Latest / The Atlantic Slave Trade: Empire Built on Human Suffering — Fexingo History / The Slave Trade's African Wars: Dahomey and the Fall of Whydah
Transcript
- Lucas: Luna, we've talked a lot about the European ships, the insurance, the money flowing through Liverpool and Bristol. But there's a whole other side to the transatlantic slave trade that often gets overlooked — the wars in Africa that actually produced the captives. Today I want to focus on one kingdom in particular: Dahomey, and its conquest of Whydah in 1727. Luna: Dahomey — that's in what's now Benin, right? Lucas: Exactly. And the conquest of Whydah — or Ouidah, as it's also spelled — was a turning point. It turned a small inland kingdom into a major player in the slave trade, and it changed the dynamics of the whole region. Before 1727, Whydah was a coastal kingdom, a middleman between inland empires and European ships. It was one of the busiest slave-trading ports on the West African coast. But King Agaja of Dahomey had other plans. Luna: So Dahomey wasn't a coastal power before that? Lucas: No, it was inland, about a hundred kilometers from the coast. And Agaja had been building up a strong military. In 1724, he conquered the kingdom of Allada, which was to the south, and that gave him access to the coast. Then in 1727, he turned his sights on Whydah itself. The king of Whydah, known as the Hueda, had a standing army, but Agaja's forces were more disciplined and better organized. The conquest was swift and brutal. Luna: What happened to the people of Whydah? Lucas: Thousands of captives were taken, and many were sold into slavery — either to European traders at the coast or marched north to be sold in the interior. The conquest effectively gave Dahomey a monopoly on the slave trade in that region. From then on, the king of Dahomey controlled the port, and European traders had to deal with him directly. Luna: That's a huge shift. So the king of Dahomey basically became a middleman himself, but on a bigger scale. Lucas: Exactly. And what's interesting is that Dahomey didn't just sell captives — it also incorporated them into its own society. Some became soldiers, some became laborers, some were used as human sacrifices in royal rituals. It's a complex and dark history. But the key thing is that the slave trade was not just something Europeans imposed on Africa; it was fueled by African states like Dahomey that saw financial and political benefits in selling people. Luna: That's a hard thing to wrap your head around, but it's true. Lucas: It is. And it's important to understand because it complicates the narrative. The trade was a joint venture between European buyers and African sellers. And Dahomey was one of the most aggressive sellers. The king even had a special unit of female soldiers, the famous 'Amazons' — though that name was given by the Europeans. These women were trained warriors, and they played a role in the wars that produced captives. Luna: The Amazons — I've heard of them, but I didn't know they were connected to the slave trade. Lucas: Oh, yes. They were an integral part of the military. Agaja's successors, like King Kpengla and King Gezo, used them in campaigns to the north and west, capturing people to sell. The female soldiers were fiercely loyal and highly disciplined. They were a symbol of Dahomey's military power, but their primary function was to secure victims for the slave trade. Luna: It's strange to think of women warriors in that context. Lucas: It's a stark reminder that history is full of contradictions. These women were both powerful and complicit in a brutal system. But they weren't alone. The whole kingdom was structured around war and raiding. The economy depended on it. The king's wealth was measured in captives and their sale price. Luna: So how did the European powers react to Dahomey's rise? Lucas: The Europeans had established forts at Whydah — the Portuguese, the French, the English. They had made alliances with the Hueda kings, who were easier to deal with. When Agaja took over, they initially tried to resist, but they quickly realized they had to adapt. The French, for instance, negotiated with Agaja and maintained their trading post. The British Royal African Company also had a fort there, and they continued trading with Dahomey. Luna: So they just switched allegiance to the new power. Lucas: In many cases, yes. As long as they could buy slaves, they didn't care who was selling. The forts were defended, but they were primarily trading posts, not military bases. The Europeans didn't have the manpower to conquer the region. They relied on African rulers to supply captives. So they played the game of local politics, paying tribute to the king and following his rules. Luna: What about the Oyo Empire? Didn't they have a say in all this? Lucas: Good question. The Oyo Empire, which was further inland, had been a major power in the region. They actually forced Dahomey to pay tribute for a while. In the 1730s and 1740s, Oyo invaded Dahomey twice, and Dahomey was forced to acknowledge Oyo's supremacy. But despite that, Dahomey kept control of the coast. So there was this complex web of power dynamics — Oyo dominating inland, Dahomey controlling the coastal trade, and Europeans stuck in the middle. Luna: It sounds like a constant power struggle over who gets to exploit the slave trade. Lucas: Absolutely. And that's a pattern across West Africa. The slave trade created enormous incentives for militarized states to raid their neighbors. It's been estimated that between 1700 and 1850, Dahomey alone exported over a million people. That's a staggering number. And it had lasting effects on the region's demographics and social structure. Luna: A million people... that's just mind-boggling. Lucas: It is. And it's not just the numbers; it's the individual lives. Each one of those million was a person with a family, a community, a future that was torn away. The history of the slave trade is often told in terms of economic systems and policies, but we have to remember that at the center of it were human beings. Luna: Yeah. And it's easy to lose sight of that when we talk about kingdoms and conquests. Lucas: That's a big part of why we do this show — to keep those stories alive. And actually, if you've been stepping into history with us episode by episode, you might have noticed that we're a small independent podcast. We don't have a big network behind us. The only reason we can keep doing this is because of listeners like you who support us on buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's not about perks or rewards — it's just about keeping these conversations going. Luna: Yeah, and it really does make a difference. Even a small coffee helps cover the research and the hosting costs. Lucas: Anyway, getting back to Dahomey — the kingdom continued its slave-trading ways well into the 19th century, until the British blockade and eventual colonization put an end to it. But the legacy is still visible in the architecture of Abomey, the old capital, and in the stories that are told. Luna: There's a lot to think about here. The slave trade wasn't just a European enterprise; it was a complex African story too, with its own tragedies and moral compromises. Lucas: Exactly. And that's what makes it so hard to grapple with. But I think it's important to confront it honestly. The victims deserve that. And understanding that complexity is the first step toward truly reckoning with the past.