Why didn't they enslave Asians instead of Blacks?

A reason why so many Asians in Hawaii wanted statehood was so they would be able to have the same workers' rights as American citizens, i.e. not be treated like slaves

Because the African states at the so-called "Slave Coast" were selling their enemies' tribes by the literal boatload.

Meanwhile a slave trade barely existed in places like China or Japan considering they didn't rely on them for labor. While there was slavery in both societies, these were usually penal in nature. Or in the case of China, buying foreigners and having them do whatever around your house was more for luxury than practicality. "Look at me I have a foreign barbarian in my house."

many african kingdoms had their entire economy dependent on slave trade. when the British banned the slave trade and started enforcing it with warships. one of those barely iron age african kingdoms threatened war against the British Empire.

>to be sold for trinkets
But is low price really everything when it comes to picking slaves?
I mean am I the only one who loves asian food?

The Portuguese did. They actually preferred them to niggers because they were "smarter, harder-working, and more attractive", but I'm sure that's only a social construct.

but lots of Asians did get enslaved

Well, the Portuguese did went out to enslave East Asian people.

They paid for it with their lives when the Japanese & Chinese started reprisals at them.

One of the many reasons Catholic Europeans weren't welcome in Japan was because of Portuniggery. In addition, this means that the existence of organized states was a factor in Asians repelling an African-style slave trade in the region.

I don't know how dudes NOT have yellow fever.

They feared the Asian warrior

I'm only sexually attracted to whites and the whiter looking hispanics.

>Be Asian
>See this everyday.

>Live in Asia for an extended period of time.
>See that everyday.

It gets boring after a while.

They weren't buying slaves because they enjoyed their cooking. How many weeks do you think she'd last cultivating sugarcane in the Caribbean sun before dying of exhaustion?

Actually the job of slaves the Portugese acquired in Asia was to fuck the black slaves

Shipping costs. Plenty of Asians have been enslaved in human history (even by westerners at times - read up on "blackbirding" or the Coolie trade) but why ship someone to the Caribbean or Brazil all the way from Asia when the slave markets of West Africa and Central Africa are wide open and much, much closer to the destination?

Asians are tough, they make a living cultivating sugar cane in the tropical sun. Think of Filipino farmers.

Don’t get me wrong, if I were sent back in time I’d absolutely have a highly diversified multi-ethnic harem of slave girls.

I'm a pretty open-minded kinda guy.

thats actually not true at all

but brazil is full of blacks

East Asia is really, REALLY far away compared to Africa. It's just a matter of logistics.

You realize Euros didn't just go into the jungle and snatch people up, right? They bought slaves from an existing system of African slavery. Being more or less civilized didn't have much to do with it.

>not knowing Brazil has shittons of Asians

How could anyone enslave such perfection? I mean aside from sex slavery for only your personal use, of course.

That's because of a trade deal in 1908 that caused a lot of Japanese farmers to immigrate there.

>They become slaves again when they go back to Japan and work for Toyota
Tough break

>Africans are a monoculture

Because Asian women already willing enslaved themselves to white cock

the implied question was why the slave trade was predominantly african instead of asian

The Japs had a shitty situation there when you read about it. It was like the Mexico-US thing now, where they came for work, hoped to earn some money and go back home, but the government exploited the shit out of them and they couldn't really leave on their own.

>filename
I kek'd

You God damn idiot nobody was selling Asians....

This

But by engaging in slave trade in the region, the Portuguese got BTFO by the Ming who got sick and tired of their shit; the Ming destroyed most of Portugal's fleet in Asia and their burned down their trade posts, restricting them to Macao.

And who said that?

Slavery was already practiced in Africa when the first Euros showed up, all they had to do was buy slaves off other Africans.

That's a fucking good questio user. WHYYY?
t.surrounded by Africans

>If Africans were not forced by Europeans to sell other Africans, why did they do it? In some sense, the question is an example of “presentism”—the projection of contemporary beliefs onto the past. Few Europeans or Africans at this time viewed slavery as an institution that needed to be explained, still less as an evil to be decried. Slavery was part of the furniture of everyday life; in both Europe and Africa, depriving others of their liberty wasn’t morally problematic, though it was bad to enslave the wrong person. Christians, for example, were generally not supposed to enslave fellow Christians, though breaking this rule was sometimes permitted. Africans sold their fellows into slavery more often than Europeans less because of their different attitudes toward liberty than because of their different economic systems.

>Broadly speaking, according to Thornton, the Harvard historian, “slaves were the only form of private, revenue-producing property recognized in African law.” In western and central Europe, the most important form of property was land, and the aristocracy consisted mainly of large landowners who could buy or sell property with little legal restriction. In western and central Africa, by contrast, land was effectively owned by the government—sometimes personally by the king, sometimes by a kinship or religious group, most often by the state itself, with the sovereign exercising authority in the manner of a chief executive officer. No matter which arrangement held true in a given polity, though, the land could not be readily sold or taxed. What could be sold and taxed was labor. Kings and emperors who wanted to enrich themselves thus didn’t think in terms of occupying land but of controlling people. Napoleon sent his army to seize Egypt. An African Napoleon would have sent his army to seize Egyptians.

Because their own respective nations were already doing it more effectively on a larger scale and managed to avert the "feels" of having slavery as an institution.

IE YOU ARE MINE SLAVE, OBEY OR MY POWER WILL CONQUER YOURS

compared to

WORK HARD FOR FAMILY AND COUNTRY, ELSE YOU BE A PIECE OF SHIT

Imagine it, an America where the blacks are all replaced with east asians.

>As was the case in much of Europe, Africans could be sentenced to slavery if they forfeited their membership in society by committing a crime. People could be enslaved, too, to repay a debt, whether incurred by themselves, their families, or their lineages. In times of drought or flood they pawned family members to other members of their extended families or clans. Sometimes they pawned themselves. But the most common way to acquire slaves was by sending troops across the border—that is, by war. Seventeenth-century West Africa was even more politically fragmented than Europe. A map prepared by Thornton shows more than sixty different states of wildly varying size. When leaders in one state wanted to aggrandize their status, a border was always nearby; it was easy to send out raiders. Captives would be taken by the king or given for sale to middlemen, who would take them to customers in North Africa or Europe.

>In the beginning of the transatlantic slave trade, when European ships first became a constant presence on African shores, the difference between the two systems, European and African, was more a matter of culture than economics. Europeans could buy and sell labor—that was the purpose, to cite one example, of indentured-service contracts. And Africans could effectively own land by controlling the labor from the people who used that land. In both cases the owners ended up profiting from the fruits of the land and labor, even if the route to those profits was different. In economic terms, Europeans could own one of the factors of production (land), whereas Africans could own another (labor). Both systems gave owners the right to claim part or all of the products of that labor. Still, they were far from identical. One big distinction is that labor can be taken from one place to another in a way that land cannot. Labor is portable—a key factor for the later development of the slave trade.

most people are ugly, same goes for asians
i've fapped to models and pornstars of every color, but in the end they're the exceptional ones out of a sea of mediocrity

Picture half-Asians with homegrown Southern accents.

So like that episode of KotH where he tried to be a redneck?

These are good posts.

>When Europeans arrived, they easily tapped into the existing slave trade. African governments and merchants who were already shipping human beings could increase production to satisfy the foreigners’ demands. Sometimes political leaders would hike criminal penalties to obtain slaves. Scofflaws, tax cheats, political exiles, unwanted immigrants—all went in the hopper. Usually, though, armies were sent to raid other nations. Or soldiers could abduct an important person in a neighboring polity and demand a ransom of slaves. If demand increased still further, private traders might seize captives without approval, angering the state. If no other source was available, Africans bought slaves from Europeans. In the seventeenth century, the Yale historian Robert Harms has estimated, Europeans sold forty to eighty thousand slaves to Africans in what is now Ghana.

>African demand was as important as European demand in the growth of the trade. When the flintlock replaced the undependable matchlock at the end of the seventeenth century, Africans were as keen to acquire the new guns as the Indians in Georgia and Carolina. In April 1732, traders from the rapidly growing Asante empire appeared at the Dutch fort of Elmina, in Ghana. They had a convoy of captives which they demanded to exchange for guns. Frightened by the threatening tone of the conversation, Harms wrote, Elmina’s “governor-general sent a desperate circular to all the other forts ordering that all flintlocks be sent to Elmina at once.” Asante had become the dominant regional power by a calculated exchange of slaves for guns and gunpowder. The waves of slavery that fueled Asante’s arms buildup, Harms remarked, “account for much of the rise in Dutch slave exports in the 1720s.”

>East Asians
>Put them in ratio to their respective porpotion
>Chinks everywhere.
>Gook and Nip gang fights with swords and metal pipes
>See the occasionally Mongolian riding in the flatlands.

We have those, they're just 3rd generation Asians living in the South.

It'd be cooler than what we currently have.

>African merchants bought slaves from African armies, raiders, and pirates and paid Africans to convey them to African-run holding tanks. Once the contract was arranged, Africans loaded the slaves aboard the ships, which often had crews with significant numbers of Africans. Other Africans supplied the slave ships with food, rope, water, and timber for the voyage out. Europeans naturally played a role: they were customers, the demand side of the basic economic equation. A few even braved the African coast, marrying Africans; their children frequently became negotiators and middlemen in the African slave trade. A combination of disease and watchful African armies otherwise kept them confined to outposts on the edge of the continent.

>The Dutch West Indies Company long held a legal monopoly on the Dutch slave trade, shipping out about 220,000 captives by 1800. Elmina, its African headquarters, had a European population that rarely exceeded four hundred, and was usually smaller. Three miles away was Gold Coast, the biggest base of the English Royal African Company, which had an equivalent legal monopoly on the English slave trade. From its docks left tens of thousands of enchained men, women, and children. Yet Gold Coast had fewer than a hundred foreign inhabitants. Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century European maps proudly depicted African’s Atlantic coast as bristling with Danish, Dutch, English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, and Swedish forts, garrisons, and trading posts. But most of the stars on the maps had fewer than ten expatriate residents and many had fewer than five. The principality of Whydah, in today’s Benin, exported 400,000 people in the first quarter of the eighteenth century—it was the most important depot in the Atlantic slave trade in that time. Not one hundred Europeans lived there permanently. The largest groups of foreigners were the slavers who camped on the beach as they waited to fill their ships with human cargo.

Whats up with whites and yellow fever. Is it the low testosterone?

An asian 10 is like a white 8.

>Known collectively as chinos, Asian migrants spread slowly along the silver highway from Acapulco to Mexico City, Puebla, and Veracruz. Indeed, the road was patrolled by them—Japanese samurai perhaps in particular. Katana-swinging Japanese had helped suppress Chinese rebellions in Manila in 1603 and 1609. When Japan closed its borders to foreigners in the 1630s, Japanese expatriates were stranded wherever they were. Scores, perhaps hundreds, migrated to Mexico. Initially the viceroy had forbidden mestizos, mullatos, negros, zambaigos, and chinos to carry weapons. The Spaniards made an exception for samurai, allowing them to wield their katanas and tantos to protect the silver shipments against the escaped-slaves-turned-highwaymen in the hills. The results were so encouraging that the authorities reversed course and drafted mixed-race people into the militias. By the eighteenth century Afro-Indo-Asian paramilitary units on Mexico’s Pacific coast were protecting mail deliveries, patrolling for bandits, and repelling attacks by British ships. Acapulco, terminus of the silver trade, was guarded by a force of morenos, pardos, Spaniards, and chinos, the latter mostly Filipinos and Fujianese. When the British admiral/pirate George Anson invaded western Mexico in 1741, the multicultural force played a major role in his defeat.

Easier, more submissive, exotic factor, aren't very different from whites.

Glorious

>too far away from the Americas
>weren’t being sold
I assume you’re talking about European slavery

>Puebla was bigger than Acapulco and had a more tight-knit Asian community. One of the city’s most important industries was ceramics—Puebla clay is of exceptional quality. Working with eye-straining attention to detail, skilled potters created pieces that imitated blue-and-white Ming dynasty porcelain. Guild regulations specified that “the coloring should be in imitation of Chinese ware, very blue, finished in the same style.” Edward Slack, the Eastern Washington historian, points out that the manufacturers would hardly have ignored the skilled Asian craftspeople in their midst. More than likely, Puebla’s fake Chinese pottery was created in part by real Chinese potters. If so, they did a splendid job: talavera ware, as it is known today, is now so highly prized that when I visited Puebla shopkeepers complained that the country was fighting an invasion of counterfeits from China—a Chinese imitation of a Chinese-made Mexican imitation of a Chinese original.

>Larger still was the Asian community in Mexico City. The first real Chinatown in the Americas, it was centered around an outdoor Asian marketplace under a tent-like roof in the Plaza Mayor, the city’s grand central square, built atop the city center of old Tenochtitlan. The marketplace was called the Parián, after the Asian ghetto in Manila. In a cacophony of languages, Chinese tailors, cobblers, butchers, embroiderers, musicians, and scribes competed with African, Indian, and Spanish shopkeepers for business. Alarming to colonial authorities, Chinese goldsmiths drove European goldsmiths out of business—“the people of China that have been made Christians and every year come thither, have perfected the Spaniards at that trade,” a Dominican monk lamented in the 1620s

>Spanish goldsmiths evidently took the loss of business calmly. Spanish barbers did not. In those days a barber was both a hair and beard trimmer and a low-ranking medical provider who performed dental surgery. About two hundred chino barbers set up shop in the Plaza Mayor, treating maladies with a combination of Eastern and Western techniques: cauterization and acupuncture, bloodletting and Chinese herbal medicine. Wealthy women flocked to their kiosks. It was not just a New Age fad—Chinese dentistry was then the most sophisticated in the world. In the Tang dynasty the savants of Beijing had realized that periodontal disease could be prevented by scraping away dental plaque. They treated the bleeding with pastes made with roots and herbs that recent research has shown to have antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties.

>In 1635 the city’s Spanish barbers petitioned the municipal council to stop the chinos’ “excesses” and “inconveniences.” The complaint was artfully worded, but one detects the real cause of grievance: the Chinese were willing to pay higher rents for space in the center of town, even at the risk of lowering their profits, because that brought them closer to their customers. And they spent long hours on the job, forcing European barbers to work equally hard to compete. To Spaniards, the solution was obvious: expel the Chinese from the city center and restrict hair-cutting hours so that they wouldn’t have to work so hard and accept such low profits. Six months later the viceroy banned Asian barbers from the Plaza Mayor. Twisting the knife, he restricted the number of razors they could possess, thus ensuring that their shops couldn’t grow too large.

Hollywood psyops and the fetishization of asian women.

Why dos that image ignores slave trade to arab countries?

Because the African population were enslaving other Africans and selling them

>The big Chinese population reflected the city’s status as the clearinghouse for information about the East. In 1585 Juan González de Mendoza, a Dominican there, compiled sources from the galleon trade into a History of the Most Notable Things, Rituals and Customs of the Great Kingdom of China. Published in dozens of editions in many languages, it became the standard text on China for educated Europeans. Not only did the China trade fascinate Mexico City’s civil government, it preoccupied many of the clerics in the city cathedrals, who begged their superiors for the chance to get on a galleon and save Chinese souls. Much of their fascination was fueled by a miscalculation—they believed Mexico to be much closer to China than it actually is. (In fact, as the Canadian historian Luke Clossey has pointed out, Beijing is closer to Rome than Mexico City.) The Dominican Martín de Valencia spent months on Mexico’s west coast waiting for Cortés’s ships to take him to China on the conqueror’s failed expedition to the Pacific. The ships never appeared. Lying on his deathbed in Mexico City, Valencia said, “I have been cheated of my desire.”

>Scuffling in the streets, struggling to pull strings in the government, uneasily cooperating in the military, Mexico City’s multitude of poorly defined ethnic groups from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas made it the world’s first truly global city—the Homogenocene for Homo sapiens. A showpiece for the human branch of the Columbian Exchange, it was the place where East met West under an African and Indian gaze. Its inhabitants were ashamed of the genetic mix even as they were proud of their cosmopolitan culture

>Image stating it's about Transatlantic Slave Trade
>WTF why is there no mention of Arabs?

>why at least some white men fetichize the other race with many attractive women?

>believing in that meme in 2017
No, men would still not find fat women attractive without Hollywood.

>That wave in Brazil
What happened to the africans there then?

Being 8% of the population, though that dosen't tell the whole story considering how many mixed with the natives

>For millennia, almost all Europeans were found in Europe, few Africans existed outside Africa, and Asians lived, nearly without exception, in Asia alone. No one in the Eastern Hemisphere in 1492, so far as is known, had ever seen an American native. (Some researchers believe that English fishing vessels crossed the Atlantic a few decades before Colón, but the principle holds—one didn’t find communities of Europeans or Africans in Asia or the Americas.) Colón’s voyages inaugurated an unprecedented reshuffling of Homo sapiens: the human wing of the Columbian Exchange. People shot around the world like dice flung on a gaming table. Europeans became the majority in Argentina and Australia, Africans were found from São Paulo to Seattle, and Chinatowns sprang up all over the globe.

>The movement was dominated by the African slave trade—dominated by Garrido, so to speak, rather than by Cortés. For a long time the scale of slavery in the Americas was not fully grasped. The first systematic attempt at a count, Philip Curtin’s The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census, did not appear until 1969, more than a century after its subject’s extirpation. Partly stimulated by Curtin’s study, David Eltis and Martin Halbert of Emory University, in Atlanta, led a remarkable effort in which scholars from a dozen nations pooled their work to create an online database of records from almost 35,000 separate slave voyages. Its most recent iteration, released in 2009, estimates that between 1500 and 1840, the heyday of the slave trade, 11.7 million captive Africans left for the Americas—a massive transfer of human flesh unlike anything before it. In that period, perhaps 3.4 million Europeans emigrated. Roughly speaking, for every European who came to the Americas, three Africans made the trip.

>The implications of these figures are as staggering as their size. Textbooks commonly present American history in terms of Europeans moving into a lightly settled hemisphere. In fact, the hemisphere was full of Indians—tens of millions of them. And most of the movement into the Americas was by Africans, who soon became the majority population in almost every place that wasn’t controlled by Indians. Demographically speaking, Eltis has written, “America was an extension of Africa rather than Europe until late in the nineteenth century.”

>In the three centuries after C., migrants from across the Atlantic created new cities and filled them ... they cleared forests, planted fields, laid out roads, and tended horses, cattle, and sheep—animals that had not walked the Americas before ... Along the way, they collectively reworked and reshaped the American landscape, creating a new world that was an ecological and cultural mix of old and new and something else besides.

>This great transformation, a turning point in the story of our species, was wrought largely by African hands. The crowds thronging the streets in the new cities were mainly African crowds. The farmers growing rice and wheat in the new farms were mainly African farmers. The people rowing boats on rivers, then the most important highways, were mainly African people. The men on the ships and in the battles and around the mills were mainly African men. Slavery was the foundational institution of the modern Americas.

>The nineteenth century saw another, even larger, wave of migration, this one dominated by Europeans. It changed the demographic balance a second time, so that descendants of Europeans became the majority in most of the hemisphere. Surrounded by people like themselves, this second group of immigrants was rarely aware that it was following trails that had been set for more than three hundred years by Africans.

Same guy?

AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE ALREADY EXISTED

Same cat.

>The rise of sugar production in Mexico and the concurrent rise in Brazil opened the floodgates. Between 1550 and 1650—the century after Cortés’s contract, roughly speaking—slave ships ferried across about 650,000 Africans, with the total split more or less equally between Spanish and Portuguese America. (England, France, and other European nations as yet played little role in the slave trade.) In these places, the number of African immigrants outnumbered European immigrants by more than two to one. Everywhere Spaniards and Portuguese went, Africans accompanied them. Soon they were more ubiquitous in the Americas than Europeans, with results the latter never expected.
>The Pizarros were wealthier than their fellow conquistadors but in other ways not exceptional. Historians have tracked the lives of ninety-seven of the 150 men who founded Santiago, Chile, in 1541. They had 392 children and grandchildren, of whom 226 (57 percent) were of Indian descent. One conquistador in Chile proudly told the Inquisition in 1569 he had produced fifty children with non-European mothers.4

>Few of those children had African blood. That would change—rapidly. As plantation slavery spread, the percentage of Africans in the hemisphere rose, and with it the number of Afro-Indians, Afro-Europeans, and Afro-Euro-Indians. By 1570 there were three times as many Africans as Europeans in Mexico and twice as many people of mixed parentage. (Both were outnumbered by Indians, of course.) Seventy years later there were still three times as many Africans as Europeans—and twenty-eight times as many mixed people, most of them free Afro-Europeans.

>African m*th trade
Oy Vey. I bet you also think musket guns can melt euro steel

Speak for yourself, where I'm at fat chicks get all the dicks.

Asians didn't traditionally sell one another so it'd be harder for Europeans to create a market in Asia where they could just integrate into a pre-existing slave trade like there was in Africa

Also Asian states were centralized and strong enough to fend off organized slave raids with their own armies unlike the smaller and less strong African tribes and kingdoms

It was all economics

1. African slave trade already existed, there was no comparable institution in East Asia.

2. Africa is much, much closer to Europe and easier to establish trade with. The fastest possible route to China from Europe until the 19th century was a 2 year round trip. Just sending a single trade ship was an epic voyage, imagine trying to send a transport fleet for conquest. By the time they'd arrived they would have lost 80% of their men to high seas attrition and then been outnumbered almost 100 to 1 by the MASSIVE armies that existed in Asia at the time.

>“Mestizo” and “mulatto” became key concepts in the elaborate classificatory scheme known as the casta system. Never formally codified on an empire-wide level but recognized in hundreds of separate local, ecclesiastical, and trade-guild rules, the casta system was an attempt to categorize the peoples of New Spain according to moral and spiritual worth, which was linked to descent. Each group had a fundamental, unalterable nature that combined in distinct, predictable ways with people outside that group. A mulatto (Afro-European) was different from a mestizo (Indo-European) was different from a zambo (Afro-Indian—the term comes, unflatteringly, from zambaigo, knock-kneed). When a Spaniard produced a child with a mestizo, the offspring was a castizo; with a mulatto, a morisco (the name, oddly, means “Moor”). Over time the classifications grew more baroque, refined, and absurd: coyote, lobo (wolf), albino, cambujo (swarthy), albarazado (white-spotted), barcino (the opposite—color-spotted, so to speak), tente en el aire (suspended in air), no te entiendo (I don’t understand you).

Anyone interested in reading this? Should I continue or just let it go?
This time pic of casta paintings instead of cat.

How big were yuro armies at the time?

I’ve been reading some but I seriously don’t get what’s going on.

Not him but nowhere near as small. Throughout its entire history China (and Japan in the Sengoku era) has ALWAYS had massive, absolutely ridiculously huge armies.

Ye but how big were euros?

That is why plenty of European trade ships have mostly black and Asian crewmen. After the first phase of exploration.
Ask then.

>None of it worked quite as the government intended. Rather than being confined to their allocated social slots, people used the categories as tools to better their condition, shopping for the identity that most suited them. The half-Indian son of the conquistador Diego Muñoz married a native noblewoman; his son, who would theoretically be classed a a coyote, was declared an Indian, and this grandson of a Spaniard became the “Indian governor” in Tlaxcala, east of Mexico City. Meanwhile, other Indians claimed to be Africans—slaves paid fewer taxes, and the Indians didn’t see why they should pay them, either. Local officials were supposed to police the categories; strapped for cash, they were in fact ready to sell people whatever identity they wanted to assume. When Spaniards in the Caribbean died before producing legitimate offspring, their mestizo and mulatto offspring were promoted to “Spaniards” and pressed into duty as heirs—a transformation that occurred so often that the bishop of Puerto Rico sniffed in 1738 that the islands had “very few white families without mixture of all the bad races.” Later that century a traveler sardonically noted that although “many whites are listed” in Hispaniola’s official census, local parish registers listed the same people as “mixtures of whites and Indians and these with zambos, mulattos, and blacks.”

Problem was logistic. That is why European conquest was mostly by utilizing local forces and taking advantage of local conflicts.

>mort the pow olish all of human and all

What did her tit mean by this?

The Qin army was stated as being "1 million strong" in terms of soldiers. During a battle of the Xiongu Wars the Han army fielded 200,000 infantry and 100,000 cavalry in a single battle. The group of Jin Chinese that fought the Mongols had an army of over a million.

On average a european army was around 10-20 thousand.

They were becoming larger, but were only a fraction of what China or even Japan could field. Simply because Europe's population in the Age of Discovery was a fraction of East Asia's, even as it was growing very rapidly. Europe at the start of the 17th century had a population of around 75 million and that grew to almost 85 million by the 18th century.

By contrast, China's population was over 150 million at the start of the 1600s and more than doubled during the Qing Dynasty. Factor in Korea and Japan and Europe is hopelessly outnumbered. It's why until European military technology vastly outstriped Asia's they had no real foothold in the region.

>Problem was logistic.
And they just plain didn't have enough people to form armies of hundreds of thousands.

Ironically Europeans themselves keep on overblowing Asian army numbers. Either actually believing the reckoning of the Asians, or still wrapping their head around the sheer size of Asian armies, or exagerrating for the purpose of exuding wonder in their travel accounts.

For example: Spaniards in the Philippines said China had a force millions. But to according to Ming accounts, they have just a million or less. But that army didn't move as one, more like a figure based on the number of the actual standing armies, the territorial armies that sat in provinces, militias, and corrupt officers doctoring numbers to receive additional pay for "ghost soldiers."

I studied Flip history and no matter what the size, the SPaniards were not keen on pissing off Asians. Largely because 1) they were their chief trading partners and 2) Spain had very few European soldiers available in the Philippines. What with 2 oceans to cross to get to Asia.

Portugal is a bit crazier though: they actually messed with Asians. But this got them into trouble, with several battles happening between Portugal and Asian powers that saw Portuguese driven off quite a few times.

>yuropoors can’t mobilised armies numbering hundreds of thousands that will fight hundreds of miles away whilst causing insufferable strain on the economy

What's up with blacks and mayo mania. Is it the inferiority complex?

When the war is over who gets to be emperor (or in the case of Japan, who gets to sell off their daughter to the current emperor so that her kid is the next emperor), you're going to throw everything you've got at that.

>ut that army didn't move as one, more like a figure based on the number of the actual standing armies, the territorial armies that sat in provinces, militias, and corrupt officers doctoring numbers to receive additional pay for "ghost soldiers."
Well yeah, you never send your entire army onto the battlefield. Even WW2 Japan which felt like it was fighting for its very existence kept some divisions at the homefront just in case.

What I meant to say is this:

The Ming Dynasty army (and many Chinese Imperial Militaries) have this odd combination of having an official/unofficial military.

By official, I mean, they had a standing army, an officer corps, and even modern style ministry of war and logistics to support the whole thing.

But at the same time they have this unofficial military consisting of
>private adventurers and armed parties following armies around like vultures and assisting in battles in hopes to get noticed by the Imperial authorities and be promoted into officers w/ a standing salary. (not many can afford to study in the Military Academy and so tried to one-up the establishment via Talent)
>Provincial musters gathered and trained by the local governor, either via conscription or volunteer.
>Musters by military commanders aimed at recruiting & training manpower for a specific military campaign only.
>Village militias that mostly did law enforcement work
>Bandits and Pirates trying to go straight (or temporarily going straight to profit off war-booty).

So the Chinese military situation meant that they have an unclear record of how many men they have BESIDES the main armies and the official muster forces that they have. It's like the Chinese military was a walk-in/walk-off thing.

I'll give you an example: Koxinga's dad, Zheng Zilong was a famous pirate of Fujian who was so good at his job, the second to last Emperor of Ming China just pardoned him and granted him the rank of Admiral.

The is retarded revisionism. In the American colonies and US Africans were always a minority. Same in Latin America. Even in the South they were a minority.

> Hurr Durr, I only used ship records and not censuses for my data

They were minority to Natives yes.