Sure but even by 0AD Egypt was a vassal to Rome, and had been living under a Greek royal family for centuries prior to that after Alexander's conquests. Doubly weird considering they became the breadbasket of the empire, so it's not like they couldn't support a large population.

Egypt is on the African continent but is usually considered to be more a part of the Middle East.

deleted by creator

Development is a nebulous term. African societies weren't building oceanic armadas or smelting steel but they were making huge advances in mathematics and physics. Some African societies were larger and wealthier than contemporary European ones. But the western yardstick is to measure the development of a society by how many bombs and iPhones it produces per second. Same goes for pre-columbus American civilizations. South American societies were engaged in full-scale hydrological engineering and advanced animal husbandry and selective agriculture exceeding European development. North American societies were governing massive tracts of land and creating self-sustaining food forest ecosystems.

Africa is not a monolith. Neither is development. North Africa was pretty advanced if I recall correctly with people like Mansa Musa and there were very significant cultural and scientific developments in the Muslim world at the time. I think that Europeans had better armaments, armor, naval technology and possibly construction ability. However that is a result of Europe having more easily attainable iron and coal deposits, constant war and England being an island. African animals are also more or less impossible to domesticate (except camels and maybe zebras, but not really) and this gave Europeans a leg up in agriculture and prioritized urban development which in turn leads to ideas spreading faster and more technological development. I think a lot of the gap was due to Europe having more cities, which also allowed for biological warfare. Parts of Africa were incredibly wealthy and developed and parts more or less operated off sustenance farming.

The answer is complicated for the reasons others have said, but I like to explain it this way:

Advanced, peaceful aliens arrive at Earth in 1400 CE. They want to set up relations with earth but they are used to dealing with planets that have one planetary government, society, etc (just like Star Trek). They don’t quite know how to deal with such a fractured and diverse planet.

So these aliens decide to only meet with leaders from selected societies. They don’t have specific criteria but are generally looking at a whole host of factors we might broadly call “development”: education, metallurgy, governmental forms, material output, health & sanitation systems, etc.

The aliens would almost certainly choose to meet with reps from at least China, India, Persia, the Byzantine Empire, North and West Africa, parts of the Arab world, and Tenochtitlan. Europe, outside of Byzantium and Al-Andalus, would have been completely bypassed. On a global scale Europe was a poor, irrelevant backwater that didn’t have much in the way of achievements that we mention or much pull beyond its own corner of the globe. If you could go back to 1400 and live some place for a year, you almost certainly wouldn’t pick Europe.

Outside of North Africa (and some part of West Africa)… I don’t know much about comparing the rest of the continent to Europe. But I really don’t think they were much behind if at all.

If you look at pre-industrial societies, then Africa is on par or even ahead of Europe, examples would be the Umayyad Caliphate, Egypt, the Malian Empire, the Abyssinian Empire, the Kongo, and the Zanzibar Sultanate.

deleted by creator

My first thought too lol. Malaria, dengue fever, whole bunch of other ones.

The answer boils down to geography really

Ah, so that explains Florida

Is the earliest known evidence of civilisation not in Mesopotamia?

It is a bit strange to counter a racial supremacist narrative by using racial supremacy and talk of racial purity as your argument.

This is just unironically asserting that white people are majestic Aryans, except you can't be saying that. What, are you going to tell me that it's the inferior DNA of the European woman that has removedd their legacy?

Also it's ridiculous to assert that hunter-gatherers accomplished literally nothing. What do you know about pre-PIE Europe and its culture? This is actually the same thing as saying that Sub-Saharan cultures are inferior because they built huts instead of colonnades.

Native American hunter gatherers produced . . . complex cities

The Mexica and Inca were not hunter-gatherers, neither the Cahokians.

And then of course every other continent mentioned above has been genetically untouched by foreign people since the paleolithic.

This is just entirely without basis.

Literally everything ever accomplished in Europe has been done by Anatolian farmers (Middle Eastern) . . .

This whole premise is bizarre, because the spread of Indo-Iranians is a millenia-long process most likely originating around the north of the Black and Caspian Seas. But these are the people who we think of as early Europeans, they predate the concepts of Europe or Asia. The Germanic peoples of antiquity are descendants of the Corded-Ware culture. This is the Mycenaeans and the Hittites. (who, incidentally conquered previous inhabitants of Anatolia). The expansion of cultures out of the Eurasian steppe probably has a lot to do with horses, chariots, and riding, which would enable a comparatively rapid dissemination (pardon the pun) of their culture and genetics.
I put this under this line because they are the Anatolians and also NOT the "middle-eastern" early agriculturalists like the Sumerians and later Akkadians and Assyrians, who wouldn't even expand into Anatolia until the first millenium BCE.

. . . or post-Aryan admixed people (East Asian admixture)

Please tell me you aren't asserting that Indo-Iranians are East Asian.

I also take issue with your assertion that they killed all of the European men 4500 years ago, which seems to be a result of this unfortunate subtitle on a science-reporting article about an archaeological study in Spain, the site in question also appears to be from 2500 y.a. and the researchers suggest that chromosomal differences are a result of successive preferential access to mates.

Fundamentally, all of the arguments you are putting forward are race supremacist ones. True to form, they are based on a hodge-podge of faulty premises and misrepresented historical pieces arranged in a way to support your vision for who the Superior People are, while ignoring the incredibly complex history of the human species, its cultures, and how they adapted, adopted, spread, mixed, and mutated over the course of millenia.

the Aryans invaded Europe 4500 years ago and killed all the men, but when they invaded Punjab in India they could hardly kill anyone without it happening in turn--they even wrote multi-generational sagas about how long their wars went on

This is the power of Rajma Masala

the Aryans invaded Europe 4500 years ago and killed all the men

No, current consensus is that the "Indo-European/Aryan Invasion" was a process of migration from the Steppe/Black Sea and there were battles over fertile areas and grazing plains but nowhere near a full population replacement or concerted conquest. There seems to be a long process of trade, immigration, and elite intermarriage (the immigration and therefore intermarriage were overwhelmingly men) that cause much of Europe to adopt Indo-European language and material culture. There were some notable exceptions, largest being the southern coast of Britain where there was some Indo-European speaking people that crossed the channel, and from genetic evidence, did fully genocide and replace much of the earlier neolithic population.