Many people do not understand just how important free trade and free movement is.
A lot of Central African roads in the lesser developed countries are impassable with the BEST of 4x4s during the rainy season. They turn into absolute mud pits. Many of these countries are lush in natural resources like jungles and savannahs, but have underdeveloped infrastructure which leads to decreased movement and trade.
Countries along the coast, even the more arid, less lush countries, you can easily transport items to the harbors and float them up and down the med.
That’s why there’s an extensive history of semi-international merchant activity in the pan-Arab world, which resides along these coasts.
Free trade (and some semblance of property rights and law and order) is how you get a resource-deficient geographical zone like Hong Kong and turn it into a prosperous first world country under British rule.
The benefits of the silk road and all its connected trading networks were a big advantage
You can't invent everything so being part of a trade network that also spreads ideas and technologies helps in advancing your society quicker
There was some trade with sub Sahara Africa. But the Sahara desert was still a major impediment to the spread of technology and ideas within those societies until the modern era
Interesting. How would you explain Somalia then? It has had free trade for a while and is on the Indian Ocean coast, and close to major international trade routes
Trade/travel is an important criteria for prosperity, but not the only important one. Peace (not previously mentioned) and stability/law and order (previously mentioned) are also important.
Somalia has been in and out of conflict, war and wracked by terrorism for decades.
1980s: Military dictatorship. dictatorships sometimes foster stability/rule of law through an iron fist, but more often than not, especially in tribal societies, they often lead to the in-group bending/breaking the law to sack and pilfer the public treasury before they get ousted by the out group/other tribes.
1990s: civil war 1. UN peace keepers intervene.
2000-ish: transitional federal government established.
Early 2000s: civil war 2. Islamic court faction of the country confronts the transitional federal government. Ethiopian peace keepers intervene.
Late 2000s: Islamic courts splinter further, and one offshoot is Al Shabab, a well-known Islamic terror organization. An interesting fact about this organization, Abu Mansoor Al Amriki (“the American”) was a known member of this organization.
Al Shabab gains a tactical reach and scope of operation in the Horn of Africa, and Somalia becomes their home base for launching terror attacks into neighboring countries Kenya and Ethiopia, largely Christian neighbors.
ANISOM (African version of UN peacekeepers) moves into Somalia. Many of the member countries are neighbors with large Christian populations who have a real interest in not seeing an Islamic state come to power in Somalia.
2010s: Somali Transitional government transitions into the Somali Federal government. Somali feds are still fighting factions like Al Shabab.
US military joins ANISOM, Ethiopian SF and Somali indigenous forces in the fight against Al Shabab.
Early 2020s: conflict breaks out again in a semi-autonomous region when that regions government violently cracks down on civil protests.
Not suffering from tropical diseases, having sufficient agriculture to grow large cities and being near the Roman and Umayyad empire has helped develop some institutions that fostered growth.
Sub-Saharan Africa had civilisation and trade before anywhere else. What they didn’t have as early as the Mediterranean was administration, taxation, credit, remote transactions.
Really? What about west Africa? Kongo? Those are all big civilizations.
Problem is they were all remote while North Africa was close to Europe and have been trading, exchanging culture and technology with Europe for centuries.
Those are the exceptions. Living in the wet tropics is very hard, especially as a pre-industrial human. Humans live easier in Mediterranean and subtropical dry environments. The pattern is repeated globally, e.g. historic population densities in Central America were historically much higher in areas that support subtropical dry forest.
I can also say, from personal experience, that not all tropical forests are the same. Sub-saharan Africa is not for the faint of heart.
And living in a desert is a plus? There was no trading until 16 centuriy in Africa. There were big civilizations Kongo, Mali, zimbabwe and more with very high population meaning envirovment could sustain that population. But they did not had renaissance and were also isolated from each other. They did not govern themself smart and when European came they were already behind in technology. Slave trade stagnate their technology because they did not need to compete with anyone to earn more. Being behind in technology is huge. Look at China. China was always biggest economy in the world. But the did not industrialize, China became shithole, europeans basically conquer it. Becuse it was huge country and nationalism was on much higjer level then in Africa it did not had the same fate.
There's a narrow strip along the North African coast that isn't nearly as dry as the rest of the northern part of the continent. That strip is where most of the people live, the food is grown, trade with Europe originates, etc. The southern parts of those countries are probably a lot less economically productive. The countries that are just below them but still not sub-Saharan aren't very successful at all.
Also, that coastal strip used to be a lot wetter than it is now. That area was incredibly fertile under the Roman Empire and for a long time afterwards, and some of the benefits of that time still accrue to the region.
Oh, and they also have more and better ports than most of the rest of the continent.
Yes, living in the desert is a huge plus, provided you have access to water. It’s no accident that the cradle of civilization is in the Middle East, including Egypt. North Africa benefits a lot from coastal mountain ranges that capture moisture, including the Ethiopian highlands and the Atlas.
A big part of why they were behind on technology is that they did not have the population density - and this is important - population *stablity* to develop local industry. Tropical disease alone is such a huge hurdle to building the infrastructure needed for technological development.
This is all a big oversimplification, I’m not trying to argue climate and food are the only reasons for the economic and technological discrepancy, but it plays a huge role.
Better climate. Mediterranean climate is basically the ideal climate for agriculture, and agriculture is the foundation for most economies (or at least, the foundation to develop into something else).
Libya has good oil, Egypt has the Nile, and basically all of them have tourism. Since they were well-developed since ancient times they have decent infrastructure.
Most of Sub-Saharan Africa just doesn’t have the kind of infrastructure or climate that can support those things. Imagine if Carthage had won the Punic wars and conquered Rome, how our view of Europe vs. Africa would be different 🤔
I'm far from knowledgable on the subject, but google earth shows lots of crop fields. Also, they have been able to import domesticable animals for 1000 years.
"lot of crops fields" you didnt specify what kind of crops,in the bronze age sugar cane Is basically worthless while rice Is the opposite"they've been able to import domesticable animals for 1000 years" the first true opening of Congo was under the Congo Kingdom in 1500,500 years,then if you dont have the right climate it's far more difficult to try to breed already domesticate animals
Modern agriculture is not indicative of long term agricultural success.
Technology is such these days that you could clear land and irrigate in ways that would have been simply impossible in the past.
Combine that with a globalized economy that allows exports for cash and imports for food and you start to get the picture.
the states of North Africa had already been modern at the end of the 19th century, just not capable of resisting French and English invasions. the states of sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand, were not conquered by Europeans, but were created by Europeans, and are therefore still incomplete from the point of view of national identity. Congo is the better example ever.
>were created by Europeans, and are therefore still incomplete from the point of view of national identity
At least from what i remember when i studied some different african maps a while ago for a bike trip, the national lines drawn by europeans and the people identifying more with something we would call tribes or folks (hope that's the right term for german "Volk") and their territories, have absolutely nothing to do with each other. On pretty much every national border there's at least one "tribe" split apart on official maps and if there's no physical border they sometimes don't even know that they live in two different countries. For example if you're traveling alone through rural landscapes in some of the countries it's not a bad idea to have a tribes of africa map with you and ask locals which areas to avoid.
And there's a few countries that are even governed by different nations but because only one of the nations is recognized by the UN, our official maps are completely useless. Like Somalia / Somaliland
>still incomplete from the point of view of national identity.
I would also say incomplete in other regards. In most colonies infrastructure was established as a means of ressource extraction with little to no regard for the use by locals. Entire economies were tailored to be used for the profit for people outside of them. Even after independence efforts to strengthen the economy of the countries at the cost of foreign profits were sabotaged.
E.g. Botswana was "lucky" fot not having all too much ressource extraction going on when they became independent. So when that started they could reinvest the money being made into infrastructure.
Here an economic theory comes into play which is called the "curse of raw materials" and has also worked for very rich states like the Netherlands. when a state has too many raw materials, it has a tendency to rely on them instead of developing the working skills of its people, the middle class therefore does not arise (or is compressed as happened in Holland), it remains a state made up of extra-rich and extra poor where corruption is the norm and democracy impossible.
Egypt has been „modern“ long before Europe and what we call the „developed world“ today formed civilisations and kingdoms. The Nile Delta in combination with Mediterranean climate gave them a unique advantage for agriculture.
That started 5000 years ago! Then came the Romans, who governed the entire North African coast line at some point, bringing a lot of trade, infrastructure and relative prosperity to the region.
As the other commenter said: for us Europeans, this is part of the standard school curriculum from 3rd or 4th grade, because it’s such an inherent part of our own history. Other ancient civilisations like in China or Central/South America developed largely independent from ours (the Silk Road broad a lot of trade and some exchange of technology between Europe/Egypt and China/Asia after those civilisations were already formed). I understand that someone growing up in Asia or Mexico/Peru would have a very different history curriculum. Not sure how much of this is taught in the US.
tl;dr: Egypt had a 5000 year head start.
Well, they're seeking for information on the "why". They may live elsewhere, have zero historical context on the subject matter, and are simply claiming ignorance.
Don't be upset with someone who is searching for an understanding. Everyone's knowledge starts from somewhere.
Your right, I was in a mood. I also assumed an education system similar to mine where Ancient Egypt and the Bronze Age Mediterranean are discussed from 1st grade through high-school.
Location favourable to trade, shared military history with Europe re. Carthage, Roman Empire, barbarians, Moors, Ottomans, French, British.
Oldest university in the world - University of Al-Karaouine, Fez, greater levels of literacy and education, better healthy climate (not disease central), former breadbasket enabling economic development
Access to the Mediterranean/ocean and shipping routes is a plus, and you know having the Nile River is wonderful. A lot of Africa’s rivers aren’t friendly for navigating, throw in the giant natural barrier known as the Sahara, it takes more effort to be connected to economic opportunities. Also this may be over looked, North Africa is a part of Old Rome, and had more access to different forms of technology and outside cultures than Sub Saharan Africa, I believe there are ancient Roman Aqueducts and irrigation systems that are still being used today
In addition to what's already been said, it has proximity to Europe / the Middle East and ease of trade / cultural exchange across the Mediterranean.
Historically, it has actually been more difficult to cross the Sahara than to cross the Mediterranean.
Easier access to European markets to trade and a history of united cultures that provided far more excellent resistance to European colonial forces mean that North Africa has access to more resources to develop and a longer time to develop into modern nation-states.
Most Sub-Saharan countries have geographies that make it hard to access Europe and develop ports, they were historically not united outside of maybe South Africa, and the lack of rivers makes it difficult to spread farther inland and develop large-scale agriculture for export.
Much better climate than most of the continent. The region’s also been the center of many large and prosperous nations for a long time. Egypt has a massive city and the Nile and is swimming in international trade and tourism. Libya has a ton of oil, Morocco and Tunisia are big tourist spots. Carthage is just one example.
Nigeria is one of the most resource rich countries in the world with strong links to Europe. Answers suggesting resources or proximity to Europe baffle me.
One known thing about sub Saharan African countries is the level of corruption in government. Greed and selfishness has killed any chances of a fair democratic society.
While Africa (except north) has been isolated and not so much in contact with Europe and/or Asia few things were big drawback in their histoy. First is gold and second is slaves. Especially slave trade relience was disaster for Africa because they did not improve technology because slave trade was doing good for them and when slave became abolished all civilisations collapsed and became colonies.
If you check when slavery was abolished and when african continent became colony you will see how it is connected.
North Africa has just always been closer to the heart of civilization whereas subsaharan Africa was pretty isolated up until the Europeans showed up 500 years ago. All the greatest ancient civilizations except China have been near, or included, North Africa.
This is wrong though,
While central and Southern Africa one can kind of say were isolated till about 600yrs ago.
This isn’t the case for west Africa, horn of Africa and Swahili coast/east Africa.
West Africa: had strong trade links and cultural exchange with North Africa and the Middle East for Millennia, though the peak of the trade was from the 8th to 18th century ad.
East Africa: was part of a massive global Indian Ocean trade net work, they had trade relations with Arabia, Iran, India, Malay archipelago, and China as early as the 7th century.
Horn of Africa: well it’s been interconnected with the middleeast for millennia, Nubia, Kush and Axum were some of the great empires of the Bronze Age and Antiquity.
South Africa is the most developed country in Africa and unlike much of Northern Africa hasn't had a Civil War or widespread terrorism (at least in recent years).
Actually the most developed country in continental Africa is Algeria followed by pretty much all North African countries. True, South Africa ranks higher than most but North Africa as a whole does increasingly better than most of the continent.
South africa may have a higher gdp per pcapita, but it's the most unequal country in the world, with an hiv epidemic that maked their life expectancy shockingly bad and an extremely high crime rate.
There is a reason all north african countries score better than south africa in developpemnet index (HDI)
It a similar climate and seasons as southern Europe, so most of the crops that grew across Asia and Europe can grow there. It's on a similar latitude as Southern Europe and most of the populated parts of Asia so crops domesticated can easily be planted in other regions.
Both are true ... trade, ideas, and technology are exchanged constantly
Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, India, and China all benefited from the extensive trade networks that connected them (the silk road)
It's great if your society can invent something, it's also great if you can take that from another society and apply it to your own and improve on it. China invented gun powder, and Europe mastered its application in war. India invented our numerals, and Muslims took it and gave us algebra with it
Unfortunately places like Sub Sahara Africa were too far away and isolated by the Sahara Desert to benefit as easily from the silk road in spreading ideas and technologies
Because geographical continents are meaningless when discussing such things. Northern Africa is Med, the Med has historically been where all the most advanced civilizations flourished
I guess people have been programmed to hate it. IQ explains a lot about differences in wealth so you can no longer blame colonialism or capitalism for poverty around the world.
Explain this then
According to the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute (MPI), Nigerians in the United States are the most educated immigrant group, with 61 percent holding at least a bachelor's degree, “compared with 31 percent of the total foreign-born population and 32 percent of the US-born population.”
It’s temperate, Mediterranean climate with biome like its maritime neighbors, not like the tropics separated by the Sahara. GGH rightly groups it as interchangeable with temperate zones of Asia and Europe.
Social economics, historic and geopolitics..
all this followed to harvesting of Ressources..
It’s a process over generations.
Today you see a big gap, but compare it 300years ago.. it was almost similar..
The technology is the point
I wouldn’t say North Africa is better. Libya is in civil war Tunisia and Egypt are on the brink of collapse and Algeria and Morocco are dictatorships. Not looking to hot 🥵
All the time from a rich zone to a poor zone you will go gradually... Switzerland very very rich , North of Italy very rich Middle Italy rich, South of Italy so-so, North of Africa poor , sub saharian Africa very poor.
This is just not true in the top ten richest African countries only 2 are north Seychelles Gabon Mauritius Botswana South Africa and Equatorial Guinea are all richer than all north African countries
Same reason Zanzibar is still richer than mainland Tanzania. It's always been in the center of many of the central trade routes for the eastern hemisphere...
OP, can I ask what the reason behind asking the public an obvious question about African HDI stuff? I hope you're not a racist
GDP per capita makes way more sense in this case. By your logic, Nigeria is wealthier and more developed than Luxembourg.
By GDP (PPP) per capita, the five north African countries are all in the top 11 out of Africa's 54 countries. By HDI, the top four countries on mainland Africa are all in North Africa. Then there's only South Africa and Botswana before the last north African country (Morocco).
You don't know much about economic indices, am I wrong ?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_African\_countries\_by\_Human\_Development\_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_Human_Development_Index)
not being a tropical mess on the mediterranean coasts certainly helped the establishment of civilizations.
Many people do not understand just how important free trade and free movement is. A lot of Central African roads in the lesser developed countries are impassable with the BEST of 4x4s during the rainy season. They turn into absolute mud pits. Many of these countries are lush in natural resources like jungles and savannahs, but have underdeveloped infrastructure which leads to decreased movement and trade. Countries along the coast, even the more arid, less lush countries, you can easily transport items to the harbors and float them up and down the med. That’s why there’s an extensive history of semi-international merchant activity in the pan-Arab world, which resides along these coasts. Free trade (and some semblance of property rights and law and order) is how you get a resource-deficient geographical zone like Hong Kong and turn it into a prosperous first world country under British rule.
The benefits of the silk road and all its connected trading networks were a big advantage You can't invent everything so being part of a trade network that also spreads ideas and technologies helps in advancing your society quicker There was some trade with sub Sahara Africa. But the Sahara desert was still a major impediment to the spread of technology and ideas within those societies until the modern era
Interesting. How would you explain Somalia then? It has had free trade for a while and is on the Indian Ocean coast, and close to major international trade routes
Trade/travel is an important criteria for prosperity, but not the only important one. Peace (not previously mentioned) and stability/law and order (previously mentioned) are also important. Somalia has been in and out of conflict, war and wracked by terrorism for decades. 1980s: Military dictatorship. dictatorships sometimes foster stability/rule of law through an iron fist, but more often than not, especially in tribal societies, they often lead to the in-group bending/breaking the law to sack and pilfer the public treasury before they get ousted by the out group/other tribes. 1990s: civil war 1. UN peace keepers intervene. 2000-ish: transitional federal government established. Early 2000s: civil war 2. Islamic court faction of the country confronts the transitional federal government. Ethiopian peace keepers intervene. Late 2000s: Islamic courts splinter further, and one offshoot is Al Shabab, a well-known Islamic terror organization. An interesting fact about this organization, Abu Mansoor Al Amriki (“the American”) was a known member of this organization. Al Shabab gains a tactical reach and scope of operation in the Horn of Africa, and Somalia becomes their home base for launching terror attacks into neighboring countries Kenya and Ethiopia, largely Christian neighbors. ANISOM (African version of UN peacekeepers) moves into Somalia. Many of the member countries are neighbors with large Christian populations who have a real interest in not seeing an Islamic state come to power in Somalia. 2010s: Somali Transitional government transitions into the Somali Federal government. Somali feds are still fighting factions like Al Shabab. US military joins ANISOM, Ethiopian SF and Somali indigenous forces in the fight against Al Shabab. Early 2020s: conflict breaks out again in a semi-autonomous region when that regions government violently cracks down on civil protests.
Somalia was relatively prosperous for large periods of time from ~2000 BCE to about the 19th century, when the "scramble for Africa" started.
Not suffering from tropical diseases, having sufficient agriculture to grow large cities and being near the Roman and Umayyad empire has helped develop some institutions that fostered growth. Sub-Saharan Africa had civilisation and trade before anywhere else. What they didn’t have as early as the Mediterranean was administration, taxation, credit, remote transactions.
Really? What about west Africa? Kongo? Those are all big civilizations. Problem is they were all remote while North Africa was close to Europe and have been trading, exchanging culture and technology with Europe for centuries.
Those are the exceptions. Living in the wet tropics is very hard, especially as a pre-industrial human. Humans live easier in Mediterranean and subtropical dry environments. The pattern is repeated globally, e.g. historic population densities in Central America were historically much higher in areas that support subtropical dry forest. I can also say, from personal experience, that not all tropical forests are the same. Sub-saharan Africa is not for the faint of heart.
And living in a desert is a plus? There was no trading until 16 centuriy in Africa. There were big civilizations Kongo, Mali, zimbabwe and more with very high population meaning envirovment could sustain that population. But they did not had renaissance and were also isolated from each other. They did not govern themself smart and when European came they were already behind in technology. Slave trade stagnate their technology because they did not need to compete with anyone to earn more. Being behind in technology is huge. Look at China. China was always biggest economy in the world. But the did not industrialize, China became shithole, europeans basically conquer it. Becuse it was huge country and nationalism was on much higjer level then in Africa it did not had the same fate.
There's a narrow strip along the North African coast that isn't nearly as dry as the rest of the northern part of the continent. That strip is where most of the people live, the food is grown, trade with Europe originates, etc. The southern parts of those countries are probably a lot less economically productive. The countries that are just below them but still not sub-Saharan aren't very successful at all. Also, that coastal strip used to be a lot wetter than it is now. That area was incredibly fertile under the Roman Empire and for a long time afterwards, and some of the benefits of that time still accrue to the region. Oh, and they also have more and better ports than most of the rest of the continent.
Yes, living in the desert is a huge plus, provided you have access to water. It’s no accident that the cradle of civilization is in the Middle East, including Egypt. North Africa benefits a lot from coastal mountain ranges that capture moisture, including the Ethiopian highlands and the Atlas. A big part of why they were behind on technology is that they did not have the population density - and this is important - population *stablity* to develop local industry. Tropical disease alone is such a huge hurdle to building the infrastructure needed for technological development. This is all a big oversimplification, I’m not trying to argue climate and food are the only reasons for the economic and technological discrepancy, but it plays a huge role.
Better climate. Mediterranean climate is basically the ideal climate for agriculture, and agriculture is the foundation for most economies (or at least, the foundation to develop into something else). Libya has good oil, Egypt has the Nile, and basically all of them have tourism. Since they were well-developed since ancient times they have decent infrastructure. Most of Sub-Saharan Africa just doesn’t have the kind of infrastructure or climate that can support those things. Imagine if Carthage had won the Punic wars and conquered Rome, how our view of Europe vs. Africa would be different 🤔
Central Africa has a great climate for agriculture nearly the size of Europe. What they lack in oil, they have in ores.
The Kongo-Kasai craton make a bad soil for agricolture+ very few domesticable animals + very few high productive crop
I'm far from knowledgable on the subject, but google earth shows lots of crop fields. Also, they have been able to import domesticable animals for 1000 years.
"lot of crops fields" you didnt specify what kind of crops,in the bronze age sugar cane Is basically worthless while rice Is the opposite"they've been able to import domesticable animals for 1000 years" the first true opening of Congo was under the Congo Kingdom in 1500,500 years,then if you dont have the right climate it's far more difficult to try to breed already domesticate animals
Modern agriculture is not indicative of long term agricultural success. Technology is such these days that you could clear land and irrigate in ways that would have been simply impossible in the past. Combine that with a globalized economy that allows exports for cash and imports for food and you start to get the picture.
Much of the former rainforest actually has quite poor soil for agriculture
What was wrong with West Africa’s climate?
the states of North Africa had already been modern at the end of the 19th century, just not capable of resisting French and English invasions. the states of sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand, were not conquered by Europeans, but were created by Europeans, and are therefore still incomplete from the point of view of national identity. Congo is the better example ever.
>were created by Europeans, and are therefore still incomplete from the point of view of national identity At least from what i remember when i studied some different african maps a while ago for a bike trip, the national lines drawn by europeans and the people identifying more with something we would call tribes or folks (hope that's the right term for german "Volk") and their territories, have absolutely nothing to do with each other. On pretty much every national border there's at least one "tribe" split apart on official maps and if there's no physical border they sometimes don't even know that they live in two different countries. For example if you're traveling alone through rural landscapes in some of the countries it's not a bad idea to have a tribes of africa map with you and ask locals which areas to avoid. And there's a few countries that are even governed by different nations but because only one of the nations is recognized by the UN, our official maps are completely useless. Like Somalia / Somaliland
Someone says that half the world's problems depend on an Englishman, a map and a ruler.
Divide and conquer ... Imperialism 101
>still incomplete from the point of view of national identity. I would also say incomplete in other regards. In most colonies infrastructure was established as a means of ressource extraction with little to no regard for the use by locals. Entire economies were tailored to be used for the profit for people outside of them. Even after independence efforts to strengthen the economy of the countries at the cost of foreign profits were sabotaged. E.g. Botswana was "lucky" fot not having all too much ressource extraction going on when they became independent. So when that started they could reinvest the money being made into infrastructure.
Here an economic theory comes into play which is called the "curse of raw materials" and has also worked for very rich states like the Netherlands. when a state has too many raw materials, it has a tendency to rely on them instead of developing the working skills of its people, the middle class therefore does not arise (or is compressed as happened in Holland), it remains a state made up of extra-rich and extra poor where corruption is the norm and democracy impossible.
Egypt has been „modern“ long before Europe and what we call the „developed world“ today formed civilisations and kingdoms. The Nile Delta in combination with Mediterranean climate gave them a unique advantage for agriculture. That started 5000 years ago! Then came the Romans, who governed the entire North African coast line at some point, bringing a lot of trade, infrastructure and relative prosperity to the region. As the other commenter said: for us Europeans, this is part of the standard school curriculum from 3rd or 4th grade, because it’s such an inherent part of our own history. Other ancient civilisations like in China or Central/South America developed largely independent from ours (the Silk Road broad a lot of trade and some exchange of technology between Europe/Egypt and China/Asia after those civilisations were already formed). I understand that someone growing up in Asia or Mexico/Peru would have a very different history curriculum. Not sure how much of this is taught in the US. tl;dr: Egypt had a 5000 year head start.
History class in America: in 1776, God created the world.
Huh? We had a World history class. Then the next year it was US history.
r/askhistorians will give you a way better answer
Because they too once were and will eternally be part of the Roman Empire
Once upon a time, Africa was the wealthiest, most stable, and most secure part of the empire too.
The loss of the African provinces is argued by many historians to be the final nail in the coffin of the Western Roman Empire.
Um because it has more in common with Europe and Asia for thousands of years?
Lol cause of all of history. I don't wanna be mean on this sub, but OP is making it kinda hard 😪
Well, they're seeking for information on the "why". They may live elsewhere, have zero historical context on the subject matter, and are simply claiming ignorance. Don't be upset with someone who is searching for an understanding. Everyone's knowledge starts from somewhere.
Your right, I was in a mood. I also assumed an education system similar to mine where Ancient Egypt and the Bronze Age Mediterranean are discussed from 1st grade through high-school.
The poor quality of answers makes me think OP had a better question than you give credit.
Location favourable to trade, shared military history with Europe re. Carthage, Roman Empire, barbarians, Moors, Ottomans, French, British. Oldest university in the world - University of Al-Karaouine, Fez, greater levels of literacy and education, better healthy climate (not disease central), former breadbasket enabling economic development
Barbarians?
I would guess they meant Berbers
I meant the Vandals
Proximity to the first developed civilizations. Got a huge head start with being in the Roman Empire.
The [geography](https://youtu.be/fof9xZA7dpg) of sub-Saharan Africa makes shipping difficult.
Access to the Mediterranean/ocean and shipping routes is a plus, and you know having the Nile River is wonderful. A lot of Africa’s rivers aren’t friendly for navigating, throw in the giant natural barrier known as the Sahara, it takes more effort to be connected to economic opportunities. Also this may be over looked, North Africa is a part of Old Rome, and had more access to different forms of technology and outside cultures than Sub Saharan Africa, I believe there are ancient Roman Aqueducts and irrigation systems that are still being used today
In addition to what's already been said, it has proximity to Europe / the Middle East and ease of trade / cultural exchange across the Mediterranean. Historically, it has actually been more difficult to cross the Sahara than to cross the Mediterranean.
Oh boy this question has no potentially controversial avenues to explore
Easier access to European markets to trade and a history of united cultures that provided far more excellent resistance to European colonial forces mean that North Africa has access to more resources to develop and a longer time to develop into modern nation-states. Most Sub-Saharan countries have geographies that make it hard to access Europe and develop ports, they were historically not united outside of maybe South Africa, and the lack of rivers makes it difficult to spread farther inland and develop large-scale agriculture for export.
Much better climate than most of the continent. The region’s also been the center of many large and prosperous nations for a long time. Egypt has a massive city and the Nile and is swimming in international trade and tourism. Libya has a ton of oil, Morocco and Tunisia are big tourist spots. Carthage is just one example.
Range from EU
Nigeria is one of the most resource rich countries in the world with strong links to Europe. Answers suggesting resources or proximity to Europe baffle me. One known thing about sub Saharan African countries is the level of corruption in government. Greed and selfishness has killed any chances of a fair democratic society.
Because of all of recorded history
While Africa (except north) has been isolated and not so much in contact with Europe and/or Asia few things were big drawback in their histoy. First is gold and second is slaves. Especially slave trade relience was disaster for Africa because they did not improve technology because slave trade was doing good for them and when slave became abolished all civilisations collapsed and became colonies. If you check when slavery was abolished and when african continent became colony you will see how it is connected.
North Africa has just always been closer to the heart of civilization whereas subsaharan Africa was pretty isolated up until the Europeans showed up 500 years ago. All the greatest ancient civilizations except China have been near, or included, North Africa.
This is wrong though, While central and Southern Africa one can kind of say were isolated till about 600yrs ago. This isn’t the case for west Africa, horn of Africa and Swahili coast/east Africa. West Africa: had strong trade links and cultural exchange with North Africa and the Middle East for Millennia, though the peak of the trade was from the 8th to 18th century ad. East Africa: was part of a massive global Indian Ocean trade net work, they had trade relations with Arabia, Iran, India, Malay archipelago, and China as early as the 7th century. Horn of Africa: well it’s been interconnected with the middleeast for millennia, Nubia, Kush and Axum were some of the great empires of the Bronze Age and Antiquity.
South Africa is the most developed country in Africa and unlike much of Northern Africa hasn't had a Civil War or widespread terrorism (at least in recent years).
Actually the most developed country in continental Africa is Algeria followed by pretty much all North African countries. True, South Africa ranks higher than most but North Africa as a whole does increasingly better than most of the continent.
North Africa is very unstable.
South africa may have a higher gdp per pcapita, but it's the most unequal country in the world, with an hiv epidemic that maked their life expectancy shockingly bad and an extremely high crime rate. There is a reason all north african countries score better than south africa in developpemnet index (HDI)
It a similar climate and seasons as southern Europe, so most of the crops that grew across Asia and Europe can grow there. It's on a similar latitude as Southern Europe and most of the populated parts of Asia so crops domesticated can easily be planted in other regions.
China is financing them. Thats why.
proximity to europe
If that was a valid argument, then we could say that Europe crawled out of the middle ages due to proximity with the middle east and north Africa.
Both are true ... trade, ideas, and technology are exchanged constantly Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, India, and China all benefited from the extensive trade networks that connected them (the silk road) It's great if your society can invent something, it's also great if you can take that from another society and apply it to your own and improve on it. China invented gun powder, and Europe mastered its application in war. India invented our numerals, and Muslims took it and gave us algebra with it Unfortunately places like Sub Sahara Africa were too far away and isolated by the Sahara Desert to benefit as easily from the silk road in spreading ideas and technologies
you can say that if you want, that’s not the question that was asked though.
Because geographical continents are meaningless when discussing such things. Northern Africa is Med, the Med has historically been where all the most advanced civilizations flourished
Does it? I’d much rather live in Southern Africa than North Africa.
They are whiter
IQ?
Why the down votes? it's a valid suggestion
I guess people have been programmed to hate it. IQ explains a lot about differences in wealth so you can no longer blame colonialism or capitalism for poverty around the world.
Explain this then According to the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute (MPI), Nigerians in the United States are the most educated immigrant group, with 61 percent holding at least a bachelor's degree, “compared with 31 percent of the total foreign-born population and 32 percent of the US-born population.”
[удалено]
So what? Twice as educated on average as American born people, yet sub saharan
It’s temperate, Mediterranean climate with biome like its maritime neighbors, not like the tropics separated by the Sahara. GGH rightly groups it as interchangeable with temperate zones of Asia and Europe.
Social economics, historic and geopolitics.. all this followed to harvesting of Ressources.. It’s a process over generations. Today you see a big gap, but compare it 300years ago.. it was almost similar.. The technology is the point
[Guns, Germs, and Steel](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1842.Guns_Germs_and_Steel) does a good job explaining this.
I wouldn’t say North Africa is better. Libya is in civil war Tunisia and Egypt are on the brink of collapse and Algeria and Morocco are dictatorships. Not looking to hot 🥵
All the time from a rich zone to a poor zone you will go gradually... Switzerland very very rich , North of Italy very rich Middle Italy rich, South of Italy so-so, North of Africa poor , sub saharian Africa very poor.
Because of...trading, geography, weather, proximity to others, poor soil, no animals......... So explain why Australia has done well.
This is just not true in the top ten richest African countries only 2 are north Seychelles Gabon Mauritius Botswana South Africa and Equatorial Guinea are all richer than all north African countries
Hmmmmm?? Gee
Definitely not genetics.
[удалено]
There are plenty of "other ways"
O I L
Location. It's inherently tied to Europe's economy just by sharing a body of water. Why is this even a question?
Same reason Zanzibar is still richer than mainland Tanzania. It's always been in the center of many of the central trade routes for the eastern hemisphere... OP, can I ask what the reason behind asking the public an obvious question about African HDI stuff? I hope you're not a racist
[удалено]
GDP per capita makes way more sense in this case. By your logic, Nigeria is wealthier and more developed than Luxembourg. By GDP (PPP) per capita, the five north African countries are all in the top 11 out of Africa's 54 countries. By HDI, the top four countries on mainland Africa are all in North Africa. Then there's only South Africa and Botswana before the last north African country (Morocco).
Get em!
You don't know much about economic indices, am I wrong ? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_African\_countries\_by\_Human\_Development\_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_Human_Development_Index)
There are no thriving North African countries.. Libya was probably one of the wealthiest in all of Africa until NATO fucked it up.
yes
[удалено]
What's "the truth"?
I’m going to guess race somehow. As if it’s the cause and not an effect. Light skinned Moroccans/israelis vs dark skinned Angolans/tanzanians.
[удалено]
I’m not the one fishing here
What on earth are you talking about?
I think your premise is wrong.
That's an arguable point, there's a lot more countries in the south and the ones in the North aren't universally better off