Eli5 Why didn’t the Ottoman Empire expand more into Africa?
In: 228
You mean bellow Sahara Desert? There was the Sahara Desert in the way.
Pre Industrial age (and even post industrial age) it is pretty much logistically impossible to cross deserts with large armies. The Ottoman took most of North Africa arable and livable land and the Nile River. These were the only areas with more or less permanent population and the ability to support agriculture. Everything else was across the Sahara.
There was a giant fuck-off desert in the way. Beyond that, most of Africa was under the control of various European powers. It wouldn’t have been worth the effort.
They did expand to the economically important parts and they fought with Portuguese to control the spice trade. Check kings and generals videos [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3E1SYBgK4w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3E1SYBgK4w)
The Ottomans would have to expand at the expense of Ethiopia, which was a large regional power. They could not focus on there due to fighting the HRE (primarily the Austrians), the Spanish, the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, and the Persians. The Ottomans did have conflicts and conquests in the region (the Habesh Eyalet), but recognized that it would be better to have a stable border there while dealing with all the other powers around them. Lastly, they just didn’t prioritize it as highly compared to other regions.
Ottomans were particularly interested in trade routes and as a result controlled both sides of the red sea plus inland territories in Ethiopia
One big problem was the Eurasians who spent too long in sub-Saharan Africa had a tendency to come down with mysterious diseases, which were almost invariably fatal.
It had since been recognized that these diseases included malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and African sleeping sickness. But this was not known as the time, nor was it known that they are transmitted by bites from infected insects. Hence, there were no known ways of preventing the illness and, of course, no treatments. Furthermore, Eurasians had no immunities to these diseases and had a tendency to drop like flies when outbreaks occurred. Africans often got sick, but they didn’t die as often.
These diseases meant that Arabs, Turks, and Europeans who wanted to trade with sub-Saharan Africa for gold, slaves, ivory, or whatever preferred to stay close to the coasts.
It is not a coincidence that the European scramble for Africa started in the 19th and early 20th centuries . This was the period where treatments and methods of preventing tropical diseases began to be developed.
Probably due to geography. Even Europe didn’t colonize the sub-Saharan regions until the 19th century, despite the fact that it’s closer and should be easier to get to than Asia or the Americas. Yet despite being the crucible of our species, Africa really isn’t conducive to civilization. Basically it’s like playing Civ on the hardest difficulty. Everything there is working against you. The soil isn’t the best, so large scale agriculture is difficult. Tropical diseases are a major problem even now, let alone prior to modern medicine. There are few navigable rivers, and most of the ones that are navigable, aren’t year round. Which makes it hard to get goods and people into and out of the continent. So even if you found valuable resources you could extract there, actually digging them up and shipping them back was a herculean task. This is why there was comparatively few advanced states on the continent prior to the industrial era. It’s also probably why so many early Homo species took the huge risk to migrate out of the region and into Europe and Asia.
Islamic civilization did make a few half-hearted incursions south of the Sahara. But for the Ottomans, the Balkans were just a more attractive option, even up against organized Christian militaries. That region is very resource rich and far easier to develop. On top of that, the Ottomans wouldn’t have exactly had free reign to cross the Mediterranean and explore the west coast. So they were limited to the east, which is less attractive.
Industrialization would mitigate some of Africa’s problems. Chemical fertilizers improved soil, railroads made transport easier, medicine made terminal tropical diseases somewhat less terminal. But by the time Europe had its “Scramble for Africa”, the Ottoman Empire was well into its decline. They peaked in the 17th century and had been gradually loosing territory since. By WWI, they had lost all their African and European holdings. So they weren’t really in the position to be staking claims. Even for the Europeans, Africa was an expensive endeavor, despite having the technology to cope with it. A lot of those same problems are still with us in the post-colonial era. Just look at the untold billions spent on developmental aid versus ROI. It’s only really resulted in a couple advanced states. Namely Nigeria and Kenya.
Ottoman Empire was overextended already and needed to digest conquered populations and devellop their own lands first.
It’s better to colonise and devellop lands you currently control, before you do that lands further away.
That’s why Europe went to Africa, and not USA, Russians or Ottomans. Japan for exemple, could have gone to Africa, but they prefered to take lands closer.
Mostly because they didn’t see any value in owning Africa. The continent isn’t very suitable for agriculture, most of the lumber are inferior to what can be found in Eurasia, and most of the minerals could be found closer to home. It was easier to trade for goods like Ivory, Furs, and Slaves so the Ottomons cut some deals, established some trading posts, and then kinda ignored everything south of the Sahara desert.
Latest Answers