Why were Europeans able to conquer and create large empires in the Americas but not in Asia or Africa? ?
Your question cannot be answered adequately because it is fundamentally wrong. Britain had a huge chunk of Africa and Asia. France had a substantial area of Africa as did Belgium. Portugal had Mozambique. Italy had Libya and Italian East Africa. The Dutch had large colonies in Asia. France also had Vietnam. In Africa, Britain held part of Somalia, Egypt, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Zanzibar, Tanganyika (taken from the Germans), Botswana, South Africa, Nigeria. In Asia, Britain had India (which included Pakistan), Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Burma, Malaya and Hong Kong. I have listed these places from memory so I have probably missed a few! I don't think there was a square inch of Africa that was not colonised by the Europeans at one time or another.
How were European powers able to amass such large empires around the world, while other powers in the world did not?
Western Europe, from where the empire builders came, is in a “goldilocks” zone, since Britain, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal sit largely in a temperate zone and have easy access to the Atlantic ocean. This means they could get to the west coast of Africa and the East of the Americas much more readily (although the Atlantic is a formidable barrier) and all the resources there were available to them. It’s also fortunate that the North African coast is easily reachable by the Mediterranean sea to the south, and trade routes to the Orient were accesible by land bridge. This is the route Alexander went.The being in a temperate region was important to be able to grow arable crops and husband pastoral farms. The weather systems made it much easier to do so than less fortunate parts. With food and shelter established, the inhabitants of the southern parts and those of North Africa could focus on more intellectual pursuits and this spread northwards; the same thing happened in Asia in the zones with similar patterns. Trading led to more riches, more technical advancement, more trading, more riches and the whole thing snowballs from this. The disadvantage for the oriental countries was in not having relatively easy access to the New World and its bounty; a relatively short but dangerous crossing of the Atlantic is a more feasible proposition than an odyssey across the vast expanse of the Pacific or a trek up the coast to reach the Americas by the cold latitudes of the Bering Strait.Thus the empires were built on the maritime strengths and advantages of the nations, and those such as Spain with long coastlines on the Atlantic benefitted. Those on the North Sea could benefit too, but those with little access to the Atlantic could not.
Why did the Romans create such a huge empire and last so many centuries when the Greeks were never able to...?
The Greeks were never really unified, which led to their downfall. They had the beginnings of what might have been an empire, but the Romans rose up first. The Greeks also never put in huge public works (roads, aqueducts etc.) as did the Romans--that is what allowed the Romans to rule an increasingly large territory.
How did the British control a large empire with so few soldiers?
Through a variety of methods.1) Some countries didn't see any need to rise up. An example is Singapore. Sure the country was exploited by the Brits and racism was rampant, but there was peace, prosperity and order. Food was plentiful, the government kept order(more or less) and life was passable. They certainly lived better than most other colonized countries. People instead felt worried on what would happen if they revolted, and staying under the protection of one of the world's strongest empires was pretty attractive. 2) Some were crushed by military might due to the high quality of their soldiers. An example is India. In most battles the Indians largely outnumbered the British, but due to their inferior tech and hardware they were often forced back. 3) In some places they used the feelings of tribes against others, forming alliances with locally established powers and exerting power through them. This way they cleverly pitted tribes that could have stood a chance united against each other.
Why was the British Empire so successful?
Following are the top most five important reasons for England being becoming one of the more powerful country in the past. Such as:From Mid 1600's until the war of independence in 1776, Britain had Dominated over several American Colonies. Until the 19th Century, Britain had dominion over Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Until the 20th Century Britain was in control of Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, India, Egypt , Sudan, Palestine, South Africa, Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong. The policies which the British government used in order to gain control over these states were strategic. Interestingly, many of the colonies were originally founded by private companies/personalities with Royal Charter (approval). It is well known India was established by the East India Company, searching for resources in the Far East. South Africa was arguably the product of aggressive expansion by Cecil Rhodes (incidentally founder of Old Rhodesia).Trade is another factor which founded the British Empire. Indeed, Hong Kong was given to the British by China, after their defeat in the Opium War in 1898. The Opium War was a war fought over trade. The British were fed up with China's unwillingness to house foreigners in their nation - restricting them to reside in Portugese Macau - and negotiated opening of port cities, such as Shanghai and Hong Kong. Unity, was another factor which held the British Empire together. Unity however, must not be mistaken for homogeneity - the Empire was incredibly racially and religiously diverse. However, throughout the New World Britain managed to introduce some very positive changes into the standard of living of millions of people. Britain introduced their Westminster style of government, their common law (arguably the greatest gift of all) and numerous other seemingly inconsequential things (like the sport cricket for example). These unifying traditions helped to bind the Empire together. The final reason behind the strength of the British Empire was pride. Pride in the Empire, pride in nation building, pride in the dissemination of Anglo-Saxon values. It is plain from the disintegration of the Empire, that British peoples loss of faith in Britain as an Empire was critical to its demise. After WW2, the ideology behind Empire building seemed flawed; having watched Europe almost become unbound by the plans of an evil dictator bent on controlling the Continent, Britain's own imperialist forays were challenged.
How did the British Empire ever get so big?
The short answer is trade. Yes, the Royal Navy became the most powerful force in the world but it also had the biggest trading fleets (in the face of stiff competition from Spain, France, Portugal and the Netherlands) By offering local rulers of distant nations wealth in return for preferred trading status, Britain acquired client states which eventually became British administered, these footholds were increased either by diplomacy or by military force. A state might use British troops and equipment to invade a neighbour, the British would support the state’s ruler until he died then take over the state as part of the agreement. This was often done at arm’s length by companies – the East India Company is probably one of the best-known. By the 19th century Britain had emerged as the most successful (other nations had been using the same methods) spreading over the four points of the compass. By this time it also had something very advanced to offer – the fruits of the Industrial Revolution, by exporting goods and technologies it gained more influence and ground. For the exports Britain gained imports of raw goods, influence and territory. The Overseas Territories are a small number of flyspecks on the globe (apart from the Antarctic Territories). Other countries tried to wipe Britain off the map – they stumbled at crossing the water.
How were the British able to take control of so many areas during the empire era?
They had a huge navy that (the odd naval battle with powers like France or the Netherlands, notwithstanding) controlled all the sea-ways between Britain and its Imperial colonies. However, it delegated a lot of the actual convoy and patrol work to a commercial body that was - for much of its early existence - largely independent of the British government’s control, called the East India Company, that also shipped most of the goods back to Britain, which was the key thing to the profitability.However, most of all, the British Empire relied upon the cooperation of local officials, soldiers and administrators - who actively cooperated with the British (in much the same way their predecessors had cooperated with their Mughal rulers that had governed India before the British arrived, for example). To many of these local people, it was the same old show: “distant, rulers (who happen to be of a different ethnicity, religion and culture to us) promise to leave you be, as long as we administer things properly, keep the peace, and collect taxes for them. In return, they will make us reasonably rich!” There was an Indian, Kenyan, Caribbean Island - and yes, even a Chinese - version of this narrative, throughout the Empire (after all none of the Chinese that were helping to administer any of what was happening in the mainland were opium addicts, themselves - they probably blamed the victims!)This, in no way, absolves the holier-than-thou Victorians of the atrocious behaviour they orchestrated, or the grotesque profits they made on the back of all this suffering, during this period, but it must still be acknowledged that a lot of what was actually done, on the ground, during the British colonial era, was done with, and by, local help.