EU5: A focus on Things outside of Europe

[Lightwell]

You have a very weird definition of luck. Most of what you list I call biology and geopraphy.

And I bet anything related to human behaviors is psychology and sociology. Luck doesn't mean something is causeless.

Christianity unyting Europe? Maybe try reading some basic history book of the time period of Europe. Spoiler: Religious wars will be pretty prominent, bloody and at times incredibly destructive - and highly divisive. A great boon and huge luck indeed. I also have a hard time imagining what you mean by a united Europe: thats a great idea that never in history came to existence - at least this far.

Not uniting them as one country. I mean giving them a shared institution (Catholic Church), and a reason to see each other as something more than rivals to be mercilessly conquered. Not to mention the fact that it granted kings legitimacy with the divine right to rule idea.

And how did the europeans not play by the same rules? They die just as easily as any other people, they are neither inherently smarter or tougher than others. The rules were the same. That in this time period they used their initially very meagre resources in a way that enabled them to conquer more resources and finally conquer a big chunk of the world means that they were doing something seriously better than the others - if the goal was conquest and looting that is.

For many parts of the world, large-scale conquest and looting wasn't on the agenda, but that doesn't matter.

The bigger part has already been outlined. The Ottomans put them into checkmate by destroying Byzantium and disrupting trade along the Silk Road, and then they discover a previously unknown route to India that can compete with the Silk Road (by going around Africa), and simultaneously discover two massive, mineral-rich continents whose populations are easily swayed into allying with your explorers and who have a tendency to die to disease when contact is made, making conquests and establishment of legitimacy a breeze. If any writer pulled that in a novel, it would be decried as pure bologna. 7.8/10? More like 3/10. The writer needs to stop and re-evaluate his life, because this clearly isn't the right profession for him. Imagine if this happened in World of Warcraft. The Alliance manages to cut off Horde trade and corner them. Their tech was enough to destroy Orgrimmar, and they have every reason to win.

Suddenly, the Horde discovers two more continents that are filled with pushovers, gold, silver, and exotic goods, while simultaneously finding a way around the trade lockdown. They steal whatever tech they can, and use this newfound Deus Ex Machina to eventually destroy the Alliance. That's not a twist. That's bad writing from a Horde fanboy.

I'll repeat it here so the point isn't lost.

Christianity existing to unite Europe? Luck.
Columbus screwing up Italian and Arabic miles but still reaching the New World? Luck.
The Aztecs having the gold Europe needed when the Ottomans were about to cause a continental economic crash? Luck.
The natives who owned those resources being extremely vulnerable to Old World diseases? Luck.
The Aztec capital encountering a famine right as the Spanish-led coalition is on its doorstep? Luck.
All of this happening as the Inca, people who based their Empire's legitimacy on its ability to expand their borders and who built a massive road along the Empire, running out of land to conquer? Luck.
South America being covered in mineral riches? Luck.
The North Sea being just inhospitable enough for the British to be able to get away with privateering Spanish gold? Luck.
An ocean route to India existing? Luck.
The Muslims who occupied Iberia just happening to have the technology required to sail for long distances, but not using it for Atlantic exploration earlier? Luck.
Africans being able to survive the working conditions for farming sugar? Luck.
Kilwans lacking the ability to fight off Portuguese exploration vessels? Luck.
The Indian Ocean being chock full of goods that would sell well in Europe, right as the Europeans came into possession of extremely high amounts of mineral wealth through the Americas? Luck.
Literally everything that happened in India? Luck.

They were given a technological catch-up button with the Silk Road and the fall of the Byzantine Empire, a crap ton of mineral wealth from the Americas, sailing technology from the Muslims, and the perfect position for snowballing, since they got their wealth by looting the existing trade routes from half the globe away. All the while, Eastern Europeans were loyal enough to their faith, something they got from Israel, to defend them instead of turning on them to loot them for the gold they were bringing in.

If Europe was playing according to the same rules as everyone else, they would've collapsed from the Ottoman disruption of the Silk Road's trade. They would not have found two continents full of Deus Ex Machina set specifically to be easily conquered right as the Europeans arrived.

 

[Tibi088]

And I bet anything related to human behaviors is psychology and sociology. Luck doesn't mean something is causeless.



Not uniting them as one country. I mean giving them a shared institution (Catholic Church), and a reason to see each other as something more than rivals to be mercilessly conquered. Not to mention the fact that it granted kings legitimacy with the divine right to rule idea.



For many parts of the world, large-scale conquest and looting wasn't on the agenda, but that doesn't matter.

The bigger part has already been outlined. The Ottomans put them into checkmate by destroying Byzantium and disrupting trade along the Silk Road, and then they discover a previously unknown route to India that can compete with the Silk Road (by going around Africa), and simultaneously discover two massive, mineral-rich continents whose populations are easily swayed into allying with your explorers and who have a tendency to die to disease when contact is made, making conquests and establishment of legitimacy a breeze. If any writer pulled that in a novel, it would be decried as pure bologna. 7.8/10? More like 3/10. The writer needs to stop and re-evaluate his life, because this clearly isn't the right profession for him. Imagine if this happened in World of Warcraft. The Alliance manages to cut off Horde trade and corner them. Their tech was enough to destroy Orgrimmar, and they have every reason to win.

Suddenly, the Horde discovers two more continents that are filled with pushovers, gold, silver, and exotic goods, while simultaneously finding a way around the trade lockdown. They steal whatever tech they can, and use this newfound Deus Ex Machina to eventually destroy the Alliance. That's not a twist. That's bad writing from a Horde fanboy.

I'll repeat it here so the point isn't lost.

First the route to India by circling Africa was there. Always (in any meaningful time for human civilization). Even if it wasnt discovered. Thats not luck thats geography (same for the americas). But the Europeans did discover that route because they were activly searching for it. They also discovered the Americas because they were searching for an alternate route to the East. Why were they searching for it? 1. Because the east had resources not available for Europeans locally and 2. Because the ottomans distrupted the traditional trade route they get it from. In a way the ottomans and their own lack of local resources forced them on the path of exploration. You say luck and divine intervention and I say cause and effect. Than the Europeans became pretty good in fighting on the waters. Because to reach India they needed to vastly improve their naval technology. That this and that technology was locally discovered or adopted and improved doesnt change the end result: naval superiority. Why didnt the eastern countries develope or use such naval technology: not because they wouldnt have been capable to develope it but because it was unecessery for them. Not luck but a case of necessity. The europeans needed much better ships and naval technology to get in on the indian ocean trade than the locals. So when they get there they were already in a very good position. The only time asians really bothered with a serious navy was a prestige project and easily abandoned. For europeans it was a huge source of vital trade and money - thus they pursued it relentlessly. There was some luck involved - it always is - but if for centuries the result is always the same (with only some setbacks): Eropeans gaining more ground, trade and money, than there must be more than luck involved. Im also not saying that europe was deretmined to explore and colonize: it just had much better motivation than the others who would have been capable to do so. Could it have been permanently or greatly stopped? Of course, but IMO that would have needed much more luck than them conquering.

 

[Lightwell]

First the route to India by circling Africa was there. Always (in any meaningful time for human civilization). Even if it wasnt discovered. Thats not luck thats geography (same for the americas). But the Europeans did discover that route because they were activly searching for it. They also discovered the Americas because they were searching for an alternate route to the East. Why were they searching for it?

Again, luck doesn't mean something is causeless. I'm saying that, from their perspective, there was no reason to believe these necessarily existed, or were the case. If Africa connected directly to Antarctica, or if it was just as generally impassable as the waters north of Russia, the Portuguese would've only learned it was the case at that moment. It's the same deal with the Americas.

1. Because the east had resources not available for Europeans locally and 2. Because the ottomans distrupted the traditional trade route they get it from. In a way the ottomans and their own lack of local resources forced them on the path of exploration. You say luck and divine intervention and I say cause and effect.

You say cause and effect; I say cause, effect, and luck. Finding the jackpot just because you were searching for it in a time of crisis? And that "Jackpot" being two gold/silver-rich continents and a trade route that leads to the Indian Ocean? Luck.

Than the Europeans became pretty good in fighting on the waters. Because to reach India they needed to vastly improve their naval technology. That this and that technology was locally discovered or adopted and improved doesnt change the end result: naval superiority. Why didnt the eastern countries develope or use such naval technology: not because they wouldnt have been capable to develope it but because it was unecessery for them. Not luck but a case of necessity.

Firstly, they did have this technology. The people of Nusantara in particular were notable for being able to fight on the seas with artillery that surpassed Portuguese cannons. The Portuguese had to trade cannons for spices and free passage, safe from piracy. Do you think they were hesitant to recreate these designs when they learned of their effectiveness?

https://books.google.com/books?id=g...CEgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=malacca cannon&f=false

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lantaka

Europeans would conquer small amounts of land in simple hit-and-fortify attacks, or trade for rights to trade and build factories. They'd strike an army that wasn't expecting them, disembark, and immediately build a fort there, or they'd get into contact with a local ruler, and purchase land and trading rights, as they did in India. Because imperialist goals hadn't yet kicked in, Europeans would've been low-priority targets who paid locals cannons and other valuable or exotic goods in exchange for spices.

While the Kilwans were defenseless, they didn't see much change. Their ruler (a Persian) was dislodged, but instead of Europeans forcing them to buy their goods, they simply took over shipping. Because this was a more profitable way of doing things, they adjusted and moved on. It also meant that their cargo would be secured, and they could focus on developing inland trade routes.

The europeans needed much better ships and naval technology to get in on the indian ocean trade than the locals.

Naval technology doesn't mean the same thing as having stronger cannons or better firing methods. In this case, they needed long-distance sailing and navigation techniques.

So when they get there they were already in a very good position. The only time asians really bothered with a serious navy was a prestige project and easily abandoned.

You may want to refresh yourself on this topic.

For europeans it was a huge source of vital trade and money - thus they pursued it relentlessly. There was some luck involved - it always is - but if for centuries the result is always the same (with only some setbacks): Eropeans gaining more ground, trade and money, than there must be more than luck involved. Im also not saying that europe was deretmined to explore and colonize: it just had much better motivation than the others who would have been capable to do so. Could it have been permanently or greatly stopped? Of course, but IMO that would have needed much more luck than them conquering.

What it would've required is the foreknowledge that the Europeans were going to attempt to take over the countries as a whole. Early on, they controlled very little land, and chose to use local leaders to advance their goals. Only around the late 18th century did they bother to attempt large-scale conquest, and even then, their rule would've been largely invisible.

Why do you keep talking to yourself? Half of your paragraph is just you lobbing questions to yourself in the most condescending way imaginable.

I'll repeat, so the point isn't lost.

Christianity existing to unite Europe? Luck.
Columbus screwing up Italian and Arabic miles but still reaching the New World? Luck.
The Aztecs having the gold Europe needed when the Ottomans were about to cause a continental economic crash? Luck.
The natives who owned those resources being extremely vulnerable to Old World diseases? Luck.
The Aztec capital encountering a famine right as the Spanish-led coalition is on its doorstep? Luck.
All of this happening as the Inca, people who based their Empire's legitimacy on its ability to expand their borders and who built a massive road along the Empire, running out of land to conquer? Luck.
South America being covered in mineral riches? Luck.
The North Sea being just inhospitable enough for the British to be able to get away with privateering Spanish gold? Luck.
An ocean route to India existing? Luck.
The Muslims who occupied Iberia just happening to have the technology required to sail for long distances, but not using it for Atlantic exploration earlier? Luck.
Africans being able to survive the working conditions for farming sugar? Luck.
Kilwans lacking the ability to fight off Portuguese exploration vessels? Luck.
The Indian Ocean being chock full of goods that would sell well in Europe, right as the Europeans came into possession of extremely high amounts of mineral wealth through the Americas? Luck.
Literally everything that happened in India? Luck.

They were given a technological catch-up button with the Silk Road and the fall of the Byzantine Empire, a crap ton of mineral wealth from the Americas, sailing technology from the Muslims, and the perfect position for snowballing, since they got their wealth by looting the existing trade routes from half the globe away. All the while, Eastern Europeans were loyal enough to their faith, something they got from Israel, to defend them instead of turning on them to loot them for the gold they were bringing in.

If Europe was playing according to the same rules as everyone else, they would've collapsed from the Ottoman disruption of the Silk Road's trade. They would not have found two continents full of Deus Ex Machina set specifically to be easily conquered right as the Europeans arrived.

 

[Tibi088]

Again, luck doesn't mean something is causeless. I'm saying that, from their perspective, there was no reason to believe these necessarily existed, or were the case. If Africa connected directly to Antarctica, or if it was just as generally impassable as the waters north of Russia, the Portuguese would've only learned it was the case at that moment. It's the same deal with the Americas.



You say cause and effect; I say cause, effect, and luck. Finding the jackpot just because you were searching for it in a time of crisis? And that "Jackpot" being two gold/silver-rich continents and a trade route that leads to the Indian Ocean? Luck.



Firstly, they did have this technology. The people of Nusantara in particular were notable for being able to fight on the seas with artillery that surpassed Portuguese cannons. The Portuguese had to trade cannons for spices and free passage, safe from piracy. Do you think they were hesitant to recreate these designs when they learned of their effectiveness?

https://books.google.com/books?id=gIZAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA22&dq=malacca+cannon&hl=en&ei=ZkG0Tf6gBovxrQf3z7HIDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=malacca cannon&f=false

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lantaka

Europeans would conquer small amounts of land in simple hit-and-fortify attacks, or trade for rights to trade and build factories. They'd strike an army that wasn't expecting them, disembark, and immediately build a fort there, or they'd get into contact with a local ruler, and purchase land and trading rights, as they did in India. Because imperialist goals hadn't yet kicked in, Europeans would've been low-priority targets who paid locals cannons and other valuable or exotic goods in exchange for spices.

While the Kilwans were defenseless, they didn't see much change. Their ruler (a Persian) was dislodged, but instead of Europeans forcing them to buy their goods, they simply took over shipping. Because this was a more profitable way of doing things, they adjusted and moved on. It also meant that their cargo would be secured, and they could focus on developing inland trade routes.



Naval technology doesn't mean the same thing as having stronger cannons or better firing methods. In this case, they needed long-distance sailing and navigation techniques.



You may want to refresh yourself on this topic.



What it would've required is the foreknowledge that the Europeans were going to attempt to take over the countries as a whole. Early on, they controlled very little land, and chose to use local leaders to advance their goals. Only around the late 18th century did they bother to attempt large-scale conquest, and even then, their rule would've been largely invisible.

Why do you keep talking to yourself? Half of your paragraph is just you lobbing questions to yourself in the most condescending way imaginable.

I'll repeat, so the point isn't lost.

When something is much more likely to happen some way than the another you can call it luck when it happens but its really just turning out the most likely way. In sports a stronger team beating the weaker is usually not described as luck - its just how it was supposed to be. Even if the weaker could have won also.

Also describing as luck that you have alternate way to India is... Geography is not luck. If Europe had the climate to grew spices they would never have developed the navy to travel to India. Because they wouldnt have needed to. If Arabia was water they wouldnt need to travel around Africa and again they wouldnt need to develope better ships and sailing methods. But thats not luck according to you. Its only luck if the europeans come out on top. Thus you can conclude that the europeans were extremly lucky. In reality they had just much better motivation to explore and develope their navies than the rest of the world. And when as a result they found they had naval dominance they used that to get as much money (mostly through trade) as possible. In the process they ended up conquering most of the world.

And if the result of something (Europe vs locals) is consistently the same its not luck. No one is that lucky.

Also you can continue to repeat your points - that doesnt make them less ridicolous. Blaming everything on European luck from geography to the biology of the natives... And the cherry on top is the "Christianity existing to unite Europe" part - which of course is agan luck according to you. Its not like the christianosation of europe was a centuries long process with a thousand causes - but here its simple luck. Also of its supposed unity: 30 years war? Just to mention the most devastating war thanks to christian infighting. If thats your definition of unity I dont want any of it.

 

[Lightwell]

When something is much more likely to happen some way than the another you can call it luck when it happens but its really just turning out the most likely way. In sports a stronger team beating the weaker is usually not described as luck - its just how it was supposed to be. Even if the weaker could have won also.

Your analogy makes no sense here. How is a stronger team beating a weaker team anything like what happened here?

Also describing as luck that you have alternate way to India is... Geography is not luck. If Europe had the climate to grew spices they would never have developed the navy to travel to India. Because they wouldnt have needed to. If Arabia was water they wouldnt need to travel around Africa and again they wouldnt need to develope better ships and sailing methods. But thats not luck according to you. Its only luck if the europeans come out on top. Thus you can conclude that the europeans were extremly lucky. In reality they had just much better motivation to explore and develope their navies than the rest of the world. And when as a result they found they had naval dominance they used that to get as much money (mostly through trade) as possible. In the process they ended up conquering most of the world.

No, each nation has experienced some level of luck. (West African gold, SEA's adjacency to India and China, Greece's adjacency to Egypt, etc.) However, an ocean route existing to India and only becoming useful right as the Europeans desperately needed it, having no other means to reach it and avoid an economic collapse, is most certainly luck. It could've been land, just as easily, and the first one to be impacted would be Portugal. Again, these great profits coming into existence as Europe obtains the necessary mineral wealth to sustain their economies because some nobody screwed up the size of the Earth and managed to make landfall in an area where the people weren't resistant to diseases, and fell to them, despite having much larger armies? Luck.

I'm going to say it again, because you seem to struggle with understanding it: Luck doesn't require that there be no cause. I don't believe anyone has ever maintained that position. However, if you were to claim that all of Europe's fortunes in the 15th and 16th centuries came from pure merit, I'd have to call you a liar.

And if the result of something (Europe vs locals) is consistently the same its not luck. No one is that lucky.

Who said they were the same? Each situation was different. The reconquest of Malacca was a plain military failure, Somalia lost because Ethiopia (the one Christian splotch in all of Africa) happened to be adjacent to it, and because India was willing to help out Portugal against the Ottomans. Kilwa, that was more a concession for mutual profit. If anything, it's the ability of Europeans to bounce around from port to port so freely during this time period that helped them in the East.

Also you can continue to repeat your points - that doesnt make them less ridicolous. Blaming everything on European luck from geography to the biology of the natives... And the cherry on top is the "Christianity existing to unite Europe" part - which of course is agan luck according to you. Its not like the christianosation of europe was a centuries long process with a thousand causes - but here its simple luck.

I'm talking about Christianity existing in the first place. To delve into the realm of the hypothetical, if the Christ hadn't come, Europe would be a very different place. Additionally, anyone looking at it from an ordinary perspective would see what I mean. You seem determined to play off any benefits Europeans obtained from unpredictable and non-meritorious methods as fated. For the purposes of any sort of AltHist game, they were not, and if we were to play things out again from 1200 AD, you wouldn't see something even slightly similar unless you forced certain actions to be repeated.

Also of its supposed unity: 30 years war? Just to mention the most devastating war thanks to christian infighting. If thats your definition of unity I dont want any of it.

That was caused by the Italian sect losing control over a the churches of the region. If you want to say 30 years of fighting is enough to undo the benefits of Christianity reaching Europe, you can go there on your own and remain there.

 

[Tibi088]

Your analogy makes no sense here. How is a stronger team beating a weaker team anything like what happened here?



No, each nation has experienced some level of luck. (West African gold, SEA's adjacency to India and China, Greece's adjacency to Egypt, etc.) However, an ocean route existing to India and only becoming useful right as the Europeans desperately needed it, having no other means to reach it and avoid an economic collapse, is most certainly luck. It could've been land, just as easily, and the first one to be impacted would be Portugal.

So a more easy and direct naval route not existing to India (like Arabia being water) is not up to luck. A very long and costly alternate route existing: luck. IMO Lets not go changing the shape of the continents or blame them on European luck. The most profitable trade of the world was going on on the Far East. From there the farthest and practically only point of the old world that could not be reached easily on water was Europe. I could say though luck but thats simply geography. Than the trade on land is also distrupted and they desperatly search for an alternate - and find it - because it existed. Thats just the shape of the continents, not luck. Its also not luck they found this route: they have been searching for it and they would have found it sooner or later. However only to reach the Indian Ocean required of them to develope a much better naval technology (including ships and everything else) than the locals needed. So they had to surmont huge difficulties to get there and by doing so they already were equipped to navally dominate the Indian Ocean. And thats what happene in the next centuries. The locals had the technology and the ability to develope the same way - but they didnt needed to, they were already on the Indian Ocean. Not luck just much better motivation.

Again, these great profits coming into existence as Europe obtains the necessary mineral wealth to sustain their economies because some nobody screwed up the size of the Earth and managed to make landfall in an area where the people weren't resistant to diseases, and fell to them, despite having much larger armies? Luck.

Again, he was searching for an alternate route to India. The portuguese also discovered Brazil by the way they just kept it a secret. As long as the Europeans were exploring the oceans they were bound to stumble on the Americans sooner or later. And them exploring the oceans was not luck as I have already stated.
And why were the natives not resistant to disease? Because they havent had contact with the old world previously. They did not have to suffer the black plague and all the other shit the Europeans and other old worlders had gone through and developed immunity to for more than a millenia. They were alway going to suffer heavily in the timeframe after first contact. It was not luck that they lost. Also when you are hit with diseases that wipe away 90% of your population in a few years there is no state thats gonna survive that. Without the presence of the Europeans who have 1. United the region - so there was something like a cordinated response 2. were not affected by the disease and administration and life could go on and some of them even did try to help - I do believe that the local states would have collapsed. Im not saying that the europeans handled the situation in any sort of competent way - Im saying that without them it would have been even worse. And even if Cortez was repulsed - easy to do - the europeans would have found easy picking when the disease hit.

And you are againg blaming geography. The americas had silver and gold, OK. If they had spices the Europeans again would have no need to go to India - as there was a much more available source. Geography and climate are cards that were dealt to humanity - the europeans were dealt initially seemenigly pretty shitty cards and thus were forced to owercome their disandventage of Geography. When they finally did they found that they have naval superiority and in a great position to profit from that. But that was no luck.

I'm going to say it again, because you seem to struggle with understanding it: Luck doesn't require that there be no cause. I don't believe anyone has ever maintained that position. However, if you were to claim that all of Europe's fortunes in the 15th and 16th centuries came from pure merit, I'd have to call you a liar.

And I have time and again acknowledge in my posts that the Europeans conquering was lucky some times. But to say that all their conquests and success was due mostly to luck? They were far too successfull for that.

Who said they were the same? Each situation was different. The reconquest of Malacca was a plain military failure, Somalia lost because Ethiopia (the one Christian splotch in all of Africa) happened to be adjacent to it, and because India was willing to help out Portugal against the Ottomans. Kilwa, that was more a concession for mutual profit. If anything, it's the ability of Europeans to bounce around from port to port so freely during this time period that helped them in the East.

Like they had naval superiority? Do you now why that was so powerful? Because they could do just what you decribe. They did not have to fear retaliation. Because their home countries were on the other side of the world and safe from the wars on the Indian Ocean. Even if they lost on land somewhere they could always try later - in a more opportune moment.

I'm talking about Christianity existing in the first place. To delve into the realm of the hypothetical, if the Christ hadn't come, Europe would be a very different place. Additionally, anyone looking at it from an ordinary perspective would see what I mean. You seem determined to play off any benefits Europeans obtained from unpredictable and non-meritorious methods as fated. For the purposes of any sort of AltHist game, they were not, and if we were to play things out again from 1200 AD, you wouldn't see something even slightly similar unless you forced certain actions to be repeated.

There is a lot of things that could have gone differently. But there are certain factors that are always going to be there - like geography and biology. A land bridge magically appearing between Africa and the Antarctica is not alternate history and not up to luck. Could christianity not be the dominant religion of Europe: yes - though you would need to go back to roman times to prevent that. You are also trying to paint christianity as some super religion that was uniqly adventegous to have for the Europeans. Unity it did not bring in this centuries - see the religious wars between different sorts of christian power or one of the strongest catholic power allying the strongest muslim against another Catholic.

And back to geography: Europe might be a vastly different place without christianity, but if the same thing happens as OTL - the land trade route becoming distrupted there is a good chance that some european power will try to come up with an alternate route to the east. If it succeds by going around Africa it will posses naval technology that will allow it to have a very good shot at navally dominating the indian ocean. Even if its not a christian power.

That was caused by the Italian sect losing control over a the churches of the region. If you want to say 30 years of fighting is enough to undo the benefits of Christianity reaching Europe, you can go there on your own and remain there.

And lets not pretend that was more than the tip of an Iceberg. The french religious war? The german religious wars earlier? The british too had a few bouts. Chistianity did provide benefits but it was not unique in this. Again Cristianity was not some kind of super religion that allowed the europeans to conquer the world. At most it enabled them to be usually more civil with each other with a lot of notable exceptions. But than that too could be ascribed to a balance of power that existed on the continent - knowing you wont always win does stop you at times from some of the more nasty things you could do as you dont want that done to you when you loose.

Also this is getting repetitive so I will stop. If you want to write up every European success to mostly luck thats your choice. I wont buy it for a second and simply consider it as the much mor likely outcome of the existing situation that in the end did happen.

 

[Lightwell]

So a more easy and direct naval route not existing to India (like Arabia being water) is not up to luck. A very long and costly alternate route existing: luck. IMO Lets not go changing the shape of the continents or blame them on European luck. The most profitable trade of the world was going on on the Far East. From there the farthest and practically only point of the old world that could not be reached easily on water was Europe. I could say though luck but thats simply geography.

Great. They have a shield. Also, the long route wasn't costly. It was just as profitable, as they could pick up trade from Brazil, Africa, and the Mediterranean and connect it to the Cape route.

Than the trade on land is also distrupted and they desperatly search for an alternate - and find it - because it existed. Thats just the shape of the continents, not luck.

Finding the path isn't luck. The path existing is luck.

However only to reach the Indian Ocean required of them to develope a much better naval technology (including ships and everything else) than the locals needed. So they had to surmont huge difficulties to get there and by doing so they already were equipped to navally dominate the Indian Ocean. And thats what happene in the next centuries. The locals had the technology and the ability to develope the same way - but they didnt needed to, they were already on the Indian Ocean. Not luck just much better motivation.

The locals already had technology to compare with European ships. Skipping over to the span of "Centuries" is short-sighted. When they got there, they were on even terms. It was more just that they played the waiting game and nabbed vulnerable things as they became available, and repeated this until the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when they could actually expand to cover large amounts of territory.

Portugal's actual influence in Malacca was negligible at the beginning. They controlled a port, but everyone there chose to boycott the entire area, and trade was refocused around other, smaller ports.

Again, he was searching for an alternate route to India. The portuguese also discovered Brazil by the way they just kept it a secret. As long as the Europeans were exploring the oceans they were bound to stumble on the Americans sooner or later. And them exploring the oceans was not luck as I have already stated.

Columbus is lucky to have survived that trip. He screwed up his calculations. As for the discovery of Brazil, that's fine. However, you can't assume that things would've played out in the same way they had IRL.

And why were the natives not resistant to disease? Because they havent had contact with the old world previously. They did not have to suffer the black plague and all the other shit the Europeans and other old worlders had gone through and developed immunity to for more than a millenia. They were alway going to suffer heavily in the timeframe after first contact. It was not luck that they lost. Also when you are hit with diseases that wipe away 90% of your population in a few years there is no state thats gonna survive that.

I'm saying it's lucky for the Europeans, who had no way of knowing that until after they'd started a war. I'm not going to bother explaining the concept of "Luck =/= causeless event" anymore. You just don't seem to be able to comprehend that.

Without the presence of the Europeans who have 1. United the region - so there was something like a cordinated response 2. were not affected by the disease and administration and life could go on and some of them even did try to help - I do believe that the local states would have collapsed. Im not saying that the europeans handled the situation in any sort of competent way - Im saying that without them it would have been even worse. And even if Cortez was repulsed - easy to do - the europeans would have found easy picking when the disease hit.

Without the Europeans, there still would've been organized nations who could bear the brunt of the disease and recover. Living through the introduction of plagues isn't something that was somehow unique to Europe.

And you are againg blaming geography. The americas had silver and gold, OK. If they had spices the Europeans again would have no need to go to India - as there was a much more available source.

The gold and silver are what caused price revolutions in Europe. The spices would've been nice to be able to sell, but they wouldn't have increased the wealth of the region significantly. It would've just devalued spices. Back when gold was a commodity that just about every nation would kill for, it could rewrite the fates of everyone living in an area. Imagine what West Africa would've turned out like if there hadn't been any gold.

Geography and climate are cards that were dealt to humanity - the europeans were dealt initially seemenigly pretty shitty cards

In what way? They were adjacent to two pristine civilizations, received a continental religion from a nation in-between, were constantly able to receive technology from the East in case they fell behind, had any knowledge they needed safely preserved by their neighbors, the Muslims, and they had two massive seas to go with their abundance of rivers, trees, mountain ranges, and rainfall. Additionally, because their landmass was able to hold large populations that could easily traverse the continent, it was pretty much destined to urbanize, no matter what. Trade from North and West Africa meant there was enough gold to power European economies. They were given a total sweet spot.

and thus were forced to owercome their disandventage of Geography. When they finally did they found that they have naval superiority and in a great position to profit from that. But that was no luck.

As far as their navies went, their only real advantage was their ability to sail away from the coastline, and that's something they shared with Islamic states. Somali merchants traded every part of the Old World, with possible exceptions in West Africa and North Asia. Again, nothing unique during the 16th century.

And I have time and again acknowledge in my posts that the Europeans conquering was lucky some times. But to say that all their conquests and success was due mostly to luck? They were far too successfull for that.

First, luck. Then, snowballing. That's the order.

Like they had naval superiority? Do you now why that was so powerful? Because they could do just what you decribe. They did not have to fear retaliation. Because their home countries were on the other side of the world and safe from the wars on the Indian Ocean. Even if they lost on land somewhere they could always try later - in a more opportune moment.

That's not naval superiority. That's just having forward bases far outside the realms of the people you're attacking, who can't afford to mount a long-distance assault against your country. It's not even that they can't. Just that virtually nobody would prioritize taking the Cape just over some guys who occasionally come through to siege or purchase some place the size of a city.

There is a lot of things that could have gone differently. But there are certain factors that are always going to be there - like geography and biology. A land bridge magically appearing between Africa and the Antarctica is not alternate history and not up to luck.

If we start with the map as it was known by the people of the Old World, we can mark it as a possibility from there. That's not to say it would be something for alternate history, but being able to rely on that route existing is what enabled the Europeans to do what they did in East Asia. If that route had been through the Suez (something that would've happened if it didn't come with the chance for the Nile's waters to be redirected into the Red Sea) instead, the Europeans wouldn't be so costly to take down.

Could christianity not be the dominant religion of Europe: yes - though you would need to go back to roman times to prevent that. You are also trying to paint christianity as some super religion that was uniqly adventegous to have for the Europeans.

It built European societies from the ground up. Laws, governments, personal relations, and systems of morality. Nearly everything there was reliant on Christianity of the Catholic Church.

Unity it did not bring in this centuries - see the religious wars between different sorts of christian power or one of the strongest catholic power allying the strongest muslim against another Catholic.

You're talking about wars, which were largely just political maneuvers disguised as religious movements. I'm talking about social cohesion for the people on the ground.

And back to geography: Europe might be a vastly different place without christianity, but if the same thing happens as OTL - the land trade route becoming distrupted there is a good chance that some european power will try to come up with an alternate route to the east. If it succeds by going around Africa it will posses naval technology that will allow it to have a very good shot at navally dominating the indian ocean. Even if its not a christian power.

Seriously, where are you getting this idea that they had special navies? Their advantage was in the fact that the trade route meant going around the entirety of Africa

And lets not pretend that was more than the tip of an Iceberg. The french religious war? The german religious wars earlier? The british too had a few bouts.

Those were all tied to ways the Catholic Church abused people who split off to follow the Christianity of scripture. I.E, Europeans abusing Europeans for following less European forms of Christianity. The fact that Catholics screwed things up doesn't make Christianity itself less of a boon.

Chistianity did provide benefits but it was not unique in this. Again Cristianity was not some kind of super religion that allowed the europeans to conquer the world. At most it enabled them to be usually more civil with each other with a lot of notable exceptions.

That's my point. It gave the Europeans reasons to see each other as more than just neighboring things to be despised.

But than that too could be ascribed to a balance of power that existed on the continent - knowing you wont always win does stop you at times from some of the more nasty things you could do as you dont want that done to you when you loose.

Looking at Europe's record on that, I'm almost entirely certain it was because of Christianity. Having mercy on conquered or purchased people who weren't Christian was something foreign to them for the majority of their history, even despite scripture's words on that.

Also this is getting repetitive so I will stop. If you want to write up every European success to mostly luck thats your choice. I wont buy it for a second and simply consider it as the much mor likely outcome of the existing situation that in the end did happen.

Fine. Have fun with that.

 

[fr-rein]

The most laughing part is that Europeans were "lucky" to discover new trade routes.

Consider Arctic route history - even if it did not succeed, British still considered using trade through Volga river like Vikings did to access Caspian Sea and Persia.

There would always be a way in most of geographic setups, and almost in all of realistic maps that could happen. Even if you assume that continent separates oceans, it could still have rivers that could be used for transportation.

And of course even without gold and silver there were many resources to plunder on 2 continents, unless you assume both being huge deserts.

And Christianity uniting Europe? Really? That's some rich joke.

P.S. That said, unification argument still is bad. China was most unified state on Earth for a while through various means and it failed. Roman Empire and later Eastern part of it failed despite that. And even chunks of India with on religion were fragmented. And Austrian Empire, despite being Catholic, wasnt united. Religion doesn't have decisive say in helping to unite people.

 

[Lightwell]

The most laughing part is that Europeans were "lucky" to discover new trade routes.

Consider Arctic route history - even if it did not succeed, British still considered using trade through Volga river like Vikings did to access Caspian Sea and Persia.

Much more vulnerable to assault and interruption. It also disallows conquest through the Indian Ocean.

The Cape route being safe and also far enough to dissuade other nations from attacking there is a major benefit to Europe.

There would always be a way in most of geographic setups, and almost in all of realistic maps that could happen. Even if you assume that continent separates oceans, it could still have rivers that could be used for transportation.

Trying to sail through central Africa means subjecting yourself to waterfalls, river cataracts, branching paths, the whims of the locals, and most importantly, Central African diseases. Europeans wouldn't have been capable of surviving that at the time.

And of course even without gold and silver there were many resources to plunder on 2 continents, unless you assume both being huge deserts.

The gold and silver are what matter. Due to the mercantilist mindsets of many contemporary rulers and merchants, gold and silver would be the main tools to power the economy, and they're what caused the price revolutions that covered most of the game's time period. Those created an increased demand for goods, since they had plenty of (globally-recognized) cash to pay with. If you remove the gold and silver from that situation, the price revolutions don't happen, demand for goods doesn't increase, and European traders in the Indian Ocean sell to other Asians and pocket the money, having no reason to return to Europe. Unless Europeans start paying their tabs in vanilla beans and feathers, you're not seeing anything similar in an alternate scenario.

And Christianity uniting Europe? Really? That's some rich joke.

Compare the way Europeans treated other Europeans to the way Europeans treated Non-Europeans. Now look at the justifications given for this treatment. With the exception of Catholics attempting to violently purge dissent and Byzantines giving North Africans the cold shoulder, you see that Christianity provided a strong reason for these people to see each other as human, when the default is plainly known through their history. You even see the Portuguese and the Russians going out of their way to help Ethiopia, just because it's a Christian nation.

.S. That said, unification argument still is bad. China was most unified state on Earth for a while through various means and it failed. Roman Empire and later Eastern part of it failed despite that. And even chunks of India with on religion were fragmented. And Austrian Empire, despite being Catholic, wasnt united. Religion doesn't have decisive say in helping to unite people.

I think you might be confused about the term "Unite". I meant uniting them under one faith to change their perceptions of one another.

 

[fr-rein]

Much more vulnerable to assault and interruption. It also disallows conquest through the Indian Ocean.

Vikings essentially conquered Eastern Europe for that, I don't think that other parties would be less persistent in their attempts, either through cooperation or force.

The Cape route being safe and also far enough to dissuade other nations from attacking there is a major benefit to Europe.

But it can be said about most routes in history since outside Eurasia RoTW was essentially uncivilized for the most part.

Trying to sail through central Africa means subjecting yourself to waterfalls, river cataracts, branching paths, the whims of the locals, and most importantly, Central African diseases. Europeans wouldn't have been capable of surviving that at the time.

Why do you think so? No one put thought into it, but if it was essential to them they wouldn't wait until like XIX-XX century to figure out how to fight diseases.

And as I said, you need to assume that all passages are blocked by entirely unavailable terrain... which is too improbable since if you look at how continents on Earth drifted, there is very little chance for such scenario.

The gold and silver are what matter.

No? I mean, many other colonizers made it without access to silver and gold. Sure, it would change trade history, but would it stop driving forces that made Europe a hub of world trade? No.

Not to mention that RoTW, especially India and China, would also suffer from it since gold fed global trade. So probably relatively Europe would get edge regardless, just taking more time to scrap gold and silver.

Unless Europeans start paying their tabs in vanilla beans and feathers

They did it with spices though.

Compare the way Europeans treated other Europeans to the way Europeans treated Non-Europeans. Now look at the justifications given for this treatment. With the exception of Catholics attempting to violently purge dissent and Byzantines giving North Africans the cold shoulder, you see that Christianity provided a strong reason for these people to see each other as human, when the default is plainly known through their history. You even see the Portuguese and the Russians going out of their way to help Ethiopia, just because it's a Christian nation.

Europeans didn't treat other religions too different to matter.
In fact, the very same Europeans made each other see less of a human, with their institutions of (ancient) slavery, serfs and then having rightless landless people who had to work in hard conditions to sustain themselves, something no one else did in world to their own people.

 

[Lightwell]

Vikings essentially conquered Eastern Europe for that, I don't think that other parties would be less persistent in their attempts, either through cooperation or force.

Exactly my point. It would leave the Europeans too vulnerable for them to have accomplished what they did.

But it can be said about most routes in history since outside Eurasia RoTW was essentially uncivilized for the most part.

Please don't take Victorian diagnoses seriously. Learn some of the history of these areas before you say something like that. The Cape route was safe because there were small populations there, as it lies adjacent to a desert, and the waters between the Cape and the southernmost ports on the Swahili coast were difficult to sail for the Swahili.

Why do you think so? No one put thought into it, but if it was essential to them they wouldn't wait until like XIX-XX century to figure out how to fight diseases.

They weren't waiting. They legitimately lacked the means to do this. It was only possible due to the buildup of technological institutions, which were, themselves, results of the wealth Europe had and exposure Europe had to the outside world.

And as I said, you need to assume that all passages are blocked by entirely unavailable terrain... which is too improbable since if you look at how continents on Earth drifted, there is very little chance for such scenario.

Or that those passages run through hostile territory. Literally any part of Subsaharan Africa north of the Kalahari would fit. If you made an oceanic passage there, it would be firmly under the control of the Muslims, or subject to the diseases and control of local nations. While the Kongolese might've allowed passage, the Somalians wouldn't have, and Central Africans would be in direct contact with the Indian Ocean traders, having access to their technologies and religions.

No? I mean, many other colonizers made it without access to silver and gold.

Like? All of Europe was affected by the sudden gold rush, and England built itself up around privateering that gold. The Dutch navy was only feasible because they had deep pockets, and strong funding methods.

Not to mention that RoTW, especially India and China, would also suffer from it since gold fed global trade. So probably relatively Europe would get edge regardless, just taking more time to scrap gold and silver.

Also wrong. The Indians and the Chinese got much of their gold from elsewhere, primarily in Asia or Africa. If you extend the timeline there, you get more Asian developments of firearms technology and naval technology, and Europe gets left behind, being put back in the position they were in during the Medieval era.

They did it with spices though.

Even so, the value remains low, as there isn't as much value in spices as in gold. All countries in Eurasia recognized the value of gold. In the Indian Ocean, spices wouldn't be worth as much as they would in Europe, but Europeans generally wouldn't have the money to actually pay the merchants as much as they thought it was worth, leading to the merchants choosing to engage in arbitrage in the Indian Ocean, rather than selling their goods in Europe.

Europeans didn't treat other religions too different to matter.
In fact, the very same Europeans made each other see less of a human, with their institutions of (ancient) slavery, serfs and then having rightless landless people who had to work in hard conditions to sustain themselves, something no one else did in world to their own people.

Cruel as they were to their own, look at how they treated the Native Americans and Africans, compare this with the way they treated contemporary Europeans, and then look at the justifications they gave for this. I'd say that Europeans tended to be uniquely cruel, but Christianity gave them at least some reason to soften up, still being worse than the others, but not as bad as they'd be without it.

 

[fr-rein]

Exactly my point. It would leave the Europeans too vulnerable for them to have accomplished what they did.

No? New trade route is there. They would still discover new World and most likely exploit it. They would also do their best to bypass Ottoman trade anyway. Ofc it would be a different development, but the fact is that they seeker solutions and were rewarded for them, they weren't closed in their own realm.

Please don't take Victorian diagnoses seriously.

Great Plains civilized? No, quite sparsely populated with overwhelmingly underdeveloped tribes.
South Africa civilized? Again, no, not really.
Central Africa? Not really, though I do not count Sub-Saharan region in here which is another case.
Siberia civilized? Huge nope.
Maybe Australia? Doesn't look like it.
Oceania? No.
Maybe Amazon jungles, Argentina, Brazil? No.

These cases are uncivilized even compared to contemporary Eurasian standards (Europe, India, China, Arabs).

Now, even better cases (Aztecs, Incas, West Africa, East Africa) fared significantly worse than Europe did. They were civilized, but their civilizations didn't even cover entire region, leaving their home regions as mix of uncivilized tribes (in Central America those invaded from Great Plains, in East Africa it happened very recently with Promo people).

So yes, vast majority of land was pretty much uncivilized wilderness. Which is a reason why in XIX century they were overrun with such an ease with minor forces in most cases.

And Cape example is irrelevant, Portuguese managed to establish ports in many other places. They went as far as capturing Muscat for that, so it is not like they would be overrun by Swahili. Not to mention that Swahili lacked capability to make ships in such quantity.

They legitimately lacked the means to do this. It was only possible due to the buildup of technological institutions

This is not really true. If Europe (or any developed region) wanted they could find means to adapt if it would appear worthwhile. Quinuine was already consumed as anti-malaria medicine in XVII century.

Or that those passages run through hostile territory. Literally any part of Subsaharan Africa north of the Kalahari would fit. If you made an oceanic passage there, it would be firmly under the control of the Muslims, or subject to the diseases and control of local nations. While the Kongolese might've allowed passage, the Somalians wouldn't have, and Central Africans would be in direct contact with the Indian Ocean traders, having access to their technologies and religions.

Again, you want to imagine 1 scenario where it would be not possible. But truth is, the chances that it would be like that were low. And even if it was the cade would it stop Europeans from achieving their dominance or just delay it?

Also wrong. The Indians and the Chinese got much of their gold from elsewhere, primarily in Asia or Africa.

Please read about global silver trade, China and Opium wars before saying nonsense.

Even so, the value remains low, as there isn't as much value in spices as in gold.

Even so, the value remains low, as there isn't as much value in spices as in gold.

For whom? For Europe it mattered, so it could still trade within itself and muster resources for global trade after that. After all, Western Africa had no spices and Europe would just trade it for gold.

You generally underestimate how much Global Trade was important, it allowed to make insane profits reselling goods from region to region.

Cruel as they were to their own, look at how they treated the Native Americans and Africans

They treated them as savages, just like most other developed states did.

Or are you implying that Arabs were kind to Africans? Or that Japanese were kind to Ainu and local natives? Or that other Africans didn't ruthlessly kill other groups? Or that Mongols were riders of Enlightenment?

Europeans were just exposed to more uncivilized countries. And if you look at the colonial history, they usually treated developed kingdoms better, integrating them and recognizing their power structure and using it to rule, with a few exceptions.

Native Americans cooperated with France you know. They were not a gone case, they mainly lost their struggle and due to other tribes not having a state system they had no bargain power or a good political ally after that.

And how badly Africans were treated? Can you say how Europeans treated them worse than themselves? Just say how. You can't really since most administrations relied on local tribal structures and used them to rule.

 

[Lightwell]

No? New trade route is there. They would still discover new World and most likely exploit it. They would also do their best to bypass Ottoman trade anyway. Ofc it would be a different development, but the fact is that they seeker solutions and were rewarded for them, they weren't closed in their own realm.

It would be too close to the Ottomans or any other competitors to remain safe.

Great Plains civilized? No, quite sparsely populated with overwhelmingly underdeveloped tribes.

They were nomadic, and they relied on hunting Bison (a carefully-managed resource) to get by. What the heck were your criteria?

South Africa civilized? Again, no, not really.

Underpopulated, yes. Uncivilized? No. They didn't build anything because they didn't need anything. When Dutch farmers tried to get them to work on the farms, they refused, claiming that there wasn't a point, as food was abundant. Prior to the arrival of Shaka Zulu, warfare was also simple, being a series of skirmishes intended to mark out borders, but nothing more.

Central Africa? Not really, though I do not count Sub-Saharan region in here which is another case.

If you mean the area from Southern Nigeria to Northern Angola, you're entirely off. Those guys were civilized by every metric.

Siberia civilized? Huge nope.

Seriously, what are you using to judge? I don't think we're seeing the same picture.

Maybe Australia? Doesn't look like it.

Because you ocean-faring barbarians came and killed off the locals.

Maybe Amazon jungles, Argentina, Brazil? No.

Also civilized, just not agrarian.

These cases are uncivilized even compared to contemporary Eurasian standards (Europe, India, China, Arabs).

What does that even mean? Are you trying to say that farming is what makes someone civilized? Because, even today, hunter-gatherers spend less time working per week than industrialized workers do.

Now, even better cases (Aztecs, Incas, West Africa, East Africa) fared significantly worse than Europe did. They were civilized, but their civilizations didn't even cover entire region, leaving their home regions as mix of uncivilized tribes (in Central America those invaded from Great Plains, in East Africa it happened very recently with Promo people).

West Africa is huge. The inhabited portion of it (excluding the North African portions) are approximately 2/3rds the size of all of Europe. Additionally, the reason it wasn't all under the rule of a single nation is because there wasn't a will for that. The Ghanaian and Malian Empires had no reason to expand at all, as they were centered on the most lucrative trade in the world. Ghana collapsed because Muslims broke off and caused a civil war, and Mali collapsed because half of its Emperors were terrible. Additionally, controlling the southernmost portions of West Africa is impossible to do with cavalry, as the Tsetse fly will kill those in a heartbeat. The main Empires of the region were seated because of their control of cavalry, and their control of the Trans-saharan trade. Saying that they weren't civilized because there wasn't a hegemonic power in the region just tells me you have no reason to think Europe was civilized, either.

So yes, vast majority of land was pretty much uncivilized wilderness. Which is a reason why in XIX century they were overrun with such an ease with minor forces in most cases.

They were overrun because 19th-century rifles are in a league of their own, and Africa's main defense, its diseases, were nullified by immunization methods.

And Cape example is irrelevant, Portuguese managed to establish ports in many other places. They went as far as capturing Muscat for that, so it is not like they would be overrun by Swahili. Not to mention that Swahili lacked capability to make ships in such quantity.

It's not about the port, it's about the route. While they could've taken the port, the route would be vulnerable if it was closer to the Ottomans.

This is not really true. If Europe (or any developed region) wanted they could find means to adapt if it would appear worthwhile. Quinuine was already consumed as anti-malaria medicine in XVII century.

Malaria is just one of the MANY diseases you would encounter there. The Malarial cure was discovered because it had spread into Europe and infected the Pope. That's very different than an exploratory voyage and light commerce.

Again, you want to imagine 1 scenario where it would be not possible. But truth is, the chances that it would be like that were low. And even if it was the cade would it stop Europeans from achieving their dominance or just delay it?

What "Chances" are you even measuring? And it's not one particular scenario. I'm saying that if the route had been closer to Kongo or Nigeria, the Portuguese would've been shunted out.

Please read about global silver trade, China and Opium wars before saying nonsense.

GOLD. I said GOLD.

For whom? For Europe it mattered, so it could still trade within itself and muster resources for global trade after that. After all, Western Africa had no spices and Europe would just trade it for gold.

You generally underestimate how much Global Trade was important, it allowed to make insane profits reselling goods from region to region.

You can use that to pay individuals in Europe, but if you try to use it as currency for international purchases in the Levant, Africa, or the Indian Ocean (Heaven forbid you try to use it as currency in the Spice Islands), you'll see that it comes up short as a currency. Side note: West Africa did have some spices, but they're not the kind that were in wild demand.

They treated them as savages, just like most other developed states did.

That's primarily a European concept.

Or are you implying that Arabs were kind to Africans?

Judging from their interactions, they tended to regard each other as equals until they hit a culture clash, and the Arabs were content to badmouth the Africans for failing to be Arabic. They did take the slaves that were being sold, but not for use as Chattel.

Or that Japanese were kind to Ainu and local natives?

Did anyone?

Or that other Africans didn't ruthlessly kill other groups?

Vague, and stereotypical. You're asking if, out of an entire continent of people who have no cultural connections, whether or not there were some groups who were particularly cruel.

r that Mongols were riders of Enlightenment?

Also vague, and this entire thing has been off-topic.

Europeans were just exposed to more uncivilized countries. And if you look at the colonial history, they usually treated developed kingdoms better, integrating them and recognizing their power structure and using it to rule, with a few exceptions.

Arbitrary categorization. Define "Developed kingdom", because, as I recall, the French and the British used dynamite and cannons against just about everything that didn't whimper.

Native Americans cooperated with France you know. They were not a gone case, they mainly lost their struggle and due to other tribes not having a state system they had no bargain power or a good political ally after that.

Even the ones that did have recognizable government forms were attacked and afflicted. In the case of France, it's best to say that they didn't stand much of a chance of winning the race in North America.

And how badly Africans were treated? Can you say how Europeans treated them worse than themselves?

Driven as cattle, packed into cargo holds with absolutely no room to breathe or move, left unfed because it's cheaper to import new Africans than to take care of the slaves, casually raped by ordinary civilians to make a point, sold to be away from their family, made to forget their home, and losing their immunity to African diseases, making it impossible for them or their descendants to return without being killed on arrival, as we saw with Liberia. Finally, all of this was solely for the sake of commerce.

Just say how. You can't really since most administrations relied on local tribal structures and used them to rule.

Tell me, what happens if you raze all of Beijing to the ground, and leave them under the governing hand of the Mongols or the Manchu? They're local, right? They're "Tribal", you know? It's a vague term with no real meaning that's liberally applied to Africa and the Americas to connote indignity. You don't leave the Zazzau over the Ashante, you don't leave the Liberians over the Kru, and you don't leave the Fulani over the Igbo or the Dogon unless you want a genocide. When they drew the borders, they weren't doing so for the sake of the governed. The abuses committed by Africans? Yes, they were terrible, and the descendants of those who committed vile acts are held to account, to this day. However, it wouldn't have been possible in the first place unless the Europeans had given them the tools and the opportunity, so they are also to blame

 

[fr-rein]

I think that you should read some history instead of learning it from EU IV.

I am also not interested in discussing straw arguments, like when I made mistake with gold over silver, which doesn't change the message that I was telling.

Lastly, I am not interested in petty attempts to establish a moral highground, I have no interest in that.

To conclude and return back on track, Europa Universalis would obiously win from expanding their focus from Europe to RoTW, but only as long as RoTW will have a proper gameplay and not some standard gameplay with minor alterations applied to all. The fact is that all regions were different, so I hope that I would be able to play Bharat significantly more different than European minors with different social challenges and unique internal politics.

Speaking of, I want some more Europecentrism. Give PLC a system similar to HRE, why it doesn't deserve one?
I also hope that they fix stupid mistakes like wrong CoA for Galicia-Volhyn or Pripiat area not having name "Black Ruthenia" since it seems more likely in EU5 than EU4 to me because apparently RoTW deserves more attention in EU4. Eurocentrism my Assam.

 

[Lightwell]

I think that you should read some history instead of learning it from EU IV.

Don't project.

I am also not interested in discussing straw arguments, like when I made mistake with gold over silver, which doesn't change the message that I was telling.

The silver trade isn't the same thing as the gold trade, and pointing out that distinction isn't a straw argument.

Lastly, I am not interested in petty attempts to establish a moral highground, I have no interest in that.

It's more that you jumped to the moral (and factual) low ground. I'm not going to follow you there.

To conclude and return back on track, Europa Universalis would obiously win from expanding their focus from Europe to RoTW, but only as long as RoTW will have a proper gameplay and not some standard gameplay with minor alterations applied to all. The fact is that all regions were different, so I hope that I would be able to play Bharat significantly more different than European minors with different social challenges and unique internal politics.

Agreed.

Speaking of, I want some more Europecentrism. Give PLC a system similar to HRE, why it doesn't deserve one?
I also hope that they fix stupid mistakes like wrong CoA for Galicia-Volhyn or Pripiat area not having name "Black Ruthenia" since it seems more likely in EU5 than EU4 to me because apparently RoTW deserves more attention in EU4. Eurocentrism my Assam.

Don't care if it's in EU4 or EU5, but fixing the development disparity and skewed starts is definitely something I'd want to focus on.

Also, EU4 is completely Eurocentric. Study the other regions of the world for a bit. It'll show you some neat things. Also, take a look at a size-accurate map of the world at some point. The Americas were shifted, Africa was shrunk, West Africa was hit with a series of arbitrary nerfs to keep it from making attempts at exploring the Atlantic (as it historically did), and SEA's province density is a joke. Europe is magnified on the map and given an extremely high province density, even with that. Institutions as a mechanic have fantastical functions, and development comes from "Monarch Points", a time-gated resource you don't get much control over, instead of wealth, the real game-changer in this case. Gold mines have been made to be arbitrarily destabilizing for every nation, and some of the gold mines of the Old World just don't exist in 1444. The Aztecs start off with twice as much gold as all of West Africa gets if you force their gold provinces back into existence by starting at a later date.

It's pretty easy to see how these things might seem larger than an area not being called "Black Ruthenia".

 

[Martynios]

That's not to say it would be something for alternate history,

Therefore it's completely irrelevant for a discussion about Europa Universalis.

What does that even mean? Are you trying to say that farming is what makes someone civilized? Because, even today, hunter-gatherers spend less time working per week than industrialized workers do.

It's almost like free time and civilisation are wildly unrelated concepts.

 

[Lightwell]

Therefore it's completely irrelevant for a discussion about Europa Universalis.

Did you even read the prior posts?

It's almost like free time and civilisation are wildly unrelated concepts.

Nice nitpick.

I bet you're someone who could provide a strong argument. You're just sparing me the brutal pains of having to deal with reality. It would collapse my world, wouldn't it?
Scratch that. I shouldn't even ask. Don't bother responding. I wouldn't be able to take it. /s

 

[Martynios]

Did you even read the prior posts?

Yeah, and they were all going nowhere. If you want to argue that historical European success was not based on merit, be my guest. But this does not mean that said success should not be modeled in the game. As it stands, the difference in playing a European country versus playing an Asian country is as good as non-existent. In my opinion this is bad for variety and historical immersion.

Nice nitpick.

If you really want I can quote every single one of your comments regarding certain tribes being absolutely the pinnacle of civilisation, but I preferred to just stick to the most egregrious example.

 

[Lightwell]

If you want to argue that historical European success was not based on merit, be my guest. But this does not mean that said success should not be modeled in the game.

Read again. The point wasn't that it shouldn't be modeled in the game. The point was that the argument that systems based on assumptions of European dominance should be in place from the start to ensure it, is just trying to force an alternate history simulator to handicap anyone who didn't come out on top IRL.

As it stands, the difference in playing a European country versus playing an Asian country is as good as non-existent. In my opinion this is bad for variety and historical immersion.

Agreed.

If you really want I can quote every single one of your comments regarding certain tribes being absolutely the pinnacle of civilisation, but I preferred to just stick to the most egregrious example.

A claim I didn't make. Have fun.

 

[Martynios]

Read again. The point wasn't that it shouldn't be modeled in the game. The point was that the argument that systems based on assumptions of European dominance should be in place from the start to ensure it, is just trying to force an alternate history simulator to handicap anyone who didn't come out on top IRL.

EU4 used to do what you say you think it shouldn't with the mechanic of tech groups. On the other hand, the current institutions mechanic, while theoretically more dynamic, is inadequate in that it leads to the same alt-history in almost every game: global technological equality by 1821. Ideally, EU5 would use a non-hardcoded mechanic that allows for the historical divergence to occur some/most of the time.

A claim I didn't make. Have fun.

Come on now, don't be pedantic. You might be justified in complaining that I exaggerated your remarks to ridicule them, but the main point remains: your denial of the lack of societal sophistication of some examples of population groups accross the globe is unsupported and clearly incorrect.