The Origins of European Imperialism

[@LucasSantos-ji1zp]

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.

[@johnnyharris]

Wow thank you for sharing

[@alexwendt9570]

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.

[@ObaidFaisal]

@@johnnyharris oh my god he replies

[@189Blake]

@@alexwendt9570 Hey, you're correct, I have never noticed that. You don't say Brasiles or something like that, but Brasileiro. Interesting.

[@AzoreanProud]

Hmm doesn't Brasil means paradise land? There was places named Brasil before Brasil. Like in Azores islands.

[@ewoudalliet1734]

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.

[@pumpkineater0076]

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.

[@ShankarSivarajan]

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.

[@gamaltk]

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 😄)

[@denisamua127]

Really good points!

[@beastateverythin]

Really awesome comment!

[@BruhMoment-cs6tj]

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.

[@anirudhthakur3453]

Absolutely true ✅✅

[@Vingul]

Nature is good. Trying to change it is folly.

[@Dr.SyedSaifAbbasNaqvi]

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.

[@syedmohammadaanasfarukh890]

On point, on point.

[@hassmann2000]

@@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.

[@armanbasurto7604]

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.

[@Fadogar911]

i feel the exact same way!

[@LoneWolfPvP]

my exact same thought process. made me rethink johnny's credibility

[@rodsampson6763]

Arman Basurto you are right

[@BriedisLTU]

Keep in mind that every country has their touch to the history they teach in schools.

[@Fadogar911]

@@BriedisLTU this is not about a touch... this is misinformation

[@gabrielking1247]

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

[@pierzing.glint1sh76]

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.

[@gabrielking1247]

@@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)

[@girlsquad224]

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.

[@zacharym167]

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

[@philipplyanguzov9090]

@@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.

[@Gorrage]

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.

[@aeternavictrix7861]

No evidence made him discover new land and marked his name in history. Evidence is not everything

[@NA.NA..]

Did he believe the world was smaller than measured or that Asia was larger than reportered.

[@Booth-]

@@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'

[@saarthel8532]

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.

[@AM-mu2kv]

@@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

[@zakrio5022]

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 🤣

[@JohnDoe-nf6yk]

@@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.

[@madflaka4087]

@@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 .

[@JohnDoe-nf6yk]

@@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

[@Yellow.1844]

cope brazilian

[@JohnDoe-nf6yk]

@@Yellow.1844 I’m not Brazilian

[@diegoborrajo1323]

This is just basic highschool history with cool transitions, spooky music and incorrect facts

[@diegoborrajo1323]

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.

[@ignacioa5476]

@@diegoborrajo1323 me sangraban los ojos cuando vi el vídeo. Sabe tanto de historia como mi hamster

[@donflavio7477]

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

[@Faroschannel33]

but his target was asia

[@johnnyharris]

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.

[@frankfalkenburry5373]

@@johnnyharris Bad faith.

[@marsco1758]

@@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.

[@Racko.]

@@frankfalkenburry5373 At least he admitted to his mistake, and learnt from it, not everyone can be 100% perfect

[@josephtoner7355]

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.

[@jmoralesh]

This! And bypassing all the events that happened around the Mediterranean north-east.

[@ruan13o]

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.

[@chaosXP3RT]

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.

[@josephtoner7355]

@@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.

[@nomankenneth]

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.

[@jordanmagera2880]

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!!

[@accountrecovery5427]

Truth about your race hurts, right?

[@victorslyvester8977]

He is a liberal wat do u expect

[@ZabaTheFrog]

@@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.

[@benjaminmontenegro3423]

@@victorslyvester8977 in fact he already took note and said that he wants to have better sources

[@lampda7336]

@@benjaminmontenegro3423 "oops i got called out, time to apologize!"

[@michaelheller_KW]

I was struggling with this video after watching about 75% and was relieved to see similar issues in the comments but one criticism I still haven’t seen is the underlying implication that 15th century Europeans invented imperialism. Empires have been conquering land and subjugating foreign people since ancient Sumer. I’m all for introducing high production value to historical content but I’m relieved to see that many viewers agree with the lack of depth, accuracy, and maturity here. I have enjoyed other videos on this channel though and the maps in this video are fascinating.

[@bengiyardimli1925]

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.

[@recoverhealth2062]

Hundreds no, thousands, The Roman Empire knew China existed and Alexander conquered everything between Greece and India.

[@hormpir3648]

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.

[@glyphiest6762]

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.

[@kofisam4106]

@@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.

[@kacperwoch4368]

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.

[@Kriegter]

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

[@JonasPrudas]

The is was important indeed. The excape route for Europe would happen through the "empty" western side, by boats.

[@lucaesposito6896]

Exactly, and after that only Venice had the right to trade with the East, and that made them even richer

[@giovanni_vaz_cardoso]

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.

[@MRK-uy4vz]

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?

[@maddogbasil]

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

[@tomasmartins5009]

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...

[@samthesuspect]

Look man it doesn't fit his narrative, so don't bring it up.

[@fillosof66689]

Not to mention perpetuating the myths about the Middle Ages all of them actual historians spent decades at this point trying to combat.

[@tylerlockwood9864]

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.”

[@bendover4668]

Be proud of your Portuguese heritage, your power can come back if you embrace imperialism.

[@miahconnell23]

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…

[@joaopolonia9428]

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

[@redroyce4590]

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...

[@pierzing.glint1sh76]

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.

[@willemvanoranje5724]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pnLIoH2MjdeNpZY&ab_channel=ThePresentPast

[@boass]

@@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…

[@tankvinl9805]

@@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

[@ZabaTheFrog]

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

[@scaryjeff]

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.

[@GrigRP]

Which context was ignored?

[@MegaKiri11]

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.

[@iangrace1570]

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.

[@DonaldMaila]

The title of the video is, "How Europe Stole the World", NOT "Why Europe Stole the World"

[@electronszinc6270]

@@MegaKiri11 i

[@DeadlyLazer]

I can totally imagine Johnny having a drawer full of world maps from every era

[@HoangNguyenHP]

more like a whole basement full of them. One drawer is definitely not enough for Johnny

[@lastchang1061]

allah hu akbar earth is flat

[@AslanAlmukhambetov]

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

[@derrekvanee4567]

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

[@derrekvanee4567]

@@lastchang1061 Allah ahckbar! Dirka dirka! Muhammad jihad! Jihad jihad! Dirka dirka Muhammad jihad! Dirka dirka?

[@on__off2923]

Fact: My country Cameroon in west Africa got its name from the early Portuguese explorers/traders who started trading & exploring the coast of west Africa in the 1400 & 1500s, they walked past by a river in Cameroon and saw Prawns in it, they called the river ''Rio Dos Cameroes'' which in portugues translates to River of prawns, from there, the name Cameroon was derived...

[@hjs8092]

Rio dos Camarões, in portuguese.

[@commonwealthrealm]

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...

[@amcmillion3]

The fact that one participant still thinks it is going on proves that it is.

[@Student0Toucher]

Disagree lol Russia definitely colonized East Asia

[@keanureevesspeed7602]

@@Student0Toucher lol you know ruzzia is noto the only country in Eastern Europe right ¿ Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia…

[@bradavon]

@@keanureevesspeed7602 Lithuina and Latvia are in Northern Europe, not Eastern.

[@deanbarnett8538]

@@keanureevesspeed7602 Russia is the only troublemaker.

[@finlaywalker9659]

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.

[@willkimball7677]

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

[@johnnyharris]

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.

[@andrewofaiur]

@@johnnyharris Sensible response to a sensible critique. This gives me hope.

[@darkstarry8879]

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).

[@BBKMotoLove221]

@@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.

[@ElectroIsMyReligion]

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.

[@GabGotti3]

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.

[@maciekgaa5215]

Exactly, think about Czechia, Hungary or Poland

[@matpk]

But Chi Na is worse. They are doing this horrible things today while European done it thousands years ago

[@Kaizen917]

@@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.

[@vitkrivan9380]

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.

[@rocky5574]

"This isn't a history lesson, I won't talk about names and dates" You mean no actual facts then?

[@matheusGMN]

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

[@jimmytimmy3680]

That's very interesting.

[@witthyhumpleton3514]

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.

[@antoniopags1185]

Este vídeo está cheio de erros esquece 😅

[@orblach9521]

@@witthyhumpleton3514 they passed close to Brazil before the treaty being settled , so they had an idea that there was land to that side

[@guilhermevelhote5307]

Most likely Brasil was already physically known at that time, but kept top secret by the Portuguese crown for strategic reasons

[@HikmaHistory]

"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

[@zahranmohammad3880]

OMG HIKMA HISTORY ITS YOUUUUUU. we need to get you more likes so you get more recognition.

[@01Ichirei10]

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 KZbinr for their audience..

[@ErdTirdMans]

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

[@dom2428]

honestly he might as well just redo it at this point lmao

[@markdowding5737]

Where did admit that he made mistakes on this video? Haven't found anything on that on his social networks.

[@01Ichirei10]

@@markdowding5737 there was another video from another history KZbinr 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.

[@SmackMyDerf]

@@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.

[@BettyDrum]

how you rewrite history is almost as fun as real history

[@matteomagurno3068]

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.

[@jarry8150]

colonizers do it er day

[@MasterShake9000]

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. 😂😂

[@Crackparty803]

@@jarry8150 behave yourself

[@ThwipThwipBoom]

@@jarry8150 What colonizers? The age of colonialism is over with my man.

[@alvaroserra6259]

8:24 The first island Christopher Columbus arrived in 1492 wasn't Cuba. It was actually "La Española", the current Dominican Republic and Haití.

[@leonvla]

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.

[@JoaoPedroPT696]

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.

[@GabGotti3]

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.

[@Tuncapoo]

@@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

[@mcgeogeo]

he didn't say it was the first island

[@Akselxela1520]

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)

[@Akselxela1520]

I thought that a person with all these old maps would know better 🤷‍♂️ but apparently they were just for show

[@vivar5318]

He's a butthurt anti-White

[@rostantyo]

Of course, it's just a joke..

[@ronanmurphy9426]

The most research intensive and prestigious universities in Europe, like Oxford and Cambridge, were established in the Middle Ages.

[@StiofanGaillimh]

My thoughts exactly

[@leodevardinho6555]

This whole channel is a clear example of why good animations have nothing to do with proper content and true information

[@willemvanoranje5724]

yeah he leaves out a lot lol. He ain't a historain after all.

[@MrYelly]

Video looks neat and clean, but his brain is smooth as butter.

[@frankfalkenburry5373]

Ya I like some of his videos but his anti white agenda is so obvious.

[@nielsbourgeois9800]

Video’s like this showcase why the dislike button is dearly missed.

[@betweenthepanels9145]

@@willemvanoranje5724 then he shouldn’t talk history like he knows shit

[@Omy_Per]

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.

[@bruno84]

Shouldn't it be "Pereira" and "da Silva"?

[@ruilopes00]

Shit, really sorry about that. We have so many Silvas already.

[@ruilopes00]

@@bruno84 probably it was used like this back then. Or maybe it slowly mutated to those versions

[@bruno84]

@@ruilopes00 it's probably the second one. And yes, there's a Silva everywhere 😂

[@thomaswhitcomb624]

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.

[@matthowells6382]

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…

[@rufus9508]

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.

[@DenUitvreter]

@@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.

[@matthowells6382]

@@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

[@RLewis123]

It’s a 17 minute video on KZbin-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.

[@ramonvizcarra8335]

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

[@rezakarampour6286]

Search . ' America . A century of coup , revolution & invasion '

[@76456]

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

[@dirtylevel]

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).

[@maximilianbeyer5642]

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

[@NandiCollector]

*I have a Portuguese coin that commemorates the "Treaty of Tordesillas."*

[@jeffpen4622]

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?

[@emmyabroad]

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.

[@berese5826]

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.

[@johnnyharris]

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.

[@chrissakellaridis9417]

@@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.

[@gagageiro]

@@chrissakellaridis9417 it's a Johnny Harris Video what do you expect? It's beautiful and overly dramatic and a bit too shallow ...

[@josef_belz519]

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.

[@analyticalmindset]

@@franciscobarragancastro4348 please , super interesting

[@danimoreira8704]

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.

[@TheSDKNightmare]

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.

[@tobbychamberlain4516]

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.

[@ierenan]

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.

[@masterbarnard]

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.

[@SolarpunkEnjoyer]

It's better to pick up some damn books written by proper historians instead of relying on 10 minutes long YT videos.

[@idunnobouthat7092]

@@SolarpunkEnjoyer crash course world history was made by proper historians mate.

[@thepartisanreport7777]

@@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?!?!?!)....

[@egdapo]

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!

[@Scoob505]

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

[@biggrhymees88one]

No you just don't like what is said outside your European perspective.

[@biggrhymees88one]

@@whatisahandle_69 what did he get wrong , just highlight a few.

[@imperfectmammal2566]

@@biggrhymees88one everyone loves it when he shits on America, but cringey mf cry when he suddenly shits on Europe.

[@biggrhymees88one]

@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.

[@Scoob505]

@@arthurkjr it is

[@g1u2y345]

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.

[@1xmac]

I don’t think he can. Amazing maps, but there are so many misconception and oversimplification that makes this video awfully miss leading.

[@big3fanboy19]

Also marco polo adventures to why the west was captivated by the east

[@borgir80]

I wish you guys did not steal, pillage, and enslave us.

[@renjoh]

He did mention the Ottoman Empire controlling Asia Minor as a problem for trade.

[@Andi1simple]

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.

[@Aedar]

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...

[@mattchensan]

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.

[@eolay4411]

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.

[@DenLim123]

"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

[@KYOBI4178]

@@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

[@stephenjenkins7971]

"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.

[@alonsothoth]

To sum up this video, is Johnny unwrapping map sheets on a table in cool style with "no one making any resistance".

[@rabbanynarukaya8342]

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 !

[@Thorfinn47.]

I am a chad of Google maps

[@lastchang1061]

allah hu akbar earth is flat.

[@eljondeocampo4619]

Man, I feel you

[@TooLittleInfo]

Looking at google maps is literally one of my favourite hobbies

[@witchowski]

GeoGuessr is the perfect game for you then 😆

[@pietersmith9745]

I love Johnny, but his commitment to virtue signaling is overpowering his commitment as an accurate story teller.

[@regards7229]

So sad and true

[@Wesstuntube]

I loved Johnny for some time. Lately though, he seems like he doesn't even care what the truth is - only what he hopes to achieve. The ends justify the means?

[@cooltrades7469]

It's story, aka fiction. Historically it's complete B.S.

[@euLienee]

@@Wesstuntube It's starting to feel that he cares more about story telling (and all of his cool maps) and not about story itself.

[@maazkalim]

Since when is [pop-]History a natural science, anyways?

[@nudazz]

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

[@glps6167]

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.

[@tjdln409]

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.

[@kevinvervaecke9688]

Stunning video, even more stunning how many things in this video are wrong beyond belief.

[@rikidourennagane]

Can you elaborate then

[@MR.CLEAN777]

@@rikidourennagane JUST SEARCH ON KZbin A KZbinR ALREADY DEBUNKED THIS WHOLE VIDEO

[@NandiCollector]

@@MR.CLEAN777 *I just watched it and he is totally correct about the many mistakes Johnny made in this video.*

[@Fadogar911]

@@MR.CLEAN777 damn, i was literally gonna start my youtube career debunking this piece of S... :D

[@coxqxz]

Name of the KZbinr please 🥺

[@frederiknielsen5496]

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!)

[@analyticalmindset]

Similar how America funds rebel forces when they want to overthrow a government. Same playbook

[@frederiknielsen5496]

​@@analyticalmindset It is by far and away the easiest way to conquer a country, yes! Requires far less resources

[@nicolasjimenezgarcia9560]

Great comment! I think this video lacked so much depth on the process of actually taking over the American territories.

[@tomh2121]

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 KZbin series on the topic and it's well worth a watch if you haven't already.

[@frederiknielsen5496]

@@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.

[@TravisSelassieSimbawafedha]

" poor miserable farmers" ? Really that is the best lead in punch line you could get from your writers.

[@willkimball7677]

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.

[@AnonymousReader-er4eg]

@@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.

[@newdays0]

And here you are commenting boosting the algo. Seems like clever writing.

[@BrodieB762]

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!!!

[@DanuProductions]

I'm sorry, but there's a lot of misinformation in this video. For example Europe was not "a group of miserable famers", firstly like everywhere in the world it wasn't a massive homogeneous group of people. And some parts of it were extremely rich, such as the Italian citiy states. Furthermore The Europeans had been trading with the east for years, they didn't bump into the Ottoman Empire the Ottoman Empire took over the routes they travelled and imposed high taxes to use the routes. Columbus, knew he was in new land, but thought he was off the coast of Asia (and it's worth mentioning he was brought back to Europe in chains, and died in prison)

[@DanuProductions]

@@Solid_Snake99 well, banking as a concept probably first started in the middle East. And well "we" weren't all rich, far from it. That's the point I'm making. Europe wasn't one group, there were classes of insanely rich and insanely poor, like nearly everywhere. But granted Europeans probably weren't "evil" but they certainly weren't good

[@utkarshpatil7356]

@@Solid_Snake99 lol triggered europian

[@matpk]

But Chi Na is worse. They are doing this horrible things today while European done it thousands years ago

[@fwd5614]

Yeah, from a historical point of view this video is pretty bad

[@gaminglichgamer4035]

@@matpk Everyone with power today is doing what the Europeans did a century ago. The US and China are both abusing people (granted one of them destroys entire countries on a normal Tuesday and the other has so far been propping up other countries) and basically doing modern day imperialism.

[@markdowding5737]

I never liked it when people who know very little of Europe and its history almost always fall on the same old fallacy of trying to put Europeans into one single homogenous group trying to pursue the same interests. This is extremely inaccurate and misleading. Some countries had a bigger focus on trade rather than conquest. Europeans were also mostly divided between Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodox and often fought over that. Several European countries did not seek on creating colonies (Sweden, Poland) or their policies regarding that issue changed over time (Germany). Those were different times and people lived by different moral codes, and conquering and spreading your culture and religion was not only common but the norm. Before the Spanish and Portuguese set foot in America, the Mongols had already raided and conquered most of eastern Europe, the ottomans had done the same with the Balkans, and the Arabs with the Iberian Peninsula. Also, those tribes in Africa and America were already slaughtering and conquering each other way before any European ever come in contact with them (often in a quite brutal fashion). Do you think the Azteca and Inca empires were formed and maintained through diplomacy and goodwill? What set Europeans apart was that they had better weapons and diseases. I always liked Johnny Harris, but this time I'm a bit disappointed with him.

[@adityarajan592]

Well Sweden and Poland are deep inland and would have had immense logistical difficulty creating colonies. Europeans were not only set apart by having better weapons and diseases, this would have set them apart from Aztecs yes but the Chinese, Islamic and Indian civilizations were at technological and economic parity with europe initially, Geography and ideology played major roles. The Chinese or Indians did not have a world-domination oriented ideology like Christianity which was one of the foundations of western civilization, a black and white conception of right and wrong which could easily be weaponised into "Europe is right the rest are wrong", the belief that other religions are false and need to be removed.

[@angelgjr1999]

Many Europeans fled to the americas in order to escape religious prosecutions. Many didn’t want or have slaves.

[@markdowding5737]

@@adityarajan592 I did not mention China and India because the video does not mention those territories, their circumstances are indeed very different. Christianity doesn't have a world-domination ideology. I'm not sure what you based that comment on. When the British conquered India and several other territories they did it to enrich themselves, to get personal glory, and for the king. Religion had very little to do with it. This was slightly different from the Portuguese and this partially led to their expulsion from Japanese ports (again Europeans are different amongst themselves). Chinese people did view themselves as superior and other people as barbarians unworthy of proper consideration. They also practiced expansionism and conquest as you can see in the cases of Xinjiang and Tibet. And they brutally suppressed and sought to remove Christianity within China, even amongst people who had freely converted to it.

[@ZEtruckipu]

I agree with you on that comment mate. I particularly disliked the video of Johnny Harris where he portrayed today's France as the owner of a colonial empire when he was just listing the overseas administrative regions. It really displayed a lack of understanding of what is the world outside of the USA

[@CristianmrWuno]

@@adityarajan592 Your comment was ok until you claimed Islam wasn't expantionist something that even the middle aged christians copy from the moor invasions on Iberia after eating the local Amazigh and Berber cultures on a great extent on their regions.

[@fettuccinealfredo1]

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.

[@marsco1758]

@GiriRaj totally dude

[@pradyumnashaoo2332]

Cope Europe was poor compared to eastern empires

[@marsco1758]

@@pradyumnashaoo2332 Cope 2022

[@pasikuisma8505]

@GiriRaj I think you forget Roman empire & Greek city states & Carthago &...

[@ackermanlol]

@@pradyumnashaoo2332 So... Poor Europeans kicked everybody's ass? Sounds like from a zero to hero kinda story.

[@garethjohnmentz6349]

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 🌟

[@potatoespotatoes296]

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.

[@nagybecsarnai8502]

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!

[@a_d_a_m]

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".

[@6000.]

@@cold_servo_pie this comment is either getting ratio’d by someone, or will age well

[@rl9056]

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.

[@potatoespotatoes296]

@@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.

[@michakoniecko853]

​@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

[@Rotwold]

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.

[@GrigRP]

If humans live there it is claimed.

[@48677]

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.

[@alexdunphy3716]

@@48677 Mayan, Nahuatl (aztec)and Quechua (Incan) are all still spoken today

[@namenloss730]

"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

[@namenloss730]

@@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.

[@alexandervlaescu9901]

@@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.

[@leodevardinho6555]

@@namenloss730 Alright bro my bad then, you’re right, they did use to fight constantly back then

[@sumosami]

well this is history of every nation. ottomans did same but they don't have guilt :D

[@diffe]

@@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.

[@johnl.7754]

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.

[@XXXTENTAClON227]

One island in particular was especially paranoid…

[@baileyyule2333]

@@XXXTENTAClON227 lol

[@Samelsey]

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.

[@jfkst1]

Among other things. Guns, germs, and steel explains the advantages Europeans held in dominating the world.

[@JV-km9xk]

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.

[@ncubesays]

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.

[@suicidesquats9325]

Aka France, Spain, Portugal and the UK. Not all of Europe in other words.

[@Faustobellissimo]

@@suicidesquats9325 Italians were the first to coin Medieval gold coins.

[@jeffpen4622]

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?

[@larspfefferkorn4556]

For those looking for a more accurate (though by no means unchallenged) and less superficial ("they just decided to go East/West and what not" with shiny ships that appeared out of nowhere) explanation of how Europeans came to rule the world, I highly recommend: "The WEIRDest People In The World" by Joseph Henrich, a human evolutionary biology prof at Harvard. It's a so-called Big History book in the style of Yuval Noah Harari's "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind".

[@rezakarampour6286]

Search . ' ' America , A century of coup , revolution & invasion '

[@bukchoiii]

Admittence of the ingornace was a great theory in sapiens.

[@Diniles]

Even Harari is to be taken with a kilogram and a half of salt

[@ismailmounsif1109]

Oh yeah the same evolution who consider black people the least developed and the white the most developed right??

[@bukchoiii]

@@ismailmounsif1109 must be nice to see racism everywhere.

[@Come_to_light119]

Johnny your videos are as informative as history books are. And the people who are finding faults with your videos are also very knowledgeable guys. In that sense your channel has become a wonderful platform for people like me to learn so much. Amazing the stuff on the screen; fantastic the reactions in the comment box!

[@FMattebo7]

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

[@willkimball7677]

Hell the steppe people where bad too

[@Anonymous-yr1hv]

But, Ottomans did not butcher other people, erase their culture and push their lands into droughts and poverty!

[@z4ck13]

It’s contest of course

[@victorias6250]

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.

[@riley.freeman1]

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

[@thebattlefieldnick1]

Now you've seen his approach to history, ask yourself if anything he says in any of his videos is accurate.

[@Jer0da0sniper]

This is what scares me.

[@ayat5483]

Yes, his informations are accurate

[@thebattlefieldnick1]

@@ayat5483 How do you know, have you checked his sources?

[@veritorossi]

@@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.

[@aabbccdd320]

European civilization kickstarted literally everything you see around, a spoiled suburban kid isn't getting that.

[@dannyarcher6370]

_The world we live in today was sketched on paper by European men. Men who looked like me._ This should tell you everything you need to know about Johnny's motivations. Nice to see a Johnny Harris video finally getting the backlash it deserves.

[@mohamedabdukadir3271]

But that is very true statement, almost all borders in our world currently were created by whiteman.

[@G94-u4c]

one thing is for sure, they certainty didn't look like a bearded man from utah. His ancestors were probably farmers as well so he needs to stop the self-hate.

[@jacques.cousteau]

Self-hating white liberals strike again... good this is people are starting to open their eyes

[@dannyarcher6370]

@@G94-u4c _so he needs to stop the self-hate._ Don't hold your breath. The guy is an ex-Mormon who is really trying hard to overcompensate.

[@AOAvina]

Why is everyone mad that their origins aren’t as they were taught in school? Everything is biased in K-12. It doesn’t take a college education to understand that

[@elisharaniasuleiman8013]

To be exact, the age of discovery started when the Portuguese conquest of Ceuta took place on 21 August 1415.

[@hollydavid69]

Take that Johnny !

[@ygreq]

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,.

[@elisharaniasuleiman8013]

@@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.

[@mathewtoll6780]

@@ygreq exactly, where is the paradigm shift?

[@RobitGalaxy]

Now is spanish 🇪🇦🇪🇦🇪🇦

[@a.16.g]

Johnny Harris be like: I’ll heart a dozen positive comments to drown out the the comments criticising my video.

[@kyzantia8884]

Why does Johnny Harris make it sound like Columbus suddenly invented the idea of conquering land, as if humans haven't been doing that since we have been species. He portrays the natives as peaceful which is just wrong, and then says the only reason the ottomans blocked trade was because of the inquisition, when the ottomans blocked all Christian trade across their borders (apart from the venetians, which made them rich). I really like your presentational skills and if you are going to continue to cover important historical events, pls do some research from academic sources, not just reddit.

[@CristianmrWuno]

For example when he spoke about America, Mesoamericans werent saints, they just lived very appart from each other due to how long the continent is. One example of how friendly they were was the action of scalping.

[@JoaoPedroPT696]

It's only bad if it's a white man, if he was brown or black it would be OK.

[@akshatjain8052]

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

[@pumpkineater0076]

I don’t understand this video and the agenda you are pushing with it. At the beginning of the video, you portray Europe as unsophisticated and dirt poor and multiple empires of the east as thriving and ahead of their time. Europe at the time wasn’t an unruly pot of smaller kingdoms and fiefdoms but rather a complex social structure that operated through allegiances and family ties. While the lower casts of society undisputedly had a shitty life as they were in a sense almost slaves(Note the german term "Leibeigene), the upper and middle classes were doing great. The first European university was founded in 1088 in Bologna, and city-states like Venice and Genua or trading guilds like the Hanseatic league were incredibly rich from trade with foreign countries. You portray the fact that the ottoman empire blocked Christian trade from the east (Wich already is a simplification of a complex situation) as if it was caused by the Catholics not being NICE to the Muslims. Bro the ottoman empire had just obliterated the Christian byzantine empire in the centuries prior and took the second most important Christian city, Constantinople, and turned the most important Christian church the Hagia Sophia into a mosque. Did you expect that Christians and Muslims were on great terms after that? And the way you keep emphasizing that Europeans were just peasants and poor is so weird to me. In the time frame, your video is set European lords and kings built some of the most breathtaking castles and palaces like the castle Frýdlant or the Cathedral Church of Saint Peter in Exeter (The heyday of Gothic architecture). And I do think, at least to a certain degree, that Europe’s expansion was most likely driven by greed and the prospect of greater riches, but so was the expansion of every other empire. Why do you only emphasize that fact with Europe and not other empires of the time like the Ottomans and their slave markets or the Mughal empire, who in their conquest of India killed thousands of Hindus (Which by the way was possibly the largest genocide in Human History)? Ps: Not to hate or anything I just think it is a little problematic to make a video series about a very complex historical situation that evolved over centuries and still holds great relevancy today, without consulting Historians and experts on the matter (As he states himself he only holds an “MA in international peace and conflict resolution from American University”)While he never frames himself as an authority on history, and considering that he has made good and well-researched videos on different topics before it would be easy for the 2.87 million subscribers to again belief the things he packs so nicely into an easily digestible format in this video, while in actuality he either pushes a political agenda or is just ill-informed. At least the ill-informed problem could have been solved by consulting somebody who actually knows what they are talking about. By the way sorry if this comment isn't an easy read, as I am not a native English speaker.

[@HAL_NOVEMILA]

Yeah it does not even mentions the "tiny itty bitty" fact that the Ottomans would often get their slaves from the Moorish incursions on the European coastlines... That probably had something to do as to why not many in Europe were inclined to trade with them

[@frankfalkenburry5373]

I understand it. Isn't it clear? He worked for the World Economic Forum, don't forget that. Elites have an agenda to rewrite and delete White history.

[@pumpkineater0076]

@@HAL_NOVEMILA True. The ottomans would enslave countless people all across the Mediterranean coastline and many of them European. The ottoman empire simply was the enemy at the time. Not just because of religious contention but out of rivalry. There is no space for everybody. So you either eat or get eaten.

[@lynxcato3327]

Columbus's voyages occured towards the end of the Gothic period that produced some of the most beautiful buildings ever built. Columbus's times were the beginning of the Renaissance.

[@terr1592]

Also that the Iberians had just finished the reconquista after fighting tooth and nail for their independent existence, after the muslims occupied and subjugated the entire peninsula, reducing the christians to second class citizens

[@matthewwalzer8397]

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.

[@potatonator343]

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.

[@minaa.1984]

@@potatonator343 Ghana had Portuguese settlers as early as 1471

[@ugoinsidevideo]

@@potatonator343 And Cape Bojador in 1434 (20 years before Columbus birth).

[@sangbeom6245]

Magellan also died in the Philippines. Legazpi was another explorer

[@prathapreddy1000]

Well da. Coz Portuguese understood what Columbus he discovered was not India.

[@teemupalviainen]

What you forgot with the Ottomans blocking the path is that they had just recently taken Constantinople, which really blocked the Europeans from getting east. That's where it all started.

[@LonginusFX]

yeah, he "forgor"

[@Warriorcats64]

The Russians had no troublres going east, they even made it to Alaska!

[@CristianmrWuno]

@@Warriorcats64 Well the Russians were focused on expanding no matter what, they only encontered nomad groups and small communities in thmost of their expansion. That's why they had a conflict with Kyev back then since they weren't as tribal as Siberia or Dagestan.

[@suraj-up7wg]

So ottomans took over the trade route so it gives Europeans a free pass to plunder, enslave people and take over the land of others... Such a cute European argument 😆😆

[@g1u2y345]

@@Warriorcats64 Trade went through the silk road.. Merchants weren't going to travel into uncharted territory in Siberia..

[@gignmotion]

Thank you for telling the truth. I learned this when I was a student at UC Berkeley, this was a required class for everyone studying at UC Berkeley known as the American Culture requirement. This is also taught at every Community Colleges, Public Schools and UC System ie. UCLA, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara, along with all the CSU’s. Great job. Mr. Harris. Keep up the good work, very informative. 👍🏽

[@AlexandreGTavares]

I remember being taught in school that the treaty of Tordesillas (where both countries divided the world in 1494) was slightly changed in request of Portugal, the lines were moved west "slightly". Pedro Álvares Cabral, who is credited to have discovered Brazil in 1500 was not actually who "discovered" Brazil. I was told that it is believed that a Portuguese sail on its way to India was caught in a storm and wandered way off route and sighted Brazil many years before but it was kept a secret and that's why the Portuguese requested a change to the original plans so that they could have Brazil.

[@GabGotti3]

Um I disagree. The Spanish benefited more from it. Portugal had “discovered” many islands in the Caribbean and lands in North America. Look at Curacão and Nova Scotia. But they weren’t allowed to keep the lands. Also they “discovered” many more places in East Asia but the Spanish had the lines to their advantage again.

[@DESIBOY-fe7nm]

Wao.

[@DESIBOY-fe7nm]

there is a *very little* fun fact in the video. The line Pope drew was different. (Line of demarcation 1493) The dividing line you showed was set up in *Tordesillas.* (1494) Which was drawn up by Spain and Portugal. *Without Pope.*

[@dutilleul1]

@@GabGotti3 ,as a matter of fact, "spain"discovered nothing and all the places they went was with portuguese pilots, cartography and naval architecture.

[@GabGotti3]

@@dutilleul1 Yup. Exactly

[@cssain-w2g]

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.

[@reinhart114]

Listen to it again. He said, and i quote: "what it was going to known as Spain". Active listening is key.

[@cssain-w2g]

@@reinhart114 but in the map only a region of Spain is called Spain. This is precisely Castille, not Spain.

[@analyticalmindset]

All nations had brutal wars and infighting, but only Europeans spread their problems to every corner of the globe .

[@merof227]

Also to note, Spain and Portugal were Catholic, not Christian.

[@arnovanpoucke7813]

@@merof227 Catholicism is a branch of Christianity

[@sammanberg9485]

0:54 "This isnt a history lesson, you wont be hearing me talking about dates and names" seems super reliable

[@EnzoLarnaca]

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.

[@jedgrahek1426]

I think it might be useful to discuss the massive destructive effects of the Mongols on both China and the Arab world, while Europe was, relatively speaking, not directly affected, and was basically left intact, while the great civilizations of East Asia (except Japan) and Arabia suffered atrocities and horrors on such a mass scale that it is arguable if they had really recovered until relatively recently... and that's completely omitting the effects of European colonialism on these same places later.

[@samanjj]

It wasn’t just Arabia but all nations on the silk route

[@Valamicsatorna]

RIP, 500K Hungarians got killed.

[@Michael-th9ti]

Yeah the whole enterprise of going west was start to find India to make easier trade routes. They didn't believe that anerica was a thing. The situation in the East made trade more difficult so they sought to reach Asia by going West

[@E001-f8g]

U mean The Islamic world not just the arab world ...

[@slinger7529]

@@E001-f8g 1/3 of the mongols were Islamic turkics and the mongols themselves were also a bit Islamic.

[@perfectallycromulent]

i had to stop at "nations of poor miserable farmers." these were some of the wealthiest and most urbanized nations on the planet at the time. France was one of the richest and most populous nations at the time, and Italy, England, and the various nations along the Rhine River were full of cities. they also had the most advanced ships and gunpowder weapons, and were developing modern finance, science, and engineering at the time. it is a nonsensical claim and i will go no further.

[@VelcorHF]

France was a little late to the colonial game. The Dutch were poorer farmers that colonized earlier. All these countries came way later than Portugal/Spain but followed a similar playbook.

[@lucaesposito6896]

Thank you! 👏🏻 the Italian states, especially Venice and Florence were so rich thanks to the trade with the East that they literary invented banking and borrowed money to all the Europeans monarchies.. Europe in 1450 "land of miserable farmers".. like wtf? What about Renaissance!? 😂

[@matthowells6382]

It’s a real shame that this video, that supposedly sets out to correct the historically Eurocentric perspective, is just as revisionist and propagandistic by instead painting the Europeans as inferior…how hard is it to tell a reasonable balanced history without making one side look better or worse than they actually were?

[@perfectallycromulent]

@@VelcorHF well, that's just another part of the problem. if the subject is "how Europe stole the world," that stealing went on across many centuries. early colonies like the USA and Brazil had been independent and become a conquering empires on their own long before the UK, Portugal, and the rest of Europe decided to slice up Africa.

[@jeffpen4622]

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?

[@iDotEXE4sPT]

You straight up ignored the fact that the Portuguese invented caravels, carracks and galleons with hundreds of cannons while the rest of the worlds idea of a naval battle were galleys ramming into each other. Also, the actual reason the world became euro-centric was the stealing of the spice-trade from those huge empires you compared the piss poor european peasants to. They actually formed an alliance headed by the Ottoman Empire, which included the Egyptians, the Gujarati Indians and the Venetians to drive the Portuguese from the Indian ocean but were unsuccessful. Even today, 80% of the global maritime trade passes through the Indian ocean. By controlling choke points like the straight of Malacca or the straight of Hormuz, the Portuguese were able to take huge chunks of the global maritime trade for themselves. Even after the Portuguese Empire declined, the Indian ocean was dominated by european naval powers right until the end of the British Empire for the same reason the US has military bases everywhere and China is building artificial islands in the south China sea: If tou control the sea you control the world. Of course, this doesnt fit your narrative because it doesnt involve natives "with primitive technology" and/or "cant defend themselves".

[@cognition26]

It's the same reason the U.N. constantly destabilize the middle east currently. God forbid the middle east stabilizes and they create trade routes between Africa, China, and Europe.

[@cognition26]

Always a coup that you find out years late was backed by some U.N. nation. Some how a penniless factions turns up with thousands of guns and explosives.

[@JoaoPedroPT696]

To be completely fair the Latin Sail was adapted from the Arab sailors of the Mediterranean, which themselves copied the design from the Romans. That's why the School for studying nautical technology was founded in Sagres since it was were we could find most of the Muslin cartographers and engineers, which were later joined by others. Saying that the Portuguese invented that is historical revisionism and was used as propaganda during the dictatorship. Nevertheless, we should give merit for adapting the technology and being able to use it to its full extent.

[@jeffpen4622]

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?

[@eduardofernandes8155]

The part “Chinese ships to travel around the world” is actually not true. Indeed, the Chinese had enormous ships, but the first ones to actually be able to sail the whole world (even against the wind) were the Portuguese.

[@cam4772]

Good video. However, the rest of the world was not a utopia prior to the age of European exploration. For example, slavery was an integral part of the Ottoman Empire's economy and their slave trade predates the Atlantic slave trade. That is is no way meant to diminish the impact of Europeans, but context is important. That flourishing trade in the east that the Europeans wanted in on, included trading human beings.

[@yannikschmidt9356]

Yeah he got everything a bit one sided there. I dont understand how this Europe/West evil and bad the rest is either great or innocent and springle a bit noble savage in for good measure, is so dominant. As if the rest wasn't a hell hole to leave in and around either. We just started exploring at the right time and good a big buff in technology so we could conquer everything. Like many other empires all around the world since the start of humanity.

[@eineid1]

Every “great empire” mentioned in this video had slavery as an integral part of their economy and society, some of them also practiced human sacrifice (India, China, Mayans, Aztecs and several African cultures all did). They also had very barbaric caste systems that continued to dominate their cultures far into the 20th century, and in some cases these caste systems still play a major part in certain cultures in Africa and Asia. While the tenant farmer in Western Europe (or even worse, the serfs in Eastern Europe) had very few rights, they had it far better than their counterparts in any other part of the World. It is very likely that without the "evil European" conquests of the World, we would still have slavery and brutal caste systems in these "great empires" today. The Age of Enlightenment that eventually led to the modern version of democracy, industrial revolutions and the development of human rights could never have started in Africa, Asia or the Americas.

[@marcoslightspeed5517]

@@yannikschmidt9356 the reason why Europeans are always treated as the villains is because they thought they were better than everyone else and take credit for pretty much anything good hence other people then point out the bad.

[@ooccoo6890]

@@marcoslightspeed5517 You realize that's literally every country?. do you honestly think medieval china didn't think they were superior to europeans.

[@Sundji]

He never said it was a utopia

[@gcarreroa]

You got wrong the size of Spain at the beginning of the video. What you call spain is the kingdom of Castilla and then you had the kingdom of Aragon, that together form what we know as Spain.

[@TommyKNZ]

Hey Johnny, how about a website where you can showcase all the wonderful maps you've collected over the years and perhaps buy prints of the same (where allowed). Fellow map lovers like myself would love it!

[@JackieWelles]

This would also be a great way to introduce a new Sponson, Squarespace...😅 But jokes aside this is great idea!

[@maulikjadav9673]

Yes, couldn't agree more. I'd love to view interactive and zoomable maps on my screen.

[@kdrift6597]

Here some I found from this video: www.loc.gov/resource/gdcwdl.wdl_18562/?sp=1 www.loc.gov/resource/gdcwdl.wdl_18557/?r=-0.04,-0.218,1.111,0.948,0 www.loc.gov/resource/gdcwdl.wdl_18561/

[@dpg227]

He must have spent a fortune on all those large beautiful old maps.

[@austinbergen2409]

@@kdrift6597 you're a rockstar!

[@adventureswithlils4331]

The idea that the Ottoman Empire cut land trade after the fall of Constantinople and the Spanish Reconquista is interesting But the video ignores all the trade with the East from Marco Polo And a lot of the Ottoman Empire stood on the footings of one of the greatest empires of all time… The Roman Empire that had relocated to Turkeye to control said trade route amongst other reasons

[@GenericProtagonist7]

17 minutes seems excessive when all you have to say is "Europe bad, Europeans bad".

[@mastrey]

at the time "Spain " wasn´t a thing was the kingdom of castille per one side and the kingdom of aragon in another part (usually enemys but sometimes allies)

[@eduardoromerovaquero3191]

Nevertheless, although each of the the Kingdoms were ruled separately by the Catholic Kings (Isabelle, Queen of Castille and Fernando, King of Aragón), they certainly had common interests regarding external affairs, among others, and were already consider by some of their contemporaries as rulers of "all the Spains".

[@mardok6289]

Man the world wasn't black and white as you are describing it: rich empires in the East poor peasants in Europe. Before Portugal and Spain you missed just more then 500 years in which the Serenissima Republic of Venice was thriving in an international trade with the Ottoman Empire, the North of Africa, the African Horn and Asia bringing in Europe black pepper, salt, silk and all the spices of which India was gifted. Venetians became so rich that were able to raise from the water one of the most magnificent city ever built, letting people of other culture and religious trading and living there (something that wasn't common in that era). So spices were fully known and used in Europe even before the circumnavigation of Africa, but they were extremely expensive and the monarchies of Europe were subjugated to the power of Venice. This to say that one of the principal cause that brought the two monarchies of Portugal and Spain to find a direct way to the east was basically to take the role of Venice and the other Maritime Republics as Genoa and Pisa, anticipating them and becoming the cheaper and faster supplier of spices in Europe. I wanted to clarify this aspect because from your video it seems that Europe and Asia were complete separate and divided world, but this isn't true, indeed Sicily was part of the islamic Abbasid Caliphate in the 1000 and Marco Polo arrived in China from Venice before the 1300.. So you can say, for sure, that Europe was less gifted in resourcers, but that is why since the advent of the Roman Empire trades were a common thing between Europe, Asia and Africa.

[@artonio5887]

yea this video series probably won't go into much detail, it's a nice simplified, semi-americanized form of explaining the historical events to people who aren't history nerds. So I wouldn't expect big in depth history lessons from this.

[@g1u2y345]

Trading with the Ottomans for 500 years? Are you sure you're not thinking of the Byzantines/Romans?

[@mardok6289]

@@g1u2y345 Generally speaking they have been trading for 500 years with Constantinople, the middle East, and Africa.. But you are true I had to clarify that of course at the beginning the trade was established with the Byzanthine Empire and then it has been carried on with the Ottoman Empire

[@Imran7jr]

+1 This was what my history tutor told me back in 10th grade(India) forgot about Venice thing... was confused when John said they were cut-off by Ottomons... I liked world history, geopolitical stuff in general it's nice to see nations interact with each other, even way back in 1200 when flat earthers were the norm... People thought they would get drown into sky, space at the edge it's fun lol...

[@IrvinRups]

Love the simplicity of your vids. Respect from Zimbabwe

[@lucaesposito6896]

1450 a land of miserable farmers? Ehm.. idk about the rest of Europe, but do you ever heard about Renaissance in Italy? Central Italy + Venice and Genoa were literally so rich that they invented banks (in Tuscany, to be more precise), and they borrowed money to all the European monarchies as far as England. Italy was always at the centre of trade between East and West, especially Venice with all their possessions all over the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. The way you represent Europe is very misleading.

[@lolz6337]

This dude jumps quickly to conclusions and posting anti Christian and anti European content

[@MLGDatBoi]

Only a small minority were rich. The average Joe wasn't.

[@MLGDatBoi]

@@lolz6337 Nah. Europe back then was still mostly poor. 1400s London wasn't exactly the best-smelling city. Inequality was extreme. Only the powerful wealthy minority get featured in the history books. Not everybody could commission Michelangelo to make stuff for them. It's the same for the history of every nation-the average Joe was barely affected by the Silk Road, the Renaissance, Chinese treasure ships, etc. Even bigger historical events like the American Revolutionary War only featured a small portion of American Colonials.

[@navinadv]

The first indication of the existence of banking was technically in India and Sumeria some 2000 years before Christ. The Medici and Dutch then modernised banking. But yes, Europe wasn’t poor and destitute when they went East/West. Europe had several decades (centuries even) of war which modernised their weapons, they had the Renaissance that modernised their culture, and they had the also flirted with democracy, monarchy, and anarchy so had more structure to their politics.

[@diffe]

@@MLGDatBoi Ofcourse not everybody, but he intentionally mentioned Europe as farmers, yet Ottomans, India and China as some rich ass country with no farmers whatsoever. Which is wrong AND misleading.

[@culturedealer4464]

The worst part about colonization is the loss of culture. The loss of diversified modals of thought, perceptions of reality, behaviours, innovations, etc. It's truly very sad.

[@bargeld10]

True af

[@LuisIlva18]

And can you also point the best part?

[@thebarbarian3108]

@@LuisIlva18 yeah but getting the best part isnt free lost of atrocities have been committed.

[@space4166]

Loss of culture yes cutting our hearts was part of atzec empire culture I really miss it

[@space4166]

@@Solid_Snake99 am I wrong? Not saying it’s good but everyone praises the natives..

[@hoppypoppy950]

Bro, you have the tools to make the complicated easy. Don't offend our intelligence and don't underestimate YOUR skills by assuming you can't do it and that we can't grasp the "vastly complicated 500-year history". If I wanted another video of the stupid things we share in the school playground because we were actually asleep during history class and only heard a third of the lesson, I'll go to some random "Top 10 facts about the Middle Ages", thank you. When I go to watch your channel, I'm looking for in-depth analysis, well-researched points. For me to come watch your video and hear you saying sh*t my junior high school teacher had already proved wrong 20 years ago in frigging Brazil is just... 🤦‍♀️ So please, don't fall into the trap of oversimplifying stuff. There's already waaaay too much of that stuff on KZbin and it doesn't suit you.

[@myrnaa1077]

Johnny harris got the major points told correctly, like that The Wests colonial exploits were some of the most EXTREME EVIL acts ever commited in the history of humanity, thats the point of the vid, so youre crying for no reason lmao

[@RoyceVera]

This used to be part one of a series, I hope you continue with this subject

[@CG-eh6oe]

Others have pointed this out, but there are some serious innaccuracies. Some things that stood out to me on first watching: -The first exploreres/conquerors weren't just "adventurous", they wanted to make money, a shitload of it. -"This isn't a history lesson, i won't talk about names and dates" as a history teacher really, really offends me. You see, history is NOT names and dates, its the big picture... -Europe was ofc not just poor farmers, or at least not more so than other parts of the world. -You show a map of europe labeling it as "the world map". Are you suggesting that Asia and Africa were not known to europeans? IF so, thats very wrong. -Europe was part of the global trade network. Most notably, the Genoese and Venetians were huge in the silk and spice trade. The exploration of new trade routes wasn't as much "Europe vs Asia" and more "new european trade powers vs old european trade powers". -Spices like black pepper were known and used in europe, its prices just fell when new routes to get the stuff were discovered. -The indigenous empires of middle and southern America had HUGE armies. However, they didn't have fire arms and more importantly, the well known axctec empire was in a big inner struggle, so it was easy to knock down. -You seem to make too much of a deal of Columbus and his "Idea" of claiming land. The Europeans had done this all over the places, even the "just trading" portuguese had set up trading posts along their route. New wasn't the idea, new was the opportunity to actually occupy big portions of land.

[@Fadogar911]

*the incas had internal struggles (basically divided into two, reigned by two brothers who fought each other)... the aztecs were doing fine, just conquering themselves and sacrificing thousands of people per year, but around 100K indigenous people from other tribes that were being conquered by the aztecs joined the few hundred spaniards and together they brought down the aztecs...

[@blueyodels]

@@Fadogar911 This is what I hate the most, this BS narrative that native americans were these peaceful perfect people. When in reality they were as you said sacrificing humans, and warring/killing other peoples, fighting over territory. It's just that stronger, better tribes came across from the ocean and won.

[@IJ2050]

@@blueyodels In-fighting doesn't excuse the genocide of a group of people, though? This is what I don't understand about the BS, ultra-defensive narrative of "but they were fighting too!" "Africans had slaves too!" - yes, and? How does that, in any way, justify magnifying the slave trade to a global enterprise or committing a genocide of the Natives? This reasoning has the same validity as if I killed an arguing couple cause "they were fighting anyways and having a bad day, soooo why not?"

[@blueyodels]

​@@IJ2050 You clearly have a very infantile view of the world. You literally just glossed over human sacrifice, and by your logic you consider all European wars "in-fighting"? These are peoples/tribes/civilizations warring with each other, conquering each other, and much worse. "This reasoning has the same validity as if I killed an arguing couple..."and this, wow I'm almost speechless. You just compared distinct groups of people with different land, customs, culture who were murdering, raping, stealing , sacrificing each other to a couple having a verbal argument. There's so much more to address but I'm stopping here because your logic is so flawed, your clearly blinded by an emotional worldview that is completely disconnected from reality.

[@samyloaiza98]

@@blueyodels no one but stupid people in the US are saying that though. And, the fact that there was fights within them don't excuse Europeans for literal genocide. Don't mix the two.

[@michelangelomissoni945]

The story of modern European commercial power does not being with Spain and Portugal. The Venetian Republic already in the 1100's, and later on other states involved in the Italian Renaissance, began forming the investment driven commercial networks (linked to the east) that other more powerful European kingdom's began to want to circumnavigate. The ability to sail deep oceans and the growing material wealth of the New World (and the fact 90% of New World inhabitants simply dies from plagues) would allow these Kingdoms to not only monopolize certain trade networks with the East, but eventually allow for near global domination.

[@angelgjr1999]

Spain and Portugal dominated the Americas for hundreds of years. Spain was so rich, they literally crashed the price of silver. Italy has less influence than British, Spain, and Portugal in the Americas. Britain dominates the colonies to the north, and France was… well.. too busy chopping heads off and selling off lands to afford their expensive wars,

[@michelangelomissoni945]

@@angelgjr1999 yes, and you misunderstand my comment entirely. You are referring to the years AFTER Castile and Aragon unified…………. In the 15th century?? Italian city states, while small, where incredibly wealthy for the simply reason that they were some of the first to monopolize trade routes. Spain wanted in but couldn’t go east….. the rest is history. Stop getting so defensive about history neither me nor you were part of lol

[@angelgjr1999]

@@michelangelomissoni945 Iberia was very powerful from the 16th to the 19th century.

[@michelangelomissoni945]

@@angelgjr1999 that’s literally what I am saying man

[@DenUitvreter]

It was no coincidence Portugal was the first to go global, followed by Spain and later the North-Western Europeans. If you can sail the Atlantic coast, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, the oceans don't have that much more to throw at you. The Mediterranean is a very calm sea relatively.

[@RafaelGarcia-eu4lp]

Great channel Johnny; A comment from a spanish fan: I don't think you can argue that the Columbus expedition changed their goal from commerce to conquer. War and conquer is basically what the spaniards had been doing in the previous 800 years.The spanish kingdoms were still at war with the moors when Columbus reached the caribbean; Granada was not conquered until 1492. In the 800 year long wars with the moors, conquering land from them, or having an outstanding participation in a battle, was a way up the social ladder that is specific from these wars and is not found in other european countries during the middle ages. Plain soldiers were given nobility titles, but few got lands creating this low, poor nobility called the hidalgos. Most spanish conquest expeditions were private, not paid by the kings, with no involvement of the royal armies that were extremely busy at that time in Europe. The conquistadores and soldiers were basically continuing their wars for land and wealth in exchange for spreading religion in the continent, and one fifth of the treasures for the king. So most probably they had no real intention of trading unless they had no other choice.

[@Jack-wm5ih]

Greetings from Malaysia, aka ex-Portuguese, ex-Dutch and finally ex-British ‘unclaimed’ land-folks

[@samwisegamgee2488]

Fun video! The natives of South America were pretty "savage". Cannibalism, human sacrifice, constant battle with one another, eating raw meat, etc. Their letter/maps sent back home were descriptive of what they were seeing. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, etc. all alike would have described them as such. I notice you keep saying "white Christians" a lot, skin color and religion had nothing to do with the land grab - opportunity did.

[@raymondqiu8202]

Bruh why you justifying imperialism? Bad is bad, doesn't matter who did it. He's just pointing out the bads of european imperialism

[@meee_5155]

Bruh

[@user-ws8bv9ue5c]

@@raymondqiu8202 when did he justify imperialism lmfao

[@raymondqiu8202]

@@user-ws8bv9ue5c by saying that other natives of america were doing the same bad things to each other and so implying that european imperialism wasn't that bad

[@TomMS]

The problem with using the "savage" terminology is that it is implicitly in opposition to civilization. It discredits cultural differences by focusing on aspects which may be most repulsing to Europeans. These "savage" qualities ignore other qualities of society like storytelling, farming, architecture, sculpture, etc. which may have actually been quite comprehensible to Europeans. In short, Europeans (whose dominant sub-group was indeed white Christians) limited their view of indigenous cultures in order to justify their conquest. Persecution along the lines of skin color and religion was indeed carried out in service of economic opportunity, but this does not make this persecution any less harmful. And, over time, this persecution gained a life of its own apart from economic opportunity.