Just an addendum. When Portuguese came to Brasil, they saw an abundance of a tree along the coast which could be used to produce a bright red paint. Such plants weren't all that common in Europe, and so red paint was expensive and a sign of status. These plants were called "pau brasil", meaning "brasil wood", and "brasil" is a term that originated from French meaning "brazier". So "pau brasil" is a tree that can be used to produce something that looks like a "brazier". They were so excited that they could finally produce this expensive paint in abundance, that they named this land after the product they were after, calling it "Terra do Brasil", literally "Land of Brazil", which then was shortened to just "Brasil". This tree almost went extinct.

1:05 - "a continent of poor miserable farmers" I hear this a lot from people claiming Europe was a backwater (and that "only colonisation" made Europe rich and prosperous). Whilst this was true for the early part of the Middle Ages, due to frequent raids by Vikings, Steppe peoples, low population figures etc. (which devestated the region and were less than ideal circumstances for development) this isn't really correct (unless of course you apply modern standards, which would be a useless comparison, but then you're definitely right). Since the High Middle Ages (starting 1000AD), (especially Western) Europe had actually been rapidly developing; population skyrocketed, new farming techniques were introduced (the "Ostsiedlung" being an example of early colonization; as well as the Crusades one of expanding influence; which in turn also brought knowledge to Europe), universities were introduced, architectural techniques improved... During the Renaissance (parts of) Europe would in fact become one of the most developed "regions" on the planet, much like the Middle East at that time. Of course do note that Europe is a continent; some regions did better at certain period. For the High - Late Middle Ages this was mostly northern Italy, southern Germany, the Low Countries etc. This is important as this is why Portuguese explorers decided to look for new trade routes to Asia/India; when the Ottomans/Muslim had taken control of trade routes previously used (mostly by Italian merchants from Venice etc.; hence their decline as the Ottomans taxed trade; hence also why the Pax Mongolica was such a prosperous period for Silk Route Trade). You also claimed that the other empires along the Silk Route were already trading and had more valuable goods than Europe did. I'm sorry to say this; but that's almost outrageous as it completely defeats the purpose of trade. You can't trade if you don't have anything valuable to offer in return. Europe had been on the edge of the Silk Route since the time of the Romans and had participated in trade since then. The only issue it had was that it was relatively isolated meaning that it payed large amounts of taxes (as all countries added tax; so every country taxed a merchant passing through; by the time he arrived in Europe his goods were pretty expensive and this wasn't very "efficient" and it drained wealth - so exploration wasn't just fueled by curiousity, but also by well... money, I mean, it almost always is) and was highly dependent on "upstream" states (e.g. embargoes) - similarly, during the Roman period Silk Road trade financed the Persians, a major Roman enemy. Unlike the others which had easier access. If what you claimed was true; then trade with India wouldn't have made Portugal ridiculously rich; because what would they give the Indians if they had nothing to offer and were poor? Now, the main question: what did Europeans export? Glass (beads, windows etc.), textiles (silk wasn't the only desirable textile; e.g. wool and linen), furs, animals, jewelry and metalworks, olive oil, (grape) wine, honey, walnuts, etc. and yes, even slaves were traded on the Silk Road. So, instead of arguing Europe was poor; didn't trade on the Silk Road and had little (valuable) goods to trade; a more correct explanation would be that Europe was geopolitically isolated, payed exorbitant amounts of taxes to trade on the Silk Road and that European division caused states to look for ways to get any advantage they could over the other. Also note that the discovery of new trade routes was horrible for some Silk Road countries such as the Ottoman Empire; as now they'd get less taxes. Also, Europeans did have black peppers before the Portuguese arrived in India, as Europe did trade on the Silk Road before that. It's what brought Marco Polo to China and what made the Venetians and Genoans so rich (in fact, the Italians often held monopolies, which was another reason for the Portuguese to sail around Africa; so they could compete - European countries were constantly trying to get the edge over the other). The earliest records of black peppers in Europe date back to the Romans. By the way; the high cost of trade (distance; taxes etc.) explains why goods like black peppers were so rare and valuable in Europe. The opposite was true for European goods in China. Also about silk, it was produced in Europe too, but in smaller quantities (Kos silk or Coa Vestis since 4th century BC, but Chinese silk became more popular; northern Italy, especially the Como region since 1000AD etc.) As for the Amerindians not having armies and making no resistance: what? And Europeans did (not always, but often) still trade with Amerindians too - and interestingly, initially also often guided peace negotiations between different tribes. Although you are definitely correct about Columbus laying the fundaments of imperialism with his treatment of the Taino people. I really liked the maps though. I think that generally speaking you gave a pretty good representation of what happened. I'm certainly curious for the next two videos. Sorry if I used a lot of brackets, but I think this comment would've been even bigger if I didn't.

My graduate class just used this video to power a conversation about the responsibility of content creators in creating accurate historical content. As an example of what NOT to do.

With all due respect: this is by far the topic you have covered that I am most familiar with, and the video is so plagued by historical errors that I am starting to wonder whether the things I learnt watching other videos from your channel were as accurate as I thought they were when I watched them.

Before Imperial age, Muslims also viewed themself as superior (hence 'Khairu Ummah'/The Best People) and drew map with Mecca in its center. Up to Opium War, Chinese was also viewed themself as superior and see their culture as the center of civilization (hence Zhong Guo or Central Kingdom). They also drew the map with them in its center. So much story about human nature, tribalism, and superiority complex can be seen from a simple map.

The opening of the video is inaccurate, Europe had already been involved in the Silk Road trade routes, and had only been locked out in the 1400s by the ottomans, thus encouraging the search for other trade routes to the east

This is just basic highschool history with cool transitions, spooky music and incorrect facts

how you rewrite history is almost as fun as real history

The Europeans at the time of Columbus didn't think the earth was small (based on the visual presented). The approximate circumference of the Earth had been known since Roman times and the prospect of traveling west was considered dangerous because you'd have to travel enormous distances to reach Asia that way. Columbus purportedly believed the earth was significantly smaller than the general consensus (based on no real evidence) and therefore traveling west would be viable.

The whole video is like a history lesson but for some reason it feels like its being told backwards. Like European explorers didn't actually decide suddenly to go east from land to start trading just to find out it was blocked. It was already a trade route going hundreds of years into the past that was suddenly cut off.

I always get excited when you bring out the maps!

Amazing. Excellent content as always thank you John

A well produced video absolutely full to the brim of historical innacuracies and ignorance, far too invested in telling a good story and not placing the focus on the historical context regarding the events depicted in this video. The idea that europe pre-colonization was a shithole compared to other civilizations of it's time did give me a chuckle though 🤣

I think others have mentioned this but this video just seems far too reductive for the purpose of constructing a simple narrative. The idea that Christopher Columbus went to Cuba and then just invented colonialism on his own while none of his crew agreed is wild. The agreement he reached with the Spanish crown before the voyage was that they would take over the land and he would be rewarded with being Viceroy and Governor of the land. Also Portugal didn't enter the Indian Ocean via the South African route until after Columbus' voyage, rather they first travelled overland routes through the middle east to India and Ethiopia. These routes notably passed through the Ottoman Empire which in the video you say didn't occur as it was refused. There's probably way more stuff that it makes it hard to draw out conclusions. I think portraying it all as some big plan as well is a bit disingenuous, to me the arguably scarier aspect of imperialism is that it emerged through shifts in the economy not through the nefarious plans of a few bad guys. Your videos look better than any other videos essayist just please for the love of god do a little bit of factchecking.

This used to be part one of a series, I hope you continue with this subject

Johnny I'm eagerly waiting on the next episode! Ur the man brotha! Keep putting up content!

The fall of Constantinople was one of the major reasons for all the other stuff that happened later on as what was once the most significant trade route is now under Ottoman control

I'm Portuguese and we study these things in school for multiple years in History class. I found this video overly simplistic to the point of being misleading and kind of just wrong. Europe was a place of poor farmers and so they had to go explore? The ones who decided to explore the world were the kings and nobles. And to say the people they conquered didn't have armies or very few and didn't resist is plain wrong, so many indigenous were killed in these crusades...

Anxiously waiting for more parts on this

4:05 That sound when it zoomed out from the map and then said Ch.1 EXPLORATION Was so on Point! Omgosh it just clicked so perfectly!!!! Awesome point of sound. This is what I do for a living with sounds and video and that tiny sound made the introduction so perfect!!!!! The spyglass or binocular sound just made that intro! Along with the maps! Aahhh that was so perfect!!!

I’ll preface by saying I usually like your videos, but this video in my opinion has some cataclysmic errors. The context you prefix European expansion is just plain wrong. Trade between Europe and Asia was commonplace for millennia so stating that Spain and Portugal tried to find a land route to Asia is nonsensical. European powers were virtually cut off from the spice trade due to the ottoman empires expansion in the Middle East cutting the preexisting land route to Asia, leading the Portuguese to pioneer the cape route to the Indian Ocean sphere of trade. The statement that European’s were simply poor peasants compared the wealthy empires in the east is also incredibly reductive and is founded in an old fashioned misconception. This may be true for some parts of euopre in particular England. But areas like italy were going through the Renaissance and cities like Venice were flourishing due to trade with Asia. This misconception is mainly due to Europeans not having trade goods which other parts of the world desired and is the only proof you use to justify your point. We’ve only just started the video at this point. The title matter of ‘How’ Europe stole the world isn’t really dealt with in an engaging or direct way. The Essence being Europe rocked up place, saw no resistance and claimed it. This is an incredibly reductive way of describing what happened. There is no attention paid to the actual how. For instance, just as an example, the Spanish targeted the large preexisting empires in the Americas (the Inca and the Actec empires) removed their monarchy and installed themselves into the already existing power structures allowing rapid growth in the Americas. This small tidbit is reductive but provides more of insight into a method of which the Spanish used to conquer much of the America’s in such a small amount of time. I just feel not enough attention is paid to the actual history of this period and I’m just hearing a generalised and often stereotyped overview of what happened in this period. I encourage anyone who reads this comment to do some research into this topic it is genuinely really interesting (potentially my favourite in all of history) and come to their own conclusions as there are many different interpretations of events. Do not take everything said in this video as gospel as their are numerous inaccuracies and it’s narrative is incredibly reductive. I’m certain if you do do research you’d have a more nuanced view in regards to this matter. Keep creating Johnny, love the videos, just think this one is a bit of a miss.

Edit: I applaud the efforts Johnny is making to rectify the accuracy of his future video. I am impressed by his humility and understanding, a characteristic that is missing in much of today’s world. He is working with Jochem on his future videos to help him with his fact checking. I hope we can all appreciate this pursuit of truth. Thank you for listening Johnny!!

I love it when Johnny gets the maps out

Totally awaiting for the next part

as a Brazilian, one thing we learn is that the Portuguese were expert navigators, when they drew up the treaty of tordesilhas, despite never seeing the "new world" before in their lives, they already knew there had to be land, at some distance, over there, so much so that they refused the initial proposal by Spain and demanded one with more nautical miles west so that they could be sure there would be land for them. From what I understand, they knew this because the current in Africa flows upwards from South to the North, so they figured that there must be something, in the other side of the ocean, where the current is stopped and forced to go from North to the South, and they pretty much used that information with the size of the current to figure out how far away it was, and make sure how far away they had to demand to get land, that's why the first Portuguese expedition that found land in 1500 was dead on, and why their trajectory looked like they just did a pit stop on their way to India

Pretty sure the trade route East existed for a long time already (as in the Roman times already). But it was 'suddenly' cut off (Ottoman Empire) so the Europeans decided to find another route to the East. Not like they suddenly had an itch to go East and trade as if they never did it before. Also Europe wasn't just a bunch of only poor farmers before...

0:54 "This isn't a history lesson" well at least you warned us... I hope you take all the negative response as constructive criticism, there's not much to had. You are by far my favourite journalist/documentarian in youtube. Your videos are top tier! Glad you corrected some inaccurate information in your video description. Just keep the research/fact checking on the same level as your editing and fight that urge to simplify/dumbify to make the subject more interesting (and inaccurate). And please add sources! Thank you for your work

Great video man. I love it. Keep up the good work. 🙋🏾‍♂️

I generally like this channel but I really don't understand the motivation behind this video. What is to be gained by deliberately ignoring all context? Thanks to all the brilliant comments that help show what the real story is.

I've always watched your videos with interests but this one is a complete mistake. It's absolutely biased and yes completely oversimplified, and honestly wrong. You are looking at 15th century events and history using the 21st century perspective - and that is clear when you clearly say that the Portuguese and the Spanish "grabbed a bunch of territory", calling them "white and catholic people VS non white and non catholic" or when you say that the Portuguese depicted the "Brazilian" (that didn't even existed at the time because they were a variety of tribes and chiefdoms - Brazil only became Brazil after the Portuguese colonization) as the "people that kept on cutting trees". You should read and study history better. If you want to look at maps at least get the context of how they were made first, so that you can get the full picture and not just a gimplse of how it looks for a 2022 "woke" guy.

Great work! I really love your channel!!

Very Nicely explained

Europe wasn’t just a group of “miserable farmers” like you keep describing it. Medieval Europe had a rich culture with art, literature and architecture, especially during the 15th century, you forgot to mention the Italian renaissance, the Florence cathedral dome that was made during this time (not bad for a group of farmers), the Venetian trade with the east (and Marco Polo), the beginning of the Dutch renaissance and all of this was before Columbus got to America. Just because they didn’t have potatoes or black pepper that doesn’t mean they were Neanderthals, you know? As for the “miserable farmers” they existed in every place on earth not just Europe, do you believe that in the Chinese Empire they were all rich nobles? I was interested in the subject of this video but all the inaccuracies and your attitude made it unwatchable (looking down on medieval people just because they didn’t know there was America between Europe and Asia and calling it “mansplaining” is ridiculous btw)

I can totally imagine Johnny having a drawer full of world maps from every era

Eagerly waiting for the next part of the series

Love the simplicity of your vids. Respect from Zimbabwe

Johnny my friend, cool video, but I must disagree in one part. Christopher Columbus sailed from Spain very much aware, and having orders in hand, to take possession of newly discovered lands, to be its governor and viceroy. With this idea in mind he arrived into the Caribbean islands. It is not like he was looking just for trade and then had a change of heart. These prerogatives and orders are contained within the Capitulaciones de Santa Fe, a document subscribe by the Spanish Crown before the first journey, on April 1492. Regards

I don’t understand this video and the agenda you are pushing with it. At the beginning of the video, you portray Europe as unsophisticated and dirt poor and multiple empires of the east as thriving and ahead of their time. Europe at the time wasn’t an unruly pot of smaller kingdoms and fiefdoms but rather a complex social structure that operated through allegiances and family ties. While the lower casts of society undisputedly had a shitty life as they were in a sense almost slaves(Note the german term "Leibeigene), the upper and middle classes were doing great. The first European university was founded in 1088 in Bologna, and city-states like Venice and Genua or trading guilds like the Hanseatic league were incredibly rich from trade with foreign countries. You portray the fact that the ottoman empire blocked Christian trade from the east (Wich already is a simplification of a complex situation) as if it was caused by the Catholics not being NICE to the Muslims. Bro the ottoman empire had just obliterated the Christian byzantine empire in the centuries prior and took the second most important Christian city, Constantinople, and turned the most important Christian church the Hagia Sophia into a mosque. Did you expect that Christians and Muslims were on great terms after that? And the way you keep emphasizing that Europeans were just peasants and poor is so weird to me. In the time frame, your video is set European lords and kings built some of the most breathtaking castles and palaces like the castle Frýdlant or the Cathedral Church of Saint Peter in Exeter (The heyday of Gothic architecture). And I do think, at least to a certain degree, that Europe’s expansion was most likely driven by greed and the prospect of greater riches, but so was the expansion of every other empire. Why do you only emphasize that fact with Europe and not other empires of the time like the Ottomans and their slave markets or the Mughal empire, who in their conquest of India killed thousands of Hindus (Which by the way was possibly the largest genocide in Human History)? Ps: Not to hate or anything I just think it is a little problematic to make a video series about a very complex historical situation that evolved over centuries and still holds great relevancy today, without consulting Historians and experts on the matter (As he states himself he only holds an “MA in international peace and conflict resolution from American University”)While he never frames himself as an authority on history, and considering that he has made good and well-researched videos on different topics before it would be easy for the 2.87 million subscribers to again belief the things he packs so nicely into an easily digestible format in this video, while in actuality he either pushes a political agenda or is just ill-informed. At least the ill-informed problem could have been solved by consulting somebody who actually knows what they are talking about. By the way sorry if this comment isn't an easy read, as I am not a native English speaker.

looking forward for the next episodes :)

I'm sorry, but there's a lot of misinformation in this video. For example Europe was not "a group of miserable famers", firstly like everywhere in the world it wasn't a massive homogeneous group of people. And some parts of it were extremely rich, such as the Italian citiy states. Furthermore The Europeans had been trading with the east for years, they didn't bump into the Ottoman Empire the Ottoman Empire took over the routes they travelled and imposed high taxes to use the routes. Columbus, knew he was in new land, but thought he was off the coast of Asia (and it's worth mentioning he was brought back to Europe in chains, and died in prison)

Referring to Europe as a whole is a little misleading and vague in this context. A bit lazy if you ask me. _“How _*_Western_*_ Europe Stole the world”_ - would’ve been a more accurate and fitting title in this regard - especially when referring to the seafaring, costal nations bordering the Atlantic - of obvious geographical reasons. We’re talking about one region of Europe, not the entire continent. Central+ most of Eastern Europe had little to no colonial endeavors nor history of African slavery. Talking about generalizing for sake of clickbait.

I just wanna thank you Johnny Harris for making topics like this SUPER-INTERESTING to watch/learn about. I'm almost always hooked from beginning to end on JH video... even during sponsor reads!

This guy is so good at rolling maps

Adjustment: Western Europe. The Eastern part of the continent was so busy in a battle royale for continental land that one participant still thinks it is going on...

8:24 The first island Christopher Columbus arrived in 1492 wasn't Cuba. It was actually "La Española", the current Dominican Republic and Haití.

Great work! You’re now my favorite KZfaq journalist

To sum up this video, is Johnny unwrapping map sheets on a table in cool style with "no one making any resistance".

I want to pretext this short comment by stating that I appreciate both the educational potential and holistic approach to the project you’re undertaking here Johnny. However, I do feel the way you present the world in 1450 is rather black and white. I understand time constraints and that there is only so much you can do within the bounds of this video but as an archaeologist and historian I feel that the characterisation of Europe as excessively poor and the ‘oriental despots’ as excessively wealthy botches the relative parity in wealth between almost all peasants in major eurasian states. This narrative of ‘Europe Aggressors, Everybody Victims’ presents to me a past in which the rest of the world becomes a passive backdrop to European colonialism. That being said I’m a massive fan of your work and absolutely love you’re style of video - much love x (edit) Going forward I think it would be constructive to perhaps add a short reading list in the description for those who want to peruse the topic further. For example this video could recommend Guns, Germs and Steel, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers or for a lighter read The New Silk Roads.

This whole channel is a clear example of why good animations have nothing to do with proper content and true information

It seems like you have found the perfect topic for you, the time when world maps were actually drawn out! Love your content. Can you tell us the books that you referred for this topic

Hey Johnny, where do u find or get access to such kinds of maps? I can look over maps for hours, & I’m not ashamed to say… I kinda like to! Lol, I’m genuinely curious!

9:00 claiming land for the Kingdom of Spain was not Columbus' idea after he found new Territories... It was already stipulated in his contract before he left Spain. _(As well as receiving the title of "vice king" of all the conquered territories)_ he was pretty stubborn and it took months to negotiate the contract.

Ok so I am really into history and there are some pointers right of the bat that you missed out on or didn't explained correctly. First off, everyone and every country in Europe weren't just poor people. In Italy there were a los of wealthy individuals who controlled most of the banks in Europe at the time, and European countries did made a lot of trade with Africa, the Middle East and all the way to India. One of the main factors that pushed Europe to find an alternate route to India was the fall of Constantinople to the ottoman empire on May 29th 1453, which was the fall of the byzantine empire

Waiting for new Parts on this topic.

Could anyone explain that why is there a "zig-zag" trade route between India and Africa at 6:40 ? I mean, if it's real, there must be some reason right ?

" poor miserable farmers" ? Really that is the best lead in punch line you could get from your writers.

Cuba may have had few armies, but this is not the case for the rest of the Americas and any such claim seriously undermines both the arguments as well as the credit native civilisations deserve. Spain didn't take over the Americas because they just 'claimed' the land (outside the Caribbean), rather the Spanish united against the incumbent Empires (Incas and Aztecs) who had massive governmental structures to actually take over and use for state-building. They did this not through military superiority, but through unity with natives opposed to the Aztec and Inca Empires. Brazil as a state had no predecessor, and this is why Brazil took a lot longer to actually become a united dominion which Portugal could administer (and hence the 'primitive' natives on the map you pointed out). Taking over and claiming land which does not already have a functioning administration is a nightmare, and the Spanish did not have the resources to do this, at least not in the space of time in which they established their empires. It was much easier to cut the snake's head off and take over the body. Claiming the Americas were just 'unclaimed land' is a seriously poor understanding of pre-Columbian America; the Spanish certainly did not see it as such. It was the case only in the Caribbean, Brazil and the parts of North America the England would colonise, which I guess shapes a lot of our preconceptions about the Columbian age. For Spain it was very different, their colonial efforts were much more shaped by military conflict and opportunism (the kings in Spain did not expect Cortes or Pizaru to succeed in defeating two empires, they didn't even know they were trying!)

Next episode please. I love your videos, but the suspense for the next episode in this series is killing me 😁

Despite the initial inaccuracies, the video is worth watching and very well made

Dude is literally just gonna ignore the reconqesta and the conquest of Constantinople as context. You said this wasn’t a history video, but you can’t just cherry pick events to suit your false narrative. Editing is nice and pretty, but it can’t make up for the terrible writing of this essay. History matters and your generalization only help perpetuate people’s ignorance of it.

Since you wholeheartedly already acknowledged and accepted that this video made huge mistakes, i believe you should make a follow-up video addressing and creating a more informative on the mistakes. It should be a responsibility for educational/history KZfaqr for their audience..

Finally, Jonny is answering my childhood question.

I love your work so much!!! ❤

I love Johnny, but his commitment to virtue signaling is overpowering his commitment as an accurate story teller.

I think why some European countries took over a lot of the world was because of the constant wars that happened within Europe with no one country dominating all the others. So there was a constant fear of losing out strategic balance of power once certain countries started getting more powerful from conquering other places outside Europe.

Awesome content love your work Maby if you have time look into the Dardans/illirans

I love your map collection and that amazing drawer.

I would disagree with your statement that Europe was poor and eastern empires were rich. In both the east and west there tended to be a wealthy class supported by poor peasants/farmers. GDP per capita stayed relatively the same across geographies until the industrial revolution. Economic historians use GDP per capita to compare quality of life since it is pretty good proxy for health care and education throughout history and is much easier to measure. There is actually evidence that GDP per capita was increasing over the 1400's in Italy but there isn't consensus on this.

_The world we live in today was sketched on paper by European men. Men who looked like me._ This should tell you everything you need to know about Johnny's motivations. Nice to see a Johnny Harris video finally getting the backlash it deserves.

8:29 a little mistake, the first island colon found wasn’t Cuba, it was in fact an island of what we call today the Bahamas then he found the island “la española” which is the island where the countries of Haiti and República Dominicana are located today

Love your videos man!

As a nerd of Google Maps, where I spent significant amount of time just scrolling through maps and looking at specific countries’ street-level views, it’s just really exciting to see Maps from a very historical perspective, with how it tells us stories about it just by a simple look. Can’t wait for the next episodes !

Johnny Harris be like: I’ll heart a dozen positive comments to drown out the the comments criticising my video.

Glad to see many people correcting the many errors in this video. On the other hand, nice maps!

Thank you for telling the truth. I learned this when I was a student at UC Berkeley, this was a required class for everyone studying at UC Berkeley known as the American Culture requirement. This is also taught at every Community Colleges, Public Schools and UC System ie. UCLA, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara, along with all the CSU’s. Great job. Mr. Harris. Keep up the good work, very informative. 👍🏽

The lines that split the world is called the "Treaty of Tordesillas". It was actually to divide the world between the East and the West, whereas the Spain would get the West and Portugal would get the East. Essentially, it was a gamble and a distraction on behalf of Portugal to keep Spain out of the Eastern trade. Also, the "East" side was smaller than the initial draft. The portuguese bartered to draw a line further outwards because they suspected that there was land somewhere further in between (Brazil).

I never liked it when people who know very little of Europe and its history almost always fall on the same old fallacy of trying to put Europeans into one single homogenous group trying to pursue the same interests. This is extremely inaccurate and misleading. Some countries had a bigger focus on trade rather than conquest. Europeans were also mostly divided between Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodox and often fought over that. Several European countries did not seek on creating colonies (Sweden, Poland) or their policies regarding that issue changed over time (Germany). Those were different times and people lived by different moral codes, and conquering and spreading your culture and religion was not only common but the norm. Before the Spanish and Portuguese set foot in America, the Mongols had already raided and conquered most of eastern Europe, the ottomans had done the same with the Balkans, and the Arabs with the Iberian Peninsula. Also, those tribes in Africa and America were already slaughtering and conquering each other way before any European ever come in contact with them (often in a quite brutal fashion). Do you think the Azteca and Inca empires were formed and maintained through diplomacy and goodwill? What set Europeans apart was that they had better weapons and diseases. I always liked Johnny Harris, but this time I'm a bit disappointed with him.

Just like to say that it's been awhile since I've come across such an engaging storyteller as yourself. I'm looking forward to many hours of watching your channel. Cheers

The best KZfaq channel for me ! The quality of Productuon this guy puts up for us to watch for free is just amazing.

Damn, johnny really flexed his maps this time

The map of "Spain" is so wrong that I cannot begin to explain it. Either your write "Spain" and include all of Spain, or you write "Castille" if you just want to consider the portion that you mention in the video. On the other hand, the indigenous people of America did have armies, some of them huge, and they indeed had brutal wars between them.

I generally love your videos, really, they usually present all sides without too much bias, but this one is just a mess... First of all, there was trade along the silk road going back to ancient rome at least, but it was cut off when the ottoman empire kept conquering more land from the byzantine empire... Oh and again the "thriving" ottoman empire with silk, also had incredibly high number of slaves, usually taken from conquered land in eastern/southeastern europe... And yes, the europeans did claim the land in the americas, but that was just because they "could". Do you honestly want to tell us that if the ottomans or the chinese got there first they wouldn't do pretty much the same thing? More or less the only reason why european empire did that and not others is that china/india were across the pacific which is obviously harder to cross than atlantic and ottomans couldn't really get out of the Med to go west for obvious reasons...

Does anyone know where I could purchase the atlas he was showing towards the end of the video??

Even though the video is inaccurate it still explains a lot in a fun and easy way to newcomers in the topic.

I find it kind of funny how the Ottoman Empire is portrayed here. Doesn't he know that the Ottoman Empire "stole" Constantinople and thus blocked Europe from international trade. Without Constantinople, the Ottoman Empire would fare just as badly as the rest of Europe. Thus the poor Ottoman Empire began stealing from wealthy nations

Man the world wasn't black and white as you are describing it: rich empires in the East poor peasants in Europe. Before Portugal and Spain you missed just more then 500 years in which the Serenissima Republic of Venice was thriving in an international trade with the Ottoman Empire, the North of Africa, the African Horn and Asia bringing in Europe black pepper, salt, silk and all the spices of which India was gifted. Venetians became so rich that were able to raise from the water one of the most magnificent city ever built, letting people of other culture and religious trading and living there (something that wasn't common in that era). So spices were fully known and used in Europe even before the circumnavigation of Africa, but they were extremely expensive and the monarchies of Europe were subjugated to the power of Venice. This to say that one of the principal cause that brought the two monarchies of Portugal and Spain to find a direct way to the east was basically to take the role of Venice and the other Maritime Republics as Genoa and Pisa, anticipating them and becoming the cheaper and faster supplier of spices in Europe. I wanted to clarify this aspect because from your video it seems that Europe and Asia were complete separate and divided world, but this isn't true, indeed Sicily was part of the islamic Abbasid Caliphate in the 1000 and Marco Polo arrived in China from Venice before the 1300.. So you can say, for sure, that Europe was less gifted in resourcers, but that is why since the advent of the Roman Empire trades were a common thing between Europe, Asia and Africa.

love this channel!

Great information

As a history teacher, I wanted to argue with Johnny when he said - “This isn’t a history lesson. You won’t hear my talk a lot about names and dates…I want to show you how it happened…how Europe took over the entire world” and in the process enriched itself. So it is a history lesson! Exact names and dates discourage many from embracing history and are enforced mostly for testing.

Would love a video on the Ottoman Empire. You often portray the Europeans in a bad way, however the Ottomans were not so kind either in many regards. Would be interesting

correction 08:13: it is believed that the first island Christopher Columbus reached on his first voyage to America was an island in the Bahamas (called Guanahani). Not Cuba. Look it up on one of your maps. From Guanahani He continued the journey passing through the coasts of Cuba, but he did not stay there, because where he established a first settlement, it was on the island of Hispaniola, current Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Exploring said Island was when he thought he was already in Asia.

Jonny, your really a KZfaqr i have learn more than i have ever been your my favorite journalist. I see some of Europeans felt like your channel is a threat to them but its is not but these is how things started.

"I mean I'm taking some creative liberty here" - understatement of the year dude! Much of this video is you taking creative liberty. Still a fan of the graphics & visuals ngl

​@Johnny Harris Great story, but I think you miss something important. The whole concept of "claimed" or "unclaimed" lands is much older than Christopher Columbus. I strongly recommend to do some research about forgotten "northern cursades". History of lands located on the east coast of Baltic Sea is (to some extent) similar to history of the New World. Polabian Slavs or Old Prussians met the same fate as "Indians". From the early Middle Ages only Christian rulers were considered legitimate. That's why Poland's founder Mieszko I was baptised in 966. It was strictly political move. It was also very tricky thing. To avoid getting into german sphere of influence, he choosed to be baptised by Czech bishop and married Christian Czech princess. For Mieszko it was the only way to secure his claims. Inhabitants of Arkona weren't that lucky

The comment section way more informative than the video, how often does this happen? Thanks Internet

I wish you had been my middle school history teacher. This is fascinating.

Amazing video and stunning visuals, however I do believe this video portrays imperialism as a European invention that started with the conquest of the Americas, when in fact it's been an ongoing human phenomenon for millennia. The Europeans built empires by invading, looting, and colonizing foreign lands, but so did every civilization that came before: the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Chinese, the Arab Caliphates, as well as Pre-Columbian civilizations like the Aztecs and Incas. Practically no culture or worldview spread throughout the Ancient world without the use of force.

Many parts of this video are extremely oversimplified and lacking in context. However, one part that is simply factually incorrect is your statement on the Portuguese discovering a root to India as a motivation for the voyage of Columbus. Columbus set sail in 1492, whilst the Portuguese didn't find a route to India until Vasco da Gama's voyage in 1498.

I love that he showed that great chef with the black pepper.

I’m 16 and ur my idol bro I love your personal take on historical journalism