this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2025
37 points (100.0% liked)

History

23925 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to c/history! History is written by the posters.

c/history is a comm for discussion about history so feel free to talk and post about articles, books, videos, events or historical figures you find interesting

Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.

Do not post reactionary or imperialist takes (criticism is fine, but don't pull nonsense from whatever chud author is out there).

When sharing historical facts, remember to provide credible souces or citations.

Historical Disinformation will be removed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

China and India were the most important places on Earth for almost all of history. The "Near East," the "Far East," Africa, and the Americas all had advanced empires at times, and most outstripped Europe technologically for most of history. The Ottomans famously made use of gunpowder before Europeans, but the Chinese were (of course) the first to weaponize it.

So what enabled Europeans to so successfully dominate the world? Obviously it wasn't their exceptional genetics or superior "culture," or even, I think, the massive experience in organized murder from Europeans all killing each other. Was it Capitalism? Industrialization? Agriculture? Did the massive trade network encompassing half the globe create a population with a huge array of immune disease carriers?

Notably, the "Scramble for Africa" happened much later than the settling of the Americas. Did the wealth sucked out of the Americas allow the Europeans to do something that would've been previously impossible (or at least not worth the effort)?

I know this is kind of a massive question to answer and I'm sure it's very contested, but I'd appreciate any responses and any book recommendations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] StalinIsMaiWaifu@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Why did colonialism begin:

The crusades were a shared experience for Europe of going on a foreign land and taking over (also proto racism)

Crusades reintroduced the silk road to western Europe The black death created the conditions for ending feudalism and start proto capitalism

The growing bourgeoisie did not want to pay the ottomans and other Muslim nations in order to trade with China/India so they began looking for other routes

Portugal tarted by attempting to circumnavigate Africa (surprisingly difficult)

An Italian(?) dumbass (Columbus) messed up the diameter of the earth and tried a straight shot across the Atlantic

Turns out Mexico has literal gold, the Caribbean and Brazil have powder gold (sugar)

Why did Europe begin to dominate:

America's were devastated by disease

Incan/Aztec empires lacked the same knowledge of metalworking

The wealth (silver mostly) from the Americas let Europe gain favorable trade deals in India & China

Notably this trade was primarily initiated by Europe China/India are blessed in natural resources and only really needed money

Because the interactions are one way Europeans and in position to take advantage of weakened nations in a way they were immune to

Why Africa happened late:

Malaria, just like how European diseases ravaged the Americas, malaria ravaged any attempt of European colonization. Trade deals with locals was much more economical.

[–] Redbolshevik2@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thanks for the overview! I have some of these pieces but it's very helpful to have things laid out. Definitely hadn't thought about how the Crusades formed a shared experience in foreign conquest.

Both the naked extraction of resources and Unequal Exchange were vital to the development of early European Capitalism. But (at least according to the book I've found with the most persuasive hypothesis, The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View) Capitalism was born in the English countryside when rents became subject to market prices and assessed land value, creating a systemic incentive to Improve (vital concept in early capitalist concepts of property relations) the land by farmers.

In my (relatively uneducated) view, it seems like Capitalism (compared to Feudalism) would bring massive advantages in productive capacity and ability to sustain large and increasingly urban populations.

[–] StalinIsMaiWaifu@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'll have to give that book a read. The argument I remember* (for england & the Netherlands) was that the soil quality was poor compared to the rest of Europe. The landowners in both states turned to trade, first as a supplement but eventually whole hog.

  • I would send book titles, but they were my professors self published and I'm not that inclined to self dox

**Also mildly surprised we didn't read this book, seems just as relevant as Daemonologie /hj

[–] Redbolshevik2@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

The argument I remember* (for england & the Netherlands) was that the soil quality was poor compared to the rest of Europe. The landowners in both states turned to trade, first as a supplement but eventually whole hog.

The first chapter of Origin is dedicated to summarizing the various schools of thought (at the time of publishing) on where Capitalism originated in Europe and why, and one of those that the author rejects is the idea that Capitalism arose primarily from trade.

**Also mildly surprised we didn't read this book, seems just as relevant as Daemonologie /hj

I don't remember who recommended it, and it takes a specific position in a debate, so I'm sure there's some sectarian element that's beyond my understanding.