Unfortunate geographic losers

[Traitorfish]

That's how you read it, I care little for your overintellectualized lectures.

Don't be so sensitive, I admitted it was a bit much in the post!

 

[Bowsling]

Aborigines, nuff said. You could say that Australia ,Papua New Guinea, even the Americas geopgraphicly lost because of the lack of power animals, that is animals that you can use to plow (speeding and improving agriculture) and ride (horses)...

Have you ever seen a llama? I suppose that is true for Oceania, but the Americas lost out for more diverse reasons. Some theorize that the delay in American civilization had to do with corn taking longer to become suitable for large scale agriculture the way wheat was in Europe and the Near East and rice was in the Orient.

Disease was obviously a huge factor, as smallpox and company were far more effective at destroying American empires than any European army was. Syphilis just wasn't as deadly.

Sugar and alcohol also didn't help, although these came later (and tobacco has probably been more damaging to Europeans than alcohol has to Americans).

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Have you ever seen a llama? I suppose that is true for Oceania, but the Americas lost out for more diverse reasons. Some theorize that the delay in American civilization had to do with corn taking longer to become suitable for large scale agriculture the way wheat was in Europe and the Near East and rice was in the Orient.

Disease was obviously a huge factor, as smallpox and company were far more effective at destroying American empires than any European army was. Syphilis just wasn't as deadly.

Sugar and alcohol also didn't help, although these came later (and tobacco has probably been more damaging to Europeans than alcohol has to Americans).

Llamas cant be used as work animals, they're good as goats. And they only had Llamas, the New Guinea people only had pigs, no diversity.

 

[kochman]

Venice did quite well for itself dealing with the Ottomans, when they're not at war, that is. The decline of the Ottoman Empire coincided with the decline of the Venetian Republic; both were fed on the trade routes from the East.

Absolutely! Neither ever looked to the New World, really... and Spain/Portugal could stop them if they'd tried, with Gibraltar...

That didn't stop England, France, Holland... and these nations experienced a huge influx of wealth from the opening up of New World trade routes. It's actually quite fascinating.

This is especially true for England and Holland... both were somewhat stifled geographically (but still performing decently well), and this just blew the doors off the situation!

 

[Tee Kay]

But it was entirely their fault. It was their vanity and lack of foresight what destroyed them.

(A lesson contemporary politicians should better remember well...)

Oh boy, where's Masada when you need him?

Have you ever seen a llama? I suppose that is true for Oceania, but the Americas lost out for more diverse reasons. Some theorize that the delay in American civilization had to do with corn taking longer to become suitable for large scale agriculture the way wheat was in Europe and the Near East and rice was in the Orient.

Disease was obviously a huge factor, as smallpox and company were far more effective at destroying American empires than any European army was. Syphilis just wasn't as deadly.

Sugar and alcohol also didn't help, although these came later (and tobacco has probably been more damaging to Europeans than alcohol has to Americans).

The Americans (pre-1492 Americans, I mean) definitively lost for one reason and one reason only, and that's disease. Sure, other factors were at play, but it was Afroeurasian diseases that ended any chances that American societies, however large or sophisticated or isolated, can successfully stand their own against Eurasian societies. Americans successfully adapted to and adopted Eurasian technology almost everywhere they encountered them, but waves of epidemics reduced all but the most populous to scattered bands unable to resist the sheer mass of Eurasian colonisation.

Absolutely! Neither ever looked to the New World, really... and Spain/Portugal could stop them if they'd tried, with Gibraltar...

The Ottomans did try to contest the Portuguese for mastery of the Indian Ocean, and was actually partially successful in diverting trade towards Istanbul for about a century. The Ottomans and the Portuguese actually lost their grounds in the Indian Ocean at about the same time for the same reason; they were grossly overstretched.

This is especially true for England and Holland... both were somewhat stifled geographically (but still performing decently well), and this just blew the doors off the situation!

Holland with its many waterways (important for agriculture, power, defence, transport, trade) wasn't actually disadvantaged at all. England sits on top of one of the largest and most easily accessible coal reserves in the world, with a relatively easily defensible position - IMHO it's the luckiest country in Europe. Bearing the bloody days before and after the Norman Conquests, the sporadic wars with Scotland (worse for Scotland than for England, I think), and occasional civil wars, the English didn't often experienced the sort of near-constant, near-total, shifting warfare that plagued continental Europe and Asia.

 

[Steph]

Erm for more specific examples, Catalonia, Euskara, Savoy, anything unfortunate enough to come across the Ottoman Empire or Russia.

Why did you put Savoy in there?

 

[Winner]

Why did you put Savoy in there?

In France? That's a good question

 

[Steph]

I don't consider Savoy to be unfortunate.

 

[kochman]

I don't consider Savoy to be unfortunate.

Via Genova & Sardinia they were a major trading force in the Mediterranean.

 

[Steph]

And how is that unfortunate?

 

[Winner]

And how is that unfortunate?

Have you played Savoy in EU3? It's pretty hard to do stuff without getting raped by France.

 

[Steph]

Is the OP about EU3 or real life? Savoy can be in a difficult position in a game, but in real life the situation isn't really bad.

 

[gangleri2001]

And how is that unfortunate?

Following your standard the Crown of Aragon was super-duper happy. But the fact that it was once an obstacle for three rising empires due to its geographical location made it a geographical loser. The same can be applied to Savoy.

Is the OP about EU3 or real life? Savoy can be in a difficult position in a game, but in real life the situation isn't really bad.

WTH?! Being next to the largest landpower in Europe for centuries is a bad position.

 

[Bowsling]

Yes, but it's not like the Habsburgs would stand by and watch while their main rival cut off their overland access to the Netherlands...

In fact, being next to France was a great benefit to Sardinia-Piedmont in the 1860's.

 

[Steph]

Depends how you handle that. Savoy was invaded some times, but it also benefits from a lof of trade between France and Italy.
Savoy became a duchy because when the Emperor stopped in Chambery during a trip to the South, he was impressed by the wealth of the Count and decided Savoy couldn't be a mere county and raised it to a Duchy.
Savoy managed to expanded until it controlled Northern Italy. Even when it was controlled by France, the situation wasn't terrible. No massacre, no real cultural oppresion like it was done in other countries.
It wasn't exchanged between France and Germany during 3 bloody wars like Alsace or Lorraine.
And even nowadays one of the smartest and nicest moderator we have on this forum was born and grew up there.
It's rather a fortunate place.

 

[kochman]

Yes, but it's not like the Habsburgs would stand by and watch while their main rival cut off their overland access to the Netherlands...

In fact, being next to France was a great benefit to Sardinia-Piedmont in the 1860's.

They gave up Nizze (Nice) in return for no intervention from France while SP took over and unified Italy... so, yes, I'd say that helped!

 

[Steph]

They gave up Nizze (Nice) in return for no intervention from France while SP took over and unified Italy... so, yes, I'd say that helped!

Non intervention? Like Solferino?

 

[kochman]

Non intervention? Like Solferino?

That was pre-Garibadli invasion of Sicily...
I get your point, they were allies, but you must admit, the chaos during the unification would have been a tempting target! Handing Nizze over was a peace of mind move for Emmanuelle II I would say...

 

[Steph]

Yes, but it's not exactly Savoy. You are moving to Piemont, wrong side of the Alps.

 

[kochman]

Yes, but it's not exactly Savoy. You are moving to Piemont, wrong side of the Alps.

True, I am talking about the House of Savoy, not only the region. I should have made that clearer.