• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Lemont Elwood

General
47 Badges
Jun 10, 2011
2.247
1.883
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Semper Fi
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Victoria 2
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
Really simple question, but I'd like to hear your opinions. Is Sub-Saharan Africa, in the context of early modern history, Old World or New World? I always think of it as New World since it wasn't generally linked to Europe and Asia, outside of interactions with the trading empires, but it is physically part of the Old World landmass.
 
Old world. There'd been tales for ages of the area in Europe, along with some limited connections through northern Africa.

Plus in the context of, say, taxidermy, the new world and old world split doesn't work unless you include Africa as old world.
 
"New World" only makes sense for the Americas (and also Australasia) - the term means that it was "new" to Europeans, who were completely unaware it existed before.

They very much already knew that Africa was there, and there were quite a lot of trading and religious connections between Europe, Asia and Africa prior to the early modern period.
 
Old world. It makes no sense anywhere else, both ecologically, culturally and economically sub-saharan africa was already connected to the rest of the old world, in a way which the americas (and to a certain extent australia) was not.
 
Could one group South Africa closer to the new world than old?
 
It is very new world. As the documentary 'Black Panther' shows, Africa is incredibly technologically advanced.

In places.
 
Ach stop discussing semantics. :p
 
The big thing about the New World is that it was "new." Prior to the Age of Discovery, no one thought it existed at all. It just showed up when explorers tried to cross the Atlantic Ocean on their way to other parts of the Old World. This led to all sorts of philosophical/theological discussions, such as "Do these inhabitants have souls? How did they get from the Garden of Eden to there? If they have souls, how could God allow them to remain isolated from the True Faith for so many centuries?" [remember, we are talking ~1500]. Africa was a new area to conquer, but not open to those sorts of questions; it took until Dias for the Portuguese to reach the Cape, but no one doubted that Southern Africa existed (although there was some concern that it might extend all the way to the mythical Southern Continent and thus be impassable).

From a biological perspective, it's also not New World: the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans provide enough of a barrier to cause significant differences between the species on both sides in a way that Africa doesn't match. See for instance Old World and New World monkeys, which diverged ~40 million years ago. It also produced a disease barrier, which is one reason that Native Americans (as well as various Oceanian peoples) were absolutely devastated by disease, allowing an early, direct large-scale European conquest and settlement in a way that wasn't really replicated elsewhere for centuries.
 
This led to all sorts of philosophical/theological discussions, such as "Do these inhabitants have souls? How did they get from the Garden of Eden to there?

Actually, for a while, it was assumed to actually be the Garden of Eden.

After all, we have in the authority of the wisest Ancient Greeks and the Holy Bible that there are only "three parts" to the world - Africa, Europe, Asia. There is no "fourth part".

So the initial philosophical discussion was about how can there be a fourth part? Could the Ancients be wrong? The answer was simple: they weren't. It isn't a "fourth part" of the world. It actually is the Garden of Eden mentioned in the Bible and alluded to by the Ancients. Everyone has always known Eden existed, we simply didn't know where it lay.

This theory didn't hold for very long.

Still, with several exceptions, many maps through much of the 16th C. continued trying to insist that so-called "New World" wasn't new, but was simply an extension of Asia, and depicting Siberia merging into North America.

There are only three continents, now and forever.
 
Old World. While there was not an exact knowledge on what was there, people did know there was... something. I mean, in the same way that Asia... were... there... and something something Cipang, Cathay, Arabs, etc.,