Talk:Kingdom of Kongo/Archive 1

Untitled
mplate does it for you. Example, for the population type in 509000 with no comma, if that's what you think it is rather than the 2 million. For the sq km. do the same; 129000. If those are the correct numbers, I can add them for you. Thanks. - Jeeny Talk 18:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Beepsie. It's really quite an honor in my opinion to have access to some1 who had published articles on this topic.  I put in the data in the infobox.  I didn't cite my sources (my bad) cuz I didn't have the time (I was at work).  I tried to make some changes to the info box but it won't let me edit it either!  As for some of the data issues...


 * The 2 million figure comes from the link below
 * http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8537%281977%2918%3A4%3C507%3ADAHITK%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

As you can see it is part of the venerable John K. Thornton's article on demographics. I know these numbers aren't the be-all end-all and the issue is complicated by how you define Kongo's territory. I can't really oppose too many changes cuz the data is kinda tenuous. Do what you can but please remember there are other sources out there.


 * Your numbers sound consistent regarding metropolitan Kongo, but we all know very well it was much larger than the capital and immediate surroundings. Still, my data only comes from sources I found on the internet so if you can find better ones please put em.  No objections here.  My source for the area said Kongo covered 116 square miles and 300 square kilometers.
 * http://www.everyculture.com/wc/Brazil-to-Congo-Republic-of/Bakongo.html


 * The conquest of Kabunga is supposed to read "invasin of Kabunga" for 1395. The stupid box won't do what I tell it to. See the kingdom of Kongo page for more details.  Once again, I'm just working with existing info.  If you can find a better term or explanation, I'd suggest putting it in the article and then putting it in the infobox.


 * i wasn't aware Pedro V signed a vassalage agreement. Thnx for bringing it up.  Can you provide us with some sources for that, tho before we include it.  I only knew of the 1888 won by the wiki article itself.


 * As for the nzimbu thing, that's in the article. As part as a peace agreement between Garcia II and the newly re-established Portuguese after the Dutch were kicked out, the Portuguese demanded Luanda cuz it was the source of Kongo's currency.  The currency was called nzimbu, and nzimbu is a KiKongo word. Here's a link confirming that the shell (under that name) was used as currency in Kongo at least until the 1600s. A second link describes Portugal gaining control of Luanda's shell producing region in 1615 and the inflation that followed. When I say raffia I mean raffia.  I've never heard of the other terms.  Every source I run across uses raffia by name (bark sewn into cloth with a texture similar to velvet cut into squares.  I can't seem to find my source on Garcia's deliberate switch to using it exclusively after handing over Luanda in his treaty.  We can put both, but the point I was making is that the cloth were in use more than the nzimbu after that point.  it doesn't mean nzimbu weren't used at all; just not in an official context.
 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_1990_Jan/ai_8561001
 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HSP/is_1_6/ai_106647781/pg_10 (this link describes


 * The legislature was put there cuz its a necessary category. I put the council of twelve cuz of the following links...
 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HSP/is_1_6/ai_106647781/pg_2
 * http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8537(1983)24%3A2%3C189%3AFAKATK%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0


 * A far as the langauge used. I almost put portuguese since i know the correspondence between the menenkongo and portugal was in that language.  But I know of no proof that Portuguese was declared at any time to be the official language.  To remedy this, we could put Portuguese as the (Official language) and KiKongo as the (language). There are categories for both in the infobox. I just didn't bother with them. Before we make this change, can you provide a source that Portuguese was the official language? I know the title of the kingdom can also be Wene We kongo. I think that term makes more sense. Let's put both. I think Reino de Congo is wrong cuz that is not the NATIVE NAME.

Hit me back ASAP. And thnx for the helpful info.Scott Free 15:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
Unless some1 can convince me in the next 7 days that Pedro II defeated in battle a Portuguese/Imbangala force in 1622 at one of the supposed battles...I'm deleting it cuz I can't find a single reference for it ANYWHERE.
 * Battle of Mbumbi (perhaps Pedro defeated the invasion after the initial battle?)
 * Battle of Mbamba (again, a separate engagement right after the one at Mbumbi)
 * Battle of Mbandi Kasi (a place somewhere within Mbamba?)

Really need y'all help on this 1. Scott Free 01:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Makeover
Hey every1. I'm gonna give this whole article a massive overhaul to bring it up to GA status like I did with the Mali Empire page. I got all my books and articles together, so I'll start working on this baby tonight. Still waiting for some1 to fill me in on the Battle of Mbanda Kasi or whatever. At this point I gotta assume it didn't happen at all; thus IT WILL BE REMOVED. I think we'll end up with a much better article after this (just my opinion). Any info on this page that I can't find in my library or on JSTOR won't be included.

p.s. Check out the Kongo Civil War page I started. I still need to finish adding my references but best believe I have one or more for every fact on the page. Scott Free 00:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC


 * Had to postpone the rw of this article for a while cuz I'm waiting on a book to come in ("Central Africans, Atlantic Creoles, and the Foundation of the Americas, 1585-1660" by Linda M. Heywood and John K. Thornton). Should be here in a few days.  After that it's on!  Anyone have access to any good books on Kongo?  Holla back here or on my talk page.  Later.Scott Free 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Mbanda Kasi
Most history books list the battle of Mbumbi as a Kongo defeat. This is because the known documents until 1988 presented it as such. The most important of these was Antonio de Oliveira de Cadornega's Historia das guerras angolanas, written in 1681 (Cadornega was in Angola from 1639 onward). He interviewed some of the Portuguese participants, and presented it as a major victory. Other documents about it, for example complaints by Pedro II and some Jesuit priests described a Portuguese victory and the fate of the prisoners taken there.

However in 1988 the final volume of Antonio Brasio's Monumenta Missionaria Africana appeared. This volume had documents from the 1400s to 1700 in it, and one of them was a detailed Jesuit report written at the time which made it appear that while the Portuguese had won an engagement against a small Kongo force at Mbumbi, the Portuguese army had had to withdraw from Kongo, which didn't make as much sense. It included a letter of complaint against the governor of Angola, Joao Correia de Sousa signed by a number of Portuguese merchants who were resident in Kongo. It was dated at the royal camp (ie Pedro's camp) at Banda Casi (ie Mbanda Kasi). It was pretty clear that the Portuguese had withdrawn and the Kongo army was in the field.

Then two years ago, a graudate student at Boston University found a document in the archives of the Dutch States General (cited in the version I edited about the battle) which made it clear that Kongo had won a second battle in which their main army had met the Portuguese army and defeated it badly. It was based on a letter that Pedro II had written to the States General, and it gave details of the humiliation of the Portuguese. This was then consistent with the other reports of the battle. As soon as my (and Linda Heywood's) book, Central Africans, Atlantic Creoles and the Foundation of the Americas is published (should be at the end of September) this reconstruction will be in secondary literature with full references. I stuck in it Wikipedia in advance of publication just because I thought it would be nice to get it out there. Beepsie

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)