 7

Leviter answered your 2nd question very effectively, I think.

As for your first question: civilizations emerge all around the world in waves. Think of China which is booming once again, this time with a wholly different look than centuries ago after it went down and became decadent and backward...

Answer 8

About 500BC Europe and Africa were at par on civilization take examples of textiles in Sudan,Egypt,Mali. Remember irrigationsystems in Egypy,Iron, bronze,gold smoldering inmost part west Africa.
All those industries were shut off by the colonialists;for example if an African cought working on iron his hand were to be cut off.This killed industry and trade in Africa.
There are so many examples one can site!

Answer 9

you can only see indegenous people as behind when you look at it technologiy wise,otherwise most indienous civilizations were really far ahead, like the native americans,we didn't have pollution,the women would do all the work,the men would hunt and then not much after that,we chilled,we didn't kill other people jus because differences,we embraced them.only thing that we didn't have was guns,if we did,the white people would still be in europe.

Answer 10

There are three theories.

One: Geographical endowments
Two: Institutional differences
Three: Economical Policies.

I suggest you read "Guns Germs and Steel". It has a very good explanation. Type it into google and you will be astounded