Essay Help! European Colonization

Hey,

I have a huge essay test coming up which will consist of one question. "Why was Columbus a European".

Essentially, the proffessor wants us to describe why Europe was at the forefront of overseas expansion and why the Muslim and Asian empires were not.

I took awesome notes and had it all layed out, but unfortunately they were stolen out of my car along with all my books last weekend. :sweatdrop:

So i have recalled all I can from memory, but I was wondering if anyone could add anything else. Thanks for any help!

Heres what ive got:

Muslim World:

1. already on the trade routs
2. somewhat geographically blocked from the major oceans
3. already expanding into europe(turks) and africa

Asian World:

1. Considered itself superior to rest of the world(instructors view, not mine)
2. no desire to elimenate the muslim middleman in trade
3. attempted at one time to explore, but mysteriously stopped

European World:

1. Economics - open direct trade with asia
2. spread of religion
3. desire to expand
4. more competition among nations than in the other spheres
5. enlightened outlook on the world

Africa and Pre European America:

Not technically advanced enough


If anybody could add to these lists, or sees anything im clearly leaving out, it would be a great help to me. Thanks so much!

Add in the fact that the Muslim world already had the Silk Road, and in general pretty strong connections with the Far East were long established. Meanwhile, the Chinese and other Far Easterners were far more concerned with their particular localities ("cooked barbarians" over "raw" ones, and all that good stuff), and as such weren't very interested in bypassing the Middle Eastern trade hub (and weren't very interested in anything outside of the Middle Kingdom and environs in the first place).

That, opposed to the lack of such ideas in Europe; the Europeans were also very interested in bypassing the Middle East, which was largely controlled by a powerful and aggressive enemy of theirs: the Ottomans.

The question you're asking as essentially what Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel deals with. I would highly recommend at reading, or at least skimming, this book before you start writing.

The Chinese Emperor has a mandate of heaven, which means he is ruler of all he views. He has no need to conquer the world. Tribute will do, thank you very much.

Well French dutch and british had better navies while the asians prefered junks which cant go very far. muslim word wanted to stay in the so called
"holly land". I think columbus was from spain and that he was looking for a safer route to "india" but some say he wasn't. English needed more colonies because they were running out of room in tiny ass britain. Well i think after a while the muslims came over here but my memory on this stuff isn't very good so this is about as much as i have Gl with your test.

have a look at the book 1421. it has been proposed that the chinese fleet of zheng hi did discover america as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He

it doesnt really matter who got there first i guess as what really matters is what you did about it.

Junks are very good a weathering the sea.
Considering a Ming (?) trading fleet managed to sail from China to Africa. With boats about 100 ft long and up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Junks are very good a weathering the sea.
Considering a Ming (?) trading fleet managed to sail from China to Africa. With boats about 100 ft long and up.

---

Most Historians consider the greater legnths of some junks to be overestimations, and impractical.

Not at all - your professor seems not to see muslims here.
Muslims colonised Indonesia and conquered India. They did not colosided America or China because they didn't have to. They simply had best trade sources or they controlled only way to deliver them. :)


And Columbus wasn't from Spain. He was from Italy.

Quote:

---

Not at all - your professor seems not to see muslims here.
Muslims colonised Indonesia and conquered India. They did not colosided America or China because they didn't have to. They simply had best trade sources or they controlled only way to deliver them. :)

---

They also converted large parts of Africa. Anyway I don't think that the Muslims didn't need to colonize/discover America, they simply weren't in position to do so, and they did not know a route there I think. If you just sail without knowing what you're doing and where you're going you won't find anything. Columbus believed the earth was round and believed he could get to India by sailing west, problem was a continent sort of blocked his way, but he did believe he had found India I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Not at all - your professor seems not to see muslims here.
Muslims colonised Indonesia and conquered India. They did not colosided America or China because they didn't have to. They simply had best trade sources or they controlled only way to deliver them. :)


And Columbus wasn't from Spain. He was from Italy.

---

they did not really colonise indonesia. their poisonous message was in the most part spread by trade, with the ruling dynasties remaining on the whole local in origin.

Do keep quiet about this anti-Islamic propaganda. This so-called "poisonous message" is no more poisonous than olives, some like them some don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KARTLOS

have a look at the book 1421. it has been proposed that the chinese fleet of zheng hi did discover america as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He

it doesnt really matter who got there first i guess as what really matters is what you did about it.

---

But im not one to trust wikipedia i read this thought it was interesting guess ill do some research later on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Most Historians consider the greater legnths of some junks to be overestimations, and impractical.

---

Actually they have un-earthed ship fittings, including a rudder that would fit on a 300-400 foot long junk.
http://www.friesian.com/images/mingpost.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

And Columbus wasn't from Spain. He was from Italy.

---

He was Spainish. Catalan specifically. He faked being Genoese most probably because he had been one of the Catalan cosairs that had rebelled against King Ferdinand in the 1480's.

Quick edit wikipedia!

I'm sorry, am I imagining things, or did you just imply that the muslims could have conquered China with an expeditionary force?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

He was Spainish. Catalan specifically. He faked being Genoese most probably because he had been one of the Catalan cosairs that had rebelled against King Ferdinand in the 1480's.

---

Debatable. Still, most historians and geographers agree that he was Italian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles

Hey,

I have a huge essay test coming up which will consist of one question. "Why was Columbus a European".

Essentially, the proffessor wants us to describe why Europe was at the forefront of overseas expansion and why the Muslim and Asian empires were not.

I took awesome notes and had it all layed out, but unfortunately they were stolen out of my car along with all my books last weekend. :sweatdrop:

So i have recalled all I can from memory, but I was wondering if anyone could add anything else. Thanks for any help!

Heres what ive got:

Muslim World:

1. already on the trade routs
2. somewhat geographically blocked from the major oceans
3. already expanding into europe(turks) and africa

Asian World:

1. Considered itself superior to rest of the world(instructors view, not mine)
2. no desire to elimenate the muslim middleman in trade
3. attempted at one time to explore, but mysteriously stopped

European World:

1. Economics - open direct trade with asia
2. spread of religion
3. desire to expand
4. more competition among nations than in the other spheres
5. enlightened outlook on the world

Africa and Pre European America:

Not technically advanced enough


If anybody could add to these lists, or sees anything im clearly leaving out, it would be a great help to me. Thanks so much!

---

I think your notes are pretty accurate but I would just add my two cents about european world, namely points 2 and 5.

2. I don't think that religion influenced great discoveries much. Muslims were just as zealous as christians, maybe even more so.

5. Enlightened look on the world would mean that europeans were interested in dicoveries because of science and culture. Unfortunately, that was not so. It was all about wealth and power. That is the main reason. Actually, all discoveries, from the ancient times to more recent past, were made for those reasons.

And I would add just one point. Major land routes were either closed or very dangerous to travel. Basically, europeans had no other choice but to seek alternative routes to the riches of Asia (India and China mainly)...

Religion did partially encourage the funding of Columbus's expedition. The reconquista just finished right before he left and the the Spanish king Ferdinand and queen Isabella (i think, names might be wrong) were still relatively in a state of religious fervor. They wanted to convert everyone and tried to do so with the Muslims, but they weren't very successful. As a result, they tried to convert pagans and viewed the Indians as pagans thus wanted Columbus to get to India for both economic and religiou factors too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Debatable. Still, most historians and geographers agree that he was Italian.

---

If that's true then Columbus was illiterate and everything he ever wrote was acutally written by a Catalan.

It's not uncommon to be able to speak more than one language, and besides Italian and Spanish are pretty similar so it shouldn't be too hard for an Italian to learn Spanish and vice versa. Myself I've heard that he was Italian.

Well, Catalan and Spanish are not the same, but that doesn't really matter.
As far as I remember from college, Columbus was Italian who was living in Spain.

Quote:

---

Well, Catalan and Spanish are not the same, but that doesn't really matter.
As far as I remember from college, Columbus was Italian who was living in Spain.

---

Yeah, that's right. But as you said it doesen't really matter what language it was, because when you don't have TV and stuff like that learning a language is one of the things you can do to "waste" time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Well, Catalan and Spanish are not the same, but that doesn't really matter.
As far as I remember from college, Columbus was Italian who was living in Spain.

---

More like Basque and Spainish are not the same. Catalan and Castllian are both Spainish dialects. Still when examined pieces of writing attributed to Columbus indicated that the pieces were written by someone who grew up speaking Catalan and was taugh to write at a young age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

More like Basque and Spainish are not the same. Catalan and Castllian are both Spainish dialects. Still when examined pieces of writing attributed to Columbus indicated that the pieces were written by someone who grew up speaking Catalan and was taugh to write at a young age.

---

Well, I am not an expert on the linquistic matters, but as long as academic circles generaly agree that Columbus was Italian, I am going to go with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

More like Basque and Spainish are not the same. Catalan and Castllian are both Spainish dialects. Still when examined pieces of writing attributed to Columbus indicated that the pieces were written by someone who grew up speaking Catalan and was taugh to write at a young age.

---

Links? Points to source? Bibliography? That's a pretty different claim from what I've heard. It's not like an Italian in the service of the Spanish Empire is something that uncommon, and Aragon -- Catalan to the core -- had a long tradition of meddling in Italian affairs long before the Italian Wars...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xdeathfire

Religion did partially encourage the funding of Columbus's expedition. The reconquista just finished right before he left and the the Spanish king Ferdinand and queen Isabella (i think, names might be wrong) were still relatively in a state of religious fervor. They wanted to convert everyone and tried to do so with the Muslims, but they weren't very successful. As a result, they tried to convert pagans and viewed the Indians as pagans thus wanted Columbus to get to India for both economic and religiou factors too.

---

Religious fervor is a factor in many of the subsequent expeditions of the conquistadors. However, I seriously doubt the quest for "India" was seriously influenced by that. The first discovery was not driven by the desire to convert the world but to try and pry open Spain to untold riches they imagined to be in Asia.

Case in point: they didn't know the Native Americans even existed before Columbus accidentally found the "Indians." How, then, could they seek to convert them? It's not likely either that the monarchs would sponsor such an adventure because somehow they think the distant and supposedly powerful people of India would convert en mass to the religion once the ragtag band of European explorers arrive.

Isabel y Fernando had a lot of ways to express their faith in Almighty God already, I think. There were the Moriscos, and there were the Jews, and there came the Inquisition... and there was Africa...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles

Muslim World:

1. already on the trade routs
2. somewhat geographically blocked from the major oceans
3. already expanding into europe(turks) and africa

Asian World:

1. Considered itself superior to rest of the world(instructors view, not mine)
2. no desire to elimenate the muslim middleman in trade
3. attempted at one time to explore, but mysteriously stopped

European World:

1. Economics - open direct trade with asia
2. spread of religion
3. desire to expand
4. more competition among nations than in the other spheres
5. enlightened outlook on the world

---

Muslim world - I think you got all the major points. Your three points fit perfectly the Ottomans, leaders of the Muslim world (minus a few challengers: Safavids, Morocco, etc.) In any case, the only power geographically situated to compete with the Europeans was Morocco, and the Moroccans were never strong enough or even interested enough to try something like that. They had their hands full with themselves, with that big dangerous superpower to their north, with the Berbers, Barbary pirates, and the West Africans...

Asian world - your instructor most like refers to only China with that point. India was a hodgepodge of states and cultures unlikely to carry such a notion of superiority around. In any case, the point needs to be expanded in that the Ming were strict adherents to the philosophy of Confucius -- among which was moderation and modesty, something quite opposite to the adventurous spirit of the Explorer.

China also had a famously disdainful outlook to merchants, usually the people who, you know, sail the seas, be Sinbads, go explore new trade routes and all that stuff.

European World - More competition? Not necessarily. More like more competition that have taken that form in particular.

Enlightened outlook? That didn't come until the Enlightenment at the earliest, long after Spain had already carved a big, big empire out of the Americas, or should I say corpses of dead Native Americans.

They sought power and wealth, not scientific interest.

It is also notable that the first waves of Spanish conquistadors and Portuguese explorers came during a very interesting time: the Reconquista had ended, and Ferdinand and Isabella were left with a large population of restless, ruthless, glory-hungry "freelancers" looking for stuff to do: a very, very dangerous position to be in. After Columbus found the new world, that "energy" had a very fortunate source of outlet, instead of, you know, at the monarchs themselves. After Portugal and Spain won such a critical success, the French got jealous, and they began their own era of exploration. The English and the Dutch followed suit, and the rest is history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIIIt's not like an Italian in the service of the Spanish Empire is something [I

that[/I] uncommon

---

Or any other empire for that matter. Expecially in a naval capacity. From the top of my head - John Cabbot, he served in the English navy. He was Italian and his real name was Giovanni Cabboto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles

I have a huge essay test coming up which will consist of one question. "Why was Columbus a European".

---

Well, of course the simple answer is, because his parents settled in Genoa. If they'd lived in Egypt Columbus would have been an African. If they'd been from China he'd have been an Asian. Etc.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Links? Points to source? Bibliography? That's a pretty different claim from what I've heard. It's not like an Italian in the service of the Spanish Empire is something that uncommon, and Aragon -- Catalan to the core -- had a long tradition of meddling in Italian affairs long before the Italian Wars...

---

The Italian theory of Columbus's origins are that he was Genoese. Far from the parts of Italy that Aragon had a hand in. Also that he learned to read/write as an adult. This was all taken from his official biography. However it may not have been true. He faked being Genoese so that King Ferdinand would trust him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

They also converted large parts of Africa. Anyway I don't think that the Muslims didn't need to colonize/discover America, they simply weren't in position to do so, and they did not know a route there I think. If you just sail without knowing what you're doing and where you're going you won't find anything. Columbus believed the earth was round and believed he could get to India by sailing west, problem was a continent sort of blocked his way, but he did believe he had found India I think.

---

Actually, the Kurds had reached Tanzania by the 2nd century AD.

Quote:

---

India was a hodgepodge of states and cultures unlikely to carry such a notion of superiority around.

---

Indian navigators are suspected of having reached China long, long before the birth of Christ, and spread their culture quite extensively throughout Southeast Asia and the Malay archipelago.

The Indians (of India that is) had as said above traded with china for a long time, later they traded chinese goods with the Romans either by buying them directly from the chinese or through South-East Asian merchants in India.

Also Oman in later centuries had some African colonies. And the Arab conquest of Maghreb can be considered colonization since many Arabs settled there and became overlords, though in the 9th century most North African states came to be ruled by Berber dynasties, still the Arab colonisation (if you may call it that) had a profound cultural and linguistic effect on the Maghreb. In African countries further south many Arabs set up trading colonies from which they also spread Islam and many of these were highly educated and valued as advisors and admnistrators in these African states.

Anyway, colonisation and exploration is not unique to Europe.

HEHEHE this jumps around so much inbetween on topic and off topic it's just extremely funny

HEHEHE this jumps around so much inbetween on topic and off topic it's just extremely funny

Sorry for the double post how do i delete?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles

Heres what ive got:

European World:

1. Economics - open direct trade with asia
2. spread of religion
3. desire to expand
4. more competition among nations than in the other spheres
5. enlightened outlook on the world

---

Guns! You forgot guns, my friend. That, and superior European ship-building and navigation. When the Portuguese sent a second fleet to India under Cabral in 1500, they gave him instructions to avoid trouble and look for profit, but also to sink any fleet that sought to oppose him. And the fact of the matter is that he could sink any fleet that opposed him.

Of course underpinning the superior shipbuilding, navigation and weaponry was a developing mentality; a mix of curiosity, individualism, greed and escapism which was reinforced by the competition between European rulers and elites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

Also Oman in later centuries had some African colonies.

---

In fact, they controlled most of Eastern Africa right down to Mozambique. So did the Sassanids before them, as did, interestingly, the Parthians. The product of Kurdish navigational skill (why do you think Sindbad is a Kurdish name?).

Quote:

---

The product of Kurdish navigational skill (why do you think Sindbad is a Kurdish name?).

---

Didn't know it was, but now I know...

It has to be remembered that Columbus was a merchant by trade, and by knowing many languages he would have a leg-up in business. Its more probable that Columbus was Genoese considering that he consulted the Elector of Genoa First, because of his national sentiment against Venezia he would have wanted his own government to have a quicker more viable trade to India and China. Unfortunately, Genoa didn't want much to do with his idea, as the small Republic had interests for their ships elsewhere in the Mediterranean. Then Columbus went to Portugal, and asked the King for ships to cross the Atlantic, but Portugal was already headlong in Colonisation, particularly in Africa and India, and they thought it would be an ill investment to pay the fee for several ships to cross an infinite body of water (in their minds). Finally, Columbus was able to strike a deal with Spain, who after finally pushing the Moors out of Iberia, were not in great need of Transport Galleys... or Caravels. Isabella took a gamble with Columbus, if he was successful, to her mind then Spain would have a dominance in Global Monopolies, if unsuccessful, the short term damage was that Spain was out three ships, and quite a bit of money... the long term is left to speculation, but its pretty easy to say, that Spain wouldn't be getting any Boost in Gold Dubloons. But we all know Columbus was correct, and the rest is history...

Going back to my first point, If Columbus wrote his log in Spanish or Catalan, perhaps he did it because he wanted Merchants back in Spain to be able to read it legably without having to know much Italian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

He was Spainish. Catalan specifically. He faked being Genoese most probably because he had been one of the Catalan cosairs that had rebelled against King Ferdinand in the 1480's.

---

There is a lot of mythology about Columbus. He was a Genoese corsair, not Catalan. He nearly died in a naval battle against the Portuguese in 1476 and was ship-wrecked near Cabo São Vicente in Portugal. After that, he worked in Portugese service and sailed the African coast for them - nationality not yet being an issue in those days.

He did not write Catalan, he wrote a mixture of Spanish and Portugese. When in doubt he used the Portugese form. Many fake logs of Columbus have circulated. In the nineteenth century an English copy (written in English!) was 'discovered' and taken seriously for some time...

There have also been many fake claims about Columbus origins. He has been claimed as a Spaniard, Frenchman, Armenian, Catalan, Georgain and Galician.

In a little-known book entitled Sails of Hope: The Secret Mission of Christopher Columbus (1972) nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal claimed that Columbus was actually a Jew, a converso intent on discovering new lands where the Jews could settle in order to escape persecution.

Let us stick to the facts, the truth is fascinating enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

Indian navigators are suspected of having reached China long, long before the birth of Christ, and spread their culture quite extensively throughout Southeast Asia and the Malay archipelago.

---

What I meant by that statement was that the point presented in Prince of the Poodles' first post -- the view of superiority among themselves prevented intent of colonization -- which he attributed to his professor, appeared to refer to China alone (and perhaps Japan), and not Asia in general.

The ancient Indians were indeed extremely active merchants of their day. Their extensive cultural influence could easily be seen throughout the entirety of Southeast Asia, among other places. The Khmer Empire is probably the most famous example of Indian cultural influence being so deep among the populace, aside from, of course, Buddhism and Hinduism.

:bow:

One reason, look at a world map (or better a globe) while considering those that had the abilities. Muslim World, India and others in the middle doesn't really have easy access to the New World. Now China/East Asia vs Europe, which sea is smaller, Atlantic or Pacific? Of course there are lot of islands in the pacific but they where not that interesting for the big Asian powers. And as for Africa, well no real naval powers in West Africa, and they where slightly less advanced then the others of the Old World.