The REAL reasons European colonialism was possible

Contrary to popular belief, the European colonization of the Americas was made possible not by the Europeans having superior technology, but by the inadvertent introduction of pathogens from the Eastern Hemisphere that had not previously been present in the Americas.

This accounts for the fact that when the Europeans were colonizing the Americas in the 1500s and 1600s, they were not also colonizing Africa and Asia (with a few exceptions). It was not possible for the Europeans to colonize most parts of Africa and Asia at the time, because the people there already had the same technologies and the same diseases that the Europeans had.

Of course, Europeans did end up colonizing Africa and Asia, but not until the 1800s. This was suddenly possible then, when it hadn't been earlier, because the Industrial Revolution happened to begin in Europe then. Within just a few generations, industrial technology also spread to the rest of the world, but by then the Europeans and people of European descent had managed to establish their preeminence in world affairs.

The economic, military, and technological superiority of the countries of Europe and of people of European descent traces back only as far as the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s. Before that, Europeans had no advantages over the countries of Asia and Africa.

[premodernist_history]

Based on the comments, it appears that some viewers don't understand how colonization of the Americas happened or what the battles between settlers and natives looked like. It wasn't big European field armies with heavy cavalry and artillery going up against bows and arrows. The Europeans were not shipping armies across the ocean to the Americas, and the natives did in fact use firearms from an early date. I recommend watching the video "Indigenous Weapons and Tactics of King Philip's War" on the channel Atun-Shei Films for an example of what the natives were working with.

[DLYChicago]

Actually, in the 1500's the Europeans were more technologically advanced than the New World peoples in one, specific way: they had far superior transportation. European sailboats were able to cross the Atlantic which meant that Europeans could get to the Americas but not vice versa. This ability incentivized Europeans to keep crossing the Atlantic, not just for conquest, but for economic development. This cannot be overstated. The Spanish Galleons that the conquistadors sailed in were a recent development and were state of the art.

[sankarchaya]

In the case of Mexico, one could add consideration of the poor diplomatic and political approach of the Aztec Empire. The fact that they relied on a tributary system and allowed their Tlaxcallan rivals to survive gave the Spanish plenty of allies - in that sense, it was more the Tlaxcallans who conquered Mexico with the Spanish help for Cortez. Had the Aztecs produced a unified state (perhaps the direction they were heading, but they weren't there yet), the Spanish would have faced a large and unified army with no allies. Even if the disease would have eventually facilitated their conquest, it would have taken much longer.

Worth also considering the survival of the rump Inca state for several decades after Cusco fell and the survival of some Mayan and Central American states for even longer in the deep jungle.

[El_Guapo]

Videos with this title have a 50/50 chance of being so racist it would make mein kampf look like a kids story. Happy to say it’s not

[mliittsc]

A key thing about the industrial revolution: while it provided a significant advantage in technology, e.g. better rifles, better cannons, steam engines, etc. what industrialization REALLY provided was a huge amount of technological goodies. Mass production was decisive in colonization, and later it was decisive in conflicts between the industrial powers.

[michaelmoorrees]

In the Americas, it wasn't just the natives in direct contact with the Europeans that suffered those diseases. There were existing native trade routes throughout the Americas. When the English reached New England, the indigenous population, there, already had declined greatly, from European diseases that worked their way up from Mexico.

[PP-dzgv]

Disease was a big part, but there were other factors, specifically the inter fighting among American natives and the willingness of the Spanish to absorb the native nobility into its own. The latter is a massively overlooked factor, when the Incan and Aztec royalties are still part of the Spanish nobility to this day.

[notchoome]

Thank you for the increase and perspective.

[SofaKingShit]

People used to sleep in barns so the crossover must have been pretty thorough over the centuries. I've had to huddle against my horse for warmth while lost in the forest and ended up clinging to him like a spider. The risk of him rolling on me during the brief periods of managing to get some sleep simply wasn't enough to dissuade me. Literally couldn't get closer. So I definitely comprehend the desire to huddle with animals when you're cold and hungry.

[ericclark]

Here is a big difference between the first period of colonialism and the second period of colonialism that isn’t pointed out. The first era was largely accidental on the part of European governments. These were largely true colonies, essentially similar to how the Greeks and Phoenicians settled the Mediterranean - essentially, scattered settlements. European governments largely outsourced the creation of these colonies to individuals or groups, and stepped on to control them once societies were created - sometimes to clean up a mess (like in India), sometimes to merely reap the benefits (like New Spain, the 13 colonies).
The second era was deliberate. It was empire building - it was genuinely imperialism. The European governments went out to conquer these lands with their own militaries. This era also was less permanent - in the former the residents are in societies that are evolved extensions of the colonial relationship, in the second instance, the indigenous people are the society. We can see this with Africa - it has been independent almost as long as the colonies existed there.
These misconceptions are created because we haven’t had time to intellectually digest this information. Mass decolonization only occurred 60-70 years ago, this being too close in time to develop an attempt at an honest assessment of what occurred.

[AugustVonpetersborg]

Don't forget that some of the technologies were social, creating the structure for relatively independent human beings to be stripped of their ability to survive without committing to the horid and short life of a contemporary urban factory worker without direct threat of physical violence from the state.

[greydomovoy]

I started watching your videos a few days ago and I've just been binging them in the evenings. Some of the best history content I've seen in terms of choice of topics and presentation!! Keep up the good work.

[is]

It's also worth noting that Europeans couldn't have colonized the interior of Africa before industrialization due to disease. The same way the natives of the Americas didn't have as deadly diseases, Europe didn't have as deadly diseases as Africa did. This is due to the tropical climate in sub-Saharan Africa, which was too infested with tropical diseases for the Europeans to control it. This relegated the Europeans to controlling small ports on the coast (Portugal is the most famous example), but Europeans still died in droves due to disease. It was only due to stable production of quinine, which allowed the Europeans due deal with malaria, that made the colonization of the interior of Africa possible.
Another thing worth noting is that the invention of the railroad was critical in the colonization of interior Africa since Africa has very few navigable rivers and horses died due to disease, which meant that there weren't any real alternatives for transportation until the railroad.
It should also be clear that Europe already had a technological advantage before the industrial revolution, much of the interior of sub saharan africa consisted of iron age societies. With industrialization, it wasn't just possible for Europe to colonize the continent, it was actually really easy.

[thomasdevine]

Let's remember that some areas of Asia were colonized earlier than the 19th century. Generally, areas of endemic warfare were easier to takeover. When small kingdoms with a lot of violent conflicts are temporarily exhausted, outsiders can step in and take control.

[orangecitrus]

you're such a better teacher than my socials teacher (he got fired after doing some nono thing to a student last year as well)

[mrvincefox]

Sir. I have never binge watched a channel, but channel is truly remarkable.

[husseinbergthesalafi]

the diseases was the gap that I had in my knowledge of history. and now suddenly every thing makes sense

[PlayerOblivion]

90% of the entire native South American population just gone is so hard to wrap ones head around. It's apocalyptic, a borderline extinction event.

[momojafar]

So the real question is how did the Europeans industrialize before everyone else?

[jlcdavenport]

Going from your Library of Alexandria video where you point out that major events that resonate through history did not generally come from one simple factor but from a complex web of incidences... to this one where the European conquest of the Americas, compared against Asia/Africa is answered entirely and almost wholly with "Disease" is some real whiplash.

Yes, obviously the diseases were a massive factor, but the technological advantage was enormous (if nothing else, it was why they were there instead of vice versa) and the industrial revolution only made it completely insurmountable.