why were the french and english so slow to start colonization in america?
north american girls werent as sexy sex sex so there wasn't as much incentive
Spain took most of the easily profitable colonies.
>>10512706Well France was Catholic and the Pope said the Americas were for Spain and Portugal to take, right? England and Sweden and the Netherlands were Protestant so they never gave a shit and just made their colonies anyway, same with Orthodox Russia. But maybe France didn't do it right away because of the pope.
>>10514598France conquered Africa and now it's biting them in the ass LMAO
>>10512706Spain was a centralized monarchy at a time when the English royals and nobles were fighting civil wars, and the French kings were still trying to get their nobles under control. So Spain was in a better position to pay attention to giving official support to overseas exploration/colonization initiatives. Same for Portugal.
Firstly Iberians pioneered the naval, cartographic, and navigational technology that was needed for transoceanic voyages, so the other countries had to catch up which took at least a few decades, secondly there wasn't as obvious of a profit motive in North America when most explorers realized there weren't large hoards of gold or silver anywhere they were going to have to settle the area the hard way and for more mundane reasons. >>10514598France didn't respect the provisions of the treaty, and in practice only Spain and Portugal abided by it.
A lot of the shit in that image wasn't actually conquered by spain in 1648. There were still a few indepedent unconquered Maya city-states., for example, and Spain had already given up trying to conquer the Chichimeca in northwestern mexico
>>10512706because there were no incentive action at the beggining to promote colonisation.First settlers from anglo were outcast at first.
>>10512706Spain got all the good shit first, even still for much of the age of exploration the bigger draw was actually the spice markets of India/Indonesia, later trade with China too. For example it wasn't until the Portuguese lost the East Indies to the Dutch that they started to focus on and profit from Brazil. Even the Spanish just treated the Caribbeans as a resupply depot until they really started importing African slaves to work on the plantations, which is what really flipped the balance. Anyways England did try to nab some Caribbean islands from Spain in the 17th century, but they were mostly focused on internal affairs, and they had yet to become the preeminent navel power of the world. France meanwhile was distracted by Huguenots, the Italian wars, the 30yrs war, and other continental affairs.
It wasnt colonization dipshit, it was genocide and invasion, land was already populated. get it right
>>10512706France didn't care much for colonization in the modern use of the word. Up until 1664, New France was seen as a mercantile outpost to enrich France not as a colony. It's only with the new king when he appointed a new intendent that New France began to be settled and became a colony in that sense.
>>10514222North America didn't have many natives in the first place.
>>10514414>when Spain arrived they encountered trade nodes named “New Spain +1000 wealth from gold and cocoa stores”The Spanish had to first of all fix the retardation of the spAztecs and establish a foothold among a hostile land.Secondly had to build, defend, and broker trade and commercial routes both on land and sea and store everything.These are things the Aztecs were not capable of doing beyond a hundred miles. The Spanish did it over thousands.
>>10512706Settler colonialism is far harder than conquering an empire. Raiding Spanish possessions was also more profitable than setting up colonies and paying for their defence initially >>10514598France was in civil war over religion, many huegonauts go to the new world to raid Spanish shipping, as well as French catholics, France would also take islands to make their own carribean colonies, and even had French Guyana later Dutch had small colonies that were more trade outposts than anything >>10515430Proofs on these independent maya >>10515530Also this, once Spain conquered the mesoamerican empires, and barred European traders, seeking trade in India was far more profitable >>10515686Stop name fagging you dumb larper
>>10512706>why were the french and english so slow to start colonization in america?The Spanish has a huge head-start and stumbled onto the only part of the Americas that was civilized and had known sources of gold and silver.North America on the other hand, was a howling wilderness full of nothing except a handful of cave men.
>>10512706Because Spanish were exporting gold that they took from old mesoamerican treasuries, the English were growing tobacco and the french were just killing beavers. That lack of initial return investment, alongside the failure of the first english colony, made them expand slowly. Plus, it was more crowded as the Dutch were there too.
>>10512706the jesuits + papacy hyper coomer sex slavers were vastly more interested in eradicating nonjewish culture and making fetish slaves out of indigenous peoples
>>10518246https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nojpet%C3%A9n>Nojpetén fell to a Spanish assault in 1697; it was the capital of the last Maya kingdom to fall to the conquerors. Martín de Ursúa y Arismendi arrived at the western shore of Lake Petén Itzá in February 1697 with 235 Spanish soldiers and 120 native labourers. He launched an all-out assault using a large oar-powered attack boat on 10 March; the Spanish bombardment of the island caused heavy loss of life among the Itza defenders, who were forced to abandon the city.