OCR Specification focus:
‘Selection procedures; tax; tribute; imperial structure.’
The Kingdoms of Oyo and Dahomey in the 17th and 18th centuries developed distinctive systems of rule that revolved around carefully structured selection procedures, the collection of tax and tribute, and the maintenance of a centralised imperial structure. These mechanisms were essential for maintaining political authority, ensuring a stable succession, and supporting the financial and military power of the states.
Selection Procedures
The process of choosing rulers in Oyo and Dahomey was critical to ensuring stability. Both kingdoms faced the challenge of preventing arbitrary succession while maintaining the influence of noble elites.
Oyo
In the Oyo Empire, the ruler was known as the Alaafin. His selection was not hereditary in a straightforward sense but required approval from powerful institutions:
The Oyo-Mesi (council of state) was composed of seven high-ranking nobles who had the authority to nominate and confirm the Alaafin.
The Ogboni society, a religious and political body, also had an important balancing role, representing the interests of the wider community and ensuring the Alaafin upheld religious and moral obligations.
Candidates were usually drawn from the royal family but had to be acceptable to both the Oyo-Mesi and the Ogboni, ensuring no single lineage monopolised power.
Paired edan Ògbóni (Yoruba), worn or displayed by Ogboni members as emblems of judicial–moral authority. They illustrate how institutional checks constrained royal power in Oyo’s selection procedures. This object photograph shows the insignia only; it does not depict a ceremony. Source
Alaafin: The king of Oyo, regarded as a semi-divine figure, whose authority depended on the approval of noble and religious institutions.
The system created checks and balances: if an Alaafin was deemed tyrannical or unfit, the Oyo-Mesi could demand his suicide by presenting an empty calabash or parrot’s eggs, a symbol of rejection.
Dahomey
In Dahomey, succession was more centralised under the monarchy:
The king, or Ahosu, wielded greater direct control over succession, though he relied on the support of palace officials and military leaders.
A council of senior figures, often including the king’s mother (Kpojito) and other influential women, played a vital role in advising on succession.
Unlike Oyo, Dahomey often saw fierce competition between royal brothers or half-brothers, leading to struggles for power, though rituals and council oversight aimed to regulate these disputes.
Ahosu: The king of Dahomey, whose rule was absolute in theory but mediated in practice by court officials and influential advisors, including royal women.
The emphasis on ritual and consultation in both kingdoms reflects the broader Sahelian and West African traditions where legitimacy rested not only on bloodline but also on religious sanction and communal approval.
Tax and Tribute
Both Oyo and Dahomey relied heavily on taxation and tribute to sustain their political and military power. Their empires demanded resources from subject peoples and used complex systems to collect them.
Oyo
The empire imposed tribute on conquered territories and vassal states, which often included agricultural produce, slaves, and horses.
Taxation was supervised by imperial officials who ensured delivery to the capital, Oyo-Ile.
Tribute not only provided economic sustenance but also served as a clear demonstration of imperial dominance. Failure to pay could trigger punitive military expeditions.
Dahomey
Dahomey had a more centralised system, with officials collecting taxes directly on behalf of the crown.
Tribute often included goods such as cowries (used as currency), firearms obtained through trade, and human captives, reflecting Dahomey’s close engagement with the Atlantic slave trade.
The kingdom developed highly organised taxation systems on markets, agriculture, and war booty, creating a strong fiscal base for the monarchy.
Tribute: Goods, labour, or payments demanded by a dominant power from subordinate peoples or states, symbolising loyalty and subordination.
Taxes and tribute reinforced the relationship between centre and periphery. In Oyo, semi-autonomous client states paid tribute; in Dahomey, the state’s bureaucratic reach penetrated local society more directly.
Imperial Structure
The imperial structure of these kingdoms underpinned the functioning of both succession and taxation.
Oyo
The empire was composed of a central core around Oyo-Ile and numerous client states.
Map showing the Oyo Empire at its greatest extent c.1780, with Oyo-Ile and principal territories marked. Use this to visualise the imperial core and tributary peripheries that sustained Oyo’s authority. Some peripheral toponyms extend beyond our period focus, but they aid geographic orientation. Source
Authority was distributed between the Alaafin, the Oyo-Mesi, and the Ogboni, creating a layered system of governance.
Provincial rulers (Obas and Bale) owed allegiance to the Alaafin but retained significant autonomy, provided they supplied tribute and military support.
Dahomey
Dahomey was far more centralised, with the king exercising direct control through a powerful bureaucracy.
The palace was the heart of administration, staffed by officials such as the Migan (prime minister) and Mehu (second minister), who supervised taxation, justice, and military matters.
The Royal Palaces of Abomey formed the political and administrative core of Dahomey, housing court officials and archives that coordinated taxation, tribute, and military organisation. The image highlights the monumental earthen architecture associated with royal authority. Source
The integration of female officials, such as the Kpojito and leaders of the female military corps, added another dimension to central governance.
The structures of both kingdoms reveal two contrasting models of West African imperial organisation: Oyo’s semi-federal balance of powers and Dahomey’s centralised absolutism.
The Relationship Between Selection, Tax, and Empire
The interconnectedness of selection procedures, taxation, and imperial structure is clear:
Selection ensured rulers were legitimate and accountable.
Tax and tribute provided the financial means to support armies, courts, and public works.
Imperial structures organised and enforced these processes, binding together diverse populations.
In both Oyo and Dahomey, these mechanisms underpinned imperial stability but also created vulnerabilities. Succession disputes could destabilise governance, while excessive taxation sometimes provoked rebellion. Nonetheless, these kingdoms developed sophisticated political systems that enabled them to flourish as major powers in West Africa between 1608 and c.1800.
FAQ
The Oyo-Mesi used a symbolic ritual to enforce accountability. If the Alaafin was considered tyrannical or unfit, they presented him with an empty calabash or parrot’s eggs.
This act compelled him to commit suicide, effectively removing him without open rebellion. It reinforced the principle that his authority was conditional on good governance.
In Dahomey, taxation was often justified through religious ceremonies and royal rituals. The king was seen as semi-divine, and payments reinforced loyalty to him.
Ritual sacrifices and palace ceremonies, funded by these revenues, strengthened the sacred image of the monarchy. This religious framing made taxation appear not just political but a spiritual obligation.
Cowries were widely used as a currency in West Africa, making them ideal for standardised taxation.
They facilitated the collection of tribute from diverse regions.
They allowed Dahomey to engage in Atlantic trade more effectively.
Their portability and uniform value helped the central government maintain tighter fiscal control compared to barter payments.
Tribute served both practical and symbolic functions. Economically, it brought resources such as slaves, agricultural produce, and horses to Oyo.
Symbolically, the act of paying tribute reminded client rulers of their subordinate status. Failure to comply often triggered punitive military campaigns, reasserting Oyo’s supremacy.
The Migan acted as the king’s chief minister, overseeing justice, administration, and foreign affairs. He ensured loyalty among provincial leaders.
The Mehu functioned as the second minister, often responsible for taxation and financial matters. Together, they formed a dual system that balanced oversight of both internal administration and external relations.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
Identify two ways in which the Oyo-Mesi influenced the selection of the Alaafin in the Oyo Empire.
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for each correct way identified (maximum 2 marks).
Acceptable answers include:
They nominated the Alaafin from the royal family.
They confirmed the choice of Alaafin through council approval.
They could reject a candidate not acceptable to them.
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain how systems of taxation and tribute supported the imperial structure of Oyo and Dahomey.
Mark Scheme:
Level 1 (1–2 marks): Simple or generalised statements, e.g. “They used tribute to get money.” Limited or no development of how it supported the empire.
Level 2 (3–4 marks): Some explanation with relevant detail. May refer to one kingdom more than the other. For example, “Oyo relied on tribute from client states to show their power and provide agricultural goods. Dahomey taxed markets to fund the monarchy.”
Level 3 (5–6 marks): Developed explanation covering both kingdoms and showing clear understanding of links between taxation/tribute and imperial structure. For example: “Oyo demanded tribute from client states, which not only supplied economic resources like horses and slaves but also reinforced their subordination to the Alaafin. In Dahomey, taxes and tribute were collected centrally by officials in the royal palace, providing a strong fiscal base for the monarchy and allowing the king to fund military campaigns and administration. Both systems bound subject peoples into the empire and sustained its political stability.”
