How well does the Malian civilization hold up against contemporary European or Asian kingdoms during the same time period?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
How well does the Malian civilization hold up against contemporary European or Asian kingdoms during the same time period?
Why does this board love to have civilization dick measuring contests?
I just want to know.
>Inb4 Malians are actually Black Caucasians or Arabs built it by seething whitoids.
The Malian civilization wasn't exactly up to par with Western Europe, India, China, Southern Europe, the Middle East, or many of the Eurasian civilizations at the time. However, this makes sense considering their relative isolation from pretty much everyone else and a lack of exposure to new ideas, trade, etc. Comparing most African or American civilizations with Eurasian ones is pretty dumb for that reason, it's apples and oranges.
>Timbuktu manuscripts
These are honestly one of the coolest things to come out of the 21st century in terms of physical evidence of the past. I can't think of any other written evidence of civilization during medieval times that was uncovered and explore so recently. It's almost a miracle that these documents even survived the hot climate of Mali, although the aridity probably helped. I know that a lot of manuscripts from India and SEA are impossible to read or restore due to humidity.
>le arabs did it
If this were true, why would the manuscripts be written in local languages like Songhay and Tamasheq? I won't deny that Arabs had considerable influence on West Africans in the medieval time, but how is this any different from China essentially creating Japanese civilization, or Meds conquering and civilizing northern Europeans over many centuries?
I'd argue that Timbuktu represents a high point in West African civilizations and probably epitomized the Malian empire and its accomplishments. Like I said, it wasn't at the same level as Eurasian civs, but its relevant for understanding West Africa nonetheless
Honestly why can't they have buildings at least on par with SEA or Ethiopia with the one crap castle.
Because their only contact with outsiders
And outside knowledge was past a 2000 km long desert you fricking disingenioud ignorant mong.
Why not the places where there were stone then.
I think they did use stone but it looks brown and dusty because of the desert. Could be wrong.
Can you post examples of Nafris stone buildings in the desert?
Just look all those ruins
I have no idea
Maybe a lack of stone in the region? They basically lived in deserts, right? I'm not well versed on geography in that region and idk if there were many mines or quarries.
I read that the mud buildings were a lot better at keeping out heat and it was obviously easy to build. They also had no exposure to foreign building techniques aside from the little information gained from arab traders and explorers. But honestly I don't know for sure.
Also so did Nafaris they lived in more desert than Malis they built stone castles.
There's plenty of rock in Mali.
>survived the hot climate of Mali, although the aridity probably helped.
Heat was never the problem, it's the aridity. That's why Egypt and Iraq are archaeological and textual goldmines stretching 4000 years back, and also why Indian manuscripts and buildings barely, if ever survive a couple centuries.
Indian manuscripts are made of shitty birch wood that burns when raiders set fire to your monastery and rots otherwise
Indian buildings millennia old exist
There was no "Malian civilization", Islamic civilization just reached them that's all. Besides, even with Islam they didn't produce anything worthy. All Mansa Musa is known for is being insanely rich, and even then he didn't do anything for it he just sat on his ass and benefited from trans-saharan trade. If it wasn't for northern Muslim accounts we probably wouldn't even know about Mali.
lol did you even google OPs pic? The timbuktu manuscripts disprove 90% of the stuff you said. Read more and come back
There is literally nothing wrong with mud as a building material. Stone buildings are not the marker of civilization.
Mud bricks were used all over the world for thousands of years. It's just another building material. Hell, rammed earth is still relevant because of how good it is for insulation, and that's just packed dirt.
100%. When looking at the past it is easy to assume that cultures with more long lasting materials were more advanced but it doesn't really add up in practice. One culture could have written their entire language on Vellum and another might write theirs on clay tablets but only the later will survive into the modern day.
A good example for a powerful nations that left very little trace was the mongolian and other preceeding steppe empires. Very powerful nations with good military technology and ingenious tactics but you walk around mongolia today and you won't find much in the way of palaces, temples or ruined cities because they lived in tents.