Yves Urvoy's Histoire de l'Empire du Bornou remains a key text on the history of Kanem-Borno. Although published during the colonial era, and deeply indebted to the Hamitic Hypothesis, and based on, from what we could ascertain, several questionable and dated translations of Arabic sources from the medieval era, Urvoy's survey provides an early overview of Kanem-Borno civilization from its origins to the colonial conquests. Unfortunately, blinded by racialist ideologies and therefore offering just-so theories of "white" nomads from the north and east interacting with "black" peasant or sedentary populations to create the "Sudanic" state in early Kanem, Urvoy's racial biases became the foundation for his explanation of its genesis.
Thus, the Sao and local "black" populations of the era were politically fragmented, 'primitive' and the great Sudanic kingdoms and empires could only have come about through "Hamitic" or "white" nomadic groups with their racial pride and contacts with the more advanced Mediterranean or Middle Eastern worlds. Without any evidence, Urvoy can reach such conclusions based on colonial-era racial ideologies and justifications. Indeed, at times Urvoy's condescending tone is quite palpable to the reader. So, Urvoy's text is weak in its theoretical foundations, offering a "racialist" perspective on African history with little to no evidence. Like Palmer, he interprets oral traditions of eastern origins as literal history, although without the faulty linguistic and etymological gymnastics of Palmer.
That said, Urvoy provided one of the better overviews of Kanem-Borno's history from its little known origins to the colonial era. His study benefitted from the collections of oral sources and primary source materials unknown or inaccessible to European writers like Barth and Nachtigal in the previous century. Urvoy also had some familiarity with primary sources like the Agadez Chronicle and early archaeological excavations in the region, all tools that seem to have not been available to Barth or Nachtigal. Of course, one can also take issue with the faulty chronology and dates for the Sefuwa dynasty mais created by Urvoy, which are certainly less accurate than that of Lange.
Moreover, some of his conclusions about the weakness of different Sefuwa kings in the 17th and 18th century may not account for the shifting base of power and authority over 1000 years. For example, a strong or reputable mai may not necessarily require constant military campaigns. One is tempted to think Urvoy may have been applying stereotypes based on the history of the Roman Empire or Europe to describe some of the allegedly weak or incompetent kings. However, we here at the blog appreciated his breakdown of Kanem-Borno imperial administration and his attempt at analysis, based on our limited sources, of various eras in the millenium-long history of the Sefuwas, and the attempts by the Shehu dynasty to defend the Empire.