Yep. The huge advancements in technology brought about by colonialism and capitalism in Europe compelled their naval supremacy, which allowed Europe to dominate trade routes, leapfrogging India and China who were still more of a developed feudal-sort of stage. This led to the Opium Wars, colonization of India and China, and eventually their independence movements that propelled China into socialism and India into its own capitalist system (which is a whole other discussion).
Yep. The huge advancements in technology brought about by colonialism and capitalism in Europe compelled their naval supremacy
I think you’ve got that backwards. After Rome, it was pretty much a cold, marginal peninsula off of Asia full of starving peasants, until they invented practical seafaring. The wealth that made them a player in the first place came from their ability to travel to the New World and exploit the technological and societal gap present there, and to bypass the silk road.
Sort of. There was a decent bit of naval development which enabled the initial slave trade and colonization of the Americas, but they didn’t truly leapfrog India and China until they used the spoils to reach dramatic capitalist development, industrialization, and purposefully direct research and tech into millitary and naval development so as to become uncontestable. This turned trade from being somewhat dominated to fully dominated and uncontestable.
Europe had practical seafaring since antiquity. European naval technology during the discovery of the Americas was on par with other Eastern Hemisphere naval powers.
The naval technology empowered the discovery, but it isn’t like Europe was special at the time.
Also, it still took a while to bypass the Silk Road. Even when Europe did, it still ran into an issue that China wouldn’t trade for any European manufactured goods, just gold and silver.
Europe had practical seafaring since antiquity. European naval technology during the discovery of the Americas was on par with other Eastern Hemisphere naval powers.
No and no. In antiquity they followed the coasts most of the time, and followed really safe routes across mostly-closed seas the rest of the time. Trireme construction was good enough to take rough weather, while it existed, but for one thing they had trouble with navigation.
Chinese boats of the early modern era were leaky and unseaworthy by comparison, if sometimes extremely large for show, and their sails didn’t tack nearly as well.
The Vikings did manage seafaring, but they had a very specific design that was pushed pretty much to it’s limits. You can’t make a clinker-built longship any bigger or better really, and eventually economic conditions meant they stopped bothering with the big expeditions. Later on some of those same techniques made their way into the caravel.
The Polynesians managed it much earlier, and did spread around, but they were otherwise in the literal stone age. It is still pretty curious they didn’t leave more impact on the Americas.
It’s worth noting India and China were wealthier than both until pretty far into the modern period. Maybe Japan too, I’m not sure.
Edit: And maybe SE Asia, they had their own maritime empires and interacted with Australians before the Europeans, which is neat.
Yep. The huge advancements in technology brought about by colonialism and capitalism in Europe compelled their naval supremacy, which allowed Europe to dominate trade routes, leapfrogging India and China who were still more of a developed feudal-sort of stage. This led to the Opium Wars, colonization of India and China, and eventually their independence movements that propelled China into socialism and India into its own capitalist system (which is a whole other discussion).
I think you’ve got that backwards. After Rome, it was pretty much a cold, marginal peninsula off of Asia full of starving peasants, until they invented practical seafaring. The wealth that made them a player in the first place came from their ability to travel to the New World and exploit the technological and societal gap present there, and to bypass the silk road.
Sort of. There was a decent bit of naval development which enabled the initial slave trade and colonization of the Americas, but they didn’t truly leapfrog India and China until they used the spoils to reach dramatic capitalist development, industrialization, and purposefully direct research and tech into millitary and naval development so as to become uncontestable. This turned trade from being somewhat dominated to fully dominated and uncontestable.
Europe had practical seafaring since antiquity. European naval technology during the discovery of the Americas was on par with other Eastern Hemisphere naval powers.
The naval technology empowered the discovery, but it isn’t like Europe was special at the time.
Also, it still took a while to bypass the Silk Road. Even when Europe did, it still ran into an issue that China wouldn’t trade for any European manufactured goods, just gold and silver.
No and no. In antiquity they followed the coasts most of the time, and followed really safe routes across mostly-closed seas the rest of the time. Trireme construction was good enough to take rough weather, while it existed, but for one thing they had trouble with navigation.
Chinese boats of the early modern era were leaky and unseaworthy by comparison, if sometimes extremely large for show, and their sails didn’t tack nearly as well.
The Vikings did manage seafaring, but they had a very specific design that was pushed pretty much to it’s limits. You can’t make a clinker-built longship any bigger or better really, and eventually economic conditions meant they stopped bothering with the big expeditions. Later on some of those same techniques made their way into the caravel.
The Polynesians managed it much earlier, and did spread around, but they were otherwise in the literal stone age. It is still pretty curious they didn’t leave more impact on the Americas.