Consider the following:
>Shaka made a massive army by assimilating unwilling, well-off, and well-defended villages just because he was a decent warrior
>Africa is full of heavily armed and impoverished factions desperate for a path to prosperity, which are totally disorganised and have weak alliegance
Africa could become a unified superpower at the drop of a hat.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Wrong, they are niggers and can't work together in large groups
And yet they have in the past.
If a nigger believes they will Make Africa Great Again, I'm sure they'll be much more likely to work than if they were doing unsupervised hard labour the whole day for just a dollar.
>Africa could become a unified superpower at the drop of a hat.
Only if you replace all the niggers in Africa with white people.
Shaka also lead to an even known as "The Crushing" and his 'empire' was both relatively small and collapsed quickly, himself being killed and power seized.
they can certainly form armies, but never will there be a unified african military because the tribalism is too strong
>And yet they have in the past.
Shaka Zulu, at the height of his power, controlled one tribe in a tiny part of southern Africa. He then used this tribe to frighten neighbouring tribes into paying him tribute (i.e. cows). His great empire collapsed with sixty years of its creation.
Maybe you should learn history from books instead of from Civilization V.
en.wikipedia.org
>Shaka ordered that no crops should be planted during the following year of mourning, no milk (the basis of the Zulu diet at the time) was to be used, and any woman who became pregnant was to be killed along with her husband. At least 7,000 people who were deemed to be insufficiently grief-stricken were executed, although the killing was not restricted to humans: cows were slaughtered so that their calves would know what losing a mother felt like.
>Africa could become a unified superpower at the drop of a hat.
not a fucking chance
they have the weakest most corrupt hollowed out governments on earth which are incapable of meeting the near impossible challenges they face
they have extreme poverty and exploding population while at the same time chronic resource scarcity (esp water) exascerbated by climate change
within a few decades it's going to fucking explode in massive wars far worse than what is happening in middle east and tens of millions will flood Europe
Second Congo War = deadliest war since WWII and it's only a small taste of what is to come
That's a very good point: Africa is full of west-imitating politicians who think they can run a shitty even more dictatory version of the US and it will stop being shitty.
That tribalism you speak of could be managed and possibly exploited by dividing armies by culture rather than by purpose.
Now where have we heard of that before?
Considering that he only reigned 10 years before getting assassinated, his empire lasting 60 years is impressive.
>Africa could become a unified superpower at the drop of a hat.
>no airforce
>no navy
>no artillery
how?
>they have the weakest most corrupt hollowed out governments on earth
That's exactly the point.
>no real way to stop an ever-growing land force
That's exactly the point.
>Considering that he only reigned 10 years before getting assassinated, his empire lasting 60 years is impressive.
No, it really isn't. He conquered half a dozen neighbouring villages and his successors couldn't even keep hold of that.
That's still 250,000 people under someone who was previously shunned due to their circumstance of birth.
>can't rely on your successors
>implying this is news
i say let them all die off , forget africa even existed and just ship a fucking ark of 2 of each animal to Amurica, not including the mongaloids we already have a few million of them
infantry doesn't mean shit when you cannot protect them from the enemy's artillery or air force and have problems deploying them because you have basically no navy
one part of war which is at least as important, if not even more, is logistics. you really think a continent that hasn't gotten its shit together in millennia would be capable of fielding such an army and not have them starve to death before they even reached the border?
I would disagree, the Africans here can barely tolerate the different tribe's and that's just with the Zulus, Sesothos and Xhosa. Their is rampant xenophobism towards Africans from other countries to the point where a couple years ago the Ethiopians Nigerians and Zimbabweans were kicked out of black neighborhoods and had their shops burnt down.
It's not like there's no vehicles in Africa.
Besides, what enemy with an air force would you be fighting anyway?
South Africa?
That country isn't stable enough to avoid a simple incursion before bullets start flying.
You obviously don't know niggers too well.
This graph is the single most terrifying thing on Sup Forums. Africa's population is going to do far more damage to the planet than climate change. We need James Watson to make a new Inconvenient Truth.
That makes me wonder: Are tribes restricted to countries, or can they span multiple countries?
Because as I said earlier, an army can be divided by culture, and thus if you have a good portion of a tribe in your army it's like a key to a lock where the lock is the same tribe in another country.
>Besides, what enemy with an air force would you be fighting anyway?
I was under the impression that you were talking about a United African Army being a military super power.
Which is nonsense because they would get crushed by the US, China, Russia or even the fucking EU in no time.
They would never win a real war, all they are good at are skirmishes against surrounding villages that do not involve anything more advanced than a jeep.
Isn't Zambia doing pretty well for a nigger country?
Oh, right, they don't shit on the whites living there and took in the white farmers Rho...Zimbabwe and South Africa kicked out.
Niggers are too stupid, lazy, and instinctual to do anything beyond forming tribes and operating them.
Central Africa is off limits because if you go there and just get robbed you're lucky you weren't robbed or killed.
And there really aren't that many cars in Africa. Only the pack leaders have them outside of places like cities in Nigeria or Ghana.
To be fair though, that graph is probably very optimistic. The Western world is facing a lot of own problems now (partly because of the aid we provided to Africa) and once we simply can't or don't want to help them anymore they will be ravaged by plagues, famine and internal war.
We pushed them way past a population size they can sustain on their own.
I think the past two years have demonstrated shitty countries can extract tribute out of the west just by threatening to dump their useless populations on us. We'll keep paying for as long as we are unwilling to violently enforce our borders.
But yes, the eventual collapse of Africa is going to be the shit show to end all shit shows.
>That's still 250,000 people under someone who was previously shunned due to their circumstance of birth.
You:
>one nigger 200 years ago conquered a few other nigger villages. Thus Africans are the smartest people on the planet and a superpower in waiting.
Your logic is not like our human logic.
And as long as you don't burn embassies, you won't have to win a real war.
That wasn't my point.
My point was that if well-off Africans can be united on that scale by a simple man, it could happen on a far larger scale today with worse-off Africans and more impressive efforts.
>We'll keep paying for as long as we are unwilling to violently enforce our borders.
Which is quickly approaching. The nationalist parties and candidates that are rising everywhere sure as fuck will not support this shit any longer, and the current establishment is already starting to implement some of their soft demands in an attempt to win back voters.
It won't work so we will inevitably end up at the point where the establishment either becomes indistinguishable from the new parties or gets replaced by them.
Sadly, once they are in power they will probably have to limit freedom of press. Otherwise you will see starving Africans on the front page every single day till the left is back in power.
>And as long as you don't burn embassies, you won't have to win a real war.
You would need to be capable of winning a real war to be even considered as super power candidate though.
Africa is not going to become an economic super power. They might have enough natural resources for that, but they are not smart enough to use them and even if they ever decide to change that the Chinese have their claws in them now.
They will also not be a military super power because their technological development is too far behind.
The only way for them to become a super power is if the developed world nukes itself into a nuclear winter and Africa & Co are the last who are left standing - simply because no one saw them as relevant enough to nuke them, too.
And yet mainstream narrative paints Shaka as a noble hero of the Africans who didndu nuffin and bravely fought and defeated many whiteys. Kek.
Shaka was also killed by his own brothers because Niggers aren't capable of working together long term without corruption, power grabs or otherwise fucking things up.
They wouldn't immediately be capable of winning a real war of course.
But technological development could happen incredibly quickly under the correct circumstances.
Say that a thousand westerners educated in a wide range of topics were remote mentors for ten thousand carefully-picked representatives.
You can quite suddenly have the knowledge of those thousand people in your population; and if any of those representatives speak English, then the knowledge assimilated can be from the friends of mentors too.
A thousand well educated people have a lot of knowledge amongst them, easily enough to figure out a path from literally banging rocks together to building nuclear reactors that doesn't take decades.
And as for how you find those mentors and representatives, that relates back to other ideas I've toyed around with before.
>My point was that if well-off Africans can be united on that scale by a simple man, it could happen on a far larger scale today with worse-off Africans and more impressive efforts.
Your point is retarded. Shaka was not a "simple man". He was a Zulu noble who inherited leadership of his tribe.
He did not "unite well-off Africans". He conquered a small number of neighbouring villages by violence and took their cows.
Maybe if I was black, I'd consider this an achievement too.
Are you sure it wasn't Shaka's fault?
They had cows, they were well off by todays standards.
And I'm aware he united by violence, but it's union nevertheless.
I didn't know he was a noble though, I must have misread my source.
By European standards, Shaka was irrelevant. The average robber-baron in 11th century France achieved more than Shaka did. The average nobleman in 13th century Germany achieved more than Shaka did.
But Shaka is black, so we create a narrative saying that he's a great hero. That's actually sad. Blacks are so devoid of achievement that Shaka Zulu is considered impressive.
>They had cows, they were well off by todays standards.
So now your logic is:
>some early 19th century niggers had a few cows, at a time when Europeans had conquered most of the known world.
>therefore Africans are clever, amazing superheroes who will surely conquer the planet.
Not following you here, son.
>And I'm aware he united by violence, but it's union nevertheless.
No, it's subjugation. And it didn't last. The Zulus lost control of their subject tribes within a decade of Shaka's death; the rest of their "empire" was destroyed fifty years later. That empire consisted of approximately three Zulu villages each of which had a waist-height dry stone wall piled around it to keep cattle in.
Great fucking success.
It's still 250,000 people unified by brute force, for the entire time the conqueror was alive and more.
That's the population of a (very) small country.
If the conquered actually had an incentive to join and stay, as they would now, it could have been many times larger, the population of a country.
If there was intelligent leadership rather than >hurr durr stab people, it could be many times larger still; the scale of a continent.
Which is why I referred to Shaka in the OP.
If Shaka could do it on a small scale with shit leadership and methods and everything holding together only under threat of violence, good leadership and everything holding together because people don't want to starve to death would do it on a continental scale.
You are acting like other countries (example; China) don't have a vested interest in exploiting any chaos in Africa to farm their natural resources and make bank. You would not only be the last person to the Africa bash but the weakest in terms of just about everything of note.
They run it as businesses though.
This. cue the EU
How's teaming up with China going???
>ITT one dumbfuck kiwi who doesn't know how militaries or governments work.
You are a disgrace to Her Majesty.