>>18646908
>1510
Just a couple of decades after Bartolomeu Dias first rounded the Cape. Were the Portuguese supposed to be aware of all the local fauna to not get ambushed?

File: imagem_2026-08-21_150348689.png (500 KB, 686x386)

500 KB PNG

Actually, the right question is: why are Africans so strong?

>>18647115
If you read the context of the battle, it seems the ships moved further up the river and purposely left some people behind, with it possibility being a mutiny

>>18647187
Here comes the cope

They thought it was going to be a walk in the park like in South America

>>18647156
Lack of junk food and consistent exercise. But that's changing thanks to Africans moving to or already living in huge cities where they can easily buy slop.

Who enslaved who?

Before the industrial revolution Europe lacked the military power to impose its will on the continent

>>18647628
More like malaria and giving a fuck

>>18647819
The disease barrier theory has been refuted by historians of Africa, given that South America presented a similar environment yet was colonized nonetheless.
In the case of the Khoikhoi, not only did they inhabit the savanna, but they were the ones vulnerable to European diseases; despite this, they still managed to resist for a long time.

>>18647828
They dont know what they're talking about then
Because there was no disease barrier in conquest of of the americas.
Yellow fever and malaria did not exist there and only became a thing hundreds of years later after europeans had already conquered and settled the regions afterwards places like the caribbean became just as deadly for europeans as most parts of africa were.

>>18647909
>Because there was no disease barrier in conquest of of the americas.
Syphilis originated in the Americas. Furthermore, the tropical regions of Asia shared the same diseases as those in Africa yet colonial conquest in Asia was more extensive and occurred earlier and, finally, wars in west-central Africa were usually fought in open terrain and, more generally, away from forest areas thus in my opinion the "barrier theory" can safely be discarded.

>>18648163
>Syphilis originated in the Americas.
Irrelevant
>Furthermore, the tropical regions of Asia shared the same diseases as those in Africa yet colonial conquest in Asia was more extensive and occurred earlier
Wrong again asia doesnt have jungle fever at all and malaria there isnt nearly as endemic nor was it found all year round and the strain is less fatal than in africa.
A british soldier stationed in west africa had a mortality rate of around 30-50% per year just from disease
Compared to soldiers stationed india the number was just 7-13% yearly
>finally, wars in west-central Africa were usually fought in open terrain and, more generally, away from forest areas
Again Tropical diseases such as malaria were still endemic to those regions aswell with jungle fever found there too
>in my opinion
Your opinion is retarded and you're retarded

>>18648303
*Yellow fever

>>18647156
>Russian bot or Indian vpn

>>18647198
This proves Black superiority over Native Americans.

>>18648303
>Irrelevant
Are Chagas and Oropouche Fever also irrelevant?
>Wrong again asia doesnt have jungle fever
Dingue fever
>malaria there isnt nearly as endemic nor was it found all year round and the strain is less fatal than in africa
There are some pockets were is very endemic, there also other diseases like Chinkugua
>A british soldier stationed in west africa had a mortality rate of around 30-50% per year just from disease
Compared to soldiers stationed india the number was just 7-13% yearly
1 this seems dubious, you don't specify any dates or the cause of deaths
2 mortality rate in both regions had huge variations between areas and periods
Most of the British disease related deaths in West Africa between 1817 1821 happened in Sierra Leone.
British Lagos between 1879-1888 had a lower mortality rate (7%) than French Tonkin 1884-1888 (15%)
3 the data you presented says nothing about the number of people that died during the actual campaigns and that's without even considering the proportions of "locals" within the colonial armies that could cope better than their European comrades
>Again Tropical diseases such as malaria were still endemic to those regions aswell with jungle fever found there too
They are more seasonal and there are no reports of Portuguese armies being decimated by diseases during campaigns against Kongo.

>>18648678
>Are Chagas and Oropouche Fever irrelevant?
Yes they were.
>Chinkugua
Chinkagua is from east africa and first appearad in 1952
>Compared to soldiers stationed india the number was just 7-13% yearly
1 this seems dubious, you don't specify any dates or the cause of deaths
Out of 1,843 white soldiers soldiers that were sent to sierra leone from 1819-1831 890 died from diseases so around a 48% mortality rate
From 1825-1826 out of the 399 soldiers stationed at gambia 276 died a mortality rate of 69%
From 1825-1826
Out of a 103 men sent to station the isles de loss
62 died a mortality rate of 60%
From 1823-1824 out of the 200 soldiers sent to station the cape coast castle 191 died a mortality rate of 95%
In india in a similar timeframe from 1828-1838 the mortality rate for the 7959 europeans who served in fort cannanore 300 died of disease a mortality rate of 3,7%
In fort george from 1829-1838 out of the 6903 europeans who served there 173 soldiers died of disease a mortality rate of 2,3%
From 1822-1832 of the 5110 european soldiers serving at masulipatam 350 died
A mortality rate of 6,8%
I could provide you with dozens even hundreds more examples of such casualty figures
And You'll find the same pattern repeat itself over and over again.
The mortality due to disease between european soldiers stationed in asia on average doesnt even come close to asia.
I guess you can probably find some exceptions but the trend is pretty obvious and clear

File: Untitled.png (230 KB, 360x829)

230 KB PNG

Why can't whites?

>>18647002
This is such a retarded image as the Aztec invasion was no A vs B in one grand battle. Half those Aztecs listed fought Moctezuma/fought with the Spaniards ffs. Cortez is a self-inflating fraud who was carried hard by natives and his commanders

>>18648678
Hit post limit.
> British lagos between 1879-1888 had a lower mortality rate (7%) than French Tonkin 1884-1888 (15%)
This comparison makes no sense because the french in tonkin were not dying from malaria or other tropical exclusive diseases but from other diseases like cholera, dysentry, and typhus.
Out of the 3,311 french that died in 1885 in tonkin for example cholera alone killed 1,507 of them. Which would put it closely in line with british lagos and that is excluding the fact the rest of the deaths were with almost all certainty not exclusively caused by only malaria.
From 1883-1885 a total 870 french soldiers died from disease and only 148 died due to malaria according to the french medical records at the time we can use it to extroplate casualties for the rest of the time frame and say with quite certainth malaria was not the primary killer hell if we only took malaria deaths it would probably be less than in british lagos.
>there are no reports of Portuguese armies being decimated by diseases during campaigns against Kongo
What are you talking about? The cuanza river is an example.

>>18647156
That one guy eats the entire village's food

>>18647002
ixtlilxochitl ii is literally the only reason Tenochtitlan lost

>>18649259
*Doesnt come close to africa.

>>18647187
stuff like that seems to happen often during encounters like these
i think a lot of the times there isn't a full consensus on what the course of action should be- more than likely there was an argument just before this about how proper a place this was to replenish and how to proceed
remember these are tired sailors just looking for water mainly

>>18649476
>they encountered the local indigenous people, after friendly trade a group of 12 or 13 of the crew members visited a nearby village
>accounts differ over whether the Portuguese started hostilities by attempting to steal cattle or the natives attempted to steal items from the Portuguese, the Portuguese were chased from the village >Portuguese officers and crew debated at length on whether to take retaliatory action, and eventually agreed to conduct a punitive raid the next morning
>16th century Portuguese historian Gaspar Correa blamed the Portuguese sailors for starting the altercation in the village and notes that the ǃUriǁʼaekua were already ready for the Portuguese presence
many such cases

>>18649259
I like how you can't actually post any examples of battles they lost during the early modern period because of diseases.
Also as stated before mortality rates can change depending on the period
>>18649302
>This comparison makes no sense because the french in tonkin were not dying from malaria or other tropical exclusive diseases but from other diseases like cholera, dysentry, and typhus.
Irrelevant diseases are diseases
>The cuanza river is an example.
There are no major battles between Kongo and Portugal that took place in the Cuaza river

File: 1786837082220206.png (41 KB, 1089x160)

41 KB PNG

>>18647819
KWAB

File: absolute disdain for chri(...).png (2.31 MB, 1224x1618)

2.31 MB PNG

Christendom

>>18646908
Great thread Ms Troonella. I bet your BBC bull and weed dealer will love it.

>>18647819
>More like early modern European style of warfare not being suited for the region
FFY

>>18650636
>I like how you can't actually post any examples of battles they lost during the early modern period because of diseases.
Thats not how diseases work or affect military situations. They kill troops before reaching the battlefield Diseases also extremely limited the amount of soldiers armies could deploy in the theater with europeans limited to very small forces of men in africa
In the wars in central africa with portugal example the largest amount of portuguese that ever participated in any battle was just 530 soldiers.
>Also as stated before mortality rates can change depending on the period
Not really individual outbreaks vary ofcourse as they always do for every disease on earth but mortality rate for europeans in africa from disease didnt decrease until the mid 1800s due to advancements in medicine and knowledge
>Irrelevant diseases are diseases
Then why are you trying to even compare them? When its not indicative of any sort of trend or evidence that africa was less deadly for europeans than asia. By 1893-1896 period the mortality in french tonkin was already lower than in lagos.
>There are no major battles between Kongo and Portugal that took place in the Cuaza river
There was the 1580 campaign and the two year occupation of mocambe where 2/3rd of the portuguese soldiers died of disease and managed to defeat an besieger army but had to abandon their position due to disease making it impossible to hold. They setup a new for location 40km north with less disease and the portuguese managed to hold onto that settlement until 1975
Just an example of how much disease affected campaigns and wars in africa.

>>18647236
this
even the og niggas can't escape globohomo

File: chrome_screenshot_Feb 12,(...).png (1.8 MB, 1080x3798)

1.8 MB PNG

>>18646908
Posted it again award

>>18650963
>Thats not how diseases work or affect military situations.
So you can't find any evidence that the majority of the Portuguese forces were decimated by disease before the military clashes?
>didnt decrease until the mid 1800s
Mortality rate in the Gold Coast was lower in 18th century compared to the early 19th century. So yeah it varies
>Then why are you trying to even compare them?
Why shouldnt I? you brought it up
>By 1893-1896 period the mortality in french tonkin was already lower than in lagos.
Not really, in fact they pretty comparable. Lagos got worse towards the end of the century but still not that much higher.
>There was the 1580 campaign and the two year occupation of mocambe where 2/3rd of the portuguese soldiers died of disease and managed to defeat an besieger army but had to abandon their position due to disease making it impossible to hold
Not only does this have nothing to do with the wars against Kongo, but that campaign took place at a time when the Kongolese were still providing military assistance to Portuguese forces.
So far, you have failed to cite a single instance where Portugal lost to Kongo or its vassals due to disease.
>Just an example of how much disease affected campaigns and wars in africa.
A very bad one I must say

>>18651174
>So you can't find any evidence that the majority of the Portuguese forces were decimated by disease before the military clashes?
I can name plenty of military expeditions that failed and had to be entirely abandoned due to disease and plenty of reinforcement armies that never reached their destination but not the criteria you just made up no.
>Mortality rate in the Gold Coast was lower in 18th century compared to the early 19th century. So yeah it varies
Seems to be only in the early half of the 18th century the latter half shows mortality just as high.
>Why shouldnt I? you brought it up
No you brought up the comparison of tonkin and british lagos and i already explained the situations were different nor is it equivalent of any sort of general trend regarding mortality rates between africa and asia.
>Not only does this have nothing to do with the wars against Kongo, but that campaign took place at a time when the Kongolese were still providing military assistance to Portuguese forces.
Its a war with in the same region it was just an illustration of effects of disease on campaign.
>So far, you have failed to cite a single instance where Portugal lost to Kongo or its vassals due to disease.
Again plenty of campaigns that failed and had to be aborted because of it before snt decisive engagement could be reached plenty of camapigns where even after victory against the forces the campaign still failed due to disease.
And anyways. the portuguese ended up winning their wars against the kongo in the end.

>>18651283
>I can name plenty of military expeditions that failed and had to be entirely abandoned due to disease and plenty of reinforcement armies that never reached their destination but not the criteria you just made up no.
Yet can name the ones that failed against Kongo due to diseases
>Seems to be only in the early half of the 18th century the latter half shows mortality just as high.
Doesn't change the fact that is was lower
>No you brought up the comparison of tonkin and british lagos and i already explained the situations were different nor is it equivalent of any sort of general trend regarding mortality rates between africa and asia.
It is perfectly appropriate since the discussion is tropical diseases
>Its a war with in the same region it was just an illustration of effects of disease on campaign.
Don't care if it is in the same reegion you either prove that diseases affected Portuguese campaign against Soyo or you just admit that you have no clue of what you are talking about
>Again plenty of campaigns that failed and had to be aborted because of it before snt decisive engagement could be reached plenty of camapigns where even after victory against the forces.
And there are plenty of battles forced the Portuguese forces lost because the enemy proved to be better like Kitombo
Furthermore, your argument could also be perfectly applied to the Kongolese forces.
>And anyways. the portuguese ended up winning their wars against the kongo in the end.
They won a couple of wars against but never managed to actually subdue Kongo at best they took one territory.
It is only in the 19th century that Kongo becomes a vassal then later part of the colony

>>18651362
>Yet can name the ones that failed against Kongo due to diseases
They were all affected by disease limiting the numbervof portuguese soldiers able to participate in them to just a couple hundred soldiers
>Doesn't change the fact that is was lower
Doesnt change the fact it then got higher
>Doesn't change the fact that is was lower
Like i already said the majority of french soldiers in tonkin werent dying from tropical diseases like malaria but outbreaks of cholera dysentery and typhus. and it was just temporary not a permant or general trend in asia.
>Don't care if it is in the same reegion you either prove that diseases affected Portuguese campaign against Soyo or you just admit that you have no clue of what you are talking about
Disease limited the amount of soldiers able to be deployed against the war with them just like with all campaigns in kongo portuguese armies.
>And there are plenty of battles forced the Portuguese forces lost because the enemy proved to be better like Kitombo
And there are plenty of battles where rhe kongo forces lost because portuguese forces were better like the battle of bwila
>They won a couple of wars against but never managed to actually subdue Kongo at best they took one territory
They still won.

>>18651480
>They were all affected by disease limiting the numbervof portuguese soldiers able to participate in them to just a couple hundred soldiers
Show me sources about this happening against Soyo also the number of Portuguese in the army is irrelevant to me, the colony had several thousands local recruits + mercenaries led by Portuguese generals and commanders.
>french soldiers in tonkin werent dying from tropical diseases like malaria
Actually they were alongside typhoid and dysentery
>Disease limited the amount of soldiers able to be deployed against the war with them just like with all campaigns in kongo portuguese armies.
It didn't they several thousands man
>And there are plenty of battles where rhe kongo forces lost because portuguese forces were better like the battle of bwila
And still couldnt take the country
>They still won.
Winning a a couple of wars and imposing one's will on a country are two very different things and there was no battle in which the Portuguese inflicted damage on Kongolese forces comparable to that which Soyo inflicted upon them at Kitombo, where the entire colonial army was annihilated.

File: 1757181310944726.png (94 KB, 340x444)

94 KB PNG

>OP arguing with himself like he did on the Ashanti vs British thread
What causes this behavior?

>>18651556
>Show me sources about this happening against Soyo also the number of Portuguese in the army
There were only 500 portuguese soldiers in it.
>Portuguese in the army is irrelevant to me,
I do not care
>the colony had several thousands local recruits + mercenaries
Yeah non-portuguese soldiers
>Actually they were alongside typhoid and dysentery
They werent tropical diseases.
>It didn't they several thousands man
They didnt.
>Portuguese inflicted damage on Kongolese forces comparable to that which Soyo inflicted upon them at Kitombo, where the entire colonial army was annihilated
The battle of mbwila.

>>18651615
>only 500 portuguese soldiers in it.
Don't care
>I do not care
Don't care that you don't care
>Yeah non-portuguese soldiers
Led by Portuguese
>They werent tropical diseases.
They are common in tropical regions
>The battle of mbwila.
Only 5,000 out 21,000 died, at Kitombo the entire army was wiped out

>>18651641
>Don't care
I accept your concessions
>Don't care that you don't care
I sccept your concession
>Led by Portuguese
Still not portuguese
>They are common in tropical regions
They are commok outside of tropical regions aswell
>Kitombo the entire army was wiped out
There is no account on the total amount of soldiers or casualties from the battle.
While we do for mbwila
So its 5000 to your unknown.

>>18651667
>I accept your concessions
You have no counter arguments
>Still not portuguese
But led by Portuguese following their instructions
>They are commok outside of tropical regions aswell
They MOST common in tropical regions
>There is no account on the total amount of soldiers or casualties from the battle.
It is said that the casualities were so heavy that the colonial army ceased being an effective fighting force meanwhile Soyo stil had more than enough to fight its rivals and win. The colonial governor was worried that they might attack Luanda again.

>>18651704
>You have no counter arguments
Pure projection
>But led by Portuguese following their instructions
Still not portuguese still dont care
>It is said that the casualities were so heavy that the colonial army ceased being an effective fighting force
Still no actual casualties or strenght
So still my 5000 to your unknown
>They MOST common in tropical regions
Not true.

>>18651735
>Still not portuguese still dont care
We already saw Portuguese performance at the battle of the Salt River it was probably for the best that most of the army was familiar to the region and the style of warfare
>Still no actual casualties or strenght
Most likely the same one in their campaign against Kongo in the past, especially considering that they were highly motivated by the promise made by former king of control over the mines and the rights of setting up a fort further expanding their influence
>So still my 5000 to your unknown
The loses were mild at best based on the fact that Portuguese started running for their lives
>Not true.
Denying facts
So far you went from "Malaria" to hmmm actually there were few Portuguese as if it matters they lost more time than they won. The clash against the Khoikhoi already invalidates whatever point you are trying to make, 150 Portuguese lost against a group of 170 Khoikhois

>>18651883
>We already saw Portuguese performance at the battle of the Salt River it was probably for the best that most of the army was familiar to the region and the style of warfare
The portuguese soldiers showcased their performance against ovewhelming numbers many times like the Battle of Talandongo
>Most likely the same one in their campaign against Kongo in the past,
Again just made up conjecture no proof
>So far you went from "Malaria" to hmmm actually there were few Portuguese as if it matters they lost more time than they won.
Yes there were so few portuguese because of malaria limited the number of soldiers that could be deployed.
And they didnt lose more times than they won the portuguese.
And if they did the defeated armies overwhelmingly made up of natives not portuguese.

>>18647156
these guys were obviously minmaxxers, they even named themselves with an exclamation mark as the first letter to appear first in alphabetically sorted lists

>>18652305
>Battle of Talandongo
Yes the battle where Portuguese + an unknown number of African allies helped them defeat an army that broke formation and started panicking. This are the type of fights the Portuguese could win
>Again just made up conjecture no proof
The proof is them losing almost every battle against Kongolese forces
>Yes there were so few portuguese because of malaria limited the number of soldiers that could be deployed.
That has more to do with them having a relatively small army spreading themselves to tin across the globe and logistical issues which they compensate by recruiting locals familiar with the region.
>And if they did the defeated armies overwhelmingly made up of natives not portuguese.
And they also suffered many loses. Their influence was limited to smaller states but never regional powers like Kongo which goes back to my first point of lacking the military power to impose their will before the industrial revolution.

>>18651667
>Still not portuguese
This is a weird cope they were still part of Portuguese and many of them professionals. Without the African allies Angola doesn't exist that's just a fact
>So its 5000 to your unknown.
One could also argue that they suffered very few losses

>>18652455
>Yes the battle where Portuguese + an unknown number of African allies helped them defeat an army that broke formation and started panicking. This are the type of fights the Portuguese could win
Yeah they won fights where the enemy lost lmao
>The proof is them losing almost every battle against Kongolese forces
Thats not true and thats no proof of the size of their forces.
>That has more to do with them having a relatively small army spreading themselves to tin across the globe and logistical issues which they compensate by recruiting locals familiar with the region
Yeah On top of disease limiting the number of europeans that could be deployed.
>And they also suffered many loses.
Not really.
>but never regional powers like Kongo which goes back to my first point of lacking the military power to impose their will before the industrial revolution.
They didnt lack the military power they lacked the ability to deploy the necessary military power they had to conquer kongo due to logistical issues and their native allies were unable to conquer it for them.
>This is a weird cope they were still part of Portuguese and many of them professionals.
Still not portuguese and they were still a minority with the majority of the armies being tribal allies and levies
>One could also argue that they suffered very few losses
Still more than portuguese ever did.

>>18652581
>Yeah they won fights where the enemy lost lmao
Thanks to African allies
>Thats not true and thats no proof of the size of their forces.
It doesn't matter if they sent few forces that was due to their lack of judgement, if they sent more they still ended up losing a decisive battle, either way they lacked the military power.
>Yeah On top of disease limiting the number of europeans that could be deployed.
Doubt it considering the number of Portuguese living in Luanda + the ones that had permanent resistance in Kongo before the expulsion.
>They didnt lack the military power they lacked the ability to deploy the necessary military power they had to conquer kongo due to logistical issues
So they lacked military power? Got it
>Still not portuguese and they were still a minority with the majority of the armies being tribal allies and levies
Irrelevant several thousand of trained able bodied man, from the looks of it they were more important than the Portuguese musketeers
>Still more than portuguese ever did.
No evidence

>>18652590
>Thanks to African allies
Yeah and when they lost it was also thanks to african allies
>It doesn't matter if they sent few forces that was due to their lack of judgement,
It was due to the lack of ability
>if they sent more they still ended up losing a decisive battle
This never happened.
>Doubt it considering the number of Portuguese living in Luanda + the ones that had permanent resistance in Kongo before the expulsion.
It doesnt matter what you only think.
>So they lacked military power? Got it
They lacked the ability to deploy it not the military power itself.
>Irrelevant several thousand of trained able bodied man,
Yeah so they were just native tribes defeating other natives led by portuguese
>No evidence
I already provided evidence of my numbers you have provided no evidence of yours.

>>18647819
>Muh malaria
In the third Anglo Ashanti war the British primarily won because they had more and better weapons with higher firing rate. There was even a saying in the late 19th century "whatever happens we have the maxim gun and they don't"

>>18652617
>Yeah and when they lost it was also thanks to african allies
Who led them?
>This never happened.
Kitombo
>It doesnt matter what you only think.
Why should I care what you think?
>It was due to the lack of ability
Aka military power
>They lacked the ability to deploy it not the military power itself.
Same difference
>Yeah so they were just native tribes defeating other natives led by portuguese
And without them, the Portuguese could never have achieved much in the region

>>18652636
>Who led them?
A portuguese commander
>Kitombo
Hows that evidence of large european reinforcements
>Why should I care what you think?
Im just sharing historical facts
>Aka military power
Lacked the ability to deploy military power
>Same difference
Only if you're retarded
>And without them, the Portuguese could never have achieved much in the region
Becaus they lacked the ability to deploy the necessary amounts of portuguese soldiers.

>>18652660
>A portuguese commander
Nice to see that you finally acknowledged the main responsible for their defeats and victories
>Hows that evidence of large european reinforcements
I'm talking about men in general not just Europeans, I know this is hard but try to keep up
>Lacked the ability to deploy military power
But they didn't
>Only if you're retarded
Not really
>Becaus they lacked the ability to deploy the necessary amounts of portuguese soldiers.
It wouldn't have changed much

>>18651123
>Empire vs a clan
Kek

>>18652693
>Nice to see that you finally acknowledged the main responsible for their defeats and victories
Not really would the general being non-portuguese have meant victory?
>I'm talking about men in general not just Europeans
I was talking about european reinforcments try too keep up
>But they didn't
They did
>Not really
Yeah i know you're retarded
>It wouldn't have changed much
Yes it wouldve being able to consistently deploy tens of thousands of professional soldiers wouldve helped any campaigns and combat immensely.

>>18647819
That can only be applied to West Africa and even then I don't think they would have gone to far against the ambush tactics used in the forest area.>>18647115
>Were the Portuguese supposed to be aware of all the local fauna to not get ambushed
Perhaps they shouldn't have decided to attack them

>>18652721
>non-portuguese have meant victory?
Probably they wouldn't have wasted time with trying to set up a useless cavalry
>They did
Yes they did have the ability to send several thousands troops
>Yeah i know you're retarded
No argument
>Yes it wouldve being able to consistently deploy tens of thousands of professional soldiers
1It would have left mainland Portugal vulnerable to attacks
2 it would have been to expensive
3 it would take a long time for each reinforcement to arrive

>>18652777
>Probably they wouldn't have wasted time with trying to set up a useless cavalry
I dont see how that wouldve won them wars
>Yes they did have the ability to send several thousands troops
From 1574-1594 only 2000 soldiers total were sent to angola.
Most detachment and armies were a couple hundred strong
The largest force ever deployed by portuguese in any campaign in all of sub-saharan africa was only 1000 men strong
>1 it would have left mainland Portugal vulnerable to attacks
>2 it would have been to expensive
>3 it would take a long time for each reinforcement to arrive
Yes those are all very good examples of logistical and geographic issues preventing the deployment and mainting of large portuguese forces of africa.
Thanks for proving my point i guess?

>>18652870
>I dont see how that wouldve won them wars
Example of they lack of knowledge of the region
>From 1574-1594 only 2000 soldiers total were sent to angola.
Again I'm talking about all soldiers not just Europeans
>The largest force ever deployed by portuguese in any campaign in all of sub-saharan africa was only 1000 men strong
Objectively untrue if we include local archers and mercenaries
>Yes those are all very good examples of logistical and geographic issues preventing the deployment and mainting of large portuguese forces of africa
It was compensated through local recruitment yet despite that colonial expansion was limited to the coast. Biggest victory was killing the king along several aristocratics only to lose 5 years later against a rogue vassal that very likely didn't have even half of the men pre civil war Kongo had at its disposal.

>>18652916
>Example of they lack of knowledge of the region
They had local tribal allies guides and allies specifically for that
>Again I'm talking about all soldiers not just Europeans
Okay and?
>Objectively untrue if we include local archers and mercenaries
For european soldiers it is.
>It was compensated through local recruitment
It obviously wasnt compensated given they werent super succesfull
>despite that colonial expansion was limited to the coast.
Yes because the coast is the easiest to control and defend supply and maintain .
Diseases were generally but not always worse inland.
>Biggest victory was killing the king along several aristocratics only to lose 5 years later against a rogue vassal that very likely didn't have even half of the men pre civil war Kongo had at its disposal.
Again no numbers are available for the number of men involved in both sizes

>>18652941
I've grown tired of this debate, my point was that they lacked military power to impose its will which is true, your semantics argument about logistics is irrelevant.
Portugal didn't annexed Kongo until the 19th century that's just a fact.
Moving to other regions control over just the Swahili coast required active collaboration of elites that didn't fled to Comores, cannons alone were not going to cut it.
In the savannah area of West Africa Kanem Bornu had already managed to secure firearms from the ottoman empire but they weren't very useful at the time even less in the forest area where matchlocks weren't reliable due to humidity and the firing rate was lower than that of a bow and arrow.
Most armies did not employ the cattle-charge tactic used by the Songhai, so a repeat of the Tondibi incident was unlikely.
Winning a battle and controlling a territory are two different things

>>18652991
>I've grown tired of this debate
I accept your concession
>your semantics argument about logistics is irrelevant.
No its not irrelevant when its the primary reason why they lacked the military force to conquer it.

>>18653021
>why they lacked the military force to conquer it.
Plenty of reasons, as stated above early firearms had a low fire rate and weren't unknown in many regions of the continent

>>18653071
>Plenty of reasons
Yes like the ones ive repeated multiple times in my posts.

>>18653087
>Yes like the ones ive repeated multiple times in my posts.
Those were incorrect

>>18653089
They were not

>>18653093
>They were not
Correct? No.

>>18653121
No? They were correct

>>18653143
>They were correct
In being wrong of course