1500s - The Somali century

[Aseer]

Nubians even have dance to insult Somalis

Wallah Ahmed gurey really left his mark in east Africa from making habeshis eat raw meat to this day and making Nubians do dances to mock somalis for the trauma Ahmed grey inflicted on them imagine if we find futuh al habesh part 2 and find out what other devious influences he left behind

 

[Aseer]

It wouldn't be good for us if ajnabi took it

We can just negotiate maritime borders no need to take the entire city.

 

[Aseer]

@Cartan Boos do you have source for the Mombassa thing?

 

[Khaem]

We can just negotiate maritime borders no need to take the entire city.

Who would we negotiate with? Yemen is a failed state the UAE took over and may even give isrealis influence by building a base

 

[Aseer]

Who would we negotiate with? Yemen is a failed state the UAE took over and may even give isrealis influence by building a base

Brother we can't do anything as well look at the state of somalia.

 

[Khaem]

The era of axmed gurey

 

[Cartan Boos]

@Cartan Boos do you have source for the Mombassa thing?

There was some guy who mentioned it on here with source but I don't remember, he said Mombasa had different clans and Somali clan katwa was one of the most powerful they defended the city from inland attack

 

[Aseer]

There was some guy who mentioned it on here with source but I don't remember, he said Mombasa had different clans and Somali clan katwa was one of the most powerful they defended the city from inland attack

Lmk if you find it.

 

[Cartan Boos]

Somali language was still spoken in Mozambique

 

[Idilinaa]

It's not "wrong" or Immoral go gas up your own history. Literally everyone I've come across for all nations do it. Especially our neighbours in Ethiopia.

Why do you have to be so humble?

Exaggerated claims and making stuff up is 100% wrong it distorts reality, misleads and negatively impacts our decision making. There is no situation were lying is acceptable and beneficial. It's not about humility or morality , it's about accuracy.

Don't gas up history. History has many bad moments/events in it , it's the worst place to rest your pride or ego on. If you are selective about it, you will learn nothing from it and will make the same mistakes.

If Ethiopia and some other nations jump off a cliff, you should do the same thing because they are doing it. Following that logic.
In fact if Ethiopia or any other does something wrong, it's better to avoid it and learn from their mistakes. Like ''I'll die if i jump off a cliff, i am not going to follow what they did''

 

[Three Moons]

There was economic growth and increase i trade like i said. Urbanism is a byproduct of that just like what happened in any other place in Africa, or Asia or Europe. There is nothing special to this or unique in what happened in Somalia.

Nothing special about the rise of multiple stone cities that acquired international renown? That owned the Indian Ocean gold for a considerable period, that erased seven Abyssinian Emperors from the chessboard and deleted Vasco’s most talented son? Sounds like you’re intentionally diminishing Somali history by being a contrarian to give the impression that you are the most knowledgeable.

If you want we can designate you as such, but there is no need to deny our impact.

Whether you want to believe it's a Golden age or what not is entirely subjective, because there was economic growth - increase in trade - proliferation of scholars - travelers/sailors to different locations during the late 1700s- 1900s. Foreign visitors like Ibn Battuta from elsewhere came to our shores as well during this period.

None on the same scale as the period I highlighted. No city as impactful as Mogadishu or Zayla rose in that period. The 1700s - 1900s is actually characterised by small castle towns and agricultural hubs like Afgoye, Bardera, Bargaal, Hobyo, etc while the old cities continued their steady decline which not even the slave-trade, a boom in grain exports or trade fairs could reverse.

Might have been similar in periods prior to the 1100s as well. There was a decline between late 1500s and late 1700s it was due to trade deficit and war/political turmoil.

There is a clear paucity of sources, activity and interaction between the Somali peninsula and the rest of the world post-collapse of the Western Roman Empire and the 10th century.

Not even the few Chinese sources from the period depict anything close to the 10th - 16th centuries era. Islam was a great engine for a Somali Golden Age.

Having trade contact with different locations on the Red sea- Indian ocean does not mean we had impactful political or culture influence in those locations. Sometimes it did.

The polities at Zayla exerted political influence from Mogadishu to Suakin, while the polity at Mogadishu was known as the ‘Sovereign head of all the Moors on the coast’. If you think giving birth to the Indian Ocean gold trade is not impactful, or being a safe-haven for trade from the Portuguese is not impactful, or Mogadishans and Zaylans being present in almost every relevant royal court from Cairo to the Comoros is not impactful then I guess your right.

There is no need to create exaggerated , glorified spins and framing of Somali history, to explain away what naturally developed inside our own territories and whats been a simple feature throughout.

Nothing exaggerated about highlighting the proliferation of major stone cities in Somalia that were known from Venice to China. It’s a clear fact. Nothing exaggerated about stating that Somalis reached their military, economic and cultural peak during that specific time period, historical figures like Ahmed Guray, the coinage of Mogadishu and scholars like Sheikh Hussein are undeniable in that regard.

You have no right to tell young Somalis they can’t glorify their history or take pride in their heritage when at every turn people are trying to diminish, erase or outright deny their role in that same history.

 

[daljirkadahsoon]

Exaggerated claims and making stuff up is 100% wrong it distorts reality, misleads and negatively impacts our decision making. There is no situation were lying is acceptable and beneficial. It's not about humility or morality , it's about accuracy.

Don't gas up history. History has many bad moments/events in it , it's the worst place to rest your pride or ego on. If you are selective about it, you will learn nothing from it and will make the same mistakes.

If Ethiopia and some other nations jump off a cliff, you should do the same thing because they are doing it. Following that logic.
In fact if Ethiopia or any other does something wrong, it's better to avoid it and learn from their mistakes. Like ''I'll die if i jump off a cliff, i am not going to follow what they did''

Those other people lie by the way. The people here weren't even lying you just didn't like the words used.

Use of words is very powerful and history as a modern social science was invented to support nation-states and their claims. Our academics can keep all the details in their writings and use that for decision-making but the public PR front and what you teach children needs to be bite-sized information that will inspire them. You don't have to lie you just present the information available in a good way- children need stories of heroes and valour and great achievements and also examples of bad actions to avoid. The modern academic approach is great for research but awful for producing information the public actually reads or uses. That's why developed countries rely on the film industry to teach their people what they want them to know.

It is not either or. Each approach has a time and place no one said don't learn anything and delude yourself.

We have a number of good narratives we can spread based on our actual history.

1. Descendants of the rich, prosperous Somali City states that enjoyed a grip on international trade in the Red Sea and a highly developed and literary culture.

2. One of the first countries to become Muslim with a rich Islamic intellectual heritage

3. Defenders of Islam and the Prophet ﷺ

4. A brave nation that has fought against an endless list of foreign aggressors. The Landheere of Africa with the largest land-mass of any African ethnicity. The founders of the largest (even if short lived) empire in Africa. The inheritors of Mogadishu, Zeila, Barawe, etc

5. Fought the longest guerrilla war on the African continent- the Darawiish and also the anti-Italian resistance.

See it's not about lying this is marketing the truth- all of these are objectively true.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Midas]

All people do not fabricate or exaggerate things, otherwise all the world nations would just collapse and that's what the quotes speaks to. The decay of the mind. Changing a narrative is only vital when it's about correcting false beliefs , misinformation and outdated paradigms that don't work.

Exaggerations and fabrications has no benefit to people. That China example proves it.

Bro a lot of history is about exaggerating ones greatness. Also most chinese are not fleeing it's a very ti minority of people who have money and can't find jobs. While china is obviously an authoritarian country that wants to forcefully assimilate muslims and suppress islam. They are also an extremely competent govt that improves the country massively. People have talking about chinas economic collapse for the last several years it's all b.s . Ask yourself why you don't here abkit chinsse cities being polluted in anymore.

 

[Midas]

Those other people lie by the way. The people here weren't even lying you just didn't like the words used.

Use of words is very powerful and history as a modern social science was invented to support nation-states and their claims. Our academics can keep all the details in their writings and use that for decision-making but the public PR front and what you teach children needs to be bite-sized information that will inspire them. You don't have to lie you just present the information available in a good way- children need stories of heroes and valour and great achievements and also examples of bad actions to avoid. The modern academic approach is great for research but awful for producing information the public actually reads or uses. That's why developed countries rely on the film industry to teach their people what they want them to know.

It is not either or. Each approach has a time and place no one said don't learn anything and delude yourself.

We have a number of good narratives we can spread based on our actual history.

1. Descendants of the rich, prosperous Somali City states that enjoyed a grip on international trade in the Red Sea and a highly developed and literary culture.

2. One of the first countries to become Muslim with a rich Islamic intellectual heritage

3. Defenders of Islam and the Prophet ﷺ

4. A brave nation that has fought against an endless list of foreign aggressors. The Landheere of Africa with the largest land-mass of any African ethnicity. The founders of the largest (even if short lived) empire in Africa. The inheritors of Mogadishu, Zeila, Barawe, etc

5. Fought the longest guerrilla war on the African continent- the Darawiish and also the anti-Italian resistance.

See it's not about lying this is marketing the truth- all of these are objectively true.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

The key is too not exaggerate too mcuh to the point it looks ridculous.

 

[Idilinaa]

Nothing special about the rise of multiple stone cities that acquired international renown? That owned the Indian Ocean gold for a considerable period, that erased seven Abyssinian Emperors from the chessboard and deleted Vasco’s most talented son? Sounds like you’re intentionally diminishing Somali history by being a contrarian to give the impression that you are the most knowledgeable.
If you want we can designate you as such, but there is no need to deny our impact.

Urbanization is something that occurs in multiple parts of the world and happened in multiple places inside Africa , it's a result of growth of trade and commerce.

Not all settlements/towns/villages/centers were made of stone either or were trade based. They varied in function, scope and building material depending on the location and the economic activity. Just by the nature of our geography Somalis leaned towards more commercial orientation than say compared to someone who inhabited an isolated mountain area.

So yeah there is nothing unique or special about it. Urbanism is only particular in so far as it traces evidence of economic development and interactions between people and how those locations also became political and adminstrative centers for the adjacent rural areas.

None on the same scale as the period I highlighted. No city as impactful as Mogadishu or Zayla rose in that period. The 1700s - 1900s is actually characterised by small castle towns and agricultural hubs like Afgoye, Bardera, Bargaal, Hobyo, etc while the old cities continued their steady decline which not even the slave-trade, a boom in grain exports or trade fairs could reverse.

It's true that they had longer periods of growth accumulation. A lot more time passed but the towns and settlements between the late 1700s and early 1900s followed the same patterns of development and structure. Whether it be the walled in-land trading towns of Luuq, Bardheere and Harar operated much like the walled Benadiri trading centers like Mogadishu and was sustained near agriculturally favorable settled locations and Afgoye was similar to agricultural hubs like Bur Hakaba near the interriverine/rivers and Zayla operated much like other important coastal tading centers of Bosaso, Las Khoray and Berbera located in pastoral favorable locations they all grew in commercial activity and population size and aside from this there are a number of other smaller settlements both on the coast and in-land, proliferation of them speaks to the growth. A boom in grain exports also happened as well albeit with capitalist labour alterions. This was when Somalia was called ''The grain coast of Yemen''

Growth in scholarship also this was at the time of formation of ''Sufi Tariqas'' and also same diasporic migrations and presence happened as well during this period.

What Historian Abdurahman Badiyow says about the development in this period focusing on Sufi orders: THE ISLAMIC MOVEMENT IN SOMALIA

The modern history of Somalia began in the 18th century, about two centuries after the collapse of the sultanates and before the European scramble for Africa. This period is characterized by the ascendency of segmented sultanates, city-states, and the revival of Sufi orders

Most of the Islamic education centers were located in settlements on agricultural areas and/or around water wells and many of these were later transformed into villages, towns and cities. In this way, the Sufi orders transformed pastoral society to settled communities engaged in agriculture and or/trade.

There is a few distinctions to make about this period but highly comparable to prior period past.

There is a clear paucity of sources, activity and interaction between the Somali peninsula and the rest of the world post-collapse of the Western Roman Empire and the 10th century.

Not even the few Chinese sources from the period depict anything close to the 10th - 16th centuries era. Islam was a great engine for a Somali Golden Age.

Periods prior means any period before 1100s . You have the periplus document and multiple trading coastal centers excavated confirming those sites and a few in-land towns discovered as well.

There was periods of intense trade and wealth accumilitation. There is no ''Golden Age'' and is inaccurate to reduce Somali's historical importance to one specific date in history when it's been in a continuum throughout.

The polities at Zayla exerted political influence from Mogadishu to Suakin, while the polity at Mogadishu was known as the ‘Sovereign head of all the Moors on the coast’. If you think giving birth to the Indian Ocean gold trade is not impactful, or being a safe-haven for trade from the Portuguese is not impactful, or Mogadishans and Zaylans being present in almost every relevant royal court from Cairo to the Comoros is not impactful then I guess your right.

The government in Zayla never had political reach over Suakin or Mogadishu. Zero evidences, sources or indications that they ever did. Mogadishu certainly had influence/connections around it's own adjacent southern coastlline and it's immediate hinterland. Same with Zayla.

Somalis didn't give birth to Indian Oceans trade at all, though they had an important role in shaping it just like other trading groups across the indian occean and it was not a safe haven from the Portuguese they bombed/occupied almost all the coastal settlements around the indian ocean and the red sea, Somalia was not spared. They certainly fought back in defence and in reclamation.

There you go again by making wild exaggerated claims that are simply not accurate.

Nothing exaggerated about highlighting the proliferation of major stone cities in Somalia that were known from Venice to China. It’s a clear fact. Nothing exaggerated about stating that Somalis reached their military, economic and cultural peak during that specific time period, historical figures like Ahmed Guray, the coinage of Mogadishu and scholars like Sheikh Hussein are undeniable in that regard.

You have no right to tell young Somalis they can’t glorify their history or take pride in their heritage when at every turn people are trying to diminish, erase or outright deny their role in that same history.

You just made crazy exagggetions you cannot even support right about above this.

Somalis had periods of economic growth, development, migrations, clergy and trade just like many other groups and thats all there is to it. But it does not make them the lords of the universe, super special with super amazing reach and influence.

I don't see what the purpose is to make wild over top claims around basic established facts.

Basic fact: ''An important town called Zayla existed'' -----> ''It controled all of East Africa and smashed all of Portuguese empire into pieces and erased Abyssinia'' (Exagerrated wild claim ).

Not necessary at all and i don't see what you will gain from this either.

 

[Emir of Zayla]

The government in Zayla never had control over Suakin or Mogadishu. Zero evidences, sources or indications that they ever did. Mogadishu certainly had influence/connections around its own adjacent southern coastlline and its immediate hinterland.

Adal had control of the coastline of Northeast Africa from Suakin all the way to Mogadishu between the periods of Badlay’s rule until after the traditional Sultanate of Adal fell and its successor polities rose. Even before that the Walashma’s had alliances with Mogadishu against Abyssinia and later the Portuguese.

Urbanization is something that occurs in multiple parts of the world and happened in multiple places inside Africa , it's a result of growth of trade and commerce.

Not all settlements/towns/villages/centers were made of stone either or were trade based. They varied in function, scope and building material depending on the location and the economic activity. Just by the nature of our geography Somalis leaned towards more commercial orientation than say compared to someone who inhabited an isolated mountain area.

So yeah there is nothing unique or special about it. Urbanism is only particular in so far as it traces evidence of economic development and interactions between people and how those locations also became political and adminstrative centers for the adjacent rural areas.

What I think @Three Moons was trying to get at was the surprising rate of urbanization of Somalis across the peninsula both on the coast and the hinterlands during this time period. I do agree however that the Somali peninsula didn’t just lose all of its urbanization after the wars against the Portuguese as it still survived and grew under the Sufi orders who encouraged people to settle down and build farms and cities.

A boom in grain exports also happened as well albeit with capitalist labour alterions. This was when Somalia was called ''The grain coast of Yemen''

Growth in scholarship also this was at the time of formation of ''Sufi Tariqas'' and also same diasporic migrations and presence happened as well during this period.

What Historian Abdurahman Badiyow says about the development in this period focusing on Sufi orders: THE ISLAMIC MOVEMENT IN SOMALIA

Interesting, I didn’t know this, thanks saxiib.

 

[Idilinaa]

Adal had control of the coastline of Northeast Africa from Suakin all the way to Mogadishu between the periods of Badlay’s rule until after the traditional Sultanate of Adal fell and its successor polities rose. Even before that the Walashma’s had alliances with Mogadishu against Abyssinia and later the Portuguese.View attachment 322725

That's a random text that does not give any evidence or sources for it's claims. The political control of Awdal is covered by the Portuguese of that period and other foreign arabic/and internal sources documenting its reign.

Portuguese description of it's extant reads like this:

The Prester John of the Indies: A True Relation of the Lands ​

From Zayla to Cape Guardafui and to the interior stretches to the Showa/Awash river border basin.

Again purposefully making crap up and exaggerating things.

 

[Idilinaa]

What I think @Three Moons was trying to get at was the surprising rate of urbanization of Somalis across the peninsula both on the coast and the hinterlands during this time period. I do agree however that the Somali peninsula didn’t just lose all of its urbanization after the wars against the Portuguese as it still survived and grew under the Sufi orders who encouraged people to settle down and build farms and cities.

Interesting, I didn’t know this, thanks saxiib.

Economic development is not just simply placing stone buildings somewhere. Some buildings was built of wood and other perishable material and some settlements were simply agricultural hubs for food/crop production and camps that were grazing grounds for herds. A few were prolly fishing villages/outposts not all economic activity/life was urban based.

China today is building and erecting multiple concrete buildings dubbed ''Ghost cities'' does not mean their economy is doing well and there are not a lot of homeless people.

Nothing particular about the Sufi Orders. Muslim saints and sheikhs were traveling across the area during the medieval period, encouraging learning and creating centers. Aw Barkhadle is one, Sheikh Hussein , Aw Bube mentioned in Futuh and the Marka Aw Cusmaan the 4 sheikhs. Aw Garweyne etc etc . But thats just the clergy movements, Badiyow doesn't go into the state and merchant led/directed development. As he said it was a period of ascendency of segmented sultanates, city states not just Sufi orders.

 

[Three Moons]

Urbanization is something that occurs in multiple parts of the world and happened in multiple places inside Africa , it's a result of growth of trade and commerce.

Then where are all equivalent stone cities in West Africa, Southern Africa, heck where are the equivalent stone cities in highland Abyssinia if this was so common throughout Africa? All of the so-called Abyssinian cities were just monumental palaces surrounded by a sea of huts, but you think it’s comparable to the walled stone cities of Somalia and Somaliweyn?

Why don’t you join this discussion then, maybe you can succeed where the glorious Xabashi went silent in the face of facts.

Not all settlements/towns/villages/centers were made of stone either or were trade based. They varied in function, scope and building material depending on the location and the economic activity. Just by the nature of our geography Somalis leaned towards more commercial orientation than say compared to someone who inhabited an isolated mountain area.

A lot of waffle, no substance. We are clearly talking about the most famous cities that rose in that era, no need to side track into a Zaha Hadid 101 on architecture and building materials or cultural diffusion.

So yeah there is nothing unique or special about it. Urbanism is only particular in so far as it traces evidence of economic development and interactions between people and how those locations also became political and adminstrative centers for the adjacent rural areas.

Therefore a specific period where there is a boom in urban stone cities in your mind can’t be characterised as a Golden Age? Its funny that you hold us to the standards of adhering to the ‘historical method’ but at the same time deny us the tool of ‘periodisation’ to get a better understanding of our history just because there were elements before and after this specific Somali Golden Age that overlap at lower frequencies.

It's true that they had longer periods of growth accumulation.

At a far greater intensity by every metric you can put forth. This is precisely why you cannot turn thousands of years of Somali history into one monolithic behemoth. There were clearly ups and downs, and people like Khamsawiwa (sorry bro your name is a headache) are completely in their right to come up with or use terms like a ‘Somali Century’ since that specific period was a high point in ‘Somali historical glory’.

A lot more time passed but the towns and settlements between the late 1700s and early 1900s followed the same patterns of development and structure.

Not on the same scale. There were towns and cities in Europe post-collapse of the Western Roman Empire but it would be disingenuous of you to claim there was no difference between that period and the Roman age in terms of prosperity and scale.

Whether it be the walled in-land trading towns of Luuq, Bardheere and Harar operated much like the walled Benadiri trading centers like Mogadishu and was sustained near agriculturally favorable settled locations and Afgoye was similar to agricultural hubs like Bur Hakaba near the interriverine/rivers and Zayla operated much like other important coastal tading centers of Bosaso, Las Khoray and Berbera located in pastoral favorable locations they all grew in commercial activity and population size and aside from this there are a number of other smaller settlements both on the coast and in-land, proliferation of them speaks to the growth. A boom in grain exports also happened as well albeit with capitalist labour alterions. This was when Somalia was called ''The grain coast of Yemen''

You are just repeating what I already stated earlier with regards to a shift to smaller castle towns and agricultural centres, but you can’t portray that era as if it were anywhere equivalent to Mogadishu starting a oceanic gold trade that made all of the cities along the East African coast, from Sofala to Mombasa and the wider Somali peninsula mushroom in prosperity.

As if it were anywhere equivalent to Jamal-ad Din II, Mahfuz, Ahmed Guray, Nur Ibn Mujahid, etc conquering vast territories and erasing half of the Solomonic dynasty from the chessboard.

The 1700s-1900s period was still interesting, but not of the same historical pedigree as the period before that. Not in urbanisation, not in influence, not in scholarship, and not in glory.

Periods prior means any period before 1100s . You have the periplus document and multiple trading coastal centers excavated confirming those sites and a few in-land towns discovered as well.

None of that contradicts my standardisation of the 10th to 16th centuries as a Somali Golden Age. There were hundreds of cities and towns across the Caliphate prior to the 7th century too, does that mean an Islamic Golden Age never existed?

That is the logic your are peddling here.

There was periods of intense trade and wealth accumilitation. There is no ''Golden Age'' and is inaccurate to reduce Somali's historical importance to one specific date in history when it's been in a continuum throughout.

Again you peddle that monolithic behemoth of a monster called Somali history which apparently according to you was just one long timeline of ‘we wuzz the same’ lol.

 

[Three Moons]

The government in Zayla never had control over Suakin or Mogadishu. Zero evidences, sources or indications that they ever did.

Now I’m beginning to suspect that your particular case is one of ignorance and not arrogance, since you aren’t even aware that according to the Meshafe Milad, Adal was in a direct political alliance with Mogadishu, collecting soldiers;

“An interesting passage in Meshafe Milad, attributed to Zara-Ya'qob himself, relates the story that for his campaigns of 1445, Badlay collected numerous levies, beginning 'from the house of Me'ala to Megdush [all of whom] were allied with the people of Adal’.”

- The Cambridge History of Africa Volume 3 1975 - P.155

As for Suakin;

“Ruled by a branch of the same Walashma dynasty, Adal occupied the whole Afar plain from Sawakin to the Shewa and Chercher mountains, including a significant part of northern Somalia.”

- Pouwels, Randall. The History of Islam in Africa. p. 229.

Mogadishu certainly had influence/connections around its own adjacent southern coastlline and its immediate hinterland.

And beyond, far beyond in-fact. There were Mogadishan traders all the way in Malacca, scholars and administrators in the Maldives and the Bengal, etc.

Somalis didn't give birth to Indian Oceans trade at all,

Keyword ‘Gold’, the Indian Ocean gold trade not the ‘Indian Ocean trade’, which most likely predates written records. The boom in new cities across East Africa post-establishment of the gold trade by merchants from Mogadishu in Sofala is not a coincidence.

though they had an important role in shaping it just like other trading groups across the indian occean and it was not a safe haven from the Portuguese they bombed/occupied almost all the coastal settlements around the indian ocean and the red sea, Somalia was not spared. They certainly fought back in defence and in reclamation.

Here again you deny Somali youth their ancestors’ uniqueness by claiming they were ‘just like the others’ when in-fact their ancestors thwarted the Portuguese from permanently conquering and settling on Somali lands. Our ancestors succeeded where the Swahili coast, the Persians, the Indians, the Omanis, the Yemenis, the Malays, the Moroccans, the Chinese etc all failed. Everywhere the Portuguese sailed to they stayed for CENTURIES, and only returned their last colony as late as 1999.

There you go by making wild exaggerated claims that are simply not accurate.

Do not project your personal ignorance on what I clearly sourced above. Next time ask for clarification if you dispute something. Do not assume that your mind contains all of the knowledge of the world since records began.

Somalis had periods of economic growth, development, migrations, clergy and trade just like many other groups and thats all there is to it. But it does not make them the lords of the universe, super special with super amazing reach and influence.

We are discussing Somali History, it makes zero sense to invoke ‘other groups’ when we we talk about Somali historical figures, cities, events or anything related to the ethnogenesis of the Somali people.

This is ‘whataboutism’ in historiography.

I don't see what the purpose is to make wild over top claims around basic established facts.

Basic fact: ''An important town called Zayla existed'' -----> ''It controled all of East Africa and smashed all of Portuguese empire into pieces and erased Abyssinia'' (Exagerrated wild claim ).

Not necessary at all and i don't see what you will gain from this either.

Embellished maybe, but with a concrete foundation based on primary sources. When we say Napoleon ruled Europe, the likes of you probably would point out ‘but he didn’t rule Portugal and Greece, therefore the claim is untrue.”

What do guys like you gain from trying to humble Somali youth from doing what every nation and country does on this planet? Why are they suddenly ‘unique’ in this context to be told off by you when above, at every turn, you argue we are the same as everyone else?