Share this
An African claimed the battles of the “Scramble for Africa” were successful because Africans worshipped false gods.
The fact though is that African countries didn’t lose wars because of false gods. If worshipping the Christian God won wars, New Kingdom Egyptian dynasties, Kushite empire, the Chola Chola dynasty, Persians and later Mongols would not have won so many battles.
Back then, we weren’t conquered by countries — we were colonized by corporations. The British South Africa Company, the Royal Niger Company, and the Dutch East India Company were the Googles and Apples 🦄 of the 19th century. Their shareholders were Europe’s elite — investors seeking quarterly returns in gold, ivory, and human labor. What they exported wasn’t civilization but capitalism with a bayonet.
While these “unicorns” conquered continents, the same elites were crushing their own working classes at home. The Peterloo Massacre (1819) was not far removed from massacres in Lagos, Delhi, or Kimberley. The empire was an outsourcing project — exporting repression from Manchester to Mozambique. Colonialism wasn’t a clash of leadership styles; it was a clash of industrial capacity.
Colonial invaders outmatched African states in four key areas — four asymmetries that decided the continent’s fate.
1. Equipment
They wielded new weapons of mass disruption: Gatling guns, repeating rifles, and artillery that could annihilate armies before a single spear was thrown. African forces fought courageously but faced machinery designed for extermination, not combat.
2. Logistics
Europe had the maps, money, and merchants. They coordinated invasions through telegraphs, railways, and naval supply chains — a global logistics web that outclassed any African kingdom’s capacity to move or sustain troops. Wars were won in warehouses before they were fought on battlefields.
3. Vessels
Their fleets ruled not only the seas but the rivers. Ironclads and steam-powered gunboats allowed colonial forces to sail deep inland, controlling trade routes and bombarding cities from the water. From the Nile to the Niger, Africa’s arteries became Europe’s highways.
4. Military Organization
European armies had centuries of professional training — military schools, command hierarchies, and specialized corps. They fielded medics, engineers, and field clinics. They also weaponized inequality, recruiting African soldiers (Askaris and colonial regiments) at 10–30% of white pay to suppress other Africans. “Divide and rule” wasn’t just a slogan; it was a payroll strategy perfected in Asia and exported to Africa.
Quick fact: most modern African armies trace their origins to these colonial regiments, whose first mission was not national defense but crushing African demands for democracy. (If you doubt it, check your country’s military history — it’s all there.)
In contrast, Africa outmatched Europe in numbers, but not in infrastructure. The invaders didn’t win because they were braver or wiser — they won because they could reload faster, ship further, and coordinate longer. The outcome wasn’t proof of superior leadership; it was proof of superior logistics.
These four advantages created an asymmetrical power dynamic that shaped not only military conquest but the political map we still live under. Africa’s leaders weren’t “servants” who failed their people — they were outgunned by investors who treated warfare as a business model.
And the parallels today are haunting. The battlefield has shifted from muskets to markets, gunboats to global banks, and telegraphs to algorithms. Yet the imbalance remains. African nations still lag in economic strength, IT defense, naval power, and access to financial and technological capital. The same asymmetries — capital, coordination, and control — have merely gone digital.
Europe didn’t defeat Africa because Africa worshipped false gods. The evidence is overwhelming.
