Why didn't Somali expand
- Thread starter Khaemwaset
- Start date
Internet Nomad
✪͓̽W͓͓̽̽i͓͓̽̽n͓͓̽̽t͓͓̽̽e͓͓̽̽r͓̽ ͓̽A͓͓̽̽r͓͓̽̽c͓̽✪͓̽
Total Tetse Fly Death Now!!!!
Millions must squat!
Millions must squat!
All that prime real estate
Blame Somalis, they fell into tribal infighting like we always do. I heard most other nations got rid of clans because one clan was able to grow powerful enough to defeat all of the other clans, ruled over them and established a centralised government by abolishing clans and banning everything related to clans, including certain surnames which belonged to prominent clans, so that people would eventually forget about their clan/tribe.
Bruh only half of Somaliweyn at best was apart of Adal. It collapsed more so due to economic and environmental declines and pressure from invading Oromos. The only clans who had any chance at uniting all Somalis would be Darod or Hawiye.
Although if they did Somalis might end up being called Daroodians or Hawiyanese today.
Hawiyanese has a certain ring to it that I like. Leagues better than “Somalian” that’s for sureBruh only half of Somaliweyn at best was apart of Adal. It collapsed more so due to economic and environmental declines and pressure from invading Oromos. The only clans who had any chance at uniting all Somalis would be Darod or Hawiye.
Although if they did Somalis might end up being called Daroodians or Hawiyanese today.
The biggest reason Adal fell is becuase of climate change. It's called the little ice age every single country in the world was affected rebellions and wars sprang up everywhere in europe, asia and the middle east. In the horn of africa an incredibly severe decrease in the nile and drought happened that caused even the sudanese and ethiopia states to be on the bring of collapse and they decentralization and didn't recover for centuries. Imagine adal which was already weakened in a dry land that became even drier. It's not surprising they collapsed.
For Adal the 1500s marked a general abandonment and decline. Modern Gun powder weapons like cannons and muskets was introduced in those last few decades pending that decline and was used against their fight with Ethiopians like we all know. Before that decline they politically/economically expanded into wide areas across the Horn of Africa into the fertile shabelle zone regions and hawash valleys, all from the locus point of Zayla/Adal.
For Gareen/Southern Somalis they were pretty widely spread out in the south all the way down across Tana. You can look up the name ''Katwa'' for Somalis or Maracatos by the portuguese, spoke about them in tandem with Magadaxo/Machidas.
They appear on maps on late 18th century maps as Maracates in the far south. According the Portuguese they were penetrating deep into those lands to extract trade resources and was settled on the coast as well.
Majerteen/Hobyo Sultanate in early modern period for example was not only expanding to open up more trade , they exploited their access to modern gunpowder weapons in their movement into fertile areas of Waamo/Juba, setting up a port at Kismayo , Munghiya, and across tana river
Just to mention 2 examples
Sheikh Ali Majerteen , brought 5 boats down to Southern Somalia, Marka in 1847 that carried 150 of his followers alongside a substantial quantity of firearms and ammunition numbered at 40 rifles and 4 cannons with the intention of forming a colony near Marka, at a port called Munghyia
At this time Geledi was expanding to control the port,
Another one is Sharif Hussein and a previous delegation came down across the Tana fully armed and equipped with modern gunpowder weapons with the intent on creating trade colonies just like Sheikh Ali Majerteen and the Majerteen of Waamo/Kismaayo.
It even resulted in an exchange of fire between The Germans occupying the area and the Somalis. And it ended up with a peace treaty.
They also set up trade colonies across other locations along the red sea coast of Eritrea.
There was state political expansion, they subjugated wide area across horn of africa and they had a wide diaspora pool reflecting expansion of trade.
Political military action to control another far distant territory , is economically exhaustive and makes no sense to do it without legitimate geo-strategic/profit motive goal to gain out of it.
You can ask the opposite why didn't Yemen, Axum or Sudan, Egypt etc Conquere and invade Somalia? or Even the Greeks/Roman that visited it? Why didn't China sail across the Indian ocean and conquer ports & stuff? The Mughals even?
They didn't need to. They could get what they wanted from us and other groups by just trading with them and opening up communication channels. Likewise same for Awdal or Gareen even if they had the capability do it.
Free trade/movement creates peace , diplomacy and cooperation which has been the story of Somalis at large. Military invasions and wars happen when this is prevented and people compete for access.
Their presence in Madagascar or Sofala were not a trading ports at all, those were trade colonies intended to extract resources from it.
Not much different than what i described happening with Majerteen Sultanate in the 1800s with their forlay into the red sea and other indian ocean territories.
Last edited:
Somalis within the last 1 thousand years only recently expanded out of a small amount of land in the north, the hawiye to the south from the north, darood out of puntland, and isaaqs from maydh towards its current border. Most clans that settled into agriculture perhaps likely abandoned their qabiil and embraced another identity.
Almost all of our modern problems go back to the fact we are pastoralist nomads, a mode of living that produces backward cultures and lifestyle and doesnt just lack civilization but its is the anthesis of it itself. I sound like a broken record but our greatest challenge this century will be how we eliminate the nomadic pastoral culture and clan, and also turn towards agriculture and urbanisation.
Almost all of our modern problems go back to the fact we are pastoralist nomads, a mode of living that produces backward cultures and lifestyle and doesnt just lack civilization but its is the anthesis of it itself. I sound like a broken record but our greatest challenge this century will be how we eliminate the nomadic pastoral culture and clan, and also turn towards agriculture and urbanisation.
I fed this guys posts and replies into an ai and it said he’s 12 years old.
Yes the 1800s especially saw a great recovery as Somalis started to build there states again with lots of great men appearing such as Sayyid, sadly this came at the same period Europeans invaded so this was all cut short before we got to see the full extent of Somali power in east Africa.For Adal the 1500s marked a general abandonment and decline. Modern Gun powder weapons like cannons and muskets was introduced in those last few decades pending that decline and was used against their fight with Ethiopians like we all know. Before that decline they politically/economically expanded into wide areas across the Horn of Africa into the fertile shabelle zone regions and hawash valleys, all from the locus point of Zayla/Adal.
For Gareen/Southern Somalis they were pretty widely spread out in the south all the way down across Tana. You can look up the name ''Katwa'' for Somalis or Maracatos by the portuguese, spoke about them in tandem with Magadaxo/Machidas.
They appear on maps on late 18th century maps as Maracates in the far south. According the Portuguese they were penetrating deep into those lands to extract trade resources and was settled on the coast as well.
Majerteen/Hobyo Sultanate in early modern period for example was not only expanding to open up more trade , they exploited their access to modern gunpowder weapons in their movement into fertile areas of Waamo/Juba, setting up a port at Kismayo , Munghiya, and across tana river
Just to mention 2 examples
Sheikh Ali Majerteen , brought 5 boats down to Southern Somalia, Marka in 1847 that carried 150 of his followers alongside a substantial quantity of firearms and ammunition numbered at 40 rifles and 4 cannons with the intention of forming a colony near Marka, at a port called Munghyia
At this time Geledi was expanding to control the port,
Another one is Sharif Hussein and a previous delegation came down across the Tana fully armed and equipped with modern gunpowder weapons with the intent on creating trade colonies just like Sheikh Ali Majerteen and the Majerteen of Waamo/Kismaayo.
It even resulted in an exchange of fire between The Germans occupying the area and the Somalis. And it ended up with a peace treaty.
They also set up trade colonies across other locations along the red sea coast of Eritrea.
There was state political expansion, they subjugated wide area across horn of africa and they had a wide diaspora pool reflecting expansion of trade.
Political military action to control another far distant territory , is economically exhaustive and makes no sense to do it without legitimate geo-strategic/profit motive goal to gain out of it.
You can ask the opposite why didn't Yemen, Axum or Sudan, Egypt etc Conquere and invade Somalia? or Even the Greeks/Roman that visited it? Why didn't China sail across the Indian ocean and conquer ports & stuff? The Mughals even?
They didn't need to. They could get what they wanted from us and other groups by just trading with them and opening up communication channels. Likewise same for Awdal or Gareen even if they had the capability do it.
Free trade/movement creates peace , diplomacy and cooperation which has been the story of Somalis at large. Military invasions and wars happen when this is prevented and people compete for access.
Their presence in Madagascar or Sofala were not a trading ports at all, those were trade colonies intended to extract resources from it.
Not much different than what i described happening with Majerteen Sultanate in the 1800s with their forlay into the red sea and other indian ocean territories.
Wasn't more than 4 weeks ago I finished a 12 page essay smd nigga
There was a decline and collapse between 1600-1700s due to a disturbance in the trade routes and decline of economic activity.
Majerteen sultanate pretty much was the only central states that survived the collapse and continued intact, it wasn't built in the 1800s. Only hobyo was and to a lesser extent the Geledi in the late 1700s. The Darawish with the Sayyid you speak of was more of a movement, some have described it as a proto-state/quasi-state.
Gone over this before:
Majeerteen Sultanate as we know it in the early modern period, with it's Uthman Mahamuud was founded in 1620 by the 17th sultan in line as you seen it this source that was given to Gullain:
The Eastern region seized to be directly economically and politically connected to the West and no longer a vassal under Awdal since the political economic structure collapsed and diseappeared by 1674. The interior towns like the city of Badda was abandoned as well as it was depended on a caravan route to the west(above ground material found in them same as as the ones found in Waqooyi-Galbeed ones), so parts of sool connected to the nugaal was populated and the same with parts of Sanaag connected to Makhir coastal towns , Las Khoray and Maydh being the most important towns according to sources.
It is difficult to say how much the population was in these parts from the medieval period vs the early modern period without archeological investigation into cemeteries and settlements.
In the early modern period Bari sultanate was divided into 8 principal ports and a number of coastal villages dotted along the coastline with each containing a few hundred people to a couple of thousand people. Bandar Maryah was the administrative capital.
Bandar Cassim/Bosaso was the commercial capital and contained like a couple of thousand people and the Uthman Mahamuud Sultan had a palace/villa there.
Somalis descended from an ancient group that settled in the horn approximately 5 thousand years ago and they expanded to cover a good portion of the peninsula all they down south to Juba shortly after that. Thats why the language is broken into multiple dialects with distances of up 2000 years. It wasn't recent at all.
Those Somalis engaged in a mixed economic activities mainly arable agriculture, livestock herding and commerce with the coast and some fishing activities.
The agricultural Somalis whether they be Daroods in the Upper Shabbelle, or Dir/Isaaqs in the western Somaliland, the Tunni/Hawiye/Rawanweyn in the middle shabelle and Jubba all kept their clan identities.
Put for the sake of it lets ignore everything i have said above and in my other reply. An explore this made up theory of Pastoralist nomads being backward incapable of civilization. How do you explain that most of the medieval states in Western/Northern Africa was formed by nomadic groups? The Almoravids, for instance, were true Saharan nomads; the Fatimids were originally nomadic peasants from Kabylia; the Almohads were a mountain nomadic tribe from the Moroccan High Atlas.
Timbuktu the Mali commercial center, was founded by Tuareg Nomads. It originally a seasonal camp for nomads who were taking their livestock to the banks of the Niger in the dry season .
If Nomadism is incapable of expansion how come Ottomans, Arabs and the Monghols who were largly all nomadic groups that expanded to create their own empires?
Also how come middle age Abyssinians, the Bantus etc with their agriculture orientation multiple other agricultural groups and including early middle age Europeans didn't lead to Urbanization?
The early middle age Europeans for example lived largley in agricultural communities without any urbanism or much commerce , with houses/huts made up of tatch and wood. WIth only churches being made of solid stone.
This is the problem with creating this fantasy of nomadic-sedentary opposition. Not only does it avoid economic analysis but it also disconnected from the interractions between farmers , towns people and nomadic herders and how urbanism has to do with accumulation of wealth and resources in one spot that trade/exchange draws in.
Last edited:
You guys obviously have a grudge against Somalis and want to spam threads and posts to make everything around them seem to be an air of exaggerations and superiority posturing.
And levy attacks and downplaying at them every turn. Trying to poke holes even. It's very obvious, you maybe 12 year old in your line of thinking if you didn't think i wasn't aware of this fact. I could say much more about what i know but i leave it at that.
The only reason i engage in honest fashion with you and the other accounts in this thread and elsewhere isn't to defend Somalis or make Somalis seem powerful or all amazing people or whatever but because i am thinking that the more you guys come to understand and learn about the Somali people the better.
But the only thing it has lead to is this wild goose chase ya'll on to build case against them.
That's they only reason you seem remotely interested in these topics and stalk people.
Last edited:
You do a really good synthesis and analysis of somali history . But man you have this tendency that anytime somebody wants to understand somali history from a critical perpeectice or know we are the way we are and starts asking questions. You become aggressive and assume they have bad intentions or an inferiority complex about being somali. Most somali history is only accessible through obscure sources that a person has to read and synthesize so none of this is common knowledge at all.
@Idilinaa
Dont know where in my post i said pastoralist nomads are incapable of expanding, thats what i actually think they do best. And northern african states (northern parts of moroco and algeria) are historically agriculturists, its the saharan ones that are pastoral nomadic and they are a mess today. I dont want to delve too deap into this because my post is dogmatic in nature. But normally sedentary/agricultural societies do build societies and civilizations thats far more advanced and culturally/structurally suited to adapting to modern nation states, compare china vs mongolia, or saudi arabia vs levant/iraq.
Dont know where in my post i said pastoralist nomads are incapable of expanding, thats what i actually think they do best. And northern african states (northern parts of moroco and algeria) are historically agriculturists, its the saharan ones that are pastoral nomadic and they are a mess today. I dont want to delve too deap into this because my post is dogmatic in nature. But normally sedentary/agricultural societies do build societies and civilizations thats far more advanced and culturally/structurally suited to adapting to modern nation states, compare china vs mongolia, or saudi arabia vs levant/iraq.
Did you mean to tag me I got no clue
The Northern African states like Almoravids were formed by nomads from the sahara.
The Almoravids: from desert nomads to imperial power
The Almoravids: from desert nomads to imperial power — Indigo+Lavender
Emerging from the harsh Saharan sands, the Almoravids carved a remarkable path through history, forging an empire that stretched across 3,000 kilometers and left an indelible mark on the medieval landscape of northwestern Africa and Al-Andalus (Muslim Spain).
www.indigoandlavender.love
Timbuktu this major center for trade and scholarship , was founded and organized by Nomadic exchanges between Tuareg herders.
The Nabatean Arabs for example who established the Nabatean kingdom were Nomads connecting trade across the peninsula. This is was a civilization sophisticated enough to carve out buildings out of mountains and rocks.
Nabataean Kingdom - Wikipedia
Majerteen Sultanate for example was a semi-nomadic kingdom and it was highly organized. And was peaceful as well , soo much soo that they called 'Urd Al-Aman'' (The land of safety.
You can include Hobyo, to some extent the warsangeli in this to. And i have said as much on how it's not difficult to form and maintain centralized leadership over pastoralists and nomads.
If you going to talk about places being mess today. if you believe agricultural communities are inherently safe or sophisticated, why has Ethiopia and Yemenbeen a mess of a countries and in conflict?
At the same time as they are a mess today Somalis who how a large nomadic population in Ogaden are peacefully developing today in the past 5 years. You can include Somaliland/Puntland region the most nomadic regions of the country are more peaceful and more governed than the more sedentary south the last 30 years.
Lets move away from current times and look at how an Egyptian author described the so society called sophisticted peaceful agricultural Abyssinians their civilization and modern state in the early 1900s
This still bleeds into Ethiopias current situation. As this study shows.
Administrative and military impediments of medieval Ethiopian economy
The point i am getting at here is that, being sedentary or agricultural does not make you inherently safe peaceful or sophisticated or capable of building a modern states.
What actually does is increase in economic activity and control/pulling of resources and cooperation/stability.
Last edited:
You are right on cue. Yes lets feign more interests in Somali history.
Putting out crazy exaggerations and claims around somali history or people and lying in an attempt to undermined real documented facts is not being critical. Trying to find holes to poke instead of sincere inquiry it is also not being critical. I correct you guys on certain details all the time but it's not honest mistake it's really intentional.
I know because some of you have already told me in on another thread that yall straight up lie and make stuff on purpose https://www.somalispot.com/threads/1500s-the-somali-century.164904/page-5#post-3989074
He and others said history was made up, so it justifies him making stuff up.
These antics are meant to show that Somalis have superiority and inferiority complex according to you and Khaemwaset.
No it actually shows that you guys are the ones with an identity complex and are just demented like i always say.
Last edited:
Trending
-
Fobs are now using the South Sudanese flag to rep their qabil 🤦🏽♀️- Started by wonyluvr
- Replies: 67
-
-
