Note the part about cavalry being dispersed is likely wrong; mounted archer had better accuracy, range and rate of than early(!) guns. Similarly, early infantry with guns had to be protected by pikemen as well. at 8:06 there is the wrong quote, it should be: “They [Ottomans] collected less than the median for major European powers, less than what one of their major opponents, the Austrians raised, and less than what their other chief enemy, the Russians, mobilized, at least after 1750.” (Hoffman, Philip T.: Why Was It Europeans Who Conquered the World? In: The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 92, No. 3 (September 2012), p. 618)
@@rainyvideos3684 1) I use far newer academic literature, which would have integrated the viable parts of it. 2) It is generally seen as a rather lackluster work. To quote: "The quick and dirty answer is that modern historians and anthropologists are quite critical of, if not borderline/outright hostile to, Guns, Germs, and Steel." www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mkcc3/how_do_modern_historians_and_history/
actualy 16th century infantry in europe has 2 traits outstanding, discipline, and the initiative of commanders, that's i think the two things that stand out, oh and the ottomans had some other downsides like the discrimination against christians, and generally some espacialy cruel practices, and enslavement etc, also a different ethnic group ruling over you is not in the genetic interest of any population, that's why germany has not as much a revolutionary history than many other countrys, the germany aristocray was to a large degree also german descended, while the french had a nobility that prided emselfs to descend from the franks, a german tribe, and the british got the normans. no realy large differences and mixing was a thing but, percieved ethnic interest is the deciding factor. also early guns i think had the advantage of frightening horses that weren't bred to stay calm during gun sounds,
The improvement in shipdesign was a consequence of having to deal with colonys far over the ocean from 1492 on. Until then the European ship design was no way better than the Ottoman or Chinese ships. You can rather clearly see this by looking at Santa Maria, Nina and Pinta, which were very bad ships to cross a whole ocean and suffered from various problems. Even Columbus noted that the Santa Maria was not a proper ship for exploring far oceans. Ninas takelage were also not suited very well and had been changed during the first travel to America, as well as for Pinta.
Because Europeans (and asians to be clear) aint pure homosapiens but mix breed betwen homsapiens and neanderthal and they used leftovers from neanderthal to gain advantage in logic, science... just check how many scienties in the past and even today are from mix bred (homosapiens/neanderthal) and compare that number to the pure homosapiens and you'll see a clear picture.
The single most important reason for Europe's rise to dominance, was its ocean-going ships. Carracks and caravels, much like space capsules, were designed for exploration, for long ocean-voyages, manned by a skeleton crew with minimal topside work, even the food they ate was made for purpose. A caravel can be handled by five-six people. The fleet of Zeng He, carrying thousands of soldiers, officials and prostitutes, was unable to navigate open ocean and had to resupply every ten days or so.
Portugal and Spain learned what they knew about sailing from the Arabs they conquered. It took them some time to surpass the Arab ships, mostly by sticking ever more and ever larger guns on top of them. Also, Zeng He reached India and Sri Lanka. They may not have been as efficient for exploring, but for travelling on known trade routes, fighting pirates and troop transport they were certainly doing their job. I'd say the difference was that Zeng He was not as aggressive as the Europeans were a little later. Can you give your sources on their seaworthiness and resupply needs? I'm genuinely interested.
*Portugal and Spain learned what they knew about sailing from the Arabs they conquered.* That's only partly true. They learned the use of the astrolabe, but carracks were developed under sponsorship by Henry the Navigator, at a time when the Arabs still used galleys. Once the Europeans reached the Persian Gulf, there was basically nothing the Arabs could do to stop them, even if the Europeans were at the end of a ten thousand mile supply line and the Arabs operating in their own back yard. *He was not as aggressive as the Europeans were a little later.* Zeng He's voyage was as much a pirate raid as a diplomatic mission, although on a very civilized level: they'd find some potentate, dazzle him with the might of their fleet, shower him with presents and inform him that he was now - rejoice! - a vassal of the empire, and that the emperor was very fond of a thing called 'tribute'. I doubt they even turned a profit. The Europeans explorers were mainly traders, and for good reasons. Being half the world away from home, they couldn't afford to aggravate too many of the locals. It's only with Columbus, that the focus of exploration turns to colonization. *Can you give your sources on their seaworthiness and resupply needs?* I'm afraid I'm quoting old schoolbook stuff - I'm not even exactly sure about the ten days, but it was in that ballpark.
@@altaccout I mean, it IS a pretty large topic as well as an anthropological quandary that's caused debate for generations - perhaps it is a poor topic for such a short video. I - however - can sum it up in a sentence in a comment on said RU-vid video. Europeans conquered the world because Europe was a fucking shithole and lots of people didn't want to stay there anymore. There, how's that for reductive? :P
@@user-w8jhtre23 - Evolution which formed man and all the other animals is an indifferent system of competitive pressure. Man was created from this system which is why imperialism, war, colonisation, extermination, slavery and begging have existed in all cultures throughout time, Western colonisation did not create these things.
Whats interesting tho is that the countries with the most taxes, but also functioning governments, are very well off. The Scandinavian countries for example have to give half their income for taxes, but then in return the government actually does something for the infrastructure and the well being of their citizens
I would give more emphasis than you to the nature of European geography and how that supported the other factors promoting Europe's advantage at the time. European geography allows for multiple entities with sufficiently productive hinterlands and relatively defensible borders that are close enough to compete, trade and share ideas but secure enough to have a surplus allocated to research and development.
The concept of sovereignty is a very recent development. Most non European cultures had little to no idea about National identity beyond their own region. Japan and Thailand were unique in that they had a sovereign, king or emperor who ruled with a continuity of power, from one generation to The next ensuring peaceful transition .
Also rivers- which made trade cheap, and access to oceans- that are neither entirely blocked by other nations ( like China being blocked by the first island chain) nor too far from other nations ( like The indian ocean being comparatively empty to India in contrast to the Atlantic ocean)
Chinese firearm development fell behind not because (or just because) of a lack of competitiveness, but as consequences of deliberate technological suppression. The Manchus of the Qing dynasty that conquered China tried to suppress firearm development in its early years because as noted, nomadic cavalry archers were the success to their armies, thus they had no need for a infantry weapon that only benefited the 'conquered Han people'. This is directly contradictory of Ming doctrine, which established one of its three elite divisions (the "Divine Engine Division") specifically to advance gunpowder weapons and doctrines. You can find China's early understanding of fire-by-rank and pike-and-shot tactics in the works they left behind, showing that Ming's gunpowder weapon understanding was at least on par with the Europeans. Keep in mind China valued the cannon and rocket far more than the gun. They already had an easy-to-train, ranged, armor-piercing weapon called the crossbow, which China had more variants than anyone else. This is most obvious in Hideoyoshi's invasion of Korea (1592), where the Japanese made widespread use of the arquebus (which they first imported from Portugal), but Chinese/Korean navies had superior cannons.
@@neutralfellow9736 How does China adopting western firearms contradict anything I've posted in first comment? XD The fact Ming is using the most up-to-date armaments, regardless of whether they have to import tech before making adjustments, shows that they *are* keeping up in the arms race (just like all the belligerents of WW2 copied each others' techs and tried to make it better). Meanwhile, this cannot be said for early Qing policies.
Real answer every other continent was rich and Europe was poor compared to Africa, Asia, and North America but they took Asian fireworks made guns Native American gold but they still weren’t as rich so they traded until they realized “hey we have guns” and took Africa taking everything then left and called them poor after stealing from them So the answer is really GUNS
Very interesting video that discusses specific military factors. But I would also highlight the following geopolitical / economic factors: 1. Europe had a demand for Asian goods since Roman times, and with the Ottomans controlling their trade routes, Europeans were much more motivated to develop naval technology. Also, there are a lot of seas around Europe! 2. The discovery of the Americas and their subsequent depopulation through disease and conquest left European powers with massive advantages in resources, especially relative to their population. This wealth also allowed them to invest in universities, scientific research, etc. much more than China and India who constantly had to worry about mouths to feed. 3. The shifting of world trade from the Silk Road to the Atlantic and (eventually) the Pacific also greatly diminished a primary source of power and resources for the Ottomans and Persians.
@@_donald.harrison04 Discovery, as in, knowledge of the Americas was made known to the entirety of Europe, unless you were taught of the Vikings' explorations.
@@_donald.harrison04 In this context, totally irrelevant. From "biblical' times to Greeks, Romans and Christianity as a whole there was nothing that seriously threatened Europe (and the Progress) from outside - some Mongol and Ottoman invasions as far as medieval Austrian-Hungary area not included. And more recent incident of Communist Russia exploiting war-torn Eastern Europe. But then again, after all the struggle and suffering, we wouldn't had MTV and Trump!
@@_donald.harrison04 "before Europe even knew of the Americas" Which is the point I was making: discovery, in this context, refers to the Europeans and what they knew of the world prior to Columbus's journey.
I really like that you said about early firearm's ineffectivness. I'd like to mention one more thing. People don't really get how hard is to kill a horse. If a horse is running you can stop it by shooting in the head, spine or legs. A bullet in the chest won't stop the horse immediately. If heart doesn't work the rest of horse's muscles are pumping blood instead of it. Naturaly horse dies when it stop. It is well observed in battles of winged hussars when they won battles with low casualties but very high loss in horses.
interesting, in reading up on Napoleonic cavalry it was mentioned that if a horse is with by a bullet or "unseen object", it will continue to move, yet, if it hits a "barrier" (or pike), it will stop.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized It is true. One of the most succesfull tactic against cavalry is putting a barrier for your infantry for cover. Cossacs used carts. Gustav Adolf used earthworks. Cheval de frise were also in use. I think it has a great psychological effect on infantry. If you are a soldier in a first line and even if you know that pike will stop the horse you still see lines of cavalry charging towards you. Then it's not hard to imagine that they will smash you like a wrecking ball. Putting a barier will make you feel safer.
The Red Russians who were outnumbered at times got smart and found a way to decimate there enemies calvary charges. This shows what they did - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rmmQP8E1dXQ.html
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized European powers remind me of the Fire Nation in Aang’s story The Last Airbender. Fire Nation is synonymous with the policy of plunder and expansion of power into enemy territory after successfully uniting the entire Fire Nation Kingdom under the rule of a Fire emperor. They were easily able to conquer enemy territory due to the weakness of the enemy's own faction which split to establish their respective small kingdoms in addition to being aided by a great and well-organized military system. Such is Europe
You missed the invention and spread of a 1452 invention the printing press. Communication, education became widespread by Europeans. That knowledge advanced tactics, weapons, inventions that other parts of the world were unable to match for centuries.
Plus, the european alphabet is more suitable for printing than chinese or arabic. (The chinese invented printing before europe did, but couldn't make such widespread use of it.)
@Katarina Love What does that have to do with African supremecists who swarm the comments and leave hateful comments against Europeans ? Think of a better argument next time, Katarina .
You can't miss the importance of the industrial revolution in suppling the wealth and material needed for conquest. Other nations and empires could have seen what European powers were doing, but who could compete with European industrial strength after the 1700's?
I think this video is more about what led to European conquests prior to the industrial revolution and why the industrial revolution happened in Europe specifically.
In the past I asked you to compile your sources in one place. You answered me that it was time consuming. I understand it. But the fact that you still put the sources in your video description is awesome as the community has the chance to quickly go through them (not necessarily watching the video again) to list them. Thank you
"Although volley fire is most often associated with firearms, the concept of continuous and concerted rotating fire may have been practiced using crossbows since at least ..." Musket volley fire is not so inventive: crossbow volley fire existed long before....= a very small inventive step...
@T J its cool i like it it snow, there is mountains peopel ar every light skinned, and they eat good food, are string, culture is rich, and they are hardworking while thr south is chilling
Not Europeans, just Britain conquering the East, and Spain/Portugal conquering the West. The rest of Europe was still having nonsense infighting and dealing with the collapse of their monarchies.
" Go you therefore, and COLONIZE all nations, christianize them in the name of the X, and of the Y, and of the Z. " - Matthew 28:19 Islam and Christianity were two competing COLONIAL RELIGIONS.
@@TheReaper569 I wouldn't go so far to call it "trash," but there is a healthy debate over GGS's ideas. One of the problems with GGS is that it implies that any population, given time and the right opportunities, will eventually develop into a Western-style civilization. Obviously, this presupposes that any developed civilization must end up looking like the West, and that any culture that's different is simply an immature civilization - a big claim that GGS doesn't include any support for. It's also criticized for oversimplifying and outright ignoring many factors which go into the development of larger societies. There's also some resistance because the book was not written by a seasoned historian or anthropologist. Nonetheless, it's extremely influential.
@@coffeestainedwreck im not sure what is wrong with claiming that "people given opportuinities and time can form success ful civilisations" unless you are racist and cant bear that west is not so unique.. also "Obviously, this presupposes that any developed civilization must end up looking like the West," no such claim exists. the west is not and never was claimed the ideal end state. its like stating humans are end state and pinacle of evolution. thats not how it works. im not sure who is making these up but if this is the sort of criticism againts ggs fuck those guys. PS read why nations fail for follow up on GGS as it is partly written as an answer.
Man, I was looking up some info for a school project and I googled the subject, just so happens to be that one of my all time favourite history channels had made a video on it!
I think your commentary on the Ottoman's is a bit off. The Ottomans were innovators in gunpowder weaponry and their best known fighting force was the Janissaries. They were an infantry and gunpowder force. I believe it might be better stated that the Ottoman's were hit by a double economic whammy...1 internal and 1 external. The internal economic problem was that the Ottoman economy was built on conquest. This slowed considerably in the 16th and stopped in the 17 century (you talk about bad tax collection - but conquest allowed them to be bad at tax collection). The external factor was that European's moved to sailing trade (sailing is noted by another commentator). At the same time that conquest ended, the European's began to go around the Ottoman monopoly on East Asian and South Asian goods. All of this would have created the lack of money for research into weaponry that the Ottoman's had. But remember this was the force that led the first artillery assault on a city in the West (Constantinople in 1453).
> The Ottomans were innovators in gunpowder weaponry and their best known fighting force was the Janissaries. yeah, still look at the number of cavalry they had in comparison to the French. 77 % vs. 27 %. Additionally, the Chinese also invested gunpowder weapons first. Maybe I didn't really explicitly stated it, but it comes down to sustained long-time investment into gunpowder technology over centuries in financial means and regular usage of a sufficient amount of troops on the battlefield as well. I also talk about funding and tax problems etc.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized So, this 27% versus 77%....what timeframe? The Ottomans were definitely not a primary cavalry force for their entire reign. I would argue (say at Agincourt) that the French were a primary cavalry force. I acknowledge that many Ottoman battles and enemies were nomadic. But the Ottomans were siege experts - not always victorious - Rhodes, Malta, Vienna 2x, Constantinople. None of these battles were cavalry battles. So, I consider the Ottomans unique here (to prove your point). They stood toe to toe with the full European armies until the end of WWI.
The Ottomans weren't really innovators. They developed very few technologies which were widely adopted, and even then, they weren't particularly significant. They, like much of the world, were mimicking European powers, and their technology lagged behind visibly. When Europe was using long infantry muskets with detachable bayonets and newly developed drills for fighting with both musket and bayonet, as well as having made the transition to a larger number of smaller bore, more mobile artillery pieces, the Ottomans were noticeably lagging a century or so behind. When Napoleon fought the Ottomans in the Egypt campaign, for instance, the Ottoman musket-armed infantry did not employ bayonets. Rather, they carried muskets and sabres. They brought along enormous cannons that would've been consider archaic on any European battlefield. They even had a significant portion of their force being melee infantry armed with sabres, again, something that was woefully out of date by this time period.
@@MBKill3rCat The Ottomans conquered Constantinople with Artillery in 1453 when most European powers had no idea what to do with Gunpowder. The same could be said at Rhodes, Malta and Vienna. The lack of innovation that you are talking about occurred late in the life of the Empire (say 350 years after Constantinople). My take is that this is economic decline that lead to malaise and stagnation not that military conquest came first.
@@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344 no, the first artillery used in europe was in the XIII-XIV cent, french and english used some in two or three battles and in the reconquer of spain during the siege of algeciras and sevilla
Am I the only one to think that the title should be "Why European Military Technology Was Superior to Anyone Else in the Last Centuries"? I like the explanation but the real question is why the European have been so expansionist and why the rest of the world was unable to catch up. I have an answer, but it is very politically incorrect.
G'day, Well, we celebrated Amnesia Day, here in Oz last week..., 231 years after Governor Arthur Phillip released the Sheep onto what used to be the, "Biggest Estate On Earth" (a Non-Fiction Book, by Bill Gammage, it won the $10,000 "Prime Minister's Prize"...). Whereas in Australia..., for 12,000 years the 500 Language-Groups who had been living on their "Country" for 40,000 to 66,000 years (see the "DNA-Nation" Project...) all practised dovetailing versions of the same Totemic Religion, which was dedicated to caring for the Environment & maintaining their Ecology for maximum SUSTAINABLE Harvests of EVERYTHING, while holding their Population down to what the Land could sustain during a 10-Year Drought - because roughly every 200 years one of them happens, in Oz, and the idea was to have nobody starve to death during the hardest of times, and then that way, the rest of the time, Life was really easy.....; However the EuroPeons ("from Europe comes" + "Landless Ignorant Peasants") operate under a completely different paradigm. Beginning at Gobekli Tepe in Southeast Turkey, the Kult of Harvest Everything-ism began 12,300 years ago, when the rapacious Arseholes harvested from so far afield that they accidentally created the first Hybrid strain of Grain, and they planted that resulting artificial variety, and then they clearfelled their Forests to plant ever more of it, thus inventing Broadacre AggroKulture, and 400 years after they switched from all wild-harvested to all-hybrid Grains in their Midden (which took them 300 years to achieve !) ; they'd completely crashed their surrounding local Ecology, creating the first Human man-aged Desert...., so most of their overgrown population died out, but those who'd accumulated wealth via trading..., took it with them and ran away "to seek their fortunes in fresh and UNSPOILED Foreign Lands..." And they paid otherwise unemployed males between the ages of Puberty & Marraige to playaround with Weapons, practicing - in order to be better able to steal the Resources and Lands of whomsoever they encountered, in far-flung places whereinat the people had not already squandered their traditional wherewithal of Life. In order to capture and defend whatever the Market demanded, the Mediterraneans & EuroPeons have ALWAYS prided themselves on growing their Economy as fast as possible, in order to feed their ever-growing Population, in order to support the Militarists & Warriorists required to steal their National Livelihood ; from all the other Cultures which did not have those oh-so very sexy hands of the EuroPeons - which ensures that everything they touch, they fuck it up completely, & thoroughly. And having fucked the Homeostasis Feedback Mechanisms of the whole Planet's Biosphere..., the Selfish EuroPeon Arseholes are about to savour the fulsome flavour of the fact that everything which they have so fecklessly & recklessly buggared ; can never be unfucked. Global Warming is about to compost the EuroPeons, and all they have ever wrought. Perhaps some indigenous remnant populations might survive, but none of them will be in Europe ; that much is certain. Soon it will be the 14th of February, the anniversary of the day Captain James Cook was killed, and butchered into 17 pieces which were carried all over the Island, before being cooked & eaten ; so as many people could participate in taking revenge upon the Arsehole who went and told the rest of Europe how steer their Boats to come over here, and fuck up the last unspoiled bits of the Planet which used to be left. The Facts don't give a shit about "Politics", y'see.... Such is Life, Have a good one. ;-p Ciao !
@@WarblesOnALot You made all that effort just to say that you are salty that Europeans conquered shitty tribal nations who apparently had some wild ideas about eco-sustainability and introduced them to modern ideas of hygene, infrastructure and technology? Oh, damn. Sorry then, apparently the settlers should have left the locals to have fun with their fucking totems and canibalism...
@@simplicius11 Sanitation, hygiene and medicine are pretty important set of skills given to indigenous people if you ask me... There was rarely an extermination war, it was subjugation in the same way the European nations conquered each other through the ages. Dominant cultures persist while the others get forgotten.
@@WarblesOnALot Australian hunters caused plently of Australian species to go extinct. One favorite method of hunting was "Burn the whole forest and plain then we can eat whatever is tired after running." This idea that aboroginal people were somehow super in tune with nature and didn't cause massive problems with the environment is not only wrong but seeps with the racist "noble savage" mythos. People are people, we want to control our environment and consume what we can. We want to have plenty of kids who grow up eating what they want and who are safe from predators and disease. If we have to burn a few forests or make a few species extinct to help us live safer happier lives then we will do it, however shortsighted it may be. Australian natives are no different from anyone else in this way. People are people before they are anything else.
+404Dannyboy G'day, You are in error. Aborigines did NOT use Fire in the manner that you have asserted. Go and do some Research. I suggest you read "Biggest Estate On Earth" by Bill Gammage regarding Fire Management. "Black Emu" (I don't know the Author) is an excellent treatise on Aboriginal Pastoralism & Aquaculture. "Baal Belbora..." by Geoffery Blomfield is another excellent account of the way things used to be. You attempt to deprecate Rousseaus' "Noble Savage" idea...; but the concept came directly from the observations of the FIRST EuroPeon Explorers & Observers into the South Pacific. In Oz it wasn't until after the Aborigines had Bin-Dispossessed by the Sheep-Worrier's Genocidal Invasion/Occupation for 50 to 75 years, that the first of the credulous ignorant moneygrubbing Gold-Miners showed up ; to be told that the remaining Aborigines were "degenerate survivors of a dying race", and other convenient Imperial Colonial Lies, told by the avaricious rapacious murderous mongrel-Bastards whose reckless Soil-Mining have utterly fucked the Australian Ecology, Soil, Rivers, & Forests in only 231 years - after 66,000 years of Human occupation with STABLE Tribal Boundaries this past 40,000 years, and living by the World's oldest continually-practiced Religion (Biame & the Rainbow Serpent) for 10,000 years. Wake up to yourself, you silly bloody EuroPeon - ie, "Landless Ignorant Peasant + From Europe Comes...". Take it easy Such is Life... ;-p Ciao !
War. European countries were constantly at each others throats, either one risking the others annihilation. This compelled them to go far afield to exploit new resources, and compelled them to innovate and improve.
It also served as the impetuse for the development of what we would perhaps call the mindset of total war. That war was not a ritualistic posturing contest to decide who gets to be alpha male with minimum loss of life, but rather a no holds barred struggle of life and death. This mentality existed as early as the greeg persian wars, and survived through to the world wars. Europe had the big advantage that it had soldiers, not warriors.
I would argue that European's conflict of interest and its many sided problems (pagans, heretics, church authority, linguistic differences, muslims, broken alliances, etc...) made ingenuity and innovation more possible. I mean think about it. China or Japan could have taken over Australia but they didnt show the interest because of their different circumstances.
I do think it's just that the many different Europeans competed with each other. Over time, they kept one-upping each other in not just weapons, but also in organization and economy that led them to colonize for prestige, opening new markets and giving their military experience. This intensified natural selection of ideas and technology was at a much faster pace compared to the rest of the world.
There's also something left out here that I think is very important. We're focusing to much like a laser in military conquest, where as for a major military power like Spain a lot of their early "conquests" where made via diplomatic relations with the indigenous populations and by actually incorporating them into their empire as subjects of the crown like any other spaniard, integration if you will into the body politic rather than by military conquest or mercantile supremacy like other european powers, which at some points even them also had to stablish diplomatic relations with their subjects, before and after their conquest, in a way the europeans where masters of diplomacy and trying to come to middle ground when possible, with other peoples, some more than others of course and negociations, otherwise, conquering the rest of the world just by military means while being the minority population in relation to the rest of the world would have been impossible, even with technological superiority which in some cases was not that much.
Easiest answer ever,europe=cold,rainy,bad food (italy does have excellent food and climate).rest of world warm,nice, good food.we might be cold, blue and miserable but we know what we like
Let's not forget the invention of the government bond during the Renaissance. This financial tool allowed Europeans states and cities to raise money quickly for more risky projects like building a navy to invade their neighbors, colonizing newly discovered lands, or invest in scientific and engineering research.
For anyone claiming that "China never built empires" or "China never wanted anything from abroad", both points are bullshit. China (and the Qing under the Manchus) conquered, at various points, Turkestan/Xinjiang, Tibet, Mongolia, Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), Formosa (Taiwan), and sometimes turning Korea into a vassal state. As for China running some sort of eternal trade surplus broken only by opium, the Chinese were known to have imported many goods from abroad, including Persian goods. When the Eastern Roman Empire under Justinian stole the secret of silk from them and made it a European product as well, it seriously hurt China's balance of trade, more than likely turning it negative. As for the whole "eternal trade deficit" idea that Rome had with the East, that was only when Rome had the money to give its citizens in Italy a basically tax-free life and free food for the poor. This unleash tremendous spending power, much of which went to luxuries. This changed in later centuries, as the Eastern Roman Empire was known to have had plenty of gold, a fact which would have been impossible if there was a perpetual trade deficit and species drain. Roman goods such as glass, wine (sold in amphora pots), cloth, and even coral (highly prized in India) were in huge demand abroad, and Europe generally maintained a trade surplus with the rest of the world from the 1400s onwards. Spices became far less expensive from the 1600s onwards as their supply fell into European control and as large-scale plantations increased their production dramatically. It also helped that knowing where they came from erased the mystique about them, which was a large factor in the price. Larger ships and maritime insurance drove down shipping costs, and soon, spices were so common that European cooks had to start coming up with better ways of preparing high-class food than just tossing on tons of spices. This led to the superiority of French and Italian cooking in the estimation of most world chefs. The main exception to this surplus was the British deficit with China. As much of our history was written by an understood through a British lens in the English-speaking world, this has colored our perceptions. Europe produced at least some of its own silk in places like Italy and Greece, and the UK got most of its tea from India. Dutch porcelain (look up Delftware) along with French porcelain vessels replaced Chinese goods in European markets, and all it took was about 70 ships worth of opium a year for a few decades to bleed China of more than all the silver it ever acquired from Europe or elsewhere over the course of centuries. And as a minor note, much of the silver China acquired during the age of discovery came from Japan via Portuguese merchants, who sold muskets to the Japanese in exchange for Japan's silver (one of the few natural resources Japan had in abundance back then) and took at least some of the silver to China in exchange for silks and/or tea, while probably bringing back some of the silver to Portugal as well.
I agree that Europeans in the 1500s had armies that were good at conquest, that is, having a reliance on military innovation, a focus on foreign conquest, and financial systems to support profitable conquest. And I'd say that, once starting with those advantages, Europeans exploited them to get ever better at conquest over the next several centuries. But that begs the question: why did they have those advantages in 1500, and no one else? I think it has to do with the interesting _geography_ of Europe. Nations of conquest developed in Greece (Alexander), then Italy (Roman Empire), then Germany (HRE), then Scandinavia (Vikings), then France, then England. If you look at a map of Europe, each of those areas are semi-isolated from the rest of Europe by some combination of seas, major mountain ranges, or major rivers. That _semi_ isolation allows cultures time and space to diverge between major wars, with the cultures superior at conquest winning, and their advantages later copied by the others. Europe's complicated geography was primed to create constantly warring _nations,_ where elsewhere geography tends to give much less semi-isolation, leading to a flux between tiny city-states with little difference between their cultures, and the occasional large empire with no real enemies left (except internal), whose conquest abilities stagnate and then degrade. So, basically, Europe's got an interesting shape, and other places are less interesting. (SE Asia/Indonesia is interesting, but maybe all the seaways makes for too much isolation. Plus, there's jungle terrain.)
There is literally a book written about exactly this topic titled, "How the West Won", by Dr. Rodney Stark. It is a very inclusive study that deals with the tech divide, economy, populations, etc. You should read it.
@@user-w8jhtre23 Pfff....maybe learn some history before talking out of you arse? East Europeans went to the East in Middle Ages for conquering... AKA Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, ect...
With the Ottomans, the firearms technology didn't so much lag behind, as it was curtailed: for example, they knew how to make bayonets, but refused to use them--at least till the Nizam-i Cedid. They knew about linear tactics, and engaged in it themselves, but never seem to have made use of the close-order drill developed starting c. 1700 (with a partial exception during the 1730's) Why? Because of the Janissaries: they were extremely protective of their traditional privileges, and tended to view any new method of warfare (and with it, new regiments) as an attack on their power. This also affected the government's ability to collect taxes (since the Janissary and bureaucratic systems were inter-related). The Cavalry wasn't much of a hindrance as one would think: they were not a particularly rebellious lot, and tended to be more willing to adopt new methods (the types and uses of firearms in the Ottoman armies was comparable to Europe's). However, they suffered from the way they were recruited: usually as a latter-day Buccelarii, escorting the various Big-wigs and Pashas (the timariot system broke down int he 18th century). This, combined with the raiding they usually focused on, meant they tended to operate in small units--and do so well--but could not engage in the large-unit actions European cavalry could.
That's one of the long-term problems with empires. They may develop powerful and influential establishments that have an interest in maintaining the status quo, who are likely to oppose any reforms that would compromise their position. Stagnation ensues. Similar things did happen to a number of European states too (Spain, Poland), but when it did, it just meant other, more dynamic European powers rose to replace them.
@@MrBigCookieCrumble It wasn't even about pay (which was generally timely): even reforms of the Janissary corps itself tended to get stymied: try to introduce bayonets, or close-order linear formations, and they just threw a fit; neither affected what they were paid, or their privileges. In fact the Janissaries were already close to how 18th century armies were formed: the Orta was practically the same in concept as the single-battalion regiments of the British Army at the time: new methods and training could have improved on this, and made them perfectly capable well into the 19th century. But that resistance to reform is why new units were recruited--precisely because the reform of the Janissaries themselves proved impossible. The Janissaries would then see the new units as a threat to their position as *the* elite soldiers of the Empire, and would try to get rid of these units; the Nizam-i Cedid was disbanded when the Janissaries deposed and killed Selim III, for example.
Before going too deep into the video, I am going to lay out my theory. It is because of Europe's shape and weather. There are many prominent peninsulas in Europe, this provides a natural barrier for kingdoms from 3 sides with water. This allows for a kingdom to more easily defend itself and allow it to invest more into it's economy. Italy, the Roman's, were able to become one of the earliest powers in Europe due to the terrain. Surrounding all the peninsulas the water provided safer and more efficient trade. Even during times of war and conflict, trade by sea could continue. Trade by sea requires more advanced technology to be more efficient, bigger ships, stronger hulls, and better navigation. This spured on investment into the sciences to study the world and stars. As a final point, the weather and number of competitors. Europe is far enough north where winter makes warring impossible for a significant period of time. This allows for nations to take a break from war to focus on growth and technology(winter crafts). The shorter seasons for farming also spured on investment into more efficient farming methods like crop rotation so that they had enough food for the winters. With this cycle, competing nations had time to invest in a better economy, weapons, and technology. To give at least one comparison, China had an early start to their nation, because of great weather for food and farming, however there are few natural barriers to outside threats and their size worked against them. Poor communication makes ruling a massive nation like China near impossible. For the longest time, China's internal borders and factions looked more like the kingdoms where Germany is today than a cohesive nation. The different weather and lack of natural barriers made it difficult for kingdoms in China to justify investing in to new technology instead of more soldiers to defend themselves. The few that could lived along the coasts of china and we can see the effect of that in the nations political capital is not too far upriver from the sea and not in some city dwwp within the center of China.
Tbh the Chinese fell behind because they had no use for Weapons and Gunpowder, they had relative peace. I think the Europeans were largely successful because: 1. They fought technologically inferior opponents most of the time(the Ottomans at their height were very difficult for Europeans to fully defeat because at one point they were roughly equal plus Europeans still fought against one another), 2. There was need for more land and resources( some countries in Europe had inclement conditions and this wasn't too good for farmers) 3. As you said War was very profitable in Europe(certain families👀 benefitted from constant conflict plus there was a lot of loot to acquire) 4. The advent of the Navy especially in the case of the British and Spanish empire.
Well, I would hesitate to subscribe to Ottomans lacking firepower idea. It was the efficient and pioneering usage of cannons in battles and sieges that made Ottomans successful in Anatolia, Balkans, East Europe and Middle East. Especially during Anatolian unification, Persian and Memluk Wars it was Ottoman cannons that its foes were unable to counter. However, in long term, the inefficient tax collection caused the fall of the empire for sure. A less known fact about Ottoman economy is its obligatory import oriented nature. Importation of goods is highly encouraged while exporting goods is simply banned by the state and local authorities to keep the market as low priced as possible. That of course caused budget deficit that Ottomans were counterbalancing with spoils of war and additional taxation on non-Muslim population. However, when the European conquests slowed to a crawl, rest of expansion zones ended with natural barriers and finally Spanish and Portuguese naval power on oceans were too great to compete with, Ottoman economy slowly entered a vicious circle which required more expenditure for military with less return. Moreover, while European countries were modernizing their military, sole element of Ottoman army that is capable of using muskets and rifles was still Janissaries which were the personal bodyguards of the sultan first and foremost. Due to lack of any other alternative, number of Janissaries increased exponentially by accepting Muslims in the ranks. (originally Janissaries were converted Christian boys) As this didn't help to counter modern European armies, it also caused dire disciplinary problems due to economical collapse that led to overthrow and murder of several Ottoman sultans by those Janissaries.
There question is more about economics & technology than about military science. Trying to answer is is like trying to answer why the industrial revolution happened in Europe.
> There question is more about economics & technology than about military science. is that you Wehrmacht General Staff? Remember how we lost the last two world wars? You might want to have a chat with General Thomas. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-W9YB47bfYz0.html
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized he is right tho. The questions on this have underlying couses relying on technology more rather than pure military power.
@@TheReaper569 Economics and Technology are directly related to military power. Military power allowed access to more markets, which allowed more investment in technology. Can't focus on one or the other, it's a mixed answer.
I think Jared Diamonds book show in all clarity that military innovation was only possible thanks to a more modern society with workers specialized in different tasks. And that in turn was only possible thanks to Europes ability to produce a larger food surplus so that more men could do other things than just producing food. We could therefore have eperienced blacksmiths, buraucrats with ability to write and read so the government apparatus could work smoothly, and we could set aside food for an economically useless warrior class that practiced horse riding and firing arrows. And when the economy falls apart, then you will no longer have any specialists like skilled blacksmiths when there are no market for their products, and then all the technological progress will be lost. The fall of the Roman empire is a perfect example of this. Europe could produce a large food surplus and could therefore feed a class of specialists that helped technological progrress. While other civilizations failed to do this
I've heard the theory that it is lower taxation wich eventually makes countries more wealthy, wich in turn ironically make them collect way more taxes even if their tax rates are still low, because they allowed their economy to grow. It was extremelly rare for a monarchy to have over 10% tax rate and so on, and also throughout most of the medieval period wars tended to be small, and using mercenaries rather than full on conscript armies. So this is why British Empire grew so large and why Europe wasnt in total ruins despite having so many wars and small nations.
Europe never really conquered the world until the 1800s, so obviously could Asia and the middle east compete with the west for a long while while the native Americans and Australians quickly got crushed at first contact. I think western military edge was much technological and organizational plus the benifits of having domesticated animals and resistance to diseases that had come with having livestock. The Aztacs did not have any horses or even invented the wheel. So solidiers had to carry all their supplies on themselves, so if they only had rations that lasted for 12 days to the frontline and then 12 days to get back... that would limit their ability to cencentrate forces. And their lack of written langauge made it difficult to transfer orders. And their total lack of experience with siege warfare gave Europeans another great advantage. But in the end would it be diseases that brougth down the native American empires. Europe would not succesfully conquer Africa until the 1800s because of all diseases that made it risky to go into the djungle and trying to colonize the land. But Europe would change their minds in the 1800s and take over the continent and drain swamps and eradicate malaria mosquitos (as in french North Africa) and turn around the demographic trends in the area with their arrival. And the population in North Africa started to increase again for the first time since the bubonic plague had hit the area. India was the richest part of the world in the 1700s. Richer that Europe and China. Its iron industry was in many aspects the most advanced in the world and in the 1600s did the Mughal empire fight battles with war elephants and a hundred thousand musketeers. So the continent could probably have beaten back the Europeans if they wanted to. But India was divided into many countries that fought each other, and the great Mughal empire was a rotten, corrupt, injust society that no one felt much love or loyalty for. And Britain would ally themselves with some states against others, and win wars and gain more and more power for themselves. And Indian troops would be recruited on the spot to fight for the British against other Indian troops. And Japan and China was never conquered by western powers. Both countries were however forced to accept free trade after gunboats from western countries had bombared their harbours and threatened to take over their entire nations. But before the 1800s did both countries stack up well against western countries. Standard of living was atleast as high as in Europe (if not even higher in terms of GDP per capita, access to clean water, and japanese lived in stone houses resistant to earth quakes while Europe lived in home made of wood). And in the 1600s did more fire arms exist in Japan than in the entire Europe combined. But with the industrial revolution did the technological gap between Europe and Asia become wider and Asia could not keep up. Asia was also beginning to become overpopulated in the 1800s, while Europe had solved its overpopulation problem by sending people to America and get them to grow food on an entirly new continent (America) with access to a broad variaty of new crops.
@Britannic hayyomatt ""The easiest way to farm it is to have loads of children (5 maybe 8) and get them to work on your farm."* It was a deliebrate imperial strategy to expand the population so China could then expand its territory so that China then could expand its population even further so it could expand its territory even more. *"However it also means that the individual European had more energy than the Asian or African or American."* ... *"Having large families is also not a problem because there's loads of rice to go around."* I think you just contradicted yourself here. Rice produced large yields as you said and that also meant that the Asians also could keep their calorie intake very high - unless they overpopulate and have to share their fixed food supply among a larger population, which would then result in a lower number of calories per head. (source: The great divergence - Kenneth Pommeranz) As I said earlier so did east Asians have a higher standard of living than Europeans, and their daily average calorie intake was higher than that of Europeans. Europe suffered from deforrestation, and exhaustion of their farmland soil because of its overpopulation in the 1700s while China had much less such problems. So one can therefore say that China lied ahead of Europe. And things only changed as Chinas population continued to grow and forrests were cut down and soil got exhausted and lakes dissapeared. And the standard of living began to fall as the population grew faster than the economy, and the country got stuck in a Malthusian trap. Europe on the other hand got saved in the last moment before it was also about to get stuck in a Malthusian trap. And instead of economic growth leading to more population growth (as in China) so did economic growth instead lead to higher incomes and higher standard of living. Europe discovered that the could use coal from the ground instead of burning trees to make coal for heating their homes and making steel. So Europe did then not have to exploit the forrests as harshly as in the past. Furthermore did the East India company also discover the art of forrest preservation when they took control over India, so thanks to this could Europe get more forrests in the 1800s than what they had in the 1700s. And while Chinas growing population had nowhere to go, so could Europe dump their surplus population on America and Australia. And while China was struggleing with their land use, so could European settlers in America exploit the huge natural resources there. And the could start to grow wheat in the American mid-west, Sugar in Caribia and Beef in Argentina and send all those calories over to Europe to relief their overpopulation problems, in exchange for European manufacturing goods. *"Play time and relaxing is important in all cultures but it's probably the most important aspect in European cultures. Think, the only "freemen" that existed until the 1900s were Europeans"* The west dominated the world in the year 1900. But things were not always this case in the past. It could very well be argued that China was well ahead of Europe in various time periods. Europeans and Americans were still miserable places up until the late 1800s (just like the rest of the world). It was common for men to die before they hit the age of 30. Child labour was still common. Governments were corrupt and aristocrats could buy government offices. Democracy and freedom of the press were not the norm. No social safety net system existed. Most of those nice things did only come about around the 1900s in most western countries - 100 years after the industrial revolution had begun. So most changes have happened quite recent, since the last 200 years or so.
@Britannic hayyomatt *"The nutritional value of Asian and European foods was different"* There are many ways of measuring standard of living. And sometime Europe did come on top, and other times it was the Asians (as mentioned in my earlier examples). My main point here would rather be to say that Asia did pretty well compared to Europe every century up until the 1800s. So I therefore think it is reasonable to think Asia could have challenged western domination of the world in the antiquity, in the middle ages, and in the 1500, 1600s and perhaps even up until the 1700s. *"The problem with China... Is that it's huge. China often wins in most categories when we compare to other countries"* There are richer regions and poorer regions in Europe just as there are richer and poorer regions in China. Not all of Europe was as wealthy as Holland, or as poor as a village on the east european steppe. And China have a huge diversity too. So that’s why I am comparing China with Europe here, instead of Comparing Shanghai with Albania or the Netherlands with the Gansu province. *However my point about play time still stands. Europeans were more free than other cultures. English people since the 1200s had rights, they had the right to live and be free. Similar customs existed in France, Italy and German states"* The rights of the individual was much a product of the enlightenment. Before then did the idea of the individual didn't even exist. It was simply unthinkable thing that you any own rights or was allowed to have any own beliefs. Just as you will get killed in muslim clan societies today for being a muslim apostate or homosexual. I think its quite clear that religion was not a private matter in the German reformation during the 1500s. This entire crisis could probably have been easily solved if people just had let people alone and let them follow what religion they wanted to for themselves. But instead was your religion an issue for your family, and even for your entire village. Private life didn't simply exist. People would bully and harass each other, and the local government would harass people of a different faith, and protestants would smear saints in shit and urine, and things would later on escalate to a religious war, inquisitions and such. And people were seen as subjects and serfs rather than citizens. *"But China, India and basically the rest of the world were very oppressive and single minded states."* I can agree upon that there was a difference. But we should overstate the differences either. *"Innovation was so prevalent in the Netherlands and England because individuals had a bigger say"* I think Europe had an advantage or China when it came to printing books because we use a small sum of standardized letters, while China uses pictograms which made printing books much more difficult. So transferring knowledge was simpler in the west. I also think that innovation was also benefited much by the division of labour and having a large market which made it more profitable to replace human labour with machinery. And if wages are high, then you have a higher incentive to use machines or robots instead. Americas shortage of workers and large access to natural resources made it profitable to replace humans with machines, and wasting natural resources wasn't so much of a problem as in Europe. So it was perhaps no coincidence that mass production, standardized parts and such production techniques were invented in America since they are very efficient in using as little labour as possible, but sometimes quite wasteful in their use of resources. Later on in the late 1800s would science & knowledge change face. The old medieval ways of innovation with trial and error, would get replaced by a more theoretical approach with much measurements and reading books. Because people had already discovered many scientific laws, and science had become so advanced that things had gone beyond simply trying out things with trial and error. *"A country's population is set, overpopulation is almost impossible in natural circumstances. The people "dumped" onto America... Where freemen, they were rich Capitalists that wanted money, land and a greater opportunity. They MIGRATED to America."* To some degree you are right. Many people surely wanted to go to America but they were too poor to afford to pay for a ticket on a ship. So ironically would one million Swedes immigrate to America only after the 1860s when economy in the country got an upswing and mass starvation finally had become a thing of the past. But on the other hand to my point remain true. All the people who left Europe took pressure off their overpopulated countries, and when they left their jobs and went to America, then other people poor and unemployed could get a job. And when the population fell thanks to immigration, it also became easier for a country to feed its own population. America benefited from getting their labour shortage solved, and Europe got rid of its oversupply of workers and its pressure on land and limited resources.
@Jose Stevenson acutely the strongest men in the world are normally white. Also Nordic men are also the tallest and biggest built in the world, and African men are among the shortest in the world. Why do you think the Eastern Roman elite troops and Emperor's body gaurds were mostly Nordic men and none were African men. For one example the very word German means spearman due to their strength and bravery in war. Inner strength? Dude read up what knights did it's crazy win or lose it is justin crazy. Just 300 Hospital knights killed all of the elite Mongol warriors almost every time knights engaged them. Or how 60 Templar Knights face off directly a 1000 Muslims troops out side the castle walls and was the main reason why they turned the battle around for the win. Hell, read up on El-Cid the Spanish Knight who bever lost a fight.
Russia is part of Europe. Just because it's different than Western Europe in culture doesn't make it less European. This Western-centric view is getting out of hand......
I'm not completely convinced by this argument. Though it's strong point that I hadn't thought about was the cost of war. The cost of troops, as in the East India Company, is not something I had thought of. On a separate point - this is the same question as why did the Mongols conquer so much of the world. Another way of looking at this is that human history is a chaotic system like a boiling pot. Chaotic systems will occasionally and randomly develop large bubbles and it is the physics and chemistry of the substance boiling that defines how large a bubble will it support. So for a short period there was a really large European Bubble that burst. It really doesn't have a reason from that point of view. So long as cultures exist they will at random times develop these large bubbles, called Empires. It is the nature of cultures, i.e., technology, economics etc; that defines how large it can get.
@@chnb517 Not really - there is human nature, which is what Anthropology studies. People and culture have innate "natural laws" and "rules" with are always true. Why did Pre-Columbian Americans build cities that Cortes could understand and find his way around? There had been no contact for 10,000 years. The rather unsatisfying answer is that Human's build cities the way Bees build hives. Why do we build tall things? Why Pyramids? Because Pyramids are mechanically the simplest tall thing you can build. Why do modern people there are things called "Human" and "Civil" rights that are innate? Why does economics work? What is "Value". Why is there burial? You can only have burial if what ever makes a person a person extends beyond death. Just because your are dead is not enough to make you not a person. All peoples everywhere engage in burial. So for some reason all - ALL! No Exceptions! - cultures have burials. So, All Cultures - I would say all people but there are exceptions here and there - have built in innate knowledge that a person is NOT just that walking, talking crap, fixing cars - thing we call Joe. A culture is a group of people who have a knowledge that they are an "US" and you are not. Discard any scrap of "Tabla Rasa" or blank slate, theory you may have. Humans are born with a general set of skills, biases and knowledge - you are born knowing what a nipple is and what to do with it. You are born with a desire to walk and for companionship. Then you learn how a world and universe works that is independent of you.
Realistically we're just better, why are there hordes of non Europeans trying to live in Europe or European founded lands and not the reverse? The proof is in the pudding even if it hurts peoples feelings.
@@honourableI1 "why are there hordes of non Europeans trying to live in Europe or European founded lands and not the reverse?" What's the name of this video? You fucking cretin. lol The entire fucking history of Europe has been characterized by people WANTING TO GET THE FUCK OUT OF EUROPE. Be it from disease or what-have-you, why else would someone leave perfectly dry land and stay on a cramped ship for months at a time, dealing with all sorts of hazards, just for the CHANCE to make a go of it somewhere else or improve their conditions back in Europe?
@Audio Sugar I did answer his question. "All you said was that in the past Europe was a stagnant land and the lands outside of Europe represented opportunity for Europeans..." - That's an answer, Sugar. All I said was an answer - so why ask why I didn't answer the question while literally stating within in the same comment that "all" I gave was an answer? I'm not sure what you're driving at. It's literally that simple. It needs no flowery prose.
Absolutely. The Great Divergence has been debated for decades; this is a simple video which essentially summarizes one book and an article on the subject among a sea of others.
Maintaining a year round standing army was an advancement in itself. The first to do so in England was King Alfred. His personal perennial foe was Guthrum & the Vikings. Wessex was nearly lost until Alfred fought fire with fire. Shield walls and axes. (and outright ruthlessness)
Very good that you found and used Philip Hoffman's excellent research in the leading economic history journal. However, you should also note that Europe's expansion in many areas such as Africa, parts of SE Asia, China, and Latin America were greatly facilitated by development of quinine. Though it was known no later than the early 1600s or before, it became more common from the late 17th and 18th centuries. This allowed expansion in areas where Europeans died like flies due to malaria. This point is made by Dan Headrick in The Tools of Empire.
Love the topic+analysis!! Why was tax collection higher in Europe? Also, (possibly related) what was the role of greater river density and easier access to ocean there?
@Andrew Gianelli Yup European government tended to be much larger, much more involved, and much more centralized. Even the famously large and complex bureaucracy of China was dwarfed in per capita numbers of officials and employees by Western European governments by the time that Europe began to force her interests on the east. Such large and organized governments both needed and had the capability to extract tax at a far higher date than other contemporary governments.
@Andrew Gianelli Bouncing off that, I wonder if that ties back to large empires (and the resulting poor tax efficiency) being impossible in Europe due to its lower population / agricultural capacity? I know that factor has been used in cliodynamics research as an argument for why dynastic "bandit-ruler-warring states" cycles happened in China but not Europe. (I keep coming back to geography, but its the strongest, credible regional difference I can see)
Another factor to consider is the amount of training that it takes to operate a rifle. It took far less training, then training someone to be a Calvary soldier or bowman which took a life time of training. The amount of power you need to draw a bow and launch it is incredible, not to mention being accurate with it too. Also modern armies are incredibly more expensive to operate on a deployed status. The US military has spent over $2 trillion dollars in the Middle East fighting an insurgence. And the US is the most economically powerful country in human history. The idea that a small country like the U.K. can rule over a quarter of the world’s land again probably won’t happen unless technology changes. Also the European continent was pretty isolated in its development compared to the current world. The 500 years from the medieval era to the colonial era saw incredible developments in technology which the European’s deserve credit for. In today’s globalized world information and technology travels instantly. If one country makes a leap forward other countries can learn about it very quickly before the country that discovered the technology can use it to their advantage. For example, the US only had a monopoly on nuclear weapons for a few years and even some “third world” countries are developing nukes or have the technology to do so.
@Ambrose Burnside As far as Russian neighbours are concerned, Russia is considered more as the last remnant of true Mongol horde. (concerning its approach to human life)
@Ambrose Burnside No one is talking about something so sophisticated as humans rights. Simply as Mongols were treating subjugated population as absolutely expendable trash, so was doing with their subjects Ivan the Terrible and subsequent tzars, so was doing Stalin, and so is doing Putin (ex. Kursk). It's simply this approach that stands out and has its roots in Mongol times.
@Andrew Gianelli Dostojevskij, Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, Tolstoj ... thats very clearly some mongoloid rubish, you know where to go with this nazi crap, only way how you could place russia into asia would be geography, but russian heartland is in europe and from linguistic or ethnic point of view russians are clearly europeans
To add to your argument I suppose, during the immediate run up to the Falklands conflict the Americans tried to dissuade the junta from a collision with the British. The Argentinian argument was; we have a bigger army, a shorter logistical distance, closer and more numerous air assets and the equivalent navy locally. The US told them that although these were valid points Argentina had little experience of war but the UK has virtually never stopped fighting. My circuitous point is that parallel to technology is experience. Global war, colonial war, anti insurgency operations and foreign and domestic terrorist action had made the UK slightly more than the sum of its parts.
The trope that nomadic cavalry armies fought in dispersed mass skirmish is utterly false. Basically every primary source describing their warfare states them as forming up large troops of men and acting on the field basically in the same manner as sedentary cavalry forces did, they were just better at it.
well, I made an error there, basically early firearms work not well against cavalry, especially horse cavalry. This comes down to accuracy, range and rate of fire.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized I disagree. They worked very well as early as the Italian Wars, as their lower rate of fire was mitigated by the far more destructive effect of musket balls against tissue compared to arrows. Keep in mind that several to just a dozen volleys could decide a battle, while hundreds of thousands of arrows were required to decide the famous archer-focused battles. Also, about the possible range of 16th century musketry; journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/17669/22312 Mind you, the target is half the size as a single person, let alone troops of men.
possible ranges are useless in battle. That reminds me of reenactors telling me that a musket can be quite accurate, yes, if you are alone, nobody is dying next to you, nobody is firing at you, you haven't march for days, there is no smoke, etc. battle field conditions are key. I don't know much of the Italian Wars, but I find it quite intriguing that several authors pointed out the issue of early firearms being quite useless against cavalry. So, assuming you are correct, why did they work in the Italian wars? Terrain? Troop composition? Tactics? The size might be an argument, the issue is, even during Napoleonic wars, which saw far better firearms a cavalry charge was a serious threat to infantry. Yet, I am open to a good argument, wouldn't be the first time that a source is wrong.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized "possible ranges are useless in battle. That reminds me of reenactors telling me that a musket can be quite accurate, yes, if you are alone, nobody is dying next to you, nobody is firing at you, you haven't march for days, there is no smoke, etc. battle field conditions are key." - The same can be said for an archer firing his bow, especially considering he is straining to draw a heavy draw weight warbow mid combat. " but I find it quite intriguing that several authors pointed out the issue of early firearms being quite useless against cavalry" - They are wrong. "So, assuming you are correct, why did they work in the Italian wars? Terrain? Troop composition? Tactics?" - Musketballs tore up horses, men and armor with far more devastation than arrows could ever hope to do. A single well placed volley tore up an elite French gendarme troop to shreds at Pavia; "Then did the horse-hoofs stamp, when the horsemen also put the battle in array, and the earth shook at their voice. And the chief captains of the imperial hosts placed five hundred footmen bearing guns in the midst of the troop with subtlety. And it came to pass, as they were fighting, that they suddenly fired their guns on the cavalry of the French, and many of them fell; and the rest fled for their lives, for they feared lest the evil should overtake them; and the viceroy of the emperor and the duke of Bourbon also filled their hands at that time." - The Chronicles of Rabbi Joseph ben Joshua ben Meir, The Sphardi "The size might be an argument, the issue is, even during Napoleonic wars, which saw far better firearms a cavalry charge was a serious threat to infantry. Yet, I am open to a good argument, wouldn't be the first time that a source is wrong." - I am not arguing that early musketeers were somehow overpowered against cavalry, merely that they weren't bad against them, and that early firearms are heavily underrated, even by many historians. Of course they were not the owners of the field by default, there is a reason why there was a "pike" in pike and shot after all :)
Shouldn't a long musket with a bayonet be more effective against cavalry? A man on a war horse is a huge target and it would be pretty daft to charge a line of pseudo-pikemen that belch fire and smoke. Against cave archers just hide in a fort and wait for them to leave.
But you did not answer the question.:) Europe is the cradle of capitalism. That is the main reason. Formation of the new economic system was a driver for Europe expansion to the whole world. That not Europeans "conquered" the other countries, it was the profit motive. A powder, cannons, warfare tactics, technologies - it all is just a consequence, an extension of economics. As for your guesses, most facts you are referred on are a highly inaccurate: 1. A cavalry is a perfectly fine with firearms. I believe you know well about what reiters was (simply horsemen with a pistols), but not mentioned it in the vid somehow. And they were a predominant cavalry type from 16th century (a cheapest horse need for this and no need extremely expensive armor as you rarely be engage in a melee). 2. Russia is a European country. I don't get why you distinguish Russia from other Europe. We still hold most acquisitions from the time (all lands in the east from Ural mountains originally was not Russia). As for the reform of Peter the Great it is overrated in many ways. For example artillery units during rules of Ivan the Terrible was largest in Europe (i.e. largest in the world ), regular infantry units (streltsy) was created at that time as well (i.e. 150 years earlier, the funny thing is the model they based on is the Janissaries - Ottomans infantry units). 3. Japan was conserved for 300 years during Tokugawa Shogunate, but they were fast leaner and after Meiji Restoration Japanese colonized Korea for 70 years, conquered large regions of China, and if they would stay on "right" side in WW2 maybe you considered Japan as an exception. 4. I mentioned the Janissaries, IMHO the other reasoning about Ottomans warfare are weird as well. I don't know about India history much, but I think it is pretty same as China's. If you are a loose feudal state there is a low chance to survive a clash with a bunch of chartered companies craved to a profit (no matter from what, a tea, a opium) supported by different national or private armies.
Firearms at that stage of development do not bring much to the table except the ability to scare the hell out of local population. It is mostly about how the Europe advanced logistics, technology, economy, medicine and everything else needed to make ocean wide trips. And the skill of warfare has been constantly developed because of pretty much perpetual state of war the Europe has been going through as you said. I am very interested to know why the African, South American and Asian nations and people stagnated in the same areas?
@@user-yj8vj3sq6j I have recently visited some museums that had some very crude early firearms (biiig barrel that was meant for siege defense, leaned on the side of the wall along with some more portable muzzle loaded firearms) that I find very lacking. I would say that the crossbows easily bested the early firearms. And I am fairly certain that Asia and Africa are rich in natural resources, they just did not get exploited like they did in Europe I think.
great video! I would like to see a video about the current state of European Armies overall; and your opinion about the idea of creating a unified European Army!
From a European perspective I have to say that thats probably not gonna work. Its already a chaos to come to any decision in the EU with all the countries it has. And then people would get outraged too if one country gives more than the other... At least in Germany the military is one of the last things we think of, its not at the standard it should be but most people concentrate more on their own problems than building a military nobody has an interest in
hii! i am Maori from New Zealand & have noticed an emphasis of writings on battles where both parties were fairly similarly armed, but a lack of writing on the seemingly larger influence of mutually beneficial trade, intermarriage & such factors on European colonization here. i am no scholar, but the more i read, even conversions to Christianity seem to be motivated by trade opportunities & deals which possibly influence more than benefits of warfare?
That's an excellent point. I think most people, especially in the military history community, tend to think that economic growth follows military growth. When we look at a question like "why the West conquered the world," we focus on factors like firepower and better logistics, even though other factors like trade routes, production of valuable goods, and diverse economies probably played an even larger role behind the scenes.
@@coffeestainedwreck I think you're right, the idea that state development of military technologies is why the West dominated which I think is basically what's argued in this video here is very wrong. It's the West advanced wealth and economic development that allowed for technological development and further wealth build up and for the development of far flung trade routes which are capital intensive that are the cause of its historic dominance.
@@coffeestainedwreck I've always found it weird when people focus on the west's guns instead of their ships and their governmental/financial institutions.
I am not entirely sure I fully understand your question. If I did, well, I pointed out quite early on that the firearms were a means to defend the trade routes and bases in a cost-effective way. So early on regular warfare with good economics and tax efficiency allowed to put constant money into arms development and also gain experience from it. Later on, this advantage in firearms and other military tech could be used to open, expand and defend markets.
about military power & economics. I think it is a chicken an egg problem and it mainly determined by the circumstances, sometimes a strong economy allow you to defend yourself or expand, yet, in other situations you might conquer a strong economy with your force if they are not well-prepared armed. In some cases, e.g., US in WW2, it is rather easy, but the US is surrounded by two oceans, so they can forgo rearmament far longer than countries like France or Germany.
I believe the most important reasons for them being able to conquer so much was because of constant innovations in war and great sea fairing technology
Because Europeans kept a "Cast" system. Farmers married farmers. Machinists married machinists. Sailors married sailors. Each group gradually improved the "Born in" skill. It allowed European Countries to advance technically at a rapid pace.
That is not a European thing just look at India What Europe has is an gradual abolishment of these casts from the beginning of the renaissance to today. Just as the Islamic golden age was over and fell slow but surely into fundamentalists mindsets China isolated itself, India was doing its own thing and Japan having a battle Royale. Europe was the only region really at that time which was in a retrospective upwards trend and with the americas as their backwater they snowballed hard before kicking themselves and losing that snowball.
If memory serves me well, around the time the Ottomans reached Vienna they had much larger canons... all over Europe the outcry 'immoral' was heard. Until Europeans made bigger canons that is. But Vienna held, and there are writings from that time in Vienna addressing the Turks... “Schau du Machame du Hund”. Maybe it was because of this that they gave up....
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized I am no Historian... but I am under the impression that in 1683 the Turks had better artillery and were defeated by European... cavalry. That is putting it simply, there was something else... I suspect that something else also explained the supremacy of Europe worldwide. It is also curious how France stood aside leaving what was basically a German Empire under the Hapsburgs to fend for themselves along with the Pope and the Poles. And how France rewarded the effort of saving Europe of what would have amounted to a miserable fate. Soon after France took Lorraine, dispossessing the man who led the Imperial cavalry charge, Karl V Herzog von Lothringen (The Duke of Lorraine). And let us not forget the famous Polish cavalry charge. Or how the Pope then, convinced Catholic German princes and the King of Poland to side with the Hapsburgs. History is full of ironies... the Historian has the role of making the narrative simple, but beyond a certain point, simple is just wrong.
@@zachariaszut that you are no historian is painfully evident. No serious historian believes that Ottoman victory in 1683 would have led to Ottoman conquest of Europe. The Ottoman Empire had by then stagnated and was constantly declining in relative power compared to its European rivals. As is shown how at the end of the war, in 1699, the Ottoman Empire was forced to cede territory to its European enemies for the first time in its history. Something that would have been utterly unthinkable during, say, the reign of Suleyman I.
Any part of the Old-world could've conquered the New World due to it being relatively primitive in technology and prone to pathogens. But none had an idea of it so only Europe could and so it did. Coming to Old-World Conquering Old-Worlders, i.e here, Europe Conquering other Old-Worlders especially Asia was never the aim or so it was initially, Spain led exploration found New-World accidentally while trying to find a Sea route to India which the Portugese later did anyway going around Africa as the traditional route through Eastern Mediterranean was occupied by the Ottomans Post-Byzantines. Other Europeans hopped in for Empire building New World and mostly trading in Old World through the new Sea Route finding all more so new polities to trade and more New-World. Whenever was there a possibility Europeans took it and conquer wherever in the lucrative Asia. Africa on the other hand, was very similar to the New World but immune to pathogens but that doesn't help from getting conquered by people with superior military and technology. Africa's Statelessness and proximity led Europeans trade them for more trade and more production. Why Europe conquered the whole World? Because; Better Navy, Bureaucracy and for National Glory. Simply put, because they could.
It's all about logistics, as usual. Europeans excelled in shipping technology, speed, and sheer capacity to gather resources, deliver firepower, and supply remote forces and colonies.
The early Europeans were bad at jungle fighting. For example, centuries back there lived in the jungles of what is today Ecuador and Peru the Shuar people. Compared to the Incas and Spanish they were primitive people. The Incas tried to conquer them but failed. The Spaniards tried to conquer them but failed. The Spanish conquered the Incas because if you conquered the top leadership (there society was centralized) the whole society would collapse. The Shuar were family clanned based all scattered in the jungle. So no centralized leadership to destroy. During an invasion the scattered Shuar clans would come together to fight a common enemy. Headhunters , they were also headhunters which kind of put invaders on edge. Today, in Ecuador there is a special force made up of just Shuar natives. See for yourself - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5lmR-w2YRj8.html
I think that it should be stated that specifically UK, France, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands that conquered the world. Germany, Poland (also heavily cavalry focused), Austro-Hungary, Sweden, Norway and Denmark didn't really conquer anyone. The Italian attempts were feeble at best, although much of the early modern technological development happened in Italy. Central Europe is landlocked, Italy is limited to the Mediterranean. As you have mentioned in the video, Russia was a whole different story than the West.
I will add to that Germany was a colonizer as was Italy. Why didn’t they have more? Because they came really late Germany 1871 and Italy a couple years earlier at this point there wasn’t really much left. Why they came late? Because they were millions of little states before which didn’t unite Italy were mostly city states which never like to band together into a nation. And Germany was the HRE which is a mess of itself. Why Austria Hungary not? Because it was a mess of a state managing the HRE at the colonizing prime time fighting Turks and trying to unite an empire which is ruled by Germans but has mostly Slavs Scandinavia tried and failed because they were to poor or got kicked out (I think mostly attributed to low population and therefore not sufficient money to build a colonial empire And Norway didn’t really exist as a country for that time only as a junior member Then you can add Poland-Lithuania and there I must say probably because of landlocked
As far as I understand one of factors for a better equipment was better tax system. I agree with that point as decentralization was one of reasons for the fall of polish-lithuanian commonwealth when it couldn't equip suitable army even with it's massive population. Especially when compared to Sweden. Although I would like to know when better taxation started to result in better technology. I mean I never heard of any kind of Development Centre of Armor of Kingdom of France in medieval times.So when centralised firearms development started? In my opinion the one lacking point is geopolitics and geoeconomics. Western Europe wasn't considered the wealthiest part of Europe to 1492. Remember that before Columbus Atlantic Ocean was a dead zone. The wealthiest region was Constantinopole, Venice and arabic states due to silk road. When America and road to India around Africa was discovered the flow of merchandise and money changed as well. That resulted in weakening of states on the east of Mediterranean Sea and very fast enrichment of western Europe and birth of new trade empires. New sources of wealth surely helps western Europe to grow.
idk but actualy better technology starts when taxation is relatively low, but advantage of technology is high, aka much gain from improvement, the thing is in tribal society the tax is basicly being a tribal warrior that then may join the fighting, thus the incentive is personal and very local meanwhile in german towns the people seem to have themself sequipped quite modern, etx but tthis kind of army is not suited for expansion you need a army that can stay long time from home , for that you need taxes, because the people who have good equipment to defend their country town etc are usualy only willing to do that and have a normal job theymuch prefere (except the swiss, they seem to ahve loved war)
Better taxation just means that rulers have more money to spend on weapons, not that there is some kind of centralized development. Oftentimes, foreign weapon manufacturers were used, at least as far as I know.
Yes I haven’t heard of a development center of armor in France in medieval times too. I would attribute to that that France wasn’t really a centralized country until after the Hundred Years‘ War which ended around 1450 so perfectly in time Why Germany was a driver of invention while not being centralized is another thing
Sorry, I would think the answer is more along the lines of: 1) Europe has a lot of peninsulas and central mountain ranges. This keeps the continent divided and competing with itself. 2) Fiat currency. This enables, but also forces growth and expansion.
Russians are Europeans, and they went all the way to Alaska and even California. They controlled parts of Korea, China and Afghanistan. The only big difference to other European colonial powers is that the Russians treated the natives much better, that is why they are not seen as colonialists today.
No they didn’t Siberia is just too vast and empty to be ruled effectively. Russia treated its population worse than every other European country they treated their serfs like Spanish treated African slaves really bad. Russia is just to vast and in Siberia are just to few people to tell the story about it. Russia is just as bad as a colonizer than every other European nation and Japan
This sounds more like an attempt to enumerate plausible factors that don't involve comparative judgements with respect to biology, morality, or culture, instead of an attempt to find the most likely explanation. For example, one thing that stood out is that you mention that Japan was unified and so engaged in fewer conflicts, but by the time that happened, Europeans already had ships that could sail to Japan and around the world, and they had done so for over a century. No other culture was near a technological par with Europe at that point, except for the near East, with which Europeans have shared a common history, and occupied for most of the early portion of that history, since the dawn of civilization.
thank you, I was aware of the book and I asked a well-read and trusted Patreon supporter about the book, he was critical about it and generally I saw it mentioned by lots of people in a negative way over the years. So, no I didn't read it, especially since I have various books that are far more recent. As such, I assume that the good parts were worked into the books already.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Thanks for your quick answer. I was planning to recommend it to you, since I think a lot of the criticism of the book is based on strawman interpretations, but if you've already read more modern books, I see why it would be a little superfluous. And you must be very busy.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized I do recommend you give the book atleast one read. The book pretty much ends in 1532 (battle of cajamarca) well before any of the later european dominance we see later on. He speaks in continents and does not really separate europe & asia and asks why eurasia developed civilisations bigger & faster, not really focusing what makes the other one dominant but rather more far-reaching. Its a constant question of why on why through the book.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized I never understand the negative view of "Guns, Germs and Steel" it explaining most of "west" success with lucky geographical circumstances, not that "west" was somehow genetically smarter or clever. What is the real controversial thing? We never question the Mongols geographical luck of living on a sea of grass, hence allow them to feed loots of horses, and hence can afford loots more cavalery then there opponents.....
I mean, can we also talk about how the chinese and indians had practically all the resources they need, unlike the europeans who needed trade to keep them going and as that trade grows the commercial interest grows making them expand even further, eventually becoming even more powerful then the chinese and the indians. and about japan. tbh they saw china as basically invincible, well not exactly but not conquerable by them at the time. they also had fairly established trades with china and didnt feel the need to expand much especially under the new government. the rest of this vid is accurate tho, jus wanted to say my part
You left out a very very important think, Innovation. When Brits came here(in India) our rulers were knee deep in women and wine and busy playing game of throne(palace conspiracy). Our society was practically stagnated. When British were sailing all over the world, religious leaders here were decreeing that "Seafaring will send u to hell"! You can't say those thing didn't contribute. Industrial revolution haven't yet started when East India company took Bengal, but advances in science was already there for it. All that missing was cheap raw material from colonies.
I think india didn't succeeded because of extreme population.... Unlike Europe... Their more than half population died of plague, and they had smaller distances to travel(Europe is small) so easy communication, European countries were always on war hence constant competition for war strategies and stuff. Also being surrounded by sea helped a lot. India failed because it was mostly at peace after except the constant fight of South India Kings against the mughals... Which of course didn't needed guns or anything tech related... So the competition was never do hard. The same thing happened with Japan.
Europeans have only occupied small kingdoms like India.india has more than 3000 small kingdoms before British India.Europeans have modern weapons.Europeans occupied Africa America Australia and parts of Asia especially British India combodia Laos Vietnam.
And Pommerania aand the Baltic’s aaaaaaand St.Petersburg (before it existed xD) aaaaaaaand the PLC briefly before losing the great Nordic war. aaaaaaaaaaaaaand some random Island in the caribik I believe
Europe conquered the world because of economics, not military. The Portuguese and the Spanish finding the new world out of necessity started the race to colonize. Other countries were late to the game and indigenous people could have prevented these takeovers if they knew what they were facing and organized and killed these invaders the moment they stepped foot off their ships. This is about need, timing, and pressing your advantage.
@electric messiah No, it was because Europeans had the technology & advancement that no other had. We circumnavigated the glove before anyone. Cars, men of the moon, modern medicine, western civilization is Evropas legacy.
I found this is an interesting topic from the viewpoint of, for example, early 20th century Vietnamese nationalists. Remember that nationalism, in European context was a new thing. What is commonly cited is prior to the French Revolution, only ~20% or so "French" people spoke something that was similar to modern French. Modern French is a descendant of Parisian; a dialect spoken by people in Paris. You can read about the historical development of nationalism in books like "Nations and Nationalism" by Ernst Gellner. In early 20th century, the concept of a "nation" was utterly foreign to "Vietnamese" people, who did not exist as a concept then. The early nationalist saw this and the concluded that the reason the French was so strong and capable of taking over Indochina was because the French were united as a "people" and a "nation" while the natives of Indochina were not. That's the conclusion of early 20th century nationalists. Now, the modern interpretation of Vietnamese history skipped over the intellectual efforts to translate the concept of nationalism from European works into native languages. Modern Vietnamese nationalisms, like all nationalisms, drew on myths of a concept of people with fixed identity thousands of years old. It is an intellectual travesty.
@@honourableI1 The concept of "a people" is fairly rare and recent. You can see sparse examples of it pop up in antiquity, but most people up until the 18th acentury defined themselves by their immediate feudal lord.
The Chinese had the opportunity to conquer the whole world starting with 1420's and they just blew it. What emperor in his right mind orders the destruction of his own fleet, most powerful in the world at that moment, with the biggest wooden sailing ships ever ? Those ships had plenty of cannons on them, because by the way the Chinese invented this weapon. The same emperor ordered the destruction of the navigation logbooks created during the previous emperor, detailing routes as far as South Africa and the Arabic Peninsula.
Stop making excuses for those countries and give credit to the Europeans. Even today Western Civilization is far more advanced than the others. What's your excuse for that?
