Warmer climates and slavery tend to hold people back culturally in ways that aren't conducive to advanced wealth creation and major industry. When it's warm all year round you spend your time farming all year round so there are no cold Winters keeping people inside working crafts that develop into cottage industry and later major industry. They also don't spend as much time thinking, reading and tinkering and developing new ideas and technology. Slavery seems to excacerbate a lot of these issues. You now have a whole class of people who are poor and uneducated by force, most of the free population is economically suppressed by competition from slaves and slave work is seen as demeaning. In the US before the Civil War most opposition to slavery had more to do with fear of competing with slaves than desire to see them free.
@@reallyFrogman Failure was elected every election since 1998, just now we elected a wise, honest, and non-corruptive President, he is not what the fake media says he is. I'm not saying you said anything related to the things below, but just giving you information that you should know. First, he is not "far-right", he is moderate right at most, and a conservative politician who wants to deregulate the economy, wants less bureaucracy and more justice, search his government plans and proposals if you want to know more.
Vasilije Kuvekalovic Yes, but still much better than the level of violence in French, British and Dutch wars to maintain their colonies in the early Cold War. So rather good if your compare to the similar situations.
After the end of ww2 alot of people tried to fight for independence from the Soviet Union, but it didnt work, and would have never worked without help of outside powers. So they started a peacefull rebellion in the 1980-1990
romania was the only country in the soviet block to switch trough democracy and capitalism trough revolution. all others had protests or peaceful changes.
The point isn't that *A* civilization got erased, but multiple of them over a MASSIVE geographical region. The region of South America + Mexico is approximately 5 times larger than the Roman Empire was at its greatest extent.
@@johnscanlan9335 and yet, our right wing president can't pass any proposal because the State just say No... So he drinks milk... And wait... Cuz he's pro democracy even with the inability to do a thing, kinda fucked up corrupt system we got
@@Pedro_agpnb Corruption is the great virus that runs through all Iberian-based cultures and someone MUST figure out a way to exorcise it before any real progress can be made!
@ⵎⴻⵎ-ⵉⵙ ⵏ ⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖ Brazil does have one fairly significant problem. A lot of its soil is too acidic for large agricultural production. Brazil has been working on this problem for a while and can now treat the land, but it takes a significant time and effort investment in order to treat the land before they can grow.
To nitpick on your China piece: Technically it is not a single unified country that lasted all throughout the time since the Han, since it collapsed and was remade multiple times. The better way to say (And this is still very hard to predict) would be that unlike every other region of the earth, the chinese empire was able to be remade *multiple times* and currently exists as a single entity.
Purple Wolf I'm not sure I would call it on a much smaller scale as Iran is still a large country and back in antiquity it was the largest country in the world both in population and territory.
Yoshimitsu imagine aliens looking at the history of australia and one of them say: Captain! We just found out about this Emu race that beat australia in a war.
not that again, the Emu War didn't happen, as it is clear that Australia doesn't exist, it's just a hoax and was invented by the british empire to stealthily execute all those prisoners, to this day everything you see of Australia is just british actors and actresses filmed in the South African scenery.
Metsarebuff 22 Bullshit, the emus won due to superior strategy and effective leadership. The continuous attacks on the australian supply lines completely broke them, even when they had the support of the fillipinos (most powerfull race in the world) and americans. The emus won multiple battles with inferior numbers, wikipedia is just australian propaganda.
Yeah. You Betcha. Got to go Up Nord. In Minnesota, the English built the great gardens and parks, the Germans engineer everything efficiently so the trees in the way have to go and the soil broken for planting, the Scandinavians took over the educational system and the old money Yankees berth alongside Lake Minnetonka plotting their next money making venture. The rest of us get to be proud to be Minnesotans. (off mike- " gag me with a stick")
Pizarro and the Spanish didn't even fought a single battle. He married a native Queen and had many other small local kingdoms (that hated the Inca) fighting for him to destroy the Empire. Plus, the Empire was weakened after a civil war between two brothers.
He captured the Incan emperor in one single attack, that's a very impressive achievement with the fact that the Incan emperor was protected by thousands of bodyguards
And in the civil war that happened after the conquest of the Inca Empire, the incans never managed to take strategic points in the regions exactly because of the spanish's warfare supremacy and they were always outnumbered.
"Why did Latin America turn out so poorly while the rest of the west did so well?" I dunno, might have something to do with a long history of coups and rebellions fomented by Europe and the US in often-successful bids to establish corrupt extractive governments and oppose through violence and terror governments that sought to improve their people's lot. It's almost like there's cause and effect in history. As for the Inka; the empire had undergone not one, not two, but THREE measles epidemics prior to (direct) European contact. Each time, the ruler and a large portion of his family were caught up and died in the epidemic, leading to succession crises, and resulting in civil wars between claimants to the throne. Three times, finally ending up with Atahualpa as basically the last Inka standing (kind of literally.) When Pizarro arrived the Inka were so exhausted, their economy so thrashed, their politics so fragile, that it's actually kind of unsurprising that they would have bent so low just to keep some semblance of stability; as it was, after the Spanish murdered Atahualpa, the Inka put up thirty years of solid resistance; only the fact that Spain could afford to keep sending soldiers while the Inka were still dying from household diseases kept them from throwing the yoke, really.
It may have to do with being Catholic. All Catholic countries are poorer and more corrupt than Protestant countries.The Catholic Church has a thousand-year history of corruption and the exercise of political power. They don't seem to have stopped it. Spain and Portugal are the backyard of Europe, so assume that cultural heritage is of great importance. Corrupt countries are easy for outsiders to manipulate. Just look at Africa and the Middle East. It is more that the US and Europe have taken advantage of the fact that Latin America has been corrupt and unstable, rather than having caused it. (Further down I back away from blaming Catholicism.)
Niklas Molén Islamic countries have historical been technologically superior, culturally more accepting and religiously more accepting than any other Christian nation. In fact, I would blame the failings of most countries on Christendom. It’s because of Christianity that the new world was discovered and that racism was justified. It was because of Christianity initially that Asia was colonized by the Portuguese. Christianity caused the world its suffering. Hell it turned Islamic nations from being beacons of light to beacons of darkness and despair. It can be put on the shoulders of Christianity. Every sect of faith inside of it included.
@@Jrookus It was then during the golden age of Islam. Then in the 12-13 century it turned and the Islamic world lost to Europe, which entered its heyday. Europe discovered the new world when sailing to India as the Ottoman Empire prevented trade with India by land. Christianity was a torment until the Reformation when in the Reformed part the Church's power was removed from politics. After that, Europe began to flourish. Now, Islam is a torment. As Islam comes into conflict with all other religions everywhere they exist. The fall of Islam is completely self-inflicted and has nothing to do with Christianity.
Niklas Molén Islam has been warped by Christian influences. Christianity as a religion has done very little to benefit humanity as a whole. As an organization it’s done even less. Colonial ventures were funded on a profit basis, and once the new world was discovered, the subsequent genocide of native peoples was justified the same way the crusades were, god wills it. You see this? This is what Christianity is at its core. A genocidal and destructive religion. You can’t argue that Protestants didn’t do this, the genocide was arguably worse under Protestantism than Catholicism. Once the Christian powers began to attack and chip away the ottomans in the 1800’s (their age of rapid decline and the true signal that Christianity would win the day) Islamic extremism begins to form. Note that even during the Great War, Islamic extremism never really existed. It wasn’t until the Christian powers in Europe betrayed the Muslim Arabs and let Jews settle in traditional Arabic lands (which while they’re also Jewish lands it still was going to cause problems) that it starts to take off. Islam is what it is now as a result of Christian influence.
@@Jrookus Religion is usually bad for development. It is a major cause of conflict. I do not mean that Protestantism is better, only that the Reformation removed much of the power of the church. Which created the conditions for new ideas and development. Islam has been increasingly radicalized. It has come since Saudi Arabia received all its oil money, which allowed them to spread their extremist and hostile interpretation of Islam. The founding of the State of Israel was not well managed. The area is traditionally Jewish, Christian, Arabic and home to other groups as well. So a Jewish state was not unreasonable. The proposal from the beginning was to establish a Jewish and a Palestinian state. It was the Arabs who said no to that plan and started the war they lost. Lost land is lost land. There are many countries that have lost parts of their core country (Germany, Greece and Finland) but they do not complain but have moved on.
As a brazilian, I nearly cried when you talked about us. We always talk about how we had everything to go right and still ended up this way. Man, I hate what they did to our country
@@k1dofficial bro, I think one major thing that keeps us where we are is our reactions to daily shit. Like, I always hear "if this was elsewhere, this people would be punished, etc.". Why won't we fight our fights?
@@tfagundes because its not worth it,in 10 years this country will be a complete shithole,the government will keep fucking our people asses ,crime rate gonna skyrocket and many are going to die ,we need to stand together and think to ourselves,is it really worth fighting,dying for this country,people need to stop thinking with their ego,and start thinking with their brains
Also, Pizarro didn't fought a battle. Enemies of Atahualpa and rebels were one of the main reasons why this empire fall so fast. It's probably that if the civil war hadn't occur, the Spaniards wouldn't have conquered the Tawantinsuyu in such a ridiculous short period of time.
well, when they arrived to cajarmaca the inca and their people were celebrating an event, so they didnt have an army there to fight an unespected attacked from spaniards, thats the reason why they captured Atahualpa easily. PD: sorry for my bad English.
0:41 - Romans invading Britain. 2:15 - China remaining united. 4:12 - Scandinavia not having colonies. 5:23 - Italian army being weak. 6:50 - Latin America becoming poor. 8:47 - Brazil not becoming a superpower. 10:44 - Native Americans being conquered by Europeans. 13:03 - India and South East Asia being politically weak. 15:39 - Islam becoming a world civilization. 18:01 - The rise of the West and the Great Acceleration.
Not sure you can claim Venice being militarily incompetent, they were easily the best nation at resisting the Ottoman expansion, Genoa and Milan also had impressive military records.
@Tarik Hodzic Its difficult to claim Venice wasn't impressive on land when you look at their performance under people like Bragadin and Morosini. Typically the Venetian military had some of the best military technology of the era throughout its history too.
@@PJTheSimple Yea exactly. They had to depend on the Spanish fleet to be able to resist the Ottoman navy. The only reason why the Ottomans couldnt take the Venetian mainland was because of the Habsburgs.
Hmmm nah, they weren’t. The Byzantines or Austrians were. Venice actually fucked over the biggest resister to Islam and directly facilitated the rise of the Ottomans. So in reality, Venice should burn and get fucked
8:55 That ones simple. It’s because Brazil became a republic, and the republic was established by pro slavery aristocrats in a coup d’etat not supported by the common person. This then caused widespread corruption, neglect, and inflation in the nation (which was all but absent in the nation beforehand).
But The Empire Was a transition do the Republic.The Empire was not a monarchy as European Nations.It Lacked The Crown Institution and The Courts .The Empire didant have inflation but it created IPTU,(For english speaking ,IPTU is as tax for a estate property )and Some Corporativism like the Baron of Maua s wealth.Capitalismo de Compadre .
Bruno Vale But, even if it was a transition, said transition was not complete yet. The coup that created the republic didn’t even have popular support! The navy rose up two years later to try and reinstate the monarchy. The monarchy should have at least had Queen Isabella, and not ended with a coup during the second reign.
Ryan The Roman Brazil Empire itself was a coup agaisnt Portugal Crown by the Masonry .Brazil is coup after coup.And.neither Independece had popular support.Slavery was maintened.
“The native population was agressive and rebellious, and it was far removed from the rest of the empire” Brits kept truth to themselves after a thousand years.
The fact that Cesar invaded Britain and failed was a key reason for Claudius to invade would make sense eventually . Also its strangeness would make it more intriguing to invade for fame and fortune.
Latin america turned out so badly because the English cared more about lasting colonies and making their subjects happy, while the Spanish mostly cared about resources, plunder, and enriching and empowering themselves. Plus geography. But hey, thats just a theory
TheBearWhisperer I like how you say that yet most former British colonies are as shitty as Latin American countries today (Aside from the big 4). Also your history videos are shit and people only watch you for the memes.
I'm pretty sure the reason the Scandinavian countries never had colonial empires were 1:for Norway, for most of the major new world colonization they were under Denmark, who didn't have the money to colonize 2:Scandinavia simply didn't have enough population. for reference, Sweden had only around 1.3 million people by 1600 from what i could find (which for reference is less that the Netherlands, which also had a tiny Colonial Empire) alos with your indian empires thing, half the reason indian empires rarely expanded outwards outside of bad armies, is that they are just georaphicly isolated and there was ussually a strong Empire in Persia willing to fight them off doesn't excuse the maylayans tho
1:The population of Brazil by 1600 was only 100 thousand 2:And of that, only 30 thousand where white, the other 70 thousand were slaves, natives, or mixed race, especially slaves (source: www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-77042014000100210 ) 3and with Angola, Goa/Diu, and Mozambique, only the top class were Portuguese, the rest were native population as per usual with old world colonies and before you say that Sweden or the Netherlands could just use slaves as well, Sweden was in northern Delaware which is like the tail end of Tobacco at most, and even after Britain got it not many slaves were ever there, and New Amsterdam was just a really big fur trading colony so it wouldn't use slaves well
The Incas has a substantial road network to get to their cities. They were excellent road builders, but they never anticipated horses would use these roads. That's part of the reason the conquistadors were able to conquer over such a large geographic area.
I think the mistake is thinking of India like it is Iberia. Instead of thinking of India as the whole of continental Europe. India is geographically protected by mountains, deserts, jungles and ocean.
Also the subcontinent was very divided. Heck since thousands of years ago Punjabis were fighting eachother from the rigvedic clans disputing land to king taxiles allying with Alexander to defeat porus of the pauravana kingdom. You can even see some Punjabi tribes dominating fields of work like the arain tribe having such a grip on business in Pakistan
"The Whites" and "The natives" don't exist. For example, the Iroquois allied the British and the French allied the Huron. The Huron and the Iroquois destroyed eachother. The natives weren't one united people and neither were the whites.
I think he was talking about when the United States was doing it’s manifest destiny and fighting the wars against the native tribes as it expanded west
The British allied very few natives tribes and betrayed them while the French allied really a lot of them, if France had win the 7 years war, America would be a whole different thing.
No. The Koreans are a defined ethnic group with a common culture and language. What I meant is that there is no single Native culture and no single white culture. Native American simply means that your ancestry is from the americas and white just means your ancestry is from Europe. These are not single cultures. The Koreans are a single culture. But the Swedes and Hungarians are not a single culture. Neither are the Cherokee and the Blackfoot.
The youtube video "Brazil's Geography Problem" explains one of the factors that could help you understand why the factors you did use to explain why you think Brazil should be a super power are actually not as you assume. For example the long coastline doesn't help as it is most mountainous and steep unlike most other coastlines, which makes it a far less important factor.
Thanks for notifying me but I meant steep, as in a steep hill not steppe as the climate which would not describe the coast of Brasil at all, as it is neither mostly arid nor mostly flat, it is more or less the opposite. You might be able to call part of the inland a steppe because it is flat and lacks trees, but it is not because of aridity but because of the nutrient and acidity of the ground.
I just discovered your channel tonight and have already watched 9 of your videos. I just want to say that I love your dry and sarcastic sense of humor, and I really appreciate the level of thoughtfulness and research that goes into these videos. Thank you
I'm pretty sure Italy had quite a large army potential honestly, Italy has always been full of warring little states, Dante goes in long ends to describe the battles that constantly took place between imperial and papal troops. It has been like that for so long in Italy, all the way to the Italian unification basically, and Japan and Germany never seemed to suffer from that kind of thing. Interestingly the Italian army was so bad because of bad leadership, something you couldn't have predicted indeed, Luigi Cadorna was one of the most incompetent military leaders of the first world war, with extremely outdated tactics which he kept using throughout the entire war, and the Italian colonial wars together with the second world war had the same kind of trouble, in addition to military leadership, Mussolini wasn't the brightest either...
You leave out crucial details. Papal states used mercs (just like other city states) while "imperial" is by word for Germans ;) This UA-camr is completely correct, that by Gothic Wars there was no martial culture in mainland Italy. And it simply never again developed once the majority population assimilated the Normans and Lombards.
Well, that was because of Napoleon. The monarchies feared a repeat and formed the Holy Alliance, to protect eachother. In that scenario, Napoleon would need to die or be less power-hungry and become an elected leader. Then the Holy Alliance would never form and the various nations would look on as rebellion/revolution consume their rivals. Hungary would still need luck. Another interesting idea would be the Monarchy actually reforming and developing into a full industrialized confederation of states. Even without social reform it was one of the leading mind behind the second industrial revolution and had an impressive economical boom.
Please explain how and where? Because I cannot remember one which did. (Please remember that we are speaking of truly succeed, not getting a few concession after being put down.)
Technically you are right. But, then in 4 years came the second Empire... Not that a long time even by our life, let alone historic standards. That would be saying (with a bit of exaggeration) that Hungary became communist in 1919. It did for about 6 months. I meant which was able to establish a democratic system that survived for at least two decade (a generation). (Keep in mind that I don't know French history very well. There could or could not be some sort of democratic system that survived Napoleon III rise to power.)
9:48 ok that's just flat-out wrong. portuguese colonial policy was very strict regards to what could be produced in brasil and to who we could trade (that's called pacto colonial - "the colonial pact"). br was not allowed to develot any manufacture/industry beyond mining and growing cash-crops (like sugar cane) until arond 1810 when the portuguese royal family landed in rio fleeing napoleon. These colonial monopoly laws pratically guaranteed that by its independence in 1822 we (i'm brazilian by the way) lack any sort of infraestructure and industry (whitch had many long-term consequences, frankly too many to go on here). in large part because of that the biggest political force (in some aspects to this day) in br were big land owners. a very small, very rich and very conservative elite who block any attempt at real development done by the feew bright-minded governors that we had, like abolition, land reform, lines of credit to small land-owners, industrialization etc... in fact you could say that one colonial legacy in br was jeoperdize the very possibility of a "western path" (with large-scale industrialization and liberal/enlightened ideals) of development, at least not in the same time as the rest of the west,(wicth had consequences of its on), in fact br is not liberal/enlightened (as in 18-century ideals) society, not really even today, and never were. But there's more: other bad legacy from the portuguese was the sort of society that was born here due to colonial logic: The great sociologist Sérgio Buarque de Hollanda (you should read his book raízes do brasil -"the roots of brasil", a classic that details brazilian society and its struggles) talks about this "society of adventurers"(there are other factors here and points that could be made, but for the sake of my mental health i wont delve too much in here, go study!). In short br society began with people who never meant to stay here, they meant to come, get rich, get out to live in europe. this is a very different reality then the US, wich began more as a colony of settlers and were basically ignored by britain for their first 150-200 years, having space to develop more as a society. Brasil never had this luxury, its colonization a state project to enrich portugal at all costs from the minute 0. to say that the portuguese "let we do wathever we wanted" is more than a gross misconception, is to ignore history and sociology. the books of br sociologist and historians like sérgio buarque de hollanda, florestan fernandes, roberto damatta, Lilia Schwarcz and many more, go read them.
And many of guys blame ur poverty on Portugal for "stealing" gold 💀💀 Portugal invested A LOT in the development of Brazil and only took 20% of gold mined. *Compared to other countries*, Portugal did let Brazil do whatever it wanted
Olá irmão do outro lado do Atlântico. I'm sorry, I don't think you're being fair. You're ignoring 2 key points: 1. Brazil is not a superpower because it simply does not have the geography of a superpower. The geography of a regional power, sure; of a superpower, no. The only country in South America that has the geography of a superpower is Argentina, which is like a mini-USA in terms of potential, but not a superpower either. I do agree that Brazil could be a lot more developed than it is now and lament the fact. 2. Brazil had been an independent kingdom for a long time when the rest of South American countries were still colonies. Consequently, by the end of the monarchy, Brazil had infrastructure and institutions way ahead of the rest of South America, and even comparable to those of Europe. If I had to pinpoint the exact time things went awfully wrong for Brazil I'd say it was right after the transition from monarchy to republic. Tudo de bom. Feliz 2021.
Lol, Ireland was dirt poor after the independence 100 years ago, it add sheep and potatoes, and now is rich. Brazil isn't rich because of bad governments, so keep voting on the left or in populists.
Well Latin America has a pretty painful history. I can say that there are 2 reasons it did not develop better. 1. The conflict between countries about territories that came from the start of the "Conquista" this can be seen in South America a lot since there was a conflict between what actually belonged to Brazil (portuguese) and what belonged to the Spanish colonies (such as Paraguay, Argentina, Uruguay and others) this extended even between Spanish colonies since the borders weren't defined before the independence and for some countries such a Paraguay and Bolivia that depended on rivers to reach the sea this had devastating consequences. (Since I know a lot about Paraguayan history I will talk mostly about Paraguay) this tesions over territory carried into stupidly high taxes for the passage of rivers and economic wars or even in the case of Paraguay one of the biggest genocides in history. This was "La Guerra de la Triple Alianza" where Brazil send an Ultimatum to Uruguay because the government was presing charges agaisnt Brazilians because they raised cattle on the border and then passed it to Brazil so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes, then the country entered a civil war and the right leaning party was aided by Brazil through sending them troops even though Paraguay warned Brazil that any interference in the civil war would be a declaration of war. So Paraguay declared war on Brazil, captured 2 ships and tried to reach Uruguay to aid them through Argentina with whom the current Paraguayan president had good relations (Francisco Solano Lopez) but Paraguay was denied access (No one knew this at this time but it was because Brazil and Argentina alredy divided between themselves Paraguay and Uruguay on a secret treaty) so Paraguay declared war and waited a month but they didn't recibe a response (because the Argentinean government decided that it would be best for them that the citizens of the provinces would see Paraguay as a Warmongering invarder since they had pretty good relationships with the Paraguayans and they didn't want to fight them. So Paraguay advanced a little but Uruguay fell and a puppet government was established by Brazil on Uruguay [so now Uruguay joined Brazil and Argentina agaisnt Paraguay using the excuse that Francisco Solano Lopez was a tyrant warmongering invader (he was a tyrant though since the wasn't elected but just took the power when his father died)]. Paraguay fought against the alliance until 1870 where F.S.Lopez was killed, Paraguay lost 60% of its population or 90% of the masculine population and was forced to pay reparations of war. This just one example of the wars between Latino American countries. 2. During the Cold War the USA established dictatorial governments all over Latino America this is fairly resent and the corruption, nationalistic ideas, facist ideas and economic damages still persist. The dictatorial governments lasted very long due to a combined operation between them called "Operacion Condor" which was a net of intelligence about individuals that where dangerous to the interest of the governments (an example of this is the dictatorship in Paraguay which lasted 35 years and is considered one of the longest dictatorships in history). The governments were trained by the CIA on torturing methods and on catching "communist". It's even worse since education is very poor in most countries and are outdated due to the lack of money directed towards it. This is due to the high corruption that still remains in most countries. I would say that this is the most important reason for the ill state of the Latino American continent
Please keep in mind that: 1. English is not my primary language nor do I speak it frequently so the mistakes are to be expected. 2. Spanish doesn't follow the same grammatical rules than English so the paragraphs might have an strange structure 3. I wrote this on my phone.
This needs more upvotes. Latin America's one of the greatest tragedies in human history, and a tragedy that's never really ended since the first conquistadors stepped foot onto South America.
The Kingdom of Naples, the Duchy of Milan, and the Republic of Venice were quite powerful military forces (Venice basically invented the early modern defensive tactics, later perfected by the French). After the Middle Ages, the Italian states were militarily weak because they're too small (same happens to all German states until Prussia comes along). The question is why the Piedmontese army (on which the Italian Royal Army was based) was so bad.
The issue with Italy's armies was never their soldiers. Their soldiers were average at worst. Their command structure and officer corps tended to be what failed them. Being both incompetent and low in supply.
9:30 Man, i'm Mexican, and i know my history very well, you are so blinded by the black leyend, even if that is just a joke that is not funny. You can't just mention the spanish rule a reason for poverty on Latin america, there is heavier reasons for poverty that just that one.
@@ayinstrumentals7731 bad government, i mean, if your country has a bad government it just can't develope well As a spanish i see the black legend as the worst thing that the foreigners can do for us
@@thatrandomloser3808 damn last year I took World History and learned about the US overthrowing govts to get prpduce Fascism in Argentina and Brazil, and the rich basically robbing their own country and keeping them from developing. Freaky shit.
Mr. Boxer Frown exactly, Brazil got 50 Years of a Military Dictation ship supported by USA, were just Militaries could vote, no one could speak against them, they make censorship on everything, jornals, Propagandas, Programs, and everything, and isn’t something too old my Mother get the end of this on the 70’s
I agree with the first one, but I think that one contradicts the third and fifth. Spain wasn't a backwards country, it had an amazing army, and when they come here to the Americas, they simply weren't matched, add smallpox, and you have a perfect cocktail of colonization. The other one I do not agree with you is the one about Latin America being backwards, it's not because of the inquisition and the myth of logical thinking repression (in fact, latin america had much more universities in 1700 than the US), but because the region was devastated by balkanization, which is still the case (that, I would agree, would be difficult to predict).
For me that's the main reason why Latin America isn't that rich - they were at constant wars with each other, civil wars etc - good example is Colombian-Peruvian war right after their independence
@@adamkaczmarek4751 but that's also not true. South America specially has been the most peaceful region in the world in terms of inter-state conflicts in the last 100 years. Europe has been devastated in that time frame, Asia and Africa don't even name it, and North America (excluding Mexico) has supported the effort of war abroad for gigantic time-frames.
@@thatrandomloser3808 i'm not so sure. In the thirties, just Argentina was rich and most of latin america descended to a pretty bad state before it. I would say, of course the cold war was rough to latin america, but it was also much more rough to Korea and look at them.
in my opinion, there are two reasons of why the hispanic part of america is more poor than the ex-british colonies 1.- after the independence the new republics started wars with each other 2.- that just after the independence, the new republics became heavely indebted to great britain 3.-cold war and condor operation
The Italian one is wrong. The Northern Italian states have fought in many wars. Look at the league of Cambrai for example. Also the Genoese and the Venetians built up a vast empire around the Mediterranean. The Venetians fought many wars in the east against the Ottoman empire even ending their advance by the battle of Lepanto. The Italians did have knights. Many manuscripts about sword fighting were written in Italy. In the early modern era after the unification of Italy, it was one of the strongest and wealthiest nations in Europe. The main reason they lacked behind in WW2 was caused by slow integration of modernized and mechanized weaponry.
"vast empire", "the Venetians won against the ottomans in Lepanto". First Aragon and then Spain conquered half of Italy and held it for almost 400 years, and led the Holy Alliance in Lepanto. And when Italy reunified, it would've been one of the strongest and more influential nations in Europe were it not for the unindustrialized south and its lack of colonial expansion.
@Sixshooter 9 No more often there were italian mercenari for example the black band during the rinascimento (1400-1500) or militia( like genoese crossbowmen, condottieri or milanese firepower militia) but their were not used in land battle but in siegies. In land battle were used or combagnie mercenarie( italian mercenari not really reliable) or german and swiss pikemen
5:06 but it is a size thing. The Scandinavians weren't thirsty for land and resources, because they were still using the ones they had. Britain was deforested, it's soil depleted, it's mines giving out, and it's population booming. Furthermore, Britain had made a crucial policy decision: they had allowed vast swaths of land to be devoted to raising sheep for the wool industry. The displacement of the yeomanry meant that London had far more people than the technology of the time could reasonably handle. Scandinavia wasn't putting all their eggs in one basket.
The Inca empire lost 90% of its population to diseases and later was ravaged by civil war. Pizarro took that chance and Atahualpa was a fool for allowing the Spaniards to traverse difficult terrain unopposed. He only needed to continuously harass them with hundredths of slingers because the Conquistadors artillery and cavalry would be useless in those difficult passages in the high mountains.
Scandinavian countries DID have a colonial period, only it occurred in earlier times. In the post Middle Ages, there was no motivation for colonialism; Scandinavian countries had plenty of free land, and they were wealthy from their trade empires descended from the end of the Viking Age. We had explorers, and people that visited the colonies of other nations. The motivation was not colonization but expanding trade and Imperial power in Europe.
The answer is coffee. In the 15th-16th century Europeans started importing coffee from their colonies on a massive level. For the first time in its history, Europe had a drink that wasn't beer to keep them hydrated. Like any college freshman, they drank WAY TOO MUCH of it and spent all night talking about enlightenment. Eventually these ideas turned into revolutions from middle class coffee drinkers. The traditional coffee drinking areas of the world (Middle east, Ethiopia) discovered coffee before the trauma of running into plague and the golden horde. They already had their caffeine binge.
5:45 Some scholars thinks this is precisely because of the Roman Empire; all the warlike men moved from Italy and settled in other parts of the empire as part of the legionary resettlement, thereby failing to pass on their more aggressive nature to Italian children.
(From what I’ve been told) Scandinavia didn’t colonise as their navy was being held up in most wars, more specifically Sweden protecting its Baltic states at the time, and due to their new and young leader there wasn’t as much interest in colonisation, even if they had the spare navy to do so. By the time the Scandinavian could’ve colonised, it was too late.
I dont know what your sources were for the Spanish Empire's colonial approach and management was, or IF you even used any. But i recommend you look at more of them. The spanish set up Viceroyalties precisely so they could manage themselves and they didnt have to be "helicopter parents", they also built cathedrals, and universities and theatres. Spanish colonial cities where much bigger than any in the British or French territories in the Americas. Latin America is poor today because post independence, the new states that formed, were indebted to powers like the UK and then decided to fight each other rather than invest, or work together. They also didnt industrialise early (but even spain industrialised late), Argentina eventually did and was at one point the richest country in the world just about 100 years ago, but politics made it hard, also geographical distance to major markets. Latin America to this day doesnt work together economically, few of their major trading partners are fellow countries in the region.
As I said to him on the comments: (please notice this was addressing him) 1-Population was broken into castes: This is a blatantly false accusation no historian will accept. It simply never happened, Spanish racial policy was the less rigid of all times. Mixed marriages were a thing in the 16th century, just to put you into context in the USA it took until the 60s. Another good example: the Guardia Civil (Spanish most prestigious police nowadays) was founded by a noble who descended from Emperor Monctezuma. This stupid idea was invented in 18th century by Dutch and Anglo-Saxon chroniclers. They always use the same satirical cartoon... Castes didn't exist! American heritage is a mixed one, both from colonisers and natives. 2- No self government: Do you know what was a viceroy? What the heck, it was humanly impossible to have a transoceanic empire in the 16th century without self government. Yes, there was, it was ordered in viceroyalties and they would usually not even listen to what happened in Madrid. I mean, do you take that point seriously? The voyage took THREE months! At the beginning a simple exchange of letters took half a year! 3- Made the economy dependent on Madrid: This has to be a joke... I was absolutely the opposite! Madrid was totally dependent on American importations! Just look at the economical graphics after the emancipation, importations were decreased by a 95%. Why do you think the colonies could even question independence? Correct, they were absolutely auto-sufficient. Heck, the policy during most of the time was "do what you want, as long as you keep bringing silver". 4- Spain took everything from the colonies: Yes, because cathedrals, hospitals, universities, those got built on their own, obviously. There were never organised cities with developed infrastructure. Cartagena? Pffff. La Habana? Nah. Quito, Potosí, Lima, Bogotá... All mere exploitations, sure. What was taken to Spain were bast tons of silver, which would then proceed to palliate the immense debt. People like Juan Palafox built Mexico from scratch. It is funny how European sources attempted to demonstrate the degeneracy of Spain in the basis that "people in the colonies live better than in the peninsula". Something to think of. 5- Inquisition bad: Recently people are beginning to realise that the Spanish inquisition was without doubt the tribunal which you would have preferred to be judged by. Consider the alternatives... Heck, people committed blasphemy just so they could be judged by the inquisition instead of the civil code. Turns out the inquisition actually provided you bed and food while prisoner, didn't accept confession by torture nor your enemy's testimony, didn't kill you if you repented, wouldn't judge you if you weren't Catholic... Oh, the things the black legend does. 6- Encomiendas: Do you know what an encomienda was? Clearly not, because you claim it to be medieval. I'll explain... Lower nobles who searched fortune were offered a territory in America with natives assigned. The thing is that the noble had to, in return, ensure the Christian EDUCATION and maintenance of the natives. Yes, they had to though to read, write, and much more. The results? Well, an average native in Argentina in the 17th century would always know at least three languages: His mother one, Spanish, and Latin. Encomiendas were awesome man, imagine if every country colonised like that. Of course there were abuses, which were difficult to avoid due to the nature of the continent, but they were fought. Overall they worked fairly well. Medieval? Gosh, when Spaniards arrived natives literally hadn't even discovered the wheel. Spain's influence in America was greater in extent than Roman one was to Europe. And now, if you did want to learn about it, you'd notice that Argentina and Cuba were once countries richer than the USA. The first railway of Spain was built in Cuba. These two are dramatic examples of what corruption does. Hispanic culture greatest antagonist has always been corruption, corruption ruined Argentina, Venezuela, Peru... These are three of the most rich countries in natural resources. Cuba had its revolution (with some external help), communism has ruined it. Still the best parts of the country are the colonial villas, city centres, cathedrals, squares... There was a huge difference between how Spain and other countries colonised. For instance, go to the triple border between Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil. You will be able to notice how in the first two you have concrete buildings, infrastructure. In the latter one, you do have a nice road to the capital, but surrounded by shacks. In conclusion, Spain provided to his colonies with a strong basis and economy to build over their nations, but corruption has ruined what would have otherwise been one of the richest parts of the world, they do have the resources for it. You forget that the colonies have been independent since the 19th century.
@@Jayako12 im so confused, was this addressed to me? or the author of the video? because for the most part we agree. However. 1 - saying castes didnt exist is just being in denial. Sure, there was a lot of interbreeding between the races, at point it was even encouraged. But the whiter one was, the more opportunities one had. Even to this day the upper classes in latin america are mostly of european descent. Then the mestizos had more opportunities than the indigenous people or blacks. 2 - Viceroyalties. i dont know how good is your reading comprehension but we are 100% in agreement. The viceroyalties had a lot of autonomy 3 - i never even mentioned anything about this, but "sufficient" is a better word than "auto-sufficient". but also this might depend on the time period. 300 years is a long time. 4 - My point exactly, the spanish built stuff, it wasnt just resource extraction. 5 - also didnt mentioned the inquisition. but Thats what i've heard too. it was actually very organised and in many ways preferable to the lay courts. Although i've heard its ultra nationalist propaganda to paint the inquisition as a not horrible thing. However compared to the witch burnings in germany, much preferable. 6 - Encomiendas. What are the sources that natives were educated at the encomiendas. Also your point about the wheel. Several civilizations existed and prospered without it. I'd also wager if you were to ask a native american community if having the wheel was worth the destruction of their way of life, they'd probably say "no". Your conclusion, Spain for sure treated her colonies as an extentions of her own terrirory more than other European colonial powers, but to say they left them is a strong base and economy to build their nations is grossly inaccurate. Starting with trade, the most important factor for a thriving nation. The colonies were not allowed to trade directly with other countries or EVEN each other! To this day latin america is the region that trades with itself the least.
@@franbalcal As I tried to remark before, that was addressed to him, not to you. This however, to both. Let's start with the castes. The term caste is already false, because a caste implies institutional segregation, and this was never the case. Surely on a large scale it is true that native Europeans had the power, because the system was that the king would appoint someone and send him there. That provided, of course, elitism. If you have time to build your fortune from power you'll most likely do it. This was how the upper strata was founded, and those families of Iberian born parents, criollos, constituted the elite which later took power during emancipation. But the point is, there were no castes. This term refers to the social system India had (has), in which you have different rights depending on your background. It is crucial to understand that this never happened in Spain, you were a subject of the crown independently of your blood. There are the estates obviously, which every European is able to tell apart (nobility, clergy and the folk). Perhaps this is the fundamental error when teaching, estates are not castes. Because the so called "castes" were pretty flexible, don't you think? I mean, Aztec nobility continued being nobility, you didn't see that in India. The matter is that the term "caste" has been used in a sneaky way. The whole point of it is ridiculous, can you actually tell me some castes? You'll probably go with criollos, which are a thing in the late 18th century. They were an elite yes, caste though? No. If we decide to profound in it, how many castes would there be? Mestizos are half half, mulatos are half black half white. What if a the great son of a mestizo marries a second generation mulata? Because those things happened, and while castes are supposed to be rigid, this wasn't the case. Now, there was kind of a class system. Think applying logic: you are a white European who just arrived to Mexico City seeking fortune. You have enough to live better than in Castile, so you want to marry. Who do you take as a bribe? The question would rather be who *can* you take as a bribe. You would statistically prefer someone of your culture, who knows your language, who matches your ideal feminine figure. Those are not available, the richest ones will be the ones who stand a chance. You should be very happy to propose to a mestiza, you were lucky. The other option is a native. Your marriage could perfectly be the most idilic one, of course, but you took a high risk. When referring to "Spanish castes" an image of a "cuadro de castas" will always appear. It is ridiculous to pretend that the Spaniards organised a hierarchy based on race. What is true, is that race usually was a good predictor of wealth. A social organisation based on race sustained by a coercive power? Not even near to the truth. This ridiculous nonsense was first proposed in 1940, and embodied the most ahistorical political ideology. Don't you think that if it was implemented, black legend chroniclers would have been very happy talking about it? And yet this emerged in the mid 20th century. Again, just the fact that natives were allowed to preserve their pre-columbine nobiliary titles proves it wrong. The reality is that the system would have been absolutely impossible to instaure in all the colonies. At least foreign historians have decided to fight against this. Because the reality was that in your baptism act (which served as a census), the race of the baptised wasn't written near to his name. This concept is the most repulsive attack one could do to something as good as mestizaje. This misuse has an intention, to undermine the very foundations whole countries were built over. In Spain, not like anywhere else in the world, mixed marriages constituted the gross of the population. Latin countries are not like the North American ones, for their populations descend from both, colonisers and natives. How about USA or Canada? Race in colonial Spain did not mean different opportunities, that depended on external factors. Some Mestizo nobles eventually even moved to Spain, and so you find the Duque de Ahumada, descendant of Monctezuma (whose descendants still hold the title), founding the Guardia Civil. The caste system serves no historical purpose, just an ideological one.
@@franbalcal On the matter of the inquisition, it was by far one of the most fair tribunals in its early stages. Of course you cannot judge with modern values acts of the 16th century, I'm sure you understand it. It seems atrocious, it was atrocious, but it was less atrocious than anyone else was doing. So it is something already. Sources on encomiendas... If you know Spanish, you'll know the meaning of encomienda. Perhaps you even know the meaning of a "contrato de encomienda" (the company is obliged to give you some kind of special formation). The point of it was that! It was stipulated by contract and ratified in the Leyes de Burgos of 1512, in exchange for the land and manpower, a Christian education had to be given to locals. Sadly abuses were not estrange, but they were fought. I always put the example of the colonies in La Plata, which were religious missions and hence less corrupt. An average native would perfectly know three languages: his own one, Spanish and Latin. It impresses me a lot, imagine that nowadays! Over the "destruction" of the olds ways of life, you should read the diaries of the missions of Los Angeles and San Francisco. They are particularly hard. The settlements grew each month larger and larger because natives would pile around them, as they provided food. If your life is going to improve in quality, it is probably worth giving up on child sacrifice for it. That's been like that for millennia, easier life is at the end of the day much more attractive than your culture. You should also check the "destruction" of the culture... Cultures were never cleansed or destroyed, they were assimilated. The Spaniards made efforts to preserve and not attack (in what was morally possible for them) native cultures. Examples of that are how the first dictionaries and books of those languages were made by Spaniards. The dictionaries are actually called for example: "The Treasure of the Guarani Language", "The Art of the Mayan Language", "The Art of the Incan Language". It was the natural progression of culture, because as Philippe II said: "It isn't convenient to force the natives to abandon their natural language. We shall rather dispose teachers for those who voluntarily desire to lear our own one." Of course when you administrate a territory you don't do it thinking on it as an independent nation, which still doesn't necessarily mean the territory is in a bad shape, just that it was logically not planned for independence. It is true that when Spain organised trade in the colonies it was done so they would still depend from Madrid, so independence would be virtually impossible. However, when the emancipation movement started to be important, the UK and USA were the first to support them hoping to steal Spanish monopoly, not for the sake of freedom. And after the disastrous independence process, which resulted in various fragmented new nations, tensions were too high to attempt common trade projects, so the UK and specially the USA kept the hegemony for themselves. People forget easily that the Spanish administration of America ended in the 19th century. Latin countries have been independent for two centuries. Compare that to all of Africa, India, Pakistan... Countries like Botswana, independent in 1966, are rising from absolute poverty to developed nations. Cuba was the Pearl of the Caribbean, Argentina and Venezuela were rich among rich. Yet, they are now ruined. Blaming Spain for their problems is downright stupid, but politicians keep this message so they can continue stealing.
My hometown is actually relic of the Swedish empire! Swedesboro, NJ. The main road that goes through our town is called Kings Highway because it was apparently the road that the Swedish royalty traveled down when they visited at one point.
Hey now, Hawaii is surprisingly Hawaiian, and native Hawaiians have a ton of social clout. I would not say none of the 50 states retained native heritage. Hawaii did
Brazil is what the CSA would become. I'm not downplaying the role of slavery and racism, but great part of the american civil war was about the economic system. Republican/Federalist "American System" opposed by the Democratic party economic system of Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan. What the democratic party defended was exactly what the São Paulo coffee elite and the rest of the other states oligrachy did to Brazil.
Um... hello? How is it remotely surprising that native American civilization totally collapsed after they lost 90% of their population to disease? Not even small tribal societies can support themselves after that kind of loss, much less an entire empire like the Inca. Conquistadors and settlers get way too much credit for just rolling over the graves of millions of natives who died of smallpox years before they showed up. If you want to really look at a timeline where natives can thrive ask this: What if the Americas had livestock?
yeah, the mapuche for example just show how much luck was truly the cause of the successful colonization on south america, with the mapuche surviving with strategy and its knowledge of the geography alone, and just being "conquered" by the chilean goverment in the 19th century (which was not a good thing btw, im just stating facts)
America did have livestock they were called llamas, alpacas, and buffalo the natives never bothered to seriously demesticate them like Asia, the Middle east and Europe did to their animals. You seem to be one of those people who unironically believe jarred diamonds guns, germs, and steel arguments. Which if you take a college level course will never be brought up because it is either such common sense shit like obviously an island nation will practice sailing, or just complete bullshit to explain away why some civilisations thrive and others don't.
Putuna I am currently taking a college level course and the guns, germs and steel argument was largely emphasized when we went over the colonization of the Europeans.
I think I can cover part 7 Italy becamed a real power after the second world war, before that Italy was just a giant farm with a poor industry, Italy didn't have the industry to create a fully militarized army, another thing was that the fascist government didn't have very good generals.
Love your videos, but want to include some thoughts. When thinking about Italy and it’s Marshall ineptitude I think geography and ethnic unity has a large role to play. You look at why the romans developed a Marshall culture was because the Italian peninsula didn’t have a united identity, so they faced conflicts right on their borders with other tribes. Plus eventually facing a dominant Mediterranean power like Carthage being able to threaten their heartland was what led to their rapid expansion (similar to Russia colonizing Siberia as a buffer from Nomadic threats). Effectively Italy itself is an island nation (if you include the alps as a sort of fourth barrier) and once Italy ethnically unified. They lacked a villain that was a serious danger to them. As well you look at the majority of examples of traditionally “tough” Marshall societies they are mostly places with harsher geographical factors like weather, and topography. (Like the warrior cultures of Afghanistan, or the hardy Danish sea raiders.) And if you look at fertile places, that are relatively secluded like Italy they will typically lend themselves to become more leisurely societies. (Unlike areas like Poland or the Yangtze River valley which are fertile lands smack dab in the middle of several large Marshall societies) Anyway that might be a limited perspective on an otherwise simplicities topic, but thought it was worth dharing
About Latin America: -Brazil with Pedro II was a superpower, Pedro even said "Fuck off" to UK -Argentina was a superpower (Both had different events that killed the prosperity of the both countries) -LatAm had and has a lot of industries -The southern cone is not poor, that includes the south of Brazil -I really think that Chile is not in its full potential because its low population
06:12 - 06:36 I'm from Italy and I also think that our army had been horrible between 1866 and 1945. (Except: the navy between 1877 and 1903; the special forces in WWII.) I don't agree with you about why it was so weak. • In the Middle Ages Italian armies were really nice: between 1153 and 1313 they defeated all the HR Emperors that tried to conquer the Peninsula; Charles VIII of France in 1495 was defeated and forced to go back home with almost no troops left by Milan and Venice; before Charles V the Italian militar class was very strong (Castruccio Castracani, Philip Mary Visconti, Francis Sforza, Bartholomew Colleoni, Cangrande Della Scala, Hound Della Scala, John Giustiniani, John of the Black Bands, Ezzelino da Romano, Azzo I, Azzo II, Azzo III, Philip Ispano were all incredible generals that won a lot of wars, the problem with them is that they fought each other. • Southern Italy became a "colony" only after 1442, before it was run by Anjou dynasty, but was completely independent from France, they also fought a lot of wars with the French part of the dynasty (And won them.). • Northern Italy wasn't at all ruled by bishops! Who told you this madness?!
Илья Ветров Also Genoa's crossbowmen were the finest in Europe after the Prussia's ones. During the Hundred Years War they fought several times in the French army as mercenaries. By the way, what Genoa's troops really needed to improve their crossbowmen tactics was something like the Russian guljaj-gorod.
stavo per dire lo stesso, e comunque anche quando nella seconda guerra mondiale eravamo impreparati siamo comunque riusciti a vincere contro eserciti piu' numerosi e meglio equipaggiati. Io comunque direi che la brutta idea dell esercito italiano venga dall 1920-1946
Actually Italy did pretty well also between 1866 and 1945. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Italy Since it's unification, the only real defeats were the first Ethiopian war, mostly due to political turmoil back at home, and the crazy wwii that was never actually possible to win.
08:51 (i am saying before watching this part) As a brazilian, I believe a can say that absolutely no one can explain how the Brazil works. Its history is so sad, so many lost potential that is very sad when you study its history.
As a brazilian i can say that we failed when the empire ended, the reign of D. Pedro II was the golden age of Brazil and the abolition of slavery and developing industry during the late years of the monarchy were a great sign, unfortunaly the republic caused an eternal political instability and the rise to power of military goverments and goverments controled by the coffe elite of Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais who of course didnt try to industrialize the country and focused mainly in agriculture and other cheap comoddities. If the empire continued the monarchs would probably invest in industry when you take into account the philosophy and personality of Pedro II, a highly intelectual,nationalistic and progressive ruler who also passed down those traits to his heir princess Isabel who ended slavery while her father was traveling in Europe
Pedro II didn't like industry at all. For those foreigners interested in, search for Baron of Mauá, a great brazilian capitalist, industrialist and billionaire, wich was deemed "the only trustworthy brazilian" by many abroad. There is even a movie about him with english subtitles. In fact, the monarchy made everything to ruin him, and they succeeded.
@@Lolinatorishere verdade, nós tivemos uma ditadura de extrema direita , sem liberdade de expressão, que fez com que a população ficasse pobre e atrasada
for the natives being weak, it could be explained due to geography, comparing it to europe, europe expends much more to the east and west than north and south, meaning there is a lot more place to expend to than in america (since expending north and south would mean expending into different climates changing very quickly), that means that every pre-Colombian american empire had a limit, unlike the european empires. (also diseases that the natives simply had no way of being immune to)
13:05 I disagree here. First look up the Chola raid on Svririjaya, in which the Chola Kingdom of Southern India dominated the Svrijaya empire. Second, not expanding outside of India is not a sign of weakness on the Indian's part. Because first your assuming India is a given, which it isn't. India is a very difficult country to rule and is really a new concept. For example, the Germans never really left Europe, but we still consider them tough. Same with the Spartans. Also the Himalayan mountains would make the lack of global political influence obvious. Because they severely limited the transit of large armies, which meant that invading local countries was more prudent.
Harry Turtledove's "Worldwar" series explores your aliens landing on earth scenario. Aliens invade in 1942 with expectations gathered from a 12th century probe. Instead they get airplanes, artillery, machine guns, and (spoiler alert!) nuclear weapons. Not to mention the locals are insanely inventive particularly when it comes to making war. Highly recommended.
+Lorem_64 Hispanic here is typically half or less native with Iberian influence. Its much more vague in its usage. But you're still correct that its not really native.
or aragonese or catalan galacian leonese Castillian isnt the only culture the point is theyre still largely euro decent and dont count as natives anymore
The Italians were ferocious warriors in the middle ages and renaissance. The problem was that they were not unified. Even after the _Risorgimento_ , the country was not properly unified, especially with the Vatican doing everything in its power to destabilize the new, unified Italy. In WW1 and WW2, the problem was the leadership, not the Italians themselves.
It's not surprisingly that Java didn't colonize Australia. The North is largely uninhabitable, the southeast offers lots of grass land which was great for British people to raise cattle and sheep but is completely useless for traditional Asian agriculture.
regarding South-East Asia... could it have anything to do with Buddhism? Those regions are known to be the most buddhist of all, more than China which has stronger influences of Confucianism and Legalism to balance that. If you are primary a buddhist society, material and political conquest could rank lower on your hierarchy of values than in other people. The most important thing is to be free of desire and don't get too involved in all those worldly goals, so you know. Just a thought.
Again. I think a big reason the Europeans were able to conquer the natives was just practice. The old world was heavily populated, dense, and was full of many squabbling cultures that had decades of fighting each other in massive wars to put strong emphasis on weaponry and military to out due each other. The Americas were mostly very vast and even the major emperors like the Incas and Aztecs were too far away from each other to really worry about each other as major threats. And yes, there was human sacrifice and many short squabbles between native tribes but it wasnt really comparable to the types of catastrophic wars between empirescwaged in the old war. So the Native Americans simply did not have the experience to face up against the decades built military might of an old world power.
That’s becoz technological progress is exponential, NOT linear. Thus, small but sustained advantages in technology become massive over time. In the ancient world, if you could harness iron a hundred years or so before other tribes, YOU ended up with the empire and they ended up in slavery.
Additionally, technological advantages are better able to be LEVERAGED than other advantages . It doesn’t matter the next-door tribe has political, social, agricultural, or cultural advancements over you..... if YOU are the first one to make your swords out of iron, and they’re still bronze-weaponing, you are going to subdue them.
I mean, that's not *entirely* true. Perhaps the tribe without iron has a higher population due to agriculture, therefore is able to field substantially more soldiers. Maybe socially they're a more unified and stable tribe, and therefore have more will to fight harder. And maybe they have made political alliances with other tribes to assist in war against other tribes. The sort of thing you're talking about only works on higher level scales, like swords vs guns, or the invention of the machine gun, etc.
Lil Ben There was no incentive for them to, plus they hardly had knowledge of lands beyond their borders. They weren’t the massive crusading empire you make them out to be. Additionally, recent advancements in communication and military technologies have made conquering the planet feasible with a technological edge, or the figurative iron vs. bronze, whereas before light-speed communication and modern military (eg big navy and mobile armies), lands were hard to annex and harder to control even with significant technological advantage.
@@lilben4184 sumerians didn't conquer the planet but akkadians and later on assyrians did sort of conquer their whole known world (mesopotamia/middle east), then median/persians came and did the same, several times.
14:17 Vietnam did invade China once but it was more like an preemptive strike against possible invasion than a war of conquest. Also one King in Vietnam did have plans to invade southern China in the 18th century but he suddenly died before it was a thing.
About the Scandinavian Colonial Empires, or lack thereof; I think it's safe to say there's several reasons that all combined to make that a thing. One; they constantly opposed one another, after Sweden earned it's independence through conflict in the early-to-mid 1500's from the Kalmar Union, to the point of full-on combat several times over the following years (referring to Sweden and Denmark specifically, with Norway dragged in by whichever country they were united with). Two; it's debatable, but it's possible the trading empires to the south, such as England and the Dutch, could put more of their effort into expanding their colonial territory because of their location on the world map vs. where the Scandinavian countries are. Scandinavian countries seemed to, from the reading I've done, struggle with expanding because foreign powers were either already established by the time they began expanding, or lacked the ability to fund their colonies/ defend their colonies from foreign intervention because of their lessened economic capabilities. Which only grew worse over the years as their expansion slowed and their potential rivals steadily grew, in territory, economy, and population. There's more I was gonna say, but I deleted most of the rest of it when I realized I'd passed 3 paragraphs of rambling thought. Feels weird being a self-conscious history nerd some times.
You don't give enough attention to the geography of the areas you talk about. Geography is a huge hindrance in south america (in Brazil you get: the rainforest, mountainous coasts, an harid hinterland...), while it is the greatest boon ever in the USA. To develop an empire, Norway and sweden would need their navy to get trough Britain territorial waters, and to be sure they were safe from each other (not to mention how few in number they were, occupying collonies whould have required more manpower... Italy, aside for tha North plain of the Pau river, is quite mountainous and lacks ressources, so is the Iberian peninsula, etc All these can be overcome though investments, but it means these countries are at a disadvantage compared to others. All this being said, I agree with you on a number of points, like Argentina's seemingly wasted potential, and China's unity (though it broke several times in the past, and might do so still in the futur.)
Brazil sadly had a bad history of Corruption, we got 50 years of an Military Dictation, that just military people could vote, no one could speak against this government, My grandma was alive during this time, isn’t so far from today, than Brazil became more and more corrupt, now we have a normal government, and I hope became much better. Brazil is walking slowly, but I hope to see my country in good hands (And Sadly, countries like USA, France and UK supported the Dictation :/)
Wtf you're talking about, "geographically" speaking Brazil is excellently placed - plenty of rivers for fluvial transportation, lack of mountainous terrains, quite a lot of extremely fertile plains, a ridiculously diverse tropical forest...
Some of these should be videos, what if China collapsed into that map, what if there was a Indian Roman Empire or what if Latin America became like the USA
China collapsed many, many times over the course of its history. Most recently it spent most of the period 1911-1950 in a state of disunity, with a huge civil war raging from 1927-1950. Before that it had a massive civil war in 1851-1864 that claimed more lives than WWI, and almost no one in the West has even heard of it (the Taiping rebellion). That’s just the past 150 years: There’s plenty more where that came from. Even today there are regions of China like Xinjiang that are only brought to heel through extreme totalitarian measures and plagued by separatist violence. This video misrepresents the situation by presenting it as if modern China is a direct successor of 2000 year old empires, implying a unity and continuity that simply isn’t present in history.
Your points about Spain: 1-Population was broken into castes: This is a blatantly false accusation no historian will accept. It simply never happened, Spanish racial policy was the less rigid of all times. Mixed marriages were a thing in the 16th century, just to put you into context in the USA it took until the 60s. Another good example: the Guardia Civil (Spanish most prestigious police nowadays) was founded by a noble who descended from Emperor Monctezuma. This stupid idea was invented in 18th century by Dutch and Anglo-Saxon chroniclers. They always use the same satirical cartoon... Castes didn't exist! American heritage is a mixed one, both from colonisers and natives. 2- No self government: Do you know what was a viceroy? What the heck, it was humanly impossible to have a transoceanic empire in the 16th century without self government. Yes, there was, it was ordered in viceroyalties and they would usually not even listen to what happened in Madrid. I mean, do you take that point seriously? The voyage took THREE months! At the beginning a simple exchange of letters took half a year! 3- Made the economy dependent on Madrid: This has to be a joke... I was absolutely the opposite! Madrid was totally dependent on American importations! Just look at the economical graphics after the emancipation, importations were decreased by a 95%. Why do you think the colonies could even question independence? Correct, they were absolutely auto-sufficient. Heck, the policy during most of the time was "do what you want, as long as you keep bringing silver". 4- Spain took everything from the colonies: Yes, because cathedrals, hospitals, universities, those got built on their own, obviously. There were never organised cities with developed infrastructure. Cartagena? Pffff. La Habana? Nah. Quito, Potosí, Lima, Bogotá... All mere exploitations, sure. What was taken to Spain were bast tons of silver, which would then proceed to palliate the immense debt. People like Juan Palafox built Mexico from scratch. It is funny how European sources attempted to demonstrate the degeneracy of Spain in the basis that "people in the colonies live better than in the peninsula". Something to think of. 5- Inquisition bad: Recently people are beginning to realise that the Spanish inquisition was without doubt the tribunal which you would have preferred to be judged by. Consider the alternatives... Heck, people committed blasphemy just so they could be judged by the inquisition instead of the civil code. Turns out the inquisition actually provided you bed and food while prisoner, didn't accept confession by torture nor your enemy's testimony, didn't kill you if you repented, wouldn't judge you if you weren't Catholic... Oh, the things the black legend does. 6- Encomiendas: Do you know what an encomienda was? Clearly not, because you claim it to be medieval. I'll explain... Lower nobles who searched fortune were offered a territory in America with natives assigned. The thing is that the noble had to, in return, ensure the Christian EDUCATION and maintenance of the natives. Yes, they had to though to read, write, and much more. The results? Well, an average native in Argentina in the 17th century would always know at least three languages: His mother one, Spanish, and Latin. Encomiendas were awesome man, imagine if every country colonised like that. Of course there were abuses, which were difficult to avoid due to the nature of the continent, but they were fought. Overall they worked fairly well. Medieval? Gosh, when Spaniards arrived natives literally hadn't even discovered the wheel. Spain's influence in America was greater in extent than Roman one was to Europe. And now, if you did want to learn about it, you'd notice that Argentina and Cuba were once countries richer than the USA. The first railway of Spain was built in Cuba. These two are dramatic examples of what corruption does. Hispanic culture greatest antagonist has always been corruption, corruption ruined Argentina, Venezuela, Peru... These are three of the most rich countries in natural resources. Cuba had its revolution (with some external help), communism has ruined it. Still the best parts of the country are the colonial villas, city centres, cathedrals, squares... There was a huge difference between how Spain and other countries colonised. For instance, go to the triple border between Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil. You will be able to notice how in the first two you have concrete buildings, infrastructure. In the latter one, you do have a nice road to the capital, but surrounded by shacks. In conclusion, Spain provided to his colonies with a strong basis and economy to build over their nations, but corruption has ruined what would have otherwise been one of the richest parts of the world, they do have the resources for it. You forget that the colonies have been independent since the 19th century.
Considering how integral Terminus was to the roman psyche it makes sense to invade Britain. Their whole society and economy was built on expansion. Failing in Germania and the far east, Britannia probably seemed like the only way forward for the time being, even if it turned out to be such a hassle in the end. Terminus only moves forward, never backwards.
"Seriously Brazil stop disappointing me" As a Brazilian I say this to myself every time I watch the news.
Warmer climates and slavery tend to hold people back culturally in ways that aren't conducive to advanced wealth creation and major industry. When it's warm all year round you spend your time farming all year round so there are no cold Winters keeping people inside working crafts that develop into cottage industry and later major industry. They also don't spend as much time thinking, reading and tinkering and developing new ideas and technology. Slavery seems to excacerbate a lot of these issues. You now have a whole class of people who are poor and uneducated by force, most of the free population is economically suppressed by competition from slaves and slave work is seen as demeaning. In the US before the Civil War most opposition to slavery had more to do with fear of competing with slaves than desire to see them free.
They really need to get rid of their corruption. Like they're even more corrupt than fucking India or Nigeria. Thats just embarassing.
You guys elected failure
@@reallyFrogman No, the PT lost.
@@reallyFrogman Failure was elected every election since 1998, just now we elected a wise, honest, and non-corruptive President, he is not what the fake media says he is.
I'm not saying you said anything related to the things below, but just giving you information that you should know.
First, he is not "far-right", he is moderate right at most, and a conservative politician who wants to deregulate the economy, wants less bureaucracy and more justice, search his government plans and proposals if you want to know more.
The fact that Soviet Union dissolved peacefully is also very impressive and unpredictable.
Good point
Well compared to the dissulution of yugoslavia it could be considered more peaceful. But on its own it was far from peaceful.
Vasilije Kuvekalovic Yes, but still much better than the level of violence in French, British and Dutch wars to maintain their colonies in the early Cold War. So rather good if your compare to the similar situations.
After the end of ww2 alot of people tried to fight for independence from the Soviet Union, but it didnt work, and would have never worked without help of outside powers. So they started a peacefull rebellion in the 1980-1990
romania was the only country in the soviet block to switch trough democracy and capitalism trough revolution. all others had protests or peaceful changes.
"I never thought that in 400 hundred years an entire civilization could be erased from the world"
**Laughs in carthaginian**
this should be crying not laughing
Damn Carthage stop being so salty
The point isn't that *A* civilization got erased, but multiple of them over a MASSIVE geographical region. The region of South America + Mexico is approximately 5 times larger than the Roman Empire was at its greatest extent.
@@ANWRocketMan Repeat the process 3 times and be done with it.
What's Carthage? >:)
There's a great old saying about Brazil: "Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!"
I'm a Brazilian, and that's fucking true... But the years of left wing presidents and senate ate our asses mate :/
@@Pedro_agpnb "The Left," no matter it's various formats always ends up stealing from the poor and keeping it for themselves!!!
@@johnscanlan9335 and yet, our right wing president can't pass any proposal because the State just say No... So he drinks milk... And wait... Cuz he's pro democracy even with the inability to do a thing, kinda fucked up corrupt system we got
@@Pedro_agpnb Corruption is the great virus that runs through all Iberian-based cultures and someone MUST figure out a way to exorcise it before any real progress can be made!
Shithole
"Brasil isn't a superpower. Seriously Brazil, stop disappointing me!"
Sadpepe.jpg
@ⵎⴻⵎ-ⵉⵙ ⵏ ⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖ Brazil does have one fairly significant problem. A lot of its soil is too acidic for large agricultural production. Brazil has been working on this problem for a while and can now treat the land, but it takes a significant time and effort investment in order to treat the land before they can grow.
What about the Spanish Inquisition? Did you expect that?
Nobody ever expects a SPANISH INQUISITION!
I expected it
Impossible! Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition
Except ... the mongols
*music queue plays*
nah, alien will be so puzzled by that.
To nitpick on your China piece: Technically it is not a single unified country that lasted all throughout the time since the Han, since it collapsed and was remade multiple times. The better way to say (And this is still very hard to predict) would be that unlike every other region of the earth, the chinese empire was able to be remade *multiple times* and currently exists as a single entity.
Iran is the same also, Persia being recreated multiple times and still standing to day.
Fankas2000 yea, but on a much smaller scale than china. so not as impressive
Purple Wolf I'm not sure I would call it on a much smaller scale as Iran is still a large country and back in antiquity it was the largest country in the world both in population and territory.
Fankas2000 oh i forgot about the persian region being the centre of human civilization for a long time. thx for clearing it up. (no sarcasm)
"China is a single entity" Taiwan is sad now.
Number one should have been the Emu War
Yoshimitsu imagine aliens looking at the history of australia and one of them say:
Captain! We just found out about this Emu race that beat australia in a war.
not that again, the Emu War didn't happen, as it is clear that Australia doesn't exist, it's just a hoax and was invented by the british empire to stealthily execute all those prisoners, to this day everything you see of Australia is just british actors and actresses filmed in the South African scenery.
Metsarebuff 22
Bullshit, the emus won due to superior strategy and effective leadership. The continuous attacks on the australian supply lines completely broke them, even when they had the support of the fillipinos (most powerfull race in the world) and americans.
The emus won multiple battles with inferior numbers, wikipedia is just australian propaganda.
Never underestimate the emus
Great war! Good talk in Valhalla.
my man's analyzing society as if it were a videogame over here
That's what I thought too, haha.
Lol very true tho
"France had Napoleon"
Hundreds of years of French cavalry being the cream of the medieval crop: am I a joke to you
i think Joan of Ark is crying in a corner somewhere.
And they lost to a string on a curved stick.
4:10 Scandinavia has a colony; we call it Minnesota.
Someone Else hehe
Yeah. You Betcha. Got to go Up Nord. In Minnesota, the English built the great gardens and parks, the Germans engineer everything efficiently so the trees in the way have to go and the soil broken for planting, the Scandinavians took over the educational system and the old money Yankees berth alongside Lake Minnetonka plotting their next money making venture. The rest of us get to be proud to be Minnesotans. (off mike- " gag me with a stick")
Except Minnesota doesn't have any kind of Scanfinavian culture
@@reallyFrogman True, the Scan Fin(ancial) Avians flew south.
You miss spelled Somalia
Well Charles du Gaulle answered in a single sentence: "Brazil is not a serious country"
Right when they tried to assert their dominance in brazilian waters.
@@yibithehispanic Lobster War
I think there was a compromise in that lobster Scuffle.
Either way, Brazil is still not a serious country, and the lobster mess (not even a war) is yet another proof of that.
@ How so? Brazil technically won that conflict. If Brazil isn't a serious country, what even is France?
Pizarro and the Spanish didn't even fought a single battle. He married a native Queen and had many other small local kingdoms (that hated the Inca) fighting for him to destroy the Empire.
Plus, the Empire was weakened after a civil war between two brothers.
Destroying an empire by intrigue and cunning is still very impressive
@@bjarke7886 168 men and 44 horses. Nothing to lose .
@@r.ladaria135 Its always good motivation when you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
He captured the Incan emperor in one single attack, that's a very impressive achievement with the fact that the Incan emperor was protected by thousands of bodyguards
And in the civil war that happened after the conquest of the Inca Empire, the incans never managed to take strategic points in the regions exactly because of the spanish's warfare supremacy and they were always outnumbered.
Whatifalthist: "For fuks sake Brazil, why are you not a super power?!"
Brazilians: "HE SAID MY COUNTRY'S NAME :DDDDD"
Also Brazilians: We're not a superpower DDDDDDD:
"Seriously Brazil, stop dissapointing me" As a Brazilian, i hate the fact that you said it but i agree with it.
Portugeese loser
It hurts so much to hear that
@@MrDead00 What do you mean by that?
Ta na hora do Brasil virar a chave. O Brasil não vai mudar democraticamente.
@@MrDead00 lol hey Poland “Germany”
"Yangtze Valley" - *A Poland like battleground*
"Why did Latin America turn out so poorly while the rest of the west did so well?"
I dunno, might have something to do with a long history of coups and rebellions fomented by Europe and the US in often-successful bids to establish corrupt extractive governments and oppose through violence and terror governments that sought to improve their people's lot.
It's almost like there's cause and effect in history.
As for the Inka; the empire had undergone not one, not two, but THREE measles epidemics prior to (direct) European contact. Each time, the ruler and a large portion of his family were caught up and died in the epidemic, leading to succession crises, and resulting in civil wars between claimants to the throne. Three times, finally ending up with Atahualpa as basically the last Inka standing (kind of literally.) When Pizarro arrived the Inka were so exhausted, their economy so thrashed, their politics so fragile, that it's actually kind of unsurprising that they would have bent so low just to keep some semblance of stability; as it was, after the Spanish murdered Atahualpa, the Inka put up thirty years of solid resistance; only the fact that Spain could afford to keep sending soldiers while the Inka were still dying from household diseases kept them from throwing the yoke, really.
It may have to do with being Catholic. All Catholic countries are poorer and more corrupt than Protestant countries.The Catholic Church has a thousand-year history of corruption and the exercise of political power. They don't seem to have stopped it. Spain and Portugal are the backyard of Europe, so assume that cultural heritage is of great importance.
Corrupt countries are easy for outsiders to manipulate. Just look at Africa and the Middle East. It is more that the US and Europe have taken advantage of the fact that Latin America has been corrupt and unstable, rather than having caused it.
(Further down I back away from blaming Catholicism.)
Niklas Molén Islamic countries have historical been technologically superior, culturally more accepting and religiously more accepting than any other Christian nation. In fact, I would blame the failings of most countries on Christendom. It’s because of Christianity that the new world was discovered and that racism was justified. It was because of Christianity initially that Asia was colonized by the Portuguese. Christianity caused the world its suffering. Hell it turned Islamic nations from being beacons of light to beacons of darkness and despair. It can be put on the shoulders of Christianity. Every sect of faith inside of it included.
@@Jrookus
It was then during the golden age of Islam. Then in the 12-13 century it turned and the Islamic world lost to Europe, which entered its heyday.
Europe discovered the new world when sailing to India as the Ottoman Empire prevented trade with India by land.
Christianity was a torment until the Reformation when in the Reformed part the Church's power was removed from politics. After that, Europe began to flourish.
Now, Islam is a torment. As Islam comes into conflict with all other religions everywhere they exist. The fall of Islam is completely self-inflicted and has nothing to do with Christianity.
Niklas Molén Islam has been warped by Christian influences. Christianity as a religion has done very little to benefit humanity as a whole. As an organization it’s done even less. Colonial ventures were funded on a profit basis, and once the new world was discovered, the subsequent genocide of native peoples was justified the same way the crusades were, god wills it. You see this? This is what Christianity is at its core. A genocidal and destructive religion. You can’t argue that Protestants didn’t do this, the genocide was arguably worse under Protestantism than Catholicism. Once the Christian powers began to attack and chip away the ottomans in the 1800’s (their age of rapid decline and the true signal that Christianity would win the day) Islamic extremism begins to form. Note that even during the Great War, Islamic extremism never really existed. It wasn’t until the Christian powers in Europe betrayed the Muslim Arabs and let Jews settle in traditional Arabic lands (which while they’re also Jewish lands it still was going to cause problems) that it starts to take off. Islam is what it is now as a result of Christian influence.
@@Jrookus
Religion is usually bad for development. It is a major cause of conflict. I do not mean that Protestantism is better, only that the Reformation removed much of the power of the church. Which created the conditions for new ideas and development.
Islam has been increasingly radicalized. It has come since Saudi Arabia received all its oil money, which allowed them to spread their extremist and hostile interpretation of Islam.
The founding of the State of Israel was not well managed. The area is traditionally Jewish, Christian, Arabic and home to other groups as well. So a Jewish state was not unreasonable.
The proposal from the beginning was to establish a Jewish and a Palestinian state. It was the Arabs who said no to that plan and started the war they lost. Lost land is lost land. There are many countries that have lost parts of their core country (Germany, Greece and Finland) but they do not complain but have moved on.
As a brazilian, I nearly cried when you talked about us. We always talk about how we had everything to go right and still ended up this way. Man, I hate what they did to our country
this makes me wonder,why do we still fight for this country,why keep wasting time when we know this shit will never change ?
why vote ? when we already know whats gonna be the outcome ?
@@k1dofficial bro, I think one major thing that keeps us where we are is our reactions to daily shit. Like, I always hear "if this was elsewhere, this people would be punished, etc.". Why won't we fight our fights?
@@tfagundes because its not worth it,in 10 years this country will be a complete shithole,the government will keep fucking our people asses ,crime rate gonna skyrocket and many are going to die ,we need to stand together and think to ourselves,is it really worth fighting,dying for this country,people need to stop thinking with their ego,and start thinking with their
brains
@@tfagundes now brother tell me,is it really worth it ?
The conquest of the incan empire is even more impressive when you realize that only 13 spaniards got to cajamarca when they captured Atahualpa
Also, Pizarro didn't fought a battle. Enemies of Atahualpa and rebels were one of the main reasons why this empire fall so fast. It's probably that if the civil war hadn't occur, the Spaniards wouldn't have conquered the Tawantinsuyu in such a ridiculous short period of time.
well, when they arrived to cajarmaca the inca and their people were celebrating an event, so they didnt have an army there to fight an unespected attacked from spaniards, thats the reason why they captured Atahualpa easily.
PD: sorry for my bad English.
0:41 - Romans invading Britain.
2:15 - China remaining united.
4:12 - Scandinavia not having colonies.
5:23 - Italian army being weak.
6:50 - Latin America becoming poor.
8:47 - Brazil not becoming a superpower.
10:44 - Native Americans being conquered by Europeans.
13:03 - India and South East Asia being politically weak.
15:39 - Islam becoming a world civilization.
18:01 - The rise of the West and the Great Acceleration.
Not sure you can claim Venice being militarily incompetent, they were easily the best nation at resisting the Ottoman expansion, Genoa and Milan also had impressive military records.
@Tarik Hodzic Its difficult to claim Venice wasn't impressive on land when you look at their performance under people like Bragadin and Morosini. Typically the Venetian military had some of the best military technology of the era throughout its history too.
What are you talking about Venice sucked ass and lost almost all there possessions in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean sea.
@@PJTheSimple Yea exactly. They had to depend on the Spanish fleet to be able to resist the Ottoman navy. The only reason why the Ottomans couldnt take the Venetian mainland was because of the Habsburgs.
Hmmm nah, they weren’t. The Byzantines or Austrians were. Venice actually fucked over the biggest resister to Islam and directly facilitated the rise of the Ottomans. So in reality, Venice should burn and get fucked
8:55 That ones simple. It’s because Brazil became a republic, and the republic was established by pro slavery aristocrats in a coup d’etat not supported by the common person. This then caused widespread corruption, neglect, and inflation in the nation (which was all but absent in the nation beforehand).
The republic was a shithole because of Masonry and Burschenschaft aka Buscha
But The Empire Was a transition do the Republic.The Empire was not a monarchy as European Nations.It Lacked The Crown Institution and The Courts .The Empire didant have inflation but it created IPTU,(For english speaking ,IPTU is as tax for a estate property )and Some Corporativism like the Baron of Maua s wealth.Capitalismo de Compadre .
Bruno Vale But, even if it was a transition, said transition was not complete yet. The coup that created the republic didn’t even have popular support! The navy rose up two years later to try and reinstate the monarchy. The monarchy should have at least had Queen Isabella, and not ended with a coup during the second reign.
HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR HERRPPPP DERPP caralho, pra ser mais gado que isso só falta falar "VIVA ISRAEL!"
Ryan The Roman Brazil Empire itself was a coup agaisnt Portugal Crown by the Masonry .Brazil is coup after coup.And.neither Independece had popular support.Slavery was maintened.
I'm a simple Brazilian. I see our flag, I click.
“The native population was agressive and rebellious, and it was far removed from the rest of the empire”
Brits kept truth to themselves after a thousand years.
Genocide? No! They were agressive and rebellious
@@gabriel-qz9ps Did you even watch the video you fucker?
pretend there's a name i was being ironic
The fact that Cesar invaded Britain and failed was a key reason for Claudius to invade would make sense eventually . Also its strangeness would make it more intriguing to invade for fame and fortune.
Latin america turned out so badly because the English cared more about lasting colonies and making their subjects happy, while the Spanish mostly cared about resources, plunder, and enriching and empowering themselves. Plus geography.
But hey, thats just a theory
TheBearWhisperer Honestly facts, and Brazil’s situation can be traced back to the establishment of the republic.
A GAME THEORY! THANKS FOR CRINGING
That wouldn't explain how Argentina became so rich in the late 19th century, or why most of the ex-colonies from the brit empire are piss poor today.
TheBearWhisperer I like how you say that yet most former British colonies are as shitty as Latin American countries today (Aside from the big 4). Also your history videos are shit and people only watch you for the memes.
and the french just wanted land
I'm pretty sure the reason the Scandinavian countries never had colonial empires were
1:for Norway, for most of the major new world colonization they were under Denmark, who didn't have the money to colonize
2:Scandinavia simply didn't have enough population. for reference, Sweden had only around 1.3 million people by 1600 from what i could find (which for reference is less that the Netherlands, which also had a tiny Colonial Empire)
alos with your indian empires thing, half the reason indian empires rarely expanded outwards outside of bad armies, is that they are just georaphicly isolated and there was ussually a strong Empire in Persia willing to fight them off
doesn't excuse the maylayans tho
GypsySprite also india was full of resources no need to expand.
I was mostly making reference to his "Indian empire" map at 14:08
Portugal had even less population back then and still was able to make an empire
1:The population of Brazil by 1600 was only 100 thousand
2:And of that, only 30 thousand where white, the other 70 thousand were slaves, natives, or mixed race, especially slaves
(source: www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-77042014000100210 )
3and with Angola, Goa/Diu, and Mozambique, only the top class were Portuguese, the rest were native population as per usual with old world colonies
and before you say that Sweden or the Netherlands could just use slaves as well, Sweden was in northern Delaware which is like the tail end of Tobacco at most, and even after Britain got it not many slaves were ever there, and New Amsterdam was just a really big fur trading colony so it wouldn't use slaves well
Population does not matter. Portugal had a small population and yet it had a great empire.
The Incas has a substantial road network to get to their cities. They were excellent road builders, but they never anticipated horses would use these roads. That's part of the reason the conquistadors were able to conquer over such a large geographic area.
No Indian Empire has ever left India.
Chola Empire: Am I a joke to you?
Maurya considered Pakistan and parts of Burma. I guess he should say went far from the sub continent. Besides Chola.
Exactly
I think the mistake is thinking of India like it is Iberia. Instead of thinking of India as the whole of continental Europe. India is geographically protected by mountains, deserts, jungles and ocean.
Orale foo, wassup?
Also the subcontinent was very divided. Heck since thousands of years ago Punjabis were fighting eachother from the rigvedic clans disputing land to king taxiles allying with Alexander to defeat porus of the pauravana kingdom. You can even see some Punjabi tribes dominating fields of work like the arain tribe having such a grip on business in Pakistan
“It’s practically impossible to conqueror them”
Some conquistador named jose: *coughs*
"The Whites" and "The natives" don't exist. For example, the Iroquois allied the British and the French allied the Huron. The Huron and the Iroquois destroyed eachother. The natives weren't one united people and neither were the whites.
I think he was talking about when the United States was doing it’s manifest destiny and fighting the wars against the native tribes as it expanded west
pecu alex that's nothing new to Europeans in general. I'm sure Russia can tell you first hand
What? So you would say there are no Korean people because North Korea and South Korea exist?
The British allied very few natives tribes and betrayed them while the French allied really a lot of them, if France had win the 7 years war, America would be a whole different thing.
No. The Koreans are a defined ethnic group with a common culture and language. What I meant is that there is no single Native culture and no single white culture. Native American simply means that your ancestry is from the americas and white just means your ancestry is from Europe. These are not single cultures. The Koreans are a single culture. But the Swedes and Hungarians are not a single culture. Neither are the Cherokee and the Blackfoot.
The whole "if an alien came and visited earth" argument is more of a "if a human unfamiliar with global history learned of human history" argument.
The youtube video "Brazil's Geography Problem" explains one of the factors that could help you understand why the factors you did use to explain why you think Brazil should be a super power are actually not as you assume. For example the long coastline doesn't help as it is most mountainous and steep unlike most other coastlines, which makes it a far less important factor.
Lord Imrahil Not debating the point here, but you spell it “Steppe” not “Step” when talking about geography.
Thanks for notifying me but I meant steep, as in a steep hill not steppe as the climate which would not describe the coast of Brasil at all, as it is neither mostly arid nor mostly flat, it is more or less the opposite. You might be able to call part of the inland a steppe because it is flat and lacks trees, but it is not because of aridity but because of the nutrient and acidity of the ground.
Lord Imrahil Ah, sorry, not the most familiar with Brazilian geography, honest mistake.
No Problem. In that case I would advise you to watch the video I mentioned as it explains it fast an easy if you have time for it.
Lord Imrahil There are several errors in that video
I just discovered your channel tonight and have already watched 9 of your videos. I just want to say that I love your dry and sarcastic sense of humor, and I really appreciate the level of thoughtfulness and research that goes into these videos. Thank you
"byproduct of Spain"
*Cries in Portuguese*
*Cries in native languages*
I'm pretty sure Italy had quite a large army potential honestly, Italy has always been full of warring little states, Dante goes in long ends to describe the battles that constantly took place between imperial and papal troops. It has been like that for so long in Italy, all the way to the Italian unification basically, and Japan and Germany never seemed to suffer from that kind of thing. Interestingly the Italian army was so bad because of bad leadership, something you couldn't have predicted indeed, Luigi Cadorna was one of the most incompetent military leaders of the first world war, with extremely outdated tactics which he kept using throughout the entire war, and the Italian colonial wars together with the second world war had the same kind of trouble, in addition to military leadership, Mussolini wasn't the brightest either...
Badoglio, Graziani... Only Messe was good and undestand how to fight
You leave out crucial details. Papal states used mercs (just like other city states) while "imperial" is by word for Germans ;)
This UA-camr is completely correct, that by Gothic Wars there was no martial culture in mainland Italy. And it simply never again developed once the majority population assimilated the Normans and Lombards.
@@OkurkaBinLadin ugh what is this comment even, why did I write this
@@jacopofolin6400 In fact Messe was GOAT in how to fight.
you should make a "most probable timeline", in which everything that happens is the most likely thing to happen
Can you do "what if the revolutions of 1848 succeeded"?
Hungary actually nearly did (or at least had the longest run).
Well, that was because of Napoleon. The monarchies feared a repeat and formed the Holy Alliance, to protect eachother. In that scenario, Napoleon would need to die or be less power-hungry and become an elected leader. Then the Holy Alliance would never form and the various nations would look on as rebellion/revolution consume their rivals. Hungary would still need luck.
Another interesting idea would be the Monarchy actually reforming and developing into a full industrialized confederation of states. Even without social reform it was one of the leading mind behind the second industrial revolution and had an impressive economical boom.
They did
Please explain how and where? Because I cannot remember one which did. (Please remember that we are speaking of truly succeed, not getting a few concession after being put down.)
Technically you are right. But, then in 4 years came the second Empire... Not that a long time even by our life, let alone historic standards. That would be saying (with a bit of exaggeration) that Hungary became communist in 1919. It did for about 6 months.
I meant which was able to establish a democratic system that survived for at least two decade (a generation).
(Keep in mind that I don't know French history very well. There could or could not be some sort of democratic system that survived Napoleon III rise to power.)
Portugal a country so tiny with just a few million people manage to be the first country to create a Global Empire
9:48 ok that's just flat-out wrong. portuguese colonial policy was very strict regards to what could be produced in brasil and to who we could trade (that's called pacto colonial - "the colonial pact"). br was not allowed to develot any manufacture/industry beyond mining and growing cash-crops (like sugar cane) until arond 1810 when the portuguese royal family landed in rio fleeing napoleon. These colonial monopoly laws pratically guaranteed that by its independence in 1822 we (i'm brazilian by the way) lack any sort of infraestructure and industry (whitch had many long-term consequences, frankly too many to go on here). in large part because of that the biggest political force (in some aspects to this day) in br were big land owners. a very small, very rich and very conservative elite who block any attempt at real development done by the feew bright-minded governors that we had, like abolition, land reform, lines of credit to small land-owners, industrialization etc... in fact you could say that one colonial legacy in br was jeoperdize the very possibility of a "western path" (with large-scale industrialization and liberal/enlightened ideals) of development, at least not in the same time as the rest of the west,(wicth had consequences of its on), in fact br is not liberal/enlightened (as in 18-century ideals) society, not really even today, and never were.
But there's more: other bad legacy from the portuguese was the sort of society that was born here due to colonial logic: The great sociologist Sérgio Buarque de Hollanda (you should read his book raízes do brasil -"the roots of brasil", a classic that details brazilian society and its struggles) talks about this "society of adventurers"(there are other factors here and points that could be made, but for the sake of my mental health i wont delve too much in here, go study!). In short br society began with people who never meant to stay here, they meant to come, get rich, get out to live in europe. this is a very different reality then the US, wich began more as a colony of settlers and were basically ignored by britain for their first 150-200 years, having space to develop more as a society. Brasil never had this luxury, its colonization a state project to enrich portugal at all costs from the minute 0. to say that the portuguese "let we do wathever we wanted" is more than a gross misconception, is to ignore history and sociology. the books of br sociologist and historians like sérgio buarque de hollanda, florestan fernandes, roberto damatta, Lilia Schwarcz and many more, go read them.
And many of guys blame ur poverty on Portugal for "stealing" gold 💀💀
Portugal invested A LOT in the development of Brazil and only took 20% of gold mined. *Compared to other countries*, Portugal did let Brazil do whatever it wanted
Olá irmão do outro lado do Atlântico. I'm sorry, I don't think you're being fair. You're ignoring 2 key points:
1. Brazil is not a superpower because it simply does not have the geography of a superpower. The geography of a regional power, sure; of a superpower, no. The only country in South America that has the geography of a superpower is Argentina, which is like a mini-USA in terms of potential, but not a superpower either. I do agree that Brazil could be a lot more developed than it is now and lament the fact.
2. Brazil had been an independent kingdom for a long time when the rest of South American countries were still colonies. Consequently, by the end of the monarchy, Brazil had infrastructure and institutions way ahead of the rest of South America, and even comparable to those of Europe. If I had to pinpoint the exact time things went awfully wrong for Brazil I'd say it was right after the transition from monarchy to republic.
Tudo de bom. Feliz 2021.
Sad that they teach Nationalist stuff in schools to justify their own poverty. Quite a shame, no?
@@teixeira476 same with whatever he said about Spain. The obvious reason is the political problems and socialism. Not 'dependence on Madrid' 💀
Lol, Ireland was dirt poor after the independence 100 years ago, it add sheep and potatoes, and now is rich. Brazil isn't rich because of bad governments, so keep voting on the left or in populists.
Well Latin America has a pretty painful history. I can say that there are 2 reasons it did not develop better.
1. The conflict between countries about territories that came from the start of the "Conquista" this can be seen in South America a lot since there was a conflict between what actually belonged to Brazil (portuguese) and what belonged to the Spanish colonies (such as Paraguay, Argentina, Uruguay and others) this extended even between Spanish colonies since the borders weren't defined before the independence and for some countries such a Paraguay and Bolivia that depended on rivers to reach the sea this had devastating consequences. (Since I know a lot about Paraguayan history I will talk mostly about Paraguay) this tesions over territory carried into stupidly high taxes for the passage of rivers and economic wars or even in the case of Paraguay one of the biggest genocides in history. This was "La Guerra de la Triple Alianza" where Brazil send an Ultimatum to Uruguay because the government was presing charges agaisnt Brazilians because they raised cattle on the border and then passed it to Brazil so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes, then the country entered a civil war and the right leaning party was aided by Brazil through sending them troops even though Paraguay warned Brazil that any interference in the civil war would be a declaration of war. So Paraguay declared war on Brazil, captured 2 ships and tried to reach Uruguay to aid them through Argentina with whom the current Paraguayan president had good relations (Francisco Solano Lopez) but Paraguay was denied access (No one knew this at this time but it was because Brazil and Argentina alredy divided between themselves Paraguay and Uruguay on a secret treaty) so Paraguay declared war and waited a month but they didn't recibe a response (because the Argentinean government decided that it would be best for them that the citizens of the provinces would see Paraguay as a Warmongering invarder since they had pretty good relationships with the Paraguayans and they didn't want to fight them. So Paraguay advanced a little but Uruguay fell and a puppet government was established by Brazil on Uruguay [so now Uruguay joined Brazil and Argentina agaisnt Paraguay using the excuse that Francisco Solano Lopez was a tyrant warmongering invader (he was a tyrant though since the wasn't elected but just took the power when his father died)]. Paraguay fought against the alliance until 1870 where F.S.Lopez was killed, Paraguay lost 60% of its population or 90% of the masculine population and was forced to pay reparations of war. This just one example of the wars between Latino American countries.
2. During the Cold War the USA established dictatorial governments all over Latino America this is fairly resent and the corruption, nationalistic ideas, facist ideas and economic damages still persist. The dictatorial governments lasted very long due to a combined operation between them called "Operacion Condor" which was a net of intelligence about individuals that where dangerous to the interest of the governments (an example of this is the dictatorship in Paraguay which lasted 35 years and is considered one of the longest dictatorships in history). The governments were trained by the CIA on torturing methods and on catching "communist". It's even worse since education is very poor in most countries and are outdated due to the lack of money directed towards it. This is due to the high corruption that still remains in most countries. I would say that this is the most important reason for the ill state of the Latino American continent
Please keep in mind that:
1. English is not my primary language nor do I speak it frequently so the mistakes are to be expected.
2. Spanish doesn't follow the same grammatical rules than English so the paragraphs might have an strange structure
3. I wrote this on my phone.
This needs more upvotes. Latin America's one of the greatest tragedies in human history, and a tragedy that's never really ended since the first conquistadors stepped foot onto South America.
Every history is painful
No existe un continente latinoamericano, existe América y ya. En serio, no es tan difícil.
The Kingdom of Naples, the Duchy of Milan, and the Republic of Venice were quite powerful military forces (Venice basically invented the early modern defensive tactics, later perfected by the French). After the Middle Ages, the Italian states were militarily weak because they're too small (same happens to all German states until Prussia comes along).
The question is why the Piedmontese army (on which the Italian Royal Army was based) was so bad.
That's why both the Kingdom of Naples and the Duchy of Milan were conquered by Spain, because they were quite powerful
The issue with Italy's armies was never their soldiers. Their soldiers were average at worst. Their command structure and officer corps tended to be what failed them. Being both incompetent and low in supply.
Cadorna, Graziani and Badoglio join the chat
9:30 Man, i'm Mexican, and i know my history very well, you are so blinded by the black leyend, even if that is just a joke that is not funny.
You can't just mention the spanish rule a reason for poverty on Latin america, there is heavier reasons for poverty that just that one.
Just curious, what other reasons are they?
@@ayinstrumentals7731 bad government, i mean, if your country has a bad government it just can't develope well
As a spanish i see the black legend as the worst thing that the foreigners can do for us
@@ayinstrumentals7731 just two words:
*O p e r a t i o n C o n d o r*
@@thatrandomloser3808 damn last year I took World History and learned about the US overthrowing govts to get prpduce Fascism in Argentina and Brazil, and the rich basically robbing their own country and keeping them from developing. Freaky shit.
Mr. Boxer Frown exactly, Brazil got 50 Years of a Military Dictation ship supported by USA, were just Militaries could vote, no one could speak against them, they make censorship on everything, jornals, Propagandas, Programs, and everything, and isn’t something too old my Mother get the end of this on the 70’s
I agree with the first one, but I think that one contradicts the third and fifth.
Spain wasn't a backwards country, it had an amazing army, and when they come here to the Americas, they simply weren't matched, add smallpox, and you have a perfect cocktail of colonization. The other one I do not agree with you is the one about Latin America being backwards, it's not because of the inquisition and the myth of logical thinking repression (in fact, latin america had much more universities in 1700 than the US), but because the region was devastated by balkanization, which is still the case (that, I would agree, would be difficult to predict).
For me that's the main reason why Latin America isn't that rich - they were at constant wars with each other, civil wars etc - good example is Colombian-Peruvian war right after their independence
@@adamkaczmarek4751 but that's also not true. South America specially has been the most peaceful region in the world in terms of inter-state conflicts in the last 100 years.
Europe has been devastated in that time frame, Asia and Africa don't even name it, and North America (excluding Mexico) has supported the effort of war abroad for gigantic time-frames.
for latin america being poor, you just need two words to explain it:
*C o l d W a r*
Edit: that's my take and have a good day
@@thatrandomloser3808 i'm not so sure. In the thirties, just Argentina was rich and most of latin america descended to a pretty bad state before it.
I would say, of course the cold war was rough to latin america, but it was also much more rough to Korea and look at them.
in my opinion, there are two reasons of why the hispanic part of america is more poor than the ex-british colonies
1.- after the independence the new republics started wars with each other
2.- that just after the independence, the new republics became heavely indebted to great britain
3.-cold war and condor operation
The Italian one is wrong. The Northern Italian states have fought in many wars. Look at the league of Cambrai for example. Also the Genoese and the Venetians built up a vast empire around the Mediterranean. The Venetians fought many wars in the east against the Ottoman empire even ending their advance by the battle of Lepanto.
The Italians did have knights. Many manuscripts about sword fighting were written in Italy.
In the early modern era after the unification of Italy, it was one of the strongest and wealthiest nations in Europe. The main reason they lacked behind in WW2 was caused by slow integration of modernized and mechanized weaponry.
Ww1 too
"vast empire", "the Venetians won against the ottomans in Lepanto". First Aragon and then Spain conquered half of Italy and held it for almost 400 years, and led the Holy Alliance in Lepanto.
And when Italy reunified, it would've been one of the strongest and more influential nations in Europe were it not for the unindustrialized south and its lack of colonial expansion.
@@brycepavlov3809 He does not mention the leadership
@Sixshooter 9 No more often there were italian mercenari for example the black band during the rinascimento (1400-1500) or militia( like genoese crossbowmen, condottieri or milanese firepower militia) but their were not used in land battle but in siegies. In land battle were used or combagnie mercenarie( italian mercenari not really reliable) or german and swiss pikemen
@@brycepavlov3809 Cadorna
6:45 Condotierri dear sir! They were pretty damn feared by the French during the Italian wars,
5:06 but it is a size thing. The Scandinavians weren't thirsty for land and resources, because they were still using the ones they had. Britain was deforested, it's soil depleted, it's mines giving out, and it's population booming. Furthermore, Britain had made a crucial policy decision: they had allowed vast swaths of land to be devoted to raising sheep for the wool industry. The displacement of the yeomanry meant that London had far more people than the technology of the time could reasonably handle. Scandinavia wasn't putting all their eggs in one basket.
That's why whenever you're making alternate timelines, you have a crazy random events system with a percentile dice.
Majapahit was a huge empire though, they stretched across Indonesia and they are pretty much ingrained in Indonesia's history and unification efforts
at 38 seconds in I think that is one of the greatest quotes i have ever heard
ya close enough
The Inca empire lost 90% of its population to diseases and later was ravaged by civil war. Pizarro took that chance and Atahualpa was a fool for allowing the Spaniards to traverse difficult terrain unopposed. He only needed to continuously harass them with hundredths of slingers because the Conquistadors artillery and cavalry would be useless in those difficult passages in the high mountains.
Scandinavian countries DID have a colonial period, only it occurred in earlier times. In the post Middle Ages, there was no motivation for colonialism; Scandinavian countries had plenty of free land, and they were wealthy from their trade empires descended from the end of the Viking Age. We had explorers, and people that visited the colonies of other nations. The motivation was not colonization but expanding trade and Imperial power in Europe.
The answer is coffee. In the 15th-16th century Europeans started importing coffee from their colonies on a massive level. For the first time in its history, Europe had a drink that wasn't beer to keep them hydrated. Like any college freshman, they drank WAY TOO MUCH of it and spent all night talking about enlightenment. Eventually these ideas turned into revolutions from middle class coffee drinkers. The traditional coffee drinking areas of the world (Middle east, Ethiopia) discovered coffee before the trauma of running into plague and the golden horde. They already had their caffeine binge.
Maybe God DOES roll dices.
5:45 Some scholars thinks this is precisely because of the Roman Empire; all the warlike men moved from Italy and settled in other parts of the empire as part of the legionary resettlement, thereby failing to pass on their more aggressive nature to Italian children.
No it's because a century of civil wars and plague destroyed populations and disrupted training and a spirit of unity.
(From what I’ve been told)
Scandinavia didn’t colonise as their navy was being held up in most wars, more specifically Sweden protecting its Baltic states at the time, and due to their new and young leader there wasn’t as much interest in colonisation, even if they had the spare navy to do so. By the time the Scandinavian could’ve colonised, it was too late.
If you get better audio you could probably be just as even more popular as alternate history hub! You have great potential!
I dont know what your sources were for the Spanish Empire's colonial approach and management was, or IF you even used any. But i recommend you look at more of them. The spanish set up Viceroyalties precisely so they could manage themselves and they didnt have to be "helicopter parents", they also built cathedrals, and universities and theatres. Spanish colonial cities where much bigger than any in the British or French territories in the Americas. Latin America is poor today because post independence, the new states that formed, were indebted to powers like the UK and then decided to fight each other rather than invest, or work together. They also didnt industrialise early (but even spain industrialised late), Argentina eventually did and was at one point the richest country in the world just about 100 years ago, but politics made it hard, also geographical distance to major markets. Latin America to this day doesnt work together economically, few of their major trading partners are fellow countries in the region.
As I said to him on the comments: (please notice this was addressing him)
1-Population was broken into castes: This is a blatantly false accusation no historian will accept. It simply never happened, Spanish racial policy was the less rigid of all times. Mixed marriages were a thing in the 16th century, just to put you into context in the USA it took until the 60s. Another good example: the Guardia Civil (Spanish most prestigious police nowadays) was founded by a noble who descended from Emperor Monctezuma. This stupid idea was invented in 18th century by Dutch and Anglo-Saxon chroniclers. They always use the same satirical cartoon... Castes didn't exist! American heritage is a mixed one, both from colonisers and natives.
2- No self government: Do you know what was a viceroy? What the heck, it was humanly impossible to have a transoceanic empire in the 16th century without self government. Yes, there was, it was ordered in viceroyalties and they would usually not even listen to what happened in Madrid. I mean, do you take that point seriously? The voyage took THREE months! At the beginning a simple exchange of letters took half a year!
3- Made the economy dependent on Madrid: This has to be a joke... I was absolutely the opposite! Madrid was totally dependent on American importations! Just look at the economical graphics after the emancipation, importations were decreased by a 95%. Why do you think the colonies could even question independence? Correct, they were absolutely auto-sufficient. Heck, the policy during most of the time was "do what you want, as long as you keep bringing silver".
4- Spain took everything from the colonies: Yes, because cathedrals, hospitals, universities, those got built on their own, obviously. There were never organised cities with developed infrastructure. Cartagena? Pffff. La Habana? Nah. Quito, Potosí, Lima, Bogotá... All mere exploitations, sure. What was taken to Spain were bast tons of silver, which would then proceed to palliate the immense debt. People like Juan Palafox built Mexico from scratch. It is funny how European sources attempted to demonstrate the degeneracy of Spain in the basis that "people in the colonies live better than in the peninsula". Something to think of.
5- Inquisition bad: Recently people are beginning to realise that the Spanish inquisition was without doubt the tribunal which you would have preferred to be judged by. Consider the alternatives... Heck, people committed blasphemy just so they could be judged by the inquisition instead of the civil code. Turns out the inquisition actually provided you bed and food while prisoner, didn't accept confession by torture nor your enemy's testimony, didn't kill you if you repented, wouldn't judge you if you weren't Catholic... Oh, the things the black legend does.
6- Encomiendas: Do you know what an encomienda was? Clearly not, because you claim it to be medieval. I'll explain... Lower nobles who searched fortune were offered a territory in America with natives assigned. The thing is that the noble had to, in return, ensure the Christian EDUCATION and maintenance of the natives. Yes, they had to though to read, write, and much more. The results? Well, an average native in Argentina in the 17th century would always know at least three languages: His mother one, Spanish, and Latin. Encomiendas were awesome man, imagine if every country colonised like that. Of course there were abuses, which were difficult to avoid due to the nature of the continent, but they were fought. Overall they worked fairly well. Medieval? Gosh, when Spaniards arrived natives literally hadn't even discovered the wheel. Spain's influence in America was greater in extent than Roman one was to Europe.
And now, if you did want to learn about it, you'd notice that Argentina and Cuba were once countries richer than the USA. The first railway of Spain was built in Cuba. These two are dramatic examples of what corruption does. Hispanic culture greatest antagonist has always been corruption, corruption ruined Argentina, Venezuela, Peru... These are three of the most rich countries in natural resources. Cuba had its revolution (with some external help), communism has ruined it. Still the best parts of the country are the colonial villas, city centres, cathedrals, squares... There was a huge difference between how Spain and other countries colonised. For instance, go to the triple border between Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil. You will be able to notice how in the first two you have concrete buildings, infrastructure. In the latter one, you do have a nice road to the capital, but surrounded by shacks.
In conclusion, Spain provided to his colonies with a strong basis and economy to build over their nations, but corruption has ruined what would have otherwise been one of the richest parts of the world, they do have the resources for it. You forget that the colonies have been independent since the 19th century.
@@Jayako12 im so confused, was this addressed to me? or the author of the video? because for the most part we agree. However.
1 - saying castes didnt exist is just being in denial. Sure, there was a lot of interbreeding between the races, at point it was even encouraged. But the whiter one was, the more opportunities one had. Even to this day the upper classes in latin america are mostly of european descent. Then the mestizos had more opportunities than the indigenous people or blacks.
2 - Viceroyalties. i dont know how good is your reading comprehension but we are 100% in agreement. The viceroyalties had a lot of autonomy
3 - i never even mentioned anything about this, but "sufficient" is a better word than "auto-sufficient". but also this might depend on the time period. 300 years is a long time.
4 - My point exactly, the spanish built stuff, it wasnt just resource extraction.
5 - also didnt mentioned the inquisition. but Thats what i've heard too. it was actually very organised and in many ways preferable to the lay courts. Although i've heard its ultra nationalist propaganda to paint the inquisition as a not horrible thing. However compared to the witch burnings in germany, much preferable.
6 - Encomiendas. What are the sources that natives were educated at the encomiendas. Also your point about the wheel. Several civilizations existed and prospered without it. I'd also wager if you were to ask a native american community if having the wheel was worth the destruction of their way of life, they'd probably say "no".
Your conclusion, Spain for sure treated her colonies as an extentions of her own terrirory more than other European colonial powers, but to say they left them is a strong base and economy to build their nations is grossly inaccurate. Starting with trade, the most important factor for a thriving nation. The colonies were not allowed to trade directly with other countries or EVEN each other! To this day latin america is the region that trades with itself the least.
@@franbalcal As I tried to remark before, that was addressed to him, not to you. This however, to both.
Let's start with the castes. The term caste is already false, because a caste implies institutional segregation, and this was never the case. Surely on a large scale it is true that native Europeans had the power, because the system was that the king would appoint someone and send him there. That provided, of course, elitism. If you have time to build your fortune from power you'll most likely do it. This was how the upper strata was founded, and those families of Iberian born parents, criollos, constituted the elite which later took power during emancipation. But the point is, there were no castes. This term refers to the social system India had (has), in which you have different rights depending on your background. It is crucial to understand that this never happened in Spain, you were a subject of the crown independently of your blood. There are the estates obviously, which every European is able to tell apart (nobility, clergy and the folk). Perhaps this is the fundamental error when teaching, estates are not castes. Because the so called "castes" were pretty flexible, don't you think? I mean, Aztec nobility continued being nobility, you didn't see that in India. The matter is that the term "caste" has been used in a sneaky way.
The whole point of it is ridiculous, can you actually tell me some castes? You'll probably go with criollos, which are a thing in the late 18th century. They were an elite yes, caste though? No. If we decide to profound in it, how many castes would there be? Mestizos are half half, mulatos are half black half white. What if a the great son of a mestizo marries a second generation mulata? Because those things happened, and while castes are supposed to be rigid, this wasn't the case. Now, there was kind of a class system. Think applying logic: you are a white European who just arrived to Mexico City seeking fortune. You have enough to live better than in Castile, so you want to marry. Who do you take as a bribe? The question would rather be who *can* you take as a bribe. You would statistically prefer someone of your culture, who knows your language, who matches your ideal feminine figure. Those are not available, the richest ones will be the ones who stand a chance. You should be very happy to propose to a mestiza, you were lucky. The other option is a native. Your marriage could perfectly be the most idilic one, of course, but you took a high risk.
When referring to "Spanish castes" an image of a "cuadro de castas" will always appear. It is ridiculous to pretend that the Spaniards organised a hierarchy based on race. What is true, is that race usually was a good predictor of wealth. A social organisation based on race sustained by a coercive power? Not even near to the truth. This ridiculous nonsense was first proposed in 1940, and embodied the most ahistorical political ideology. Don't you think that if it was implemented, black legend chroniclers would have been very happy talking about it? And yet this emerged in the mid 20th century. Again, just the fact that natives were allowed to preserve their pre-columbine nobiliary titles proves it wrong. The reality is that the system would have been absolutely impossible to instaure in all the colonies. At least foreign historians have decided to fight against this. Because the reality was that in your baptism act (which served as a census), the race of the baptised wasn't written near to his name.
This concept is the most repulsive attack one could do to something as good as mestizaje. This misuse has an intention, to undermine the very foundations whole countries were built over. In Spain, not like anywhere else in the world, mixed marriages constituted the gross of the population. Latin countries are not like the North American ones, for their populations descend from both, colonisers and natives. How about USA or Canada? Race in colonial Spain did not mean different opportunities, that depended on external factors. Some Mestizo nobles eventually even moved to Spain, and so you find the Duque de Ahumada, descendant of Monctezuma (whose descendants still hold the title), founding the Guardia Civil. The caste system serves no historical purpose, just an ideological one.
@@franbalcal On the matter of the inquisition, it was by far one of the most fair tribunals in its early stages. Of course you cannot judge with modern values acts of the 16th century, I'm sure you understand it. It seems atrocious, it was atrocious, but it was less atrocious than anyone else was doing. So it is something already.
Sources on encomiendas... If you know Spanish, you'll know the meaning of encomienda. Perhaps you even know the meaning of a "contrato de encomienda" (the company is obliged to give you some kind of special formation). The point of it was that! It was stipulated by contract and ratified in the Leyes de Burgos of 1512, in exchange for the land and manpower, a Christian education had to be given to locals. Sadly abuses were not estrange, but they were fought. I always put the example of the colonies in La Plata, which were religious missions and hence less corrupt. An average native would perfectly know three languages: his own one, Spanish and Latin. It impresses me a lot, imagine that nowadays!
Over the "destruction" of the olds ways of life, you should read the diaries of the missions of Los Angeles and San Francisco. They are particularly hard. The settlements grew each month larger and larger because natives would pile around them, as they provided food. If your life is going to improve in quality, it is probably worth giving up on child sacrifice for it. That's been like that for millennia, easier life is at the end of the day much more attractive than your culture. You should also check the "destruction" of the culture... Cultures were never cleansed or destroyed, they were assimilated. The Spaniards made efforts to preserve and not attack (in what was morally possible for them) native cultures. Examples of that are how the first dictionaries and books of those languages were made by Spaniards. The dictionaries are actually called for example: "The Treasure of the Guarani Language", "The Art of the Mayan Language", "The Art of the Incan Language". It was the natural progression of culture, because as Philippe II said: "It isn't convenient to force the natives to abandon their natural language. We shall rather dispose teachers for those who voluntarily desire to lear our own one."
Of course when you administrate a territory you don't do it thinking on it as an independent nation, which still doesn't necessarily mean the territory is in a bad shape, just that it was logically not planned for independence. It is true that when Spain organised trade in the colonies it was done so they would still depend from Madrid, so independence would be virtually impossible. However, when the emancipation movement started to be important, the UK and USA were the first to support them hoping to steal Spanish monopoly, not for the sake of freedom. And after the disastrous independence process, which resulted in various fragmented new nations, tensions were too high to attempt common trade projects, so the UK and specially the USA kept the hegemony for themselves.
People forget easily that the Spanish administration of America ended in the 19th century. Latin countries have been independent for two centuries. Compare that to all of Africa, India, Pakistan... Countries like Botswana, independent in 1966, are rising from absolute poverty to developed nations. Cuba was the Pearl of the Caribbean, Argentina and Venezuela were rich among rich. Yet, they are now ruined. Blaming Spain for their problems is downright stupid, but politicians keep this message so they can continue stealing.
My hometown is actually relic of the Swedish empire! Swedesboro, NJ. The main road that goes through our town is called Kings Highway because it was apparently the road that the Swedish royalty traveled down when they visited at one point.
That is cool, same type of road naming in Sweden but there the king usually was there and visited 800 years ago or so
Hey now, Hawaii is surprisingly Hawaiian, and native Hawaiians have a ton of social clout. I would not say none of the 50 states retained native heritage. Hawaii did
Hawaii was invaded rather recently
Spanish Black Legend Intensifies
Brazil is what the CSA would become. I'm not downplaying the role of slavery and racism, but great part of the american civil war was about the economic system. Republican/Federalist "American System" opposed by the Democratic party economic system of Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan. What the democratic party defended was exactly what the São Paulo coffee elite and the rest of the other states oligrachy did to Brazil.
I'm currently reading a biography of Henry Clay and you are 1000% correct.
@@bevbevan6189 Which biography?
@@talmoskowitz5221 Robert Remini's Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union
Whatifalthist: Indians have never left India to conquer Indonesia.
Rajendra Chola: Hold my textiles.
This is one of your best videos. Most appreciated.
Um... hello? How is it remotely surprising that native American civilization totally collapsed after they lost 90% of their population to disease? Not even small tribal societies can support themselves after that kind of loss, much less an entire empire like the Inca. Conquistadors and settlers get way too much credit for just rolling over the graves of millions of natives who died of smallpox years before they showed up.
If you want to really look at a timeline where natives can thrive ask this: What if the Americas had livestock?
yeah, the mapuche for example just show how much luck was truly the cause of the successful colonization on south america, with the mapuche surviving with strategy and its knowledge of the geography alone, and just being "conquered" by the chilean goverment in the 19th century (which was not a good thing btw, im just stating facts)
So are the setllers and conquistador gonna do a reverse and give back to the victims
savy skunk
What are you talking about?
America did have livestock they were called llamas, alpacas, and buffalo the natives never bothered to seriously demesticate them like Asia, the Middle east and Europe did to their animals. You seem to be one of those people who unironically believe jarred diamonds guns, germs, and steel arguments. Which if you take a college level course will never be brought up because it is either such common sense shit like obviously an island nation will practice sailing, or just complete bullshit to explain away why some civilisations thrive and others don't.
Putuna
I am currently taking a college level course and the guns, germs and steel argument was largely emphasized when we went over the colonization of the Europeans.
I think I can cover part 7
Italy becamed a real power after the second world war, before that Italy was just a giant farm with a poor industry, Italy didn't have the industry to create a fully militarized army, another thing was that the fascist government didn't have very good generals.
Love your videos, but want to include some thoughts.
When thinking about Italy and it’s Marshall ineptitude I think geography and ethnic unity has a large role to play.
You look at why the romans developed a Marshall culture was because the Italian peninsula didn’t have a united identity, so they faced conflicts right on their borders with other tribes. Plus eventually facing a dominant Mediterranean power like Carthage being able to threaten their heartland was what led to their rapid expansion (similar to Russia colonizing Siberia as a buffer from Nomadic threats).
Effectively Italy itself is an island nation (if you include the alps as a sort of fourth barrier) and once Italy ethnically unified. They lacked a villain that was a serious danger to them.
As well you look at the majority of examples of traditionally “tough” Marshall societies they are mostly places with harsher geographical factors like weather, and topography. (Like the warrior cultures of Afghanistan, or the hardy Danish sea raiders.) And if you look at fertile places, that are relatively secluded like Italy they will typically lend themselves to become more leisurely societies. (Unlike areas like Poland or the Yangtze River valley which are fertile lands smack dab in the middle of several large Marshall societies)
Anyway that might be a limited perspective on an otherwise simplicities topic, but thought it was worth dharing
for me it's that Poland survived as independent nation despite being in the worst geographical position in Europe
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you should probably check out the partition of Poland.
@@oldmanyellsatscreen oh yeah, I forgot that partitions never ended and Poland is still not independent
@@kadz3597 Yes, the fact that the idea of Poland survived and it is a nation again is impressive.
About Latin America:
-Brazil with Pedro II was a superpower, Pedro even said "Fuck off" to UK
-Argentina was a superpower
(Both had different events that killed the prosperity of the both countries)
-LatAm had and has a lot of industries
-The southern cone is not poor, that includes the south of Brazil
-I really think that Chile is not in its full potential because its low population
06:12 - 06:36
I'm from Italy and I also think that our army had been horrible between 1866 and 1945. (Except: the navy between 1877 and 1903; the special forces in WWII.)
I don't agree with you about why it was so weak.
• In the Middle Ages Italian armies were really nice: between 1153 and 1313 they defeated all the HR Emperors that tried to conquer the Peninsula; Charles VIII of France in 1495 was defeated and forced to go back home with almost no troops left by Milan and Venice; before Charles V the Italian militar class was very strong (Castruccio Castracani, Philip Mary Visconti, Francis Sforza, Bartholomew Colleoni, Cangrande Della Scala, Hound Della Scala, John Giustiniani, John of the Black Bands, Ezzelino da Romano, Azzo I, Azzo II, Azzo III, Philip Ispano were all incredible generals that won a lot of wars, the problem with them is that they fought each other.
• Southern Italy became a "colony" only after 1442, before it was run by Anjou dynasty, but was completely independent from France, they also fought a lot of wars with the French part of the dynasty (And won them.).
• Northern Italy wasn't at all ruled by bishops! Who told you this madness?!
Илья Ветров
Also Genoa's crossbowmen were the finest in Europe after the Prussia's ones.
During the Hundred Years War they fought several times in the French army as mercenaries.
By the way, what Genoa's troops really needed to improve their crossbowmen tactics was something like the Russian guljaj-gorod.
stavo per dire lo stesso, e comunque anche quando nella seconda guerra mondiale eravamo impreparati siamo comunque riusciti a vincere contro eserciti piu' numerosi e meglio equipaggiati. Io comunque direi che la brutta idea dell esercito italiano venga dall 1920-1946
Actually Italy did pretty well also between 1866 and 1945.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Italy
Since it's unification, the only real defeats were the first Ethiopian war, mostly due to political turmoil back at home, and the crazy wwii that was never actually possible to win.
yeah, italy lost 4 3wars and the US 8... But Italy is the loser!
Francesco Nesi But din't the medieval Italian cities use foreign mercenaries to do th fighting for them?
08:51 (i am saying before watching this part)
As a brazilian, I believe a can say that absolutely no one can explain how the Brazil works. Its history is so sad, so many lost potential that is very sad when you study its history.
As a brazilian i can say that we failed when the empire ended, the reign of D. Pedro II was the golden age of Brazil and the abolition of slavery and developing industry during the late years of the monarchy were a great sign, unfortunaly the republic caused an eternal political instability and the rise to power of military goverments and goverments controled by the coffe elite of Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais who of course didnt try to industrialize the country and focused mainly in agriculture and other cheap comoddities. If the empire continued the monarchs would probably invest in industry when you take into account the philosophy and personality of Pedro II, a highly intelectual,nationalistic and progressive ruler who also passed down those traits to his heir princess Isabel who ended slavery while her father was traveling in Europe
Eae irmao olha para Portugal depois de 1910 praticamente 64 anos de instabilidade e ditadura
Pedro II didn't like industry at all. For those foreigners interested in, search for Baron of Mauá, a great brazilian capitalist, industrialist and billionaire, wich was deemed "the only trustworthy brazilian" by many abroad. There is even a movie about him with english subtitles. In fact, the monarchy made everything to ruin him, and they succeeded.
@@Lolinatorishere verdade, nós tivemos uma ditadura de extrema direita , sem liberdade de expressão, que fez com que a população ficasse pobre e atrasada
@@Lolinatorishere A ditadura não foi assim tão má, a nossa economia ficou muito melhor, mas a única coisa má foi a censura.
@@REDGAMER35 Não e sim, as medidas de Salazar quanto à economia foram bastante boas, mas a censura foi má
Love these videos man!!! You made me a history nerd!
The Romans had to guard the whole coastline of Gaul. That was an issue and the Romans delt with like they always did. Conquer.
for the natives being weak, it could be explained due to geography, comparing it to europe, europe expends much more to the east and west than north and south, meaning there is a lot more place to expend to than in america (since expending north and south would mean expending into different climates changing very quickly), that means that every pre-Colombian american empire had a limit, unlike the european empires. (also diseases that the natives simply had no way of being immune to)
Someone's been reading Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel", eh?
13:05 I disagree here. First look up the Chola raid on Svririjaya, in which the Chola Kingdom of Southern India dominated the Svrijaya empire. Second, not expanding outside of India is not a sign of weakness on the Indian's part. Because first your assuming India is a given, which it isn't. India is a very difficult country to rule and is really a new concept. For example, the Germans never really left Europe, but we still consider them tough. Same with the Spartans. Also the Himalayan mountains would make the lack of global political influence obvious. Because they severely limited the transit of large armies, which meant that invading local countries was more prudent.
This is history version of "top 10 anime plot twists"
Harry Turtledove's "Worldwar" series explores your aliens landing on earth scenario. Aliens invade in 1942 with expectations gathered from a 12th century probe. Instead they get airplanes, artillery, machine guns, and (spoiler alert!) nuclear weapons. Not to mention the locals are insanely inventive particularly when it comes to making war. Highly recommended.
Wouldn't they have space lasers and shit though?
This is a cool uniquely insightful video into the quality of a source of information. It would be cool if more folk did it
12:28 No but only 1 state has more than 50% Hispanic. New Mexico.
Never Lucky m8 but that's still not native.
Hispanic means from Hispania which is Iberia. Ie European.
+Lorem_64
Hispanic here is typically half or less native with Iberian influence.
Its much more vague in its usage.
But you're still correct that its not really native.
Hispanic is for Latin America.
A truly Spanish person would be Castillian.
or aragonese
or catalan
galacian
leonese
Castillian isnt the only culture
the point is theyre still largely euro decent and dont count as natives anymore
Thinking Özyıldırım +Skytech RTS oh ok, well still not native, but mixed, point still stands I think. But thanks
The Italians were ferocious warriors in the middle ages and renaissance. The problem was that they were not unified. Even after the _Risorgimento_ , the country was not properly unified, especially with the Vatican doing everything in its power to destabilize the new, unified Italy. In WW1 and WW2, the problem was the leadership, not the Italians themselves.
Very interesting video! Keep up the wonderful content! You deserve much more popularity.
It's not surprisingly that Java didn't colonize Australia. The North is largely uninhabitable, the southeast offers lots of grass land which was great for British people to raise cattle and sheep but is completely useless for traditional Asian agriculture.
India has very strong natural frontiers, powerful neighbours and was very rich in soil and resources. Indian empires did not need to expand.
regarding South-East Asia... could it have anything to do with Buddhism? Those regions are known to be the most buddhist of all, more than China which has stronger influences of Confucianism and Legalism to balance that.
If you are primary a buddhist society, material and political conquest could rank lower on your hierarchy of values than in other people. The most important thing is to be free of desire and don't get too involved in all those worldly goals, so you know.
Just a thought.
Again. I think a big reason the Europeans were able to conquer the natives was just practice. The old world was heavily populated, dense, and was full of many squabbling cultures that had decades of fighting each other in massive wars to put strong emphasis on weaponry and military to out due each other. The Americas were mostly very vast and even the major emperors like the Incas and Aztecs were too far away from each other to really worry about each other as major threats. And yes, there was human sacrifice and many short squabbles between native tribes but it wasnt really comparable to the types of catastrophic wars between empirescwaged in the old war. So the Native Americans simply did not have the experience to face up against the decades built military might of an old world power.
That’s becoz technological progress is exponential, NOT linear. Thus, small but sustained advantages in technology become massive over time. In the ancient world, if you could harness iron a hundred years or so before other tribes, YOU ended up with the empire and they ended up in slavery.
Additionally, technological advantages are better able to be LEVERAGED than other advantages . It doesn’t matter the next-door tribe has political, social, agricultural, or cultural advancements over you..... if YOU are the first one to make your swords out of iron, and they’re still bronze-weaponing, you are going to subdue them.
I mean, that's not *entirely* true. Perhaps the tribe without iron has a higher population due to agriculture, therefore is able to field substantially more soldiers. Maybe socially they're a more unified and stable tribe, and therefore have more will to fight harder. And maybe they have made political alliances with other tribes to assist in war against other tribes. The sort of thing you're talking about only works on higher level scales, like swords vs guns, or the invention of the machine gun, etc.
FlatWorldJomhuriRegime88
Using that reasoning, explain why the Sumerians didn't eventually conquer the planet. Protip: you can't
Lil Ben There was no incentive for them to, plus they hardly had knowledge of lands beyond their borders. They weren’t the massive crusading empire you make them out to be. Additionally, recent advancements in communication and military technologies have made conquering the planet feasible with a technological edge, or the figurative iron vs. bronze, whereas before light-speed communication and modern military (eg big navy and mobile armies), lands were hard to annex and harder to control even with significant technological advantage.
@@lilben4184 sumerians didn't conquer the planet but akkadians and later on assyrians did sort of conquer their whole known world (mesopotamia/middle east), then median/persians came and did the same, several times.
14:17 Vietnam did invade China once but it was more like an preemptive strike against possible invasion than a war of conquest. Also one King in Vietnam did have plans to invade southern China in the 18th century but he suddenly died before it was a thing.
About the Scandinavian Colonial Empires, or lack thereof; I think it's safe to say there's several reasons that all combined to make that a thing.
One; they constantly opposed one another, after Sweden earned it's independence through conflict in the early-to-mid 1500's from the Kalmar Union, to the point of full-on combat several times over the following years (referring to Sweden and Denmark specifically, with Norway dragged in by whichever country they were united with). Two; it's debatable, but it's possible the trading empires to the south, such as England and the Dutch, could put more of their effort into expanding their colonial territory because of their location on the world map vs. where the Scandinavian countries are. Scandinavian countries seemed to, from the reading I've done, struggle with expanding because foreign powers were either already established by the time they began expanding, or lacked the ability to fund their colonies/ defend their colonies from foreign intervention because of their lessened economic capabilities. Which only grew worse over the years as their expansion slowed and their potential rivals steadily grew, in territory, economy, and population.
There's more I was gonna say, but I deleted most of the rest of it when I realized I'd passed 3 paragraphs of rambling thought. Feels weird being a self-conscious history nerd some times.
You don't give enough attention to the geography of the areas you talk about.
Geography is a huge hindrance in south america (in Brazil you get: the rainforest, mountainous coasts, an harid hinterland...), while it is the greatest boon ever in the USA.
To develop an empire, Norway and sweden would need their navy to get trough Britain territorial waters, and to be sure they were safe from each other (not to mention how few in number they were, occupying collonies whould have required more manpower...
Italy, aside for tha North plain of the Pau river, is quite mountainous and lacks ressources, so is the Iberian peninsula, etc
All these can be overcome though investments, but it means these countries are at a disadvantage compared to others.
All this being said, I agree with you on a number of points, like Argentina's seemingly wasted potential, and China's unity (though it broke several times in the past, and might do so still in the futur.)
Brazil sadly had a bad history of Corruption, we got 50 years of an Military Dictation, that just military people could vote, no one could speak against this government, My grandma was alive during this time, isn’t so far from today, than Brazil became more and more corrupt, now we have a normal government, and I hope became much better. Brazil is walking slowly, but I hope to see my country in good hands
(And Sadly, countries like USA, France and UK supported the Dictation :/)
Wtf you're talking about, "geographically" speaking Brazil is excellently placed - plenty of rivers for fluvial transportation, lack of mountainous terrains, quite a lot of extremely fertile plains, a ridiculously diverse tropical forest...
When china breaks apart all the pieces fit back together to form another china.
Rome not so much.
Some of these should be videos, what if China collapsed into that map, what if there was a Indian Roman Empire or what if Latin America became like the USA
China collapsed many, many times over the course of its history. Most recently it spent most of the period 1911-1950 in a state of disunity, with a huge civil war raging from 1927-1950. Before that it had a massive civil war in 1851-1864 that claimed more lives than WWI, and almost no one in the West has even heard of it (the Taiping rebellion). That’s just the past 150 years: There’s plenty more where that came from. Even today there are regions of China like Xinjiang that are only brought to heel through extreme totalitarian measures and plagued by separatist violence.
This video misrepresents the situation by presenting it as if modern China is a direct successor of 2000 year old empires, implying a unity and continuity that simply isn’t present in history.
Your points about Spain:
1-Population was broken into castes: This is a blatantly false accusation no historian will accept. It simply never happened, Spanish racial policy was the less rigid of all times. Mixed marriages were a thing in the 16th century, just to put you into context in the USA it took until the 60s. Another good example: the Guardia Civil (Spanish most prestigious police nowadays) was founded by a noble who descended from Emperor Monctezuma. This stupid idea was invented in 18th century by Dutch and Anglo-Saxon chroniclers. They always use the same satirical cartoon... Castes didn't exist! American heritage is a mixed one, both from colonisers and natives.
2- No self government: Do you know what was a viceroy? What the heck, it was humanly impossible to have a transoceanic empire in the 16th century without self government. Yes, there was, it was ordered in viceroyalties and they would usually not even listen to what happened in Madrid. I mean, do you take that point seriously? The voyage took THREE months! At the beginning a simple exchange of letters took half a year!
3- Made the economy dependent on Madrid: This has to be a joke... I was absolutely the opposite! Madrid was totally dependent on American importations! Just look at the economical graphics after the emancipation, importations were decreased by a 95%. Why do you think the colonies could even question independence? Correct, they were absolutely auto-sufficient. Heck, the policy during most of the time was "do what you want, as long as you keep bringing silver".
4- Spain took everything from the colonies: Yes, because cathedrals, hospitals, universities, those got built on their own, obviously. There were never organised cities with developed infrastructure. Cartagena? Pffff. La Habana? Nah. Quito, Potosí, Lima, Bogotá... All mere exploitations, sure. What was taken to Spain were bast tons of silver, which would then proceed to palliate the immense debt. People like Juan Palafox built Mexico from scratch. It is funny how European sources attempted to demonstrate the degeneracy of Spain in the basis that "people in the colonies live better than in the peninsula". Something to think of.
5- Inquisition bad: Recently people are beginning to realise that the Spanish inquisition was without doubt the tribunal which you would have preferred to be judged by. Consider the alternatives... Heck, people committed blasphemy just so they could be judged by the inquisition instead of the civil code. Turns out the inquisition actually provided you bed and food while prisoner, didn't accept confession by torture nor your enemy's testimony, didn't kill you if you repented, wouldn't judge you if you weren't Catholic... Oh, the things the black legend does.
6- Encomiendas: Do you know what an encomienda was? Clearly not, because you claim it to be medieval. I'll explain... Lower nobles who searched fortune were offered a territory in America with natives assigned. The thing is that the noble had to, in return, ensure the Christian EDUCATION and maintenance of the natives. Yes, they had to though to read, write, and much more. The results? Well, an average native in Argentina in the 17th century would always know at least three languages: His mother one, Spanish, and Latin. Encomiendas were awesome man, imagine if every country colonised like that. Of course there were abuses, which were difficult to avoid due to the nature of the continent, but they were fought. Overall they worked fairly well. Medieval? Gosh, when Spaniards arrived natives literally hadn't even discovered the wheel. Spain's influence in America was greater in extent than Roman one was to Europe.
And now, if you did want to learn about it, you'd notice that Argentina and Cuba were once countries richer than the USA. The first railway of Spain was built in Cuba. These two are dramatic examples of what corruption does. Hispanic culture greatest antagonist has always been corruption, corruption ruined Argentina, Venezuela, Peru... These are three of the most rich countries in natural resources. Cuba had its revolution (with some external help), communism has ruined it. Still the best parts of the country are the colonial villas, city centres, cathedrals, squares... There was a huge difference between how Spain and other countries colonised. For instance, go to the triple border between Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil. You will be able to notice how in the first two you have concrete buildings, infrastructure. In the latter one, you do have a nice road to the capital, but surrounded by shacks.
In conclusion, Spain provided to his colonies with a strong basis and economy to build over their nations, but corruption has ruined what would have otherwise been one of the richest parts of the world, they do have the resources for it. You forget that the colonies have been independent since the 19th century.
he's just an Anglo sneeding bro, can't accept Catholics being as good as him
So glad I came across your channel. I love it! Thanks for sharing your knowledge
The french putting an Austrian Habsburg in the Mexican Throne is also something unpredictable
If the Spanish Inquisition isn’t on this video I’m gonna be so mad. No one ever expects them.
"Brazil, stop disappointing me" KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK acredite, todos nos falamos isso tambem
6:08 That Soviet meme is quite funny.
Considering how integral Terminus was to the roman psyche it makes sense to invade Britain. Their whole society and economy was built on expansion. Failing in Germania and the far east, Britannia probably seemed like the only way forward for the time being, even if it turned out to be such a hassle in the end. Terminus only moves forward, never backwards.
8:58 mainly because of our leaders, since the end of the empire we only have coup after coup and a lot a corruption.