Why did europeans come to dominate, colonize and conquer the world where other civilizations/peoples failed?

>Since there were so many people
Europe is as big as India and had a smaller population.India was also split into smaller kingdoms.Your pseudo theory just falls short pseudo.

and chinks

someone was gonna do it

>Steal technology and knowledge from Europeans,poos and persians
>Contribute nothing else other than the shittiest religion ever concieved.
AYYYrabs are even lower than Mongols

>I love goats and their assholes and I don't hide it

I would say
the plethora of natural borders allowed states to achieve enough stability
At a convenient position where influences can be felt from other parts of the world.
Lots of coast for fishing and lots of semi isolated parts leading to cultural diversity.
Iron everywhere.
Excellent farming lands (especially in France, the most significant European nation to emerge in the middle ages)
High population density in critical North West Europe and Italy during early modern period
Lots of wars leading to technological advance.
Temperate climate.
Pigs cows horses (sorry but you can't ride zebras)
Mostly harmless fauna (apart from pesky wolves and malaria in the south.)
Coal

There's lots of reasoncss I can think of, many of which are shared by India, central America, China etc but only Europe has all of these. In the end it's a combination of having these features and sheer luck that allowed Europe to dominate.

Also I'm certain religion and culture player a big part but I'm uncertain to what effect.

The reason is from a lot of undeterminable factors that ultimately led to the emergence of the Catholic Church. One of the reasons was because of a massive decentralisation of Europe in the very early medieval age; something that China never had.

The nuclear family and taboo on incest are not human norms - incest and living with one's extended family, and living on one's family residence for generations because of ancestor worship were prevalent throughout the world pretty much everywhere until the Catholic Church sanctioned against it.

The Catholic Church was also the first institution in the world that made privatised property contracts, as well as testament to the eldest child, laying the groundwork for the individualism of the Renaissance

The Catholic Church also had a much more clearer fiscal house and a much more structured bureaucracy than its' Roman predecessor, as well as kickstarted the rule of law properly in Europe using the Justinian code

>Excellent farming
lol
>Temperate climate.
lol
>Pigs cows horses
domestication is only a european trait lol
>Mostly harmless fauna
lol
>Coal
lol

Out of every modern European leader you posted the biggest manchild failure of the least 'dominating, colonising and conquering' Western European country. Good job

>domestication is only a european trait lol

(you)

i was going to post otto von bismarck but i chose the wrong file

>reading comprehension
(out)

oceanic climate + med

>the plethora of natural borders allowed states to achieve enough stability
lol
>At a convenient position where influences can be felt from other parts of the world.
lol.70% of the world's population has always been in asia
>Lots of coast for fishing
Like anywhere else
>and lots of semi isolated parts leading to cultural diversity.
>mah diversity
lol
>Iron everywhere.
Like in China
>Excellent farming lands (especially in France, the most significant European nation to emerge in the middle ages)
European crops were significantly worse than asians and mesoamericans
>High population density in critical North West Europe and Italy during early modern period
It was pretty fucking low compared to India's,China's or even Persia
>Lots of wars leading to technological advance.
Like everywhere else
>Temperate climate.
lol
>Pigs cows horses (sorry but you can't ride zebras)
Good to know that you are a nigger.Now it is clear why your post makes no fucking sense.You can ride zebras. Horses cows and pigs existed in all of Eurasia and a good part of Africa
>Mostly harmless fauna (apart from pesky wolves and malaria in the south.)
Bears are harmless? Wouldn't harmful fauna encouraged technological advancements like war as you implyied before you stupid baboon.
>Coal
Useless until the industrial revolution and Europe was alredy ahead of the rest of the world by quite a long margin before that.
You are a pseudo and most importatnly a nigger so your opinion is dicarded

Why wasn't Libera actually colonized by any major european country and instead ended up as a "safe heaven" for freed slaves? Is the landscape shit or did the european countries just arrived to late?

dunno m8

if i were a freed slave id rather be in america than in some shit african shithole

>you can ride zebras
It's funny how you write that post like you're some kind of authority and say something that retarded. No, you can't ride zebras.

This sure is a valid point, i think. But besides africa being a very "uncivilized" continent, why where there no efforts to also colonize this part of it? I mean, alot of colonies turned out to be solely kept for prestige reasons or turned out to be to hard to keep under control/ enforce certain bourocracy like taxes etc. It makes no sense to me why this part of africa just never got colonized. Are the natives poison spitting snake people or what?

>no you can't ride this modern animal which has for thousands of years evolved to be wary of humans because they kept hunting it

>you can ride zebras
He's right, you can't. Their backs can't support the weight of a full grown human. It's like saying you can ride dogs, but only if you're a child, which makes it pointless.

>good climate
>availabe resources
>domestic animals for food and work
>population boom
>urbanization
>advancement of technology
>manufactories
>industrial revolution
>

its the circumstances
anyone would have been able to do it
its just evolution

>No, you can't ride zebras
It took Brits less than a year nigger. Of course niggers couldn't pull it of as they couldn't even manage to invent the wheel on their own.Btw current horses look nothing alike as their ancestors and were breeded specially to be able to carry more weight and be more docile

>This confuses the nigger

>evolving an instinctive aversion over a few thousand years
lel no, they're just generally ornery animals because they live with a whole bunch of ferocious predators.
Aside from their bad attitude, they can't support the weight of a grown man. only kids and small women.

die in cancer poltard
even a nigger is smarter than you
fucking piece of shit chav, hope you perish along with your family after a long decade of suffering
átok

You're both wrong, you CAN domesticate a zebra, you CAN'T tame them.

>small woman riding a zebra
>literal midget riding a zebra
ok

Here (You) go

you can have tigers perform tricks in circuses but you cant domesticate them
you piece of shit retard without any knowledge and education

its not about riding, its about making it breed, making it be your tool for work, zebras are not and many other animals for evolutionary reason

keep prosiming le internet for your knowledge, shitstain

Zebras are fucking maniacs and are realyl hard to tame, if even at all. It is like keeping a lion as a pet, sure you can do that, but it will never be ensured that your lion won't go apeshit on the mailman or other people walkin by your property. Same with zebras, they are just to hard to domesticate to keep them as working animals, that's all. No bs about a weak back or that it is impossible blabla. It sure is not impossible, but also not very valid to do.

They're generally ornery animals because any who were more predisposed towards domestication and wandered close to camps were killed, more like.

>they can't support the weight of a grown man. only kids and small women.

So? Nobody's saying they should be used exactly the same as horses. An animal capable of carrying small loads is still infinitely more useful than no animal.

>for evolutionary reason

Yes because they were hunted down, those who had bad attitudes were evolutionary more likely to survive.

significant evolution does not take place over thousands of years

t.nigger
The average nig is 5'3 and they don't have much food so the weight wouldn't have been a problem
t.nigger. Horses took time to get in their current form you nigger.It is just that niggers never tried.Nigger

Evolutionary selection has always played a role in domestication. Canines more willing to stay close to human camps/hunting parties were rewarded with food that gave them an evolutionary advantage over canines who would avoid them.

The people who hunted zebras did so indiscriminately. There was no amount of "friendler, easier to domesticate" zebras that were preferentially targeted. Any unwary zebras that didn't react immediately and aggressively to threats would have been eaten by lions and hyena packs long before humans came around.

It was basically an American colony

China did too, buddy. Its the europeans location that made it better suited than India. Unless you tell me different, without using insults and use actual words.

>europeans location
You mean the one with crappy land and was the furthermost to the main focus of population in the world? European location was shit. And European crops are crap compared to the asian ones. Europeans are just superior to everyone else. There is no point discussing it

>african zebra cavalry could have easily conquered the world
>blacks folks is just too dumb ya see
really, it is overwhelmingly because the only place they could grow grain and have a sizeable was Ethiopia and the Sahel

sizeable economy*
fug

oceanic climate became very productive for grain from charlemagne onwards, it became a population center rivalling the Indo-Gangetic plain and North China plain and it had close proximity to the Mediterranean to boot, see for a full explanation

the reason is because we invented the printing press and saw it's value in transmitting ideas.

Ideas started cross pollinating from different locations over europe and european intellectual development started increasing at a rate much faster than anywhere else on the planet.

e.g. in europe, within something like 80 years of the first printing press being made in germany, every major european capital had at least one and there a hundred give or take in europe in total. All reproducing books, letting ideas be spread much faster.

By contrast the whole middle east had something like 6 printing presses within the first 200 years of the first printing press being invented.
and most of them were run by christian orthodox monasteries because islamic caligraphy scholars objected strongly to them. Such that there were only 2 printing presses in arabic.

China invented printing presses or something similar first , but the royalty intentionally made only a few of them and kept control of them.

once europe was developing intellectully at a far faster rate, and started making every single new discovery in mathematics and physics, it was only inevitable that our manufacturing and GDP and military technology would make us the rulers of the world.

I mean we had newton and leibniz. we had calculus 200 years before anyone else. No other mathematician anywhere else in the world independently discovered calculus in the 150-something years it took europe from that point to colonise the rest of the world.

calculus is foundation of all advanced engineering.
How were we ever not going to dominate?

printing press was just 1 of many innovations springing from a large sophisticated economy which was itself the result of the large grain producing areas in Europe and exposure to Mediterranean trade

>oceanic climate became very productive for grain
Grain is a shit crop compared to maize or rice

then the question becomes "why did europe invent the printing press and not other places?"

and I think the answer to that is partly luck.
China really got there first in a somewhat more primitive form, but they kept the technology mostly locked away.
So it could easily have been china who were the winners of humanity.

It really is just a stroke of luck of the whims of the ruling lord who happened to see the technology first and decided what to do with it.

luckily whoever ruled gottenburg didn't see any reason to get in teh way of the man who happened to invent the press.

perhaps christianity can be thanked for this to some extent.

but when you ask why europe in particular became the winners, you have to look at the printing press, because it was the killer invention which europe had and china had but did not use.

in terms of grain production and established farming settlements and trade and economy size and strength, china had europe beaten by A LOT from a long time ago.

if those broad factors were what decided it then it should have been china , not europe.

but europe overtook china through rapid intellectual development and this quirk of history that we happened to invent and make use of the most useful invention since paper.

Seriously? A photo of Willy 2 and that question?

They were lucky to find silver from the americas.

They had guns, while also being the most greedy and violent race of them all.

>Best astronomy in the world
>Top tier hydraulic engineering
>Biggest structures in the world up to this day
>Medicine as good as in Reinassance Europe
>Singlehandedly developed top tier crops like maize, amaranth, squash, beans, etc.
>Better resource management and carriyng capacity than Europe despite not getting draft animals from North Africa or the Middle East
>Had to travel and supply on foot because there were no Central Asians to give them horses
>Managed all this despite never have inherited knowledge, civilization and iron blacksmithing from the Mesopotamians, so it all started in 1500 b.c instead of 5000 b.c, never got Maths from the Indians, but still managed to come up with the zero singlehandedly, didn't met Armenians and their architecture, didn't met Phoenicians and their sailorship, didn't met Greeks and their science, didn't met the Roman and their laws nor engeneering, didn't met Chinese and their gunpowder
Honestly I'd say they are their own tier

>Honestly I'd say they are their own tier
t.indio tiraflachas

add:
>They knew about the 0 centuries before any yurop.
>No starving people on the streets.

tiraflachas>eur*peans

Don't you mean 'tiraflechas'?

Argentina is white desu

..and maybe geography like Europes would have helped them develop faster than even Europeans did. Instead they're still Mexicans.

>tfw can't get a get even on a really slow board

Siberia isnt Europe, so it should be colored too

...

You sounds mad

>stoneage jungle niggers
>Better than Europeans
>Posts a sketch to show how great they are
t. Indio come corazones

boy was this a terrible thread

This map is autistic, Siam (Thailand) lost huge swaths of territory to the French and British.

>be good at chimping out

arabs are low tier. the biggest thing that sets back east asia was that they seem to hit the reset button every couple of centuries particularly in relatoin to technological progress etc. Alot of knowledge seems to just be churned and lost.