In the Byzantine Empire, trade played a very important role in their economic system. These Romans traded across the revived silk roads and the Mediterranean Sea, which made Constantinople the center of commerce and wealth. Due to their highly developed structure, the Byzantines were able to develop banks and businesses. These advanced practices were integral to the empire’s success. Their agricultural strength was another component that added to the empire’s power.
In turn these changes affected attitudes of the British government and public opinion and undoubtedly influenced key decisions about both expansion and dismantlement in Africa. Britain's first intervention in Africa occurred in Egypt. Egypt was part of the Turkish Empire in 1882 but discontent lead to national revolts that scared Britain. Following the purchase of the Suez Canal shares in 1875, British financial and trading interests had grown in the area. Britain could not allow her investments in Egypt jeopardized, as Egypt was a vital route to India.
Britain also established companies in India and Africa. Due to the trade between the colonies via the companies, Britain started to generate a large consistent income. Mercantilist policies were introduced shortly after 1680. A factor that led to Britain gaining its reputation and wealth were that it established a strong connection with its merchants. The merchants were happy to trade with Britain as a policy of Britain was to protect its clients.
African exports consisted primarily of gold, ivory, and pepper. However, over 175,000 slaves were also taken to Europe and the Americas during this period. In 1600, with the involvement of the Dutch and English, the magnitude of the slave trade grew exponentially. From the time of their arrival on the shores of Sierra Leone in 1460, and until their gradual decline as leaders in world exploration in the sixteenth century, the Portuguese had an ambiguous relationship with their African trading partners. Disembarking at cities that were equally large, complex, and technologically advanced as Lisbon at the time, the Portuguese actually experienced far less culture shock than we might
The countries involved in the ‘Scramble for Africa’ were Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Germany and Italy. A key economic feature of colonialism was producing and exporting raw materials either agricultural or mineral, precious metals such as gold, silver and copper. Tropical products for luxury consumption such as coffee, sugar, spices, timber and fabrics like cotton. Later when Britain, France and Germany were competing against each other for colonies in Africa in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the international market had changed rapidly with a huge demand for raw materials for manufacturing such as jute, cotton, rubber and sisal (Bernstein, 1992:48). Mass consumption demand such as tea, sugar and vegetable oils (Bernstein, 1992:48).
Colonies on rivers usually gave European countries an advantage because it allowed for easier trade. The Great River Highway was the Niger. It begins in the highlands of modern Ivory Coast, Mali, and Guinea. The highway helped with a quicker route to get supplies and trade goods within
To what extend was the colonisation and decolonisation of Britain’s Africa driven by individuals within Africa? Before the 1870’s Africa was largely unknown to the outside world but, in the 1880’s the scramble of Africa began, where European counties, especially Britain all wanted to colonise Africa. Was the whole reason for British colonising Africa economically or strategically driven or was it led by individuals in Africa (men on the spot) or was it more of a top down process led by the government in Britain? And even though Britain fought so hard to control large parts of Africa it is clear that after World II Britain’s empire was declining especially after India gain independence in 1947. However, the British did try to revive their African empire in the late 40’s and early 50’s but their sudden fall into a steep imperial decline with the Suez crises saw individuals like Macmillan to acknowledge that decolonisation was the only way forward, as it would be more beneficial for Britain to decolonise than to resist the rise of nationalism.
Colonialism in Africa: The good, the bad and the downright ugly The most parts of Africa spent two generations under colonial rule. The colonization of Africa has a long history, being most noticeable between the 19th and 20th century. The effects of colonialism fall into three categories: good, bad and downright ugly. A good aspect of colonialism in Africa was economical growth. One factor that helped economical expansion was industrialization.
For more than three centuries the European nations had extended their influence and imperialism into other continents such as Asia, Latin America, the West Indies, and Africa. This was possible because these European nations were relatively economically and militarily stronger than the people of other continents. The Scramble and Partition of Africa The scramble for Africa, also known as the Race for Africa, was the rush or hurry for African territories by European powers. These European powers rushed for African territories due to several reasons. These causes can be categorized into economic,
These and many other questions still remain to be subject of concern to scholars. Colonization of Africa by European countries was a monumental significant in the development of Africa. The Africans took into account the impact of colonization on them to be perhaps the most important factor in understanding the present condition of the African continent and of the African people. Therefore, a close scrutiny of the phenomenon of colonialism is necessary to understand the degree to which it influenced not only the economic and political development of Africa but also the African people’s perception of themselves. This dissertation focuses on the reaction to colonialism from 1900 to 1964 in Northern Rhodesia.