Talk:African military systems before 1800

Article start up

article started up, with numerous typos etc.. needs cleanup. Please note introductory section, which is essential to undersanding military innovation. military innovation is more than new weapons appearing, but involves profound changes in organization and outlook. This was so with Rome, it was so with alexander's forces and it was so with African commanders such as Zulu Chieftain Shaka. Keep this in mind as you edit the article. Also keep in mind that Africa includes Egypt and Carthage, which are yes, on the same continent. I know this sounds obvious, but some people can't seem to grasp this simple point. If the article is on African military innovations, then it must include these nations as well as the Zulu system to have any credibility. yes it needs much cleanup, new refs, etc.. so go ahead- go for it pilgrim! Enriquecardova (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool that someone got this baby started. I just put up an article on the Military history of the Mali Empire. I'm sure there's some stuff in there that will help out over here. It's just so much darn research!!! I got bookoo sources, but i still got to go in and put those inline citations. I will try to add in here as well. Good luck, all! Scott Free (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'll check out that article. I am trying to cutback on the amount of research needed by using a "snapshot" approach- only a limited number of examples that demonstrate a significant change on the landscape or people and the development of warfighting. So for example Rommel's WWII campaigns would not make the cut, nor would many of the Roman campaigns except as they demonstrate some sortof transformation in local or native terms. Enriquecardova (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "snapshot" approch

A "snapshot" approach is taken in the article using only a limited number of examples that demonstrate a significant change on the landscape or people and the development of warfighting. So for example Rommel's WWII campaigns would not make the cut, nor would many of the Roman campaigns except as they demonstrate some sort of transformation in local or native terms. The conquest of Carthage is an obvious exception. That was pretty transformational for North Africa. If this isn't done then all sort of campaigns on African soil would have to be included, and the article would become a big roundup of battles, or would duplicate the times and dates approach of other articles..

The "snapshot" is broken down into two big sections: Pre-gunpowder and Gunpowder era. Within those sections would be the selected examples. Since every battle on African soil or every tribe can't be mentioned, the examples used should illustrate some sort of significant transformation on the native people and landscape. For example we know the Ashanti used bows but how did that transform Western Africa in military terms? Did others copy the Ashanti bow, or did they copy the Ashanti army formation? Or did the Ashanti warfighting method have a big impact in their areas and others? Unless this can be shown the example might not make the cut. We know that in Dahomey they used women warriors, but the impact of this was not wide. They sometimes fought but only rarely and other tribes did not rush to copy the amazon approach. So I have not included it. This is just a guideline to prevent the article from getting too big.

The "snapshot" lineup so far:

• carthage- pretty transformational as far as north africa and their naval technology was number one for centuries
• egyptians- chariot and infantry warfare had impact so they make the cut. The archers of Nubia would be part of this as they contributed to both defending and conquering egypt.
• numidia- berber type light horsemen were a key part of hannibal's victories and also Rome's early victories in africa.
• the zulu- Very transformational system with wide effects in southern andinto eastern africa. Many tribes copied them. Africa's best light infantry force man for man it could be argued.
• Malian/Mossi/Sudanic cavalry- important for history of West africa, s the cavalry states made wide conquests
• The boers- had a definite impact- their gun/horse combo copied by several african tribes. Both Boer and briton did everything in their power to prevent Africans getting guns and horses
• The Basuto- transformational as they demonstrate how native culture took on guns and horses successfully- indigenous transformation. Under Moshesh they helped create an island of stability in the sea of chaos spread by the Zulu. Also they defeated or drew with better armed Boer and Briton.
• Samory in Mali and Adbelkader in Algeria- good for looking at the response to colonial conquest and how african peoples used available technology to fight long guerilla wars.
• The Ethiopans at Adowa- good for a look at how indigenus people carried out military modernization. The Ethiopian Army was not as lavishly equipped as that of the Italians but they handled modern guns and artillery well enough, plus mixed in old-fashioned infantry charges with sword and spear to defeat a modern European force at Adowa. The victory had wide reaching effects for Ethiopia and Pan african movement.

No doubt there are other examples others will bring to the table, but with the guidelines above, it should hold down the amount of work needed and keep the article in focus. Throw in as many battles and campaigns as wanted but filter them down by asking:

• does it show the development on native military arts and skills? This means not only weapons but organization.
• how did it differ from the forms of warfare that went before in the area?
• how wide was the impact on the military art, the culture or the society?
• did other people copy the military change or innovation?
• is it just a foreign example fought by outside forces or did it have a local/native impact?

There could be some info as well on the modern era keeping within the guidelies above, but then again, things could be left to say the beginning of WWII to cut down on the amount of work needed.

Just some guidelines. Enriquecardova (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nubian archers removed

How come this "The Egyptians combined chariot warfare with covering fire by Medjay archers, renowned bowmen from the Nubian region. Implementation of such methods was seen during etc " was removed?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was separated into 2 sections but they can very well go together, since both the cavalry and infantry formed one unified force. So I have combined them. Enriquecardova (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

references and sources

Personally I prefer the system where only the page and the author are indicated in the text as a reference to the fully cited source, so

==References==

1. ^ p.123, Smith

==Sources==

• Smith, John, A treatise on being commonly named, Smith and Weston Publishers, Brownsville, 1901

Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That system is better. I just have to get used to it, but if you want to give it a stab and do a fix with what is on hand so far- go for it! Enriquecardova (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Technical (fighting vehicle)

The authors may wish to consider whether this concept should be put in, now or later. Great work. Buckshot06(prof) 01:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be room for it, if someone can boil down the text to a manageable chunk. From what I see those technicals are the poor man's Armored Fighting Vehicle and Tank all rolled into one. Have added a "Post WwII era" section to take in such developments, if anyone wants to give it a stab. Enriquecardova (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Technical" was notable for its use in the African conflicts, but was not an African innovation. Even the name is borrowed from the Soviet training of African personnel (technicheskoye obsluzhivanie). Use of .50cal HMGs on the humble Jeep was prolific during the Second World War, and even before that various weapons were mounted on civilian vehicles, notably during the Boer wars, the Russian Civil War and the Spanish Civil War. However I do believe that the first armoured car was used by the British Army in Africa based on the...Rolls Royce :)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr unsigned anon here was probably user:Mrg3105. Mrg, you're going to have to prove and cite that point before you can say that Aideed's helpful charity raiders running round in their vehicles were Soviet trained and named their vehicles that because of a Soviet precedent; nobody trained these guys. Buckshot06(prof) 09:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Klever Kiwi :)

Even nowadays SAR defense minister and head of intelligence are the people who in 1970-s came through Odessa and Simpheropol universities and camps together with hundreds other fellows from Africa and Latina America. GRU (Soviet/Russian military intelligence) took enormous care of the whole ‘third world’.

The St. Petersburg Times (05/09/06) noted that Putin was the first Kremlin leader to visit South Africa “Despite Moscow’s active support of the country’s long battle to end white rule. South African Intelligence Minister, Ronnie Kasrils, one the country’s best known white radicals and Communists, recalls with nostagla his own guerilla training in Odessa in 1964, when he was 26 years old. ‘One must hand it to the former Soviet Union,’ Kasrils said in an interview. ‘They were really the main staple support for the ANC and South African liberation. They were really fantastic in terms of military training and in terms of weapons, in terms of food and the like.’”

And another interesting piece http://www.mail-archive.com/marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu/msg06054.html

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. Everybody knows there were lots of Soviet advisors running round Africa - and this is Somalia in the early 1990s, not South Africa. You need a specific cite - doesn't matter which language, we can get it checked - that the term 'technical' as referred to an improvised fighting vehicle stemmed from Soviet military advisors, or whatever the exact naming connection you want to prove is. Doesn't need to be a immediate response thing - when you do find it, and I can understand it might take a while, just drop it here, and we can incorporate it. Buckshot06(prof) 11:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed subject sections

I know we have our work cut out for us, even by going the sample summary route. So here are some subjects that I think should eventually make it into this page...

• Distribution of Mandinka military institutions throughout west africa (officers, tactics)
• Use of Ahosi regiments (Dahomey Amazons) in what is now Benin
• Operational structure of Songhay Empire with its standing army
• Adoption and use of gunpowder by Asanteman

All of these were definately innovative (at least in Africa) when they appeared. HollaScott Free (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

All great suggestions. I think most can be fitted in by grabbing text from other articles and condensing and reworking it. Go for it! New sections in place!

• I did not include Dahomey Amazons by themselves, but I can see them as part of the gunpowder/pregunpowder mix- the transition to gunpowder during the colonial era.
• Mandinka organization: I think this can be worked in- maybe under a heading of indigenous states and empires
• Songhai- same as Mandinka
• Asante- same as above

Go for it! Enriquecardova (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth I think the article as it is now is needlessly fragmented and the section titles are overly long--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

it should improve over time as the sections are filled in. One way to reduce the fragmentation is to combine the Zulu section into one bloc, rather than spli it betwen pre-gun and gunpowder eras, then call them a case of transition between eras. That could work. As for the article as a whole it is still in flux but the general structure looks workable. As for headings, some can be trimmed- others are needed for clarity.Enriquecardova (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning Warning

Of the 17 or so references, I can see only one page number so far; this needs to be attended to, because one can't expect people to search through an entire book to find the information. Could I request that the original add-ers of these cites add the page numbers relatively quickly? Buckshot06(prof) 11:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Will try to plug them in. Enriquecardova (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Good web resources

A lot of info on african warfare for other articles & this one. In the first one it says poisoned arrows were actually more effective than firearms in some cases. Also details on cavalry states.

• Military technology-various empires

• Gunpowder era in the Sudan

Enriquecardova (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Scope

Just so we understand where this is going, the self-defining scope of the article is on "emphasis on the role of the indigenous landscape, states and peoples within the African continent". While "indigenous landscape" is probably unnecessary, indigenous peoples are a must since Carthaginians or their successors, Arabs and Turks, and Europeans were not indigenous to Africa even if their militaries warred on the continent. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the Carthaginians can be viewed as falling within the scope of the article, since their main base was in Northwest Africa for centuries, many of their leaders and people were born in Africa, and they drew substantial numbers of troops, and materials from African soil, such as the infantrymen of Libya or the cavalry of Numidia, and that to eliminate them, the Romans had to invade Africa. Even Hannibal's famous war-elephants were also a species of African elephant. I have limited the discussion to actual operations on African soil however where they are concerned, aside from brief background info. If they were mostly based in Lebanon, like many other Phonecians they would not make the cut. I agree that the Turks and Arabs would not fall under the article except as they tie into African military developments. The Arabs deserve some mention, which would figure mostly as regards the introduction of the horse in some (but not all) areas, and some early gun trading. I have worked them in via discussion of the savannah empires which had some Islamic influence. Its a tricky question. Some would say Egypt should not be included but I can't see excluding Egypt and by extension its close relation, Nubia. I think Egy and Carthage can safely make the cut. Others like the Vandals, Gauls, Greeks, Turks etc much less so. They have to show some indigenous development of a military system. Enriquecardova (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the fence with respect to Carthage. The Egyptians and Nubians originated in Africa, whereas Carthage was a Phoenician settlement. culturewise Carthage isn't African, however it did use some African tactics (elephant corps is one example, as well as Berber and Sudanic infantry). Guess it could go either wayScott Free (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to leave the Carthagians in, particularly since they also intermingled with the local tribes of the region, producing a mixed population called Liby-Phonecian by the Greeks according to one source Adrian Goldsworthy, and that their most reliable infantry was derived from local Libyans. Their best light cavalry was also local- Numidians. However, I can remove the discussion on naval warfare, since that was mostly a matter of overseas campaigning in waters of Sicily, Italy, Greece etc. Looking at the history now, the Carthagians actually won one major open-field battles against the Romans in Africa, against Regulus in the FIrst Punic War, where they actually routed the Romans. The battles of African soil also illustrate the "mixed" format Carthagian military system, which has some rough similarity with the Egyptian system.Enriquecardova (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

SPlit into 2 articles

Article size was balooning rapidly. Even though only 2 or 3 more examples were to be plugged in, the size was altready 70k. New additons woud swell it past 100k. Split into pre-1800 developments and post 1800 developments to make it more manageable. The "snapshot" or "cross-section" approach is still being used. A full roundup of dates and wars is left to the general military history africa article. Added a sna[pshot of Benin, and this should pretty much give a good cross-section of pre-1800 developments. The Asante were also active prior to 1800, but also inflicted several defeats on the British at the start of the 19th century- and thir organization comes into greater focus there- s0 they could should roll over to the post-1800 article to save space. Added a section on African naval warfare to close out the topic. Enriquecardova (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured article

I think this should be a featured article. What do others think? Nightmayor (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, in general this is an excellent article but.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackees (talk • contribs) 08:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Was just about to mention that this should be nominated. Artaxus 1:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on African military systems to 1800. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318204041/http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/IntSP_1_Ancient_EgyptSP.pdf to http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/IntSP_1_Ancient_EgyptSP.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Somali warriors board British naval batilla.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Article title

The current article title is ungrammatical. It should be either "until 1800" or "before 1800", but not "to 1800" - right? Lennart97 (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the page. Lennart97 (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)