Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

26

Short Answer: The Candiens were tired of war and content with British rule. Long Answer: Twenty-some years before the American Revolution (1754), which was just before the Seven Years War, this is what the map of British Colonies looked like: Only a few areas of modern-day Canada were British then: Nova-Scotia, Labrador-Newfoundland, and around James' ...


26

Africa was relatively densely populated compared to North and South America. When Europeans landed in the Americas, they were sparsely populated, and the Indians often died from diseases brought by Europeans. The few that didn't were easily conquered by the Europeans, whom "advanced" cultures such as the Aztecs and Incas mistook for gods. The Africans had ...


24

In fact during the Age of Discovery, Africa had been the principle objective. It really begins with Prince Henry the Navigator, a son of the King of Portugal who had an intense fascination with Africa. In particular he was taken with the legend of Prester John, said to be a descendant of one of the Three Magi who presided over a magical land with marvels ...


23

Very poor terrain (harsh deserts, heavy rain forests) and very frightening diseases. Later advances in technology and especially medicine made the process tolerable and possible.


19

There are a good number of reasons why the British were able to do so, and in fact rule over India effectively for over a century. Disunity among Indian princely states. India was more a collection of warring princely states, at loggerheads with each other. The British sucessfully used this to play off one state against another. Add to it there was no ...


15

The British East India Company did not set out to conquer and rule India, nor did that situation manifest itself overnight, nor by any single battle or treaty. The British built ties with stable commercial interests in India, leaving the freedom to act opportunistically in Indian politics as the Mughal Empire crumbled outmaneuvered European rivals in ...


15

I take it you mean why was there no "Scramble for China" in the 19th century. Excluding Hong Kong, ceded to Britain after the First Opium War. The Second Sino-Japanese War makes an excellent case study of the problems of invading China. In 1937 China had a completely out of date military and an ineffective industrial base, and was fighting a civil war. ...


14

Ok, first we need to find the destination port. Wikipedia notes that Ada and Prampram were important ports in addition to Accra. Good, can we find logs from any ships that traveled from England to these destinations? I searched but couldn't find anything for either Ada or Prampram (maybe these ports already lost their importance in the 19th century). For ...


14

There were several reasons: 1) The inhabitants of British North America were either "settlers" or descendants of setters, which is to say that they were more entrepreneurial (and rebellious) than "natives" of other colonies. 2) The "13 Colonies," did not have the experience of being conquered or defeated by Britain, unlike even Canada (taken from the ...


14

The Wikipedia entry on the book is pretty thorough. Guns, Germs, and Steel is definitely controversial, because Diamond is writing from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist, and essentially is arguing that history is if not wholly determined by geography, at least heavily influenced by it. From the Wikipedia entry: Guns, Germs and Steel met with ...


13

The only ones I have ever seen were referenced in the Columbian Exchange as being passed to the Old World: bejel or nonvenereal syphilis Chagas disease which is more of a parasite from Central/South America pinta which is similar to bejel and another form of syphilis Mostly the effects, if you believe Jared Diamond, came more from the crowded conditions ...


13

This is a good question that must come to many people's minds when they see the two very similarly sized (Taiwan only slightly larger) islands. The similarities are a even more numerous than the visual. They were both long at the margins of power in Chinese empires, had significant minorities who vigorously defended their autonomy (in Hainan it was the ...


12

As I've understood it, selling entire tribes or large parts of it was already an ancient use. This was useful to the victors for money, as well as power and the guarantee that the particular tribe wouldn't attack them in the near future. Furthermore, slave trade deep into Africa was also in use by the Arabs, who, like the Europeans did at first, bought the ...


11

One reason is because of the poor topography, and the lack of good transportation. Take the southern cone, for instance. The Andes Mountains divide Argentina and Chile. They also divide Colombia and Venezuela further north. One kind of wonders why Uruguay and Paraguay are separate entities from Argentina, until one realizes that they formed around ...


11

First, there was hardly such thing as "German monarchs": before Bismarck Germany was fractured into a bunch of small states, each with its own monarch. True, they were formally united into "Holy Roman Empire of German People", but, as Voltaire pointed out, "Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy nor Roman nor Empire". And when Bismarck finally united Germany it ...


11

Because it didn't have a choice: it had neither the will to defy the British Government, nor the ability to do so. Remember corporations are not people; its shareholders and directors were. In this case, most of them were British, owning properties and with aspirations in Britain. That alone made resisting a duly constituted Act of Parliament by force ...


11

Kind of, but not as such. The closest to what you're probably thinking of is the nihonjin-machi that began to form in the Pacific around the same time as Europe's Renaissance. These were primarily mercantile communities, but later also housed significant numbers of samurais, Christians and other exiles from Japan. None of them survived after the early modern ...


10

Malaria I'd actually leave it at that, if the posting software let me. But to elaborate, Europeans actually did actively try to colonize Africa continuously during the Age of Discovery. The problem was that Malaria killed them off quicker than more could be sent. The only place it really worked was in South Africa, which was too temparate for Malaria to ...


10

The most important "paradigm shift" of the early 19th century was the Industrial Revolution. That was the harnessing of the steam, and later, internal combustion engines, for manufacturing advances that led to an "order of magnitude" gains (five to ten times) in the standard of living. The great powers of the time were also among the earliest beneficiaries ...


10

If by "colonize", you mean ethnicly and culturally take over the territory, like was done in North America and Austrialia: This is one of the questions touched on by Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. The basic thesis is that Eurasians had an advantage due to their large shared pool of (termperate-climate) domesticated crops/animal technology, and ...


10

Although this question probably can't be resolved without years of comparative study, a quick indication of the answer can be done by looking at the current GDP of the countries as a reasonable measure of "stability and success". The cases are also very different between different continents and times, as colonization changed a lot during the period. ...


9

Germs. The natives of Australia and the Americas were wiped out (some places seeing ~95% fatality rate) from smallpox and other diseases that the Europeans carried to them. In some places the germs went faster than proper colonisation. For example, the natives of the Mississippi seem to have been wiped out after a handful of Europeans made contact with ...


9

Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations has a short section on this question. He explains that while Africa was "inhabited by barbarous nations" just like the Americas, the former were primarily shepherds while the latter, with the exception of Mexico and Peru, were hunters. Because a society dependent on shepherds can produce more food and sustain a higher ...


9

Here's what evidence they had: The word "Croatan" carved into a post of the fort The word "Cro" carved into a nearby tree All the houses and fortifications had been dismantled (They weren't destroyed) They didn't carve a Maltese Cross into any tree (John white instructed them to do so, if they were forced to move) Because there was no cross, John White ...


9

Summary Strong perpetual rulers after independence from Spain led to the eventual breakup of early alliances. Explanation First we must consider the political subdivisions of the Spanish Empire in the Americas when Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808 (Peninsular War): Viceroyalties: governed by viceroys (representatives of the monarch) New Spain: roughly ...


9

Try to go back to primary source and archaeological evidences. Are there mass graves? What about population movement? What do statistics have to say about the population, economy, and whatnot? You can look at the documents and narratives's authors and find out inconsistencies within them or evidence of forgeries/lies -- note that lack of such is not ...


9

Another 3 advices to add to Sardathrion's: Try not to let emotions affect you into mistaking incidents for trends (one such example from History SE was when someone described US involvement in Vietnam as being a pattern of massacres. While Mai Lai is indeed horrific, it's (given the scale) a minor blip that serves to prove the opposite trend (out of ...


9

Where to start? Starting from the forced exchange of population between Greece and Turkey in 1923, you will find no shortage of examples, some of truly unbelievable scale. Among the most prominent ones are population transfer and Russian settlements in the former USSR (considering the brutality of the regime, I think it is beyond dispute that these satisfy ...


8

Well technically they colonised the rest of the country. Initially the USA was only the eastern seabord.


8

It is very clear that Brazil declared independence from Portugal, and not the other way around. That is why it is celebrated in Brazil and not in Portugal. There was a fairly short war of independence, fought on Brazilian soil between the Brazilians and the Portuguese garrisons, later reinforced by additional troops sent from Portugal. This shows that ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible