Is there a joke I'm missing

@@grantcaldwell1582 or Eu4

@@grantcaldwell1582 Like a Starcraft map :) It's a great idea for videos about exploration. Would love to see fog of war used in map videos for battles/wars.

I knew there was going to br that comment, true.

Fog of war: On

Fun fact New York come from York and York is a city in England and the name York is from jordvik and jordvik in English is dirtbay and they got the name jordvik from Vikings

@@countryball4276 fun fact, potatoes on my toes

and Brooklyn comes from "Breukelen"

@@countryball4276 Jórvík* in Norse. Cool fact about the Wall Street, now it makes sense!

@@jjrj8568 The Bronx comes from Dr Bronck and Yankees from Jan Kees (2 famous Dutch names) Santa Claus comes from Sinterklaas.

The Earth was called Britain

@@dylanmurphy9389 hahaha, NO

Yes, but that's because the Narrator 1st concentrates on South America. North America, as you can see, right from the Early 1500, it was the Brits and the French and a few decades later, Dutch. There was a lot going on in the northern continent, whilst Spanish Conquistadors, were Raping and pillaging in South America, But it was less murderous and intense.You just have to take an interest and reseearch. It - it was equally interesting, Britain and the France had colonialists, who became fur trappers, who actually lived amongst the Indian tribes, in the early years, and actually married in to those communities, which was much more cooperative and less divisive than the Spanish experience, which was far more "top-down" domination, and also part of the reason why the Spanish ended up causing so much resentment, which led to the early decline, of their empire. I rremember that the Name of the French trappers, Living with the Indians were called "The Courious de bois". I remember reading about this and thinking this must have been the best time for everyone concerned, where life was hard, living off a hostile land, Without modern technology, right in the deep wild, but communication was relatively good and animosity limited, except between the British and French colonies, later when the symptoms of the 7 years War started simmering. Remember, the 1st settlers were pretty much left alone by the Crown and the people Were living a relatively free life, even though the risks were far higher, in an unpredictable sense

@@Rowlph8888 You should learn geography and know what North America covers. and you should ask yourself why there are so few indigenous people in Canada and the US. The English did not mix with the natives and marginalized them, while the Spanish mixed with the natives

@@DCDVassili Stop with your propaganda. You should try to learn the Difference between a "US citizen", post 1776 and a working class English settler, before the 7 years War (approx: 1575-1748). t's a matter-of-fact that the English crown, "refused" the settlers requests, who kept asking to be able to push to the west and Violate "Treaties" That had been agreed to, With the natives and were Honoured, by the British Crown. The Brits were there for 200 years, before the Americans independence, but still only maintained colonies on the eastern border. It Wasn't until after the "American Independence", That the Settlers Began (Under the Bullshit manifest destiny lie) began to Push into the West and Started Causing More Atrocities. So it's the opposite of what you are saying. The original "working class", fur trapping colonialists, from Britain and france, wanted to escape the hegemony, of the crowns of theiir respective kingdoms and many did live, marry and trade, amongst the natives. With Regards to those Spanish exploiting and violating, I wasnt talking about the Spanish "working class", or settlers, I was talking about the Imperial "upper classes(Conquistadsors) that were sent there, who were causing the exploitation.The difference was that In the case of the original settlers forming from Britain and France, the Crowns, in those countries, were not so bothered about the new world, at that stage, as they had domestic issues.A bit later is when the Crown got involved and conflict Between Britain and France, started to be more severe, as a Kind of proxy war. Also, there were far more losses amongst the indigenous in South than in North America.Even though the Spanish crown and many religious figures, wanted more peaceful indigenous contact, the Conquistadors, ddidn't honour those wishes and destroyed communities,, wherever they went, Stealing gold and taking it to Spain and reacting aggressively when the indigenous misunderstood and reacted ambiguously to attempted religious indoctrination.

Sugar was actually very rare and thus extremely expensive and although the video focuses more on how the European exploration influenced North America, with the discovery of the maritime route to India, Lisbon became one of the biggest cities in the world and Portugal became the richest country in the world because she dethroned the previous spice route. Portugal continued to explore and to expand Brazil, but wood and sugar, despite lucrative, weren't gold, as you said. However gold was found in Brazil, eventually, which triggered a lot more interest in this colony.

Dutch: this nutmeg is good

The natives: 🗿🗿🗿

@@luisalmeida1391 Verdade.

@@luisalmeida1391 Portugal fell really behind because of the succession crisis that made it lose independence to Spain. 60 years was a lot of time during the peak of the age of exploration. After it regained independence, recovered some territories and was still ver powerful but couldnt compete with the other powers anymore, so it just developed the existing colonies.

@@HM-eg9hv my bad I guess. Regardless I would assume they hadn’t seen a crocodile/alligator in person before that

@@HM-eg9hv they have both

Actually the term Alligator comes from the Spanish explorers in Florida. Too lazy to look up the details but it’s pretty cool the theorize theses first contacts with other civilized societies.

@@Ziiphyr Yes, they called them el lagarto, the lizard, the French of Louisiana mispronounced it as aligator.

And running into Florida Man.

The Spanish were the first! Amazing Brave explorers!..

If I were the sailer of that boat sailing for weeks, I would be so scared I would rather die. Those are BRAVE people.

It would have been such a scary feeling for the natives too. Their near entire population being slaughtered and toyed with, having the species they most rely on for food brought to near extinction so they'd fall in line as well as having their culture, religion and languages brainwashed and literally whipped out of their children who were ripped from their parents at a young age, likely to never see them again. Such an amazing feeling...

@@magma7155it be like that

Not our fault they were still stuck in the stone age its survival of the fittest out here​@@magma7155

IT'S NOT DISEASE OR VIRUS KILLED INDIAN, EUROPEAN GENOSIDE THE INDIAN !

Till you get a scratch and die because there is no cure for that time

@@bruhemoth5599 oh well too bad, wouldn't care

Well, we live in a time when there are unknown planets

now we know there's a hell lot of unknown space and water. isn't that epic too?

@@bertholdt8020 Born too late to explore the world, born too early to explore the space... It hurts.

Facts school some straight 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩

I always loved history and geography in school but I'm old so Maybe in my day it was more interesting. Although it's not fun knowing history in this day and age. It just leads to fights with anyone under 40 because they tend to not know anything.

It's not too late to enjoy history

@Storm Zaibot so you're saying that after tens of thousands of years of inter tribe war didn't end their civilization but then Europeans landed to " civilized " them and introduce diseases that literally killed hundreds of millions alone , not including the wars fought over someone else's land by European powers wasn't the reason suddenly they all went extinct or became tiny pockets of people still alive? Just a giant coincidence that it never happened before in all of existence for them till European people got involved. Hmmmm ok.

@Storm Zaibot well KZfaq decided to delete my response. Some of what younsay is true but much of what you say is wrong. Unfortunately KZfaq won't let me converse with you

Agreed! Really makes history exciting!

@@NinjaChi NOOOOOO ITALY IS A LITTLE TOO CURVY THIS VIDEO IS SHIT NOOOOOOOOOOOO

@@gabrieldnchf2822 i think he meant in medieval times, people couldn't make accurate maps

@@petmop1309 Maps didn't need to be perfect, captains aboard vessels wouldn't use the maps to navigate, rather latitudes and magnetic directions which obviously were accurate, otherwise there wouldn't be any return voyages.

@@sdsd2e2321 that's a fact, I'm just saying they weren't accurate

There was a lot missing but I think they wanted to do the highlights. A lot about the 13 colonies, France expansion, and early Spanish expeditions were missing.

Yet the video mentions irrelevant Drake expedition. Big Anglosaxon bias.

The U.S. always tries to sweep under the rug anything that can take away the legitimacy of their imperial expansion, conquest and thus ownership of the lands to the west of their 13 colonies.

Yeah Los Angeles clearly a British name isn't it ?

@@hansjorgkunde3772 Los Ángeles, San Diego, San Francisco... San Agustín was the first city founded by Europeans.

I like this one more

I like the old one more

I like Riddle's Voice here

agree

This is so generic meaks this a trash video

and they did. Gold was in brasil and north america, not so much in west south america, and + africa and unclamed asia....ya, Portugal won 100%

They actually lost a lot with that treaty, but there are motivations that come from the wars in north africa

@@ruicorreia6373 ?? El oro estaba en los territorios españoles, principalmente en el virreinato del Perú, no inventes cr7

@@ruicorreia6373 the gold was mostly in the Mayan, Inca empires and the continental land around the West Indies what today is modern day Colombia /Venezuela

They had an unbelievable luck because the Portuguese already knew that there was land over there as the Tordesillas treaty prove it. The Portuguese main focus was to keep the spice trade...

And before in 1541 Orellana go down from Quito and travel all the Amazon.

​@@editorenbici Gracías, no lo sabía.

Brazil el robo a latinoamerica...

@@64jsanchez ?

Portugal saqueadores and traitors

a few settlements and ports north of mexico means control over the entire pacific coast?

@@KentoKei the same for the british. Did the british directly controlled Canada, Australia and India? Of course not. The important thing in America is that there are spanish names from the artic circle to the antartic circle, that's why spanish is the most spoken language in America. The claim couldn't be enforced because you know, icy lands, as you said Spain built stetlements in the area, some explorers were sent to the area by the King Charles III of Spain just to explore the territory. The thing is that Spain had a way more richer territories than British in Canada or Australia, most people don't know but Australia was discovered by spaniards as well as Canada and most people don't know why Canada is called Canada, spaniards named canada "Acá nada" that means "here nothing" Why to claim an icy land where a penguin Will fell cold when you have the "Virreinato de Nueva España" which is the actual Mexico, Mexico is nowadays the country that produce the most silver and Peru is the second, How much petrol Venezuela has? How much iron latin america has? How much zinc latin america has? Copper is used everywhere for electricity and Peru is the second country that produce more copper only behind China.

@@LucidFL Canal de Camacho Isla de San Gonzalo Islas de los Pilotos Isla de la niebla Islas Trinidad Florida Blanca Isla de Camacho Volcán Miranda Bahía de Quadra Isla de Cañizares Isla San Aniceto Ensenada de Nuestra Señora de la Regla Puerto de Revillagigedo Isla de San Antonio Isla de Quirós Isla Rosa Puerto Santiago Punta Cañizares Puerto de Flores Boca de Quadra Isla de Quimper Isla del Conde Puerto Valdés Puerto Mazarredo Puerto Gravina Isla de la Magdalena Islas de las Culpas Puerto Córdoba Santa Rosa Punta de Cañas Isla del Carmen Puerto de Desengaño Cabo Muñoz Puerto Mulgrave Ensenada de Castilla Bahía de Palma Isla de lobos Bahía de Guadalupe Cabo Engaño Isla de Santa Cristina Isla de Pérez Isla de Santa Margarita Puerto de los Remedios Ensenada del Susto Monte San Jacinto Puerto y entrada de Bucareli Cabo de San Agustín Isla de Revillagigedo Canal de Revillagigedo Islas Zayas Campania Canal de Laredo Isla Gil Isla Aristazabal Fuerte de San Miguel Santa Cruz de Nuca Surgidero de San Lorenzo Isla Flores Flores Isla de Vargas Vargas Canal de Alberni Alberni Voluntarios de Cataluña Pilar de Fuga Fuerte Núñez Gaona Punta de los Mártires Rada de Bucareli Entrada de Heceta Isla de Quadra y Vancouver Isla Cortés Isla Hernando Isla Texada Isla Lasqueti Isla de las ballenas Gran canal de Nuestra Señora Rosario Marinena Bocas de Carmelo Punta de la bodega Río de Floridablanca Isla Saturna Isla de los Patos Estrecho de Haro Isla Pacheco Seno Gastón Puerto Socorro Islas del San Juan Montaña del Carmelo Seno Padillo Islas Güemes y San Vicente Boca de Fidalgo Puerto de Córdoba Puerto de San Juan Puerto de Quadra Punta Santa Cruz Dungeness Puerto de Nuestra Señora de los Ángeles Estrecho de Juan de Fuca Río de San Roque Río de Aguilar Cabo Blanco That's only in the territory of Nutca (the actual Alaska) Imagine the rest of Canada, USA, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Chile

They never control cap Horn, he even tell it in the video.

@Weasel I’m pretty sure he said America, not just North America. North America has roughly 317 million English speakers and 121 million Spanish speakers, so yes. English is more in North America. But in South America, because he clearly said Arctic to Antarctic, there is 5.4 million English speakers and about 210 million Spanish speakers. The Caribbean, also apart of the Americas, is 64% Spanish, though i cant find a Spanish speaking population number that excludes islands already counted in north and South America. In Central America, there is an additional 32 million Spanish speakers. So that’s looking to be 360 million Spanish speakers to 322 million English speakers (I didn’t count the 400k English creoles speakers in Central America as I was avoiding too many decimals)

He sounds like he'd be in one of those weird top ten monsters caught on camera videos

@@karibrimacombe8710XX We say XX as its the British version of lol

@@caminationsshorts1523 Not really. I’m British and I’ve never heard anyone say XX.

hehehe, this Video is making me wanna play Colonization ;)

Europa Universalis is next level compared to Civ. Try that or CK 2 and/or 3

@@RenaissanceYann true, EU IV is on a level of its own, the best of its kind!

@@Andrew-px9fj amazing game I've got over 1k hours in it. Love playing as a either England,Spain or Holland :)

it mustve been incredible exploring a new continent and hearing that there are multiple huge empires already inhabiting it

correct

Good amplification, but in order to see a chance to win for such a small group of people you must first get really impressed by the things they bring with them, which was the point.

@@NicolasNombela from what I know the number of natives fighting against the Aztec was roughly the same as the number of Aztec warriors. The few Spaniards with limited ammo were just a small factor in the conflict, though they might have tipped the scale. The Spaniards had about 1% of the men that their allies had and most of th didn't have firearms, from what I know only a few dozen had them and firearms of the early 16th century weren't that much better than arrows.

Yes civilizations conquered by the aztecs like the toltekas that were usually enslaved and sacrified to keep in order.

The Catholics, the Queen and the priests were super worried about the wellbeing of the natives. They held conferences and agreed they were not barbarians but humans with soul and dignity. The conquistadors on the other hand were businessmen of war and they often clashed with the church due to the mistreatment of natives, and generally ignored the laws that protected natives. In any case, by far the worse enemy of the natives were the viruses they had no defenses against.

This seems like a big bunch if BS to me, especialy taught bythe Spanish educational system. Learn anything about the actual story of my people in south america. Their concept of "evangelization" required the suppresion of people's humanity, slavery, genocide, and rape.

Just read about El Requerimiento of 1513 in which it was declared that Spain had the right to do whatever they wanted with the natives. Not only could they do it legally, but morally as well, being endorsed by the catholic church

@@s.w.stryker6491 as long as they were converted to Christianity. Furthermore, the University of Salamanca had a quarrel arguing if they were capable of knowing the concept of Property, for if they did, their lands couldn't be taken. That meant some native tribes converted to Christianity and kept their lands and form of government, giving in return a part of their harvest. Furthermore, mixing was encouraged. It's a way of conquest similar to what the Roman empire did. Compare it to Locke's idea of property for the conquest, where he said that only those who worked the fields could be considered owners (a theory made ad hoc for the British conquest of north America, for there was a majority of nomad tribes). That meant when the British started expanding and working the fields, they were legally abide to kill and exterminate every native tribe that entered their lands, as they weren't considered owners, but invaders. As a result you have a few natives alive in the US and Canada and a majority of the population mixed from Mexico to the southernmost part of the Spanish Empire

@Angel_Gomez Any historical record that proves this? Because everywhere I've looked disproves any sort of reasoning like that. Also, even if it's true that some of their rights are protected if they are converted to Christianity, how do you think the locals were compelled to be converted? How were they compelled to be mixed if not forced into "grape"? Read about the story of any of the countries of my people and see how many chose it was so very nice of the spanish to come sack them, so much so that they willingly change their religion to theirs, and ho much they let them keep their lands for it. Look at any distribution of the population even today in any of those countries and you'll see that the great majority of wealth stayed through the centuries in the household of Spanish Last Names, and caucasian looking people. I wonder why, if the natives had so many rights

driven*

hmm the spanish claimed many things, you can't believe anything they wrote. they always downplayed the role of their alies, which were in fact their main forces... besides they never talked about the many times they lost. For example...it took the spanish 100 years to conquer the Incas and the Incas had already defeated a Portuguese expedition before the Spanish got in contact with them. And the Spanish were lucky because the Incas were in the last stages of a civil war when the Spanish arrived.

That doesn't seem like a story that a lot of historians would take at face value.

​@@victorfergn It was actually the Black Legend, a defamation campaign carried by the English and Dutch, which downplayed the role of Spain's allies in order to make Spain look atrocious in the eyes of other countries and fortunes, so they could attract investments and pay for expeditions and wars. In Spain, we are taught in basic history about the relationships between the explorers and conquistadores with the natives. Therefore, we are well aware Spain conquered America taking advantage of American internal conflicts, convenient alliances, disease and climate disasters. Not doing it that way would have result in a disaster. This knowledge can be achieved by common sense and a basic understanding of history. Spanish history is far from being as edulcorated as the English, which is proven to be highly dramatized and full of fallacies by academics and scholars from all over the world, even prestigious English historians such as Hugh Thomas or J. H. Elliott. It's important to engage with diverse viewpoints and interpretations, including those from scholars of different nationalities, to gain a broader understanding of historical events and their implications.

Didn't Texas beat the shit out of the whole Mexican Army and now its Texas.

@@sammortakai5247 What does the Texan army fighting the independent Mexican army has to do with Spain

@@ikad5229 You're right it actually had nothing to do with it.

General Ruminahui

António Silva United States was once Spanish. Mentira Lie Being part of Castile like this is right. The name of Spain did not exist at that time. The name of Spain was born in 1876

They knew back then that the Suez channel might get blocked. They had astrology. And Tarot.

@@worfoz mm yes Tarot showed them the way.

@@worfoz Cringe :))

@@worfoz Suez canal was built 3 centuries later...

@@gwynnbleid4936 epic name

IT'S NOT DISEASE OR VIRUS KILLED INDIAN, EUROPEAN GENOSIDE THE INDIAN !

I think that the good the did was solidly overshadowed by them being 100% responsible for the African slave trade

@@robertmartin8907 you forgot about the english

@@PP-sj7pl and the Dutch, and the French, and the Portuguese. But you're Spanish so you're probably just raised from childhood to hate Britain anyways so why bother.

@@genericchannel1754 ive been raised from my childhood to hate Spain and its history. I said England as normally those who acuse Spain of being the only ones trading with african slaves are the english but of course those two werent the only ones.

@@PP-sj7pl But Spain hardly even traded slaves, the primary traders of slaves were the Portuguese, the British, and the Dutch.

They didn't discover something that's already existing. 🙄 The Philippines was part of the Old World. Even Marco Polo was aware of its existence in the 1200s - 1300s and called them Archipelagus 7448 insularũ.

@@markjosephbacho5652you must be fun at parties

@@mr.mewtwo322 I don't do parties anyway. Hold your L.

Magellan discovered the Philippines. he was Portuguese

​@@bconni2 Y Filipinas acabó con él...

true

There a lot of mistakes in the video, Portugal had colonies in Labrador and Newfoundland long before the British or Columbus. We also had found Brasil before Columbus ever had any thought to sail west Also America as a name was not an agreed term, not even remotely it, it was disputed for over 200 years

@@alexmag342 Lo que me gusta de estos videos es que siempre aparece una nacionalidad nueva que descubrió América antes que Castilla

Its fricked up that after they razed tenochtitlan, a truky beautiful city worth preservation, they turned on the natives that were a part of the attack. Disgusting.

"Does your god requires human sacrifices?" Cortes: no Native: Jesus here we go. 😂😂😂😂

The coast that is now Belize became de facto British by the mid 18th C. Britain formally appointed governorship in 1786. It was formally declared a colony in 1862. Spain and Mexico disputed much of this, but not all. The Mariscal-Spencer Treaty in 1897 ended all territorial disputes between UK and Mexico over the area.

@@chriswatson79651786 is definitely not mid 18th C. Even "BRITANNICA" - An English biased source, clearly states: "British buccaneers (pirates) and logwood cutters (more pirates) settled on the inhospitable coast in the mid-17th century. Spain regarded the British as interlopers (pirates) in their territory. By treaties signed in 1763 and 1783, Spain granted British subjects (pirates) the privilege (a bone) of exploiting logwood and, after 1786, the more valuable mahogany (another bone), though only within specified and poorly surveyed territories. Indeed, SPAIN RETAINED SOVEREIGNTY over the area, which Britain called a settlement (piracy in action), as distinct from a formal colony". Then it goes on: "Belize became the British colony of British Honduras in 1862-which was ruled by a governor who was subordinate to the governor of Jamaica-and a crown colony in 1871, when the Legislative Assembly was abolished'. Long story short, by the time your "Royal Piracy of Britain" finally put her act together and formally established a shitty colonial government on the coast of what today is Belize, all Hispanic America had become independent from Imperial Spain (circa 1810), whatever happened next in the 1800s, is as phony as your previous comment on "de facto" British settlement in the mid 18th C. "Source" : www.britannica.com/place/Belize/Early-history

@@durandal1909 No 1786 is not mid 18thC. British settlers had been logging there since 1710, and largely left alone to their own devices by the Spanish. What you have posted is identical to what I posted.

@@chriswatson7965 No, it isn't identical. For that matter, Spanish Basque fishermen were already fishing in the St. Lawrence river before Jacques Cartier "discovered" it in 1534 in present-day Quebec, Canada; but I don't say it "became de facto Spanish by the mid 16th C.

@@durandal1909 So what's the difference? With regards your example of Basque fishermen. a) it's perfectly reasonable if you wish to describe the st lawrence river as de facto spanish, as it is reasonable not to. There is no one right answer. I have responded to you claiming that the video was wrong. It's not, it's one reasonable presentation out of many b) what you describe as de facto or not doesn't come into it. The video hasn't been set up for your world view c) de facto "ownership" of a piece of land usually requires i) actually being on the land, not in the water ii) using the land for a commercial purpose iii) having a set of rules that governs the use of that land. The st lawrence river example doesn't have any of those examples, the honduras example does. In honduras settlers used English law, not Spanish law. d) Spain didn't really even exist in 1534. It was essentially still a personal union of crowns. Spain is usually considered to have started to exist at the start of the union for the sake of convenience (there being no other suitable start point). 15th C Basque fishermen would not have considered themselves to be Spanish, or under Spanish law e) the St Lawrence river was considered to be Spanish by Spain after the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494.

Even microsoft sam's voice would fit better

Agreed

Yep

I’m gonna miss the old voiceovers... I loved them

I think what people are missing is a casual tone. This guy is a great narrator but I think it comes off as commercial and manufactured. It’s not that he’s a bad narrator, his performance just isn’t right for this type of content. Maybe with some recommendations he could be perfect for the channel

Yes , You are right.

Yes, he is right.

Yes u are right

How it show hard to understand what it he saying

Ya

Plus they were focused on reaching India and well on their way, ahead of everyone else. They actually did it, contrary to many others, and for a few years ruled the Indian Ocean and controlled the Spice Trade becoming the World's Richest Nation for a small period of time (about 60 years). The Iberian Union, though, brought that edge down...

The Portuguese didn't reject Columbus because his calculations were incorrect. They rejected him because he wanted to explore and tell the world what he would find during his voyages, but Portugal already knew that there was a large land (America) between Europe and Asia and they didn't want other countries to know of it. Obviously they didn't know the size of it, but they did know that Columbus would find it and quickly spread word of it to all europe. The fact that Brazil was "officially" discovered by Portugal in the year 1500, means that the portuguese already knew of it's existence way before Columbus found America, and decided to make their claim to Brazil official.

Go back to your bacalhao

Portugal já conhecia as Américas antes de Colombo. A esposa de Colombo era portuguesa Felipa Moniz Perestrelo, filha de Bartolomeu Perestrelo. Bartolomeu aprendeu a navegar com o Infante D. Henrique de Portugal que foi o precursor da navegação portuguesa. O Pai e os Irmãos de Felipa já sabiam da existência de terras além do Atlântico, mas uma segunda rota não seria bom para os portugueses. Detalhe: Fernão de Magalhães, capitão que descobriu a segunda rota das índias e batizou o oceano pacífico também era português.

@@falmin2512 This is a very extraordinary claim and every extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Do you have some?

And without both of them they would never be able to gain allies and defeat the Aztecs.

@@Edexote yeah, its one of those butterfly effects, human history is just amazing xD

Yes, I also want old one.. Love from Pakistan!

It was terrenova that means new land in portuguese

Yes, and the expansion of Brazil resulting from the gold and silver rush in the late 17th century is not mentioned here. The Portuguese found more gold in Brazil in 30 years (1690 - 1720) than the Spanish found in the previous 200 years in America, and it allowed Brazil to become the most profitable colony in the Americas by 1720, and King John V to become the King with more gold in the world. It really should have been mentioned. It gave Portugal a considerable amount of power in South America.

E tambem a terra Nova dos bacalhaus

Probably its forgotten in some countrys

This video is made by an englishman, the bias its obvious. You can see him struggling to bend facts at some points.

the most iconic and visited place left from that time is called colonia tovar, i used to visit it when i was a kid living in venezuela. it is like a small little german mountain town, ripe with strawberries and such.

I don't want to offend the person but, I do think the same. It is more articulate in the language pronunciation but yeah I'd choose the og one.

@@fathfez7991 Oh yeah, no i totally agree with you. I should have been more kind in my original comment but this kind of narration is just synonymous with these mega corportation owned channels that clickbait and overexaggerate everything. The old voice was more down to earth and definitely made me feel like I was watching something informative, entertaining, and honest. Not just commercialised rubbish like TheRichest for example.

@@pdalmao Yeah, no it's okay. I thought the same. It sounds weird and my brain immediately associates the guy's voice as 'entertainment only, no knowledge to learn here' and very similar those cheesy tips and facts channels indeed.

I can tell this crowd is chock full of intellectual powerhouses who make judgments based on how somebody's voice sounds or imply that Americans are shallow, somehow. Should I just draw the conclusion some folks here are pretentious, condescending jerks?

yeap i agree with ya

The old guy left by his own wish so can't come back.

@@Nexandr :(

It happened to my ancestors, the Taino. They proceeded to rape the women and kill most of the men. Eventually creating the Mestizo populations of the Caribbean.

Imagine living in 2022 and thinking that civilizations were in peace before the arrival of Europeans in the 1500's. The only thing different was that this people came from another continent by sea and were more developed. You realize tribes were killing each other and looting their wealth and lands? How do you think those kingdoms exist? Singing kumbaya and asking people to join?

@@nunopereira526 Not all tribes were warlike and not all of them sought to conquer the others. For example my ancestors the Tainos were a peaceful tribe and the Caribs were the ones who were more violent in the lesser Antilles always raiding the coasts pre-Columbian times. My ancestors would simply flee into the mountains wait till the Caribs stole what they wanted and then came back down. Occasionally we would have skirmishes, but the Taino never were a fighting people. We had no reason to be bloodthirsty. Caribs however lived on the smallest islands in the Antilles. So, they often ran low on resources and were jealous of the Tainos. Back and forth until Columbus showed up.... The biggest myth that was ever told is this - All tribes were peaceful/All tribes were violent. No, neither is true. Some tribes were mostly nonviolent and preferred peaceful methods of negotiation and others were warlike. Like humans on every continent, we are found. Some are more violent than others. That doesn't mean that all the nations of the Americas deserved genocide or to be painted into racist stereotype of the noble savage/the vile Indian.

@@jalicea1650 you need to work on your insecurities. It's not a matter of deserving or not to be conquered or be peaceful, in the ancient times there was no communication or information like you are offered today. It was simply kill, get killed or matching forces that would have peace untill having the upper hand. As long as you want to romance your loving ancestors, human kind was vicious, just like monkeys or lions. In the 1500's the only peace was among the ones that feared eachother and were affraid of suffer too much loses that they would expose to other kingdoms, tribes or whatever. The biggest myth is people in the 21th century judging the life of the past with the eyes of the present, having no sense of how it was to find different people with different language who looked different and so on. I'll give you an example, in old Ceylon or today's Sri Lanka there were 7 different kingdoms fighting eachother when the Portuguese arrived there...talk about peace and singing kumbaya buddy.

@@nunopereira526 way to show your nihilistic racism to justify your worldviews. My ancestors are well documented in our universities in PR. We have never been warlike people and we have proof going back thousands of years since the archeological records validate the oral history of my people. No proof of warlike society developing in the way we see in the Caribs or mainland Indians like the Aztec or the Comanche. You may ask for proof. We don't have many weapons of war and arrows/clubs/shields designed for extensive conflict with the Caribs. The pottery, the village designs and the defenses all point to a peaceful people who only hunted inland and fish by the sea. There were no major sites where battles took place and extensive violence until after Columbus. History is built on archaeological records and physical records, spiritual decorations and the oral traditions of our ancestors. You have a very bigoted view on Native Americans and worse you assume all humanity was as violent and as cruel as your ancestors. Sure, some were, not all. Not every human nation was as violent or as cruel as you imagine. It was about degrees of violence to nonviolent societies depending on the place and the era discussed. For the most part humans are generally peaceful if they don't need resources, have nice warm environments and not a lot of internal/external pressures to drive the need for violence.

I too

What do you mean, they're great

@@TomLikesfn684 not unvaluable, invaluable! 😉

​@SUTTYMCFC If you can't find this information is because you're lacking a sound research ability. Funny that you mention the armada because, guess what? The English made medals to commemorate the failure (Not Defeat) of the Spanish Armada which bore the phrase in Latin: "Flavit Jehovah et Dissipati Sunt". "Yahweh blew and they were scattered". I'm absolutely sure that had the English naval fleet actually defeated the Spanish Armada, a completely different phrase would've been minted on those medals. LOL

@SUTTYMCFC No excuse - With or without diarrhea (Caused by tropical yellow fever), the result was shitty for the English.

IT'S NOT DISEASE OR VIRUS KILLED INDIAN, EUROPEAN GENOSIDE THE INDIAN !

IT'S NOT DISEASE OR VIRUS KILLED INDIAN, EUROPEAN GENOSIDE THE INDIAN !

As well as the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 and subsequent Reconquista in '92, but this is such a huge topic that I think it can be forgiven.

I can send you one if you contact me on geo_history@outlook.com

​@@GeoHistory 😮

You got your first like after a year 💀

@@Krankenwagen571 haha i forgot about this comment completely

Again the American nonsense about the purchase of Manhatten. It was bought for 60 guilders in goods, not specified but things like axes and copper kettles were in demand by the natives. It's probably almost like a half year's wages for a skilled craftsman, which were very well paid in the Dutch Republic and shipping it over an ocean wasn't free either, so not such a bad deal for the natives. There's more BS in the video. Of course the Dutch protestants didn't flee Europe in fear of catholicism. The Dutch Republic of the Seven United Provinces had religous tolerance, and was led by protestants. It was at war with Spain because it had declared independence from Spain in 1581 because they wanted religious tolerance. So the Dutch Republic didn't take advantage of the Iberian Union, they got a bigger enemy to fight. They took to war to the oceans because Spain was using it's colonial profits and the Portugese to finance the 80-years war against the Dutch Republic. Poorly researched video

@@DenUitvreter The supposed religious tolerance was but a poor excuse and the main argument of the Flemish rebels for independence from the Habsburg empire. In fact, the Protestant Reformation was never born as a demonstration against the abuses of the Catholic Church for its illicit enrichment, but was born as a political argument to break with Rome, which was the one who gave divine legitimacy to the emperors and kings. That was the foundation of the Protestant break and the commission that Luther received to initiate that break by Flemish nobles and some German princes. Denying the legitimacy of the emperor, breaking with the Habsburg house, becoming independent from the empire and incidentally ... appropriating all the assets of the Church (the other main argument). The religious question? Of course, against everything the Dutch and British have said for centuries, Philip II was a religious guy, but he didn't give a shit about Dutch or English Protestantism. He had in fact proposed to the very Protestant Elizabeth I of England without seeming to care too much that the rite was also performed by a Protestant bishop. What did bother him was the Flemish rebellion that he considered a true betrayal against the legitimate monarch, and also the help that this one obtained from the English. The religious changes were due exclusively to a mixture of political and economic interests. Exactly the same as in England. The religious question as a theological fact, perhaps the illiterate citizen cared about something (I don't think so), but the political leader did not. That's for sure. Everything was political intricacies to get more shares of power, more property and more money. Centuries of propaganda have tarnished a good part of what many people today still consider to be history. Little by little we will clean it.

Remember when Mexicans were trying to say they were "there" for centuries / millennia before Americans a few years back? Yeah because people in that region in 1271 could speak Spanish and knew what a tortilla is.

The colours are based on the EU 4 which possibly defined countries' colours as the dominant or signature ones on their flags

@@nguyenhuytuquan Hoy, thank you. I like how this video is showing the known areas vs the unknown. Incredible history lesson. Thank you again mate.

They found ppl minding their business & living peacefully and then rudely took over their land and colonised them.

@@sashhhaa4874 "peacefully" 🤣

@@AD-cc7bj Didn’t know the adverb “peacefully” was such a funny word… but humour is subjective i guess

point is they werent peaceful did u heard Inca and Aztec empire exist? an empire means lots of wars@@sashhhaa4874

Mitad del video es sobre España y Portugal como esta sesgado al mundo anglo?? Y este canal es de Bélgica

No, not amazing. The Russians when they began they were also very small. The same goes for all empires. Given that Portugal was the most western European point, it made sense to search west or round Africa to get to China and overcome the terrestrial blockade of the Ottomans.

ENGLAND runs, mate 🇬🇧

The vikings discovered it first

@@ottovestergaardjack362 Yes there is evidence the Vikings got to North America. However, for some reason or other such journeys led nowhere. Why?

@@jesusbermudez6775 Yes, amazing, because Portugal had a population of 1 million people, whilst Spain had 7 million, England had 10 million, France 14 million and the Dutch 2 million, and still, Portugal managed to finance most of the maritime expeditions done at the time; en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_explorers Portugal financed around 50, whilst Spain for instance, only 10.

They can't see that far tbh