Sodak
Paha Sapa Papa
And Portugal was controlled by the Spanish!
Comparing the English and Spanish Empires
- Thread starter pavelsu
- Start date
I didn't vote on this one because the two really aren't comparable. Spanish and English history are so different that their experiences radically diverge. A few notes:
1. We need to remember that we're talking medieval and early-modern empires here, not states. Philip II was not a Spanish nationalist any more than Elisabeth I was an English; they were people at the top of their respective political and social pyramids whose foremost concern was staying on top of that pyramid. Medieval empires were, in our modern language, "multi-national" or "international", because they were not concerned about ethnicity or national heritage. Nationalism is a modern invention. Example: In 1514, the Hungarian noblemen Istvan Werboczy released a treatise called "de Natio Hungarica" (To the Hungarian Nation); by "the Hungarian Nation" he didn't mean all ethnic Hungarians, but all the nobility of the Hungarian empire - some of whom were ethnic Croats, Germans, Ruthenians, etc. Philip II owed his first allegience to the Habsburg family. Austria didn't exist as a country until really the 18th century as Prussia gradually began to supercede Habsburg influence throughout the Germanies, and the name Austria wasn't officially used until after the Napoleonic wars when the Holy Roman Empire was formally dissolved. It's a bit dangerous to look backwards in history and assume that modern countries have always existed in some form. Charles IV ruled from Prague. Families ruled the medieval European world, not countries or nationality; Anjous, Habsburgs, Capets, Saxe-Coburgs, Hohenstaufens, Hesse-Darmstadt, Jagiellonians, etc.
2. On a technical note, the English empire transformed into the British Empire only in the early 18th century as the English and Scottish crowns were formerly united. They needed a name to denote the new imperianum's island-wide scope, so they took over the older Celtic name for their isle...
3. As someone already pointed out quite well, the experiences of the Europeans with the indigeonous peoples of the Americas depended much on the economies/technologies of the natives. Roughly-speaking, the Indians north of Texas were hunter-gatherers while those south of there were quite urbanized and socially sophisticated. There were some exceptions; the Iroquois lived in semi-permanent pallisaded settlements and there was the legendary Cahokia mound-settlements in the Mid-Western U.S., but generally the rule holds. Not only the English, but the French, Dutch and even Swedish ended up fighting long, drawn-out Indian wars to defend or expand their colonies in North America. Even the Spanish had to suppress Seminole uprisings in Spanish Florida.
4. Some interesting differences between the English and Spanish colonial efforts reside in their purpose. Spain was looking for instant wealth (gold, silver) but was also driven by a Catholic missionizing bent. English-speaking peoples learn of the Spanish Jesuit missionaries as murderous tyrants who destroyed native cultures and enslaved Indians (then blacks) to keep the King and Church well-supplied with gold. This overlooks the positive work the Jesuits did throughout South America, often resisting the more gold-hungry adventurers at great peril to themselves. Whether they had a right to impose their religion on the natives is a matter for modern discussion, but given their belief that Catholicism was the true religion they worked hard and in dire conditions to spread that faith among the Indians, along the way providing technological benefits that helped equip the South Amerivcan Indians for the onslaught of European civilization.
The English, on the other hand, barely managed their colonies. The English colonies were largely private affairs (with exceptions), each organized by private individuals who had a plan, some $$$, and committed people. (I'm thinking of the English-populated colonies here.) Also, Spain largely avoided direct participation in Europe's 16th and 17th century religious wars, only intervening from afar; England was repeatedly torn by inter-Protestant and Protestant-Catholic strife - which constantly created large groups of immigrants for the colonies. The simple model someone offered of a "commercial" England versus a missionizing Spain does have a ring of truth to it; Philip II used the massive income of the silver mines to support his foreign adventures while the English colonists had to continuously re-invest in themselves. Philip II's Castille tettered continuously on the brink of bankruptcy, though he was the wealthiest monarch of the world at the time.
Imperial Spain was the pioneer (along with Portugal), who kicked off the European Age of Exploration. The English perfected finance and administration - and through them, almost by accident, governance. The modern world would be a very different place had either one of them mnot existed.
1. We need to remember that we're talking medieval and early-modern empires here, not states. Philip II was not a Spanish nationalist any more than Elisabeth I was an English; they were people at the top of their respective political and social pyramids whose foremost concern was staying on top of that pyramid. Medieval empires were, in our modern language, "multi-national" or "international", because they were not concerned about ethnicity or national heritage. Nationalism is a modern invention. Example: In 1514, the Hungarian noblemen Istvan Werboczy released a treatise called "de Natio Hungarica" (To the Hungarian Nation); by "the Hungarian Nation" he didn't mean all ethnic Hungarians, but all the nobility of the Hungarian empire - some of whom were ethnic Croats, Germans, Ruthenians, etc. Philip II owed his first allegience to the Habsburg family. Austria didn't exist as a country until really the 18th century as Prussia gradually began to supercede Habsburg influence throughout the Germanies, and the name Austria wasn't officially used until after the Napoleonic wars when the Holy Roman Empire was formally dissolved. It's a bit dangerous to look backwards in history and assume that modern countries have always existed in some form. Charles IV ruled from Prague. Families ruled the medieval European world, not countries or nationality; Anjous, Habsburgs, Capets, Saxe-Coburgs, Hohenstaufens, Hesse-Darmstadt, Jagiellonians, etc.
2. On a technical note, the English empire transformed into the British Empire only in the early 18th century as the English and Scottish crowns were formerly united. They needed a name to denote the new imperianum's island-wide scope, so they took over the older Celtic name for their isle...
3. As someone already pointed out quite well, the experiences of the Europeans with the indigeonous peoples of the Americas depended much on the economies/technologies of the natives. Roughly-speaking, the Indians north of Texas were hunter-gatherers while those south of there were quite urbanized and socially sophisticated. There were some exceptions; the Iroquois lived in semi-permanent pallisaded settlements and there was the legendary Cahokia mound-settlements in the Mid-Western U.S., but generally the rule holds. Not only the English, but the French, Dutch and even Swedish ended up fighting long, drawn-out Indian wars to defend or expand their colonies in North America. Even the Spanish had to suppress Seminole uprisings in Spanish Florida.
4. Some interesting differences between the English and Spanish colonial efforts reside in their purpose. Spain was looking for instant wealth (gold, silver) but was also driven by a Catholic missionizing bent. English-speaking peoples learn of the Spanish Jesuit missionaries as murderous tyrants who destroyed native cultures and enslaved Indians (then blacks) to keep the King and Church well-supplied with gold. This overlooks the positive work the Jesuits did throughout South America, often resisting the more gold-hungry adventurers at great peril to themselves. Whether they had a right to impose their religion on the natives is a matter for modern discussion, but given their belief that Catholicism was the true religion they worked hard and in dire conditions to spread that faith among the Indians, along the way providing technological benefits that helped equip the South Amerivcan Indians for the onslaught of European civilization.
The English, on the other hand, barely managed their colonies. The English colonies were largely private affairs (with exceptions), each organized by private individuals who had a plan, some $$$, and committed people. (I'm thinking of the English-populated colonies here.) Also, Spain largely avoided direct participation in Europe's 16th and 17th century religious wars, only intervening from afar; England was repeatedly torn by inter-Protestant and Protestant-Catholic strife - which constantly created large groups of immigrants for the colonies. The simple model someone offered of a "commercial" England versus a missionizing Spain does have a ring of truth to it; Philip II used the massive income of the silver mines to support his foreign adventures while the English colonists had to continuously re-invest in themselves. Philip II's Castille tettered continuously on the brink of bankruptcy, though he was the wealthiest monarch of the world at the time.
Imperial Spain was the pioneer (along with Portugal), who kicked off the European Age of Exploration. The English perfected finance and administration - and through them, almost by accident, governance. The modern world would be a very different place had either one of them mnot existed.
kIndal
Chieftain
I have read this thread and I want to make a pair of comments about a tons of nosenses that can be read here, I believe that much of them came from the ignorance or worse, from a perjuice agaisnt other nation or race caused by "the Spanish Black Legend".
First, I have to said that cannot be compared both empires, they are just different and very great, probably the greatest of their respective ages. there is no one better o worse. and for English patriots if British one is believed the most important empire, is caused by the anglo culture that rules most of the world, but not thanks to English just because USA is the main actual power.
About the sentences that said English colonies are richer than Spanish ones...yes it is true if you compare USA, Canada or Australia with Mexico, Peru or Argentina, but if you compare with African colonies or Asian ones, the Hispanic ones look better
AS I said this could be the real reason of thinking that English was more important...if Russia or China would actually be the most important superpower this thinking would change.
About Indians, do you know what a mestizo is? a mix between latin Spanish blood and indian one, most of southamerican was mestizos, so Spanish don´t destroy everything, just mixed with native people (the main reason that caused the mistake of confusing latin people with mestizos one) and added to Spanish culture the thing that they believed that were usefull it is true that died a lot of natives and some culture was lost but in wars ussually happened it, do you remember colonial wars? English didn´t mix with them so they killed them or just expell form their homes, so nobody can said "we made better"
About Charles...what is the real importance about I or V? Philip II of SPain is knew in Portugal as Philip I (but anything changes) It is true that Charles born in Ghent and arrived to Spain with a Burgundian court and don´t speak Spanish but this fact caused two wars: comunidades and Germanias, and this changed this situation at first years of his reign, all courtisans must be Spanish and no more foreign kings will be allowed in Spain. Too, it is true that Charles had a special love to Spain and he carried Spanish goverment style to Europe(take from foreign writers) and in fact he retired to pass the last years of his live in Extremadura (near of Portugal...yes, and what??? he born near of France, so he loved france....
)
But really the biggest expansion of Spanish Empire was under Philip II, his domains could be properly recogniced as Spanish Empire, it was formed by Castilia,Aragon,Naples,Sicily,Milan, Belgium, Holland(yes they were in revolting but they were), Luxembourg, French Comte, Some cities in Alsace and Lorraine and all possesions in America, New Spain (mexico,central america), Florida and Caribeans islands, New Granada (colombia and Venezuela), Peru and Rio de la Plata(argentina), well and in Asia and Oceania, Philippines islands, Carolinas, Guam... when Philip added Portugal added too their colonies in America,Africa and Asia (but when Portugal independed we lost them again) but too we conquested other possesions, in America, Texas, California, New Mexico or Louisiana and Africa, small Spanish Guinea and North African colonies in Morroco and Sahara, if it is a small empire...
and for everybody, there is a sentence from Philips times that explain it very well, "The Sun never sets in Spanish Empire." Yes, it was firstly used by Spain that by Union Jack.
just one sentence, somebody can look for two things, Which is the oldest American university?and Which is the oldest city in actual USA?
Inculture and cheap demagogy, it is true that nowdays Brazil is very populated but in colonial times... and actually Spanish are spoke by al lot of people in Brazil and one more: Brazil was Spanish from 1581 to 1640 so along some years all south america was Spanish and so why do you say that India was British?isnt true that too there were French, Portuguese and Ducth here???? the same reason...but i believe that we can say India was British.
One historical fact: In 1526 Charles arrived to Rome and had a discussion with the Pope and main bishops about Milan´s succesion. Firstly he spoke in Spanish, and when a French bishop argued because he didn´t understand anything Charles replied: "Bishop,understand me if you want, and don´t expect from me any word in other language that don´t be my Spanish, because it is so noble that must be konwn and understand by every Christian people" So if they are words from a person that didn´t want anything about Spanish language...
The difference of this is that most mexican and Peruvian people have Spanish and Indian blood so Aztec or Inca culture is their own culture and can be proud that Spanish and naative cultures are theirs(it isn´t Spanish but yes Hispanic), but English people did´t mixed with natives so there are no one that can said that Pyramids or Taj Mahal are British.
Well I belive that it is a long and bored post so I finish it
Just the last comment, we cannot compare both empires they were diferent in diferent ages and had diferent objetives and motivations so it is a nosense compare them, yes, anglo people prefer theirs and Spanish one their own, it is logical why argue about it?
Why not argue about: What it is better European football or American one?
of course European one
First, I have to said that cannot be compared both empires, they are just different and very great, probably the greatest of their respective ages. there is no one better o worse. and for English patriots if British one is believed the most important empire, is caused by the anglo culture that rules most of the world, but not thanks to English just because USA is the main actual power.
About the sentences that said English colonies are richer than Spanish ones...yes it is true if you compare USA, Canada or Australia with Mexico, Peru or Argentina, but if you compare with African colonies or Asian ones, the Hispanic ones look better
AS I said this could be the real reason of thinking that English was more important...if Russia or China would actually be the most important superpower this thinking would change.
About Indians, do you know what a mestizo is? a mix between latin Spanish blood and indian one, most of southamerican was mestizos, so Spanish don´t destroy everything, just mixed with native people (the main reason that caused the mistake of confusing latin people with mestizos one) and added to Spanish culture the thing that they believed that were usefull it is true that died a lot of natives and some culture was lost but in wars ussually happened it, do you remember colonial wars? English didn´t mix with them so they killed them or just expell form their homes, so nobody can said "we made better"
About Charles...what is the real importance about I or V? Philip II of SPain is knew in Portugal as Philip I (but anything changes) It is true that Charles born in Ghent and arrived to Spain with a Burgundian court and don´t speak Spanish but this fact caused two wars: comunidades and Germanias, and this changed this situation at first years of his reign, all courtisans must be Spanish and no more foreign kings will be allowed in Spain. Too, it is true that Charles had a special love to Spain and he carried Spanish goverment style to Europe(take from foreign writers) and in fact he retired to pass the last years of his live in Extremadura (near of Portugal...yes, and what??? he born near of France, so he loved france....
) But really the biggest expansion of Spanish Empire was under Philip II, his domains could be properly recogniced as Spanish Empire, it was formed by Castilia,Aragon,Naples,Sicily,Milan, Belgium, Holland(yes they were in revolting but they were), Luxembourg, French Comte, Some cities in Alsace and Lorraine and all possesions in America, New Spain (mexico,central america), Florida and Caribeans islands, New Granada (colombia and Venezuela), Peru and Rio de la Plata(argentina), well and in Asia and Oceania, Philippines islands, Carolinas, Guam... when Philip added Portugal added too their colonies in America,Africa and Asia (but when Portugal independed we lost them again) but too we conquested other possesions, in America, Texas, California, New Mexico or Louisiana and Africa, small Spanish Guinea and North African colonies in Morroco and Sahara, if it is a small empire...
and for everybody, there is a sentence from Philips times that explain it very well, "The Sun never sets in Spanish Empire." Yes, it was firstly used by Spain that by Union Jack.just one sentence, somebody can look for two things, Which is the oldest American university?and Which is the oldest city in actual USA?
Inculture and cheap demagogy, it is true that nowdays Brazil is very populated but in colonial times...
and actually Spanish are spoke by al lot of people in Brazil and one more: Brazil was Spanish from 1581 to 1640 so along some years all south america was Spanish and so why do you say that India was British?isnt true that too there were French, Portuguese and Ducth here???? the same reason...but i believe that we can say India was British.One historical fact: In 1526 Charles arrived to Rome and had a discussion with the Pope and main bishops about Milan´s succesion. Firstly he spoke in Spanish, and when a French bishop argued because he didn´t understand anything Charles replied: "Bishop,understand me if you want, and don´t expect from me any word in other language that don´t be my Spanish, because it is so noble that must be konwn and understand by every Christian people" So if they are words from a person that didn´t want anything about Spanish language...
The difference of this is that most mexican and Peruvian people have Spanish and Indian blood so Aztec or Inca culture is their own culture and can be proud that Spanish and naative cultures are theirs(it isn´t Spanish but yes Hispanic), but English people did´t mixed with natives so there are no one that can said that Pyramids or Taj Mahal are British.
Well I belive that it is a long and bored post so I finish it
Just the last comment, we cannot compare both empires they were diferent in diferent ages and had diferent objetives and motivations so it is a nosense compare them, yes, anglo people prefer theirs and Spanish one their own, it is logical why argue about it?
Why not argue about: What it is better European football or American one?
of course European one
K
knowltok
Guest
Saint Augustine is the US's oldest city. Not sure about the University. I always thought it was Harvard, but I bet you've got a different answer.
As far as football goes....Both are great!!! Though I do wish there was less acting involved in taking a fall in football (soccer). We all know that they aren't really that hurt. (In most cases. I do know that it is quite possible to sustain serious injury while playing soccer).
As far as football goes....Both are great!!! Though I do wish there was less acting involved in taking a fall in football (soccer). We all know that they aren't really that hurt. (In most cases. I do know that it is quite possible to sustain serious injury while playing soccer).
kIndal
Chieftain
The first question is true, and the second one, well too, but I refered the oldest American university (not USA, America as continent) and the first one was the university of the city of Mexico.
K
knowltok
Guest
That occured to me about an hour and a half after I had logged off. Not the actual answer, but that you were obviously getting at a Univeristy started by the Spanish somewhere in the Americas. Thanks for the info. I always say you learn something new everyday, and now I don't have to try any more today.
Very good posts both Vrylakas and kIndal !
You made me learn a few new things, that makes me happy
It's true there isn't much point in comparing both empire, but it's just another way of starting an intersting discussion and kill time - or learn something and meet new people.
Vrylakas, I have to agree with all you said except this point. What do you think was the Dutch independance war about if not religion ? Charles I/V used a lot of Gold in fighting protestantism in Germany, Philip II also went bankrupt as well in repressing the Protestant uprisings in the Netherlands. Inside Spain, the Inquisition was the most infamous way of fighting heretics non-Catholics already before the Protestant arrived, but this was also to preserve the integrity of the Roman Catholic Church.
You made me learn a few new things, that makes me happy
It's true there isn't much point in comparing both empire, but it's just another way of starting an intersting discussion and kill time - or learn something and meet new people.
Vrylakas, I have to agree with all you said except this point. What do you think was the Dutch independance war about if not religion ? Charles I/V used a lot of Gold in fighting protestantism in Germany, Philip II also went bankrupt as well in repressing the Protestant uprisings in the Netherlands. Inside Spain, the Inquisition was the most infamous way of fighting heretics non-Catholics already before the Protestant arrived, but this was also to preserve the integrity of the Roman Catholic Church.
I think everything what kindal has written becomes evident and indisputable. Nevertheless the manipulation of the history (for Anglo-Saxon historians in the main) in latter century, has led persons as Julien to believe that Charles I/V was French in the fund (for putting only an example of the above mentioned silly things here). I believe that this habit of changing the history as it is convenient is very harmful because kills a part of the past and does that we come to conclusions mistaken on the present.
(for putting only an example of the above mentioned silly things here). I believe that this habit of changing the history as it is convenient is very harmful because kills a part of the past and does that we come to conclusions mistaken on the present.Sorry Julien, you're struggling with my bad English.
I meant to say that the Spanish empire never had to struggle with internal religious strife. England suffered a major civil war and lots of Protestant-Catholic bloodshed with virtually each change of monarchs from Henry VIII on til the early 18th century; Spain on the other hand never had large populations of Spanish Protestants to deal with.
Yes, the Spanish empire through its "Netherlands" did experience Protestant unrest and most of the Spanish imperial adventures in Europe were to quell Protestant movements, but the Spanish homeland itself was little affected. This is what I meant by "only intervening from afar". Even such pro-Catholic countries as Poland developed very large Protestant movements, but somehow Spain remained immune.
The consequences of religious internicene warfare in the homeland were lots of bloodshed and destruction (England, Scotland, France, the Germanies, etc.) but it also produced large waves of migrant populations looking to flee the wars and religious oppression at home - which filled up the colonies quick. America in particular benefitted from Europe's religious wars, with English wacko Puritans in New England, German Calvinists and Czech Hussites in Pennsylvania, French Hugonots in South Carolina (Charleston), Scots Catholics and Presbyterians in the Carolinas and Georgia, English Catholics in Maryland (Mary-Land), English followers of John Wycliffe and John Wesley throughout the South, etc. Despite having several decades head-start in their colonies over the English, the Spanish realm very rapidly was surpassed in population by the English colonies because it was so dangerous at different times in the 16th and 17th centuries in England to be...well, whatever your religion, you were an endangered species at some point under some English monarch in that period. Sooner or later your group was out of favor, and it was safer to be on a ship to the colonies...
"Spain on the other hand never had large populations of Spanish Catholics to deal with."
I think you mean to say Spain never have large numbers of Spanish Protestants to deal with. Otherwise, the sentence doesn't make much sense in the context. And I thought Spain was and still is faithfully Catholic.
I opinionate that the reason for the religious unity of Spain was cos of Christian Spain's long struggle to recover the penisular fr the Muslims. The wars to drive the Moors back across Gilbraltar lasted centuries. Foreign threats had always been a good unification factor.
I think you mean to say Spain never have large numbers of Spanish Protestants to deal with. Otherwise, the sentence doesn't make much sense in the context. And I thought Spain was and still is faithfully Catholic.
I opinionate that the reason for the religious unity of Spain was cos of Christian Spain's long struggle to recover the penisular fr the Muslims. The wars to drive the Moors back across Gilbraltar lasted centuries. Foreign threats had always been a good unification factor.
Sodak
Paha Sapa Papa
Ah, players from some countries dive far more often than others! If a defender breathes on an ____ (I won't type it so as to avoid an argument
) attacker, he flies thru the air, writhes in agony, o woe is he! While one from ____ simply bulls thru the boots to his knees, gets the shot off, and just grimaces afterwards. Different playing styles, that's all.During the period of the reconquest, most of the time the Christens, Moslem and even Jewish communities, coexisted in peace, in fact this living together saved to Spain of the medieval darkness that reigned in Europe for centuries.
On the other hand during the centuries of the reconquest the Protestants still did not exist, in consequence there could no be a religious division in the Christian Spain.
kIndal
Chieftain
There is no reason to be Protestant, Spain was the champion of the catholicism in the years of REligious wars so there is no place for Protestantism, Spain continue with the Reconquista with a new crusade agaisnt Ottomans and North African Muslims, the main enemies of Charles I/V and Philip II In fact Catholics and Protestants pacted lot of times aginst them.
Too, an important reason (if not the most) for the protestantism was the supporting the independence from HRE (german states), Spain (Netherlands) the Pope (england...) so if Spain was the main power has no reason to separate of the "official" religion.
In fact Catholics and Protestants pacted lot of times aginst them.Too, an important reason (if not the most) for the protestantism was the supporting the independence from HRE (german states), Spain (Netherlands) the Pope (england...) so if Spain was the main power has no reason to separate of the "official" religion.
Arius Mephisto
Chieftain
It's hard to ignore that at it's largest "the sun never set on the British Empire"... generally speaking, British colonies were well managed and profited the motherland greatly....
Whereas the spaniards went for a "smash and grab" style of colonization... come on... knock down opposition... make a few settlements and generally rape the land of all natural resources...
I think the conclusion is clear... not to mention the British surpassed the Spaniards by eliminating the Armada and insuring domination of the seas for a long time to come...
Another point that can be brought up is the loss of colonies... after losing their colonies... look where Spain and England have ended up today... by keeping economic ties strong, England enjoys a profitable relationship with it's former colonies... whereas Spain... suffered from massive political instability and never really recovered from the inflationary trends of their colonial days
Whereas the spaniards went for a "smash and grab" style of colonization... come on... knock down opposition... make a few settlements and generally rape the land of all natural resources...
I think the conclusion is clear... not to mention the British surpassed the Spaniards by eliminating the Armada and insuring domination of the seas for a long time to come...
Another point that can be brought up is the loss of colonies... after losing their colonies... look where Spain and England have ended up today... by keeping economic ties strong, England enjoys a profitable relationship with it's former colonies... whereas Spain... suffered from massive political instability and never really recovered from the inflationary trends of their colonial days
Magnus
Diplocat
K
knowltok
Guest
Keep in mind that Spain has been seperated from its Imperial heyday a lot longer than the UK has. It has been less than 100 years since the British empire was the strongest in the world. More than 300 for the Spanish.
Arius Mephisto
Chieftain
That's true... but 100 years after it was seperated... Spain was in about the same state of non-relations as it is now....
kIndal
Chieftain
This kind of ignoarnce came from so much Holywood movies and black legend, if you know something about history you would know that Armadas failing had more propagandistic consecuences that maritime ones, you would have to know that a pair of armadas were sent in the next years really bigger than the first one and had to return caused by bad weather, it is a common error of thinking that the failing Armada supposed the Spanish maritime power, please read some info about the number of ships that had Spain in the next years of the Armada and you will see that the Spanish fleets increased their size
And please look in internet for "Blas de Lezo", "Cartagena de Indias" and "the fail of English Armada" and you will learn something more about English maritime superpower
what do you really know about Spanish inversion in South America???you have to know that is the first one, over USA´s one in the last years.And you can see everyyears the conferences of Iberomerican countries
It is just a way to see our old colonies as our brothers nd not to continue exploding them as colonies but with the "more polite" name of Commonwealth
Sodak
Paha Sapa Papa
Uh, find a good map of sub-saharan africa. Look at the railroad system, built mainly by the Brits. Keep an eye on where cities and resources are located. Now try to tell me this was established for any reason other than easy extraction of natural resources. In other words, to "rape the land of all natural resources," to enhance the British economy at the expense of the Africans.
It's already been pointed out that more Spaniards settled the americas, and mixed with the locals, than Brits did. If hundreds of flourishing cities count as "a few settlements," our concepts of this phrase are very different.
kIndal, bienvenido a civfanaticos, amigo!
kIndal
Chieftain
Originally posted by Sodak
kIndal, bienvenido a civfanaticos, amigo!
Thanks Marquis
I hadn´t posted here in a lot of months I hope this changes Similar threads
