Hi! Thank you fir a great read. Can those countries survive as Kingdoms if they diversify? Control of resources, especially oil, since it is not labor intensive is very good for Monarchies, since the wealth is highly concentrated and they can "buy off" their citizens. Diversified economies don't work like that.
I can imagine as the Arab Monarchy diversifies, oil patronage won't be an effective form of government control ,as you astutely mentioned. Alternative sources of power will emerge and the Monarchy will probably reform to limitations on their powers. I bet the Gulf Monarchies are aware of that and probably hope they can still retain some power like in non oil countries monarchies like Jordan or Morocco. But whether its possible since they are much richer than those countries is a tough question to answer.
Fascinating article. While I do not believe global oil and gas consumption is going to decline significantly for many decades, it is an interesting thought experiment.
I was also struck by your observation that almost all African kingdoms collapsed after the British abolished slavery. I had not heard that before.
I was wondering if you would be interested in doing a deeper dive to answer the following questions:
1) Just how important was slavery to the African kingdoms economically both before and during the Atlantic slave trade (not just whether it existed)? Was it wealth from slave labor or was it just income from selling slaves?
2) Did the abolition of slavery by British empire cause the societies to collapse or was it just an end to monarchies? Were there other factors?
I have tried to do some personal research on the subject, but there are very few books on the topic.
But yes! I can definitely do an article on the different forms of slavery in each African Kingdom and talk about how important it is.
Another thing is, for other kingdoms like Mali, selling gold mattered more than slaves. But the Mali empire collapsed by the 15th century.
Also another point, some Kingdoms were able to withstand the shock of the abolition of the slave trade better than other Kingdoms. Like I said before, my people the Ashanti lasted until 1902. Kongo became a vassal of Portugal in the 1860s, before the Berlin Conference even occured.
1) Slavery was pretty important in most African Kingdoms except a few like the Nri Kingdom in modern day Nigeria that I mentioned earlier.
In West & Central West Africa, slaves were used domestically in agriculture, craftsmanship, and as labor for royal and elite households. The wealth of African rulers and elites often derived from controlling people, including slaves, who were essential for maintaining social and political power. Slaves were also used in inter-African trade and tribute systems, contributing to the wealth of rulers but often on a smaller scale compared to the later Atlantic slave trade.
For nuance, slaves in some African societies could rise in status, have a job, or even gain freedom.
2) As for books "How Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson has a whole chapter on how the collapse of the British slave trade destroyed West & Central West African Kingdoms.
I have some quibbles with that book, but pages 250-258 are the precise pages you need.
In general, ending slavery had a weird ironic impact on the African Kingdoms. Think of it this way, how can you get more guns, cannons, and weapons if you can't sell slaves. All your enemies could begin raiding you instead. or a civil war could erupt because you don't have the arms to protect you from rival tribe who wants more power.
Progesss in solar, wind and nuclear isn't that relevant for global oil demand. 50% of global oil demand comes from road transportation. The second biggest is petrochemicals. The rest is maritime shipping and planes. Very small segment of electricity and heating demand is met via oil.
The fall in oil demand is largely driven by progress in batteries and EVs. Electricity is already much cheaper than oil as it is.
There can be displacement if coal and natural gas demand fall dramatically. Coal and gas can be used to make petrochemicals (China is using coal while America is using gas). If gas becomes cheaper it might increase the popularity of CNG/LNG for road transportation. CNG trucks are taking off in China. LNG micro gas turbines can also act as range extenders for EVs.
> The UAE, particularly Dubai, ran out of oil in the 1990s and has since diversified into tourism, logistics, airlines, finance, and re-exporting manufactured goods. Gold trading and other strategic investments have also played a key role. The other emirates still have plenty of oil, but Dubai has diversified.
Dubai's model is largely based on low taxes. Once all the other surrounding emirates lose oil money they'll start squeezing Dubai for handouts. Dubai has already raised corporate taxes and imposed local hiring requirements (which if you met someone from the UAE it is a privatised welfare scheme).
Rich countries will also crack down on the tax havens and criminal asylum activities of the UAE once oil dies.
I don't think much the Gulf countries will be colonised if oil goes to shit. Most of the world will largely lose interest in the middle east when oil demand falls. When I was growing up in the 2000s, some dickheads threatening a refinary in Nigeria will oil prices to spike but now Libiya stopped producing 200,000 barrels and no one noticed.
Europe might keep some colonies to prevent a swarm of illegal immigrants. Same with Turkey. The current Iranian regime will fall. 50% of Iranian government revenues come from oil. The new regime will probably not care to support islamists like Hamas. The rest of the region will be a forever basketcase that's kept afloat using UN peacekeeping missions like much of central Africa is today.
Great read as usual and a very interesting parallel. I’d like to point out a few nuances: the African kingdoms were well-established and dominant for centuries, whereas these Arab monarchies today have only recently come into affluence. Additionally, the global landscape today is vastly different from the past. While the world back then was fractured, today's world is highly globalized, with complex interdependencies and economies.
Although slavery eventually became a commodity, it wasn’t the case before the Europeans arrived. Slavery in Africa was similar to slavery throughout history everywhere: typically involving prisoners of war or as a form of punishment. The transatlantic slave trade introduced chattel slavery on a mass scale never seen before, turning slaves into a commodity much like oil today as you have stated. In my opinion, it’s important to address this nuance.
On another note, I liked how you used the term conquest instead of colonization, if that was what was intended. Because that’s exactly what it was.
I disagree with your statement that "slavery eventually became a commodity, but it wasn’t the case before the Europeans arrived." Slavery has functioned as a commodity (which just means exchanging slaves for another good) since ancient times. For example, the Kingdom of Meroe in Sudan traded slaves for grain with Egypt, and the Ghana-Mali-Songhai empires exchanged slaves with the Tuareg and Arab-Berbers of Morocco for salt (which was needed as a food preservative in the Sahara since refrigerators didn't exist yet and it was geographically impossible for West Africans to use iceboxes like Medieval Europe) . Similarly, the Swahili Coast commoditized slaves through its extensive trade network. The Arab Sudanese also enslaved people from the South long before European involvement. In Kanem-Bornu (modern-day Chad), Africans were sold to North Africans in exchange for muskets.
There were three major slave trades in Africa where slaves were treated as commodities besides the transatlantic slave trade: the Indian Ocean trade with Arabia, Persia, Turkey & the Gujarat of modern day India, the Trans-Saharan trade with Arab-Berbers, and the Red Sea trade, where Ethiopians captured Africans and sold them to Omani and Yemeni traders.
2) Chattel slavery, where slaves are treated as property, existed in Arabia for centuries. While Arabs had different forms of slavery—such as debt bondage, servitude with opportunities for promotion, and religious-based manumission—chattel slavery was legal and widespread along with the other forms of slavery. Slaves were considered property and slavery remained legal in places like Saudi Arabia (and its predecessor, the Hejaz), Mauritania, and Yemen until the mid 1900s.
You’re right on the commodity part. I had it too simplified. At the end of the day, slavery is still slavery. I still think there is a nuance there though - in most societies, particularly the Arab society, slaves still had some rights.
The transatlantic slave trade largely erased this in their practice and I believe had a much more destructive impact on Africa compared to the others.
You mentioned, "the African Kingdoms were well-established and dominant for centuries, whereas these Arab monarchies have only recently come into affluence." You are right mostly. These African Kingdoms in general were older than Arab Kingdoms. For example, the Benin Kingdom dates back to the 11th century, and Oyo and Kongo emerged in the 14th century. The Aro-Igbo Confederacy, Ashanti, and Dahomey arose in the 17th century. Meanwhile the House of Saud, Bahrain, and Kuwait emerged in the 18th century.
However, Oman predates all of them, with its Imamate emerging in the 8th century. Oman also controlled an East African network, which included coastal Swahili cities like Mombasa, Zanzibar, and Kilwa before and after expelling the Portuguese in the late 1600s. Oman's influence extended well before oil was discovered, as it maintained control over these regions until European powers forced an end to slavery. By contrast, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain only emerged in the 18th century.
So, while you're mostly correct, it's important to note Oman's earlier prominence.
2) I mainly agree with your comment that Europeans took slaves in a scale never seen before. It's worth noting that when we compare slaveries, we really have no idea how many slaves were taken across the Arab World because they didn't document their transactions like Europeans did in the same way.
If we thought of this as querying a database separated out Trans-Atlantic, Trans-Saharan, & Indian Ocean + Red Sea trade, and if we use the lower number of 17M, then you are right the Europeans enslaved more:
Trans-Atlatnic was 12.5 (from 1490 to early 1800s)
Trans-Saharan was 8M (from time immemorial to mid /late1800s)
Indian Ocean & Red Sea 9M (from before recorded hsitory to mid/late 1800s
But if we just queried by European vs. Arab slavery it would be
12.5M for Europeans
17M for Arabs
Again we have no idea how many Arabs have trafficked Africans since this has been taking place for a super long time.
Where I agree is that the scale of European slavery was much faster than Arab slavery since Europeans achieved 70% of what we think what the Arab count was in a much shorter time frame. Also, this is assuming the 17M number is accurate...
Some sources for Arab slavery gets to numbers as high as 50M.... But we really don't know. 17M is the number African scholars like Ndiaye use though.
Hi! Thank you fir a great read. Can those countries survive as Kingdoms if they diversify? Control of resources, especially oil, since it is not labor intensive is very good for Monarchies, since the wealth is highly concentrated and they can "buy off" their citizens. Diversified economies don't work like that.
Very astute comment!
I can imagine as the Arab Monarchy diversifies, oil patronage won't be an effective form of government control ,as you astutely mentioned. Alternative sources of power will emerge and the Monarchy will probably reform to limitations on their powers. I bet the Gulf Monarchies are aware of that and probably hope they can still retain some power like in non oil countries monarchies like Jordan or Morocco. But whether its possible since they are much richer than those countries is a tough question to answer.
Fascinating article. While I do not believe global oil and gas consumption is going to decline significantly for many decades, it is an interesting thought experiment.
I was also struck by your observation that almost all African kingdoms collapsed after the British abolished slavery. I had not heard that before.
I was wondering if you would be interested in doing a deeper dive to answer the following questions:
1) Just how important was slavery to the African kingdoms economically both before and during the Atlantic slave trade (not just whether it existed)? Was it wealth from slave labor or was it just income from selling slaves?
2) Did the abolition of slavery by British empire cause the societies to collapse or was it just an end to monarchies? Were there other factors?
I have tried to do some personal research on the subject, but there are very few books on the topic.
But yes! I can definitely do an article on the different forms of slavery in each African Kingdom and talk about how important it is.
Another thing is, for other kingdoms like Mali, selling gold mattered more than slaves. But the Mali empire collapsed by the 15th century.
Also another point, some Kingdoms were able to withstand the shock of the abolition of the slave trade better than other Kingdoms. Like I said before, my people the Ashanti lasted until 1902. Kongo became a vassal of Portugal in the 1860s, before the Berlin Conference even occured.
Thanks Michael,
1) Slavery was pretty important in most African Kingdoms except a few like the Nri Kingdom in modern day Nigeria that I mentioned earlier.
In West & Central West Africa, slaves were used domestically in agriculture, craftsmanship, and as labor for royal and elite households. The wealth of African rulers and elites often derived from controlling people, including slaves, who were essential for maintaining social and political power. Slaves were also used in inter-African trade and tribute systems, contributing to the wealth of rulers but often on a smaller scale compared to the later Atlantic slave trade.
For nuance, slaves in some African societies could rise in status, have a job, or even gain freedom.
2) As for books "How Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson has a whole chapter on how the collapse of the British slave trade destroyed West & Central West African Kingdoms.
I have some quibbles with that book, but pages 250-258 are the precise pages you need.
In general, ending slavery had a weird ironic impact on the African Kingdoms. Think of it this way, how can you get more guns, cannons, and weapons if you can't sell slaves. All your enemies could begin raiding you instead. or a civil war could erupt because you don't have the arms to protect you from rival tribe who wants more power.
Progesss in solar, wind and nuclear isn't that relevant for global oil demand. 50% of global oil demand comes from road transportation. The second biggest is petrochemicals. The rest is maritime shipping and planes. Very small segment of electricity and heating demand is met via oil.
The fall in oil demand is largely driven by progress in batteries and EVs. Electricity is already much cheaper than oil as it is.
There can be displacement if coal and natural gas demand fall dramatically. Coal and gas can be used to make petrochemicals (China is using coal while America is using gas). If gas becomes cheaper it might increase the popularity of CNG/LNG for road transportation. CNG trucks are taking off in China. LNG micro gas turbines can also act as range extenders for EVs.
> The UAE, particularly Dubai, ran out of oil in the 1990s and has since diversified into tourism, logistics, airlines, finance, and re-exporting manufactured goods. Gold trading and other strategic investments have also played a key role. The other emirates still have plenty of oil, but Dubai has diversified.
Dubai's model is largely based on low taxes. Once all the other surrounding emirates lose oil money they'll start squeezing Dubai for handouts. Dubai has already raised corporate taxes and imposed local hiring requirements (which if you met someone from the UAE it is a privatised welfare scheme).
Rich countries will also crack down on the tax havens and criminal asylum activities of the UAE once oil dies.
I don't think much the Gulf countries will be colonised if oil goes to shit. Most of the world will largely lose interest in the middle east when oil demand falls. When I was growing up in the 2000s, some dickheads threatening a refinary in Nigeria will oil prices to spike but now Libiya stopped producing 200,000 barrels and no one noticed.
Europe might keep some colonies to prevent a swarm of illegal immigrants. Same with Turkey. The current Iranian regime will fall. 50% of Iranian government revenues come from oil. The new regime will probably not care to support islamists like Hamas. The rest of the region will be a forever basketcase that's kept afloat using UN peacekeeping missions like much of central Africa is today.
Great read as usual and a very interesting parallel. I’d like to point out a few nuances: the African kingdoms were well-established and dominant for centuries, whereas these Arab monarchies today have only recently come into affluence. Additionally, the global landscape today is vastly different from the past. While the world back then was fractured, today's world is highly globalized, with complex interdependencies and economies.
Although slavery eventually became a commodity, it wasn’t the case before the Europeans arrived. Slavery in Africa was similar to slavery throughout history everywhere: typically involving prisoners of war or as a form of punishment. The transatlantic slave trade introduced chattel slavery on a mass scale never seen before, turning slaves into a commodity much like oil today as you have stated. In my opinion, it’s important to address this nuance.
On another note, I liked how you used the term conquest instead of colonization, if that was what was intended. Because that’s exactly what it was.
Where I Disagree:
I disagree with your statement that "slavery eventually became a commodity, but it wasn’t the case before the Europeans arrived." Slavery has functioned as a commodity (which just means exchanging slaves for another good) since ancient times. For example, the Kingdom of Meroe in Sudan traded slaves for grain with Egypt, and the Ghana-Mali-Songhai empires exchanged slaves with the Tuareg and Arab-Berbers of Morocco for salt (which was needed as a food preservative in the Sahara since refrigerators didn't exist yet and it was geographically impossible for West Africans to use iceboxes like Medieval Europe) . Similarly, the Swahili Coast commoditized slaves through its extensive trade network. The Arab Sudanese also enslaved people from the South long before European involvement. In Kanem-Bornu (modern-day Chad), Africans were sold to North Africans in exchange for muskets.
There were three major slave trades in Africa where slaves were treated as commodities besides the transatlantic slave trade: the Indian Ocean trade with Arabia, Persia, Turkey & the Gujarat of modern day India, the Trans-Saharan trade with Arab-Berbers, and the Red Sea trade, where Ethiopians captured Africans and sold them to Omani and Yemeni traders.
2) Chattel slavery, where slaves are treated as property, existed in Arabia for centuries. While Arabs had different forms of slavery—such as debt bondage, servitude with opportunities for promotion, and religious-based manumission—chattel slavery was legal and widespread along with the other forms of slavery. Slaves were considered property and slavery remained legal in places like Saudi Arabia (and its predecessor, the Hejaz), Mauritania, and Yemen until the mid 1900s.
To learn more about the Ghana-Mali-Songhai trade:
https://www.sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/archive-files3/david_c._conrad_empires_of_medieval_west_africabook4me.org_.pdf
Ancient trade between Egypt & Sudan:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/master/frd/frdcstdy/su/sudancountrystud00berry/sudancountrystud00berry.pdf
You’re right on the commodity part. I had it too simplified. At the end of the day, slavery is still slavery. I still think there is a nuance there though - in most societies, particularly the Arab society, slaves still had some rights.
The transatlantic slave trade largely erased this in their practice and I believe had a much more destructive impact on Africa compared to the others.
Thank you for the cogent response!
Where it gets murky:
You mentioned, "the African Kingdoms were well-established and dominant for centuries, whereas these Arab monarchies have only recently come into affluence." You are right mostly. These African Kingdoms in general were older than Arab Kingdoms. For example, the Benin Kingdom dates back to the 11th century, and Oyo and Kongo emerged in the 14th century. The Aro-Igbo Confederacy, Ashanti, and Dahomey arose in the 17th century. Meanwhile the House of Saud, Bahrain, and Kuwait emerged in the 18th century.
However, Oman predates all of them, with its Imamate emerging in the 8th century. Oman also controlled an East African network, which included coastal Swahili cities like Mombasa, Zanzibar, and Kilwa before and after expelling the Portuguese in the late 1600s. Oman's influence extended well before oil was discovered, as it maintained control over these regions until European powers forced an end to slavery. By contrast, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain only emerged in the 18th century.
So, while you're mostly correct, it's important to note Oman's earlier prominence.
2) I mainly agree with your comment that Europeans took slaves in a scale never seen before. It's worth noting that when we compare slaveries, we really have no idea how many slaves were taken across the Arab World because they didn't document their transactions like Europeans did in the same way.
If we thought of this as querying a database separated out Trans-Atlantic, Trans-Saharan, & Indian Ocean + Red Sea trade, and if we use the lower number of 17M, then you are right the Europeans enslaved more:
Trans-Atlatnic was 12.5 (from 1490 to early 1800s)
Trans-Saharan was 8M (from time immemorial to mid /late1800s)
Indian Ocean & Red Sea 9M (from before recorded hsitory to mid/late 1800s
But if we just queried by European vs. Arab slavery it would be
12.5M for Europeans
17M for Arabs
Again we have no idea how many Arabs have trafficked Africans since this has been taking place for a super long time.
Where I agree is that the scale of European slavery was much faster than Arab slavery since Europeans achieved 70% of what we think what the Arab count was in a much shorter time frame. Also, this is assuming the 17M number is accurate...
Some sources for Arab slavery gets to numbers as high as 50M.... But we really don't know. 17M is the number African scholars like Ndiaye use though.
https://www.dw.com/en/east-africas-forgotten-slave-trade/a-50126759
https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1624_story_of_africa/page54.shtml
Hey! Yes, its I agree its not an exact parallel, but I think its general enough that its an interesting comparison.
There are some nuances that I agree, semi-agree, and disagree with and I'll just split it in a few separate comments.
Where I agree:
1) You are correct that the global landscape is way more globalized now in the 21st century than it was back then.
2) You are correct that Europeans used Africans as chattel slavery (slaves as property) on a mass scale - 12.5M
3) Most of these African Kingdoms are older than these Arab monarchies
4) Slavery differs across areas.