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.
>>533379005>at least until the 1850s-60s.So can not blame whites for slavery? Good now fuck off
>>533379498OP btfo
such a victory. and they had modern weapons from dutch
>>533379005white man can't defeat black kangs without using tricknology.
Basically europeans settled the americas no problem, north and south, since 1500s, but could not handle africa
>>533379498kek that group even dealt in slaves
>>533379005Africans are indeed strong warriors
Has there been a substantial uptick in shilling very recently? As soon as the iran war calmed down all the interest groups started getting a lot more aggressive with bait posting here (again).
>>533379714>pic of a nigger with a tranny ha gotteembrowncel cope lmao
>>533379714this roastshit hag walled, hard. she has mar a lago face despite being some finngol and her creepy ancient ass is trying to look like some young thot posing next to an aubergine coloured negro. i remember when fags were astroturfing that hating sanna on here was le incel coded, but really, she's just an absolutely retarded bitch and finns are retarded for letting this party girl idiot be in their country's politics, if you can't see that then that's on you lol
>>533379005Word to Tippu...
Malaria was a big issue till the brits invented Gin&tonic
>>533379005Not often enough though
>>533379005>oftenbut how much ofter? I guess just a little often, a tiny little often, mine, on the contrary, is a huge often.
>>533379621>>533379005Damn OP it took 10,000 Africans to beat 80 British men lmfao
>>533379005I don't see how wooden spears and jungle tree bows could beat a Spanish square, culverins, men at arms or any western formation of post 14th century soldiers, hell, even early medieval formations would smoke them even when massively outnumbered
yes, no shit.colonisation of africa didn't really get underway until pic related entered the scene.same as with india. by the 1700s indian armies had learned from the british and were basically on par, it was the political scheming, machinations, and backstabbing that fucked them. india wasn't conquered. the indian elites sold out their own country and people to foreigners for trinkets.i wonder if there's a lesson here.
>>533388733Also, let's not forget that basically, anything below Sahel didn't have>The fucking wheel>Iron tools>Feudal kingdomsThey were all tribal kingdoms, no record keeping, nothing of value preserved
>>533388866They didn't really colonise around the Kongo jungle area, well, since you know, there is a bunch of trees and it would be unappealing to the settlers to live among weird jungle animals and tropical diseases. However South Africa was settled quickly, as it was empty and looked like European plains
>>533388866Sure thing, sandeep
>>533389138the east india company largely employed indian soldiers you fucking retard, probably because it's fucking impossible to ship 300k soldiers to india from britain in fucking 1700. they were called sepoys.
>>533388866I'd argue there was some ingenunity there as well, given that the British adopted tons of different textile technologies from India and home only to end up turning it into the industrial revolution.Also interesting to note was that they employed Indian craftsmen to create weapons for the Brits there, they had to completely make up their own logistics because of the distance between there and the UK.
Bigger. Faster. Stronger. Smarter. Africans rule this earth.
>>533379621>80>10,000
