do you have evidence of this 4000 year old furnace?
Are you scared to google it?
do you have evidence of this 4000 year old furnace?
A grave mound in Burkina Faso dated to about 1000 BCE contained an iron sword and 8 iron spearheads and another grave at the same site dated to 1300 BCE contained an iron spear. Furthermore there are irons objects found in Oboui in the Central African Republic indisputably carbon-dated to 2343 to 1900 BCE. These are just a few examples.now tell me what they made and what evidence of it they are basing that assumption on. the bar is lowered when it comes to african history, many of it is spoken in vagueries and assumptions. for all we know the evidence could be a camp fire with some iron infused rocks nearby. meanwhile we have specifics in asia and europe, like the kaskan hittites in 14th century bc, which was found in the form of swords and spears, a example of which we still have today, so where is the evidence of your west african iron?
Yes, but at Anti-Woke University.But guys, he claimed he studied African history right ?
On a side-note, I strongly agree about your last sentence though, I mind add that rewriting history works bothway, as I find a lot of people discarding history of Africa easier than it normally should. This isn't healthy for sharing knowledges.
actually being black i had quite the afro-centrist phase, i rememer a decade ago when they claim to have found a "ancient furnace" capable of making steel in east africa a decade ago that just so happened to predate the previous persian equivalent by a century. the problem was is that there is never any proof that it was a furnace and it ignored the fact that black africans weren't in that area of east africa at that point and that it's most likely source was indian colonists. you have to admit its a little silly that all of the technological advancements across the rest of the world are all due to other cultures interacting with each other but when it comes to black africa they always did everything themselves 1000 before anyone else but immediately forgot how to. which brings us to adding in a african culture. I personally suggested the malagasy if anything, they have a connection to multiple cultures that have technology like metal armor, steel, and defensive structures without having to repeat the same berber-arabic influence already in game.Yes, but at Anti-Woke University.
Nevertheless, I'd like to know the actual truth regardless of any culture wars and, most importantly, without having to do my own research.
telling other people to google your own evidence means you don't know it you just believe it.Are you scared to google it?
****ing lmao.west africa was barely passed the stone age at the height of the european renaissance
you clearly have no clue what a stone age culture looks like do you?****ing lmao.
Kingdoms, not cultures.maybe they could focus on a playstyle that doesn't involve proper feudalism, instead of using a bunch of different clans they are technically different cultures localized around a specific city or two at the start
the problem was is that there is never any proof that it was a furnace and it ignored the fact that black africans weren't in that area of east africa at that point and that it's most likely source was indian colonists
Great Benin, which because of stone age cultural advancement, no longer exists except in the evidence left by the people that conquered it.
these are both examples of stone age technology as both of the cultures hadn't advanced to the point where they had become self sufficient iron workers
firstly this would've been a decade ago but back when i was researching east african ironmaking it occured in kenya but the time period they mentioned it happening in was before the Bantu expansion meaning the inhabitants of that area would have been malagasy or bushmen. honestly at this point im starting to wonder if we use the term sub saharan as a analog for black which is also a analog for west african is a negative for the conversation, so henceforth i'll be describing the subject group by the closest relevant linguistic group i can pin.Care to name what particular era are you referring to ? Not sure what do you mean by "Black Africans" not inhabiting that area.
Does it predate the numerous depictions of Subsaharan people from the Egyptians or not ?
Are we talking about freaking Lucy ?
Yeah and there are a lot to unpack on your comments, it's almost like you're discovering that civilizations can fall and technologies can be lost, especially when you didn't plan to have some sort of repositories ( library ). Ask the Caliphates how do they feel about Bagdad.
Wait until you find out that early Medieval Europe wasn't about Republics, luxurious villas, marble made building, and big galleys sailing the seas.
Oh yeah it's almost like we tend to call the next era the Renaissance, the dots are connecting themselves.
Edit : nothing against medieval Europe though, early medieval era buildings weren't looking that comfy in comparison, the difference between a Gaulish building and a Roman one is already huge.
Long story short Europeans had to recreate entire civilizations, often weaker nations, also leading to numerous wars.
Not cringing at my self, i simply scrutinize african research more because western europeans have a tendency to willingly overlook counter evidence to things that make africa as "advanced" as europe. back when i was younger i would pour overturn of the century books an reports, discovering things like acocanthera poison, which was the actual agent that made the "maasai elephant bow" capable of killing a elephant when previously a group i was in thought the maasai had created a bow with equivalent draw weight to a english longbow. in addition i don't believe their dictators are all idi amin nor have i ever said that, what i did say was many of the great civilizations in africa are simply slave empires, roughly equivalent to oil boom towns, their expanision is fueled by outside influence and thusly they would be a bad fit for a basis for a new group in the game as they were drawing from cultures who have equivalents already in game. this spurred my idea of using the Kongo (tribe) as a basis with their Nigerian cousins for architecture as they were sustained empires with independent cultures disconnected from eurasia almost entirely, in addition the congo (region) was the launching point for the bantu in southern africa which would allow one to create a single culture with a ton of variation and the second culture to have multiple kingdoms but this time it's a strength.I can't pinpoint this image exactly, but it's clearly not any depiction of Benin. It's a Zulu kraal.
Benin was a gigantic earthenwork citadel built on layers over hundreds of years, encompassing not just the city but the entire Benin state. Trying to label it as "stone age" or "iron age" or whatever is meaningless because no other precedent for this kind of construction exists anywhere. It's unique in the same way that the Great Wall of China is unique.
I understand that afrocentrism is really stupid and seems to have total disregard for reality, but by crudely reacting against them (or more likely, your cringe former self) you're coming across just as contemptuous of reality. I don't usually tell people to google things, but it was really obvious that you weren't arguing from a place of historical curiosity, you were just trying to reinforce the idea that modern Africans are stupid and backwards and can't shed their fat corrupt cannibal dictators. I mean even if this was correct, it has nothing to do with history.
1. the argument was rather or not west africa would be a appropriate basis for a culture in the game, i argued no because they weren't consistently on the same technological level as the real life civs that inspired the cultures already in the game. the counter argument against that was that ancient africa had independently adapted steel long before the real life cultures that inspired the in game ones. i retorted that theres no evidence of that, not simply because i believe africans are primatives but because the cultures that may have made that steel, even if they did, did not have the same material culture as the more recent ones being offered as examples for a new fictional civ. this is important because just asking for more black people is a pipe dream, pointing to what you want specifically with examples is proper request and taking early modern africa, which was mostly stone age outside of cities and politically tulmultous to the point where they were literally being kept afloat by selling off political rivals and opposing tribes as slaves (igbo), and in some cases even their own farmers (geechee) leading to centuries of food shortages, as the basis would create a situation where a culture couldn't have the same depth because it's basis wasn't really a functional society to begin with.This isn't correct. There were massive iron foundries in West and Central Africa during the European middle ages. One iron-smelting town in Burkina Faso produced 50,000 tons of slag between roughly 1100 and 1300 (generally the amount of slag produced by iron smelting is about a third of the crude iron generated). Another site in Benin produced 200,000 tons of slag between about 1000 and 1600. There are other known sites all over the Sahel.
Here's a paper on one of them:
Not to mention during the European Renaissance Benin was producing some of the most elaborate bronze art ever created. Not exactly what I'd call "stone age"
firstly this would've been a decade ago but back when i was researching east african ironmaking it occured in kenya but the time period they mentioned it happening in was before the Bantu expansion meaning the inhabitants of that area would have been malagasy or bushmen. honestly at this point im starting to wonder if we use the term sub saharan as a analog for black which is also a analog for west african is a negative for the conversation, so henceforth i'll be describing the subject group by the closest relevant linguistic group i can pin.
which blemish what should be a gloriously based game.
I really don't think anyone was saying that. I think people just thought it would be neat to have an African inspired faction in the game.This discussion is stupid pants. Like all the other SJW crybaby posts around here that call for more inclusion and diversity, which blemish what should be a gloriously based game.
I mean, the entire point of the thread was thinking that it would be a nice addition to the game. If a new faction were to be added post-release, which could happen in the form of DLCs, then the land of Calradia would have to be expanded.WHERE are you going to fit your "african based" faction? Going to squeeze them in with the Aserai? You want a whole new continent added, even further away from the core imperial lands? All for a faction, that quite frankly, few people are going to be interested in playing as?
I really think some of you have no idea just how much work goes into the core systems of a game like this, let alone what an undertaking it would be to add an entire new faction to satisfy your ideals of representing every color of the rainbow in every piece of media you happen to come across.