African Military Systems to 1800 - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

8/8/2019 African Military Systems to 1800 - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

1/28

Kanembu warriors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

African military systems to 1800 refers to the evolution of

military systems on the African continent prior to 1800, with

emphasis on the role of indigenous states and peoples.

Development of the military art generally moved from the

simple to the more sophisticated as economies and cultures became more elaborate. Areas such as Carthage, Egypt and

Nubia are reflected in the antiquarian period. The

pre-colonial period also saw a number of military systems-

from cavalry empires on the grasslands, to kingdoms in

more tropical and forested areas. The emergence of the

gunpowder era, alongside developments in indigenous

organization and culture, was to spark far-reaching

consequences cutting across all regions, with ripple effects

in culture, politics and economies.

All of these patterns form the continuum that is African warfare. Due to the massive number of different peoples

and regions, only major military systems or armies and their development to 1800[1] are covered here- using the

military activities of certain selected peoples or events to illustrate how military systems and innovations have

developed on the continent.

For events of the 19th century see African military systems (1800-1900). Coverage of the 20th century and

beyond is illustrated in African military systems after 1900. For an overall view of the military history of Africa

by region, see Military history of Africa. See individual battles, empires and leaders for details on other military

activities in Africa.

1 Military change and the African environment

2 Antiquity

2.1 The fighting forces of Egypt and Nubia

2.2 Empire of the Northwest: Carthage

2.3 Sudanic fighting forces versus Persian, Roman and Islamic forces

2.3.1 Sudanic forces versus Persian armies2.3.2 Nubian/Kushite forces versus Roman legions

2.3.3 Nubian/Kushite forces versus Arab forces

3 Horses, guns and military transformation

3.1 The coming of the horse

3.2 The coming of the gun

3.2.1 Spearman and bowman versus gunman

4 The cavalry empires of the savannah

an military systems to 1800 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_military_systems

8 11/3/2014


2/28

Environmental factors, indigenousdevelopment, and the flow of outside

technology all influenced the

evolution of military systems. Here,

firearms, spears and bows are shown

co-existing side by side.

4.1 Arms, equipment and weaponry

4.2 Leadership, organization and tactics

5 The infantry kingdoms

5.1 Arms, equipment and weaponry

5.2 Organization and tactics

5.3 Fortifications

6 Three examples of systems or events prior to 1800

6.1 The gunmen of Morocco versus the Songhay

6.2 Indigenous development and change: the legions of Benin

6.3 The warrior hosts of Kongo

7 Naval warfare

7.1 Carthage

7.2 Egypt

7.3 Somalia

7.4 West Africa

8 Summary

9 See also

10 References

11 Bibliography

Large parts of the African continent lack the advantages other continents

have in facilitating the spread of ideas, materials and technology.

Europe's East-West axis, for example, facilitated the spread of animals

like horses, and important food crops like wheat. Over time, it also

benefited from a number innovations originating elsewhere, such as

gunpowder, printing and the compass. Ability to leverage resources like

the mass requisitioning or availability of grain supplies for example,

were critical for the deployment of large armies over an extended period.

As historian John Thornton notes, the environment determined the type

of military deployed by African states.[2]

Such observations on theAfrican environment also appear in several standard histories on African

cultures and economies, including the development of states and their

militaries.[3] The African environment, especially in the Saharan region

and southwards, also hinders development of certain economic and

technological engines critical to large-scale military operations. These

barriers include:

The tsetse fly disease belt- which decimates horses, people and load-bearing animals,

Lack of navigable rivers and good natural harbors- hindering timely movement of technology, men and


8 11/3/2014


3/28

material, and

Poor soils that cannot produce grains such as wheat or rice in significant quantities—the staples of the

mass armies of Europe and Asia.

All of these factors impact huge swathes of Africa, with corresponding effects on indigenous military systems

and the numbers available for battle.[3] As one historian puts it:

".. the scale of warfare in Africa in modern times has been modest compared to other continents.

Even if there had not been a technological gap between African and European armies, or a pressing

need for European troops elsewhere, it would rarely have been necessary to send large armies to

Africa. The "savage hordes" of popular lore seldom materialized on African battlefields. Because of

its 'exceptionally hostile environment, its ancient rocks, poor soils, fickle rainfall, abundant insects,

and unique prevalence of disease', Africa remained 'an under populated continent until the late

twentieth century'.

Few African states in the late nineteenth century were capable of fielding armies even remotely as

large as those routinely assembled for war in Europe, and the same conditions that kept African

populations small also militated against deployment of large European armies in Africa. As oneBritish military historian has put it, there were 'no agricultural revolutions here [in Africa] to allow

large-scale requisitioning".[4]

This environment, however, did not prevent the development of elaborate and sophisticated civilizations and

states on the continent, although it was to impact its military systems, just as other environments elsewhere in

the world shaped local and regional cultures. Military innovation and change in Africa also reflects the internal

dynamism of the continent's peoples, political organization and culture. Like other regions of the world, this

pattern sometimes proceeded in both revolutionary and incremental fashion.[5]

Lack of written records from ancient times on Africa hinder understanding of early developments. The empires

of Egypt and Carthage however, illustrate the growth of indigenous military systems on the continent. Both

peoples drew massive amounts of fighting men and resources from African soil, and their leaders and

populations were born on that soil. They also show the effects of innovation and transformation in the

antiquarian era, including the process of copying and borrowing between cultures.

The fighting forces of Egypt and Nubia

Ancient Egyptian warfare shows a progression from the simple to the more complex as Egypt's culture and

material civilization developed. Indigenous developments were at times supplemented by important innovations

from outside sources. These strands of growth were further refined internally into what was to become a

formidable war-machine. In the Old Kingdom, weapons ranged from simple bows and arrows with stone and

copper arrowheads, to spears, daggers and copper axes for close-in fighting. Tactics, in terms of maneuvering

large bodies of men appear fairly basic. As in other parts of Africa, archers generally opened the battle, followed

by masses of infantry in a general hand-to hand engagement.[6] Such methods, however, did unify the territory,

ushering in the era of the dynasties under hegemons from the south.


8 11/3/2014


4/28

Powerful fortifications like this one

were built to guard against invasion

and rebellion in Nubia, and control

the area's rich resources, particularly

gold. Some walls measured 24 feet

thick, and were garrisoned by both

Nubians and Egyptians over the span

of history.

During the Middle Kingdom military sophistication and strength

continued to expand.[7] Well-organized expeditions into Nubia were

conducted, and a number of fortresses were built to control Nubian

territory, such as the works at Buhen. Deep ditches surrounded some of

these fortifications, with walls up to 24 feet thick, creating strong bases

against rebellion or invasion. Recruiting quotas were assigned on a

regional basis and designated scribes drafted soldiers as needed for the

armies of the state. Striking forces were still primarily infantry-based,

and tactics did not change drastically from previous eras. A key role in

the strengthening of Egyptian forces was played by infantrymen from

Nubia, both as spearmen and archers. Parts of Nubia were renowned for

such fighting men, and indeed a part of the Nubian territory was called

Ta-Seti or Land of the Bow by the Egyptians. The Egyptians and Nubians

were ethnically the closest in the region, frequently exchanging people,

genes, resources and culture over several centuries, and occasionally

engaging one another in military conflict.[8] Nubian fighting men were

also sought as mercenaries by various kingdoms of Southwest Asia,

according to the Amarna letters.

Over the centuries, archers and spearmen plied their trade in the Egyptian forces, and rendered good service

against such foreign enemies such as the Hyksos. They also served in an internal security, policing role within

Egypt itself, both in Upper Egypt, adjoining Nubia and further north. Egyptian officials frequently requested the

services of such men, particularly the archers, or pitati, to provide security and defense.[9] Such activity,

however, was not always one way. While Egypt conquered large parts of Nubia at various times, the Kushite

25th Dynasty, originating in Nubia, was to conquer Egypt itself, drawing upon the archery skills of the region's

bowmen. One ancient inscription by Weni the Elder , a royal court official and army commander states a

recruitment of thousands of Nubian troops:[10]

"When his majesty took action against the Asiatic sand-dwellers, his majesty made an army of many tens

of thousands from all of Upper Egypt: ...; from Lower Egypt: ...; and from Irtjet-Nubians, Medja-Nubians,

Yam-Nubians, Wawat-Nubians, Kaau-Nubians; and from Tjemeh-land."

Mercenary soldiers had fairly high status: Egyptian wives and servants are documented for Nubian mercenaries

at Gebelein in the First Intermediate Period, and mercenaries were sometimes important in the dissemination of

weapons and techniques of warfare, and advanced weapons such as the composite bow. Morkot (2003) notes a

dissemination of war technology across the Nile Valley. "Nubia, too, must have benefited from the international

arms trade. Although battle scenes show Nubian enemies conventionally as bowmen with relatively little

equipment, other sources show the use of chariots by the elite, and the "tribute" scenes show weaponry and

armor that was manufactured in Nubia... the inclusion of chariots as part of the Kushite tribute to Egypt

suggests that they, too, were eventually being manufactured in Nubia itself".[11]

Egyptian arms were sometimes sorely pressed by another great power of the Nile Valley, the kingdom of Kush,

in what is now the northern Sudan. The Kushites almost destroyed Egypt as early as the 17th Dynasty era (circa

1575–1550 BC) according to a 2003 report by Egyptologists of the British Museum, deciphering inscriptions in

the tomb of Sobeknakht, a Governor of El Kab, an important provincial capital during the latter part of the 17th

Dynasty. According to V. Davies, Director of the Department of Ancient Egypt and the Sudan: “[Kush] swept

over the mountains, over the Nile, without limit.. Had they stayed to occupy Egypt, the Kushites might have

eliminated it. That’s how close Egypt came to extinction. But the Egyptians were resilient enough to survive,

and shortly afterwards inaugurated the great imperial age known as the New Kingdom. The Kushites weren’t


8 11/3/2014


5/28

Chariots used two men- a driver and assault trooper

armed with bows and javelins. Infantry forces

maneuvered behind the chariots, ready for

follow-on attacks once the enemy had been

softened up.

interested in occupation. They went raiding for precious objects, a symbol of domination. They did a lot of

damage.”[12] As the Dynastic civilization grew, Egyptian arms were to also expand into nearby territory of the

Philistines, and Nubian and Egyptian fighting men helped establish camps and way stations in northern Sinai,

and settlements in southern Philistine tribal lands.[13]

The conquest of Egypt by the Semitic Hyksos was to usher in significant changes. Hyksos technology was

superior to that of the Egyptians, including more durable weapons of bronze (rather than the weaker copper),

body armor, scimitars, and most devastatingly, the horse drawn chariot.[6]

The Egyptians suffered defeat and theHyksos era saw a century of foreign rule beginning in 1640BC although the Egyptians still retained control of

southern or Upper Egypt. Mobilization of traditional weapons and fighting units reversed the Hyskos triumph

including the campaigns of Seqenenre Tao (who died as a result of combat or capture) and the decisive military

initiatives of his son and successor Kamose, which rolled back the Hyksos northward, and ravaged a merchant

fleet beneath the walls of their capital Avaris. Building upon these successes, the final conquest of the Hyksos

was completed by Ahmose I, who ushered in the 18th Dynasty, and the New Kingdom. While traditional forces

defeated the Hyksos, two new weapons traceable to Hyksos influence- the composite bow and the chariot appear

for the first time in widespread use of the Egyptian Army, and the Egyptians quickly adapted these, as the New

Kingdom gained in power.[14] This period saw new heights in Egyptian military sophistication and prowess.

Recruitment methods were refined. Central armories were established that issued standardized bows, quivers,

shields and spears to troops. Under the Pharaoh Ahmose I, well-organized and intense training was carried out,including archery practice and instruction on the proper handling and use of the chariots.[6] Along with chariots,

the more powerful and lethal composite bow was increasingly adopted. Documentation from the tomb of a

Nubian royal official called Maiherpri from the 18th Dynasty shows that Nubian troops maintained their

reputation for archery into this period. Armed even in death, the Nubian's funerary equipment includes arrows,

bows, quivers and leather wrist guards.[15] Units of other peoples such as Syrians, Libyans and Medjay also

were incorporated into the Egyptian forces. These developments set the stage for the expulsion of the Hyksos

and the re-conquest of territory. Ahmose's anti-Hyksos strategy also shows a new sophistication. He first cut

Hyksos lines of communication between their base at Avaris and Canaan by taking the city of Tjaru. With this in

hand he began a squeeze on Avaris, taking the city after 4 attacks. Further campaigning in Gaza put paid to

Hyksos hegemony in Egypt permanently.[16]

The campaigns of Pharaoh Thutmose III continued Egypt's

great military rise. Infantry formations were better trained,

led and armed. They were usually organized into basic

sub-units of 50 fighters, progressing to divisions of around

5,000 men. Archers were better integrated with footmen.

The chariot arm was expanded, and generally reserved for

the nobility. Each vehicle carried two men, a driver

maneuvered while carrying a huge shield to protect himself

and his partner, an assault trooper armed with a powerful

composite bow and bronze-tipped arrows providedfirepower and a dozen javelins were also carried on board

the chariot for close-range work. Behind the chariots came

the infantry – solid ranks of spearmen and archers. The

archers took the enemy under fire to open combat, while the

chariot teams maneuvered around the flanks or across the

enemy front. The chariots usually engaged in stand-off battle

with arrows against opposing chariots or infantry, or could

carry out shock attacks against vulnerable points of the enemy formation. The infantry meanwhile advanced

behind, ready to make follow-on attacks, or providing a solid line of defense behind which the chariots could


8 11/3/2014


6/28

Rome's determination to defeat Carthage on itshome ground saw invasions of Africa in both the

First and Second Punic Wars. Carthage's "mixed"

system drew contingents from many sources,

including special troops of war elephants.

regroup if they ran into problems.[7]

The operations of the Pharaoh Thutmose III gives evidence of Egyptian sophistication. At the Battle of

Megiddo, in present day Jordan, Syrian troops deployed in front of the city. Thutmose first sent the left wing of

his force northwest of Megiddo, to cut off the Syrian line of retreat. He redeployed his right wing south of the

city, and concentrated his powerful strike force of chariots, over 1,000 of them in the center. The chariots

smashed the right flank of the Syrian formation and the Egyptian infantry, coming up fast, waded into the fray

with javelin, sword and battle-axe. The Syrians army crumbled. Such successes were to continue as the

improved Egyptian forces grew in power and influence throughout the region. The rise of Persia saw the

conquest of the Egyptian state and the end of its independent military activity, however Egyptian forces still

continued to make their mark as part of the Persian army, and even saw action against Alexander the Great at

Issus, circa 333BC.[17]

Empire of the Northwest: Carthage

The "mixed" Carthaginian military system. Situated in modern day Tunisia, Carthage's empire drew heavily

from the region, particularly Libyan infantry and Numidian cavalry. The Carthaginian military system was a

"mixed" one – armies were made up of contingents drawn from various tribes and nations. Phoenicians, and a

mixed population of Libyans and Phoenicians, called Liby-Phoenicians by the Greeks made up the privilegedclasses of the city.[18] The most reliable troops were Libyan, primarily heavy infantry but with some light

skirmishers and cavalry. The best light-cavalry was provided by the tribes of Numidia. To this were added other

subject or allied contingents and mercenaries from Iberia, Sicily, Greece and Italy. If serving for extended

periods under competent commanders such as Hamilcar, Hasdrubal and Hannibal, such "mixed" forces

performed well. Coordination, command and control however tended to be less effective than in the more

standardized Roman system.[18] A similar "mixed" format can be observed in some eras of Egyptian military

history with contingents from Libya, Syria, Nubia and other parts joining native Egyptians to fill out the ranks o

Pharaoh's army.

Early victories against Rome in Africa. In the First Punic

War, the Roman general Marcus Atilius Regulus decided to

bring the campaign directly to African soil, hoping to crush

Carthage right in its own ground (256–255 BC). Regulus'

invasion proceeded well in the initial stages, and soon the

legions overran Tunis, using it as a base to mount raids

against the city itself. Carthage rejected harsh peace terms

by Regulus, and reformed its army, adding fresh contingents,

including Greeks, native levies, and the veteran troops of

Hamilcar's Sicilian campaign.[18] Of note is the employment

of the Spartan commander Xanthippus who tightened up

organization, and instituted rigorous drill before the walls of the city. On the day of decision, about 100 war-elephants

were also mobilized for action. The Carthaginian formation

placed native levies in the center, and mercenary forces on

the right. Cavalry was split between the wings. The

elephants formed a shock force in the vanguard. In response,

Regulus seemed to have deepened his formation, but he was

heavily outnumbered by Carthaginian horse. Xanthippus ordered the war-elephants to charge, and they wreaked

havoc on the legion front line. Roman cavalry was also routed, and the Carthaginian horsemen returned to attack

the flanks and rear of the infantry. Almost the entire Roman force was destroyed in the battle, although some


8 11/3/2014


7/28

Genesis of the Sudanic bowmen - Nubian archers- from Asiut, c.

2000 BC. Most bows were one-piece, between 6 and 7 feet in length,with draw strengths often requiring pull back with the feet. Arrows

were sometimes poisoned.

2,000 men fought their way to safety.[18] In this first major land victory against Rome by Carthage, sometimes

referred to as the Battle of Tunis, the "mixed" approach of the North African city brought victory. A second

encounter on African soil was not to go so favorably.

War in Africa – the Second Punic War at Zama. In the Second Punic War, Rome realized again that it had to

strike at and defeat Carthage in its own homeland. Under Scipio Africanus, Roman forces did do it convincingly

with significant aid by the horsemen of Numidia under Masinissa. The patchwork of both African-based and

other forces available to Hannibal at Zama was a far cry from what he had enjoyed in Italy. He lacked both the

devastating Numidian cavalry arm and the hardcore Libyan infantry that aided him at Cannae. Most of the best

horsemen were in the employ of Rome, under Masinissa, and what was left was outnumbered and relatively

inexperienced. He was also forced to do battle with a relatively uncoordinated blend of Gallic and Spanish

mercenary troops, local African levies, and the remaining battle-hardened veterans of the Italian campaign.

Based on these weaknesses, Hannibal's deployment at Zama had much to recommend it, particularly in view of

his lack of cavalry.[19] His force was divided into three separate echelons- mercenaries in the first line, native

levies in the second, and the old guard, the veterans of Italy (a mix of African, Gallic, Italic and Spanish fighting

men) in the third. War-elephants would open the charge as in the first African land victory. Roman adjustments

however neutralized the elephant charge, and the battle came down to a close-fought, bitter struggle between the

veterans and the Roman infantry. The return of Numidian cavalry to crash into his rear doomed Hannibal's force.

Rome would put an end to the Carthaginian military system and become the new power in Africa.[19]

Sudanic fighting forces versus Persian, Roman and Islamic forces

Foreign invasions (Assyrians, Greeks,

Romans and Arabs) were to bring an end to

the great dynastic era of Egypt. However the

prowess of the Sudanic infantry (variously

known in writings as 'Kushites', 'Ethiopians',

'Nubians', 'Napthans' or 'Meroeites'), still

made a distinctive mark in the region, and

beyond, especially the archers. Several

strong polities arose in the southern Nile

Valley after the decline of the pharaonic

period, ushering in the eras of Kush,

Christian Nubia and other smaller groupings.

Besides a process of internal conflict,

fighting men from this region were to clash

with several major external enemies - the

legions of Rome, the armies of Persia, and

the forces of expansionist Islam.

Bowmen were the most important force

component. Ancient sources indicate that the

Sudanic archers favored one-piece bows that

were between six and seven feet long, with

so powerful a draw strength that many of the archers used their feet to bend their bows. Although composite

types saw some use, the Greek historian Herodotus (circa 450-420BC) indicates primary bow construction was

of seasoned palm wood, with the arrows made of cane. Other sources describe intense encounters between

African archers and a variety of enemies. Such fighting men were not an uncommon sight on battlefields or

royal courts throughout the Mediterranean and Middle East.[20] There is some indication that the arrows of


8 11/3/2014


8/28

Sudanic bowmen (including those fighting Rome) were often poison-tipped, a technique used elsewhere by

Africa's archers, well into the 19th century. Among the Meriotic forces facing Rome, elephants were still

occasionally used in war. Later Sudanic based forces like the Blemmye also deployed horses and camels for

their raids over the Egyptian frontier, and the poisoned arrow tactics of their predecessors found ready

employment.[21]

Sudanic forces versus Persian armies

The Persian Cambyses II invasion of Egypt (circa 525 BC) yielded a decisive victory at the battle of Pelusium,

routing Egyptian forces, capturing Memphis and taking the Egyptian ruler Psammetichus captive. These rapid

Persian successes however stalled when Cambyses moved further south to attack the Kingdom of Kush.

Logistical difficulties in crossing desert terrain were compounded by the fierce response of the Kushite armies,

particularly accurate volleys of archery that not only decimated Persian ranks, but targeted the eyes of individual

Persian warriors. One historical source notes:

"So from the battlements as though on the walls of a citadel, the archers kept up with a continual

discharge of well aimed shafts, so dense that the Persians had the sensation of a cloud descending upon

them, especially when the Ethiopians made their enemies; eyes the targets.. SO unerring was their aimthat those who they pierced with their shafts rushed about wildly in the throngs with the arrows projecting

from their eyes like double flutes." [20]

One Kushite ruler is recorded as taunting Persian spies with the gift of a bow, inviting the Persian armies to

return when they found strength enough to draw the weapon.[22] Stymied by the Kushites, the Persians were

forced to withdraw in failure.[23]

Nubian/Kushite forces versus Roman legions

The Roman conquest of Egypt put it on a collision course with the Sudanic powers of the southern regions. In 20

BC, Kushites under their queen or Candace, invaded Egypt with some 30,000 troops. Kushite forces were

mostly infantry and their armament consisted of bows about 4 cubits long, shields of rawhide, and hatchets,

pikes and swords.[24] The Kushites penetrated as far south as the Aswan area, defeating three Roman cohorts,

conquering Syene, Elephantine and Philae, and overthrowing recently erected bronze statutes of Augustus

erected there. The head of one of these Augustian statutes was carried off to Meroe as a trophy, and buried under

a temple threshold of the Candace Amanirenas, to commemorate the Kushite victory, and symbolically tread on

her enemies.[25] A year later, Rome dispatched troops under Publius Petronius to confront the Kushites, with the

Romans repulsing a poorly armed Meroitic force at Pselchis.[26] Strabo reports that Petronius continued to

advance- taking Premnis and then the Kushite capital of Napta, but a number of modern historians dispute the

latter claim, since archaeological evidence is thin beyond the point of Sara.[27] Whatever the actual limit of Roman success however, Petronius deemed the roadless country beyond unsuitable for further operations. He

pulled back to Premnis, strengthening its fortifications, and leaving a garrison in place.[28] This did not settle

hostilities however for a Kushite resurgence occurred just three years later, with strong reinforcements of

African troops from further south. Kushite pressure now once more advanced with an attack on Premnis under

their Candace Amanirenas. The Romans repulsed this initiative and dispatched more troops to reinforce the

city.[29]

A decisive clash did not take place however but negotiations instead- suggesting a political decision, or military

necessity brought on by a stalemate- with final outcomes that saw major concessions being granted to an enemy


8 11/3/2014


9/28

of Rome.[30] The Meroitic diplomats were invited to confer with the Roman emperor himself on the Greek

island of Samos where he was headquartered temporarily. That the Kushites did not appear as beaten supplicants

is suggested by the aggressive message brought to the Romans by the envoys of Meroe. A bundle of golden

arrows was presented with the envoys reputedly saying: "The Candace sends you these arrows. If you want

eace, they are a token of her friendship and warmth. If you want war, you are going to need them." [31] Roman

interests appeared focused on maintaining a quiet southern border in Egypt, and during negotiations they

eventually ceded Qasr Ibrim [and areas north of Qasr Ibrim in the southern portion of the "Thirty-Mile Strip"] to

the Kushites ca. 22–21 BC, signing a peace treaty with the latter on Samos. The treaty absolved the Kushites of paying any tribute to Rome, and made the buffer zone off-limits to Roman troops.[32] Roman emperor Augustus

marked the agreement by directing his administrators tocollaborate with local priests in the erection of a temple

at Dendur.[33]

Nubian/Kushite forces versus Arab forces

The third major opponent to confront the fighting men of Nubia was the Arabs, who had overrun Egypt and

large parts of the Mideast. For almost 600 years, the powerful bowmen of the region created a barrier for

Muslim expansion into the northeast of the African continent, fighting off multiple invasions and assaults with

stinging swarms of arrows. One modern historian (Ayalon 2000) likens Nubian resistance to that of a dam,

holding back the Muslim tide for several centuries.[34] According to Ayalon:

The absolutely unambiguous evidence and unanimous agreement of the early Muslim sources is that the

Arabs abrupt stop was caused solely and exclusively by the superb military resistance of the Christian

Nubians. .. the Nubian Dam. The array of those early sources includes the two most important chronicles

of early Islam, al-Tabari (d. 926) and al-Yaqubi (d. 905); the two best extant books on the Muslim

conquests, al-Baladhuri (d. 892) and Ibn al-A tham al-Kufi (d. 926); the most central encyclopedic work

of al-Masudi (d.956); and the two best early sources dedicated specifically to Egypt, Ibn Abd al-Hakim (d.

871) and al-Kindi (961).. All of the above-cited sources attribute Nubian success to their superb archery..

To this central factor should be added the combination of the Nubians' military prowess and Christian

zeal; their acquaintance of the terrain; the narrowness of the front line that theuy had to defend; and,

quite possibly, the series of cataracts situated at their back, and other natural obstacles.. The Nubians

fought the Muslims very fiercely. When they encountered them they showered them with arrows, until all o

they were wounded and they withdrew with many wounds and gouged eyes. Therefore they were called

"the marksmen of the eye." [34]

Yet another notes:

The awe and respect that the Muslims had for their Nubian adversaries are reflected in the fact that even a

rather late Umayyad caliph, Umar b Abd al- Aziz (Umar II 717-720), is said to have ratified the Nubian-

Muslim treaty out of fear for the safety of the Muslims (he ratified the peace treaty out of consideration for

the Muslims and out of [a desire] to spare their lives..[35]

The Nubians constituted an "African front" that barred Islam's spread, along with others in Central Asia, India

and the Anatolian/Mediterranean zone. Whereas the Islamic military expansion began with swift conquests

across Byzantium, Central Asia, the Maghrib and Spain, such quick triumphs foundered at the Sudanic


8 11/3/2014


10/28

Despite their tactical advantages,

horses were often expensive to

acquire and maintain, and suffered

from the disease carrying tsetse fly.

barrier.[36] Internal divisions, along with infiltration by nomads were to weaken the "Nubian dam" however and

eventually it gave way to Muslim expansion from Egypt and elsewhere in the region.

The pre-gunpowder era spans the long centuries from the start of medieval times to the beginnings of Arab and

European expansion in the 16th and 17th centuries. Warfare ranged from minor raiding to major campaigns, and

saw the full set of missile, cutting and thrusting weapons used elsewhere in warfare. Added to these werearchery weapons- like the bows and poisoned arrows of the Ndongo, Fulani or Mossi. Defensive positions ran

the gamut- from imposing castles, to field fortifications with trenches and ramparts. Changes in methods and

organization accompanied innovations in weaponry. Both infantry and cavalry forces were well represented on

the African continent in the pre-colonial era, and the introduction of both horses and guns in large numbers was

to have important implications for military systems.[37]

The coming of the horse

Importance of the horse. "Ethiopian" archers of West Africa are

mentioned by Strabo, circa 1 AD, and appear frequently in Arab accountsof the region in later centuries. The primacy of such warriors, together

with those who wielded the spear, was challenged by the coming of

horses, increasingly introduced around the 14th century to the flat

country of the Sahel and Saharan regions, and the savannahs of northern

West Africa.[38] Lances, stirrups and saddles were to accompany horses,

giving the mounted warrior a significant advantage over the lumbering

footman. Several cavalry-dominated polities were to emerge in the

savannah regions, including Mali, Songhai, Oyo, Bornu and others.

Horse imports surpassed local breeding in several areas, and were to

remain important through the centuries. Accounts of the empire of Mali

mention saddles and stirrups. These made new tactics possible, such asmass charges with thrusting spear and swords. Armor also developed, to

protect both the cavalryman and his mount, including iron helmets and chain mail.[38] Some British historians

speculate that one of the personages responsible for such innovations on a wide scale was the famous Mansa

Musa, emperor of Mali, who is documented as taking several steps to incorporate Mali more fully into Islamic

civilization. During his pilgrimage to Mecca in 1324, the Sultan of Egypt specifically presented him with

numerous horses, all equipped with saddles and bridles. The rise of cavalry did not totally displace the archers

and spearmen of West Africa. The two arms sometimes worked side by side.[38]

Limitations of the horse. There were serious limitations to the spread of the horse in warfare however, as

opposed to their use for ceremonial purposes. Horse breeding and maintenance was difficult and restricted inmany parts of West and Central Africa due to the tsetse fly induced sleeping sickness disease that struck both

man and beast; heavy imports were a practical necessity, especially the larger breeds. States like Dagoma in

northern Ghana, Nupe and the Yoruba kingdom of Oyo in Nigeria were very dependent on imports of horses,

usually financed by the sale of slaves. As in medieval Europe, maintaining cavalry forces was also more

expensive, requiring armor, saddlery, stables, trappings, and extra remounts. Disruption of imports on trade

routes could reduce the horse supply. The absence of relatively flat terrain also made cavalry more difficult to

deploy. The Oyo for example, had relatively little success in thick forested areas during an ineffective invasion

of Nigeria in the 17th century. Horses also had to be fed and maintained, a pressing logistical burden for large

formations. Indeed, fighting horses in West African states were often kept in stables and fed there, rather than


28 11/3/2014


11/28

Many military systems blended guns

with traditional warfare styles.

Unusual formations included corps of female warriors- the Amazons of

Dahomey.

being put out to graze in the open where the tsetse fly might whittle down their numbers.[38] In Oyo, large

numbers of slaves were kept to maintain horses, hauling fodder and water to the stables, and accompanying the

cavalry forces as support troops. Their introduction thus had a varying impact in many areas, but nevertheless

the horse transformed African warfare in significant ways.[38]

The coming of the gun

Importance of guns. Guns were to have an important effect on Africanmilitary systems. Rising quantities of guns are associated with increases

in the slave trade, as major powers such as Dahomey, Benin and Ashanti

stepped up their conquests to feed the insatiable demand for human

bodies. Guns were the single most important item traded to Africans in

the decades prior to 1800, usually paid for in gold or slaves.[39] Some

historians argue that the introduction of firearms had an enormous impact

on slave gathering in Africa. Flintlocks, which were more reliable than

matchlocks, sparked the first big wave of gun sales, and obsolete

smoothbore muskets of this type were being exported to Africa even into

the 19th century. The psychological impact of guns in the night and dawn

attacks favored by slave raiders was significant, and in slave-catching,

flintlocks could also be loaded with shot, wounding and crippling victims

rather than killing them outright. The connection between the gun trade

and the slave trade is described by the Dutch Director-General at Elmina

in 1730:

"The great quantity of guns and powder which the Europeans have

brought have caused terrible wars between the Kings and Princes

and Caboceers of these lands, who made their prisoners of war

slaves; these slaves were immediately bought up by Europeans at

steadily increasing prices, which in turn, animates again and again

these people to renew their facilities, and their hope of gain and

easy profits makes them forget all about, using all sorts of pretexts

to attack each other for reviving old disputes."[39]

The Dutch themselves were exporting over 20,000 tons of gunpowder every year along the Gold Coast by 1700.

All along the region, English, French and other traders competed hard with each other to supply their African

customers. By the mid-18th century some 400,000 guns were being exported annually to Africa.[39] Some

historians caution against seeing the slave trade or wars on the continent as primarily slave-collecting activity

instigated by firearms, noting that African tribes, kingdoms and states had long-standing rivalries and conflictseven before the introduction of gunpowder weapons, or the appearance of Europeans.[40]

Limitations of guns. While firearms were to have a profound impact, this impact was not uniformly

revolutionary or even transformational in all areas.[41] Guns did not quickly displace native arms and

organization across the board. Responses were mixed- from outright rejection, to a mix of spear and musket side

by side on the battlefield. The guns introduced into Africa were often lower quality, inaccurate, slow-firing

varieties. Indeed it was standard practice by European merchants and government officials to ship defective

firearms to West Africa. In 1719 for example, it was estimated that only 4 out of every 50 trade guns were

serviceable at Cape Coast Castle, and in 1736, one Danish official on the West Coast complained to his masters


28 11/3/2014


12/28

in Copenhagen about the large number of carbines that burst on being fired, hurting his credibility with local

chiefs and traders. On the Slave Coast, 18th century records show the King of Dahomey complaining to the

English about guns that burst when fired.[41] Little change in official policy occurred however, and trading

monopolies and colonial regimes made strenuous attempt to regulate or keep out independent "rogue" traders.

Competition between the Dutch, English, French and other powers was also fierce, sometimes leading to better

arms, but sometimes causing cuts in quality to maintain slim profit margins.[39] In short, firearms were by no

means a guarantee of success in warfare in Africa, until the late 19th century's rifles, rockets, artillery and

Maxim/Gatling guns.[41]

Spearman and bowman versus gunman

The history of the Angolan region offers instructive detail on the advantages and limitations of firearms, as well

as a comparison of African versus European systems. Portuguese troops often turned in excellent performances,

but written sources sometimes exaggerate the number of native enemies defeated, giving a misleading picture of

the military situation. One source for example claims opposing armies of over one million African enemy

troops, a highly dubious figure according to some modern historians.[42] It is clear that firearms conferred an

undoubted tactical advantage both in African and European battlefields,[43] but such success was influenced by

other factors such as terrain, weather, morale and the enemy response. The record is mixed. Using time,organization and superior numbers, indigenous forces sometimes neutralized or defeated troops with firearms.[42][44] In the Zambezi basin in 1572 for example, a 600-man force of Portuguese arquebusiers, supplemented

with cannon, formed a disciplined square, and defeated several thousand Africans armed with bows, spears and

axes. Portuguese gains from the encounter however amounted to little less than 50 cows when the smoke

cleared, and their mission to control the gold mines of Mwene Mutapa failed. Indeed they were forced to pay

tribute to the native Mutapa state in return for the right to limited mining.[42]

When the whole record is analyzed, gun-armed European troops met defeat on several occasion by charging

spearmen or African infantry using poisoned arrows.[44] In 1684 for example, the spearmen and bowmen of

Changamire Dombo met the Portuguese in open combat at Mahungwe. Firearms inflicted heavy casualties on

the African force, but the prolonged battle stretched into the darkness and night attacks forced a Portuguese

withdrawal. In the 1690s Dombo's forces returned to achieve victory in a fast-moving campaign that expelled

the Portuguese from all their settlements on the Zimbabwe plateau. This triumph effectively terminated the

future presence of the Portuguese in the area, cutting them off from the gold mines. Overall, Portugal's foothold

in the region was to remain tenuous for at least two centuries.[42] These and other incidents illustrate both the

power and limitations of firearms in African military systems. The later observations of Zulu King Chaka on the

efficacy of firearms versus African alternatives were thus not unreasonable. It should be noted however that

several of the Angolan kingdoms integrated a mix of gunmen with their indigenous fighting forces, adding to the

diversity of arrangements for combat.[44] This integration of new technology with existing systems is similar to

the pike-musket-crossbow combinations seen when firearms were introduced to European battlefields.[43]

Contrary to popular Western impressions, sub-Saharan Africa did produce significant cavalry forces where the

environment permitted it. The savannahs of Western Africa in particular (Guinea, Gambia, Senegal, Niger etc.)

and its borderlands into the Sahara and Sahel saw the development of several powerful cavalry-based states that

dominated the region for centuries.[45] Where the tsetse fly was not strong, and the terrain was favorable, the

mounted horseman came into his own, and emerged as the true aristocracy of the savannah. As they did further

north in Carthage, Egypt and Libya, the introduction of the horse, (and to some extent the camel in desert areas)


28 11/3/2014


13/28

Relying heavily on cavalry but

incorporating infantry as well, the

savannah empires dominated large

parts of West Africa for centuries.

had a transformational effect on African warfare.

Arms, equipment and weaponry

Cavalry weapons and armor. Among the Fulani-Hausa armies of

Sokoto, both horse and rider were shielded. The horse was generally

covered by quilted cotton, stuffed with kapok fiber, and its rider

generally rode into battle with finely wrought chain mail, or heavy

quilted armor. The chain mail armor showed similarities to Mameluke

design, but the quilting combined local invention with religious

inspiration. Local armorers sew tightly rolled wads of paper inscribed

with Quranic verses into the layers of cotton, and kapok. Whatever their

spiritual powers, they could often blunt sword cuts, but were less

effective against arrows.[37] Body armor was supplemented by reinforced

leather helmets, and tough shields of elephant or hippo hide. Horse

stirrups often made effective weapons in a close fought melee, disemboweling enemy mounts and wounding

enemy infantry.

The hand weapons of the Sudanic cavalry were the sword, lance, battle-axe and broad-bladed spear. Throwingavelins, a weapon used by the Numidian horsemen of Hannibal in antiquity, also saw service, particularly in the

Senegal and Niger valleys. Quivers holding 10–20 of these weapons were used with such speed and skill that at

least one 17th-century account compares them favorably to firearms.[46] Among the Mossi, horseman wore as

many clothes as possible to protect against enemy arrows. Four or five tunics, reinforced by leather and various

magical or religious charms made up his armor. Horses were protected with large pieces of leather, with a large

front piece of copper for the horse's head. Traditional village groups- commoners – were perennial prey for the

Mossi, and they often defended themselves by strengthening village fortifications. Blacksmiths made arrows,

spears and other weapons from iron mined and smelted in Mossi country. The Mossi sometimes tipped their

cavalry lances with the same poison used by archers.

Leadership, organization and tactics

On suitable terrain, the fast-moving horseman was the dominant force.

When infantry operated on ground less favorable to cavalry however, and

deployed firearms or disciplined archery, the mounted man was not as

effective. Cavalry tactics were varied based on the mix of mounted and

foot troops on hand for an operation. Infantry forces were usually larger,

and the typical order of battle was a mass of infantry levies armed with

hide shields, arrows, bows and spears, and a higher status mounted

formation. Cavalry relied heavily on missile action, usually casting

javelins in one or two passes, before closing in with lances for shock action. The infantry provided a steadying force if they could mass

compactly enough to stand against cavalry charges. Raiding type tactics were standard, particularly in acquiring

captives for sale. Generally the savanna cavalries used a "combined arms" approach, seldom operating without

supporting infantry.[47]

Military operations of the savannah empires can be illustrated by the Mossi.[48] Men of noble birth dominated

the mounted units, and commoners were relegated to auxiliary foot formations. The main striking power of the

Mossi forces rested in the cavalry, with the typical unit made up of 10 to 15 horsemen. The Mossi emperor

delegated supreme command on expeditions to a field commander, or tansoba.


28 11/3/2014


14/28

Poisoned wooden arrows from Central

Africa- about 24 inches long. Hardened by

fire, the needle-sharp heads were smeared

with poison, and carefully wrapped in

leaves. Discharged from 3-foot bows, these

frail-looking but dangerous weapons could

be lethal at short ranges.[49]

Raiding was the most common form of Mossi combat. Informants or scouts would locate a settlement or

caravan. The raiding force took advantage of terrain, screening their approach, and utilizing knowledge of

supply points like watering holes. March order was typically single file, until the target was spotted. The Mossi

horsemen then charged, usually encircling the target, seizing slaves and cattle, and making a quick retreat. In

bigger expeditions, a more formal battle order was taken. Infantry skirmishers, who were usually considered

more expendable, formed a vanguard to engage the enemy. The cavalry next charged, organized into three units,

right, center and left. If the initial infantry attack was unsuccessful, the cavalry might retreat, leaving the infantry

to its own fate, or helping them if so ordered by the force commander.[48]

Other savannah forces had more detailed organization. The Zaberma

Army of the Upper Volta for example was also relied primarily on

cavalry. They forced prisoners – blacksmiths, leatherworkers and

miners to make weapons. About 20% of the army was needed to

supervise this forced labor. Quartermasters and paymasters

accompanied each expedition and tried to keep an accounting of the

booty captured- gold, cattle, slaves and other treasure. After the king

had received the bulk of the booty, the quartermasters redistributed

the rest to the fighting units. Some forces retained religious

specialists, the ulamas to exhort the troops, arbitrate disputes, andregulate punishments.[48]

The Mali Empire deployed both footmen and cavalry, under two

general commands- the North and the South armies. Supreme

command for all forces rested with the ruler, but the northern and

southern army groupings were under two assigned generals.[50]

Cavalry was the elite arm of the force and provided the stable

nucleus of an army that when fully mobilized numbered some

100,000 effectives, spread throughout the empire, between the

northern and southern wings. Ninety percent of these were infantry.

A cavalry force- the farai supervised the infantry, under officerscalled kele-koun. The footmen could be both slaves or freemen, and

were dominated by archers. Three archers to one spearman was the

general ratio of Malian formations in the 16th century. The archers

generally opened a battle, softening up the enemy for cavalry

charges or the advance of the spearmen. Sword and lance were the

weapons of choice in the cavalry forces, sometimes tipped with

poison. A large flotilla of canoes supported army movements on

campaigns.[50] The Songhay, successors of Mali, also illustrate the general pattern, and the importance of

infantry combining with cavalry. In their clash with Moroccans at Tondibi, the Songhay massed footmen in the

center and horsemen on the wings. A cavalry charge by horsemen on both sides provoked a melee, and thedecision came down to the opposing sides of infantry.[51]

Guns and the cavalry. The introduction of guns saw a rise in the quantities and role of infantry within the

savannah empires.[38] Firepower gave the gun-armed footman growing influence, not only as far as bullets

delivered, but the fact that the noise and smoke of muskets could frighten horses in the enemy camp, creating a

tactical advantage; this happened when Asante gunmen confronted the horsemen of Gonja in the 17th

century.[38] The success of the gun-armed Moroccans in the 16th century also illustrates the growing impact of

firearms. As gun quality and volume increased, the cavalry became more at risk, and eventually even some

horsemen began to acquire firearms. The gunpowder era thus saw mixed forces in action throughout the


28 11/3/2014


15/28

Traditional organization relied on as needed call-upof troops rather than standing armies.

savannah empires. If infantry were operating with mounted formations, the musketeers were generally used to

open a battle, and soften up opposing defences for thundering cavalry charges. Traditional weapons still

remained strong in many areas however, both in terms of archers and bowmen, and cavalry.[38] Early

musket-man formations relied on relatively slow-loading, inaccurate weapons, and could be defeated by

fast-moving horsemen. This happened in 1767 when Tuareg cavalry defeated an army of Timbuktu that

deployed Moroccan musketeers. The old weapons thus remained relevant for some time after the coming of

guns, on into the 19th century.[51]

The civilizations of Western and Central tropical Africa

suffered comparative isolation in comparison to areas open

to the wider trade of the Sahara and Mediterranean.

Nevertheless several strong kingdoms and peoples like the

Yoruba, Nupe, Wolof, Hausa, and Ndongo emerged that

were to demonstrate continued evolution in African

warfare.[52] The coming of the gunpowder era was to bring

even more change to this zone, and infantry powers like theAsante, Benin, Dahomey, Oyo, the Igbo states of Nigeria

and the Kongo states of Angola gained new prominence, or

strengthened their local power.

Arms, equipment and weaponry

Traditional weapons – spear, bow and war-club The traditional arms and equipment of the tropical kingdoms

of West, Central and South-Central Africa consisted of the standard cutting, thrusting and smashing weapons.

Spears were less strong than those evolved later in southern Africa under the Zulu, and doubled as throwing and

thrusting implements. The bow and arrow found wide use, with relatively weak bow strength being offset by the

use of poisoned arrows in many areas. Use of bowmen to defend fortifications was significant, and peoples like

the Yoruba sometimes used crossbows for this purpose.[3] Bow strength is reported by many observers as

averaging only approximately 40 pounds at full draw, although simple one-piece bows with some of the largest

draw-weights in the world are reported from Kenya – 130 lbs compared to 80 lbs for a typical medieval

European longbow.[53] The use of poisoned arrows from the West African plant, Strophantus hispidus and other

sources however, helped rectify the shortcoming in the weaker African bows, and bowmen were skilled at

delivering a large volume of shafts.[3] Among tribes such as the Marka poisoned arrows were about 1 ft long,

tipped with iron and poison, and unfeathered. Archers generally carried quivers filled with 40–50 arrows each.

Volume could be heavy, with some men firing two arrows at a time. Volume made up for the lack of accuracy

with the unfeathered arrows. Resupply arrangements were not well articulated and an archer exhausting his

quiver generally withdrew from the field.[48] Although cavalry was known, it was minor among African forcesof the Guinea- Gambia regions who used both the maritime and the infantry tradition, conducting raids on land

and water. Archery was important and fighting men of some Sierra Leone tribes carried so many poisoned

arrows that they needed two quivers. These archers repulsed English sea rover John Hawkins in 1568, who tried

to kidnap Africans from the coast, as well as Portuguese sea intruders before Hawkins. A heavy throwing club

was also used in some areas, with sufficient power to break bones on contact. Some of these clubs had sharp

animal and fish teeth embedded. Such was their speed and accuracy that African fighters in the 1650s wiped out

an attacking Portuguese force with them.[54]

Guns. As in Europe, firearms were integrated gradually into local armies, working in tandem with the spear,


28 11/3/2014


16/28

Fortifications were important in

African warfare and societies. The

ramparts of 15th century Benin are

described as the world's most

extensive earthwork according to the

Guinness Book of Records.

bow and war-club. They sometimes compared unfavorably with traditional weapons such as poisoned arrows, or

the quick charges of motivated cavalry and spearmen. As noted above, the Portuguese were unsuccessful in the

Zambezi region for decades because in the right circumstances, hard-driving spearmen could overwhelm

musketeers. Deployment of guns was not as organized as that in Europe, where squares of gunmen drilled to

deliver massed fire. A loose skirmishing formation was more common, just as it was with the bow. Guns were

valued not only for their bullets but the psychological effect of their noise and smoke. They also figured

prominently in the armament of small groups of royal or elite troops. One exception to this pattern appears to be

Dahomey, where arquebusiers were drilled in a standardized fashion, and delivered volleys of fire with a

counter-marching maneuver.[38] Over time, most native kingdoms gradually began to use more guns, and these

were eventually to change the landscape considerably. Formerly dominant kingdoms like Benin found their

hegemony weakened, as new powers arose. The smaller riverine states of the Niger Delta for example began to

arm their massive war-canoes with guns and cannon obtained from European sources, and began to carve out

new commercial empires that nibbled away the power of the older states.[55] This process was to accelerate in

the 19th century.

Organization and tactics

Fighting units and mobilization. In the heavily forested regions of West, Central and South-Central Africa, the

foot soldier held sway. Most states did not maintain standing armies, but mobilized fighting men as needed.Rulers often built up a royal or palace guard as an elite force, sometimes using slaves. These formed a

permanent, professional nucleus around which the general purpose levies were mustered. The heavy, shield-

bearing infantry of the Angolan region (West Central Africa) are an illustration of these more professionalized

forces. The general-purpose levies were drawn upon in a more localized manner and were expected to furnish

their own weapons and rations when mustered for combat. They were generally mobilized when war was

imminent and demobilized when the crisis was over.[44] While they did not see as much service as male troops

in the field, the most unusual example of an elite force is in Dahomey, where a special corps of female warriors

guarded the person of the monarch. These 'Amazons' also carried out various functions of state such as auditing

the accounts of sub-chiefs to determine if they were giving the king his proper share of taxes collected.[55]

Logistics was not highly organized. Porters and canoes were pressed into service on the campaign trail, but mostarmies ultimately lived off the land. Success often hinged on the ability of the defenders or attackers to sustain

themselves in the field.[56]

Formations and deployment for battle. Most states had a definite battle

order for deployment of troops. As historian Robert July notes:[57] the

Fulani grouped their forces so that formations of picked spearmen went

into action first. Behind the spearmen came the archers, and further back,

a melee of general purpose forces that charged into combat. In the 17th

century, Gold Coast peoples like the Fante grouped their troops into

compact columns, easy to maneuver on the march and remaining

somewhat together when spread out for combat. Like the Fulani, theFante also sent spearmen first into battle, while the archers fired over

their heads. A general charge by warriors further back- under their

Braffos or commanders, then ensued, with sword, club and battle-axe

brought to bear on the opposing side.[41] In either of these configurations

war leaders seem to have had little consistent means of controlling troop

movement once the fray was joined. By contrast, the forces of some

other tropical states were better organized. In the Kongo region (present

day Angola), troops were divided into companies and regiments, each

with their own unique insignia. Designated field commanders controlled


28 11/3/2014


17/28

troop movement with signals from drums, bells and elephant tusk horns. Unlike the Fante or Fulani, archers

usually opened a battle with only a very limited volley of arrows. The decisive echelon was the main force of

spearmen. Deployment was staggered, so that initial fighting waves fell back on command when tired, and fresh

contingents moved up from the rear to take their place.[56]

Formations were comparatively loose in the Congo region, and various groups were tasked with movements

determined on the spot by their leaders. Firearms did not change this basic pattern. While movement was not as

tightly controlled or executed as among the Zulu, war-leaders were quite aware of the basic stratagems of

maneuver, including extension of a battle-line to attempt encirclement.[56] In the Guinea/Gambia Zone however

fighting formations were tighter, an expedient also adopted by European infantry who faced mounted knights.

According to English sailors of the defeated Hawkins expedition in the 16th century, armies deployed with

shield-bearers in front, each with a two-headed javelin for fighting. Behind each shield-bearer, stood 3 archers,

ready to provide firepower support. The battle usually opened with a discharge of arrows. A war cry was then

given, and general hand-to-hand fighting ensued. Such formations required planned drill in advance. A

commander named Xerebogo for example in the 16th century kept his soldiers in step by using bells attached to

pace horses. The advent of guns loosened this tight organization, and more maneuver and open formations were

employed.[58]

Fortifications

Defensive works were of importance in the tropical militaries above. In the Kongo region they often represented

a type of field fortification, with trenches and low earthen embankments. Such strongpoints ironically,

sometimes held up much better against European cannon than taller, more imposing structures.[51] In 15th

century Benin, the works were more impressive. The walls of the city-state are described as the world's second

longest man-made structure, and the series of earthen ramparts as the most extensive earthwork in the world, in

the Guinness Book of Records, 1974.[59][60] Strong citadels were also built other in areas of Africa. Yorubaland

for example had several sites surrounded by the full range of earthworks and ramparts seen elsewhere, and sited

on ground that improved defensive potential- such as hills and ridges. Yoruba fortifications were often protected

with a double wall of trenches and ramparts, and in the Congo forests concealed ditches and paths, along withthe main works, often bristled with rows of sharpened stakes. Inner defenses were laid out to blunt an enemy

penetration with a maze of defensive walls allowing for entrapment and crossfire on opposing forces.[3]

The gunmen of Morocco versus the Songhay

The case of the Moroccan invasion of the Songhay Empire, circa 1591 illustrates the transformational power of

the gun, but also the power of native African resistance using a protracted war style.[61] This pattern was to be

repeated in later centuries, on into the 20th as African forces contended with foreign invaders. The Sultan of Morocco sought to bring the lucrative trade in salt, slaves and especially the gold of the Songhay kingdom under

his control. A force of some 4,000 well-trained mercenaries armed with guns was thus dispatched to bring it to

heel. Organization of the invasion force was impressive, with some 8,000 camels in support, sapper units, and

abundant supplies of gunpowder and lead. There were about 2,000 infantry harquebusiers, 500 mounted

gunmen, and a miscellany of other forces, including 1500 mounted lancers. In sum, the Moroccan expedition

was a serious, well-equipped one, with armaments comparable to most 16th-century Mediterranean states.[61]

Opposing it were the legions of Songhai, numbering some 12,500 cavalry and 30,000 infantry mainly armed

with bows and arrows, and spears. The Moroccans left Marrakesh in October 1590 and after a hard march across


28 11/3/2014


18/28

Musket-armed troops from Morocco

made impressive initial gains in

conquering the Songhay, but became

bogged down in a protracted war.

This pattern was to be repeated across

Africa in later centuries as foreign

forces were confronted.

Copper sculpture from Benin

showing the mix of weapons that

co-existed side by side during the

colonial era. Note firearms in the

right hand of one figure, and

traditional swords held by others.

desert terrain, reached the Niger River in February 1591. The hastily

assembled forces of Songhai met the Moroccans at Tondibi, and

according to contemporary accounts fought bravely. Disciplined

firepower by the Moroccans however turned the fray into a debacle for

the Songhai. They withdrew with heavy losses. The victorious

Moroccans however found the climate and conditions hard after the

initial triumph. Their attempts to consolidate control sparked a native

resistance movement. A protracted resistance war had begun that lasted

some 20 years. Additional Moroccan troops arrived and the Songhay

resistance relocated to more defensible terrain- swampy woodlands and

forest. In time, Moroccan forces became bogged down, despite their

superiority in firepower- with losses caused by climate, disease and rebel

attacks using mobile and guerrilla warfare. By 1610, the Moroccan

forces had deteriorated significantly, and both strength and influence

faded. Over time the Moroccans were absorbed into the local Niger

cities, and the Songhai empire crumbled into a fragmented pattern of

anarchy and competing warlord fiefdoms.

The Timbuktu historian al Sadi cast the Moroccan incursion in negative

terms: "The Sudan was one of God's most favored countries in prosperity and fertility at the time the

expeditionary force entered the country. Now, all that has changed. Security has given place to danger,

rosperity to misery and calamity. Disorder spreading and intensifying has become universal." [62] The invasion

shows the transformational power of firearms in Africa where wielded by disciplined troops, often to dire effect

on local peoples and polities. This was a lesson that was to be repeated some 200 years later when Europeans

advanced for their colonial conquests.

Indigenous development and change: the legions of Benin

The kingdom of Benin offers a snapshot of a relatively well-organized

and sophisticated African polity in operation before the major European

colonial interlude.[63] Military operations relied on a well trained

disciplined force. At the head of the host stood the Oba of Benin. The

monarch of the realm served as supreme military commander. Beneath

him were subordinate generalissimos, the Ezomo, the Iyase, and others

who supervised a Metropolitan Regiment based in the capital, and a

Royal regiment made up of hand-picked warriors that also served as

bodyguards. Benin's Queen Mother also retained her own regiment, the

"Queen's Own." The Metropolitan and Royal regiments were relatively

stable semi-permanent or permanent formations. The Village Regiments

provided the bulk of the fighting force and were mobilized as needed,sending contingents of warriors upon the command of the king and his

generals. Formations were broken down into sub-units under designated

commanders. Foreign observers often commented favorably on Benin's

discipline and organization as "better disciplined than any other Guinea

nation" , contrasting them with the slacker troops from the Gold

Coast.[64]

Until the introduction of guns in the 15th century, traditional weapons

like the spear and bow held sway. They Portuguese were the first to bring


28 11/3/2014


19/28

firearms, and by 1645, matchlock, wheelock and flintlock muskets were being imported into Benin. Firepower

made the armies of Benin more efficient, and led to several triumphs over regional rivals. Efforts were made to

reorganize a local guild of blacksmiths in the 18th century to manufacture light firearms, but dependence on

imports was still heavy. Before the coming of the gun, guilds of blacksmiths were charged with war production-

particularly swords and iron spearheads.[63]

Benin's tactics were well organized, with preliminary plans weighed by the Oba and his sub-commanders.

Logistics were organized to support missions from the usual porter forces, water transport via canoe, and

requisitioning from localities the army passed through. Movement of troops via canoes was critically important

in the lagoons, creeks and rivers of the Niger Delta, a key area of Benin's domination. Tactics in the field seem

to have evolved over time. While the head on clash was well known, documentation from the 18th century

shows greater emphasis on avoiding continuous battle lines, and more effort to encircle an enemy (ifianyako).[63

Fortifications were important in the region and numerous military campaigns fought by Benin's soldiers

revolved around sieges. As noted above, Benin's military earthworks are the largest of such structures in the

world, and Benin's rivals also built extensively. Barring a successful assault, most sieges were resolved by a

strategy of attrition, slowly cutting off and starving out the enemy fortification until it capitulated. On occasion

however, European mercenaries were called on to aid with these sieges. In 1603–04 for example, European

cannon helped batter and destroy the gates of a town near present-day Lagos, allowing 10,000 warriors of Beninto enter and conquer it. In payment the Europeans received one woman captive each and bundles of pepper.[64]

The example of Benin shows the genius of indigenous military systems, but also the role outside influences and

new technologies brought to bear. This is a normal pattern among many nations and was to be reflected across

Africa as the 19th century dawned.

The warrior hosts of Kongo

The Kongo region (modern day Angola, western Democratic Republic of the Congo, southern Republic of the

Congo) exhibits a number of indigenous military systems, particularly by such kingdoms at Kongo and Ndongo.

Several outstanding war-leaders appeared in this area, including the redoubtable female ruler and field

commander Nyazinga or Njinga. Accounts by Portuguese mercenaries, priests and travellers in the 16th and 17th

centuries leave a vivid picture of the native military systems, which often defeated European plans and

incursions. Such experiences put paid to the notion (advanced by some Portuguese of the time) that the Africans

would be defeated as easily as the Inca or Aztecs by the appearance of horses, guns and cannon.[56]

Recruitment, organization and special units. The bulk of the fighting hosts were made of up general purpose

levies and volunteers, but most Kongo polities maintained a small core of dedicated soldiers- nucleus of a

standing army. Special detachments and commands called lucanzos were also used for various missions, and one

such under a commander called Kakula ka Kabasa was defeated by the Portuguese in 1586 when crossing a

river.[56] Other special troops sometimes used included elite scouting units, the pombos, who sometimes ran

with, and kept up with horses when they were used in the region. The pombos also performed pursuit duties."Light" and "heavy" troop types were recognized. The light troops were far more numerous, and relied more on

individual skill and technique (dodging spears for example). The "heavies" were more disciplined and relied on

stronger defensive weapons and formations. A limited number such types operated in the Kongo kingdom, and

were armed with shields, unlike other forces. They were reputedly the best soldiers in the country.[44] Tactical

units were recognized, from basic sections of 100–125 men, to larger units of 500, called mozengos or embalos.

Groupings of these units made up a specific field force that could number up to 15,000 troops.[56]

Weapons, battle formations and deployment. As noted previously, Kongo region battle formations were in

relatively open order. This allowed the peculiar dodging, twisting and leaping noted in Portuguese accounts as


28 11/3/2014


20/28

The warrior hosts of Angola relied

on a relatively open formation, but

sometimes deployed central, wing

and reserve forces against both

indigenous opponents and the

Portuguese.

Nzinga or Njinga was

one of the outstanding

war leaders of the Kongo

region.

warriors tried to avoid arrows and spears delivered by their opponents. A

battle generally opened with a brief volley of arrows from relatively weak

bows. Indeed the bravest soldiers went into battle with only a few arrows,

which were poisoned in some cases by a potent mixture called cabanzo.

Once these were released, the contenders closed for a decision by

hand-to-hand combat. Several thousand men could take place in these

set-piece battles, and the affair was usually decided by superior skill and

aggression. Basic formations were known, and three divisions were

sometimes used- a center and two wings. A complex system of drums,

horns and signals aided in maneuver of the warrior hosts, and distinctive

battle-flags and pennants identified the location of elite troops or their

commanders.[56] See the Battle of Mbwila for a detailed example of a

Kongo army in action, including the 3-part division of the host, and its use

of reserves.

Maneuver and logistics. Outflanking moves

were popular, with light troops keeping the

enemy busy in the center, while the wings

extended. In some cases, a reserve force waskept on hand to exploit success, strike at a

vulnerable point, or provide a rear guard to

cover retreats. Reserve forces were also used

as intimidating "stiffeners," forcing the

cowardly and faltering back into the

battle-line. Portuguese mercenaries sometimes

excelled in this role while employed by the

Kongo warlords. A Ndongo army attacked the Portuguese at Talandongo in 1583

using this 3-part division, as did the Portuguese force that confronted it. Nzinga also

successfully used an outflanking gambit against the Portuguese, breaking their right

wing at Cavanga, but saw defeat when her forces paused to loot, and exposedthemselves to counterattack.[56]

A broken army was usually hard to rally, and often did not reform on the battlefield

but melted back to their home villages, to be perhaps reconstituted days later. Once regrouped and rearmed

however they could be dangerous, as a defeated Portuguese column found in 1670 at Kitombo. Siege warfare

was not highly developed, and most fortified places were only designed to hold out a short period before

defenders retreated. Logistical problems plagued both attacker and defender, as the region's war cycle was not

set for long campaigns.[56]

Fortifications. Angolan armies at times made extensive use of fortifications. In a 1585 campaign against the

Portuguese, the Ndongo for example constructed palisaded camps, each a day's journey apart. Use of strong

defensive positions on hilltops or in forests was also common, as was the use of fortifications in offensive

maneuvers. The Imbangala for example usually built a strong fort in enemy territory to bait opponents into

exhausting their strength against it. Some of these positions could be quite formidable, with trenches, parapets,

hidden roads, sharpened "punji" stake traps, mutually supporting bulwarks, and covered trenches to protect

against artillery.[44]

Two-way borrowing and adaptation. Firearms were gradually adopted by the Angolan militaries and used

alongside customary fighting implements. Soldiers from the state of Kasanje in the 18th century for example,

marched with bows and lances as well as muskets. Their gunmen were considered to be the equal of the


28 11/3/2014


21/28

Warship built and manned by

Phoenicians employed by the

Assyrian king Sennacherib.

Portuguese in competence.[44] While Portuguese mercenaries and armies armed with muskets made a substantial

showing in military terms, it was only until the end of the 18th century than indigenous forces incorporated them

on a large scale. Other gunpowder weapons like artillery served the Portuguese well in breaking up enemy

attacks or against fortifications. African systems like that of Kongo also gradually adopted artillery though on a

much more limited scale.[44] Ironically the Portuguese were sometimes more effective because of non-firearm

weapons, such as body armor, swords and pikes.

The exchange of techniques and approaches was not always one way. While the Kongo kingdoms gradually

adopted European technology, the Portuguese themselves borrowed and adapted African war practices to make

themselves more effective against their opponents. In one engagement, the Battle of Kitombo, in 1670, the

Portuguese armed themselves with native shields, hoping to demonstrate their prowess with these and their

swords.[44] The Portuguese adopted some indigenous practices such as the use of quilted cotton armor, proof

against arrows and light spears.[56] They also drew heavily on native allies, keeping a small nucleus of European

troops, and a large body of indigenous warriors- with each force fighting in its own style. This is similar to the

Kongo use of allied forces. The Europeans also adopted the looser formation of the native armies, discarding

rigid squares of musketeers for more maneuverable and flexible configurations.[56]

Carthage

Typical of Phoenician settlements, the navy of Carthage was the city's

military backbone, and the prime force that dominated the Western

Mediterranean at the height of Carthage's power. The city boasted fine

natural harbors and its fleet included large numbers of quadriremes and

quinqueremes, warships with four and five ranks of rowers. Polybius

wrote in the sixth book of his History that the Carthaginians were, "more

exercised in maritime affairs than any other people," and Carthaginian

sea power was the key factor in its rise. Relying heavily on the skills of

its sailors and rowers, the maneuverable Carthaginian ships struck from

Sicily to Spain, and dealt several defeats to its adversaries, including

Rome. The Romans however were masters at copying and adapting the

technology of other peoples. According to Polybius, the Romans seized a

shipwrecked Carthaginian warship, and used it as a blueprint for a

massive naval build-up, adding its own refinements – the corvus – which

allowed an enemy vessel to be "gripped" and boarded for hand-to-hand fighting. This negated initially superior

Carthaginian seamanship and ships.[65]

Egypt

Egyptian naval warfare goes back millennia with the use of river vessels and ships on the Nile, the Red Sea and

the Mediterranean.[66] Three types of boats are documented in the Pre-Dynastic period: papyrus, ceremonial,

and war canoes. Papyrus style craft are still found in Africa, such as in Lake Tana in Ethiopia and some

waterways of Chad. The war canoes were the most important manifestations of naval forces during this early

period. They were typically a long, thin shape with two rows of paddlers, papyrus shelters in the middle and

steering oar in the bow. Construction was of wooden planks, sewn together. Crew capacity for large boats

rivaled those later seen in West Africa, with some war canoes accommodating up to 80 oarsmen. Control of war

canoes seem to have become more centralized as rising southern hegemons began to dominate the freer-


28 11/3/2014


22/28

A modern model of an Egyptian

warship from 1200 BC.

Somali soldiers repelling a British

naval boarding party.

wheeling trade and raiding of earlier Nile River times, according to one

Australian naval study of ancient Egyptian maritime power.[67] Military

operations involved some expeditions of 1000 to 2000 men and up to 50

war boats. The earliest evidence of naval warfare in Africa or elsewhere

is documented on the Gebel el Arak knife, from southern Egypt, which

depict war canoes and a variety of other boats.[68] The contenders are

indigenous, with similar attire and weapons.[69]

Sixth Dynasty reliefs show sea-borne ships transporting Egyptian troops

to Phoenicia and Canaan. Early seagoing boats were relatively simple

with rectangular sail, and steering rudder, but reliefs from the New

Kingdom show greater sophistication, including requests that foreign

builders from Cyprus construct boats for the Egyptian navy. Ships

provided troop and supply transport for operations in Phoenicia, Aram Damascus and Canaan. The defeat of the

Sea Peoples

Documents

African Military Systems to 1800 - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia