Since modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) evolved in Africa, that ugly and universal human tradition known as war almost certainly has a longer history on that continent than anywhere else in the world. However, compared with the vast libraries of books about European and Asian warfare, relatively little has been written about African military traditions. Part of the problem is that, since the majority of pre-colonial African societies had no written language, most Africans did not describe their own militaries in writing the way Europeans and Asians did. However, there were exceptions to the rule of African pre-literacy. Some African cultures, such as those of West Africa and Ethiopia, adopted written scripts from Southwest Asians with whom they traded, while others, like the Egyptians and Nubians of the Nile Valley, created their own scripts. We therefore have relatively more knowledge about these civilizations' armies. That said, even those Africans who did not have written languages sometimes had their militaries described by European visitors and settlers, so some information exists about them as well.
Given Africa's cultural diversity, a complete, detailed survey of every African nation's army would require an encyclopedia series, so for the sake of concision, I will focus only on three of the continent's most famous historical cultures: the Egyptians, the Mandinka, and the Zulu.
The Egyptians
In the beginning, the ancient Egyptian army was primitive, at least in comparison with the armies of ancient Europe and Asia. No armor was worn by the common soldier, just the linen loincloth that was standard for Egyptian men. Only a cowhide shield protected him. Since early Egyptians had no knowledge of the horse, they also lacked cavalry. Further handicapping the Egyptians was a relative lack of discipline, since their warriors were usually conscripted commoners rather than trained professionals.
However, the ancient Egyptians did start out with a broad variety of weapons: spears, axes, daggers, clubs, cudgels, and simple bows. Of these, it was the bow that was the Egyptians' favorite weapon (the Nubians to the south were also fond of it, as their land was sometimes called "Land of the Bow"), for Egyptians typically began their attacks by showering their enemies with arrows. Only after these volleys had softened up the enemy would the Egyptian melee infantry charge.
The poor equipment and discipline of the nascent Egyptian army was no problem when fighting other Africans, but once confronted by the more technologically advanced armies of Southwest Asia, the Egyptians were forced to upgrade and reform their military. When the Asian Hyksos took control of the Nile Delta after the Middle Kingdom, they introduced a number of new technologies which the Egyptians would take advantage of once they drove the Hyksos out and began the New Kingdom.
Perhaps the most significant of these new technologies was the horse-driven chariot. However, the Egyptians did not simply adopt this new contraption in its initial form, instead modifying its design so that it was smaller and lighter and therefore more suitable to Egyptian terrain. In New Kingdom armies, chariots were each manned by two men, an archer of noble origin and a driver. If the archer ran out of arrows, he also had spears he could use in close combat. Charioteers were better armored than other Egyptian soldiers, wearing either scale armor or leather bands across the chest.
The New Kingdom also saw a change in military organization. No longer composed of conscripted peasants, the new Egyptian armies were professional in nature. Initiated with a haircut and subjected to rigorous training which included wrestling, knife-throwing, and stick-fighting, the new generation of Egyptian warriors experienced severe discipline in the form of thrashing from fellow recruits.
The New Kingdom militaries each had three to four main divisions, all named after Egyptian gods. There were also two big military corps, one for Egypt's northern provinces and another for its south. In all periods of Egyptian history, the supreme leader of the army was the Pharaoh or one of his relatives.
The Mandinka
The Mandinka of western Africa were the ethnic group responsible for founding the Mali Empire of the 13th to 15th centuries AD. This empire is most often noted for its wealth in gold as well as including Timbuktu, home to the world-famous Sankore University.
The Mandinka's ascension to power followed the collapse of the Ghana Empire in 1076. At this time, a number of small kingdoms such as Sosso, Diafanu, and Jolof filled in the power void left by Ghana. It was against these kingdoms that the early Mandinka fought to expand their territory.
When the Empire began under the Mansa (emperor) Sundjata Keita in the 13th century, the Mandinka army was divided into 16 clans, each led by an archer of noble status known as a ton-tigi ("quiver master"). Each ton-tigi commanded a unit of horsemen, also of elite status, who were armed with lances, sabers, and longswords and wore iron helmets and chain mail. The early Mandinka armies also had foot soldiers commanded by kele-koun ("war heads"); these were mostly bowmen who shot poisoned arrows, although spears and javelins were also used. Providing protection for the infantry were leather helmets and reed shields.
According to the Epic of Sundjata, which describes the Mandinka's defeat of Sosso at the Battle of Krina, Mandinka battle formations had cavalry in the center and infantry on the flanks. At its peak, the Empire's army numbered as much as 100,000 men, with 10,000 of those being horsemen.
After the 13th century, the Mandinka armies underwent reform for reasons not entirely understood. Two new kinds of elite Mandinka warrior arose, the farima ("brave man") and farimba ("great brave man"). Both were known as farari ("braves") and evolved from the ton-tigi commanders of the early empire.
An important member of the Mandinka court, the farima was a military leader and land-owning aristocrat whose main duty was to command cavalry from horseback, though the kele-koun leaders of the infantry also reported to him. In turn, the farima reported to the Mansa, who would reward him with special trousers and gold anklets.
The farimba was also a cavalry commander, but he also served as a provincial governor or deputy. One interesting difference between him and the farima was that while the farima was always a freeman, the farimba sometimes began as a slave. Indeed, it was actually common for Mansas to appoint slaves as farimbas to govern particularly wealthy provinces.
Even those slaves who were not farimbas participated in the Mandinka military during the Mali Empire's later days. Originally restricted to carrying equipment and tending their masters' horses, slaves eventually became full-fledged warriors who made up the majority of the infantry by the 15th century. Slave armies were particularly effective in threatening unfaithful governors.
Another characteristic of the late Mandinka army was its division into two corps, one for the Empire's northern provinces and one for the south, similar to the north-south division of the New Kingdom Egyptian armies. These corps not only conquered for the Empire, but they also protected foreign merchants from bandits.
The Zulu
Unlike the Egyptians, who had their own written language, or the Mandinka, who adopted Arabic for writing, the Zulu remained pre-literate. However, they did have a tradition of oral storytelling which has provided much useful information about their history and military organization.
Before the 19th century, the Zulu were just one of a number of minor Nguni-speaking tribes living in southern Africa. Like other Nguni peoples, the Zulu organized their young men into iNtangas (age groups). Each iNtanga was made up of fifty men and was led by an older man. Most of an iNtanga member’s life was spent guarding cattle, but all the iNtangas in the Zulu tribe also formed its military force. However, there was no formal military training.
Early Zulu fought with javelins and ball-tipped sticks called knobkerries. Like the Egyptians, the Zulu used cowhide for their protective shields, but wore no body armor. In the beginning, Zulu warriors fought independently of each other instead of acting in cohesive formations. War was used to settle quarrels, but not to destroy villages or wipe out other tribes.
Zulu warfare changed significantly with the ascension of Shaka to the Zulu throne in the early 19th century. The illegitimate son of the tribal chief before him, Shaka had a miserable childhood and grew up to be a cruel and genocidal despot who was ultimately assassinated. Though not a man anyone today should venerate as a hero, Shaka can be credited with being an effective military leader and reformer whose conquests raised the Zulu from the status of insignificant tribe to an empire.
One of Shaka's reforms was to introduce the idea of regimentation into Zulu warrior culture. No longer fighting as a chaotic mob of individuals, Zulu warriors were organized into age-based regiments, each with a distinctive headdress or jewelry. Shaka also saw to it that shields were made larger and color-coded, with regiments made of younger soldiers having more black on their shields than those with older members. To make his warriors faster and more sure-footed, Shaka ordered the discarding of traditional sandals and required his men to walk barefoot. Discipline also intensified under Shaka: a disgraced warrior could be executed.
Military tactics also changed under Shaka. Equipping his armies with short, stabbing spears in addition to the traditional javelins and knobkerries, Shaka made heavy use of heavy infantry shock tactics often compared with those of Ancient Greece. Zulu regiments were arranged into a formation shaped like a bull's head: there was a center line with reserves behind it along with two "horns". When a Zulu army in this bull formation attacked, the center line went against the enemy's front while the horns struck the flanks, therefore enveloping the enemy. These tactics were unknown to other tribes in southern Africa, making them vulnerable to Zulu conquest.
At the time of his death, Shaka could muster over 50,000 warriors, but despite these numbers and his new Zulu military's successes against other southern Africans, his Zulu Empire was short-lived thanks to European invaders later in the 19th century. Although the Zulu did win some battles against the British early in the Anglo-Zulu War (Isandhlwana being a famous example), ultimately they lost the War, due in large part to a lack of a clear strategic vision, tactical inflexibility, and a tendency to allow the British too much time to set up fortified strong points.
Comparisons and Contrasts
A common theme shared by Egyptian, Mandinka, and Zulu militaries was the particular importance of ranged weapons for foot soldiers. In Egyptian and Mandinka armies, the bow was preferred for the infantry, while the Zulu prior to Shaka used javelins. This African emphasis on ranged weaponry contrasts heavily with the preference for melee weapons that characterized ancient European warriors such as those of Greece, Rome and Gaul.
Of the three cultures examined here, the Zulu stand out for not making use of the horse, in contrast to Mandinka horsemen and Egyptian chariots (the uneven terrain of the Zulu country was not conducive to cavalry). However, Egyptians prior to the New Kingdom also did not use the horse, so an early Egyptian army would have been on similar footing to a Zulu army. The Egyptians also shared with the Zulu the use of cowhide for shields and a lack of body armor.
With iron chainmail and helmets, the Mandinka had the best armor of our three African militaries, in contrast to the scantily clad Egyptians and Zulu. The heavy importance of horsemen in Mandinka armies would have also given them an advantage even against New Kingdom Egyptian armies, since men directly on horseback can outrun and outmaneuver chariots. In addition, Mandinka archers utilized poison for their arrows, a trick unknown to Egyptian archers and Zulu javelineers. It is because of these advantages that I proclaim the Mandinka to have the strongest army of the three cultures I have surveyed.
posted
Decent write up. Some of it strikes me as a bit Eurocentric though.
quote:In the beginning, the ancient Egyptian army was primitive, at least in comparison with the armies of ancient Europe and Asia.
What do you mean by "primitive"? relative to who around this time (3100 BCE)? What ancient and advanced armies other than Sumer existed in Eurasia "in the beginning" that could have competed with the Egyptians? I personally know of none so I'd have to say this statement is inaccurate.
Also, this reads like a throw back to the Hamitic theory:
quote:The poor equipment and discipline of the nascent Egyptian army was no problem when fighting other Africans, but once confronted by the more technologically advanced armies of Southwest Asia, the Egyptians were forced to upgrade and reform their military. When the Asian Hyksos took control of the Nile Delta after the Middle Kingdom, they introduced a number of new technologies which the Egyptians would take advantage of once they drove the Hyksos out and began the New Kingdom.
Which "technologically advanced" armies are you referring to? The Egyptians were able to fend off foreign rule, despite numerous invasions for over 2500 years. If that doesn't speak to their technological sophistication I wonder what it says about their strategic discipline. As far as them not having issues with other Africans yet having to upgrade in the face of Eurasian onslaughts, this is curious considering the fact that "other Africans" were able to fend off Eurasians for an even longer period of time, including the Romans who specifically commented on the military sophistication of the Meroites. You don't give the Egyptians enough credit at all.
As for Mandenka I think the importance of the war canoe should also be emphasized. They were actually very influential in guarding the coast and internal river systems. In fact, canoe-bound Mandinka sofas of Niumi were responsible for handing the early Portuguese slave-raiders their earliest defeats and thus forcing them to establish treaties with Africans on equal terms.
BTW, I believe Mandinkas also used flaming arrows (I know the Songhai used them against Djenne during the siege by Sonni Ali).
Good write-up on the Zulu although I take issue with:
quote:No longer fighting as a chaotic mob of individuals
When has this been the case previously? The cow horn formation existed before Shaka. Shaka only made minor modifications to that strategy. Instilling more discipline doesn't mean that prior to Shaka they were running around like headless chickens throwing spears at each other.
^Just respectful criticism by the way. I commend you for being so actively involved in the proliferation of African history. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This African emphasis on ranged weaponry contrasts heavily with the preference for melee weapons that characterized ancient European warriors such as those of Greece, Rome and Gaul.
There are some inaccuracies. The 2 definitive articles on African military on Wiki are called "African Military Systems" (I wrote most of them so I know). Check them for more detailed and accurate info.
As for the Zulu I can tell you that their use of ranged weapons, 'javelins', as referred to up above was minor. THe Zulu used their spears primarily as a close-in fighting, stabbing weapon. This was the design reputedly of T'Chaka and while most Zulu carried one or two throwing spears, their whole tactical system revolved around close-in fighting. Ranged weapons were secondary. Other important African militaries relied mostly on close-in fighting styles, such as the warrior forces of the Kongo (Angolan region). Battles opened with throwing of ranged weapons (just as in Rome), but the decisive blow was struck by melee type style fighting, hand to hand. Furthermore the cavalry empires relied heavily on infantry, who were themselves needed to suppress the deadly fire of other infantry armed with poisoned arrows. One African pattern that stands out is the use of "combined arms" - i.e. infantry and cavalry working in tandem on the battlefield. It would be more accurate to say that SOME African forces emphasized ranged weapons, rather than a blanket claim as to all of Africa.
Furthermore the characterization of Greece, Rome and Gaul is misleading if made as blanket statements. The Greeks used the heavy phalanx to be sure, but always alongside the phalanx were ranged weapons units. Indeed such units were crucial in helping Alexander defeat non-European cavalry forces. Rome to be sure used the heavy legion, so the claim is more accurate, but even Rome relied heavily on ranged weapons, not only in opening every battle, but ranged weapons are one of the keys that helped Rome defeat powerful opponents cavalry like the Parthians.
the uneven terrain of the Zulu country was not conducive to cavalry).
^^Again not necessarily accurate. Actually the rolling grasslands of Zululand were very good cavalry country as proved by the successes of the Boers, who defeated the Zulu and Zulu-type armies several times, although in other cases they had some setbacks. Against the Nedebele, a semi-Zulu offshoot, in similar terrain, a relatively small group of Boer horsemen kept out of the range of the charging spearmen whole pumping volleys of musketry into the African ranks. The pursuit took several days but always, the mobility of the horse kept the Boers out of harms way as they worked over the Nedebele with their guns. Eventualy, Nedebele commander Mziklhazi was forced to withdraw.
Other African tribes in SOuth Africa that adopted horses also saw some success, such as the Basuto, against both African and European enemies. FOr a good book on the wars of southern Africa get of Ian Knight's and Donald Morris' books on the Zulu, but also get JD Omer-COoper's classic "The Zulu Aftermath"..
a trick unknown to Egyptian archers and Zulu javelineers
^^THe notion of Zulu javeineers is misleading.
It is because of these advantages that I proclaim the Mandinka to have the strongest army of the three cultures I have surveyed.
^^Not necessrily. It could be argued that the Mandeka would do well primarily in open country suitable for cavalry, or maneuvering big masses of infantry. In thick forest country however, they would be very much less impressive. Indeed the record shows that when the cavalry forces of some African empires engaged deep in heavy forest regions their performance was uneven, and they had their share of defeats.
Sources
^^You are missing 2 big key sources on African warfare. See African Military Systems on Wiki. If you work in the info in these 2 articles, I think you will have stronger essay in the future.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: What do you mean by "primitive"? relative to who around this time (3100 BCE)? What ancient and advanced armies other than Sumer existed in Eurasia "in the beginning" that could have competed with the Egyptians? I personally know of none so I'd have to say this statement is inaccurate.
The Sumerians were exactly what I had in mind, but you're right, they may not have been representative of all of Southwest Asia, let alone all Eurasia.
quote:Which "technologically advanced" armies are you referring to? The Egyptians were able to fend off foreign rule, despite numerous invasions for over 2500 years. If that doesn't speak to their technological sophistication I wonder what it says about their strategic discipline.
By "technologically advanced armies", I was referring to people like the Hyksos and Hittites. I don't think there's any dispute that the Egyptians incorporated a lot of Asiatic technology into their military, and that's no more an endorsement of the Hamitic hypothesis than noting the Ashanti and Dahomeans' using firearms introduced from Eurasia. Furthermore, even if the Egyptians did fend off their invaders a few times, they did get conquered in the end (else the great Egyptsearch debate wouldn't be happening).
quote:As far as them not having issues with other Africans yet having to upgrade in the face of Eurasian onslaughts, this is curious considering the fact that "other Africans" were able to fend off Eurasians for an even longer period of time, including the Romans who specifically commented on the military sophistication of the Meroites. You don't give the Egyptians enough credit at all.
Meoritic Kush was a major upgrade over the Egyptians and Nubians of the third and second millennium BC.
quote:As for Mandenka I think the importance of the war canoe should also be emphasized. They were actually very influential in guarding the coast and internal river systems. In fact, Mandinka sofas of Niumi were responsible for handing the early Portuguese slave-raiders their earliest defeats and thus forcing them to establish treaties with Africans on equal terms.
BTW, I believe Mandinkas also used flaming arrows (I know the Songhai used them against Djenne during the siege by Sonni Ali).
This is very cool information and I wish my sources had mentioned this.
quote:When has this been the case previously? The cow horn formation existed before Shaka. Shaka only made minor modifications to that strategy. Instilling more discipline doesn't mean that prior to Shaka they were running around like headless chickens throwing spears at each other.
My sources gave me the impression that pre-Shaka Nguni warriors didn't form cohesive formations (e.g. the cow horn formation) and instead acted as loose groups of individualistic warriors running into each other.
I would be glad to modify my essay in response to your criticisms, but I'm not the RTW Heaven webmaster and since it was posted a long time ago it may be too late to change it.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My sources gave me the impression that pre-Shaka Nguni warriors didn't form cohesive formations (e.g. the cow horn formation) and instead acted as loose groups of individualistic warriors running into each other.
^^THe cow-horn, more accurately the "buffalo horns" formation was known prior to Chaka, but only primarily as a suprise raid format (such as surrounding a village at dawn) or sporadically in open field combat. Under Chaka it was revolutionized into an AGGRESSIVE, SYSTEMATIC encirclement and envelopment formation for open field warfare. THis is a lot different than raiders surrounding the village for the usual dawn attack, or once on a while maneuvering in battles prior to Chaka. Chaka also SYsTEMATIZED movement and standardized units and maneuver. The younger greener men did most of the running in the flanking horns, the older veterans were held in reserve (the loins), and the main blow was delivered by the prime fighters in the center (the chest). FIghting units were put on a permanent footing, organized into regiments, which in turn were organized into larger corps groupings. Chaka's innovation was thus systemization and standardization executed rapidly with deadly aggression. He took what already existed of course to build on.
Combined with Shaka's "buffalo horns" attack formation for surrounding and annihilating enemy forces, the Zulu combination of iklwa and shield--similar to the Roman legionaries' use of gladius and scutum--was devastating. By the time of Shaka's assassination in 1828, it had made the Zulu kingdom the greatest power in southern Africa and a force to be reckoned with, even against Britain's modern army in 1879.[17] --17) ^ Guttman, Jon. Military History, June 2008, Vol. 24 Issue 4, p. 23
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish I would have shared my essay with you guys before submitting it to RTW Heaven. You and Sundjata make me look like a newbie to African history!
That said:
quote:Not necessrily. It could be argued that the Mandeka would do well primarily in open country suitable for cavalry, or maneuvering big masses of infantry. In thick forest country however, they would be very much less impressive. Indeed the record shows that when the cavalry forces of some African empires engaged deep in heavy forest regions their performance was uneven, and they had their share of defeats.
I should note that I was comparing the Mandinka to two other African cultures that also fought on open terrain. I don't think either Egypt or South Africa are swathed with thick rainforest.
quote:My sources gave me the impression that pre-Shaka Nguni warriors didn't form cohesive formations (e.g. the cow horn formation) and instead acted as loose groups of individualistic warriors running into each other.
I would be glad to modify my essay in response to your criticisms, but I'm not the RTW Heaven webmaster and since it was posted a long time ago it may be too late to change it.
^Sorry I don't have a source for this as I distinctly remember discussing this in lecture over the summer ("History of South Africa"). Indeed, my notes suggest that this WAS actually a reform among the Nguni during the Mfecane conflict used by Dingiswayo. It was called "chest-horn" formation and Shaka renamed it to mean "cow-horn".
My source for the information on Niumi sofas comes from reading a few translated texts of portuguese explorers (read about the Mandinka encounters with explorers like Nuno Tristăo, Alvise Cadamosto and Diogo Gomes). Al Takuri posted an article specifically addrssing this a while ago as well.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: My sources gave me the impression that pre-Shaka Nguni warriors didn't form cohesive formations (e.g. the cow horn formation) and instead acted as loose groups of individualistic warriors running into each other.
^^THe cow-horn, more accurately the "buffalo horns" formation was known prior to Chaka, but only primarily as a suprise raid format (such as surrounding a village at dawn) or sporadically in open field combat. Under Chaka it was revolutionized into an AGGRESSIVE, SYSTEMATIC encirclement and envelopment formation for open field warfare. THis is a lot different than raiders surrounding the village for the usual dawn attack, or once on a while maneuvering in battles prior to Chaka. Chaka also SYsTEMATIZED movement and standardized units and maneuver. The younger greener men did most of the running in the flanking horns, the older veterans were held in reserve (the loins), and the main blow was delivered by the prime fighters in the center (the chest). FIghting units were put on a permanent footing, organized into regiments, which in turn were organized into larger corps groupings. Chaka's innovation was thus systemization and standardization executed rapidly with deadly aggression. He took what already existed of course to build on.
Combined with Shaka's "buffalo horns" attack formation for surrounding and annihilating enemy forces, the Zulu combination of iklwa and shield--similar to the Roman legionaries' use of gladius and scutum--was devastating. By the time of Shaka's assassination in 1828, it had made the Zulu kingdom the greatest power in southern Africa and a force to be reckoned with, even against Britain's modern army in 1879.[17] --17) ^ Guttman, Jon. Military History, June 2008, Vol. 24 Issue 4, p. 23
posted
I should note that I was comparing the Mandinka to two other African cultures that also fought on open terrain. I don't think either Egypt or South Africa are swathed with thick rainforest.
^^Fair enough. As in most "what if" war scenarios, the possibilities are endless. I would favor the Mandenka on very large, flat battlefield. However if a Zulu and Mandenka army met in more varied terrain, where say, the Zulu could maneuver in hills and deep ravines the odds are more even, all other things being equal, because the Zulu could spring a trap in cut-up or hilly country (still grassland), or position their forces on top of a hill, and let Mandinka cavalry attack in disadvantageous array, while they maneuvered the horns to cut them off.
Mandinka vs Egyptian? Unknown. ONe thing though- much African archery south of the Sudan had weak bow strength and relatively inaccurate arrows. This was partially offset by poisoned arrows, but numerous sources note weak bow strength and unfletched arrows. One might thus wager, that the Nubians, with their more powerful bows and better archery, if staying out of range of the poisoned Mandinka arrows could chop up the Mandinka infantry and shoot the Mandenka cavalry horses for an extended period during any encounter.
The Mandinka of course could close with their cavalry which would have some tactical advantage against chariots, but Egyptian and Nubian chariots backed with Nubian/Egyptian spearmen might/maybe neutralize a cavalry charge, allowing the Nubian bowmen to continue their deadly long range killing? WHo knows? Speculation, but fun.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, my notes suggest that this WAS actually a reform among the Nguni during the Mfecane conflict used by Dingiswayo. It was called "chest-horn" formation and Shaka renamed it to mean "cow-horn".
My source for the information on Niumi sofas comes from reading a few translated texts of portuguese explorers (read about the Mandinka encounters with explorers like Nuno Tristăo, Alvise Cadamosto and Diogo Gomes). Al Takuri posted an article specifically addrssing this a while ago as well.
^All accurate no doubt. It is good to remind that Chaka did not get all his innovations out of thin air. He built on existing elements. Age grade formations for example were common in the region. Chaka manipulated and changed them to permanent fighting formations loyal to him, rather than the traditional clans. Also DIngswayo was instrumental in forming the larger grouping and confederation Chaka initially operated in. SO CHaka is not a sole, superman genius on a hill. but he a product of his culture. His extremes drew criticism from Zulu sources it is documented.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sofa (warrior) Sofa is a Mandinka term for slave soldiers who served in the army of the Mali Empire. Sofas would also fight, in varying capacities, in the armies of later Mandé states such as the Bamana and Wassoulou empires.
Etymology The word sofa translates into English as "father of the horse" ("so" means horse, and "fa" means "father") or "guardian of the horse". This term stems from the original function of the sofa as a caretaker for the horse or horses of Mandinka cavalry commanders called "farari".
Sofa in the Mandinka empire of Mali Sofas make their first appearance in oral and written records during the formation of the Mali Empire. Sofas were recruited from "jonow" (slaves) captured in battle or bought from afar. They could be depended on in most instances for obedience, since their livelihood depended entirely on their master. The institution of slavery in the Mali Empire heavily rewarded loyalty, and jonow could rise to civil or military positions of prominence. Jonow became part of their master's clan, and were often freed after a certain amount of years. As part of the clan, jonow were expected to accompany their master's into battle and handle his horse and weapons. Initially forbidden from engaging in direct warfare, sofa eventually made up the majority of Mali's infantry army. As infantry, they were armed with bows and arrows by the state or, more accurately, royal clans devoted to the state. In the forest and swampy areas of the Mali Empire, cavalry was minimized or altogether abandoned making sofas the exclusive instrument of war. Sofas were equipped with two quivers, and their bow was small by European standards. It could not fire very far or even powerfully, so sofas utilized deadly poisons and fired in arcs to give the arrows strength. Sofas also used flaming arrows, especially against fortifications that were often little more than thatch or wooden palisades. Some sofas fought as cavalry, at least after being freed, such as Mansa Sakura whom started out his military career as a jonow of the Keita clan. He was freed by Sundjata Keita, became a cavalry commander of some renown and eventually usurped the throne of Mali.
Sofa in the Mané empire of Kquoja During the 16th century, warriors from the crumbling Mali Empire invaded what is now Sierra Leone and Liberia. This resulted in the establishment of a loose federation of Mané states all paying homage to a single leader in a type of empire called Kquoja by visiting Europeans. The Mané came equipped with the tactics and equipment of the Mali Empire, but were forced to rely almost exclusively on infantry strategies in the jungle terrain. One of the many institutions they brought with them was that of the sofa. Conquered people were conscripted into Mané armies as "sumbas" to strengthen a force that was forever on the move. The sumbas were forced to engage in ritual cannibalism, which permanently alienated them the Mané ruling class. By the end of the 17th century, the Mané had conquered nearly all the indigenous cultures. This resulted in the spread of Mandé language and the end of a single Kquoja authority as the Mané were absorbed into the native landscape.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets not forget that another southern African folk,The Rowzi of Changamire empire successors to the Mwene Matapa or Zimbabwe,defeated the Portuguese in 1694 also
An interesting four way conflict between the coastal Swahili the Portuguese the Turks and an inland very powerful state called the Malawi empire, who control another people called the Zimba as shock troops..more shocking than most shock troops so because they were reported to be cannibals.
I became aware of the Zimba yrs ago after read one of Dr Clarks books. and I knew they sacked the cities of the coast and eat some of the inhabitance but did not know the reasons why.
The name Malawi is thought to be a derivation of the word Maravi. The people of the Maravi Empire were iron workers. The name Maravi is thought to mean “rays of light” and may have come from the sight of many kilns lighting up the night sky. A dynasty known as the Maravi Empire was founded by the Amaravi people in the late 15th century. The Amaravi, who eventually became known as the Chewa (a word possibly derived from a term meaning “foreigner”), migrated to Malawi from the region of the modern day Republic of Congo to escape unrest and disease. The Chewa attacked the Akafula, who settled in small family clans without a unified system of protection. Using a system of destruction they would later employ in hunting predatory animals, the Chewa hunted down and butchered the Akufula. Eventually encompassing most of modern Malawi, as well as parts of modern day Mozambique and Zambia, the Maravi Empire began on the southwestern shores of Lake Malawi. The head of the empire during its expansion was the Kalonga (also spelt Karonga). The Kalonga ruled from his headquarters in Mankhamba. Under the leadership of the Kalonga, sub-chiefs were appointed to occupy and subdue new areas. The empire began to decline during the early 18th century when fighting among the sub-chiefs and the burgeoning slave trade weakened the Maravi Empire’s authority.
posted
Brada, what were these ZImba like militarily? How were they armed? How did they fight?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Decent write up. Some of it strikes me as a bit Eurocentric though.
quote:In the beginning, the ancient Egyptian army was primitive, at least in comparison with the armies of ancient Europe and Asia.
What do you mean by "primitive"? relative to who around this time (3100 BCE)? What ancient and advanced armies other than Sumer existed in Eurasia "in the beginning" that could have competed with the Egyptians? I personally know of none so I'd have to say this statement is inaccurate.
Also, this reads like a throw back to the Hamitic theory:
quote:The poor equipment and discipline of the nascent Egyptian army was no problem when fighting other Africans, but once confronted by the more technologically advanced armies of Southwest Asia, the Egyptians were forced to upgrade and reform their military. When the Asian Hyksos took control of the Nile Delta after the Middle Kingdom, they introduced a number of new technologies which the Egyptians would take advantage of once they drove the Hyksos out and began the New Kingdom.
Which "technologically advanced" armies are you referring to? The Egyptians were able to fend off foreign rule, despite numerous invasions for over 2500 years. If that doesn't speak to their technological sophistication I wonder what it says about their strategic discipline. As far as them not having issues with other Africans yet having to upgrade in the face of Eurasian onslaughts, this is curious considering the fact that "other Africans" were able to fend off Eurasians for an even longer period of time, including the Romans who specifically commented on the military sophistication of the Meroites. You don't give the Egyptians enough credit at all.
As for Mandenka I think the importance of the war canoe should also be emphasized. They were actually very influential in guarding the coast and internal river systems. In fact, canoe-bound Mandinka sofas of Niumi were responsible for handing the early Portuguese slave-raiders their earliest defeats and thus forcing them to establish treaties with Africans on equal terms.
BTW, I believe Mandinkas also used flaming arrows (I know the Songhai used them against Djenne during the siege by Sonni Ali).
Good write-up on the Zulu although I take issue with:
quote:No longer fighting as a chaotic mob of individuals
When has this been the case previously? The cow horn formation existed before Shaka. Shaka only made minor modifications to that strategy. Instilling more discipline doesn't mean that prior to Shaka they were running around like headless chickens throwing spears at each other.
^Just respectful criticism by the way. I commend you for being so actively involved in the proliferation of African history.
LOL My thoughts exactly! I too noticed biased language in this essay whether intentional or not. The thing about warfare is that the old saying-- "Necessity is the mother of invention" is quite an understatement. Technological advances as well as military tactics are dependent upon the situations.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:what were these ZImba like militarily? How were they armed? How did they fight?
About how they were organized militarily is hard to say but they might have been similarly armed like their other Ngoni or Bantu neighbors,they were able to sack the Swahili cities on the coast and even some of the nearby Island Kilwa and Zanzibar, they were only stopped by another Ngoni people called the Segeju.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would also like to hear more about how so-called "primitive" African armies were able to defeat more "advanced" European armies. I understand this has happened more than once during the European colonization of the continent. The most famous example being the Battle of Isandlwana where Zulus defeated British forces. Obviously such incidences highlight the effectiveness and ingenuity of indigenous African military forces.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I would also like to hear more about how so-called "primitive" African armies were able to defeat more "advanced" European armies. I understand this has happened more than once during the European colonization of the continent. The most famous example being the Battle of Isandlwana where Zulus defeated British forces. Obviously such incidences highlight the effectiveness and ingenuity of indigenous African military forces.
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: Battle of Isandlwana
British forces: 1,800
Zulu: 20,000
You forgot the part about the British forces being armed with cannons and muskets, while Zulu were armed with only traditional weapons of spears, swords, and bow-and-arrows. Surely mere numbers were not the only reason for the Zulu victory, Lyinass.
One important reason was that the Zulus employed a tactic called the 'bull's horns' onto the British regiments.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I would also like to hear more about how so-called "primitive" African armies were able to defeat more "advanced" European armies. I understand this has happened more than once during the European colonization of the continent. The most famous example being the Battle of Isandlwana where Zulus defeated British forces. Obviously such incidences highlight the effectiveness and ingenuity of indigenous African military forces.
Yeap- extensively cited in the 2 above articles. good book.
Originally posted by Djehuti: One important reason was that the Zulus employed a tactic called the 'bull's horns' onto the British regiments.
YEap- numbers seldom tell the whole tale. In the Blitz onf WWII, the combined French and British armies outnumbered the GErmans substantially on paper, including more tanks and aircraft. But they lost to the Wermacht.
The Zulu faced cannon, artillery rockets, rifles and later in the war machine guns but armed mostly with spears and shields they outmaneuvered the British, advancing by stealth to a very good attack position. And while one half of the British army was off searching for the so-called Zulu "main army" the said "main army" materialized behind their backs to attack the other half of the British forces, left in the camp at Isandhlwana. THe Zulu killed more British officers at Isandhlwana, than Napoleon killed at Waterloo.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ethiopian forces inflicted the most casualties of ANY major battle of the 19th century. Furthermore they used modern arms effectively, with one of their artillery batteries, playing a key role in the battle, outgunning artillery fired by the Italian forces at a crucial phase. QUOTE:
"Baratieri's army suffered 50 percent casualties, far higher than those suffered by participants in any other major battle of the nineteenth century. Eylau, the greatest blood-letting of the Napoleonic era, cost the French army casualties of 33.8 per cent and its losses at Waterloo were just under 30 per cent. "Macello, carneficina, strage" (butchery, slaughterhouse, slaughter) are the words which recur in the memories of the Italian combatants at Adowa." --Bruce Vandervort, Wars of Imperial Conquest in Africa: 1830-1914, Indiana University Press: 1998, pp. 39
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I would also like to hear more about how so-called "primitive" African armies were able to defeat more "advanced" European armies. I understand this has happened more than once during the European colonization of the continent.
Just wrote a term paper on Samori Toure of Guinea. You should look him up. He defeated the French in battle on numerous occasions thanks to the tenacity of his troops and modernization of his army. One thing that he was able to do was capitalize on technology by assigning black smiths the task of manufacturing and repairing European firearms. His cavalry forces also made him extremely mobile in guerrilla warfare. Most importantly he inherited the legacy of Mali and was supported by Mandinka troops who were relentless in the defense of their country (and perhaps religion as most were Islamic). It was because of people like him that it took so long for French colonialists to conquer the Sudan (even though they'd been trying to do so basically since the 1850s and had already set up shop in Morocco and Algeria since the 1830s). Indeed, the French found themselves in a protracted war with Samori for nearly 20 years, which is ridiculous considering that France was THE major world power at the time, outside of Britain.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
sun, can you pass on a link to your term paper? Looks interesting.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^No problem. Honestly though, the thesis has more to do with the cultural/historical traditions that were rooted in Samori's resistance as opposed to the military organization of his troops (my agenda is clearly stated in the intro).
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^No problem. Honestly though, the thesis has more to do with the cultural/historical traditions that were rooted in Samori's resistance as opposed to the military organization of his troops (my agenda is clearly stated in the intro).
PDFed your doc with save as PDF in MS Office. It's a keeper, and then plus some. thx. Don't choke when you see it being sold to students Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^No problem. Honestly though, the thesis has more to do with the cultural/historical traditions that were rooted in Samori's resistance as opposed to the military organization of his troops (my agenda is clearly stated in the intro).
Ditto that! Sundjata, you got a lot of excellent stuff! One thing I admire is the tenacity and endurance of colonized peoples to fight back against their oppressors.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Just wrote a term paper on Samori Toure of Guinea. You should look him up. He defeated the French in battle on numerous occasions thanks to the tenacity of his troops and modernization of his army. One thing that he was able to do was capitalize on technology by assigning black smiths the task of manufacturing and repairing European firearms. His cavalry forces also made him extremely mobile in guerrilla warfare. Most importantly he inherited the legacy of Mali and was supported by Mandinka troops who were relentless in the defense of their country (and perhaps religion as most were Islamic). It was because of people like him that it took so long for French colonialists to conquer the Sudan (even though they'd been trying to do so basically since the 1850s and had already set up shop in Morocco and Algeria since the 1830s). Indeed, the French found themselves in a protracted war with Samori for nearly 20 years, which is ridiculous considering that France was THE major world power at the time, outside of Britain.
^ Yes a very interesting guy. A lot people forget that of all the imperialist nations of Europe, France was the most brutal (well them and Belgium)!! People mostly talk about the British, but the British in many instances were more humane in the treatment of native peoples than the French and Belgians!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The use of Wiki here is appropriate for I have the book beside me in case of some one meddling with original.while this book deals mainly with female troops the training was the same for both men and women The Mino were recruited from among the ahosi ("king's wives") of which there were often hundreds. Some women in Fon society became ahosi voluntarily, while others were involuntarily enrolled if their husbands or fathers complained to the King about their behaviour. Membership among the Mino was supposed to hone any aggressive character traits for the purpose of war. During their membership they were not allowed to have children or be part of married life. Many of them were virgins. The regiment had a semi-sacred status, which was intertwined with the Fon belief in Vodun. The Mino trained with intense physical exercise. Discipline was emphasised. In the latter period, they were armed with Winchester rifles, clubs and knives. Units were under female command. Captives who fell into the hands of the Amazons were often decapitated.
European encroachment into west Africa gained pace during the latter half of the 19th century, and in 1890 King Behanzin started fighting French forces in the course of the First Franco-Dahomean War. According to Holmes, many of the French soldiers fighting in Dahomey hesitated before shooting or bayoneting the Mino. The resulting delay led to many of the French casualties. However, according to at least two easily-identifiable sources, the French army lost several battles to them—not because of French "hesitation," but due to the female warriors' skill in battle that was "the equal of every contemporary body of male elite soldiers from among the colonial powers" Ultimately, bolstered by the Foreign Legion, and armed with superior weaponry, including machine guns, as well as cavalry and Marine infantry, the French inflicted casualties that were ten times worse on the Dahomey side. After several battles, the French prevailed. The Legionnaires later wrote about the "incredible courage and audacity" of the Amazons. The last surviving Amazon of Dahomey died in 1979. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons
Ladies and Gentlemen two books that is a must have in your collection,can't recommend them enough.. Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Thanks Djehuti. While it's another argument entirely, it can even be stated that Samori's efforts wasn't a "resistance" movement as opposed to a clash between two imperial powers (the former almost implies that Samori and his sofas were subjects).
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^No problem. Honestly though, the thesis has more to do with the cultural/historical traditions that were rooted in Samori's resistance as opposed to the military organization of his troops (my agenda is clearly stated in the intro).
PDFed your doc with save as PDF in MS Office. It's a keeper, and then plus some. thx. Don't choke when you see it being sold to students [/QB]
LOL.. I probably would choke, only because after re-critiquing I discovered more typos (albeit, minor) that I'd missed in my previous drafts. Oh well..
Thanks, btw.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Ladies and Gentlemen two books that is a must have in your collection,can't recommend them enough..
Really? I mean for the latter.
Any book having a title with the word "Amazons" and such a pic is at least give-it-a-glance interesting automatically (more than give-it-a-glance, if likely containing historical and not fictional stuff inside).
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Some of my criticisms and praises ring in different places than the others, so if you will, read on..
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: ARMIES OF ANCIENT AFRICA
Since modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) evolved in Africa, that ugly and universal human tradition known as war almost certainly has a longer history on that continent than anywhere else in the world.
The bolded phrase and terms - modern-human, Homo sapiens sapiens and evolved, respectively - strike me as speech less so common and moreso lingo-ish / jargony, meaning speech very specific to a community -- in this case the scientific and / or nerdy community, and in my humble opinion a little too much so, for the *first* and opening sentence of a more historically-focused write-up.
This is coming from a major fan of science, by the way.
quote:The Egyptians
In the beginning, the ancient Egyptian army was primitive, at least in comparison with the armies of ancient Europe and Asia.
The poor equipment and discipline of the nascent Egyptian army was no problem when fighting other Africans, but once confronted by the more technologically advanced armies of Southwest Asia, the Egyptians were forced to upgrade and reform their military.
First of all, the Egyptians ravaged their enemies regardless of direction, there were a few Asiatic invasions as well as a few Nubian ones (to Indigenous-controlled Dynasties, meaning I'm not counting or at least putting as much weight to invasions that happened when already occupied or a vassal-state).
They were top-dog, un-ended for a couple millenia, not mere centuries, how many civilizations can say that?
And they in ancient documents are said to have amassed quite an Imperial territory during the line of Sesostris and it's a historical fact they did this during Pax-Aegyptica, top dog, top of the world.
So long story short, basic points:
If their vanquished spanned different continents, in this context I see no reason to sectionalize people into different continents like this here. In this context.
And on the word primitive, could you have used basic or something, it's less pejorative (I guess). I guess this could be being a lil potatoes potatas here though.
quote:Comparisons and Contrasts
A common theme shared by Egyptian, Mandinka, and Zulu militaries was the particular importance of ranged weapons for foot soldiers. In Egyptian and Mandinka armies, the bow was preferred for the infantry, while the Zulu prior to Shaka used javelins. This African emphasis on ranged weaponry contrasts heavily with the preference for melee weapons that characterized ancient European warriors such as those of Greece, Rome and Gaul.
Of the three cultures examined here, the Zulu stand out for not making use of the horse, in contrast to Mandinka horsemen and Egyptian chariots (the uneven terrain of the Zulu country was not conducive to cavalry). However, Egyptians prior to the New Kingdom also did not use the horse, so an early Egyptian army would have been on similar footing to a Zulu army. The Egyptians also shared with the Zulu the use of cowhide for shields and a lack of body armor.
With iron chainmail and helmets, the Mandinka had the best armor of our three African militaries, in contrast to the scantily clad Egyptians and Zulu. The heavy importance of horsemen in Mandinka armies would have also given them an advantage even against New Kingdom Egyptian armies, since men directly on horseback can outrun and outmaneuver chariots. In addition, Mandinka archers utilized poison for their arrows, a trick unknown to Egyptian archers and Zulu javelineers. It is because of these advantages that I proclaim the Mandinka to have the strongest army of the three cultures I have surveyed.
I like how you mention poisoned arrows, a trick existant in West Africa in general in terms of archers. It would have been cool though if you'd mentioned of horses (although this pre-spans the Mali Empire) the ancientness of horses in the general region (the Western Sudan) as per Roman sources (I think). Little point there; good write-up regardless.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having just re watched the movie Zulu Dawn I was wondering why they didn't move across the Buffalo river and sacked the cape,that a mistake in the command of this fellow below and the debilce at Rouke's drift may explain this,the history of South/southern Africa may have been vastly different had he followed orders and wasn't a such a hot head. Perhaps the man who saved the Brits from being driven into the sea
While the Undi Corps had been led by inkhosi kaMapitha at the Isandlwana battle, the command of the Undi Corps passed to Prince Dabulamanzi kaMpande (half-brother of Cetshwayo kaMpande, the Zulu king) when kaMapitha was wounded mopping up British fugitives from Isandlwana. Prince Dabulamanzi was considered rash and aggressive and this characterization was borne out by his violation of King Cetshwayo's order to act only in defence of Zululand against the invading British soldiers and not carry the war over the border into enemy territory.[25] The Rorke's Drift attack was an unplanned raid rather than any organized counter-invasion, with many of the Undi Corps Zulus breaking off to raid other African kraals and homesteads while the main body advanced on Rorke's Drift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke's_Drift
posted
I don't post much. But a couple years ago, 2 African historians, whose names I don't remember, stated that if African armies had the equivalent weapons of their adversaries, Europe would NOT have been able to take over Africa. I thought this was fascinating, and it was appropriate in this forum.
-------------------- Give God The Credit Posts: 71 | From: Cleve OH | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
This may not be in the focus of your term paper but
Martin Leggasick Firearms, Horses and Samorian Army Organization 1870-1898 Journal of African History 7.1, 1966
may make for further informative reading.
Too bad Person's three volumes on Samori weren't published in an English translation from French.
BTW was Sheku Ahmadu for Sekou Toure on PDF p.11 a typo?
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^No problem. Honestly though, the thesis has more to do with the cultural/historical traditions that were rooted in Samori's resistance as opposed to the military organization of his troops (my agenda is clearly stated in the intro).
PDFed your doc with save as PDF in MS Office. It's a keeper, and then plus some. thx. Don't choke when you see it being sold to students
LOL.. I probably would choke, only because after re-critiquing I discovered more typos (albeit, minor) that I'd missed in my previous drafts. Oh well..
Thanks, btw.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Ancient Egyptian soldiers were the main ingredient of what made ancient Egypt a great civilization. The military might of ancient Egypt was what translated the Pharaoh's ideas and tactics into a reality. It is also what kept ancient Egypt continuous for over 3,000 years.
It's strange then to know that ancient Egypt did not have a standing army, ready for battle, before the New Kingdom! In fact, whenever soldiers were needed, the Pharaoh had to call on the many nomarchs to conscript able young men from each of their nomes (provinces).
This temporary army only lasted for as long as the campaign was alive, and then dispersed once it was done. The young men would go back to their old jobs and villages.
Once it was seen how much of an advantage having a permanent army would be, it was set up in the New Kingdom and the career of a soldier was created.
So there were now 2 ways to be part of the army:
National Service - You could just join as an adult recruit to train/serve for a year or two, with the possibility of being called back to serve any time after that. Military Career - You were signed up as a child to serve in the army your whole life.
Some military men rose to such great power as to become kings themselves...
...the pride and glory of a military life then became a most-coveted aspect of such a career choice.
So once this career was chosen, the child was signed up and began training. Some children signed up as young as 5 years of age!
The actual service however didn't start until the age of 20 - older than some armies today.
Ancient Egyptian Military Training After becoming a new recruit, the ancient Egyptian soldier got a haircut and an induction... the inductions included beatings to show who's boss. Soldiers needed to learn the important lesson of obeying orders before they were given any.
Now that the soldier is ready, the training began. Training for strength, fighting skills and stamina were the main tasks of the day. They included:
Wrestling Sand-bag lifting Archery Spearing Free fighting Knife throwing Charioteering Target practice Stick fighting
And according to the soldier's superior skills, he was then assigned to the corresponding regiment.
Ready For Battle! Now that a soldier has had a hard induction and even harder training, he is now almost ready for his first campaign!
But of course, he needs to be armed...
Some of the more popular weapons of choice in ancient Egypt include:
Bow and Arrow Knives and Swords Axes Spears Maces Sticks
Other than weapons soldiers had to wear helmets, scales, gloves, and shields for protection...
...they also had another form of protection - magical and religious icons on jewelry for example were popular too.
And on top of all that, they had to carry food and water. They would sometimes hunt or fish.
The men were divided into infantry divisions that grouped similarly skilled soldiers together. Charioteers, spearmen, archers, foot soldiers, etc...
And now the army is ready to march! And along with them followers followed: musicians, scribes to record the events, military standard carriers, etc...
But what if there was no campaign? Other than the usual training, ancient Egyptian soldiers were called on to help out with non-military tasks.
Helping with the harvest was one of the most important tasks, as this was what fed the entire country.
Guard duty such as making sure the trade routes were secure.
And also - hard manual labor such as construction.
The Hard-Earned Rewards Ancient Egyptian soldiers sought the prestige that comes with being a national warrior and hero. They were more widely respected than others of the working class, and they gained recognition from the elite and even the royal family.
There were also formal awards for heroism and duty.
Soldiers were also paid wages, which in ancient Egypt was not monetary. They were given in rations of food which could be bartered for other items. However, they were also given the opportunity to plunder - a plus that comes with war.
And finally, ancient Egyptian soldiers were those of the lucky few that got state pensions.
posted
Djehuti, what do you have on weapons changes and org changes with the coming of the Hyskos opponents?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Still in the draft stage, eh?
This may not be in the focus of your term paper but
Martin Leggasick Firearms, Horses and Samorian Army Organization 1870-1898 Journal of African History 7.1, 1966
may make for further informative reading.
Too bad Person's three volumes on Samori weren't published in an English translation from French.
BTW was Sheku Ahmadu for Sekou Toure on PDF p.11 a typo?
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^No problem. Honestly though, the thesis has more to do with the cultural/historical traditions that were rooted in Samori's resistance as opposed to the military organization of his troops (my agenda is clearly stated in the intro).
PDFed your doc with save as PDF in MS Office. It's a keeper, and then plus some. thx. Don't choke when you see it being sold to students
LOL.. I probably would choke, only because after re-critiquing I discovered more typos (albeit, minor) that I'd missed in my previous drafts. Oh well..
Thanks, btw.
Indeed, I WAS still in the draft stages (yep, "Sheku Ahmadu" was a typo). While I have already submitted it, I truly appreciate the additional reference since it will prove useful for the next paper I'm working on. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found another interesting piece of information after reading a bit more from John Thornton. He argues that the Haitian revolutionaries actually developed their organizational tactics from Africa. Macaya, an early leader of the revolution for example was an ex-soldier from the Kongo kingdom who was even still loyal to the Kongolese crown.
posted
YEah, I read similar things in Thornton;s Warfare in Atlantic Africa. I was gonna do a Wiki article once on how African military traditions carried over into the Americas, and laid the basis for the military resistance of various Maroon (escaped slave) forces, but decided against giving any more significant labor to Wikipedia, since it could be destroyed at any time, and the fact that "clone" publishers keep making books of big WIki articles, (with hefty sale prices), and various "phantom" authors of the publishers taking credit for all the work.
Thornton also notes the presence of war veterans from the Angolan region, which has a long military tradition including numerous wars against the Portugese. In several of these, the African forces emerged victorious.
The figure of Macaya you mention above, shows the influence of the ANgolan tradition. One thing I have not seen much yet of as a carryover from Africa is the use of poisoned arrows in the guerrilla fighting against imperialist/colonialist forces. Probably this is due to Africans not having time to discover which plants could be used to make the poisons they employed in Africa. Local Indians in various parts knew of such poisons, but their knowledge was acquired over centuries, time the hard-pressed African forces did not have. Nevertheless the bow and arrow in use is documented, particularly among the Maroon fighters of Jamaica and Surinam. Maybe someone has more info on archery or other weapons carried to the Americas from Africa.
In any event, here are the beginning paragraphs of the research for info purposes. Might resume it one of these days - covering Maroon fighters from Alabama to Venezuela. Of note are small traces of a cavalry tradition carried over to the Americas by Africans. Richard Price's "Maroon Societies" is another standard reference.
The massive Atlantic Slave Trade transported millions of Africans from the continent to the Western Hemisphere. Resistance to the slave system sprang up wherever it was established, and numerous Africans escaped its brutalities to form bands of free rebel guerrillas throughout the Americas. They were generally known as Maroons. Some historians (Thornton, 1999) argue that the hard fighting, organization and skill in some territories was due in part to the military experience the rebels had acquired before leaving Africa. Massed formation fighting, in-depth fortifications, signaling systems like the ''abeng'', (cow's horn) used among the maroons of Jamaica, dispersed mobile attacks and ambushes, and other elements point to the presence of war veterans from various African tribes among the slave populations. Documentation from the slave period, and its revolts offers some evidence of this view.
In one 1522 rebellion on Hispanola (Haiti/Dominican Republic) for example, Spanish chroniclers lay the blame on slaves from the Jolof empire (present day Gambia). Killing their overseers and burning plantations, the rebels augmented their numbers before being confronted by a troop of Spanish cavalry. Unlike the usual slave escapees who fled at such a force, the Jolof stood and fought, grouping themselves in a massed formation, and launching wooden spears, stones and clubs at the first Spanish charge. They remained in good order, despite some casualties and again stood their ground against a second mounted attack. A third charge finally scattered the fighters. Thornton (1999) holds that this tight formation maintained under successive charges was unusual for its time and place, and indicated some military experience, perhaps acquired from the slaves' war-torn zone of origin. Other slaves on Hispanola were to run away, stealing horses and weapons to harass their enslavers. Indeed, the Spaniards often employed Jolofs and other slaves from the Senegambian region because of their equestrian skills on the island's cattle ranches, again indicating a measure of continuity with the African homeland.
Another revolt in the Danish West Indies, circa 1733, saw a well-organized rebel force under designated captains, withdrawing into the bush and using ambush tactics against their opponents. They were defeated after running short of ammunition. The massive Haitian Slave Revolt, beginning in the 1790s offers the most direct evidence of rebels with military experience from Africa. In its early phases well organized infantry fighters carried out large-scale operations, handled artillery, raised their own mounted bands, and generally held their own against European cavalry. Elsewhere in the Americas numerous rebel settlements were to spring up, and clashed at times with colonial forces attempting their destruction. In Surinam, a systematic firing drill used by some rebel units is recorded, with musketeers in small bands advancing to fire then retiring to reload, under signals given via horns by their captains. Complex fortifications also offer some evidence of military experience from the continent. Tough fortifications, reminiscent of those in West Africa, with palisades, ditches, ramparts, and anti-personnel traps appear in several places, including Panama, Colombia, Venezuela and particularly among the ''quilombos'' of Brazil.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Having just re watched the movie Zulu Dawn I was wondering why they didn't move across the Buffalo river and sacked the cape,that a mistake in the command of this fellow below and the debilce at Rouke's drift may explain this,the history of South/southern Africa may have been vastly different had he followed orders and wasn't a such a hot head. Perhaps the man who saved the Brits from being driven into the sea
While the Undi Corps had been led by inkhosi kaMapitha at the Isandlwana battle, the command of the Undi Corps passed to Prince Dabulamanzi kaMpande (half-brother of Cetshwayo kaMpande, the Zulu king) when kaMapitha was wounded mopping up British fugitives from Isandlwana. Prince Dabulamanzi was considered rash and aggressive and this characterization was borne out by his violation of King Cetshwayo's order to act only in defence of Zululand against the invading British soldiers and not carry the war over the border into enemy territory.[25] The Rorke's Drift attack was an unplanned raid rather than any organized counter-invasion, with many of the Undi Corps Zulus breaking off to raid other African kraals and homesteads while the main body advanced on Rorke's Drift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke's_Drift
Good question Brada, and it is true that on several occassions Zulu subordinates disobeyed their king's instructions as in the ROrke's Drift affair. But the Cape was hundreds of miles distant from Zululand. A much better target for attack, which if successful would have destroyed important British supply lines would have been an attack on nearby Natal colony. Natal was a launching point for the British invasion, had a port on the coast and was laced with important supply lines sustaining the imperial invaders. The ZUlu had the outstanding mobility to attack such lines but never really waged war in this way. WHen they did make such logistics attacks, such as wiping out a redcoat supply detachment on the Intombi they had success and slowed the imperialist advance.
Destruction to the cross-border Natal area by the Zulu, according to a number of historians, would have severed communications and cut off part of the lumbering imperial force, essentially bottling it up in inactivity. The Zulu did just this with one invading British column, that they surrounded and penned up in garrison for months at Eshowe, unable to do anything productive. They did this by constant pressure and threat on the redcoats, without the need for costly human wave attacks against the fortified garrison. They could have multiplied this success even more. Failure to cut this important line of communication meant that the British could continue to get much needed war material with relatively little hindrance, material employed to dire effect on the Zulu.
Still Zulu king Cetaswayp fought his toughest battle according to his own understanding at the time, based on limited information about the new enemy he was facing. Not only was Britain at that time a major world power with all the modern advanced technology, but her forces were among the most experienced in the world. It was a tough call for the Zulu, who had limited supplies of manpower to begin with- some 30k to 40k effectives - which was most of the nation's effective armed strength. Not a lot really when contemporary European powers were putting that amount of men into single battles routinely on the European continent. Lack of big manpower reserves was to dog African armies when they clashed with European opponents.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guns reached the Benin kingdom in the late 16th century (Warfare and Diplomacy in Pre-Colonial West Africa by Robert S. Smith, London, 1976: p.107).
quote:Nevertheless the bow and arrow in use is documented, particularly among the Maroon fighters of Jamaica and Surinam.
While I can't say for the Maroons of Surinam the Bow and arrow was restricted to hunting as it did not give away one's position or given to the non military class of males in the rear.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Myra Wysinger: Guns reached the Benin kingdom in the late 16th century (Warfare and Diplomacy in Pre-Colonial West Africa by Robert S. Smith, London, 1976: p.107).
Just looked up that reference Myra - excellent! It was standard practice for European merchants to ship defective or obsolete arms to Africa. One account on the Gold Coast says all but 4 out of 50 (92%) of all trade guns at Cape Coast Castle (Ghana) burst on firing. African gunsmiths became skilled in repairing defective guns. The smiths of Samory's Army also were known for their skillz. -quote:
"..[the gunsmiths] were skilled in the repair of guns.16 A contemporary observer wrote that Africans on the Gold Coast were able to turn "old guns sold to them that would not fire to such perfection as scarcely ever to miss". --Edward Reynolds 1993 Stand the storm: a history of the Atlantic slave trade
Excellent article on your site too Myra, confirming the gun problem noted above, as well as fine detail on arms, armor and equipment. I found the wearing of bells by the Benin infantry interesting for building morale and intimidating foes. I have heard of the usual horns and drums, and war cries, etc and also, among the Zulu- psyching out opponents and filling them with dread by stamping of the feet and whistling to mimic fierce storm and thunder. But bells on each man is a new one on me. Distinctive African styles! Great stuff!
Although the warriors had responsibility to own their weapons but in the king’s palace, there was a huge arsenal of iron weapons produced in readiness for war. In the arsenal were bows and arrows, swords and spears. The universal weapon of protection was a big shield, made from hide, wood, and basketwork. It had a curved top and was straight at the bottom - apparently designed to be placed on the ground in order to cover an adult sized man when kneeling. The helmet were worn by senior officers (chiefs) as well as highly decorated warriors (non-commissioned officers). They were made of padded basketwork or of hard crocodile skin and wood. The body armor (which consisted of a top and a bottom reaching down to the knees) was made of quilted ponchos covered with leopard skins, firm enough to prevent the penetration of an arrow or spear. They all carried charms for protective purposes usually keep in a small calabashes (ukokogho) and attached to their war dresses. Warriors also wore protective armlets round their arms. Some used the symbol of 'the sun and moon', which symbolically meant that just as the sun and the moon always reach their destinations in the evening and return the next day, so would the warrior return safely from his campaign. Each warrior wore a quadrangular bell, egogo. The clanging of hundreds of these bells accompanied by blasts by the military hornblowers, increased the psychological impact of the army's approach as they entered enemy territory, and gave them courage. (Plankensteiner 2007: 78 & 409). Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks zarahan for your kind words about my research on the Benin kingdom. I do indeed value your input. I may not post often, but I do read all of the post by others in this forum.
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're welcome Myra, and your site is doing a great service for African history. Is there one index page where all the articles you have written like the Benin one are listed? I don't mean the academic journal studies page, but the compiled researched articles or summaries like Benin, Nubia, etc.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
A little tidbit -- In Pop Culture: Askia Mohammed I appears as the leader of the Songhai Empire in the multi-award winning computer game Civilization V.
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great stuff Myra. I'll check out those links.
Some stuff on the armies of Kongo: ----------- The warrior hosts of Kongo
The warrior hosts of Angola relied on a relatively open formation, but sometimes deployed central, wing and reserve forces against both indigenous opponents and the Portuguese.
The Kongo region (modern day Angola, western Democratic Republic of the Congo, southern Republic of the Congo) exhibits a number of indigenous military systems, particularly by such kingdoms at Kongo and Ndongo. Several outstanding war-leaders appeared in this area, including the redoubtable female ruler and field commander Nyazinga or Njinga. Accounts by Portuguese mercenaries, priests and travellers in the 16th and 17th centuries leave a vivid picture of the native military systems, which often defeated European plans and incursions. Such experiences put paid to the notion (advanced by some Portuguese of the time) that the Africans would be defeated as easily as the Inca or Aztecs by the appearance of horses, guns and cannon.[64]
Recruitment, organization and special units. The bulk of the fighting hosts were made of up general purpose levies and volunteers, but most Kongo polities maintained a small core of dedicated soldiers- nucleus of a standing army. Special detachments and commands called lucanzos were also used for various missions, and one such under a commander called Kakula ka Kabasa was defeated by the Portuguese in 1586 when crossing a river.[75] Other special troops sometimes used included elite scouting units, the pombos, who sometimes ran with, and kept up with horses when they were used in the region. The pombos also performed pursuit duties. "Light" and "heavy" troop types were recognized. The light troops were far more numerous, and relied more on individual skill and technique (dodging spears for example). The "heavies" were more disciplined and relied on stronger defensive weapons and formations. A limited number such types operated in the Kongo kingdom, and were armed with shields, unlike other forces. They were reputedly the best soldiers in the country.[76] Tactical units were recognized, from basic sections of 100-125 men, to larger units of 500, called mozengos or embalos. Groupings of these units made up a specific field force that could number up to 15,000 troops.[75]
Weapons, battle formations and deployment. As noted previously, Kongo region battle formations were in relatively open order. This allowed the peculiar dodging, twisting and leaping noted in Portuguese accounts as warriors tried to avoid arrows and spears delivered by their opponents. A battle generally opened with a brief volley of arrows from relatively weak bows. Indeed the bravest soldiers went into battle with only a few arrows, which were poisoned in some cases by a potent mixture called cabanzo. Once these were released, the contenders closed for a decision by hand-to-hand combat. Several thousand men could take place in these set-piece battles, and the affair was usually decided by superior skill and aggression. Basic formations were known, and three divisions were sometimes used- a center and two wings. A complex system of drums, horns and signals aided in maneuver of the warrior hosts, and distinctive battle-flags and pennants identified the location of elite troops or their commanders.[75] See the Battle of Mbwila for a detailed example of a Kongo army in action, including the 3-part division of the host, and its use of reserves. Nzinga or Njinga was one of the outstanding war leaders of the Kongo region.
Maneuver and logistics. Outflanking moves were popular, with light troops keeping the enemy busy in the center, while the wings extended. In some cases, a reserve force was kept on hand to exploit success, strike at a vulnerable point, or provide a rear guard to cover retreats. Reserve forces were also used as intimidating "stiffeners," forcing the cowardly and faltering back into the battle-line. Portuguese mercenaries sometimes excelled in this role while employed by the Kongo warlords. A Ndongo army attacked the Portuguese at Talandongo in 1583 using this 3-part division, as did the Portuguese force that confronted it. Nzinga also successfully used an outflanking gambit against the Portuguese, breaking their right wing at Cavanga, but saw defeat when her forces paused to loot, and exposed themselves to counterattack.[75]
A broken army was usually hard to rally, and often did not reform on the battlefield but melted back to their home villages, to be perhaps reconstituted days later. Once regrouped and rearmed however they could be dangerous, as a defeated Portuguese column found in 1670 at Kitombo. Siege warfare was not highly developed, and most fortified places were only designed to hold out a short period before defenders retreated. Logistical problems plagued both attacker and defender, as the region's war cycle was not set for long campaigns.[75]
Fortifications. Angolan armies at times made extensive use of fortifications. In a 1585 campaign against the Portuguese, the Ndongo for example constructed palisaded camps, each a day's journey apart. Use of strong defensive positions on hilltops or in forests was also common, as was the use of fortifications in offensive maneuvers. The Imbangala for example usually built a strong fort in enemy territory to bait opponents into exhausting their strength against it. Some of these positions could be quite formidable, with trenches, parapets, hidden roads, sharpened "punji" stake traps, mutually supporting bulwarks, and covered trenches to protect against artillery.[76]
Two-way borrowing and adaptation. Firearms were gradually adopted by the Angolan militaries and used alongside customary fighting implements. Soldiers from the state of Kasanje in the 18th century for example, marched with bows and lances as well as muskets. Their gunmen were considered to be the equal of the Portuguese in competence.[77] While Portuguese mercenaries and armies armed with muskets made a substantial showing in military terms, it was only until the end of the 18th century than indigenous forces incorporated them on a large scale. Other gunpowder weapons like artillery served the Portuguese well in breaking up enemy attacks or against fortifications. African systems like that of Kongo also gradually adopted artillery though on a much more limited scale[78] Ironically the Portuguese were sometimes more effective because of non-firearm weapons, such as body armor, swords and pikes.
The exchange of techniques and approaches was not always one way. While the Kongo kingdoms gradually adopted European technology, the Portuguese themselves borrowed and adapted African war practices to make themselves more effective against their opponents. In one engagement, the Battle of Kitombo, in 1670, the Portuguese armed themselves with native shields, hoping to demonstrate their prowess with these and their swords.[79] The Portuguese adopted some indigenous practices such as the use of quilted cotton armor, proof against arrows and light spears.[80] They also drew heavily on native allies, keeping a small nucleus of European troops, and a large body of indigenous warriors- with each force fighting in its own style. This is similar to the Kongo use of allied forces. The Europeans also adopted the looser formation of the native armies, discarding rigid squares of musketeers for more maneuverable and flexible configurations.[75]
.......
Outside technology was not the decisive factor in many conflicts. Major European ships for example were unimpressive in the shallow waters close to shore. Likewise European artillery while of unmistakable value in siege operations against well articulated structures such as gates and walls, were of limited utility against well placed African earthworks. European muskets greatly increased killing power but their slow-rate of fire rendered musketeers vulnerable to the quick charges or arrow volleys of motivated opponents.
Angola serves as a test bed in many ways for outside technology in African warfare, and the Portuguese attempted direct conquest with their own weapons, including the use of heavy body armor. However the record shows several Portuguese defeats, and in numerous cases where the Portuguese attempted to fight unsupported by African allies they were liquidated on the field of battle.[96]
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Djehuti, what do you have on weapons changes and org changes with the coming of the Hyskos opponents?
Quite a lot. The Hyksos apparently shocked the Egyptians with a variety of newer and more advanced bronze weapons such as the battle axe, straight swords, daggers, and chain mail and helmets for defense. Perhaps the most devastating arsenal however was the horse and chariot as well as the composite bow. The Hyksos were said to be the first to introduce the horse to the African continent and with this increased mobility as well as the great distance at which bronze arrows can be shot by the composite bow, the Egyptians had no other alternative but to adopt these new weapons and tactics.
It was during the expulsion of the Hyksos where we have records of Egyptians first employing charioteer units in their armies which became the standard in Egyptian warfare. The Egyptians even had their own class of horse trainers called 'Mariyanu' which is likely based on an Indo-European name.
The Egyptian pharaohs from the 18th dynasty onward are shown depicted with chain mail in the style of Egyptian netting complete with a bronze cross bandaliers in the form of eagles wings as part of armor.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
thx.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic