Thread 17901393

Why did Europeans *NEED* have empires?
>they needed the resources to sustain themselves
Why did Europeans *NEED* to build their societies around `such an unsustainable model?

>>17901393 (OP)
They did it for God, as part of their Christian duty to spread their dominion to every corner of the earth, to rule it all in the name of the Son.

They brought the light of of God to the godless savages and lifted them above being mere animals into the brotherhood of mankind.

You dogs owe them everything.

>>17901393 (OP)
They didn't need them, much like Alexander didn't need to go east. He still did.

>>17901393 (OP)
You posted the only one that fell ass backwards into one because of mercantile interests. That’s also why it fell apart so easily without a fight. Every time you read about British expansion in the 1700s and 1800s, it’s always done either to 1) protect trade interests from a real or perceived threat or 2) some guys on the ground push the expansion for their own interests and then the government is forced to accept the accomplished fact.

>>17901393 (OP)
Trade + competition with other nations (not only European, but Ottomans too.).

>>17901393 (OP)
once you escape pure survival mode you stop operating entirely on what you need and begin thinking about you CAN accomplish. this behavior can be observed in every single decision made purely out of curiosity by countless people every day in all of human history.

I know 4chan is full of autists who struggle with understanding human behavior but this shit is pretty fucking basic and universal. good luck out there, the world is genuinely cruel to retards.

>>17901393 (OP)
Land is a finite resource and taking it from the New World or Asia or Africa was easier than taking it from other European nations. Land means resources and resources mean you and your friends are less likely to get conquered by your neighbors when they get a wild hair up their ass and decide they want some of your shit. But why the need to take someone else's shit? Human nature I suppose. You instinctively want what you don't have. Or at least, those who wind up in power tend to feel that way. I don't covet a lot of things my own neighbors have, but then again I am an autist with my own hobbies and my immediate needs are taken care of. Greed is such an exhausting motivation I'll never really comprehend.

>>17901393 (OP)
>Spain
To crusade against Muslims, do inquisition and evangelize

>Britain
For the profits and to do to Natives what Anglosaxons did to Briton abbos

>French
To mistreat blacks oor cuck themselves for blacks

>Dutch
Same as british but gayer

>Portuguese
Same as French but less gayer

>>17901393 (OP)
Jews

>>17901414
>you owe me for forcing Jews and niggers onto your societies
White "people" are vermin

>>17901393 (OP)
European socities werent built around empires, they were built around their domestic economy and industry. Empires were just a fun side project

>>17901393 (OP)
>Portugal and Spain built their Empires due to religious and mercantile reasons
>they quickly get rich
>Brits, Frogs and dutchs see this and think: "Hey, I want some of that"
>Britain wins every major war and now they have the biggest empire in the world
>Frogs, krauts, americans and russians (later soviets) see this and think "Hey, I want some of that"
>Americans win every major war, including the Cold War, and now they have the biggest empire in the world
>Chinese, Indians and Russians see this and think "Hey, I want some of that"

>>17901488
>and to do to Natives what Anglosaxons did to Briton abbos
Genetic studies have proven that the Anglo-Saxons and Britons mixed and intermarried on a large scale. Spain’s colonies were more similar to what the Anglo-Saxons did: subjugate the natives, make them learn your language, and have lots of sex.

>>17901529
>ungrateful brownoid seethe

>>17901618
Once again to te remind you: The Spanish, who allowed the Inquosition to publicalmy execute people for religious offenses, don't get to claim moral superiority for ending human sacrifices, when what they themselves did was only a difference of a degree.

>>17901618
/pol/tranny cope

Too many young men being born in their countries is dangerous for them, so they had to ship them abroad.

>>17901458
Yeah, the merchants of East India Company would seethe whenever a garrison commander would present them with new conquered territory (already a fait accompli)

>>17901393 (OP)

Becaus of need to glorify Jesus Christ.

>>17901618
that image is so unbelievably delusional

utterly jewish

>>17902198

Only about 1,000 people were killed during the Spanish colonization of Mexico. Genocide my ass.

>>17901590
>Genetic studies have proven that the Anglo-Saxons and Britons mixed
Yes, Anon, they raped britons

Monarchs needed a way to prevent plebians from revolting against them
They did this with Bread and Circuses and Opera publica
These things cost resources
To bring in resources, they promoted expeditionary military campaigns
These military campaigns cost money
Which they got through further military campaigns
Suddenly the threat to your standard of living is no longer what resources you could bring in, but potential enemy forces hoping to extract resources from you
Which lead to heavy investments into defense and expansionism as a bulwark against enemy invasion
Suddenly it was no longer about resources, or defense, but about influence and prestige as a way to maintain stability in your empire
This is further justified under the idea of raising the standard of living for conquered peoples

And the rest is history
The problem with a lot of the answers ITT is they assume it was one single underlying cause and not multiple compounding causes under a gradual snowball effect

>>17901488
>>17901551
These.

>>17902200
There were people of completely native Briton ancestry found buried in the manner of high status Anglo-Saxons. Your rape fantasies weren’t reality.

>>17901488
This

>>17902200
There are contemporary chronicles implying that Briton women preferred Anglo-Saxon men out of their own free will because they had more resources and women in Anglo-Saxon households were generally better off.
Women do not need to be forced to join and procreate with the winners, women generally have no loyalty to their "kin" like that.

>>17901393 (OP)
>Why did Europeans *NEED* have empires?
saaaaar

>>17901393 (OP)
>they needed the resources to sustain themselves
Majority of British cotton during the most important part of the industrial revolution was just bought from the US, then already independent. They didn't need to conquer because muh resources in the world where trade exists.

cuz it's cool.