Is there a reason why Europe managed to conquer the world compared to every other continent? Other than the simple "Europeans are the superior species" reasoning?
>>2230422imo europeans only managed to conquer the americas because of diseases. kinda crazy how chuds and normies in general for that matter constantly talk about the amazing conquistadors bringing down the aztecs and the incas single-handedly and always forget that tenochtitlan was hit by a smallpox outbreak in the middle of the conquest and that the incas were in disarray because smallpox got there first before the spanish and had killed the emperor causing a civil war.
the initial smallpox epidemic in mesoamerica killed like a 1/3 of the population and the subsequent cocoliztli epidemics some decades after managed to wipe out upwards of 90% of the pre-contact population.
in the us following de soto's expedition into the mississippians' realm the population collapsed before europeans even started venturing inland from their colonies on the east coast.
same with australia and nz, which also happen to be the only other places in the world where there was large scale population replacement by europeans, in those two countries the native populations also were affected by introduced diseases.
imo if it wasn't for the diseases, europeans at most would've established some port settlements in the caribbean or the east coast of the americas in general to trade and that would've been the end of it.
in such timeline who knows if colonialism as it happened in our timeline would've developed. i think europe would've had a much harder time conquering africa and asia if they hadn't gotten a boost from all the agricultural and mineral wealth they got from the americas centuries earlier.
Europe is a relatively small continent with various valleys and rivers. That might have helped with trade and the movement of goods. People could connect more easily because of the natural waterways and the land being fragmented into different regions, which could encourage competition and development among different areas. Europe has a long coastline, which would have encouraged the development of navies for trade and defense. Over time, these navies probably became more sophisticated, making it easier to explore and establish colonies in distant lands. The ability to project power overseas would have been crucial in establishing and maintaining colonies. Religious motivations might have played a role as well. The spread of Christianity was a major driving force for some European colonizers. Missions to convert indigenous populations could have justified the colonization efforts, and religious organizations often supported or were involved in these ventures, providing both motivation and resources. Ideological beliefs, like the concept of the “civilizing mission,” surely influenced European colonization. There was a prevalent belief that European culture, values, and governments were superior, and that it was a duty to “civilize” the rest of the world. This mindset would have justified the subjugation and control over other nations, framing colonization as a benevolent enterprise despite its exploitative nature. Economic factors are probably huge here. Expanding trade networks and seeking new markets would have been a strong incentive to colonize. By controlling other regions, European nations could control trade routes, establish exclusive markets for their goods, and exploit labor forces. This economic strategy could lead to significant wealth accumulation and the strengthening of their economies relative to others. Then there's the fragmented political structure. Europe had many kingdoms and city-states instead of a single, centralized empire. This fragmentation might have allowed for more innovation because different governments could experiment with policies without the constraints of a larger, more rigid empire. Plus, without a dominant empire stifling progress, competition could drive technological and economic advancements. Improved farming techniques and crop yields meant that people could produce more food, which freed up labor for other activities like industry and trade. It also led to population growth because fewer people were needed to work the land, allowing others to move to cities and work in factories or other industries. Europe has various natural resources like coal and iron, which are essential for industrialization. Being near the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea gave European countries good trade routes, making it easier to import raw materials from colonies and export finished goods. The availability of capital and a growing middle class in Europe could have provided the financial backing needed for industrialization. As trade and commerce expanded, more people invested in businesses and industries, creating the necessary capital flow to fund factories and new ventures. The middle class's growth meant a larger consumer base, driving the need for mass production. The decline of feudalism and the rise of capitalism provided a new economic structure. Feudal systems were rigid, but the shift to capitalist systems allowed for more entrepreneurship and profit motive. National governments supported industrialization by investing in infrastructure and protecting industries. The lack of a centralized control over Europe meant that no single entity could stifle innovation. Different regions could experiment with economic policies, leading to competition and faster development. This diversity and competition pushed Europe ahead in both capitalism and industrialization. It seems like a combination of geography, political structure, agricultural improvements, resource availability, colonial trade, intellectual movements, capital accumulation, technological innovation, and social changes all contributed to Europe's lead in developing capitalism and industrialization. Each factor likely interacted with the others, creating a fertile ground for these developments to take root and flourish.
>>2230496We have many non European countries with just as much geographical diversity.
Many ethnoculturrs who were seafarers and merchants who spread their ideas far and wide.
>>2230627But for a reason or another their areas didn't have the constant conflicts between enemies of equiparable power that required the local rulers to always aquire resources to try to one-up their neightbour.
Somewhat unrelated but, by the time britain showed up in the indian subcontinent, some nations there were on the verge of their own industrial revolution themself thanks to the surplusses accumulated by trading and textile production.
>>2230643>But for a reason or another their areas didn't have the constant conflicts between enemies of equiparable power that required the local rulers to always aquire resources to try to one-up their neightbour.That is however in no way a unique feature of Europe, and was less so in post-middle ages period than before it.
>some nations there were on the verge of their own industrial revolution themselfHow so? Which ones? As far as I know, steam engine development from earliest application to locomotives took part entirely within Great Britain before it spread out to rest of Europe.
>>2230423>but it fully matured first in europe>>2230458>because of diseases>>2230496>The spread of Christianityto keep going on speculative vibes it matured first in western europe with the anglo dutch because being coastal/island nations they were reliant on sea trade at the same time that steam power became a thing so they had a head start on globalization, same with japan
and the reason for disease is similar, with northern people relying on domestication of animals to increase their agricultural output due to seasonal variations lacking near the equator, and then combined with urbanization
and protestantism should be distinguished. it was invented to justify capitalism being the spiritual counterpart to and mirroring liberalisms philosophical ideals about individual free will leading to the salvation of humanity
>>2230422Europe was still one of the great civilizations of the Eurasian landmass before colonialism. Only the Ottomans, Persia, India and China were on par with them at the time. Note how among them only India was ever fully colonized. Sub-Saharan African tribes and Native American tribes were protected by the Sahara and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans from competition with Eurasian empires. These parts of the world were able to get away with not developing statehood for a very long time.
Europe always would have been the first great civilization which ever got to these uncontacted tribes because of its geographic position. The large scale pillaging and enslavement in these two isolated regions allowed the Europeans to amass massive wealth, especially in terms of gold. The massive influx of commodity-money spurred the development of capitalism in an otherwise stagnant feudal economy where the circulation of money was limited by how much surplus peasants were able to produce to feed artisans.
Pillaging and settler colonialism also helped European societies to withstand the social upheaval caused by capitalism. Note how (Western) Europe has the largest number of monarchies in our current world.
Industrialisation led to European technological superiority that went beyond its original advantageous geographical position, but then it started to slowly fade away as Europe lost control of its colonies and more and more countries started industrialising.
Europe (or at least its Western half) never went through a revolution and a lot of the times their economies are ruled over by the same families compared to a hundred or two hundred years ago. Hence why Western-based monopolies conceded to outsourcing and tried to turn their own population into universal ruling class. Anyone who didn't fit into this schema, including large parts of the original industrial working class experiences the decrease in living standards and increased competition with non-natives as a racial struggle and produces colonial nostalgia. Current proponents of racial superiority have little weight behind them and they are not to be taken literally, their politics are pure resentment.
>>2230682I wouldn't call Europe a 'civilization', nor would I call India a civilization aswell. There were many states, kingdoms, empires and such in both of these areas, some were shitholes and ate horseshit for lunch, others were illustrious empires like the Ottomans which had a quite high standard of living. You lived better if you were a serf in France than if you were a serf in Poland, for example.
What did cause, in my opinion, for Europe 'as a whole' to soar above other civilizations and continents is perhaps the inter-connection of Europe via trade routes and monarchial houses, the former especially allowing for the spread of goods and technology.
Another thing, the revolution in France and the subsequent Napoleonic Wars, which took place long after Europe had surpassed the Orient, was really just the final nail in the coffin. It simply wiped out old noble-peasant dynamics, and empowered the bourgeoisie, laying the stage for capitalism to spread, as the nobles and monarchies could not stop it, because yes, the main roadblock for capitalism was nobles who wanted to preserve their power. There was, still, continued resistance, such as in Russia and especially Hungary, where it resisted industrialization even into the 20th century (partially).
>>2230422Europe’s conquest of the world happened in three major phases and each succeeding phase was made possible by the proceeding phase
The first phase of conquest relied on literal early modern militaries going against societies technologically equivalent to the Bronze Age at most and the world as of 10-8,000 years ago (indigenous North America beyond the Aztec Empire and the Caribbean); it is very easy to defeat an army equipped with bows and arrows and armor made of woven fabrics without any riding mounts when you come armed with matchlock guns based on chinese firepower and steel plate armor and horses; and even then, it took the Europeans a pretty long time to actually conquer North and South America and the Caribbean
Once that entire world zone was conquered, Europe could simply siphon off wealth from those continents to fuel rapid technological growth and cultural development internally, while at the same time underdeveloping the parts of the world they made contact with
It’s worth remembering that the origin for colonialism was actually the early world market that had formed in the late Middle Ages, Europe happened to inhabit a privileged position in said world market that allowed simultaneous contact with Asia, Africa, and the Middle East
>>2230682>Western Europe never went through the bourgeoisie revolutionsTop kek
This is the actual literacy of MLoids
Unique IPs: 36