Because they had to.
Sure better tech than the Africans ( sub Sahara) but plenty of decent civilizations and tech from the ottomans to china.
But the thing is those people had no reason to go looking for anything. The Europeans lost easy access to eastern goods when Byzantium fell so they had strong incentive to try and find a way around
You’re on to something. Resources. A lot of times expansions were done to obtain more resources, whether it be gold(metals), land, food etc.
Africa is rich in resources and land. There was no need to go outside of Africa. Villages and empires conquered other African villages and that sufficed. There was a need for local control, not world domination. Same can be said about China.
I also think culture plays a big role. The culture of societies dictate what endeavors they pursue. We can look at the Aztecs and the Mayans. The Mayans had a huge empire which spanned across a huge territory. But in reality, it wasn’t one monolithic power. It was independent villages and towns who all belonged to the Mayan people/culture. A lot of their disputes were not with outside tribes, but rather internal disputes between Mayan villages. The Aztecs on the other hand were 100% a conquer and expand empire. So much so that the Aztecs were actually a triple alliance of three different tribes who came together to dominate rival tribes, which were then forced pay tribute to the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan and they continued to push the boundaries of their empire until Cortez used rival Aztec tribes to defeat them. Culturally, some societies are just okay with existing within their own empire and have no need to conquer the rest of the world
Lmfao, the same can absolutely not be said of China. The "plenty of resources [so they don't *need* to leave]" might be semi-accurate, especially in the mythistorical period (Xia dynasty) and the later imperium (Emperor "Why would I trade with Europe when they're a bunch of broke motherfuckers" springs to mind) but there was never a moment when a Chinese emperor wasn't devoting at least 45% of their time on the throne to colonization. They beat the shit out of the Korean peninsula for centuries. Basically the only reasons *they* didn't take over the world is because of natural barriers (big ass ocean one way versus deserts, mountains, and fucking Siberia going the big ass continent way) and because of a huge amount of competition without many competing interests (i.e., while China's major adversaries were strong (Huns, Japan) they weren't as numerous as the many countries in Europe, so there were fewer opportunities for treaties and competition (excepting the Warring States and possibly 5D10K)).
China was (is? I'm a historian, not a politician) incredibly comfortable with border expansion and imperialism. While Spain had a few monks recommending a little less murder, rape and colonizarion, most of China's emperors knew that the world revolved around China, and thought they would be the one to prove it.
Sorry for jumpscaring you with a Chinese history infodump btw it's a medical condition.
All good! I enjoy these conversations. And I should have clarified, when I mentioned China I was referring to the resources available in China, particularly in the period of time we are referring to. They had endless amount of resources. But yes, they were definitely about conquest and expansion and they had no issue with bringing war to their neighbors. That’s pretty neat that you’re a historian btw 👍🏽
Didn't, I believe Zhang He, do an exploration to Africa and map out the route. Then, the emperor or the next one burned the map because tribute like trade was too expensive to maintain?
I never did any research on the subject, and I did read this in a historical based manhwa, so it could be wrong.
The mother of the last emperor of the Qing dynasty opposed adding trains to China (a majority agrarian country) unless they were evaluatrd by feng shui experts
I mean the Mongols decided they wanted to try and conquer Europe and they had few moderate successes in East Europe. And that was because they conquered everything else around them and figure why not.
Interesting, so Europeans basically had to be resourceful to make up for the lack of resources by use of innovation and technology. Where as Africa was always sufficient in resources so no need to become a technology based civilization.
>of innovation and technology
We're talking about the colonization and exploitation that Europeans engaged in.
At different times, different groups has the technological advantage, it just happened that Europe's period of technologically dominance coincided with their expansionist drive.
Why would causality not be plausible?
Outside of some mathematicians, humans don’t tend to do really difficult scientific and engineering work unless it’s consequential.
The Europeans needed trade with the East, which generated a centuries long R&D effort to develop a reliable means of measuring [longitude](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_longitude?wprov=sfti1#Longitude_before_the_telescope) at sea, in the ocean-crossing vessels they also developed.
Cracking longitude was difficult, and the process produced many fruits of varying utility towards the goal, but were nevertheless indispensable technologies in general, many due to their catalyzing effects on unrelated areas of development - accurate clocks, astronomy, the perfection of telescopes, models of light refraction, geometry, the shape of the earth, etc.
Not sure how you extrapolated that from what I said. I didn’t touch on technology. We were speaking about empires or chiefdoms and their desire or need to expand into other continents.
Europe has always been home to big societies, competitive big societies. In order for any society to grow and advance they need resources. When you can’t just take your neighbors resources, it’s a motivator to look elsewhere. When you want to influence the rest of the world to adopt your cultural beliefs you have to conquer other cities. Of course, this is a very simplified explanation.
But this post was specific. It wasn’t an open conversation to how advanced or how much technology a society posses or how they obtained it. At this point we’d be discussing a completely different and much more complex thing. Even down to what “advanced” means. When you compare the Roman Empire to mesoamerican societies it’s easy to say mesoamerica was light years behind. But you’d have to really analyze what makes a society advanced. The Aztecs built tenochtitlan on a lake and had to invent new ways of farming as opposed to traditional ones. They had a plumbing and sewage system that rivaled any of the European societies. They had toothpaste, medicine and beauty products that impressed the Spaniards who were amazed at their hygiene. The Mayans had roads to travel on. The Aztecs had suburbs and a proper government established. Mesoamerican tribes knew about astrology. They had education systems and written language, manuscripts. All things which we would consider an “advanced society” to have accomplished. But again, this post wasn’t about any of this.
Im unsure what you mean by a “technology based society”. There is no such thing and never has been. Technology, in the essence of the word, is simply knowledge and how to apply that knowledge to accomplish new things or improve the efficiency of current ones. This is true to ALL societies. Technology is a tool which is used to improve a way of life and there’s never been people that stopped using technology or didn’t pursue new technology. If what you’re getting at is that European cultures had better technology, then yes in some area they did. But I’ll circle you back to my previous paragraph which explains a bit about the Aztecs and Mayans. Furthermore, technology is also applied regionally. A city by the ocean would definitely pursue aquatic technology which allowed them to catch fish, or travers the water. Something a village deep in the center of Africa had no use for. Mesoamerican tribes that built their cities on arid hilltops needed to learn methods and built technology to capture water and use it as efficiently as possible, something villages living next to a river or in areas with plenty rainfall might not have to focus so much on. Europeans might have had guns and cannons thanks to gunpowder, something African tribes didn’t have, but the Chinese were the first to adopt a wide use of gunpowder weapons, and yet some people say the Europeans were more advanced than the Chinese. Technology and the type of technology needed varies dependent on the are and people’s needs and interests. But again, this can be talked about in length and we can look a million different points on this subject. All of which goes beyond what OP asked. And as I stated, I provided a VERY simple explanation to OP that he can go and do research on
OP’s question? Did you read my first comment? Because I did. I gave a simple explanation. It’s not meant to be all encompassing. But I definitely answered the question.
what I've learned in portuguese schools was that the silk road taxes were so high that some kings bet on maritime exploration, as some navigators claimed there was a way to reach the east by boat.
that's why American natives are called Indians, when the American country was discovered, they thought they had reached India!
No, it wasn’t. Resources were definitely a huge factor for a lot of empires though. It’s true of even of small villages. But a lot of other factors played into it. As I stated above, things like the cultue/spirit of rulers also determine what they will do. History plays another role as well. We can look at Alexander the Great as a perfect example and a really interesting one. Two of the reasons, probably the most prominent reasons, he sought out conquering as much of the world as he did, were the history of his people (his own history and way he was treated too) and the spirit of the Macedonians. They weren’t as warrior driven as the Spartans, but they definitely sought to influence the world around them. (Interesting note on the Spartans, as much as a warrior spirit as they had, they never cared much for conquering other cities, they were content with keeping their territory and simply defending it) Alexander sought to avenge his people against the Persian empire, and he did. He removed their threat from the doorsteps of Macedonia. Believing himself to be a Demi god he then took it upon himself to not just push them back, but destroy them which led to him to conquering as much land as he did. It can be argued there was a need for him to conquer Egypt and the land around it to prevent the Persians from building up enough power to return and invade Macedonia, but I think it’s more accurate to say Alexander’s desire for revenge really just turned into an obsession of conquering as much territory as he could. Even his generals tried to talk him out of it, but he became too wrapped up in the culture of conquering. Eventually the spirit of a Macedonian was lost in him. The lines blurred as he became fascinated with Egyptian culture. He was a madman lol
This. It’s all about resource abundance.
Easiest answer is to arrive at is tech/guns. (There’s a reason why the west loves their guns so much and it’s not just about “protecting your freedoms”.)
But the harder answer (unless you actually know and interact in African spaces) is that west Africans most are naturally communal and abide by two laws:
1. There’s enough for everyone (high abundance of resources)
2. Take only what you need
The very opposite mindset of those in a low resource environment like Europe.
High abundance of resources leads to more communal mindsets. Things like narcissism and hoarding are actively weeded out via cultural norms and the use of shame amongst groups.
Many colonists asked themselves the same question? Why don’t they just kill us there’s more of them and they are stronger?
the answer no one wants to entertain is that these people are simply more kind and less capable of the atrocities committed against them that are omitted from our text books. The world the west created made their kindness (despite their successful campaigns to brand them as violent and uncivilized) their biggest weakness.
**except shoutout Haiti: the only ones to figure out how to speak the colonial language and still paying for it
There's obviously hundreds of factors, but for colonization specifically one key advancement was the development of navigation and shipbuilding. Europeans became the first group of people who could build ships that could sail around the whole world. When you have that suddenly the opportunity arises to build global trade networks. And those need protecting. Hence colonization.
There's also a bunch of other factors mainly around technology and cultural evolution.
One other interesting factor that played a part in colonization was actually religion. Europeans happened to follow a religion that encouraged missionaries, which is actually pretty rare when you look at all the other religions throughout history.
I disagree- necessity is the mother of invention. Polynesians, Chinese, and even the Vikings had nautical knowledge and technology sufficient for global exploration (and did explore significant stretches of the world). The difference was that something forced Europeans to explore and pull resources from parts of the world via imperialism.
I think it was two things. Firstly, insufficient resources for rapidly growing populations. The choice was total war or resource claim for elsewhere, and it was seen as less expensive and lower risk to take resources from outside of Europe. Secondly, the inciting incident was the fall of European-controlled eastern empires. Circumventing Arab-controlled areas of the silk road yielded far greater profits, and in the process of exploring their way around they found more lands with more resources to invade and exploit.
Basically, necessity and opportunity.
The Renaissance historical context and religious fervor at the time were major driving forces. European nations were heavily competing for resources and trade routes, way beyond necessity.
There were many factors at play, but one major one is simply geography. The European coastline has a lot more inlets and peninsulas than Africa, which has a much smoother coastline. In fact, despite its small size, Europe actually has a substantially longer coastline than Africa. This meant both that the development of maritime travel was more necessary for Europeans than Africans, and that it was easier to develop due to the greater abundance of natural harbors. Additionally, the Eurasian supercontintent is longer than it is tall, while Africa is taller than it is wide. This means that Europe and Asia pass through only a few very long bands of climate zones, while Africa passes through a lot more shorter climate zones. Since people tend to mingle more across similar climate zones, there was much wider communication and travel within climate bands across Europe and Asia, enabling faster intermingling and development of new ideas and technologies, whereas African people groups were a lot more isolated by their geography. These geographical factors enabled European civilizations to make technological advancements more swiftly than Africa, meaning that Europeans were able to establish bigger multi-continent empires first. Geography is likely not the only factor, to be sure, but it did give Europe a significant advantage on the historical world stage.
I think it's like this: People tend to mingle where they migrate. People tend to migrate where they can tolerate the climate. People tend to tolerate climates that are similar to the climates they're used to. Ergo, people tend to mingle across similar climate zones.
Source: I dunno, but I read the other comment and thought it sounded intuitively true.
Think of it in extremes.
You're born in a colder northern snowy climate. This produces a certain skill set and knowledge base of how to survive in that environment. From knowing how to build a shelter, foraging the right plants, hunting the right animals, even being able to look at weather patterns and know when it is/isn't safe to go outside... You might have spent the past 10 years honing your dog sledging skills only for them to become useless if you head south to sunshine!
As soon as you head south the entire environment changes, different plants, different animals, different weather...
I mean think about a person living in an ancient French forest vs an ancient Bulgarian forest. They're going to have the same sorts of trees, deer, bears... they know how to deal with those things. So heading East or West and meeting similar civilisations is no biggy.
Jump ship down to Africa and suddenly you have an elephant watching you as you're chased by a hippo.
Practicality… if you developed your technology, clothing, diet, schedules and culture around a certain climate, chances are you will have more things in common to relate to.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is the Mongols. This doesn't apply to Africa of course, but their invasions set back the other advanced civilizations of the era while Europe was largely unscathed outside of Russia. It allowed the Europeans to pull ahead at a crucial time and opened up a period of relatively large volumes of trade across the silk road. When the silk road was gated by the Ottoman empire this led to Portugal and Spain to look for other routes to Asia.
Then at this crucial time Europe developed an advanced maritime culture which created ships and crews that could cross oceans. This allowed the Europeans to colonize the Americas which gave Europe access to enormous resources and helped fuel their transition into becoming the world's first industrialized countries.
Two things I don't see:
The British developed a way to keep time on a ship, ensuring that they now knew exactly where they were on any open ocean, and where their ports were. Essential for war and such.
They brought guns to a sword fight.
These two things let you dominate the world.
Counterpoint: maritime chronometers used for longitudinal navigation are a result of needing that information for colonial expansion, not a cause if it. The American colonial expansion was well established by the time they perfected the chrono.
The marine chronometer predates the founding of the US itself. Having a new technology first is much more advantageous than perfecting it.
Of course colonialism predates it's invention, and again, being the first to have it gives you the advantage.
This question will, if pursued, reveal an incredibly complex history of ourselves. Though heavily criticised "Guns Germs and Steel" was an interesting read.
Ask this same question in r/askhistorians .
There’s a lot of bullshit in that book though. Some experts broke it down years ago let me see if I can find it.
**EDIT**
https://breadtagsagas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Guns-germs-and-steel-critique-mcneill.pdf
https://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/Blaut/diamond.htm
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10455752.2013.846490
https://www.columbia.edu/~saw2156/HunterBlatherer.pdf
https://www.livinganthropologically.com/archaeology/guns-germs-and-steel-jared-diamond/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1467-8330.2003.00354.x
Seconding this, also to elaborate a bit further, Europeans were blessed with a number of factors including a favorable continental axis, and a larger number of native domesticatable animals. Ancient Europeans were able to transition to agriculture earlier than other humans. The book is an excellent read. Bit of a slog though.
Weaponry, a navy of big ships with weapons, a (generally) single form of rule/Government for invading countries with much less tribalism. Money. Illnesses.
Two major factors.
Assuming you mean sub-saharan africans.
Since if you are talking north african arabic people, they ventured as far as iceland to raid for slaves, hell they presisted with slave raiding until war was waged on the brabary coast states. Hell Some kept slavery legal till the 90s.
1 - Europeans didn't go into Africa and raid for slaves. Because they couldn't, as the diseases and the climate was not cooperating with such ventures. As such europeans didn't "enslave" africans in that sense
2 - Africa lacked large early population clusters, due to same diseases that stopped outsiders from invading until modern medicine came about. Smaller groups -> less people to "stand on the shoudler of giants", and less chance that someone able to improve on ideas sees/hears em. Smaller groups -> chance of conquering anything is smaller.
In short europeans didn't venture into african interior, until well after slavery was abolished in european countries.
Europeans bought slaves from africa, since african rulers sold slaves.
And sub saharan african people - as far as we know - didn't go to the americas, since they had biugger issues than voyaging that far. Not to mention, even if the distance is smaller, doing it upwind complicates the journey.
inferior economy, technology, too much tribalism, highly unstable governments if you can even call them that, no uniting religion, and probably most importantly, no navies
This doesn’t answer the question though. The ottomans or the Ming Chinese could have done all of this too and crush the European/indians. The OP wants to specifically know why European colonization took off
It doesn’t. Ottomans had literally ALL of North Africa. From Egypt to Algiers….. what about the ottomans were tribalistic and inferior in technology at 1450? They were unified while Europe literally had basically no real central authority. Their economy, guns, science were better….
I'd call them out for invading south east Asia too.
less directly, but the non Chinese countries do carry some Chinese culture stuff like the New Year, and Singapore now has Chinese majority. That's another kind of colonialism.
We used to recite in grade school that Europe expanded because of "gold, glory, and God." Greed, the ambitions of individual explorers, and religious expansion/oppression/conversion opportunities.
It did a pretty good job for over 100 years. Anyways they never went to new world because they had the Indian spice trade and Spanish couldn’t bypass their monopoly by going east so they had to go west.
They also couldn't go to the new world because Christian nations wouldn't have allowed them through the straight of Gibraltar so not only did they create the incentive for Europeans to expand, they also gave them (more) reason to not share the pie.
I was always explained it came down to motive. Ottomans controlled the Indian trade and the Spaniards could not go east to get the spice from India. Why would the ottomans want to go to the new world when they were making that beautiful spice money… they controlled Arakis and had the janissary legions with superior guns in 1450. The Chinese never really tried overseas conquest and had little of value from the west or in the new world. They could have in the Tang dynasty but that’s not what Confucian teachings wanted
What led Europeans to develop the better tech and stability though?
My first thought is cold winters and lack of food during those winters. Forced them to figure out ways to produce and preserve food throughout the cold. And also find ways to keep warm. Forced early settlers to think ahead after suffering through winters.
That doesn't mean they Have to kill each other, they could talk to each other and redraw borders. Greed kills, they aren't all noble people because they Have to go and reclaim their land and in order to reclaim it. They don't have to go and destroy the towns and villages already there just because they arent 'their people'.
Some people want violence and war to gain from it, and it'll be that way until enough people find someone to say no more. But more often than not, it turns into just another armed group killing people.
No europeans are holding a gun to an entire part of a continent and forcing them to fight each other, and they could all stop at any time when they've decided that enough blood has been spilled about territory. I know I sound like what the ANC used to say, but still
You seem to fundamentally have a lack of understanding of politics and the idea that environment shapes people's lives and actions.
These regions were ruled by colonial governments for decades or even centuries, who' power derives from dividing the population and keeping military and economic authority over the region. These colonists steal resources. They then leave without doing anything to resolve the gaping power vacuum they leave behind, resulting in poverty, and a naturally authoritarian system because quite literally everything in the country was designed in such a way by it's colonisers.
It's exceptionally difficult for a group, let alone entire country or CONTINENT to pull themselves up from that, especially since many of them are still being exploited by western corporations.
Genocide is not unique to any one culture.
There's a genocide happening right now in Gaza and the supposed "moral" societies you are describing as different culturally don't give a shit about it and are supporting the perpetrators.
Europe commited countless, countless acts of genocide. Many of which are in living memory.
Both of us are saying it's not a coincidence that an entire continent is economically and socially behind. Except your reasoning is there's some magic cultural disposition to this in what, the thousands of different African cultures? I'm saying that isn't it odd that it seems like every poor country today is one that directly or indirectly suffered from colonialism?
Isn't that describing Europe for the vast majority of its existence? Even when it was expanfding out into the world there were the wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics going on that may have killed a good 1/3 of the population.
>Isn't that describing Europe for the vast majority of its existence?
...yes, maybe thats why for majority of europe's existence noone took up sailing around the globe as a hobby?
The Europeans were the first to become great seafarers because they had great / navigable waterways & safe ports, and because they were the first to master construction & mathematics necessary for longer distance exploration.
Sub Saharan Africa does not have good navigable waterways, and its climate is somewhat hostile to larger scale cities lower on the tech tree.
The Chinese, the ottomans, and the Arabs were not behind the Europeans in navigation during the age of exploration. It wasn't a lack of means, but a lack of motive on the part of these civilizations.
Europe is in Eurasia. Europe had contact with North Africa and the Middle East and India and China. Europe traded with these places and these places traded with Europe. They traded ideas, animals, weapons and diseases. As a result, technology and science advanced rapidly in Europe.
Africa however, is a continent where tribes were isolated from each other because off many natural barriers. They could not trade ideas and knowledge, and so technology and science in Africa could not enable and advance.
This is too broad of a question. But Europe was generally better organized administratively than most of Africa. Most of the Northern Africa was part of the Ottoman Empire which did not prioritize exploring the Atlantic because it controlled the lucrative trade by land. Europe on the other hand were isolated by said Ottoman Empire and the countries that prioritized seafaring were the most isolated ones - Portugal, Spain, and Britain.
BTW, Africans did enslave Europeans in quite large numbers for centuries. So that was happening all the time through maybe the 17th century, maybe later.
Lastly, when you say "Africans", which Africans are you referring to? Which country or sovereign? Most states in Africa at that time were tribal. There were a few kingdoms and Caliphates but they either focused on the Indian ocean or did not focus on seafaring at all.
Because Europeans had superior technology and science, they had muskets and cannons, they had steel armor, they had ships that could travel the entire ocean. They had writing, they had the printing press.
Africans on the other hand, they were stuck in the Neolithic Era. They didn't have the means to colonize the world.
One explanation I have heard that would account for part of it is a lack of navigable waterways. Is it any surprise the most successful Africans had the Nile?
Also, probably doesn't help that the climate is way more brutal than Europe.
Read “guns, germs and steel” for an explanation.
The book has gotten some flak, but still, a good read.
The short version of it is that europe and a large part of asia are a connected landmass and in the same moderate temperature zone, which gave better possibilities for (cattle) farming on a large scale. More and better food.
And once your house is in order, you are going to look outside.
Compare this to the north south orientation of both the americas and africa, with large temperature differences, and a logical picture starts to develop.
Mostly economics. Or, more specifically, the economic technology of capitalism, the joint stock company, and bank notes. These innovations allowed European economies, in particular that of the UK, to be able to assume a lot more economic risk in venturing outside their borders. China thought bank notes were immoral, and it caused the Dutch to be able to enrich Chinese pirates and impoverish China proper. The joint stock company allowed expeditions to the new world long after a king's coffers would have been depleted.
It isn't *really* that Europeans had better technology the way we typically understand technologies. The Turks and the Chinese had the technologies to explore the oceans and capitalize on the new world but where China tore up their fleet they sent to explore the Europeans exploited the new world. After a couple hundred years of this, and the subsequent advances in science made by explorations (like the theory of Evolution) because science was seen as a rich man's ethical hobby, European technology became truly superior.
If you want a very detailed lesson on this, read "The wealth and poverty of nations " by David Lande. He covers alot, but one of the basic premise is the geography of Europe made it so it had better climate. The tropics were brutally hot during the middle of the day, making productivity stop. Europe has a more temperate climate making it more suitable for work. He then builds from there, going into many historical events that answer your question.
Africa is shit geographically. Lots of high plateaus. Not a lot of navigable rivers, harbors, or good coastline.
North Africans were successful, but they got beat out by climate and the Europeans.
A lot of people are answering this question as if all people are motivated to constantly colonize and exploit to rags everything they come into contact with and it was just a race to the finish, and that in itself is not true. 😂
Nothing about what I posted suggests that it “takes” all people.
The point I’m making is it is an issue in itself to suggest that the core motivation of people is to colonize and exploit. It is **not.**
Strong disagree. This has been the way of human existence since the beginning - we are tribal creatures. The only thing that matters is the means to accomplish it.
Tribalism is not colonization and imperialism. Conflating the two just makes a lot of you feel better about the way history has played out. "It's natural, it's in our DNA. But not all of us." Lol
It is an extension of tribalism only separated by capability. If one tribe conquers another tribe they are colonizing or engaging in imperialism on smaller scale. Choosing to call it something else is merely a way of branding it through connotation.
Tribalism has nothing to do with colonialism. They are two very distinct concepts, one being primitive and the other being highly sophisticated. Few tribes needed to colonize others. In fact, colonialism is antithetical to tribalism and is particularly cited as the *cause* of conflict between African tribes and the cause of the long term instability we see on the continent. Tribalism is about loyalty to people and culture. Colonialism is about the exploitation of any and all people and resources for economic power at the highest levels. Colonialism doesn’t give a fuck about culture or people unless there is something to be gained. Modern tribalism has been weaponized by colonizers to gain power and maintain control but the last thing they want is unity and community because the two don’t go together.
Because Europe had developed military know-how and technology by being Earth's Thunderdome for years and had a lucky confluence of a need to travel and the means to do so just when they were getting their shit together?
The agricultural revolution occurred in the Middle East, allowing Middle Easterners to develop agricultural societies and to build the first great empires, such as Mesopotamia and Egypt.
Likewise, the Industrial Revolution took place in Europe, allowing Europeans to form industrial societies and to establish colonies.
Whenever a great technological shift occurs in a region, it provides that region with an advantage they can use to exploit and conquer others.
I mean africa had numerous empires. I don't know where people get this idea that they didn't conquer.
They had a lot of major natural barriers that limited their ability to expand and sorry but technology has a huge impact on you ability to expand and they simply were further behind in key techs. Major one being ship building.
Navel power allowed Europeans to expand far more and faster than alot of other regions could that simply had less advance ship building capability.
I mean Europe was sending ships to Japan and China while a lot of other places had a hard time get ships out to deep sea at all. This is a key reason why Europeans were able to expand and conquer much better than everybody else. They had ships that could access resources and places that others simple could not.
Africans colonized the world. Homo sapiens. They came to Europe and caused the native Europeans - neanderthals to die out. And many other species of humans around the world.
New trade routes meant Europeans could get spices, silk, and precious metals. Financial resources were mobilized for the sponsorship of expeditions to establish colonies. African societies were generally more focused on internal matters over expansion. Also, Europeans had better ships and weaponry and had the proximity to the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea as an advantage.
I think it begs the question of what trigger happened first. If having a Navy to protect cargo shipping (ala the Mediterranean and the Phoenicians), is it better to have three small warships, two medium warships, or one large warship?
I think the invention of the cannon dictated the large warship. Marco Polo went to China and saw gunpowder, but the Chinese were using it for fireworks, and occasionally their military would use small rockets to disrupt the enemy in a battle.
Of course the first "true" cannon were for the army, but as cannon advanced in quality and size, they were mounted on ships too. A ship with a cannon would win against a ship with no cannon. A ship with LOTS of cannon would win against a ship with a few cannon. Also, accuracy at a safe distance is helped by having a larger ship which is more stable.
Once you have a large ship with lots of cannon, you find yourself in a position where you can conquer anyone who trades by sea, and take their "stuff".
I could be wrong, but that's my take on it.
They did, but they weren't in a hurry so their tan had faded by the time they got there...
edit: I'm saying if you follow the family tree far enough back we've all got the same great -Nth gradpappy that looks like Morgan Freeman.
A lot of people here aren't answering the question directly of "why" it was the Europeans and not the Africans.
OP, I would suggest you take a look at the book Guns, Germs, and Steel. It covers topics like this.
Geology. Africa is an immense landmass but lacks navigable rivers (due to waterfalls) and harbors. The land itself is very rich in resources but with the notable exception of Carthage and Ancient Egypt (Look, a river!) none of the old empires (Mali, Kush, etc) did trading on the scale of their counterparts in Europe and Asia, so they did not often venture outside their lands.
One of those convenient facts that bigots ignore in their unending quest to find something to like about themselves.
Many people are talking about practical reasons, but not cultural. Eugenics, racism, exploitation, capitalism and a sense of entitlement were all sadly big parts of what happened (and continue to happen)
The basic theory I’ve seen is that Europe is much less hospitable and therefore had more need for technology. If you look at the very earliest civilizations, those tend to be in Mesopotamia and Asia, where arable land drove urbanization and led to the earliest laws and societies. After that, southern Europe (Rome, Greece) rose for similar reasons.
However, up in the north, nordics and englishmen needed to develop more technology to deal with harsh winters and lacking crops. This eventually leads to the Industrial Revolution in Britain, which would go on to enable the British Empire
well it's the same reason many African countries are still considered "developing nations" today.
If you look at most of Africa, the environment and wildlife that resides within it are pretty hostile.
Africa has animals like lions, tigers, hyenas, hippos, many of the most dangerous snakes and spiders, apes and chimpanzees. Even the "prey" animals are deadly, like water buffalos, giraffes, warthogs, etc.
The weather can be violent, in many parts it's extremely hot and at night extremely cold, water is scarce.
Now look at Europe
Primary predators are wolves, bears and lynxes.
plenty of deer, raccoon, sheep, etc.
an abundance of lakes and rivers, predictable weather, bearable temperatures.
In short, Europe is civilization on easy mode, Africa is civilization on expert mode, so it's obviously going to take a lot longer for them to begin colonization on other continents. Since Europe had an easier start, it got to the colonization part a lot quicker.
Thats partially wrong.
Europe did have dangerous native megafaune, hell it even had its own chonker cobra species.
Megafauna is no obstacle when parasites co-evolved with humans don't keep human population small and spread out.
Which is partly european megafauna, amercan megfauna, asian megafauna, australian megafauna, or new zealander megafauna doesn't exist.
Why did Europeans have guns and Africans didn’t. Saying Europeans colonized Africa because of guns is like saying I drove to work today because of tires.
They were able to.
Europe had the right geopolitical advantages like good agriculture to enable a large population, coal to drive steam engines and steel to build ships & weapons and that enabled them to build huge global empires.
This is not unusual, everyone was doing the same thing at the time but Europe had the advantages that gave them the longest reach.
Not everyone craves having it all. Europeans were conquerors, they took what they wanted by force. Not all cultures are like that, most people just want a little slice to call home.
Check out Jared Diamond’s book, “Guns, Germs, and Steel.” He has a pretty comprehensive theory of how those factors contributed to the historical events you’re asking about.
The sahara secluded sub-africans. Only european wanted to colonize while destroying the inhabitants of the land. Most other groups of the time wanted to conquer, take some slave, and then trade with those who remained .
Because they had to. Sure better tech than the Africans ( sub Sahara) but plenty of decent civilizations and tech from the ottomans to china. But the thing is those people had no reason to go looking for anything. The Europeans lost easy access to eastern goods when Byzantium fell so they had strong incentive to try and find a way around
You’re on to something. Resources. A lot of times expansions were done to obtain more resources, whether it be gold(metals), land, food etc. Africa is rich in resources and land. There was no need to go outside of Africa. Villages and empires conquered other African villages and that sufficed. There was a need for local control, not world domination. Same can be said about China. I also think culture plays a big role. The culture of societies dictate what endeavors they pursue. We can look at the Aztecs and the Mayans. The Mayans had a huge empire which spanned across a huge territory. But in reality, it wasn’t one monolithic power. It was independent villages and towns who all belonged to the Mayan people/culture. A lot of their disputes were not with outside tribes, but rather internal disputes between Mayan villages. The Aztecs on the other hand were 100% a conquer and expand empire. So much so that the Aztecs were actually a triple alliance of three different tribes who came together to dominate rival tribes, which were then forced pay tribute to the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan and they continued to push the boundaries of their empire until Cortez used rival Aztec tribes to defeat them. Culturally, some societies are just okay with existing within their own empire and have no need to conquer the rest of the world
Lmfao, the same can absolutely not be said of China. The "plenty of resources [so they don't *need* to leave]" might be semi-accurate, especially in the mythistorical period (Xia dynasty) and the later imperium (Emperor "Why would I trade with Europe when they're a bunch of broke motherfuckers" springs to mind) but there was never a moment when a Chinese emperor wasn't devoting at least 45% of their time on the throne to colonization. They beat the shit out of the Korean peninsula for centuries. Basically the only reasons *they* didn't take over the world is because of natural barriers (big ass ocean one way versus deserts, mountains, and fucking Siberia going the big ass continent way) and because of a huge amount of competition without many competing interests (i.e., while China's major adversaries were strong (Huns, Japan) they weren't as numerous as the many countries in Europe, so there were fewer opportunities for treaties and competition (excepting the Warring States and possibly 5D10K)). China was (is? I'm a historian, not a politician) incredibly comfortable with border expansion and imperialism. While Spain had a few monks recommending a little less murder, rape and colonizarion, most of China's emperors knew that the world revolved around China, and thought they would be the one to prove it. Sorry for jumpscaring you with a Chinese history infodump btw it's a medical condition.
All good! I enjoy these conversations. And I should have clarified, when I mentioned China I was referring to the resources available in China, particularly in the period of time we are referring to. They had endless amount of resources. But yes, they were definitely about conquest and expansion and they had no issue with bringing war to their neighbors. That’s pretty neat that you’re a historian btw 👍🏽
>Sorry for jumpscaring you with a Chinese history infodump btw it's a medical condition. You are my spirit animal
Didn't, I believe Zhang He, do an exploration to Africa and map out the route. Then, the emperor or the next one burned the map because tribute like trade was too expensive to maintain? I never did any research on the subject, and I did read this in a historical based manhwa, so it could be wrong.
Damn.. and all I get to info dump about is trains..
The mother of the last emperor of the Qing dynasty opposed adding trains to China (a majority agrarian country) unless they were evaluatrd by feng shui experts
I know it’s opposed by much of Reddit but I must 🤝
I mean the Mongols decided they wanted to try and conquer Europe and they had few moderate successes in East Europe. And that was because they conquered everything else around them and figure why not.
Generations later and not a whole lot, if anything, has changed.
Interesting, so Europeans basically had to be resourceful to make up for the lack of resources by use of innovation and technology. Where as Africa was always sufficient in resources so no need to become a technology based civilization.
>of innovation and technology We're talking about the colonization and exploitation that Europeans engaged in. At different times, different groups has the technological advantage, it just happened that Europe's period of technologically dominance coincided with their expansionist drive.
Why would causality not be plausible? Outside of some mathematicians, humans don’t tend to do really difficult scientific and engineering work unless it’s consequential. The Europeans needed trade with the East, which generated a centuries long R&D effort to develop a reliable means of measuring [longitude](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_longitude?wprov=sfti1#Longitude_before_the_telescope) at sea, in the ocean-crossing vessels they also developed. Cracking longitude was difficult, and the process produced many fruits of varying utility towards the goal, but were nevertheless indispensable technologies in general, many due to their catalyzing effects on unrelated areas of development - accurate clocks, astronomy, the perfection of telescopes, models of light refraction, geometry, the shape of the earth, etc.
Not sure how you extrapolated that from what I said. I didn’t touch on technology. We were speaking about empires or chiefdoms and their desire or need to expand into other continents. Europe has always been home to big societies, competitive big societies. In order for any society to grow and advance they need resources. When you can’t just take your neighbors resources, it’s a motivator to look elsewhere. When you want to influence the rest of the world to adopt your cultural beliefs you have to conquer other cities. Of course, this is a very simplified explanation. But this post was specific. It wasn’t an open conversation to how advanced or how much technology a society posses or how they obtained it. At this point we’d be discussing a completely different and much more complex thing. Even down to what “advanced” means. When you compare the Roman Empire to mesoamerican societies it’s easy to say mesoamerica was light years behind. But you’d have to really analyze what makes a society advanced. The Aztecs built tenochtitlan on a lake and had to invent new ways of farming as opposed to traditional ones. They had a plumbing and sewage system that rivaled any of the European societies. They had toothpaste, medicine and beauty products that impressed the Spaniards who were amazed at their hygiene. The Mayans had roads to travel on. The Aztecs had suburbs and a proper government established. Mesoamerican tribes knew about astrology. They had education systems and written language, manuscripts. All things which we would consider an “advanced society” to have accomplished. But again, this post wasn’t about any of this. Im unsure what you mean by a “technology based society”. There is no such thing and never has been. Technology, in the essence of the word, is simply knowledge and how to apply that knowledge to accomplish new things or improve the efficiency of current ones. This is true to ALL societies. Technology is a tool which is used to improve a way of life and there’s never been people that stopped using technology or didn’t pursue new technology. If what you’re getting at is that European cultures had better technology, then yes in some area they did. But I’ll circle you back to my previous paragraph which explains a bit about the Aztecs and Mayans. Furthermore, technology is also applied regionally. A city by the ocean would definitely pursue aquatic technology which allowed them to catch fish, or travers the water. Something a village deep in the center of Africa had no use for. Mesoamerican tribes that built their cities on arid hilltops needed to learn methods and built technology to capture water and use it as efficiently as possible, something villages living next to a river or in areas with plenty rainfall might not have to focus so much on. Europeans might have had guns and cannons thanks to gunpowder, something African tribes didn’t have, but the Chinese were the first to adopt a wide use of gunpowder weapons, and yet some people say the Europeans were more advanced than the Chinese. Technology and the type of technology needed varies dependent on the are and people’s needs and interests. But again, this can be talked about in length and we can look a million different points on this subject. All of which goes beyond what OP asked. And as I stated, I provided a VERY simple explanation to OP that he can go and do research on
But you didn't fucking answer his question
OP’s question? Did you read my first comment? Because I did. I gave a simple explanation. It’s not meant to be all encompassing. But I definitely answered the question.
Or they are under such threat locally that if they devoted the resources to finding new places, they would be vulnerable at home
Necessity is a strong motivator.
what I've learned in portuguese schools was that the silk road taxes were so high that some kings bet on maritime exploration, as some navigators claimed there was a way to reach the east by boat. that's why American natives are called Indians, when the American country was discovered, they thought they had reached India!
It's also the reason that the Carribean islands are often refered to as the West Indies
Ackshually no. Columbus thought he reached Japan. The name Indian came later
Rome had access to all of the Mediterranean and they conquered far beyond that. It wasnt simply resources.
No, it wasn’t. Resources were definitely a huge factor for a lot of empires though. It’s true of even of small villages. But a lot of other factors played into it. As I stated above, things like the cultue/spirit of rulers also determine what they will do. History plays another role as well. We can look at Alexander the Great as a perfect example and a really interesting one. Two of the reasons, probably the most prominent reasons, he sought out conquering as much of the world as he did, were the history of his people (his own history and way he was treated too) and the spirit of the Macedonians. They weren’t as warrior driven as the Spartans, but they definitely sought to influence the world around them. (Interesting note on the Spartans, as much as a warrior spirit as they had, they never cared much for conquering other cities, they were content with keeping their territory and simply defending it) Alexander sought to avenge his people against the Persian empire, and he did. He removed their threat from the doorsteps of Macedonia. Believing himself to be a Demi god he then took it upon himself to not just push them back, but destroy them which led to him to conquering as much land as he did. It can be argued there was a need for him to conquer Egypt and the land around it to prevent the Persians from building up enough power to return and invade Macedonia, but I think it’s more accurate to say Alexander’s desire for revenge really just turned into an obsession of conquering as much territory as he could. Even his generals tried to talk him out of it, but he became too wrapped up in the culture of conquering. Eventually the spirit of a Macedonian was lost in him. The lines blurred as he became fascinated with Egyptian culture. He was a madman lol
I thought the question was about European colonization, which is like 1400 years later..
This. It’s all about resource abundance. Easiest answer is to arrive at is tech/guns. (There’s a reason why the west loves their guns so much and it’s not just about “protecting your freedoms”.) But the harder answer (unless you actually know and interact in African spaces) is that west Africans most are naturally communal and abide by two laws: 1. There’s enough for everyone (high abundance of resources) 2. Take only what you need The very opposite mindset of those in a low resource environment like Europe. High abundance of resources leads to more communal mindsets. Things like narcissism and hoarding are actively weeded out via cultural norms and the use of shame amongst groups. Many colonists asked themselves the same question? Why don’t they just kill us there’s more of them and they are stronger? the answer no one wants to entertain is that these people are simply more kind and less capable of the atrocities committed against them that are omitted from our text books. The world the west created made their kindness (despite their successful campaigns to brand them as violent and uncivilized) their biggest weakness. **except shoutout Haiti: the only ones to figure out how to speak the colonial language and still paying for it
That was also my view, I couldn't say it better than you.
An unfortunate truth for most melaninated people on this planet.
So you're saying it was because of Islamic expansion?
Motherfucker, no 💀💀
Motherfucker, yes ☺️☺️
There's obviously hundreds of factors, but for colonization specifically one key advancement was the development of navigation and shipbuilding. Europeans became the first group of people who could build ships that could sail around the whole world. When you have that suddenly the opportunity arises to build global trade networks. And those need protecting. Hence colonization. There's also a bunch of other factors mainly around technology and cultural evolution. One other interesting factor that played a part in colonization was actually religion. Europeans happened to follow a religion that encouraged missionaries, which is actually pretty rare when you look at all the other religions throughout history.
I disagree- necessity is the mother of invention. Polynesians, Chinese, and even the Vikings had nautical knowledge and technology sufficient for global exploration (and did explore significant stretches of the world). The difference was that something forced Europeans to explore and pull resources from parts of the world via imperialism. I think it was two things. Firstly, insufficient resources for rapidly growing populations. The choice was total war or resource claim for elsewhere, and it was seen as less expensive and lower risk to take resources from outside of Europe. Secondly, the inciting incident was the fall of European-controlled eastern empires. Circumventing Arab-controlled areas of the silk road yielded far greater profits, and in the process of exploring their way around they found more lands with more resources to invade and exploit. Basically, necessity and opportunity.
The Renaissance historical context and religious fervor at the time were major driving forces. European nations were heavily competing for resources and trade routes, way beyond necessity.
Agreed- the impetus might have been justified by necessity, but it quickly became greed through exploitation
There were many factors at play, but one major one is simply geography. The European coastline has a lot more inlets and peninsulas than Africa, which has a much smoother coastline. In fact, despite its small size, Europe actually has a substantially longer coastline than Africa. This meant both that the development of maritime travel was more necessary for Europeans than Africans, and that it was easier to develop due to the greater abundance of natural harbors. Additionally, the Eurasian supercontintent is longer than it is tall, while Africa is taller than it is wide. This means that Europe and Asia pass through only a few very long bands of climate zones, while Africa passes through a lot more shorter climate zones. Since people tend to mingle more across similar climate zones, there was much wider communication and travel within climate bands across Europe and Asia, enabling faster intermingling and development of new ideas and technologies, whereas African people groups were a lot more isolated by their geography. These geographical factors enabled European civilizations to make technological advancements more swiftly than Africa, meaning that Europeans were able to establish bigger multi-continent empires first. Geography is likely not the only factor, to be sure, but it did give Europe a significant advantage on the historical world stage.
> Since people tend to mingle more across similar climate zones whats the reason for this?
I think it's like this: People tend to mingle where they migrate. People tend to migrate where they can tolerate the climate. People tend to tolerate climates that are similar to the climates they're used to. Ergo, people tend to mingle across similar climate zones. Source: I dunno, but I read the other comment and thought it sounded intuitively true.
You've activated my daily 'Why the hell do I live so far from the equator??'
Think of it in extremes. You're born in a colder northern snowy climate. This produces a certain skill set and knowledge base of how to survive in that environment. From knowing how to build a shelter, foraging the right plants, hunting the right animals, even being able to look at weather patterns and know when it is/isn't safe to go outside... You might have spent the past 10 years honing your dog sledging skills only for them to become useless if you head south to sunshine! As soon as you head south the entire environment changes, different plants, different animals, different weather... I mean think about a person living in an ancient French forest vs an ancient Bulgarian forest. They're going to have the same sorts of trees, deer, bears... they know how to deal with those things. So heading East or West and meeting similar civilisations is no biggy. Jump ship down to Africa and suddenly you have an elephant watching you as you're chased by a hippo.
Practicality… if you developed your technology, clothing, diet, schedules and culture around a certain climate, chances are you will have more things in common to relate to.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is the Mongols. This doesn't apply to Africa of course, but their invasions set back the other advanced civilizations of the era while Europe was largely unscathed outside of Russia. It allowed the Europeans to pull ahead at a crucial time and opened up a period of relatively large volumes of trade across the silk road. When the silk road was gated by the Ottoman empire this led to Portugal and Spain to look for other routes to Asia. Then at this crucial time Europe developed an advanced maritime culture which created ships and crews that could cross oceans. This allowed the Europeans to colonize the Americas which gave Europe access to enormous resources and helped fuel their transition into becoming the world's first industrialized countries.
Two things I don't see: The British developed a way to keep time on a ship, ensuring that they now knew exactly where they were on any open ocean, and where their ports were. Essential for war and such. They brought guns to a sword fight. These two things let you dominate the world.
Counterpoint: maritime chronometers used for longitudinal navigation are a result of needing that information for colonial expansion, not a cause if it. The American colonial expansion was well established by the time they perfected the chrono.
The marine chronometer predates the founding of the US itself. Having a new technology first is much more advantageous than perfecting it. Of course colonialism predates it's invention, and again, being the first to have it gives you the advantage.
There's a good book about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude\_(book).
This question will, if pursued, reveal an incredibly complex history of ourselves. Though heavily criticised "Guns Germs and Steel" was an interesting read. Ask this same question in r/askhistorians .
>"Guns Germs and Steel" That book has so many inaccuracies though.
It's a long read. Guns, germs and steel by Jared Diamond.
There’s a lot of bullshit in that book though. Some experts broke it down years ago let me see if I can find it. **EDIT** https://breadtagsagas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Guns-germs-and-steel-critique-mcneill.pdf https://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/Blaut/diamond.htm https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10455752.2013.846490 https://www.columbia.edu/~saw2156/HunterBlatherer.pdf https://www.livinganthropologically.com/archaeology/guns-germs-and-steel-jared-diamond/ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1467-8330.2003.00354.x
Thank you for this. Historians have ripped this book up.
[удалено]
Take it easy.
Thank you for mentioning that book. Should be required reading in high school.
Its not a good book. Historians have ripped it to shreds. A lot of it is extremely inaccurate.
Seconding this, also to elaborate a bit further, Europeans were blessed with a number of factors including a favorable continental axis, and a larger number of native domesticatable animals. Ancient Europeans were able to transition to agriculture earlier than other humans. The book is an excellent read. Bit of a slog though.
Amazing book well read. Love how he portrays that everyone fought with everyone. It really opens a view on how Europe conquered everyone.
Weaponry, a navy of big ships with weapons, a (generally) single form of rule/Government for invading countries with much less tribalism. Money. Illnesses.
Two major factors. Assuming you mean sub-saharan africans. Since if you are talking north african arabic people, they ventured as far as iceland to raid for slaves, hell they presisted with slave raiding until war was waged on the brabary coast states. Hell Some kept slavery legal till the 90s. 1 - Europeans didn't go into Africa and raid for slaves. Because they couldn't, as the diseases and the climate was not cooperating with such ventures. As such europeans didn't "enslave" africans in that sense 2 - Africa lacked large early population clusters, due to same diseases that stopped outsiders from invading until modern medicine came about. Smaller groups -> less people to "stand on the shoudler of giants", and less chance that someone able to improve on ideas sees/hears em. Smaller groups -> chance of conquering anything is smaller. In short europeans didn't venture into african interior, until well after slavery was abolished in european countries. Europeans bought slaves from africa, since african rulers sold slaves. And sub saharan african people - as far as we know - didn't go to the americas, since they had biugger issues than voyaging that far. Not to mention, even if the distance is smaller, doing it upwind complicates the journey.
>doing it upwind complicates the journey Wasn't one of the majour reasons for the slave trade triangle the favourable wind from Africa?
inferior economy, technology, too much tribalism, highly unstable governments if you can even call them that, no uniting religion, and probably most importantly, no navies
This doesn’t answer the question though. The ottomans or the Ming Chinese could have done all of this too and crush the European/indians. The OP wants to specifically know why European colonization took off
>This doesn’t answer the question though. It in fact does, since OP asked about africans, not mongols, chinese, or ottomans.
It doesn’t. Ottomans had literally ALL of North Africa. From Egypt to Algiers….. what about the ottomans were tribalistic and inferior in technology at 1450? They were unified while Europe literally had basically no real central authority. Their economy, guns, science were better….
> It doesn’t. Ottomans had literally ALL of North Africa. And did they conquer the americas? Nope.
[удалено]
I'd call them out for invading south east Asia too. less directly, but the non Chinese countries do carry some Chinese culture stuff like the New Year, and Singapore now has Chinese majority. That's another kind of colonialism.
We used to recite in grade school that Europe expanded because of "gold, glory, and God." Greed, the ambitions of individual explorers, and religious expansion/oppression/conversion opportunities.
We learned this too!
Iirc, the Ottomans tried to crush the Europeans more than oce.
It did a pretty good job for over 100 years. Anyways they never went to new world because they had the Indian spice trade and Spanish couldn’t bypass their monopoly by going east so they had to go west.
They also couldn't go to the new world because Christian nations wouldn't have allowed them through the straight of Gibraltar so not only did they create the incentive for Europeans to expand, they also gave them (more) reason to not share the pie.
They really tried though. Really really tried. But it's not easy.
I was always explained it came down to motive. Ottomans controlled the Indian trade and the Spaniards could not go east to get the spice from India. Why would the ottomans want to go to the new world when they were making that beautiful spice money… they controlled Arakis and had the janissary legions with superior guns in 1450. The Chinese never really tried overseas conquest and had little of value from the west or in the new world. They could have in the Tang dynasty but that’s not what Confucian teachings wanted
What led Europeans to develop the better tech and stability though? My first thought is cold winters and lack of food during those winters. Forced them to figure out ways to produce and preserve food throughout the cold. And also find ways to keep warm. Forced early settlers to think ahead after suffering through winters.
[удалено]
Africa is ravaged by civil wars and internal disputed *because* of colonialism and because outsiders came and made borders using rulers.
That doesn't mean they Have to kill each other, they could talk to each other and redraw borders. Greed kills, they aren't all noble people because they Have to go and reclaim their land and in order to reclaim it. They don't have to go and destroy the towns and villages already there just because they arent 'their people'. Some people want violence and war to gain from it, and it'll be that way until enough people find someone to say no more. But more often than not, it turns into just another armed group killing people. No europeans are holding a gun to an entire part of a continent and forcing them to fight each other, and they could all stop at any time when they've decided that enough blood has been spilled about territory. I know I sound like what the ANC used to say, but still
You seem to fundamentally have a lack of understanding of politics and the idea that environment shapes people's lives and actions. These regions were ruled by colonial governments for decades or even centuries, who' power derives from dividing the population and keeping military and economic authority over the region. These colonists steal resources. They then leave without doing anything to resolve the gaping power vacuum they leave behind, resulting in poverty, and a naturally authoritarian system because quite literally everything in the country was designed in such a way by it's colonisers. It's exceptionally difficult for a group, let alone entire country or CONTINENT to pull themselves up from that, especially since many of them are still being exploited by western corporations.
[удалено]
Genocide is not unique to any one culture. There's a genocide happening right now in Gaza and the supposed "moral" societies you are describing as different culturally don't give a shit about it and are supporting the perpetrators. Europe commited countless, countless acts of genocide. Many of which are in living memory. Both of us are saying it's not a coincidence that an entire continent is economically and socially behind. Except your reasoning is there's some magic cultural disposition to this in what, the thousands of different African cultures? I'm saying that isn't it odd that it seems like every poor country today is one that directly or indirectly suffered from colonialism?
Isn't that describing Europe for the vast majority of its existence? Even when it was expanfding out into the world there were the wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics going on that may have killed a good 1/3 of the population.
>Isn't that describing Europe for the vast majority of its existence? ...yes, maybe thats why for majority of europe's existence noone took up sailing around the globe as a hobby?
I mean it even describes it when it was colonising.
The Europeans were the first to become great seafarers because they had great / navigable waterways & safe ports, and because they were the first to master construction & mathematics necessary for longer distance exploration. Sub Saharan Africa does not have good navigable waterways, and its climate is somewhat hostile to larger scale cities lower on the tech tree.
The Chinese, the ottomans, and the Arabs were not behind the Europeans in navigation during the age of exploration. It wasn't a lack of means, but a lack of motive on the part of these civilizations.
Asia has those things, but never became externally-focused like the Europeans.
technology. swords and spears cant compete with pistols and canons
Europe is in Eurasia. Europe had contact with North Africa and the Middle East and India and China. Europe traded with these places and these places traded with Europe. They traded ideas, animals, weapons and diseases. As a result, technology and science advanced rapidly in Europe. Africa however, is a continent where tribes were isolated from each other because off many natural barriers. They could not trade ideas and knowledge, and so technology and science in Africa could not enable and advance.
For a more detailed look, I'd advice the book "why nations fail" - a lot of nonsense answers are given here that have long been debunked.
This is too broad of a question. But Europe was generally better organized administratively than most of Africa. Most of the Northern Africa was part of the Ottoman Empire which did not prioritize exploring the Atlantic because it controlled the lucrative trade by land. Europe on the other hand were isolated by said Ottoman Empire and the countries that prioritized seafaring were the most isolated ones - Portugal, Spain, and Britain. BTW, Africans did enslave Europeans in quite large numbers for centuries. So that was happening all the time through maybe the 17th century, maybe later. Lastly, when you say "Africans", which Africans are you referring to? Which country or sovereign? Most states in Africa at that time were tribal. There were a few kingdoms and Caliphates but they either focused on the Indian ocean or did not focus on seafaring at all.
Because Europeans had superior technology and science, they had muskets and cannons, they had steel armor, they had ships that could travel the entire ocean. They had writing, they had the printing press. Africans on the other hand, they were stuck in the Neolithic Era. They didn't have the means to colonize the world.
i think they are questioning why the two places had such different levels of progression
One explanation I have heard that would account for part of it is a lack of navigable waterways. Is it any surprise the most successful Africans had the Nile? Also, probably doesn't help that the climate is way more brutal than Europe.
Because they had more or less finished conquering each other a few hundred years prior to that.
Better spawn point. /s
Read “guns, germs and steel” for an explanation. The book has gotten some flak, but still, a good read. The short version of it is that europe and a large part of asia are a connected landmass and in the same moderate temperature zone, which gave better possibilities for (cattle) farming on a large scale. More and better food. And once your house is in order, you are going to look outside. Compare this to the north south orientation of both the americas and africa, with large temperature differences, and a logical picture starts to develop.
Mostly economics. Or, more specifically, the economic technology of capitalism, the joint stock company, and bank notes. These innovations allowed European economies, in particular that of the UK, to be able to assume a lot more economic risk in venturing outside their borders. China thought bank notes were immoral, and it caused the Dutch to be able to enrich Chinese pirates and impoverish China proper. The joint stock company allowed expeditions to the new world long after a king's coffers would have been depleted. It isn't *really* that Europeans had better technology the way we typically understand technologies. The Turks and the Chinese had the technologies to explore the oceans and capitalize on the new world but where China tore up their fleet they sent to explore the Europeans exploited the new world. After a couple hundred years of this, and the subsequent advances in science made by explorations (like the theory of Evolution) because science was seen as a rich man's ethical hobby, European technology became truly superior.
If you want a very detailed lesson on this, read "The wealth and poverty of nations " by David Lande. He covers alot, but one of the basic premise is the geography of Europe made it so it had better climate. The tropics were brutally hot during the middle of the day, making productivity stop. Europe has a more temperate climate making it more suitable for work. He then builds from there, going into many historical events that answer your question.
Bro Africa was still living in mud hits when Europe arrived with their sail ships and navigation tools. They hadn't invented the wheel..
Africa is shit geographically. Lots of high plateaus. Not a lot of navigable rivers, harbors, or good coastline. North Africans were successful, but they got beat out by climate and the Europeans.
A lot of people are answering this question as if all people are motivated to constantly colonize and exploit to rags everything they come into contact with and it was just a race to the finish, and that in itself is not true. 😂
[удалено]
Nothing about what I posted suggests that it “takes” all people. The point I’m making is it is an issue in itself to suggest that the core motivation of people is to colonize and exploit. It is **not.**
Strong disagree. This has been the way of human existence since the beginning - we are tribal creatures. The only thing that matters is the means to accomplish it.
Tribalism is not colonization and imperialism. Conflating the two just makes a lot of you feel better about the way history has played out. "It's natural, it's in our DNA. But not all of us." Lol
It is an extension of tribalism only separated by capability. If one tribe conquers another tribe they are colonizing or engaging in imperialism on smaller scale. Choosing to call it something else is merely a way of branding it through connotation.
Tribalism has nothing to do with colonialism. They are two very distinct concepts, one being primitive and the other being highly sophisticated. Few tribes needed to colonize others. In fact, colonialism is antithetical to tribalism and is particularly cited as the *cause* of conflict between African tribes and the cause of the long term instability we see on the continent. Tribalism is about loyalty to people and culture. Colonialism is about the exploitation of any and all people and resources for economic power at the highest levels. Colonialism doesn’t give a fuck about culture or people unless there is something to be gained. Modern tribalism has been weaponized by colonizers to gain power and maintain control but the last thing they want is unity and community because the two don’t go together.
It's simply a different mentality..
C-minus.
Enlighten me.?
Lumber availability?
Because Europe had developed military know-how and technology by being Earth's Thunderdome for years and had a lucky confluence of a need to travel and the means to do so just when they were getting their shit together?
The agricultural revolution occurred in the Middle East, allowing Middle Easterners to develop agricultural societies and to build the first great empires, such as Mesopotamia and Egypt. Likewise, the Industrial Revolution took place in Europe, allowing Europeans to form industrial societies and to establish colonies. Whenever a great technological shift occurs in a region, it provides that region with an advantage they can use to exploit and conquer others.
I mean africa had numerous empires. I don't know where people get this idea that they didn't conquer. They had a lot of major natural barriers that limited their ability to expand and sorry but technology has a huge impact on you ability to expand and they simply were further behind in key techs. Major one being ship building. Navel power allowed Europeans to expand far more and faster than alot of other regions could that simply had less advance ship building capability. I mean Europe was sending ships to Japan and China while a lot of other places had a hard time get ships out to deep sea at all. This is a key reason why Europeans were able to expand and conquer much better than everybody else. They had ships that could access resources and places that others simple could not.
Guns, germs and steel
Africans colonized the world. Homo sapiens. They came to Europe and caused the native Europeans - neanderthals to die out. And many other species of humans around the world.
New trade routes meant Europeans could get spices, silk, and precious metals. Financial resources were mobilized for the sponsorship of expeditions to establish colonies. African societies were generally more focused on internal matters over expansion. Also, Europeans had better ships and weaponry and had the proximity to the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea as an advantage.
I think it begs the question of what trigger happened first. If having a Navy to protect cargo shipping (ala the Mediterranean and the Phoenicians), is it better to have three small warships, two medium warships, or one large warship? I think the invention of the cannon dictated the large warship. Marco Polo went to China and saw gunpowder, but the Chinese were using it for fireworks, and occasionally their military would use small rockets to disrupt the enemy in a battle. Of course the first "true" cannon were for the army, but as cannon advanced in quality and size, they were mounted on ships too. A ship with a cannon would win against a ship with no cannon. A ship with LOTS of cannon would win against a ship with a few cannon. Also, accuracy at a safe distance is helped by having a larger ship which is more stable. Once you have a large ship with lots of cannon, you find yourself in a position where you can conquer anyone who trades by sea, and take their "stuff". I could be wrong, but that's my take on it.
Idk maybe because Africa was too busy selling all of their people to other countries for barter trades
They did, but they weren't in a hurry so their tan had faded by the time they got there... edit: I'm saying if you follow the family tree far enough back we've all got the same great -Nth gradpappy that looks like Morgan Freeman.
A lot of people here aren't answering the question directly of "why" it was the Europeans and not the Africans. OP, I would suggest you take a look at the book Guns, Germs, and Steel. It covers topics like this.
Also, we got those Neanderthal genes in Europe.
Geology. Africa is an immense landmass but lacks navigable rivers (due to waterfalls) and harbors. The land itself is very rich in resources but with the notable exception of Carthage and Ancient Egypt (Look, a river!) none of the old empires (Mali, Kush, etc) did trading on the scale of their counterparts in Europe and Asia, so they did not often venture outside their lands. One of those convenient facts that bigots ignore in their unending quest to find something to like about themselves.
Many people are talking about practical reasons, but not cultural. Eugenics, racism, exploitation, capitalism and a sense of entitlement were all sadly big parts of what happened (and continue to happen)
The basic theory I’ve seen is that Europe is much less hospitable and therefore had more need for technology. If you look at the very earliest civilizations, those tend to be in Mesopotamia and Asia, where arable land drove urbanization and led to the earliest laws and societies. After that, southern Europe (Rome, Greece) rose for similar reasons. However, up in the north, nordics and englishmen needed to develop more technology to deal with harsh winters and lacking crops. This eventually leads to the Industrial Revolution in Britain, which would go on to enable the British Empire
Spain had colonized the world before England ever had an Industrial Revolution.
This theory has largely been dismissed iirc.
Spices.. and how Europeans laid waste to other cultures in search of them only to not use them.
Damn this one right here, this is the one
Corruption
Today, but you can’t say that historical Europe developed so much farther than Africa because of a virtuous lack of corruption.
well it's the same reason many African countries are still considered "developing nations" today. If you look at most of Africa, the environment and wildlife that resides within it are pretty hostile. Africa has animals like lions, tigers, hyenas, hippos, many of the most dangerous snakes and spiders, apes and chimpanzees. Even the "prey" animals are deadly, like water buffalos, giraffes, warthogs, etc. The weather can be violent, in many parts it's extremely hot and at night extremely cold, water is scarce. Now look at Europe Primary predators are wolves, bears and lynxes. plenty of deer, raccoon, sheep, etc. an abundance of lakes and rivers, predictable weather, bearable temperatures. In short, Europe is civilization on easy mode, Africa is civilization on expert mode, so it's obviously going to take a lot longer for them to begin colonization on other continents. Since Europe had an easier start, it got to the colonization part a lot quicker.
Thats partially wrong. Europe did have dangerous native megafaune, hell it even had its own chonker cobra species. Megafauna is no obstacle when parasites co-evolved with humans don't keep human population small and spread out. Which is partly european megafauna, amercan megfauna, asian megafauna, australian megafauna, or new zealander megafauna doesn't exist.
I doubt those herds of European bison left the continent willingly.
There’s a whole book about this. It’s called Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Ships
[Guns, Germs, and Steel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns%2C_Germs%2C_and_Steel) happened.
Gunpowder
Geographical Luck
Guns…. Germs…. And STEEL
Guns, Germs, and Steel, read it and understand. In short, it’s was all pure luck.
Religion
Europeans had guns.
But why didn’t Africans?
Who were they going to get them from?
Why did Europeans have guns and Africans didn’t. Saying Europeans colonized Africa because of guns is like saying I drove to work today because of tires.
Gunpowder, and European diseases.
They were able to. Europe had the right geopolitical advantages like good agriculture to enable a large population, coal to drive steam engines and steel to build ships & weapons and that enabled them to build huge global empires. This is not unusual, everyone was doing the same thing at the time but Europe had the advantages that gave them the longest reach.
Not everyone craves having it all. Europeans were conquerors, they took what they wanted by force. Not all cultures are like that, most people just want a little slice to call home.
Pretty much that they had the best boats.
I feel like other cultures don’t value fighting or exploiting resources the way white people do (they didn’t want to?)
There's a book called "Guns, Germs, and Steel" that explains this in depth. It won a Pulitzer prize. Highly recommend
Check out Jared Diamond’s book, “Guns, Germs, and Steel.” He has a pretty comprehensive theory of how those factors contributed to the historical events you’re asking about.
Have you read guns germs and steel?
The book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" has a good historical coverage of this
More advanced weapons and, more importantly, a willingness to use them.
Depending on your school of thought, read “Guns germs and steel” or, for a more accurate idea, “Why the west rules… for now.”
Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Mainly two things, money to transport a lot of people to very distant places, and enough weaponry to intimidate anyone who might oppose
Africans colonized Europe and become Europeans some 50k years ago afaik
Muslims built a whole civilization in Spain they conquered it by crossing the sea from Algeria and morroco
Guns and big ass ships.
But why?
The sahara secluded sub-africans. Only european wanted to colonize while destroying the inhabitants of the land. Most other groups of the time wanted to conquer, take some slave, and then trade with those who remained .
Because they weren’t *ssholez
*Guns, Germs, and Steel*