African rulers often defeated European invaders. African rulers were militarily superior on their home soil, at least until the 1850s-60s.This seems widely overlooked, but is repeatedly highlighted in two new books by JC Sharman and Richard Reid.
>>18436929timmy can't fight if he doesn't hide behind 100 canons, everyone knows this
>>18436929Yeah well. Europeans stretched themselves thin and often started wars while outnumbered. Didn't always work out (but often enough that they kept doing it). When numbers were equal, they usually crushed the natives.
>>18436929>>18436931Lovecraft:>they would never have gotten off of their godforsaken continent if we hadn't built the boats to bring them over
>>18436935>When numbers were equal, they usually crushed the natives.Pretty sure Portugal forces lost against Kongo even when they had a numerical advantage
>>18436929Because the European presence on the continent was mostly limited to coastal trading outposts that were entirely at the mercy of Africans
>>18436929Cool. Oogabooga
>>18436931European at the time schoolars were well aware that the Earth wasn't flat>>18436936Not really Swahili mariners travelled as far as China in the Middle Ages>>18436939>Because the European presence on the continent was mostly limited to coastal tradingThey were limited because they didn't have the military power to impose anything on the local regional powers
>>18436953buddy, everyone knows blacks don't swim, can't invent anything, not even a wheel, and certainly never had any seafaring civilization....what you're doing is "we wuzzing" trying to claim blacks were responsible for something they are incapable of doing, like domesticating animals or creating a civilization
>>18436929>look up OPs example>it was literally 80 british who got abandoned by their auxiliaries and then faced the whole army of an empire>they ran out of ammunition because they only got resupplied by macaroniYes bro they totally could have defeated a proper European army, just look how they eventually managed to swarm a few dozen scouts after they ran out of ammunition.
>>18437148NTA but this is cope MacCarthy had command over 10k men mostly Britsh but he was stupid enough to split them in three grupos, because of that the Brits were forced to retret and send 11k men to defend Accra.
>>18436929Disease is the biggest fact cause your army would be whittled to a nub before a key engagement. It's the same reason Arab armies couldn't go deep into Africa despite the fact Arabs could defeat African armies or the African armies that could expand out of Africa like Axum and Egypt couldn't hold the Territory very long. Had Quinine never been discovered the scramble for Africa might have ever happened or atleast happened at a snails crawl
>>18437340Nah in Western Central Africa the Portuguese lost most of their forces during battles
>>18436937>>18437352Meanwhile, in reality
>>18437318Source? The Wikipedia article says otherwise.
>>18437515Portuguese conflicts in theregion during the 17th century involved tens of thousand of men, they won some battles against Kongo abut faced a devastating defeat against its vassal Soho https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mbwilahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kitombohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kombi
>>18436929>African rulers often defeated European invaders.Name 10 battlesShouldn't be hard if Africans repelled European invaders for 300 years
>>18437571That's completely unrelated to your initial claim about MacCarthy and what you linked doesn't support your general claim either. Where are the battles with tens of thousands of EUROPEAN soldiers being repelled by a purely African force, not a conflict between the Dutch and Portuguese where 200-400 huehues fight among 10,000+ auxiliaries.
>>18437595>Name 10 battlesNot OP but why do you /pol/tards always push the goalpoast?
>>18437605What's wrong with his request or the reasoning behind it? If it did indeed happen often and it happened over centuries then surely there should at the very least be 10 documented cases of it? If he asked for 100 then that would be unreasonable, but 10?
>>18437571So after being proven wrong regarding a well documented 19th century battle, you move the goalpost and start citing poorly documented 17th century baattles and their dubious estimates...Btw none of the three you linked mentions dozens thousands of European soldiersIn every case, the article makes it clears there were only a few hundreds Portuguese soldiers, helped by thousands of native african warriors
>>18437600Fuck I tagged the wrong anon>That's completely unrelated to your initial claim about MacCarthyPic. If You actually read the Wikipedia article you posted which you didn't you would know that his brilliant strategy consisted in playing God Save the King. He made a dumb tactical decision anon>Where are the battles with tens of thousands of EUROPEAN soldiersIrrelevant the auxilaries were trained and led to by Portuguese commanders>Dutch and Portuguese where 200-400 huehes huehues fight among 10,000+ auxiliaries.Kombi was just an example to show how many forces where used.Most conflicts didn't involve the Ducth
>>18437644>Pic. If You actually read the Wikipedia article you posted which you didn't you would know that his brilliant strategy consisted in playing God Save the King. He made a dumb tactical decision anonWhether he made good or bad tactical decisions is irrelevant, you claimed that he commanded a force of over 10,000, mostly British. The very picture you included claims he had "some 80 men" and 170 militiamen. So, no, not an army of thousands or tens of thousands of European soldiers.>Irrelevant the auxilaries were trained and led to by Portuguese commandersWhat makes you think that some auxiliaries are equivalent to a professional standing army that's been drilled in a specific style of warfare?>Kombi was just an example to show how many forces where used.>Most conflicts didn't involve the DucthThey're involved in all the ones you linked to.
>>18437612>So after being proven wrongYou haven't proven anythingstart citing poorly documented 17th century baattles and their dubious estimates...Sure anon>Btw none of the three you linked mentions dozens thousands of European soldiersAs I said above, it is irrelevant, the tactics were the same as those used in Europe and, predictably, not very effective in that particular region.
>>18437662>The very picture you included claims he had "some 80 men" and 170 militiamen. So, no, not an army of thousands or tens of thousands of European soldiers."In addition, he drew on three other groups of infantry that were in the region: one of 600 regulars of the RACC and 3,000 native levies, one of 100 regulars and militia and 2,000 levies (under Major Alexander Gordon Laing), and a third of 300 regulars and militia and 6,000 levies. The plan was for the four groups to converge and engage the enemy with overwhelming force."600+3000 natives+100+2000+a third of 300+6000=11800 They would have lost anyway not enough menWhat makes you think that some auxiliaries are equivalent to a professional standing army that's been drilled in a specific style of warfare?Hmmm... the fact that a good portion of them were professionals and mercenaries?>They're involved in all the ones you linked to.They sold weapons to Soho and that's it
>>18436929>African rulers often defeated European invaders.>often defeated European invaders.>often defeated
>>18437670>600+3000 natives+100+2000+a third of 300+6000=11800That still does not make it an army consisting of "mostly British" soldiers as the bulk of them were Africans, and as they did not join up with the other three groups before the battle started it was still just his tiny force. Regardless of if that makes him a tactical retard or not it does not prove what you think it does.>Hmmm... the fact that a good portion of them were professionals and mercenaries?African auxiliaries are as good as professional European soldiers at this style of warfare?>They sold weapons to Soho and that's itRead your own fucking links:>Thus, in 1647 a combined force from Kongo, Ndongo, and a Dutch contingent of 400 soldiers, adding to over 8,000 men, met the Portuguese and their African allies with a field army of some 30,000 soldiers, including 600 Portuguese and Luso-Africans, somewhere north of Massangano (the battlefield has not yet been located). The Portuguese and their allies were routed by the Dutch and their allied Africans and over 3,000 men of the Portuguese army were killed or wounded.[1]Can you show me even a handful of battles where PURELY AFRICAN ARMIES fought against PROFESSIONAL EUROPEAN ARMIES in any sizeable number? No, I'm not asking about battles where some captain and his two cousins enlisted a few hundred Africans to fight a few hundred other Africans, give me a proper battle where full regiments of professional European soldiers (not militiamen) come supplied, with cannons and the whole shebang, and then get repeatedly trounced by purely African armies, not an African army with European soldiers led by a rival colonial power. Come with some real shit from this era or I'll just dip from the thread because you're so tiresome.
The truth is that Europeans never tried conquering Africa until the late 19th century.And when they did try, it looked like this.
>>18437692>That still does not make it an army consisting of "mostly British" soldiers as the bulk of them were AfricansWow 3000 natives>it does not prove what you think it does.Actually it does, the British were well aware that the Ashanti could raise an army of 10k+ men and were counting on convincing the officers to betray their country, which did not happen, forcing them to change their plans and retreat.They could have easly rejoin forces and try to attack again but they didn't, signed a peace treaty and kept paying tribute until 1874 when they actually managed to defeat the Ashanti.>African auxiliaries are as good as professional European soldiers at this style of warfare?That's the thing anon Euro style warfare didn't worked very well in that region. So it probably would have been better if they hadn't been.>Can you show me even a handful of battles where PURELY AFRICAN ARMIES fought against PROFESSIONAL EUROPEAN ARMIES in any sizeable number?lmao and I'm the one pushing the goalpoast? The reason they used African auxiliaries was due to their familiarity with the territory, if the Portuguese had only used Europeans, there would have been even more deaths as proven from their failed attempts to implement a cavarly in Kongo, European traditional warfare methods simply didn't work those parts of Africa. They couldn't even pull a Malacca situation since those battle took place inland.
shitskin cope thread
>>18436953>Swahili were arab mutts. FFS Swahili is an arabic word.
>>18437817>Swahili were arab mutts.sure >FFS Swahili is an arabic word.Frank comes from Franci a Latin word, therefore the Franks were Latins
>>18437838>Frank comes from Franci a Latin word, therefore the Franks were LatinsTrue, but no one pretends French culture's Latin roots do not exist. Swahili's Islamic roots tend to be ignored by Pan-Africans.
>>18437817>Swahili were arab muttsThe average Swahili is more african than the average African-American; ~80% vs ~85%. Only the elite were uber-mixed.
>>18436931when ya need AI and fake facts to shit on your white masters, but even with that they are still more impressive than anything your brownie dump has done in a million years
>>18436931>muh gold>muh dirt I cannot process into gun powder
Negros, one day you'll have to stop coping ans accept your inferiority, stop torturing yourself, just castrate yourself and start sucking BWC.
Kurds are conquering Türkiye.
>>18438607faggotass cracker
