Although colonial history is not necessarily something to be proud of...

Turkey was part of the Roman Empire, doesn't that count as being colonised or controlled?

this.
They also get better events.

An alliance does no equate to colonialism.

Liberia was fucking established by white European Americans, how was it never controlled by Europeans????

Americans aren't Europeans; they come from the USA which is in North America.

It's because of Christianity. The church fostered nationalism by arbitrating disputes and dissuading any one nation from claiming complete dominions over other nations. This led to competition, which leads to technological and social progress.

They're following the meme that Americans aren't Europeans.

>church fostered nationalism

The rise of nationalism killed the power Christianity.

Doubled edged sword and all that. The fact is the Pope didn't want Christians killing Christians exclusively until the end of time and would prefer all the power of the entirety of Europe fall into the hands of a single emperor, because that would make the papacy kind of pointless.

*wouldn't prefer

>French Guyana is part of Europe

Neither is Kamchatka.

Europeans were being locked out of access to the traditional trade routes to the near and far east by the ottomans. That led to them looking for ways around the turks and that eventually led to Columbus and his voyage to find a western route to india. That in turn led to the discovery of the americas and all that came from that.

TL;DR the europeans basically got exclusive access to two entire continents to exploit. That pretty much guaranteed they would shoot ahead of other powers.

Iran was occupied by Russian and British soldiers, so was Afghanistan and it was a British protectorate

EUROPED!

>Germans
>imperialism

Pick one and only one. Put the based Portuguese in place of Hans there instead.

>Germany
The fucking USA did more colonizing than them

>what one small continent was able to accomplish.

Europe had a massive population density, and being a peninsula-continent with a huge historical focus on the Mediterranean sea, along with being at the end of the silk road, meant they got technologies and ideas from all over the world. It also meant European nations focused on the navy more than Asian nations did. Navies ended up being the deciding factor in dominance.

Because of the location of Europe on the Mediterranean and Silk road, that meant when guns were invented and made it to europe, mixing with their naval technology, they were able to go around to 4 continents and shoot people who didn't have guns. You can't really be impressed with the colonization of North and South America and Africa and Australia. They just shot people without guns and took all of their wealth and resources.

That made their wealth explode exponentially.

What's actually impressive is how fast European empires declined. when compared to other historical empires, they only lasted, what, 200, 300 years? WWI marked the end of European Empires.

This is because the culture of colonialism and "shooting people until they submit" was transferring to mainland Europe, and so began militarization and eventually, the self destruction of WWI and WWII.

ALSO, European colonies demanded independence. This didn't happen on a wide scale with, let's say, the Roman Empire or the Chinese or Indians or Muslims. Those empires fell as they aged and their centralized government become too decadent.

European Empires did not worry about the opinion of their colonized people. If you force a people to submit, and give them absolutely none of the wealth or freedoms that the people of the homeland have, they are not only significantly less productive, they revolt.

It's why the British Empire was the dominant one. They were the least "strict" as an Empire. Sort of moderate when compared to other European Empires.

Not my meme friendo.

not only did the church resist nationalism, nationalism isn't the reason for European dominance. It was the reason for their fall, though. WWI and WWII, anyone?

Well, so was Japan, the paradygmatic "unconquered" asian state.

>Afghanistan and it was a British protectorate
>"""""""protectorate"""""""

meaning they had some soldiers at the capital and said "we rule all this area even though we can barely even talk to those nomads and tribesmen".

The British were masters at self-inflation and delusions of grandeur

>They were the least "strict" as an Empire. Sort of moderate when compared to other European Empires.

That's a meme originated on the fact that the British Empire had it's height in more modern and, therefore, more human times (for europe) .

nah, compare the British to the French. The French, in their colonies, tried to eliminate concepts of ethnic groups and even religious identities.

Basically, where they took over, they said "You are French first, everything else second", where as the British were like "Whatever, just give us our taxes, and kinda follow our laws. If you don't wanna follow our laws, whatever, just don't get caught."

How is that more moderate? They are just different approaches. Being french was good.

Bullshit, if the British didn't have naval superiority against the French, the French empire would've been the dominant one.
Also Europe would be French dominated but that's another story.

lmao who cares about talking their language when you control their foreign affairs

Peace of Westphalia was the birth of nationalism, arbitrated by the church. Furthermore, Christians were dissuaded from conquering other Christians, hence the Crusades and later colonialism. External conquest was preferred.

Empires stagnate because bigger and better canons weren't necessary when your enemies didn't even have canons. That's what led the nations of Europe who were of relatively equal power to strive to develop the best ships and the best canons.

>>>>>>>Although colonial history is not necessarily something to be proud of

Kill yourseld

>Japan was never under European/American sphere of influence

It's certainly less strict. The French tried a lot harder to centralize and administer their colonize. The brits liked to just leave it to any locals that were willing to play ball.

I like how some butthurt Brit photoshopped this pic and colored the huge Louisiana Purchase territorry that Britain never cotrolled in red

Not sure I'd call Ethiopia colonized. They were occupied but only very briefly during WW2. It was pretty much an interregnum and even then the Italian control of the country was tenuous since they were bitterly resisted from beginning to end.

>How is it even possible to dominate the world in this extent?
The Americas came down to technological advantage, desease and genocide. Also the (realtive) integration of mixed race people in the new world (at least for the spanish colonies)

Africa tore itself apart over the slavetreade and was demographically weakend so the europeans could just kind of stroll in...from there on repression...lots of repression

Same with the middle east after ottoman removal, repression...

If you don't have random gen for america you will probably reach America via east Africa.

>Peace of Westphalia
>Nationalism
No.. Nationalism was a purely political construct that derived from the liberal ideas of the American and French Revolution.

Why would a Brit be butthurt when they beat France in North America?

You have no clue.
The british were the cruelest colonizers that's a fact.

As well the whole "unimpressive" bullshit you claim can be applied to any other historical feat in history.
Anything can be dumbed down and made to seem as though it was bound to happen, but the fact is these feats are still impressive.

Western Europe dominated world affairs at the dawn of one of the fastest changes in history and because of that the world still submits to European institutions and powers.

You have it wrong friendo. You're doing the typical mistake of using modern values on a different time period.

At a time, all these savages were seen as subhuman. The Brits saw them as such, and killed them when necessary (see: treatment of indigenous Australians and Americans), then kept them for labour when killing wasn't possible or profitable (see: India and Africa).

The French tried to "save" these subhumans by converting them and turning them into one of them, something that seems shocking but in reality is more humanitarian than what the British did.

Yes, Belgium was the most benevolent as well.

>BROŃ PALNA
>MIKROBY
>I STAL

Eve if you became "French" you still weren't really, the privileges could be easily revoked or changed and on the paper you were but in the view of the public and social interactions you still were a nigger. Also you had to really fuck up your personal identity and cuckold your identity to achieve it.

>if you dont agree with me then youre a nigger killer xd
There's more blood on Britain's hands than the French, I have no idea how you reached the opposite conclusion.

The Prutguese and the French were pretty fucked up hard.

The French killed like 12k workers in one colony building a railroad that it caused a big rebellion and forced France to sign the anti forced labour treaty. The British were the first to sign it of the Euro powers actually but it didn't stop arbitrary taxation from coercing labour in said English colonies.

I was implying Belgium was the worst, friend. There is no need to be upset.

Also the French killed a huge amount of Madagascans like in the 10k+ range.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770

This on its own surpasses all other death counts of other colonial powers.
Yes, one single event.

Sasuga Afghanistan

Why were Thailand, Japan, and the Koreas so based?
Or were they just shitty territories nobody wanted?

The nation-state was formalized in the Peace of Westphalia. There the right of the nation-state to exist was formerly declared among the nations involved.

>Japan
>China
Forced to change old ways, western troops landing and controlling key cities, forcibly opened up to trade, and forcibly adopted western technology all of the sudden

>Mongolia
>Thailand
>Korea
Too busy getting annexed by other Asians

>Afghanistan
>Iran
>Turkey
Fair enough

>Saudi Arabia
Aided by British

This guy gets it

I'd argue that Turkey counts as western due to how similar it was to Europe in many aspects

As for Persia and Afghanistan they were only spared because of a mini cold war between Britain and Russia at the time. Had either one given it up the other would definitely had taken it.

Moral of the story, this is a European world.

I'm not saying the brits were guiltless just saying both the French and British did fucked up things and honestly if France was in the same situation they'd so the same thing.

>not necessarily something to be proud of

Idiot they mean colonial idiot

Yeah right. Brits didnt kill anyone without trying to make them british. Lets see...
>canada
>us
>new zealand
>australia

Where are all the locals user ?

Imagine if the Mongols were at their height during the age of sailing

I believe this to be a more accurate version.

The mongols were shit at navies though, they got wrecked at nearly every naval battle

Korea was under total japanese control,
which is the only reason they
were never under European control

youtube.com/watch?v=B0WH8hCMeug

All Glory, All Honor

Victory is upon us

Our Savior, fight evil

Send armies to defend us

Europa, Europa

Find batter days before us

In kindness, in spirit

Lead us to a greater calling

Find batter days before us

In kindness, in spirit

Lead us to a greater callin

Mongolia was definitely under European control, it was a fucking soviet satellite state for 70 years.

>What's actually impressive is how fast European empires declined.
stopped reading right there

>Turkey
What?

It's funny how little truths can slip out from video games. Thinking about another thread, playing Crusader Kings I now understand very well why royals trended naturally to young marriages.

I marry my daughters off as soon as possible due to the ever present specter of risk. Who knows what's going to happen. They could take forever to have kids, someone could die, political alliances could lose value. It's just not worth it to keep them in reserve compared to what you could lose given a limited time and the value that marriages can bring.

kamikazeeeeee

The end of the Ottoman empire had Europeans taking over a bunch of their institutions before finally gutting it.

That was only occupation in the same way Japan was occupied after WWII, but ultimately Atatürk defended independent Turkey.

Even before the collapse of the Ottoman empire the Europeans were taking over their institutions, though. They used the classic "you owe us money and we're here to collect" reasoning to basically hijack their financial institutions and grab them by the balls. Not to mention the Europeans were casually slicing bits of the empire off for decades before its collapse.
Turkey wasn't qualified, but I think all that qualifies as "partial European control or influence,"

>Netherlands and Portugual
>not colonized or controlled by europe while other europeans were
>sweden colonized or controlled by europe
I suppose I never realized just how effective Anglo propaganda has been

The Kalmar Union was basically a Danish Kingdom.

On that note, Ireland and Scotland should have been green.

Portugal and Netherlands at least had colonies bruh.

>Portugal and Netherlands at least had colonies bruh.
but they were undeniably controlled by at least the Spanish at one point

Now think of how smaller the green areas would be if this was realistic. As in what was actually claimed at first, and not just filled in afterwards

>How is it even possible to dominate the world in this extent?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race

Then England should be controled by Europe (the dutch).

>Americans aren't Europeans; they come from the USA which is in North America.
I think I just got a small stroke from reading that.
You do know how the US came to be right?
You realize that the majority of people in the US, and the people that created the US were/are not native to America, as in, they are not native americans, right?

I don't get it, it reminds me of the people (in Russia) that believe that Russia is more Asian than European. Why would anybody not wanna be part of the heritage of the most successful continent and people of all time? "Western culture, sometimes equated with Western civilization, Western lifestyle, Western society or European civilization is a term used very broadly to refer to a heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief systems, political systems, and specific artifacts and technologies that have some origin or association with Europe" Americans see themselves as Westerners, right?

Why is Somaliland shaded like that? It was a British colony.

>Nordics who did jack shit in conquering the world
>Master race over Russians who did colonize shit.

Turkey is the one special case
Arguably they could be colored pink on this map

How is this map more accurate?
"Colonized or controlled by Europe"
Well obviously half of Europe has been controlled by Europe, ITS PART OF EUROPE, ALL THE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES HAVE IN FACT BEEN CONTROLLED BY EUROPE, WHO MADE THIS MAP??

That's the point user

Everything between Berlin and Moscow isn't actually part of Europe
It's just wasteland with some random natives inside

Naval supremacy.

Simple as that. Europe is really one big peninsula with scattered islands everywhere. Northern and West Europeans especially were excellent sailors like Henry the Navigator essentially revolutionising sailing. Vikings had trading posts in Canada hundreds of years before Columbus landed the Caribbean.

The most heavily populated cities are on the coast or along the banks of a river. You can easily sail your marines and soldiers up to the city for rapid deployment. Also, naval bombardments too. Also, you dominate trade due to how much faster your boats are. The Dutch, who did just about fuck all for all of recorded history, managed to become a world power in their time due to dominance in sea trade.

Even today, 90% of trade is done by the sea. Back then it would have been like 99.999%.

also left Quebec to France even though Brits captured Montreal and Quebec, yeah map maker is tard

Last I checked the French plot for the independence of British colonies worked great

In fact it worked so great the home country is now the colony of the former colony

Nope France totally won in North America actually

U WOT M8

Well he did say French and Dutch so you might as well consider yourself included m8
(don't ask people to actually mention you tho that would be pushing it)

While America was certainly the biggest influence of the Western world on Japan, it's technically not European.

You could go roundabout and say it's in indirectly influenced by Britain, but it was militarily occupied by America relatively recently, so it'd be more fair to count America as a colonial power.

Then why aren't malayo-polynesians the overlords of Asia or at least east asia?