So why is it that Portugal (one of the weakest nations in Europe) was able to BTFO Asia and create an empire there as...

So why is it that Portugal (one of the weakest nations in Europe) was able to BTFO Asia and create an empire there as early as the 1500s? This is far before any traditional markers of Western superiority (such as industrialization and new-world resources) ever appeared. It's the equivalent of Vietnam sailing to Europe and conquering the Italian city states.

How do you explain that? Was the West already so much better than the rest of the world, even in the 1500s? That doesn't fit the modern narrative.

They set up a bunch of trading posts. Hardly "btfo Asia."

Also, it's pretty funny you're using military force as the sole criterion for "better."

>They set up a bunch of trading posts. Hardly "btfo Asia."
So if Korea sailed over to Italy and set up a bunch of trade posts there through naval and military might, it wouldn't be BTFOing them? In order to be capable of such a feat you'd need substantial superiority over your opponents.

Better technology and quality of life is pretty much the basis of materialism, what was the east spiritually better

This is not how trading posts work

Trading route changes from british india, same thing happened to the ottomans. Portugal did get double hit in its economy though from trading route collapse then industrialized economy while being agrarian

Portugal wasn't weak, the Spanish were buddies with them most of the time, the English strong allies, basically no one was fucking with them much, they weren't really struggling and other nations weren't all what they are now, lots of smaller nations in what makes up bigger nation now.

And due to their position they were great sea people, progressively gaining footholds that others didn't have.

I think he means they are weak now

Late medieval Europeans had developed extensive oceanic trade between the Mediterranean and the Baltic/North Seas. Before that Mediterranean and Atlantic ships had been suited to their own environments; galleys in the Mediterranean and cogs/hulks in the North/Baltic. The combination of these two systems lead to the creation of more advanced ships suited to a much wider usage; carracks and caravels. Add to that the fact that throughout Europe naval warfare was always common, while in the Indian ocean it was a rarity, and it's not hard to see why the Indian Ocean was so easy to dominate. I remember someone on here described carracks as basically being ships mounted with two siege towers loaded with cannon, which seems like a good way to put it. Swahili, Indian and Malay ports just weren't built to fight off that kind of stuff, because that kind of warfare just didn't exist. This was only in the Indian ocean though; East Asians had far more advanced naval warfare (though still not on par with Portuguese stuff), and probably could have dominated the Indian ocean in the same way if they had any desire to do so. Europeans were the only people with any strong incentive to conquer the region.

>Europeans are the only ones with strong incentives to conquer

Hello tumbler

they got btfo'd by somalis

The thing is that they weren't dominated by any means. Yes, the Portuguese were more advanced.

You're looking at a map with borders that hadn't been dreamed of. There was no "India". There were small city states to set up trade. If there was a United India in 1500 AD, then it would have been an impossibility for the Portguese to conquer it (which it never did in the first place)

Please stop shitposting.

You're right, it's retarded to say they dominated Asia or India. It's not wrong to say they dominated the Indian Ocean trade though, at least for the 16th century.

>It's not wrong to say they dominated the Indian Ocean trade though, at least for the 16th century
It is still wrong, just like your tumblr tier post about only Europeans having incentive to conquer shit. You're definitely on the left-hand side of Mount Stupid. The Portuguese may have had Cartazes, which gave them government incentivized piracy, but they didn't dominate trade in the Indian Ocean by any means. Carracks weren't well suited for trade in the region and they were even more susceptible to the trade winds of the monsoons. On top of this, no one wanted to trade with them. They had nothing worth trading which is why they resorted to the Cartaz system: so they could get shit worth trading. Even after this, they were seen as brutish and domineering and thus were traded with at a lesser pace than others in the region.


tl;dr
Arabs, East Africans, and Indians dominated Indian Ocean Trade until the late 18th century when the British fully secured India. Go read more. There's even an entire book on the Indian Ocean World by Abdul Sherriff to educate you.

how is this tumblr?

>counter-factual history designed to make Europeans look like the only people who conquered things
Gee, I wonder Reddit.

>just like your tumblr tier post about only Europeans having incentive to conquer shit
I never said that you cunt, learn to read. Europeans were the only people with the incentive to conquer THE INDIAN OCEAN because nobody else needed to conquer it. The Mamelukes, Chinese, Indians, Swahilis, Indonesians and so on all had their own place in the trade. Europeans on the other hand were cut off and had to deal with Islamic and Venetian middle men. Add to that a culture of crusading against Muslims and a desire to find Prester John, and there's a clear incentive to conquer the region which didn't exist anywhere else.

So tell me, how many people tried to conquer the entire Indian Ocean before Portugal?

>I never said that you cunt, learn to read
>Europeans were the only people with any strong incentive to conquer the region
Which is wrong.

>THE INDIAN OCEAN because nobody else needed to conquer it
There were strong desires to gain trade monopolies in the region by various Indian princes as well as the Emirati tribes in what would now be the UAE. You're continually showing your ignorance on what you're discussing. Again, you're on the left side of Mount Stupid.

>Europeans on the other hand were cut off and had to deal with Islamic and Venetian middle men
This ceased to be the case in the 1490's so it's irrelevant. However, even after this point, Europe didn't have anything worth trading until nearly 2 centuries later.

>Add to that a culture of crusading against Muslims
The Portuguese are not the Spanish. They didn't have the fiery Reconquista mentality the Spanish had since their Reconquista ended centuries prior. You're conflating two wildly different entities which is again showing your ignorance. It's time to stop posting.


The Mughals, various Arab tribes, various Indian princes, Persia (several times)

>The Portuguese are not the Spanish. They didn't have the fiery Reconquista mentality the Spanish had since their Reconquista ended centuries prior.

The Portuguese invaded North Africa repeatedly starting in the early 15th century and only stopping after the disastrous Battle of Alcazar near the end of the 16th century.

>The Portuguese invaded North Africa repeatedly starting in the early 15th century and only stopping after the disastrous Battle of Alcazar near the end of the 16th century
Which happened in neither reconquistas or crusades, but please, keep stringing this out instead of picking up a fucking book and educating yourself.

Also the Mughals would only reach the Indian Ocean after the Portuguese had already arrived.

They were strong back then.

Now they are a joke. They havent been relevant in over 200 years. They got btfo by all their colonies in the end too. Talk about humiliating.

Arrival =! conquer
The Portuguese didn't try to dominate until the mid to late 16th century.

>Which happened in neither reconquistas or crusades
I'm not the same person you're talking with, but I had to point out that error, and now this second error. Alcazar was pushed by the crown to be a crusade, but never achieved that status for political reasons. The Reconquista ideology is well attested among the 15th and 16th century Portuguese.

The point is the Mughals could hardly have attempted conquest of the Indian Ocean (which they never did) before the Portuguese without actually appearing on the Indian Ocean before the Portuguese.

>The Mughals, various Arab tribes, various Indian princes, Persia (several times)

None of them have ever attempted to conquer the Indian Ocean. At most they conquered or vassalized a coastline directly opposite their own such as Iran and Oman, or Yemen and Somalia, but the Mughals never invaded Indonesia, no Indian prince invaded Malabar, and no Indonesian king attacked Arabia.

Well it wasn't the weakest at that time

They were the first to state overseas trade thus was the first to profit from it (when Spain and the Netherlands went into the fray they went into decline).
They made nice with China thus getting an edge over imitators on East Asian trade.

not much else to say except, they were first

>Talk about humiliating.

Blame Salazar. Fucking idiot wanted 3000 good men to sacrafice themselves against a vastly larger and stronger army in Goa.

>Which is wrong.
No, it's not.

>There were strong desires to gain trade monopolies in the region by various Indian princes as well as the Emirati tribes in what would now be the UAE.
Then why did none of them try? The Cholas launching a raid against Srivijaya isn't the same as trying to rule the entire Indian Ocean.

>This ceased to be the case in the 1490's so it's irrelevant
How the hell does that make it irrelevant? The Portuguese had been trying to round Africa well before the 1490s.

>The Portuguese are not the Spanish. They didn't have the fiery Reconquista mentality the Spanish had since their Reconquista ended centuries prior. You're conflating two wildly different entities which is again showing your ignorance. It's time to stop posting.
You know the Portuguese had been fighting the Moors too? Hell, their whole empire started with Ceuta.

>The Mughals, various Arab tribes, various Indian princes, Persia (several times)
Nobody you listed tried to conquer the whole Indian Ocean.

I honestly can't tell what you're trying to say here, do you think the Portuguese conquered the Indian Ocean's main ports by accident or something? Do you think they had no incentive?

I honestly dont believe this map.

Poortugal is the joke of Europe, Spain probably did all the heavy lifting and just gifted it to Portuguese.

Your perspective is completely wrong in every possible way.

First, Portugal was one of the most influential nations of Europe in 1500, and virtually controlled the routes between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Lisbon was already the largest port in the Atlantic by the year 800, and remained it for centuries. From Genoa (Allied) to Antwerp (under Portuguese commercial control), the route was made by the Portuguese shipowners.

Second, no, the achievements of Portugal were not like this.

They managed notable victories - some ports in the Maghreb (until the Ottomans take hold) - trading posts of long distance in Africa (Elmina, São Tomé, Luanda, Mozambique) - some sieges and attacks on Swahili cities, built half a dozen Forts and trading posts, and set up smuggling stations where they could manage.

Caused some problems to the Mamluks, and then the Ottomans, but nothing close to an effective conquest, or, in your terms, "BTFO". In the end, eventually they are driven out, except for some ports in remote regions.

That was such a shitshow. He wanted them to defend until the last man. All for some pieces of land in fucking India. Was it even still profitable for them or were they just holding onto it for the heck of it?

>ottomans owning morocco
>ottomans owning parts of indonesia

>Owning

Controlling, in fact.

>Aceh
>Sulu
>Saadian Morocco

States with military and commercial Ottoman presence, and official alignment with Constantinople.