How south did the Cushites go?

[Xabeshi]

We've found the Savannah Pastoralists in Kenya and Tanzania and the Tutsis of Rwanda and Burundi are believed to be of Cushitic descent but is that the southernmost we've ever ventured?
Is there any evidence of a Cushitic presence in Southern or Central Africa?

 

[The alchemist]

All the way to Southern Africa. There was a new study on Southern African hunter-gatherers and if I am not wrong, there was evidence that small bands of Southern Cushites, that they claimed looked genetically like ones from Tanzania, had ventured there and mixed with Southern African hunter-gatherers. We also have a study showing a three-way mixed person who had Bantu, Southern African HG, and Cushitic ancestry. They found that the Cushitic and SA HG ancestry mixed before the Bantu mixture.

I'm not sure if there was anything in central Africa though. It's too foresty for pastoralism, too.

 

[Daisybilaawe]

All the way to Southern Africa. There was a new study on Southern African hunter-gatherers and if I am not wrong, there was evidence that small bands of Southern Cushites, that they claimed looked genetically like ones from Tanzania, had ventured there and mixed with Southern African hunter gatherers. We also have a study showing a three-way mixed person who had Bantu, Southern African HG and Cushitic ancestry. They found that the Cushitic and SA HG ancestry mixed before the Bantu mixture.

I'm not sure if there was anything in central Africa though.

Do you think that had Somalis abandoned Tribal Affiliation in like the 4-5th Century and instead operated solely on Somali Uniformity that they'd be able to take (Somalia, Somali Galbeed, a Chunk of Oromia, Afar Region, Djibouti, Southern Red Sea Region-Debubawi Käyh Bahri, All of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda, Northern Mozambique Madagascar, Comoros, Zanzibar, Seychelles, Mauritius, Mayotte, Reunion) and make it all being Somali-owned and Somali-spoken or unrealistic?

 

[The alchemist]

Do you think that had Somalis abandoned Tribal Affiliation in like the 4-5th Century and instead operated solely on Somali Uniformity that they'd be able to take (Somalia, Somali Galbeed, a Chunk of Oromia, Afar Region, Djibouti, Southern Red Sea Region-Debubawi Käyh Bahri, All of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda, Northern Mozambique Madagascar, Comoros, Zanzibar, Seychelles, Mauritius, Mayotte, Reunion) and make it all being Somali-owned and Somali-spoken or unrealistic?

That is a big question, not going to lie. Don't you have anything smaller and cuter?

 

[Daisybilaawe]

That is a big question, not going to lie. Don't you have anything smaller and cuter?

Nah you're a smart guy, try break it down.

 

[Riftvalley]

Namibia. I think.

 

[The alchemist]

Nah you're a smart guy, try break it down.

We would need a completely different expansionary ideology that had an imperialistic structuralist and bureaucratic system that focused on information diffusion networks, technological processing that required contact with the broader world and use of regional resources. We would need institutions to manage those. In such a system where diverse people existed, our expansion there would mean aggression, then assimilation of those people. You see, success in aggression alone does not guarantee longevity. The Mongols invaded all the way to the peripheral Eastern Europe, but how long did they hold?

We would need a skill-based society that focused on craftsmanship. This would allow the system to function better and more efficiently. The more connected everything is, the more control you can have over it. Somalis in this society would receive a massive migration, and Somalis would need to live somewhere central to build a capital hub, which ideally would mean somewhere greener than the north and a bit more central within the empire. The Muqadisho area would be alright. From there, you'd build transport roads that went to the critical point, boosting economic activity, flow of people, and connecting sea-based and land-based logistics.

Ideology is essential to have for such a system to rule over the people. You need a strong assimilationist ideology that says, if one fits certain learned criteria, you become part of the whole. Ethnocentrism does not work well here, although there would be a hidden bias for Somalis. That is when we get to the heart of the issue. If that had been a reality, we would look like very mixed people. Somalis would not exist; the people would be the product of the empire. Rome during its height was genetically distinct and heterogeneous from the people who lived a thousand years before.

But you know, Somalis did have vast cultural and economic land and they indeed did have what would could be classed as an almost empire because it stretched from deep in Somaliland (we can see this in the architecture and economic dealings, flow of people and ideas), the entire Eastern Ethiopia, and even further when Somalis pushed significantly, further into Habash lands (but the last only briefly). I think @Maintainnnin made a post about the extent of its northwestern expansion and it seemed almost unbelievable, that if true, it would have been massively understated to put it lightly. Either without that, that civilization was quite geographically massive. It had economic dealings with the broader world (similar to the past of Somalis that had similar activities, but in the pre-Islamic era. Read some of my posts talking with @Midas) it was quite connected and central to the broader civilizational world.

This was done in a tribal society. You see, tribalism is not, by default, a bad thing or something that necessarily holds people back. Turks were tribal and ruled Rum. Ancient Iranians during their empire days were tribal. Mesopotamia was settled by Semitic tribes who then became the ruling elites. Ancient Nubia was a tribal, layered society despite having state-based centralization. I can go on and on. We were tribal during the Ifat-Adal days, although whether that constitutes an empire is probably not so relevant, given it was large in its own respect, though I believe in its conservative measure alone was inhabited in Somali lands (I think an empire needs to be hyper diverse).

 

[Daisybilaawe]

We would need a completely different expansionary ideology that had an imperialistic structuralist and bureaucratic system that focused on information diffusion networks, technological processing that required contact with the broader world and use of regional resources. We would need institutions to manage those. In such a system where diverse people existed, our expansion there would mean aggression, then assimilation of those people. You see, success in aggression alone does not guarantee longevity. The Mongols invaded all the way to the peripheral Eastern Europe, but how long did they hold?

We would need a skill-based society that focused on craftsmanship. This would allow the system to function better and more efficiently. The more connected everything is, the more control you can have over it. Somalis in this society would receive a massive migration, and Somalis would need to live somewhere central to build a capital hub, which ideally would mean somewhere greener than the north and a bit more central within the empire. The Muqadisho area would be alright. From there, you'd build transport roads that went to the critical point, boosting economic activity, flow of people, and connecting sea-based and land-based logistics.

Ideology is essential to have for such a system to rule over the people. You need a strong assimilationist ideology that says, if one fits certain learned criteria, you become part of the whole. Ethnocentrism does not work well here, although there would be a hidden bias for Somalis. That is when we get to the heart of the issue. If that had been a reality, we would look like very mixed people. Somalis would not exist; the people would be the product of the empire. Rome during its height was genetically distinct and heterogeneous from the people who lived a thousand years before.

But you know, Somalis did have vast cultural and economic land and they indeed did have what would could be classed as an almost empire because it stretched from deep in Somaliland (we can see this in the architecture and economic dealings, flow of people and ideas), the entire Eastern Ethiopia, and even further when Somalis pushed significantly, further into Habash lands (but the last only briefly). I think @Maintainnnin made a post about the extent of its northwestern expansion and it seemed almost unbelievable, that if true, it would have been massively understated to put it lightly. Either without that, that civilization was quite geographically massive. It had economic dealings with the broader world (similar to the past of Somalis that had similar activities, but in the pre-Islamic era. Read some of my posts talking with @Midas) it was quite connected and central to the broader civilizational world.

This was done in a tribal society. You see, tribalism is not, by default, a bad thing or something that necessarily holds people back. Turks were tribal and ruled Rum. Ancient Iranians during their empire days were tribal. Mesopotamia was settled by Semitic tribes who then became the ruling elites. Ancient Nubia was a tribal, layered society despite having state-based centralization. I can go on and on. We were tribal during the Ifat-Adal days, although whether that constitutes an empire is probably not so relevant, given it was large in its own respect, though I believe in its conservative measure alone was inhabited in Somali lands (I think an empire needs to be hyper diverse).

What if this was done before any group could migrate into those Great Lake Regions and Islands, like before Malaysians and Niger-Congo Bantus?

 

[Daisybilaawe]

We would need a completely different expansionary ideology that had an imperialistic structuralist and bureaucratic system that focused on information diffusion networks, technological processing that required contact with the broader world and use of regional resources. We would need institutions to manage those. In such a system where diverse people existed, our expansion there would mean aggression, then assimilation of those people. You see, success in aggression alone does not guarantee longevity. The Mongols invaded all the way to the peripheral Eastern Europe, but how long did they hold?

We would need a skill-based society that focused on craftsmanship. This would allow the system to function better and more efficiently. The more connected everything is, the more control you can have over it. Somalis in this society would receive a massive migration, and Somalis would need to live somewhere central to build a capital hub, which ideally would mean somewhere greener than the north and a bit more central within the empire. The Muqadisho area would be alright. From there, you'd build transport roads that went to the critical point, boosting economic activity, flow of people, and connecting sea-based and land-based logistics.

Ideology is essential to have for such a system to rule over the people. You need a strong assimilationist ideology that says, if one fits certain learned criteria, you become part of the whole. Ethnocentrism does not work well here, although there would be a hidden bias for Somalis. That is when we get to the heart of the issue. If that had been a reality, we would look like very mixed people. Somalis would not exist; the people would be the product of the empire. Rome during its height was genetically distinct and heterogeneous from the people who lived a thousand years before.

But you know, Somalis did have vast cultural and economic land and they indeed did have what would could be classed as an almost empire because it stretched from deep in Somaliland (we can see this in the architecture and economic dealings, flow of people and ideas), the entire Eastern Ethiopia, and even further when Somalis pushed significantly, further into Habash lands (but the last only briefly). I think @Maintainnnin made a post about the extent of its northwestern expansion and it seemed almost unbelievable, that if true, it would have been massively understated to put it lightly. Either without that, that civilization was quite geographically massive. It had economic dealings with the broader world (similar to the past of Somalis that had similar activities, but in the pre-Islamic era. Read some of my posts talking with @Midas) it was quite connected and central to the broader civilizational world.

This was done in a tribal society. You see, tribalism is not, by default, a bad thing or something that necessarily holds people back. Turks were tribal and ruled Rum. Ancient Iranians during their empire days were tribal. Mesopotamia was settled by Semitic tribes who then became the ruling elites. Ancient Nubia was a tribal, layered society despite having state-based centralization. I can go on and on. We were tribal during the Ifat-Adal days, although whether that constitutes an empire is probably not so relevant, given it was large in its own respect, though I believe in its conservative measure alone was inhabited in Somali lands (I think an empire needs to be hyper diverse).

I don't think Empires need to be Hyper-Diverse.

Logically couldn't Large Population compensate for a Diverse/Multicultural Population?

I think that Somalis as a unite encompassing all that land as a unit would be a lot more powerful than surrounding regions and many European Powers that eventually would come in contact with them.

 

[Rayaale]

All the way to modern day South Africa and Namibia

 

[Aurelian]

We would need a completely different expansionary ideology that had an imperialistic structuralist and bureaucratic system that focused on information diffusion networks, technological processing that required contact with the broader world and use of regional resources. We would need institutions to manage those. In such a system where diverse people existed, our expansion there would mean aggression, then assimilation of those people. You see, success in aggression alone does not guarantee longevity. The Mongols invaded all the way to the peripheral Eastern Europe, but how long did they hold?

We would need a skill-based society that focused on craftsmanship. This would allow the system to function better and more efficiently. The more connected everything is, the more control you can have over it. Somalis in this society would receive a massive migration, and Somalis would need to live somewhere central to build a capital hub, which ideally would mean somewhere greener than the north and a bit more central within the empire. The Muqadisho area would be alright. From there, you'd build transport roads that went to the critical point, boosting economic activity, flow of people, and connecting sea-based and land-based logistics.

Ideology is essential to have for such a system to rule over the people. You need a strong assimilationist ideology that says, if one fits certain learned criteria, you become part of the whole. Ethnocentrism does not work well here, although there would be a hidden bias for Somalis. That is when we get to the heart of the issue. If that had been a reality, we would look like very mixed people. Somalis would not exist; the people would be the product of the empire. Rome during its height was genetically distinct and heterogeneous from the people who lived a thousand years before.

But you know, Somalis did have vast cultural and economic land and they indeed did have what would could be classed as an almost empire because it stretched from deep in Somaliland (we can see this in the architecture and economic dealings, flow of people and ideas), the entire Eastern Ethiopia, and even further when Somalis pushed significantly, further into Habash lands (but the last only briefly). I think @Maintainnnin made a post about the extent of its northwestern expansion and it seemed almost unbelievable, that if true, it would have been massively understated to put it lightly. Either without that, that civilization was quite geographically massive. It had economic dealings with the broader world (similar to the past of Somalis that had similar activities, but in the pre-Islamic era. Read some of my posts talking with @Midas) it was quite connected and central to the broader civilizational world.

This was done in a tribal society. You see, tribalism is not, by default, a bad thing or something that necessarily holds people back. Turks were tribal and ruled Rum. Ancient Iranians during their empire days were tribal. Mesopotamia was settled by Semitic tribes who then became the ruling elites. Ancient Nubia was a tribal, layered society despite having state-based centralization. I can go on and on. We were tribal during the Ifat-Adal days, although whether that constitutes an empire is probably not so relevant, given it was large in its own respect, though I believe in its conservative measure alone was inhabited in Somali lands (I think an empire needs to be hyper diverse).

The Habash were better suited back then but they didn't go beyond ethiopian highlands and Yemen.

 

[Daisybilaawe]

The Habash were better suited back then but they didn't go beyond ethiopian highlands and Yemen.

I often see claims of people both in this site and outside of it claim that Somalis without hinderance would've plowed through East Africa reaching Mozambique and making it all Somali-Owned and Somali-Controlled but how much of this is actually true?

 

[The alchemist]

What if this was done before any group could migrate into those Great Lake Regions and Islands, like before Malaysians and Niger-Congo Bantus?

Then it would be something else. Essentially, the Somalis would migrate to other places and need a great deal of time to grow population and acclimate to the new environment that while reaffirming a structurally coherent political and economic system. We have people who split from us some 2000 years ago that later became separate ethnic groups. This is not an empire though and I will tell you why.

I don't think Empires need to be Hyper-Diverse.

Logically couldn't Large Population compensate for a Diverse/Multicultural Population?

I think that Somalis as a unite encompassing all that land as a unit would be a lot more powerful than surrounding regions and many European Powers that eventually would come in contact with them.

Usually they are because the land is taken through the conquest of other lands that are other peoples territories. Empires involve separate peoples under one ruler, while the regions could have some administrative autonomy. A key aspect is expansion, war, domination, and rule. You assimilate disparate peoples under one emperor.

 

[Daisybilaawe]

Then it would be something else. Essentially, the Somalis would migrate to other places and need a great deal of time to grow population and acclimate to the new environment that while reaffirming a structurally coherent political and economic system. We have people who split from us some 2000 years ago that later became separate ethnic groups. This is not an empire though and I will tell you why.


Usually they are because the land is taken through the conquest of other lands that are other peoples territories. Empires involve separate peoples under one ruler, while the regions could have some administrative autonomy. A key aspect is expansion, war, domination, and rule. You assimilate disparate peoples under one emperor.

Yh but under Somalis taking over Pre-Bantu East Africa wouldn't really be conquest, nor would it assimilating many groups that are different like seen in Previous Empires

It would just be assimilation of other Cushitic Groups that are exactly alike no? Like my Recent Thread of Southern "Kenya" looks Somali and groups of people like, so would Somalis had they taken over be really that different given that East Africa at that time is Extremely Different to the Many Ethnicities that reside in the Competitive Mediterranean Region.

 

[The alchemist]

The Habash were better suited back then but they didn't go beyond ethiopian highlands and Yemen.

Historic Abyssinians (Early Modern Era) were very much imperialists. They worked with the colonialists to take more lands, even sent letters to tell them to come and seize Somali and Eritrean territories.

Axumites had expanded briefly to Sudan after the decline of Meroitics, so it was not a big feat. They had empire-like aspirations. One can loosely define it as an empire that took parts of eastern Sudan and Yemen, but maybe not before that or after.

King Ezena claimed that the Nubians had attacked the Beja and Nilo-Saharans of the peripheral Eritrean region (not sure how true that is), and because of that, he partly claimed justification of the invasion of who he called the "haughty" Noba:

 

[The alchemist]

Yh but under Somalis taking over Pre-Bantu East Africa wouldn't really be conquest.

It would just be assimilation of other Cushitic Groups that are exactly alike no? Like my Recent Thread of Southern "Kenya" looks Somali and groups of people like, so would Somalis had they taken over be really that different given that East Africa at that time is Extremely Different to the Many Ethnicities that reside in the Competitive Mediterranean Region.

No, I am saying in a scenario where the land was empty, it would not constitute an empire. The empire thing is really through the control of different lands inhabited by different peoples.

The Southern Cushites were really not the same people as us, despite being relatively close. Invading their lands would indeed be imperialist-like because they would fight us (there were interactions between early Somalis and Southern Cushites in Kenya).

China was once an empire when one emperor invaded and assimilated other Chinese groups that were ethnically unrelated. The Qin dynasty was an imperial rule because it took over the land of separate but related Chinese groups that had been defeated.

All I am saying is, you asked if it had to be ethnically non-homogeneous; that is part of the package. Otherwise, it is just a large kingdom, not an empire. The conquest factor is integral for that very definition.

 

[Daisybilaawe]

No, I am saying in a scenario where the land was empty, it would not constitute an empire. The empire thing is really through the control of different lands inhabited by different peoples.

The Southern Cushites were really not the same people as us, despite being relatively close. Invading their lands would indeed be imperialist-like because they would fight us (there were interactions between early Somalis and Southern Cushites in Kenya).

China was once an empire when one emperor invaded and assimilated other Chinese groups that were ethnically unrelated. The Qin dynasty was an imperial rule because it took over the land of separate but related Chinese groups that had been defeated.

All I am saying is, you asked if it had to be ethnically non-homogeneous; that is part of the package. Otherwise, it is just a large kingdom, not an empire. The conquest factor is integral for that very definition.

Oh yh I agree most Empires only qualify based on the conditions of ruling over different groups of people imperialistically so I agree on that regard.

but then taking and assimilating Southern Cushites to Somalis, would that really change anything about Somalis towards the Modern day?

I've also crafted a map, do you think this is accurate? Pre-Bantu East Africa, Somalis with intention and desire.

 

[The alchemist]

Oh yh I agree most Empires only qualify based on the conditions of ruling over different groups of people imperialistically so I agree on that regard.

but then taking and assimilating Southern Cushites to Somalis, would that really change anything about Somalis towards the Modern day?

View attachment 359853
I've also crafted a map, do you think this is accurate? Pre-Bantu East Africa, Somalis with intention and desire.

That is like the Oromo expansion.

They came and integrated Somaloid groups (non-ethnically Somali, early Somali descended groups) in Kenya into their confederacy after an offensive conflict. They simultaneously expanded north to the interior of modern Ethiopia, capturing other people's land and mixing with the locals after cultural domination.

Somalis already had expanded to a wide land of Somaliland, Eastern Ethiopia, the entire Somalia, parts of Djibouti, and northern Kenya. I mean, you're kind of being a bit greedy there.

Some guys on here made claims that there were potential ventures into Swahili lands and perhaps contact with Madagascar, but I have no knowledge about that.

 

[Daisybilaawe]

That is like the Oromo expansion.

They came and integrated Somaloid groups (non-ethnically Somali, early Somali descended groups) in Kenya into their confederacy after an offensive conflict. They simultaneously expanded north to the interior of modern Ethiopia, capturing other people's land and mixing with the locals after cultural domination.

Somalis already had expanded to a wide land of Somaliland, Eastern Ethiopia, the entire Somalia, parts of Djibouti, and northern Kenya. I mean, you're kind of being a bit greedy there.

Some guys on here made claims that there were potential ventures into Swahili lands and perhaps contact with Madagascar, but I have no knowledge about that.

Yh but this is solely in the context of before the migration and creation of Modern day Swahili and Malagasy groups.

I mean can you believe that Reunion, Comoros, Seychelles and Mauritius were not inhabited until 16-17th Century.

 

[Riftvalley]

I often see claims of people both in this site and outside of it claim that Somalis without hinderance would've plowed through East Africa reaching Mozambique and making it all Somali-Owned and Somali-Controlled but how much of this is actually true?

Dem Tsete fly aks don’t like negroes without mass fast twitch fibres.