Who were the best conquerors, Anglos or Iberians?

[gixajo]

Que dijiste es cuasi verdad. En las dias tempranos de Jamestown, no eran muchas mujeres. Pero vinieron, lentamente. Eran abastante para hacer chicos blancos para reejemplar la poblacion indigena.

La diferencia en el tipo de colonización no viene por diferencias de mentalidad de unos u otros, si no por las épocas en las que se llevaron a cabo las colonizaciones.

The difference in the type of colonization is not due to differences in the mentality of one or the other, but to the times in which the colonizations were carried out.

The colonization of the USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand is later than that of most of Latin America. However, Argentina or Uruguay, which received the contributions of European immigration in times more similar to those of these other "Anglo" countries, are more similar to them, as far as the contribution of European citizens is concerned.

Let's not forget that in America, the Anglos were discreetly sitting quietly in a remote corner of the northeast until the Spanish empire was in clear decline, colonization did not begin until long after all the Ibero-American countries became independent.

The effort of moving 1000 people across the Atlantic in 1520 would be equivalent to moving 10,000 in 1770, and maybe 100,000 in 1870. Not to mention that in 1520 the Spaniards were not in Mexico or Peru with scattered tribes of Indians, but with civilizations already formed, and before thinking of settling or bringing civilians, it was necessary to fight and bring soldiers.

Anyway, good job Anglos, you do it quite well, but not in the most in 4 countries, but unfortunately you did poorly in most of your former colonies. In fact, on average, you did much worse than we did.

But the question was about conquerors...wasn´t it?

[Italicus]

La diferencia en el tipo de colonización no viene por diferencias de mentalidad de unos u otros, si no por las épocas en las que se llevaron a cabo las colonizaciones.

The difference in the type of colonization is not due to differences in the mentality of one or the other, but to the times in which the colonizations were carried out.

The colonization of the USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand is later than that of most of Latin America. However, Argentina or Uruguay, which received the contributions of European immigration in times more similar to those of these other "Anglo" countries, are more similar to them, as far as the contribution of European citizens is concerned.

Let's not forget that in America, the Anglos were discreetly sitting quietly in a remote corner of the northeast until the Spanish empire was in clear decline, colonization did not begin until long after all the Ibero-American countries became independent.

The effort of moving 1000 people across the Atlantic in 1520 would be equivalent to moving 10,000 in 1770, and maybe 100,000 in 1870. Not to mention that in 1520 the Spaniards were not in Mexico or Peru with scattered tribes of Indians, but with civilizations already formed, and before thinking of settling or bringing civilians, it was necessary to fight and bring soldiers.

Anyway, good job Anglos, you do it quite well, but not in the most in 4 countries, but unfortunately you did poorly in most of your former colonies. In fact, on average, you did much worse than we did.

But the question was about conquerors...wasn´t it?

Si, pero puedes conquistar en varias formas, con la espada y la mezclanza con los indigenos como hicieron los Iberianos, y la otra forma es para venir con la espada y las parejas blancas. En el fin, los Anglos hicieron Inglaterras a traves de la mar. Los Espanoles y Portugueses tenian imperos gloriosos, pero al fin no estan haciendo bien, con los excepciones que te dije.

[gixajo]

Si, lo se es un poco racista. Pero el producto final es buenissimo. Solo Argentina, Uruguay, el Sur y Suroriente de Brasil y Cuba (en el pasado) son iguales a las colonias Anglos.

El producto final ahora, y con los condicionantes y los efectos que el dominio anglosajón ha producido en esos países (y en el mundo), el resultado actual sería otro si no hubieran tenido ellos la hegemonía a partir de finales del XVIII.

También podría haber sido peor, por supuesto.

En el futuro, ya veremos lo que pasa.

[Italicus]

El producto final ahora, y con los condicionantes y los efectos que el dominio anglosajón ha producido en esos países (y en el mundo), el resultado actual sería otro si no hubieran tenido ellos la hegemonía a partir de finales del XVIII.

También podría haber sido peor, por supuesto.

En el futuro, ya veremos lo que pasa.

El producto final es porque las colonias Ingleses eran blancos, y las colonias Iberianas eran mezclados. Es como es.

[gixajo]

Si, pero puedes conquistar en varias formas, con la espada y la mezclanza con los indigenos como hicieron los Iberianos, y la otra forma es para venir con la espada y las parejas blancas. En el fin, los Anglos hicieron Inglaterras a traves de la mar. Los Espanoles y Portugueses tenian imperos gloriosos, pero al fin no estan haciendo bien, con los excepciones que te dije.

Sigo sin entender porque solo valoras el imperio británico por esos países solamente, te olvidas que la inmensa mayoría de los habitantes de ex-colonias y territorios británicos, no viven en esos países. Tenlos en cuenta también en la ecuación, y el panorama no parece tan positivo.*

*I still don't understand why you only value the British empire for those countries alone, you forget that the vast majority of the inhabitants of former British colonies and territories, do not live in those countries. Take them into the equation as well, and the picture doesn't look so positive.

Anyway, they came after us in time, so they would have taken our experience into account. You're welcome Anglos, you owe us one (and Portugueses too, they don´t conquer a lot, but they explore the first).

[gixajo]

Repetido

[Italicus]

Sigo sin entender porque solo valoras el imperio británico por esos países solamente, te olvidas que la inmensa mayoría de los habitantes de ex-colonias y territorios británicos, no viven en esos países. Tenlos en cuenta también en la ecuación, y el panorama no parece tan positivo.*

*I still don't understand why you only value the British empire for those countries alone, you forget that the vast majority of the inhabitants of former British colonies and territories, do not live in those countries. Take them into the equation as well, and the picture doesn't look so positive.

Anyway, they came after us in time, so they would have taken our experience into account. You're welcome Anglos, you owe us one (and Portugueses too, they don´t conquer a lot, but they explore the first).

Tengo que dijerte que no creo que las colonia Ibericas eran malas. Pienso que hicisteis bien con las colonias, era glorioso. Pero el unico error es que no tomisteis mujeres.

[Arūnas]

Slavs.

= I2a1, the R1a = Komi Permyaks and Balts, but yeah, I2a1 was able to Slavicise those languages, sames as in Rhodesia they speak English

[gixajo]

Tengo que dijerte que no creo que las colonia Ibericas eran malas. Pienso que hicisteis bien con las colonias, era glorioso. Pero el unico error es que no tomisteis mujeres.

In any case, most of the responsibility for what is today America, from Alaska to Patagonia, is their own, the inheritance of its ancient European metropolises, whatever it may be, was received centuries ago,what happened later they did as independent countries..

That is to say, the "still photo" on which we should comment to talk about the result of colonization should be that of the end of the XVIII or early nineteenth century.

[HoboJim]

Belgians. In the Congo.