The Origins of European Imperialism
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 08. 2022
- How Europe Dominated the Planet
Go to our sponsor betterhelp.com/JohnnyHarris for 10% off your first month of therapy with BetterHelp and get matched with a therapist who will listen and help.
Ep 2 and 3: • How Europe Stole The W...
Correction: 01:07 I characterize Europe as a “continent full of poor miserable farmers” and later go on to compare it to the “thriving” empires elsewhere. While it is indeed true that Europe in the 1400s was full of famine, plague, war, and general suffering, it’s inaccurate to say that Europeans were much worse off than people living in any other parts of the world. Especially if you look to Southern Europe where an explosion of art, science, and trade was taking place at this time. The accurate point would be to say that Europe had been relatively cut off from the world since the Ottoman Empire blocked them from historical trade routes. Europe was not deeply connected to global trade, which was mostly happening in the Indian Ocean regions at that time.
Correction: 04:50 see the correction from 01:07
Correction: 05:43 As noted earlier, Europeans had trade connections with the east. During this time they were cut off by the Ottoman Empire for the reasons I explain in the video
Correction: 07:21 While Portugal had gone out trading and exploring Western Africa first, I present it as if Portugal had made it to Asia before Spain decided to start exploring. This isn’t right. Columbus’ journey west (1492) happened a few years before Portugal’s first voyage that reached India (lead by Vasco da Gama in 1497).
Correction: 08:55 This little dramatization mischaracterizes what happened here. As many have pointed it out it feels like I’m asserting that Columbus “invented” imperialism in this moment. And indeed the way this is presented implies that. Columbus did NOT invent the idea of taking over land. In fact, a part of his contract with the royals was that he would take over any land he could while on this journey. The important point here is that Columbus set out to get in on trade in the east, but that the “discovery” of the America’s turned those efforts away from looking for new trade routes, to a full blown imperial project in the Americas. That’s the point I was trying ot make, but missed the mark in this overly dramatized moment.
Correction: 16:02 In addition “their weapons” and “their city germs” It would have been more accurate to mention a major tool for the conquerors which was the exploitation of local politics and alliances. The conquest of these huge swaths of land required Europeans to ally with and rely on local expertise and man power to colonize these territories.
The Library of Congress has a wonderful map collection which I used to get high res versions of a lot of these old maps. Thank you Library of Congress!
- ways to support -
My Patreon: / johnnyharris
Our custom Presets & LUTs: store.dftba.com/products/john...
- where to find me -
Instagram: / johnny.harris
Tiktok: / johnny.harris
Facebook: / johnnyharrisvox
Iz's (my wife’s) channel: / iz-harris
- how i make my videos -
Tom Fox makes my music, work with him here: tfbeats.com/
I make maps using this AE Plugin: aescripts.com/geolayers/?aff=77
All the gear I use: www.izharris.com/gear-guide
- my courses -
Learn a language: brighttrip.com/course/language/
Visual storytelling: www.brighttrip.com/courses/vi...
- about -
Johnny Harris is a filmmaker and journalist. He currently is based in Washington, DC, reporting on interesting trends and stories domestically and around the globe. Johnny's visual style blends motion graphics with cinematic videography to create content that explains complex issues in relatable ways. He holds a BA in international relations from Brigham Young University and an MA in international peace and conflict resolution from American University.
- press -
NYTimes: www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/op...
NYTimes: www.nytimes.com/video/opinion...
Vox Borders: • Inside Hong Kong’s cag...
Finding Founders: findingfounders.co/episodes/j...
NPR Planet Money: www.npr.org/transcripts/10721...
Just an addendum. When Portuguese came to Brasil, they saw an abundance of a tree along the coast which could be used to produce a bright red paint. Such plants weren't all that common in Europe, and so red paint was expensive and a sign of status. These plants were called "pau brasil", meaning "brasil wood", and "brasil" is a term that originated from French meaning "brazier". So "pau brasil" is a tree that can be used to produce something that looks like a "brazier". They were so excited that they could finally produce this expensive paint in abundance, that they named this land after the product they were after, calling it "Terra do Brasil", literally "Land of Brazil", which then was shortened to just "Brasil". This tree almost went extinct.
Wow thank you for sharing
And this is also why we call ourselves "brasileiros" (with -eiro) like a profession (sapateiro = shoemaker)
the first ones to be born here are to extract this wood.
@@johnnyharris oh my god he replies
@@alexwendt9570 Hey, you're correct, I have never noticed that. You don't say Brasiles or something like that, but Brasileiro. Interesting.
Hmm doesn't Brasil means paradise land?
There was places named Brasil before Brasil. Like in Azores islands.
The opening of the video is inaccurate, Europe had already been involved in the Silk Road trade routes, and had only been locked out in the 1400s by the ottomans, thus encouraging the search for other trade routes to the east
Europe was not a union then don't forget, they had no chance against a united ottoman empire.
It is not correct to say ''europe'' had been involved with the silk road, any more than it is to say that ''europe stole the world''
The idea that europe as a whole was involved in a an east west trade route
only makes sense if Europe was a united entity, and the last time that was true was under the romans nearly 1500 years before the events in the video. There definitely an was an established route then, but it died long before the ottomans even existed
The ottomans actually boosted trade east west by having large amounts of land under one single government. This enabled goods to pass much more easily, provided you could pay for it. So if anything, they actually boosted trade alot more than what it was, and they became rich. Naturally, the french english dutch spanish wanted a piece of the action so they had to try find their own route east.
It wasnt like there was a huge roman road put in 2000 years ago that the ottomans found and simply cut off and that starved Europe the way russia is doing today.
No. That was absolutely not the case.
@@pierzing.glint1sh76 the western Roman Empire collapsed ~450ad, so *nearly* 1000 years not 1500, and Ofcourse the Byzantine empire had lasted right up Untill the 1400s.
Why does Europe need to be a United entity to engage in Eastern trade? Does the production of traceable goods stop once a single central bureaucracy no longer commands it? The Silk Road was not a rod from the Roman Empire to China but a web of land and maritime trade routes with hundreds of individual states along the way, India had no problem trading while separated into dozens of states, why would Europe(besides losing access to these routes once the Ottoman Empire took control of the eastern Mediterranean)
The trade monopoly and gate keeping of the Ottoman empire and the Venetian republic basically kickstarted the exploration of the western coastal nation-states of Europe.
So basically it not even close to being as one sided as he said and remember the the pope back then sadly 😞 was easily persuade by money or things so his words did not represent the Christian/catholic view and the the reason why the Spanish did not like Jews was because of what the Jewish people believe in same thing for Muslims witch is understandable at that time
Ps: please don’t think of catholic people in a bad way by this video
@@gabrielking1247 The Byzantines were Roman and were referred to as such by their contemporaries. Their culture and legal systems were a continuation of Old Roman traditions in ways that their western counterpart was not. They are only a different state by our modern understanding of the word.
With all due respect: this is by far the topic you have covered that I am most familiar with, and the video is so plagued by historical errors that I am starting to wonder whether the things I learnt watching other videos from your channel were as accurate as I thought they were when I watched them.
i feel the exact same way!
my exact same thought process. made me rethink johnny's credibility
Arman Basurto you are right
Keep in mind that every country has their touch to the history they teach in schools.
@@BriedisLTU this is not about a touch... this is misinformation
My graduate class just used this video to power a conversation about the responsibility of content creators in creating accurate historical content. As an example of what NOT to do.
The Europeans at the time of Columbus didn't think the earth was small (based on the visual presented). The approximate circumference of the Earth had been known since Roman times and the prospect of traveling west was considered dangerous because you'd have to travel enormous distances to reach Asia that way. Columbus purportedly believed the earth was significantly smaller than the general consensus (based on no real evidence) and therefore traveling west would be viable.
No evidence made him discover new land and marked his name in history. Evidence is not everything
Did he believe the world was smaller than measured or that Asia was larger than reportered.
@@NA.NA.. Yep, i believe the consensus was something between 'asia is bigger than we think and/or it makes sense if some lands exist inbetween'
The no evidence part is debatable as it seemed some Portuguese fishermen had already crossed the Atlantic a few times and a rumor could've been already spreading.
@@saarthel8532 Even the amazigh used to call it the dark sea.
No one was recorded returning from their journey so only a few took the risk
Before Imperial age, Muslims also viewed themself as superior (hence 'Khairu Ummah'/The Best People) and drew map with Mecca in its center. Up to Opium War, Chinese was also viewed themself as superior and see their culture as the center of civilization (hence Zhong Guo or Central Kingdom). They also drew the map with them in its center.
So much story about human nature, tribalism, and superiority complex can be seen from a simple map.
Absolutely true ✅✅
Nature is good. Trying to change it is folly.
If only The Indians could do that we wouldn't have been looted, murdered and forcefully converted by the Mughals. Still we stood the test of time.
On point, on point.
@@anirudhthakur3453 What is also true is India's fascist far right proliferation - that even the Nazi's were proud of! In today's times no less.
0:54 "This isn't a history lesson" well at least you warned us... I hope you take all the negative response as constructive criticism, there's not much to had. You are by far my favourite journalist/documentarian in youtube. Your videos are top tier! Glad you corrected some inaccurate information in your video description. Just keep the research/fact checking on the same level as your editing and fight that urge to simplify/dumbify to make the subject more interesting (and inaccurate). And please add sources! Thank you for your work
how you rewrite history is almost as fun as real history
It is daunting how this video has almost 2mln views now but johnny harris refuses to remove it… given he’s admitted to being wrong in this video it’s now become just monetization on forthright misinformation, coming from the very person who proclaims himself a champion of evidence and facts! I’m truly disappointed.
colonizers do it er day
The accuracy of your comment is as low as the effort you put into it. I’m guessing your comment reflects on the value level of the commenter as well.
It’s hilarious when people like you try to act all high and superior by TAKING THE TIME TO WATCH AND COMMENT. JFC the cringe of how inept y’all are at this. 😂😂
@@jarry8150 behave yourself
@@jarry8150 What colonizers? The age of colonialism is over with my man.
Edit: I applaud the efforts Johnny is making to rectify the accuracy of his future video. I am impressed by his humility and understanding, a characteristic that is missing in much of today’s world. He is working with Jochem on his future videos to help him with his fact checking. I hope we can all appreciate this pursuit of truth. Thank you for listening Johnny!!
Truth about your race hurts, right?
He is a liberal wat do u expect
@@victorslyvester8977 I am a liberal and left wing and I still criticise him. Most of the commenters will probably be liberals criticising him. Liberals are not stupid. We want facts and truth as much.
@@victorslyvester8977 in fact he already took note and said that he wants to have better sources
@@benjaminmontenegro3423 "oops i got called out, time to apologize!"
The whole video is like a history lesson but for some reason it feels like its being told backwards. Like European explorers didn't actually decide suddenly to go east from land to start trading just to find out it was blocked. It was already a trade route going hundreds of years into the past that was suddenly cut off.
Hundreds no, thousands, The Roman Empire knew China existed and Alexander conquered everything between Greece and India.
Thats actually a really common misconception but it's completely wrong. The Silk Road trade route wasn't cut off by the Ottoman Empire, because it never ran through that area primarily in the first place.
Most trade from the East at this time came through Egypt, which had yet to be conquered, and still remained steady and equally lucrative after the fall of Constantinople. As for the trade coming through Ottoman territory, that wasn't cut off either, because the Ottomans had no incentive to "cut off" trade. That'd just be shooting themselves in the foot economically.
The truth is that the European exploration around Africa wasn't in response to being cut off, but rather it was an attempt to cut off the OTTOMANS.
This re-telling of history is simply a shoehorning of cherry picked facts into a pre-existing ideologically based narrative. He's started with a thesis and set out to prove it. He is a proper layman attempting a deeply academic area.
@@hormpir3648 that’s a lie, how can poor Europe cut off richer Ottoman Empire? They chose the African route, because the ottomans were powerful and they were not allowing the Europeans to pass through their empire to trade directly with the eastern kingdoms, in fact the ottomans want to be the middlemen... So the economy of Europe became stagnant because of the blockade of their trade route by the ottomans. So in order to survive, they have to opt for the African route.
Saying that by 1450 europe was poor and the rest of the world was rich is already a red flag signaling the whole video is bullshit. And those "european men" who drew the maps were spanish, portuguese and ottoman, the vast majority of europe did not participate in the age of discovery.
4:05
That sound when it zoomed out from the map and then said Ch.1 EXPLORATION
Was so on Point! Omgosh it just clicked so perfectly!!!! Awesome point of sound. This is what I do for a living with sounds and video and that tiny sound made the introduction so perfect!!!!!
The spyglass or binocular sound just made that intro! Along with the maps! Aahhh that was so perfect!!!
This used to be part one of a series, I hope you continue with this subject
1:05 - "a continent of poor miserable farmers"
I hear this a lot from people claiming Europe was a backwater (and that "only colonisation" made Europe rich and prosperous). Whilst this was true for the early part of the Middle Ages, due to frequent raids by Vikings, Steppe peoples, low population figures etc. (which devestated the region and were less than ideal circumstances for development) this isn't really correct (unless of course you apply modern standards, which would be a useless comparison, but then you're definitely right).
Since the High Middle Ages (starting 1000AD), (especially Western) Europe had actually been rapidly developing; population skyrocketed, new farming techniques were introduced (the "Ostsiedlung" being an example of early colonization; as well as the Crusades one of expanding influence; which in turn also brought knowledge to Europe), universities were introduced, architectural techniques improved... During the Renaissance (parts of) Europe would in fact become one of the most developed "regions" on the planet, much like the Middle East at that time.
Of course do note that Europe is a continent; some regions did better at certain period. For the High - Late Middle Ages this was mostly northern Italy, southern Germany, the Low Countries etc.
This is important as this is why Portuguese explorers decided to look for new trade routes to Asia/India; when the Ottomans/Muslim had taken control of trade routes previously used (mostly by Italian merchants from Venice etc.; hence their decline as the Ottomans taxed trade; hence also why the Pax Mongolica was such a prosperous period for Silk Route Trade).
You also claimed that the other empires along the Silk Route were already trading and had more valuable goods than Europe did. I'm sorry to say this; but that's almost outrageous as it completely defeats the purpose of trade. You can't trade if you don't have anything valuable to offer in return. Europe had been on the edge of the Silk Route since the time of the Romans and had participated in trade since then. The only issue it had was that it was relatively isolated meaning that it payed large amounts of taxes (as all countries added tax; so every country taxed a merchant passing through; by the time he arrived in Europe his goods were pretty expensive and this wasn't very "efficient" and it drained wealth - so exploration wasn't just fueled by curiousity, but also by well... money, I mean, it almost always is) and was highly dependent on "upstream" states (e.g. embargoes) - similarly, during the Roman period Silk Road trade financed the Persians, a major Roman enemy. Unlike the others which had easier access. If what you claimed was true; then trade with India wouldn't have made Portugal ridiculously rich; because what would they give the Indians if they had nothing to offer and were poor?
Now, the main question: what did Europeans export? Glass (beads, windows etc.), textiles (silk wasn't the only desirable textile; e.g. wool and linen), furs, animals, jewelry and metalworks, olive oil, (grape) wine, honey, walnuts, etc. and yes, even slaves were traded on the Silk Road.
So, instead of arguing Europe was poor; didn't trade on the Silk Road and had little (valuable) goods to trade; a more correct explanation would be that Europe was geopolitically isolated, payed exorbitant amounts of taxes to trade on the Silk Road and that European division caused states to look for ways to get any advantage they could over the other.
Also note that the discovery of new trade routes was horrible for some Silk Road countries such as the Ottoman Empire; as now they'd get less taxes.
Also, Europeans did have black peppers before the Portuguese arrived in India, as Europe did trade on the Silk Road before that. It's what brought Marco Polo to China and what made the Venetians and Genoans so rich (in fact, the Italians often held monopolies, which was another reason for the Portuguese to sail around Africa; so they could compete - European countries were constantly trying to get the edge over the other). The earliest records of black peppers in Europe date back to the Romans.
By the way; the high cost of trade (distance; taxes etc.) explains why goods like black peppers were so rare and valuable in Europe. The opposite was true for European goods in China. Also about silk, it was produced in Europe too, but in smaller quantities (Kos silk or Coa Vestis since 4th century BC, but Chinese silk became more popular; northern Italy, especially the Como region since 1000AD etc.)
As for the Amerindians not having armies and making no resistance: what?
And Europeans did (not always, but often) still trade with Amerindians too - and interestingly, initially also often guided peace negotiations between different tribes. Although you are definitely correct about Columbus laying the fundaments of imperialism with his treatment of the Taino people.
I really liked the maps though. I think that generally speaking you gave a pretty good representation of what happened. I'm certainly curious for the next two videos. Sorry if I used a lot of brackets, but I think this comment would've been even bigger if I didn't.
This is by far the Best comment under this video. I don’t understand why he left crucial points like these out of this video and opted for a much more judgemental approach instead of a well-researched factual one.
It doesn't change the points you're making, which I agree with, but "you can't trade if you don't have anything valuable to offer in return" isn't _quite_ right, unless you torture the definition of "valuable" to fit: a _comparative_ advantage is enough.
Thank you for taking your time to write this comment! Am wondering, where did you learn all of this? (feel free to share sources if you have time 😄)
Really good points!
Really awesome comment!
The fall of Constantinople was one of the major reasons for all the other stuff that happened later on as what was once the most significant trade route is now under Ottoman control
The is was important indeed. The excape route for Europe would happen through the "empty" western side, by boats.
Exactly, and after that only Venice had the right to trade with the East, and that made them even richer
True but the portuguese started their african and atlantic explorations before 1453, so there were already sparks of the idea before that, however I do get that even before 1453 Constantinople was so small and surrounded by ottomans suffering constant attacks that they no longer had any significant grip on the trade, so you could still say that might have influenced the portuguese to try to get in on the trade themselves even if they started before they got the news of constantinople's demise.
Constantinople, which was ruled by Christians, was so corrupt that it had to be "conquered". And after the Ottomans the local people got a better life under the Muslims than before. It's funny that you see this conquest as a reason for all these events, is it also the result of the Europeans continuing colonialism today? Or is it all the result of their greed?
I feel as thoughr the fall of constantinople doesn't really affect the european expansion westward
The portugese were battling the mamelukes in the arabian sea ling before the byzantines fell
Also the orthodox catholic schism was seen just as deadly as the religious wars between Islam and christianity
So the fall if the eastern Roman's didnt leave as much of an impact except for maybe some extra trade deals with the venetians and the genoese losing their influence in the black sea
I always get excited when you bring out the maps!
This is just basic highschool history with cool transitions, spooky music and incorrect facts
Why represent half of Spain in the map? By 1492, when Colombus sailed to America (he didn't land on Cuba by the way) the South Islamic kingdom of Granada was already conquered. And if you want to represent the two main kingdoms of Castilla and Aragon as separate entities and not yet united in a single country, then don't assign the name of Spain to the kingdom of Castilla, who was by the way ruled by a queen, Isabel I, not a king as you say in the video.
@@diegoborrajo1323 me sangraban los ojos cuando vi el vídeo. Sabe tanto de historia como mi hamster
I can totally imagine Johnny having a drawer full of world maps from every era
more like a whole basement full of them. One drawer is definitely not enough for Johnny
allah hu akbar earth is flat
I bet he also has a separate folder on his drive with all those maps scanned, so he can animate them in After Effects :D
And a script that says "LDS will whack me if I don't say 'like' at every point with changing camera in my videos". That said I love Johnny
@@lastchang1061 Allah ahckbar! Dirka dirka! Muhammad jihad! Jihad jihad! Dirka dirka Muhammad jihad! Dirka dirka?
Johnny my friend, cool video, but I must disagree in one part. Christopher Columbus sailed from Spain very much aware, and having orders in hand, to take possession of newly discovered lands, to be its governor and viceroy. With this idea in mind he arrived into the Caribbean islands. It is not like he was looking just for trade and then had a change of heart. These prerogatives and orders are contained within the Capitulaciones de Santa Fe, a document subscribe by the Spanish Crown before the first journey, on April 1492. Regards
but his target was asia
Totally true. I dramatized the Columbus “realization” as a device/symbol to hint toward this broader paradigm shift away from trade and toward a full imperial project.
@@johnnyharris Bad faith.
@@johnnyharris but the motivation for imperialism, was trade and religion so there was no paradigm shift whatsoever considering imperialism had been a thing for 1000s of years already.
@@frankie5373 At least he admitted to his mistake, and learnt from it, not everyone can be 100% perfect
Johnny I'm eagerly waiting on the next episode! Ur the man brotha! Keep putting up content!
Amazing. Excellent content as always thank you John
I think others have mentioned this but this video just seems far too reductive for the purpose of constructing a simple narrative. The idea that Christopher Columbus went to Cuba and then just invented colonialism on his own while none of his crew agreed is wild. The agreement he reached with the Spanish crown before the voyage was that they would take over the land and he would be rewarded with being Viceroy and Governor of the land. Also Portugal didn't enter the Indian Ocean via the South African route until after Columbus' voyage, rather they first travelled overland routes through the middle east to India and Ethiopia. These routes notably passed through the Ottoman Empire which in the video you say didn't occur as it was refused.
There's probably way more stuff that it makes it hard to draw out conclusions. I think portraying it all as some big plan as well is a bit disingenuous, to me the arguably scarier aspect of imperialism is that it emerged through shifts in the economy not through the nefarious plans of a few bad guys. Your videos look better than any other videos essayist just please for the love of god do a little bit of factchecking.
This! And bypassing all the events that happened around the Mediterranean north-east.
Great point. This narrative is a bit like the Disney film Pocahontas where all the colonialists were nice people apart from the 'evil' captain and once he was stopped all the English people happily sailed home.
I love when Johnny does a video does a video about the USA, people are like: "Hell yeah! This is so accurate! Screw the USA!"
But when it's a video not about the USA it suddenly becomes all about defending and deflecting about the subject in the video. Very interesting and hypocritical human behavior. It makes me wonder how many lies about the USA exist simply because people don't care about the truth. They only want to demonize.
@@chaosXP3RT it's not about defending at all. His information is just plain wrong. I think it's important that more people are educated and informed about the horrors and legacy of colonialism. This video to me does not provide helpful insight into it because it neglects key facts of the period. It studies the area of Europe in extreme isolation removed from the geopolitical context. It treats Europe as if it acts in any unified fashion. Idk why it makes someone hypocritical to point out that he got several facts wrong here and it weakens the claims of his argument. To be clear I agree with the basic through line of the video that colonialism and imperialism were systems of untold oppression and exploitation that ruined untold numbers of lives perpetrated by European states. It should be recognised that it has had a profoundly negative affect on my countries at the benefit of European nations. If your gonna express that though, get your facts about it right. It really doesn't take much effort to check this stuff, especially the Columbus ones that are just plain silly.
I really enjoyed his videos but I feel like they've taken a turn more recently... the constant drumming of "old white men", "white men", "men" and then add "christian" now and again feel like I'm watching a segment from the MSM.
Adjustment: Western Europe. The Eastern part of the continent was so busy in a battle royale for continental land that one participant still thinks it is going on...
The fact that one participant still thinks it is going on proves that it is.
Disagree lol Russia definitely colonized East Asia
@@Student0Toucher lol you know ruzzia is noto the only country in Eastern Europe right ¿ Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia…
@@keanureevesspeed7602 Lithuina and Latvia are in Northern Europe, not Eastern.
@@keanureevesspeed7602 Russia is the only troublemaker.
To sum up this video, is Johnny unwrapping map sheets on a table in cool style with "no one making any resistance".
I just wanna thank you Johnny Harris for making topics like this SUPER-INTERESTING to watch/learn about. I'm almost always hooked from beginning to end on JH video... even during sponsor reads!
as a Brazilian, one thing we learn is that the Portuguese were expert navigators, when they drew up the treaty of tordesilhas, despite never seeing the "new world" before in their lives, they already knew there had to be land, at some distance, over there, so much so that they refused the initial proposal by Spain and demanded one with more nautical miles west so that they could be sure there would be land for them. From what I understand, they knew this because the current in Africa flows upwards from South to the North, so they figured that there must be something, in the other side of the ocean, where the current is stopped and forced to go from North to the South, and they pretty much used that information with the size of the current to figure out how far away it was, and make sure how far away they had to demand to get land, that's why the first Portuguese expedition that found land in 1500 was dead on, and why their trajectory looked like they just did a pit stop on their way to India
That's very interesting.
It's curious because we are taught that the Portuguese initially meant to use the currents cirulating south from the equator to quicker get around the Cape of Good Hope in south Africa, but being taken further west by the current which led to them finding a mass of land there.
Este vídeo está cheio de erros esquece 😅
@@witthyhumpleton3514 they passed close to Brazil before the treaty being settled , so they had an idea that there was land to that side
Most likely Brasil was already physically known at that time, but kept top secret by the Portuguese crown for strategic reasons
A well produced video absolutely full to the brim of historical innacuracies and ignorance, far too invested in telling a good story and not placing the focus on the historical context regarding the events depicted in this video. The idea that europe pre-colonization was a shithole compared to other civilizations of it's time did give me a chuckle though 🤣
@@charliemilroy6497 Europeans did not have superior armies in the 1400’s to 1600’s. I’ll grant that they had superior navies due to the fact that many Europeans drew power from their navy. If I was to say the best army would likely not go to Europe but the Turks. Given that the Turks were essentially undefeated until lepanto. Which was a naval battle anyway.
@@JohnDoe-nf6yk The Turks were quite literally defeated by the Venetian‘s in Naval combat they were actually pretty bad when assessing how to make a navy because they’ve been horse warrior nomads throughout the entirety of their existence much of which they copied from the Byzantine navy and brought many janisaries to lead their fleets like Hayreddin Barbaros .
@@madflaka4087 I acknowledged that they were inferior in navy please read my message fully next time. The truth is the ottomans were functionally undefeated in any major land battle for a very long time against europeans
cope brazilian
@@Yellow.1844 I’m not Brazilian
It seems like you have found the perfect topic for you, the time when world maps were actually drawn out! Love your content. Can you tell us the books that you referred for this topic
Love the simplicity of your vids. Respect from Zimbabwe
I've always watched your videos with interests but this one is a complete mistake. It's absolutely biased and yes completely oversimplified, and honestly wrong.
You are looking at 15th century events and history using the 21st century perspective - and that is clear when you clearly say that the Portuguese and the Spanish "grabbed a bunch of territory", calling them "white and catholic people VS non white and non catholic" or when you say that the Portuguese depicted the "Brazilian" (that didn't even existed at the time because they were a variety of tribes and chiefdoms - Brazil only became Brazil after the Portuguese colonization) as the "people that kept on cutting trees".
You should read and study history better. If you want to look at maps at least get the context of how they were made first, so that you can get the full picture and not just a gimplse of how it looks for a 2022 "woke" guy.
A lot of his videos about foreign countries, especially distant ones, are like this, at least in the sense that they are made from a modern, biased Western-centric point of view (unavoidable to an extent) and are extremely oversimplified. I am saying this on my part with refernece to his videos about Ukraine and as someone who is from Eastern Europe, has studied history, and speaks Russian. The issues he presents are far more complex and obviously you need to make compromises for the sake of time management, but some of the points are just distorted and even naive, and don't properly get into the hows and whys. That in itself isn't necessarily a problem, but I feel like a lot of people in his audience take everything he says way too literally and thus have a completely wrong understanding of the problem when it comes to anything that goes beyond surface-level knowledge. Especially considering this is meant as a channel to supposedly properly educate people on these issues.
you literally took the words out of my mouth! btw I came looking for your comment because some other dude made a video criticizing Johnny. He showed your comment in his video but he wasn’t so harsh on him even though everything you said is true. Judging from the whole channel Vox where he makes some videos, you can already know what his approach will be when narrating history; it’s completely biased and inaccurate.
Indeed. It’s sold in this video like the tribes in the region that later would become Brazil were purely magic, living in harmony. If that was the case Portuguese, Spanish, French, Dutch, none of them would be able to ally themselves to tribes to be able to explore or have support against their enemies.
Pretty sure the trade route East existed for a long time already (as in the Roman times already).
But it was 'suddenly' cut off (Ottoman Empire) so the Europeans decided to find another route to the East. Not like they suddenly had an itch to go East and trade as if they never did it before.
Also Europe wasn't just a bunch of only poor farmers before...
The idea that europe as a whole was involved in a an east west trade route
only makes sense if Europe was a united entity, and the last time that was true was under the romans nearly 1500 years before the events in the video. There definitely an was an established route then, but it died long before the ottomans even existed.
Europe wasn't poor but it was utterly disunited and certainly not very strong at the time, and there was no pan European connection to the silk road that the ottomans ''suddenly'' put their foot on.
The ottomans actually would have boosted trade east west by having large amounts of land under one single government. This enabled goods to pass much more easily, provided you could pay for it. So if anything, they actually boosted trade a-lot more than what it was, and they became rich. Naturally, the French English Dutch Spanish wanted a piece of the action so they had to try find their own route east.
It wasn't an itch but it was something they could only do after the kingdoms of Spain united into one country.
It wasn't like there was a huge roman road put in 2000 years ago that the ottomans found and simply cut off and that starved Europe the way russia is doing today.
No. That was absolutely not the case.
czcams.com/video/pAeoJVXrZo4/video.html&ab_channel=ThePresentPast
@@fkilsdonk Exactly, Europeans were already very skilled sailors and trade between the Mediterranean was not rare in any sense… The fact these skills were then translated for travel around Africa or to the New World was not revolutionary, just new…
@@pierzing.glint1sh76 that’s a lie, how can poor Europe cut off richer Ottoman Empire? They chose the African route, because the ottomans were powerful and they were not allowing the Europeans to pass through their empire to trade directly with the eastern kingdoms, in fact the ottomans want to be the middlemen... So the economy of Europe became stagnant because of the blockade of their trade route by the ottomans. So in order to survive, they have to opt for the African route
Yes, us poor farmers were building beautiful castles and gothic cathedrals with no money and no skills and no education or scholars. There was no such thing as the Renaissance and we were living in mud huts on farming fields!! /Sarcasm obviously
I love it when Johnny gets the maps out
Just like to say that it's been awhile since I've come across such an engaging storyteller as yourself. I'm looking forward to many hours of watching your channel. Cheers
is all FAKE !! ha ha haaaa
Europe was far form a poor civilization in the 1300s. By the 1100s Europe was already experiencing its 12th century renaissance. It was already the most influential and important part of the world by that time for the first time after the Roman Empire fell.
I generally like this channel but I really don't understand the motivation behind this video. What is to be gained by deliberately ignoring all context? Thanks to all the brilliant comments that help show what the real story is.
Which context was ignored?
It's to spark discussion. Without the video you wouldn't see those comments. And if video tried to include all the context, it would be hours long.
Basically, he made a chauvinistic video on China, and he's attempting (and failing) to make up for that by presenting a story where Europe is the bad guy. Thats where the "guys who look like me" and the beanie come from. He just wants to seem woke.
The title of the video is, "How Europe Stole the World", NOT "Why Europe Stole the World"
@@MegaKiri11 i
I'm Portuguese and we study these things in school for multiple years in History class. I found this video overly simplistic to the point of being misleading and kind of just wrong. Europe was a place of poor farmers and so they had to go explore? The ones who decided to explore the world were the kings and nobles. And to say the people they conquered didn't have armies or very few and didn't resist is plain wrong, so many indigenous were killed in these crusades...
Look man it doesn't fit his narrative, so don't bring it up.
Not to mention perpetuating the myths about the Middle Ages all of them actual historians spent decades at this point trying to combat.
Johnny didn’t say that people didn’t resist, Columbus did. I believe he was using simplistic language to best explain what must have been a somewhat complex situation, where we can only assume intent based off the words of people long dead. Most history books do this. That doesn’t make the history “wrong.”
Be proud of your Portuguese heritage, your power can come back if you embrace imperialism.
Portugal is actually really special when it comes to colonization, de-colonization, and the teaching of these things. An exceptionally cool linguist professor from Coimbra taught us about Damman, Diu, Goa, Guinea-Bissau, etc. and among/within this teaching was interviews with anti-colonial revolutionaries. My ethnicity is mostly all Irish, and I told the professor that anti-colonial Irish revolutionaries mostly probably wouldn’t be on camera speaking on what’s happened and what they may or may not have done. So, he then explained about the 1974 Carnation Revolution… This is something REALLY worth learning about…
Great video man. I love it. Keep up the good work. 🙋🏾♂️
I love the fact that Europeans got real mad in the comments because he called them poor farmers lmao
Well everyone was a poor farmer back then...but not whole of Europe was like that
I would say being defeated by a handful of illiterate serfs who sailed half a planet away to your home turf is more embarrassing than being called "poor farmers".
I mean if i called your Civilitation and People poor farmers you would get mád too.
True lol
That’s not the problem, the problem is every civilization with powerful military has colonized other areas, no one ever stole land, it is impossible to do that, you can only conquer land... Europe was invaded and colonized plenty of times too. But you need to know a bit of history to understand that.
This whole channel is a clear example of why good animations have nothing to do with proper content and true information
yeah he leaves out a lot lol. He ain't a historain after all.
Video looks neat and clean, but his brain is smooth as butter.
Ya I like some of his videos but his anti white agenda is so obvious.
Video’s like this showcase why the dislike button is dearly missed.
@@willemvanoranje5724 then he shouldn’t talk history like he knows shit
Ok so I am really into history and there are some pointers right of the bat that you missed out on or didn't explained correctly. First off, everyone and every country in Europe weren't just poor people. In Italy there were a los of wealthy individuals who controlled most of the banks in Europe at the time, and European countries did made a lot of trade with Africa, the Middle East and all the way to India. One of the main factors that pushed Europe to find an alternate route to India was the fall of Constantinople to the ottoman empire on May 29th 1453, which was the fall of the byzantine empire
Search . ' America . A century of coup , revolution & invasion '
I saw a lot of comments saying to not generalize europe, completely ignorin the situation in Iberia. Being Portugal the starter at 1387, whit war, famine, destruction of infraestructure.
In 1415 Portugal conquered Ceuta, a city in north western africa were a trade route passed, also a good place for farming. Under Lusitaniam control the muslims changed the trade routes, and constantly attacked the city. Leaving no room to farm out side of the walls. Conquering the source of importamt materials was important.
Otoman empire wasnt the only midle east empire there were also the Mamlucks.
The statmente "muhh, europe went to india because Constantinopla fell" is wrong.
Countries have their own expansional ideas, the blockade simply rose the cost of spices.
And later a change of distributer of goods instead of Venice was Lisbon and by last the other european nations goals of conquest and also to keep up whit the rivalerys
Awesome content love your work
Maby if you have time look into the Dardans/illirans
Hey Johnny, where do u find or get access to such kinds of maps? I can look over maps for hours, & I’m not ashamed to say… I kinda like to! Lol, I’m genuinely curious!
Referring to Europe as a whole is a little misleading and vague in this context. A bit lazy if you ask me.
_“How _*_Western_*_ Europe Stole the world”_
- would’ve been a more accurate and fitting title in this regard - especially when referring to the seafaring, costal nations bordering the Atlantic - of obvious geographical reasons. We’re talking about one region of Europe, not the entire continent. Central+ most of Eastern Europe had little to no colonial endeavors nor history of African slavery. Talking about generalizing for sake of clickbait.
Very true. But Eastern Europe is garbage and more racist than anyone. Portugal is a great place, one of the most accepting and liberal countries on earth.
Exactly, think about Czechia, Hungary or Poland
But Chi Na is worse. They are doing this horrible things today while European done it thousands years ago
@@maciekgaa5215 I was once having this talk with a Nigerian dude that was generally falling just short of the opinion that every white european should be hanged for fhe colonialist period. With my country, Bulgaria,itself under Ottoman occupation at the time, I was trying to explain this is too simplistic and innacurate. What I found unsettling is that he doubled down on it lumping all these countries together anyways because he sees them joining the EU as a sign they also supported this past (and the EU just doing the same to the world now). Some really messed up views exist out there, I guess. Depending on who has the stage.
Exactly and thats even the reason why Central Europeans dont get things like BLM and so on. Since they never in the history had oppressed anyone and they aren't responsible for how white people treated slaves from Africa. Like, how are Austrians or Czechs linked to slavery? When actually regular people were slaves to the ruling elites.
"I mean I'm taking some creative liberty here" - understatement of the year dude! Much of this video is you taking creative liberty. Still a fan of the graphics & visuals ngl
OMG HIKMA HISTORY ITS YOUUUUUU. we need to get you more likes so you get more recognition.
Next episode please. I love your videos, but the suspense for the next episode in this series is killing me 😁
Anxiously waiting for more parts on this
8:24 The first island Christopher Columbus arrived in 1492 wasn't Cuba. It was actually "La Española", the current Dominican Republic and Haití.
John was not talking about the first island that Columbus went to, he was talking about Cuba in general. Columbus actually "visited" on his first voyage.
It gives a general idea. I guess every American knows about Cuba but try to ask anyone what is the name of the island where Haiti and the Dominican Republic are.
Johnny got ALOT of things wrong this video. ALOT. The Ottomans were also Europeans (Islamic yes, but still many Christians). This has been one of the most disappointing videos I’ve seen from him.
@@GabGotti3 he did say at the start that this was going to be him generalising, so obviously that means that there won't be details
he didn't say it was the first island
I’ll preface by saying I usually like your videos, but this video in my opinion has some cataclysmic errors. The context you prefix European expansion is just plain wrong. Trade between Europe and Asia was commonplace for millennia so stating that Spain and Portugal tried to find a land route to Asia is nonsensical. European powers were virtually cut off from the spice trade due to the ottoman empires expansion in the Middle East cutting the preexisting land route to Asia, leading the Portuguese to pioneer the cape route to the Indian Ocean sphere of trade.
The statement that European’s were simply poor peasants compared the wealthy empires in the east is also incredibly reductive and is founded in an old fashioned misconception. This may be true for some parts of euopre in particular England. But areas like italy were going through the Renaissance and cities like Venice were flourishing due to trade with Asia. This misconception is mainly due to Europeans not having trade goods which other parts of the world desired and is the only proof you use to justify your point. We’ve only just started the video at this point.
The title matter of ‘How’ Europe stole the world isn’t really dealt with in an engaging or direct way. The Essence being Europe rocked up place, saw no resistance and claimed it. This is an incredibly reductive way of describing what happened. There is no attention paid to the actual how. For instance, just as an example, the Spanish targeted the large preexisting empires in the Americas (the Inca and the Actec empires) removed their monarchy and installed themselves into the already existing power structures allowing rapid growth in the Americas. This small tidbit is reductive but provides more of insight into a method of which the Spanish used to conquer much of the America’s in such a small amount of time.
I just feel not enough attention is paid to the actual history of this period and I’m just hearing a generalised and often stereotyped overview of what happened in this period. I encourage anyone who reads this comment to do some research into this topic it is genuinely really interesting (potentially my favourite in all of history) and come to their own conclusions as there are many different interpretations of events. Do not take everything said in this video as gospel as their are numerous inaccuracies and it’s narrative is incredibly reductive. I’m certain if you do do research you’d have a more nuanced view in regards to this matter.
Keep creating Johnny, love the videos, just think this one is a bit of a miss.
What do you mean in particular England? With the exception of Italy, England was no poorer than anywhere else in Europe, quite the opposite in fact. Just because there’s a big focus on English medieval history a lot of the time, with peasants and kings, doesn’t mean they were poorer than the rest of Europe or the world. That’s how all societies were set up…
Found interesting your response and totally agree with it, the approach to the history is too reductive. I love Johnny's videos but I feel this topic needs to be explained more deeply, so I hope the next videos will do so.
@@matthowells6382 England was quite poor compared to Flanders for example, were they sailed to to get bricks. They were pretty experienced at warfare, also naval, but as an economic power they only got big in and towards the 18th century. Most societies were feudal but England was not early with change.
@@DenUitvreter I agree, I’m not saying that England was especially wealthy throughout its earlier history, but it shouldn’t be singled out as particularly poor either
It’s a 17 minute video on CZcams-of course it’s going to be reductive. It’s also the first of three parts, so hopefully he will cover more of the details of “how” Europeans conquered much of the world.
The best use of a video like this is to have a class of history students spot inaccuracies, exaggerations, improper usage of definitions and other flaws.
European history is somewhat discomforting to learn especially if you are from there. They did lots of evil things towards others out of pure selfishness and power grab. The world is still in misery because of this, it will take multiple generations to slowly fade away. The world is always in dynamic in terms of power, and there will be a time that these countries will pay the price. These are the laws of the universe. What goes around comes around.
As a nerd of Google Maps, where I spent significant amount of time just scrolling through maps and looking at specific countries’ street-level views, it’s just really exciting to see Maps from a very historical perspective, with how it tells us stories about it just by a simple look. Can’t wait for the next episodes !
I am a chad of Google maps
allah hu akbar earth is flat.
Man, I feel you
Looking at google maps is literally one of my favourite hobbies
GeoGuessr is the perfect game for you then 😆
I want to pretext this short comment by stating that I appreciate both the educational potential and holistic approach to the project you’re undertaking here Johnny. However, I do feel the way you present the world in 1450 is rather black and white. I understand time constraints and that there is only so much you can do within the bounds of this video but as an archaeologist and historian I feel that the characterisation of Europe as excessively poor and the ‘oriental despots’ as excessively wealthy botches the relative parity in wealth between almost all peasants in major eurasian states. This narrative of ‘Europe Aggressors, Everybody Victims’ presents to me a past in which the rest of the world becomes a passive backdrop to European colonialism. That being said I’m a massive fan of your work and absolutely love you’re style of video - much love x
(edit)
Going forward I think it would be constructive to perhaps add a short reading list in the description for those who want to peruse the topic further. For example this video could recommend Guns, Germs and Steel, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers or for a lighter read The New Silk Roads.
Also didn’t like the Vikings and Pirates of Scandinavia set foot on the “new world”. To edit when Cristopher Columbus set foot on Cuba he didn’t start trading he raided and pillaged the land
Thank you for the civil and constructive dissent on the framing here. An important point of context and critique. Totally well received as I continue to plot the course of making digestible and accessible history with a few main takeaways in mind.
@@johnnyharris Sensible response to a sensible critique. This gives me hope.
I agree with you. It's a very interesting video and I enjoyed watching it and seeing the old maps, but I want to add two more points. First, the video makes it seem like claiming territory was a novel thing for European colonial empires (showing it here as Columbus's lightbulb moment), when claiming territory had formed the basis of all prior empires. Whether it was Spain and Portugal, or any other Eurasian empire that came to America first, like the Ming or Ottomans, there's no reason not to assume that they wouldn't have claimed territory all the same, as empires had done throughout history.
Second, of all the terrible things Europeans did in their colonies, the thing that arguably did the most damage in the Americas, the spread of disease, was mostly unintentional and would have likely caused just as much damage regardless of which Eurasian civilization first began sustained contact with the Americas as long as it was pre-vaccination. No matter how well meaning that civilization may have been. The video refers to disease as part of the massacres. But a massacre assumes intentional spread, while the diseases mostly spread as diseases normally do without intent (although intentional spread may have occurred in certain instances).
@@darkstarry8879 well, the British did exactly the same. Search about Bengal famine and the response from British leaders when people of India asked for food which were cultivated in their own land. That was a massacre.
Greetings from a big fan from South Africa 🇿🇦.
I was amazed by those maps depicting the division between Portugal and Spanish territories. The details and illustrations are amazing.
I'd like to see an episode on your map collection and the stories about them, how you got them, which are your favorite and possibly which episodes they assisted you in your research.
Love your Chanel 🌟
I love your map collection and that amazing drawer.
Since you wholeheartedly already acknowledged and accepted that this video made huge mistakes, i believe you should make a follow-up video addressing and creating a more informative on the mistakes. It should be a responsibility for educational/history CZcamsr for their audience..
He should take this down and completely redo it. Leaving it up just gives the algorithm a chance to misinform people and build even more mistrust of liberal narratives in media
honestly he might as well just redo it at this point lmao
Where did admit that he made mistakes on this video? Haven't found anything on that on his social networks.
@@markdowding5737 there was another video from another history CZcamsr who pointed out all the mistakes in this video. Johnny posted on that video acknowledging the mistake and that it was a wake-up call for him or something.
@@01Ichirei10 looks like he has since deleted that comment. I don't think he's going to change or reconsider his stance, I really hope he does.
The lines that split the world is called the "Treaty of Tordesillas". It was actually to divide the world between the East and the West, whereas the Spain would get the West and Portugal would get the East. Essentially, it was a gamble and a distraction on behalf of Portugal to keep Spain out of the Eastern trade. Also, the "East" side was smaller than the initial draft. The portuguese bartered to draw a line further outwards because they suspected that there was land somewhere further in between (Brazil).
Yes, that was the original line in the Americas. The second one is the treaty of Zaragoza. They basically just ignored the lines for Brazil and the Philippines though
*I have a Portuguese coin that commemorates the "Treaty of Tordesillas."*
Alright, you talk two straight video about China and the UE, now can we have a video about why the US is so damn big?
European rivalry and competition between them, for me, that was the biggest force for their global colonization
Eagerly waiting for the next part of the series
As constructive feedback, I think your videos in the past were better researched, in some cases showing both sides of a story (borders is a good exampe of that, that was good journalism), but recently I noticed that the videos are becoming a bit one sided, following one narrative, in this specific case oversimplifying, with some subjectively (!) more editing than necessary. Reassessing the direction in the videos regarding the way the otherwise interesting content is presented would be great! Cheers
As a history teacher, I wanted to argue with Johnny when he said - “This isn’t a history lesson. You won’t hear my talk a lot about names and dates…I want to show you how it happened…how Europe took over the entire world” and in the process enriched itself.
So it is a history lesson! Exact names and dates discourage many from embracing history and are enforced mostly for testing.
This is an interesting take as I love history but constantly get C's because I can't memorise dates nor names. It is sad as it has scared me off from becoming a history teacher but at least I keep my passion for these interesting stories of the past!
I think if this way of teaching history had been used when I was a kid in school, I might have actually learned something other than "in 1492, columbus discovered america".
@@cold_servo_pie this comment is either getting ratio’d by someone, or will age well
It's just a preface so when he inevitably gets pushback from the public for having unresearched content or outright incorrect info he can fall bavk and say its not mewnt to be a history lesson.
@@nagybecsarnai8502 This is day one of history teacher school! I always loved history as well, I got good grades in history class (because I can play school well), but the classes were not my favorite until i majored in history. I
hope you know that school did you wrong, not you history class.
Great work! I really love your channel!!
Totally awaiting for the next part
" poor miserable farmers" ? Really that is the best lead in punch line you could get from your writers.
Also he never mentioned that some of those farmers were serfs of their lords. Also how the land was not very fertile to plant much includingthat right around the 14,000s there was a hot period where they were in a drought.
@@willkimball7677 true. Europe didn't get to experience the same multiplier effect that China and India did until the industrial revolution came along and changed everything.
And here you are commenting boosting the algo. Seems like clever writing.
I wish you went into more detail as to what changed. Why did they suddenly try to go east. The fall of Constantinople is why, and the closing of trade that followed.
I don’t think he can. Amazing maps, but there are so many misconception and oversimplification that makes this video awfully miss leading.
Also marco polo adventures to why the west was captivated by the east
I wish you guys did not steal, pillage, and enslave us.
He did mention the Ottoman Empire controlling Asia Minor as a problem for trade.
Useful point. The Ottoman Empire played a massive role in the blockage of trade between Europe and the orient. One of their objectives was conquering Europe (which they tried for centuries and nearly took Vienna) and one of the ways they did that was by blocking trade to the east. They were a formidable empire that the European countries couldn’t overdone until the empire fell into decrepitude later on and collapsed in the 20th century but the state of play was wildly different by that point.
looking forward for the next episodes :)
This guy is so good at rolling maps
9:00 claiming land for the Kingdom of Spain was not Columbus' idea after he found new Territories... It was already stipulated in his contract before he left Spain. _(As well as receiving the title of "vice king" of all the conquered territories)_ he was pretty stubborn and it took months to negotiate the contract.
Yes he didn’t literally say “change of plans boys” etc. This little present anecdote was meant to symbolize the fact that the mission set out for different purposes and was then pivoted.
@@johnnyharris But the mission was not set out for different purposes. It was meant to open trade routes AND make the locals convert to christianity under the protection of the Catholic Rulers (Isabel and Ferdinand of Castille and Aragon respectively), thus making it a kind of a colony in today's terms.
@@chrissakellaridis9417 it's a Johnny Harris Video what do you expect? It's beautiful and overly dramatic and a bit too shallow ...
Just to make something clear, while Virrey was indeed the title, it's meaning would be closer to 'Governor of Area' rather than anything royal.
@@franciscobarragancastro4348 please , super interesting
Cuba may have had few armies, but this is not the case for the rest of the Americas and any such claim seriously undermines both the arguments as well as the credit native civilisations deserve. Spain didn't take over the Americas because they just 'claimed' the land (outside the Caribbean), rather the Spanish united against the incumbent Empires (Incas and Aztecs) who had massive governmental structures to actually take over and use for state-building. They did this not through military superiority, but through unity with natives opposed to the Aztec and Inca Empires. Brazil as a state had no predecessor, and this is why Brazil took a lot longer to actually become a united dominion which Portugal could administer (and hence the 'primitive' natives on the map you pointed out). Taking over and claiming land which does not already have a functioning administration is a nightmare, and the Spanish did not have the resources to do this, at least not in the space of time in which they established their empires. It was much easier to cut the snake's head off and take over the body. Claiming the Americas were just 'unclaimed land' is a seriously poor understanding of pre-Columbian America; the Spanish certainly did not see it as such. It was the case only in the Caribbean, Brazil and the parts of North America the England would colonise, which I guess shapes a lot of our preconceptions about the Columbian age. For Spain it was very different, their colonial efforts were much more shaped by military conflict and opportunism (the kings in Spain did not expect Cortes or Pizaru to succeed in defeating two empires, they didn't even know they were trying!)
Similar how America funds rebel forces when they want to overthrow a government. Same playbook
@@analyticalmindset It is by far and away the easiest way to conquer a country, yes! Requires far less resources
Great comment! I think this video lacked so much depth on the process of actually taking over the American territories.
It was this governmental structure that has formed Mexican culture, especially when you compare people from the North to the South of the country. Kraut did a fantastic CZcams series on the topic and it's well worth a watch if you haven't already.
@@tomh2121 Thanks for the great suggestion, I will be sure to check it out! As far as I know yes, it had a huge impact, and it's sad to see people ignore the Aztecs and Incas because we're too used to seeing things from a US/Canadian/British perspective.
Great work! You’re now my favorite CZcams journalist
Despite the initial inaccuracies, the video is worth watching and very well made
Johnny, I love your work but you've really dropped the ball here on European history, this is a massive simplification and in many cases just wrong
No you just don't like what is said outside your European perspective.
@@whatisahandle_69 what did he get wrong , just highlight a few.
@@biggrhymees88one everyone loves it when he shits on America, but cringey mf cry when he suddenly shits on Europe.
@Lala Emm no. World history is mostly European and American History, it is all there in School textbooks, documentaries, movies everything and what not. I've read history from European perspective ,infact I've understood history from European perspective, the question is are Europeans willing to look at history from a different perspective, are you willing to look at history from the tribes that were colonized. Do you want to know what they say about colonization, land and trade? It's you who feels like you are getting dunked on, that's why the comment section is filled with overtly defensive white folks. Most of y'all just don't want to accept there were negative impacts brought about by colonization but you want the world to acknowledge only the positive impacts.
@@arthurkjr it is
I generally love your videos, really, they usually present all sides without too much bias, but this one is just a mess... First of all, there was trade along the silk road going back to ancient rome at least, but it was cut off when the ottoman empire kept conquering more land from the byzantine empire... Oh and again the "thriving" ottoman empire with silk, also had incredibly high number of slaves, usually taken from conquered land in eastern/southeastern europe... And yes, the europeans did claim the land in the americas, but that was just because they "could". Do you honestly want to tell us that if the ottomans or the chinese got there first they wouldn't do pretty much the same thing? More or less the only reason why european empire did that and not others is that china/india were across the pacific which is obviously harder to cross than atlantic and ottomans couldn't really get out of the Med to go west for obvious reasons...
The Ottomans and the Chinese had established "styles" of imperialism that were pretty distinct from the European model of imperialism that rose during the 15th century onward and likely would not have happened without the unique economic conditions that were happening in Europe at the time (i.e. the rise of capitalism). It's actually incredibly important to worth noting that it's not about the "European-ness" that lead to the type of colonialism because the colonialism that happened is quite different from what Roman imperialism would've looked like. Portugal, for example, was expanding but didn't really participate in the kind of colonialism that the Spanish eventually did until the Spanish proved its profitability.
China had already been doing a kind of imperialism for centuries in the form of straightforward expansionism (see, sinicization for some historical horror) but its mainly known for it's soft power style of imperialism. I.E. China would use its technological, economic, and political power to pressure states into becoming tributary states that would give tribute but China wouldn't necessarily exert the kind of complete control over an area that European countries would for most of the places it had influence over. If you read about Zheng He's voyages, that's essentially would've likely been China's style of imperialism. Essentially, China would force countries to pay a fee in order to join its economic and political sphere of influence.
The Ottoman empire's model of imperialism would've been closer to China's but with significantly more control. The Ottoman empire was famous for its style of informal imperialism in the form of suzerainty where the the central government via diplomacy and/or military might would exert significant control over its vassal states and their decisions. They were autonomous on a day to day, but ultimately any dealings outside of the ottoman empire were handled by the ottoman government. For a long time before the fall of Constantinople, the Byzantine Empire was a Vassal state of the Ottomans, so that might give you an idea of how life under ottoman rule as a puppet state might have looked like.
The real key difference is how people and resources are exploited between these models. That is not to say that China or the Ottoman empire haven't done horrible crimes in the name of imperial dominance (China has some pretty horrifying examples all throughout history) but the model in which Europe did it is unique in how they would enslave local populations and/or import slaves to grow huge amounts of cash crops and/or exploit resources in the area. It's not likely that the Ottomans or the Chinese would've entered India like the British did with the East India company and coerce millions of people into growing cash crops like tea, indigo, and poppy to the point where they starved to death. The Ottomans probably would've turned India into a Puppet state where they would be be a lesser part of the empire and enjoy the lions share of the riches it already produced and the Chinese would've pressured India into becoming a tributary state in order to be a part of China's sphere of influence (and by the way, China already did this to parts of India in the past).
Another huge reason why it's such a big topic is because its very recent history, it's only a few generations old for many places. Right now we're living in the consequences of colonialism and to answer your question of "if someone could do it, they would" is actually already answered with how former colonial states came to grips with the existing political and economic systems that were put in place. Some governments post independence just went ahead and put themselves on the top power structure and things largely were unchanged for the people at the bottom, one form of slavery for another.
It's also extremely important to emphasize specificity because European colonialism is uniquely evil the same way Ottoman expansionism was uniquely evil and Chinese Sinicization was uniquely evil. One of the key ways Europe conquered the Americas was by exploiting political conflicts that were happening between American peoples and states. There are some shit things that the Aztecs and Inca in their quest to expand their empires as well. The important thing is to understand what happened and the ripple effects specifically.
To be fair there is theories that the Chineese, Malian's (Africa) and Vikings got to the Americas but none went down the Columbas route.
"they usually present all sides without too much bias" I guess you never watched any of his videos, I'd say 70% of his videos are just propaganda promoting the West while bashing on everyone else
@@eolay4411 Thats because they had different reasons. The vikings couldve fought the tribes but lacked the resources.
The Chinese had a different reason since they were looking for spices, not expanding the empire
"present all sides without too much bias" Sorry, wut? In a video about the US-Mexican War, his title was "how the US stole Mexico". Nothing about that screams presenting all sides. He's always been like this.
imagine you're just chilling in your home and people from other side of the world start claiming your land in a map
love he vids but the Ding sound effect always makes me look at my phone lmao
Europe wasn’t just a group of “miserable farmers” like you keep describing it. Medieval Europe had a rich culture with art, literature and architecture, especially during the 15th century, you forgot to mention the Italian renaissance, the Florence cathedral dome that was made during this time (not bad for a group of farmers), the Venetian trade with the east (and Marco Polo), the beginning of the Dutch renaissance and all of this was before Columbus got to America. Just because they didn’t have potatoes or black pepper that doesn’t mean they were Neanderthals, you know? As for the “miserable farmers” they existed in every place on earth not just Europe, do you believe that in the Chinese Empire they were all rich nobles?
I was interested in the subject of this video but all the inaccuracies and your attitude made it unwatchable (looking down on medieval people just because they didn’t know there was America between Europe and Asia and calling it “mansplaining” is ridiculous btw)
I thought that a person with all these old maps would know better 🤷♂️ but apparently they were just for show
He's a butthurt anti-White
Of course, it's just a joke..
The most research intensive and prestigious universities in Europe, like Oxford and Cambridge, were established in the Middle Ages.
My thoughts exactly
0:54 "This isnt a history lesson, you wont be hearing me talking about dates and names" seems super reliable
Glad to see many people correcting the many errors in this video. On the other hand, nice maps!
I'm from Srilanka and my last name is Perera. It is now the most commonly used surname in Srilanka followed by "Fernando" and "De Silva". All these names were introduced by the Portuguese.
Shouldn't it be "Pereira" and "da Silva"?
Shit, really sorry about that. We have so many Silvas already.
@@bruno84 probably it was used like this back then. Or maybe it slowly mutated to those versions
@@ruilopes00 it's probably the second one. And yes, there's a Silva everywhere 😂
Dude is literally just gonna ignore the reconqesta and the conquest of Constantinople as context. You said this wasn’t a history video, but you can’t just cherry pick events to suit your false narrative.
Editing is nice and pretty, but it can’t make up for the terrible writing of this essay. History matters and your generalization only help perpetuate people’s ignorance of it.
well said
hear hear
why is Constantinople important here? He talked about the Ottomans blocking the Iberians anyway.
@@_jame7928 Constantinople is important because he acts like the Ottomans did nothing to the Catholics which is a lie. Constantinople was the 2nd most important Christian city right before Jerusalem and the Ottomans killed the Byzantine empire and changed Sofia a church into a Mosque.
@@_jame7928 The muslims had stunning victories in the east over the Zoroastrians(persia is now called iraq and iran) and the romans(byzantines) they would then conquer (imperialize) all of the conquered territories including spain. The Christians pushed back the muslims in spain but lost in greece. Spain in turn became very theocratical(Our religion is good) because of this. When the golden city fell the trade routes for spices and silk changed forcing the very antimuslim spanish to look for new ways to find trade with the east. In this process they found a lot of land to conquer, Notice how both cultures are doing this. Constantinople(Istanbul) is so extremely important to history.
This whole video seems a vehicle for Johnny to display his admittedly amazing map collection. 'Crash Course World History' and 'Crash Course European History' are better resources if you're interested in learning about history. "The truth resists simplicity" as John Green says.
It's better to pick up some damn books written by proper historians instead of relying on 10 minutes long YT videos.
@@clovispadilha3237 crash course world history was made by proper historians mate.
@@idunnobouthat7092 "proper historians" The Green brothers? Lmao. What exactly makes them "proper historians" in your mind? Crash Course vidoes are glorified advanced high school lessons. Fluff. Kids stuff....its great for kids, there is some good stuff on there that's okay.. sound basics.. but if you really want to research history it requires multiple sources throughout the internet and beyond (gasp! libraries?!?!?!)....
16:32 - “They poked their heads up from their farm work” (smirks)
This video just drips with contempt.
Waiting for new Parts on this topic.
Addendum on Africa: Trans-saharan routes were being used for trade and scholarship during this period. A succession of great African empires rose off the back of the gold trade, and that gold eventually found its way into most of Europe's medieval coinage.
Aka France, Spain, Portugal and the UK. Not all of Europe in other words.
@@suicidesquats9325 Italians were the first to coin Medieval gold coins.
Alright, you talk two straight video about China and the UE, now can we have a video about why the US is so damn big?
To be exact, the age of discovery started when the Portuguese conquest of Ceuta took place on 21 August 1415.
Take that Johnny !
From what I gather, the conquest of Ceuta was the start of the Portuguese Empire and a simple conquest just like many empires did before that throughout history,.
@@ygreq Yes, the conquest not only marked the start of the Portuguese Empire, but also the first significant ripple of a wave of European explorations that would reach every continent around the globe.
@@ygreq exactly, where is the paradigm shift?
Now is spanish 🇪🇦🇪🇦🇪🇦
13:31 every parent on roadtrips before Google Maps existed
just a note: colon first arrived to Bahamas and Dominican Republic, and then Cuba
I would disagree with your statement that Europe was poor and eastern empires were rich. In both the east and west there tended to be a wealthy class supported by poor peasants/farmers. GDP per capita stayed relatively the same across geographies until the industrial revolution. Economic historians use GDP per capita to compare quality of life since it is pretty good proxy for health care and education throughout history and is much easier to measure. There is actually evidence that GDP per capita was increasing over the 1400's in Italy but there isn't consensus on this.
@GiriRaj totally dude
Cope Europe was poor compared to eastern empires
@@pradyumnashaoo2332 Cope 2022
@GiriRaj I think you forget Roman empire & Greek city states & Carthago &...
Nope East was far more developed, we had mathematicians, surgeons, etc etc...we had amazing literature, hygiene etc.
I think why some European countries took over a lot of the world was because of the constant wars that happened within Europe with no one country dominating all the others. So there was a constant fear of losing out strategic balance of power once certain countries started getting more powerful from conquering other places outside Europe.
One island in particular was especially paranoid…
@@XXXTENTAClON227 lol
These constant wars also had as an effect that european warfare was developing far faster than the rest of the world, which only further expanded the reach and speed of colonization.
Among other things. Guns, germs, and steel explains the advantages Europeans held in dominating the world.
it's advantageous to have more land and resources. so even if there was no war, you take stuff like entire continents if you can. but it's inhumane with modern standards.
I am glad you corrected all the inaccuracies, it is really helpful. However next time (I am not hating, good work dude) just review your sources. Keep up the good work my man
Simplistic, but I get that you're making people curious about the subject. Great production. Open to talk if you want to speak to someone who works with this time period (Spanish colonizing thought).
"Unclaimed lands" and "not capable of defending their lands" being interchangeable was pretty much the history of europe until that point. But also the history of most of the world if we are honest
@@leodevardinho6555 I didn't say they were tribes or that they didn't have proper legislation. I was saying that conquest of each other was a big thing for centuries before, and even after the discovery of the americas by europeans.
I took until 1815 and the congress of vienna for the map of europe to really start looking like it does right now.
@@namenloss730 I think he was referring to @Johny Harris . Him describing Europe as some backwater place with no advanced civilization (for that period) is quite unfair. For example both India and China were lucky due to their local climate and wildlife. China was able to have silk due to that worm being only there in the whole word (capable of producing high quality silk). In the regards of climate both Countries were able to have a very rich variety of plants. To be more specific spices. Europe in general has a relatively cold climate. For spices to be produced naturally is really really rare. Europe not having spices isn't due to some natural inferiority of their civilization but a result of climate. Still they had their own spices. They weren't as diverse and intense as the Asian ones but they were there.
Also as another commenter mentioned Venice was a major Christion nation that was able to establish the spice trade in cooperation with the Ottomans. At that time the peasants all around the world were suffering from the same shitty life. The only difference is that the nobles of one place were more wealthy. As a sidenote acting like was some really advanced civilization is a bit laughable considering their really rigid caste system. Honestly I would rather be born in some "miserable" European nation than take a chance at being born in the wrong caste in India. On the other hand China had its own issues. The only phrase I will leave here for China is : "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been". At that time the Ottoman Empire was ushering to its golden age. To be more precise to its peak. They were never able to advance further in the "miserable" and "backwater" Europe but slowly lost their advantages and turned to the situation they are in today. The most ironic is how they fought side to side with Austria in fiirst World War.
Overall I am disappointed with how Johny has taken this subtle tone of portraying Europe as some savage and backwater place. At that time everyone was like this. The only reason you didn't see others following Europe's steps at that moment is because their conditions didn't allow them so. You would be shocked with how many nations lamented on losing out on such lucrative chance. The really thing that is worth commenting and highlighting is the fact that for today's European and American citizens to enjoy their today's high living standard such imperialism was indispensable. In this regard it is really hypocritic for them to judge other nations that try to follow in their footsteps. They shout that its inhumane , violates justice/freedom/democracy and on the other hand they still enjou the dirty fruits of rewards that their ancestors provided them through such impure measures.
To close it all, you shouldn't judge how successful or superior a civilization by their rich environment but what they were able to accomplish with said environment. Looking at the history Europe was a much more successful "civilization" when it came to adapting to their advantages and disadantages.
@@namenloss730 Alright bro my bad then, you’re right, they did use to fight constantly back then
well this is history of every nation. ottomans did same but they don't have guilt :D
@@alexandervlaescu9901 I generally agree with your comment aside the modern western world hipocricy. Middle east conquered and traded, were scholars, and frankly should be ahead of us with riches, being focused into much smaller populace than the modern west is, yet they're not because of culture and religion. And The west isn't rich today because of only colonialism. It's rich because it was able to hold onto the riches, unlike other empires.
Would love a video on the Ottoman Empire. You often portray the Europeans in a bad way, however the Ottomans were not so kind either in many regards. Would be interesting
Hell the steppe people where bad too
But, Ottomans did not butcher other people, erase their culture and push their lands into droughts and poverty!
It’s contest of course
Been bad people all over the world. All the empires and countries we have today weren’t exactly made on friendly terms. Greed, wars, slavery, genocides were a thing everywhere at some point in history. Even Africans had slaves and slave trades before Europeans came, like Igbo slaves. European history is simply more universally taught and talked about. That’s the only difference.
the Romans and the greeks did it first they even stole North African/Middle eastern science alphabet and cultures and nobody talk about them in negative way
If you ask somebody what Britain's first colony was they might reply India. But that's not true. It was actually in Europe
It was Ireland which was colonised for some 800 years by the British from the time they were still Anglo Normans to the second decade of the 1900s. Much of what the British learnt when colonising Ireland such as prohibition of the indigenous language and culture, creation of a two-tier system and a landlord class, the ability to create power vacuums, indentured servitude, and the use of religious division as a key tool. Much of this was later to be used in their newly founded colonies in Africa, Asia and the Americas. The legacy of British colonisation still lives on here in Ireland with the continued partition of the island, the recent Brexit negotiations and the minority status of the Irish Gaelic language.
I wish you had been my middle school history teacher. This is fascinating.
There's nothing correct about this video, he even admitted on critique video. This video actually makes everyone involved look poor. Go watch kings and generals about the Portuguese on the indian subcontinent, the history was fascinating on both sides and is never at any point so dismissive.
Now you've seen his approach to history, ask yourself if anything he says in any of his videos is accurate.
This is what scares me.
Yes, his informations are accurate
@@ayat5483 How do you know, have you checked his sources?
@@ayat5483 Of course they are, Europe had no pepper until the late 1400s, it was full of miserable uneducated poor people and Columbus said he wanted to trade with the West and not the East. Very accurate indeed.
European civilization kickstarted literally everything you see around, a spoiled suburban kid isn't getting that.
The map of "Spain" is so wrong that I cannot begin to explain it. Either your write "Spain" and include all of Spain, or you write "Castille" if you just want to consider the portion that you mention in the video. On the other hand, the indigenous people of America did have armies, some of them huge, and they indeed had brutal wars between them.
Listen to it again. He said, and i quote: "what it was going to known as Spain". Active listening is key.
@@reinhart114 but in the map only a region of Spain is called Spain. This is precisely Castille, not Spain.
All nations had brutal wars and infighting, but only Europeans spread their problems to every corner of the globe .
Also to note, Spain and Portugal were Catholic, not Christian.
@@merof227 Catholicism is a branch of Christianity
what you're describing is how empire (even small one) works, the history of conquering is the history of humanity, NASA is doing it. it's how human is build: we get to go and conquer to survive that's why we have always a war going on some where on earth. it never stops
Jonny, your really a CZcamsr i have learn more than i have ever been your my favorite journalist. I see some of Europeans felt like your channel is a threat to them but its is not but these is how things started.
@Johnny Harris Great story, but I think you miss something important. The whole concept of "claimed" or "unclaimed" lands is much older than Christopher Columbus. I strongly recommend to do some research about forgotten "northern cursades". History of lands located on the east coast of Baltic Sea is (to some extent) similar to history of the New World. Polabian Slavs or Old Prussians met the same fate as "Indians". From the early Middle Ages only Christian rulers were considered legitimate. That's why Poland's founder Mieszko I was baptised in 966. It was strictly political move. It was also very tricky thing. To avoid getting into german sphere of influence, he choosed to be baptised by Czech bishop and married Christian Czech princess. For Mieszko it was the only way to secure his claims. Inhabitants of Arkona weren't that lucky
Yes, I wanted to comment about this. And point out that one of the factors as to why the European kingdoms wanted to find unclaimed land, was due to the Catholic church supported any monarch that wanted to crusade and convert the population to Christianity. It was a method to conquer territory with the pope's blessing without calling it a war. This is how colonization got started, discover hedonistic unclaimed territory, promise the church to convert them and incorporate the land to your kingdom. It happened in Europe first.
If humans live there it is claimed.
No their fate wasn't the same. Polabians and Old Prussians were assimilated with the German settlers. Old Prussian was spoken till 17th century. Same thing happened with Finno-Urghic tribes being assimilated with Russians. While Indigenous Siberians can be compared with Native Americans.
@@48677 Mayan, Nahuatl (aztec)and Quechua (Incan) are all still spoken today
The best CZcams channel for me ! The quality of Productuon this guy puts up for us to watch for free is just amazing.
Yes kiss his ass
Many parts of this video are extremely oversimplified and lacking in context. However, one part that is simply factually incorrect is your statement on the Portuguese discovering a root to India as a motivation for the voyage of Columbus. Columbus set sail in 1492, whilst the Portuguese didn't find a route to India until Vasco da Gama's voyage in 1498.
Not disagreeing with you here, you are correct about Vasco da Gama's Voyage not being the motivation. But Bartolomeu Días, another Portuguese sailor, discovered (for the Portuguese) the cape of good hope in 1488. This discovery is what eventually led to da Gama's voyage.
@@potatonator343 Ghana had Portuguese settlers as early as 1471
@@potatonator343 And Cape Bojador in 1434 (20 years before Columbus birth).
Magellan also died in the Philippines. Legazpi was another explorer
Well da. Coz Portuguese understood what Columbus he discovered was not India.
Well you definitely don't hear about the other side of history in the propangda textbooks. Good on you for making this video!
This is the propaganda unfortunately. The textbooks are probably more accurate than this video. This was probably a video intentionally poorly informed to create controversy, comments and most importantly $$$$
Lmao he literally apologized....go look for the mistakes he did
Even though the video is inaccurate it still explains a lot in a fun and easy way to newcomers in the topic.