answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

There is an important difference between the colonial activities in the Americas in that period of time and the European settlements elsewhere in the world. It was only Spain and Portugal that set up colonies in the Americas then, and their motivation was mostly 'gold'. In order to get to the gold, they had to effectively control those lands, because the local population would not of course willingly start up mines and do backbreaking work there just to help the Spaniards get rich.

In the East it was different: growing and trading spices was a long-established tradition there, and the Europeans just set up trading posts and made deals with local rulers with the aim to corner those local markets.

Colonization in the sense of taking control of countries in Asia and Africa was a thing of a much later age. That 'colonial period' in those cases almost never lasted longer than the period between 1880 and 1960.

User Avatar

Wiki User

8y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Until the age of exploration Europeans played a nominal roll and trade why was colonization so important to them?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about History of Western Civilization

Whose action reduced the importance of the city of Rome with the Roman Empire?

Diocletian's actions reduced the importance of the city of Rome when he designated other capitals which were closer to the frontiers which were under repeated attacks. Milan became the imperial capital in the west and Nicomedia (in northwestern Turkey) became the imperial capital in the east. Rome was no longer the seat of an imperial court and became only a nominal capital of the whole empire. Later Constantine I moved the capital in the east to Constantinople.


In the later middle ages did women work in the kitchen?

Common homes in the middle ages did not have seperate kitchens. Fuel was a significant expense, and ovens were impractical for most individual homes. It was also impractical to maintain a seperate fire for cooking apart from the one used for heating and lighting a home. Cooking was most often done in the main hall or room, over the hearth, or at the fireplace if there was one. Home cooking was boiled, stewed, spit roasted, or cooked on a grill over the fire. Bread was purchased from a baker in towns, and in villages made in a common ovens owned by the lord for a nominal fee. Towns had cookshops that provided pies and filled pastries, both savory and sweet. Ale, a universal food in the middle ages, would have been purchased from an aleseller by townsfolk and brewed in small batches by villagers (both for sale and personal consumption.) Medieval ovens were primitive by modern standards. They were a stone or masonry chamber, usually with a domed top. A fire was built directly on the oven floor to heat it, and once hot the embers would be raked out, the floor cleaned with a cloth, items to be cooked were placed inside, and the front was closed up. The cost, both to build the oven, and also for the extra fuel required, made ovens most practical in situations where large amounts of cooking would be done, such as bakeries, food shops, or in places like castles or monestaries where large numbers of people needed to be fed. Private ovens were a sign of considerable wealth.


What did Charlemagne contribute to the Holy Roman Empire?

AnswerAlmost nothing, or perhaps just the idea. His (Frankish) Empire fell apart soon after his death but maintained some kind of shadowy existence. The zest for dating the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire from 800AD is Anglo-American fantasy or nostalgia. German and Italian historians date the foundation from the coronation of Otto I in 962. The term 'Holy Empire' dates from 1030 at the earliest, and the first reference to 'Holy Roman Empire' dates from 1254! (The basic structures had been in place since 1050, though).The HRE is surrounded by much mythology.Morefrom a different point of view i think Charlemagne was a great leader. he led his armies and conquered big parts of italy, germany, and centural europe. MoreCharlemagne inherited the Kingdom of the Franks, and he conquered a number of different groups of people, including the Saxons, Lombards, Swiss, Bavarians, Frisians, and other Germanic kingdoms, and added their territory to his kingdom, thereby creating the country of which he was crowned emperor, the Carolingian Empire. According to the will of Louis the Pious, the Carolingian Empire was broken into three kingdoms with one of the kings being a nominal emperor. The emperor was king of the middle kingdom, which fell to the other two, and the title of emperor fell out of use for a few decades.The kingdom of the West Franks, which contained most of Charlemagne's original kingdom, became France.The Kingdom of the East Franks contained almost all of the eastern territories Charlemagne had added to his original kingdom, and this became the Holy Roman Empire when its king, Otto I, was crowned emperor, ostensibly resurrecting the title.The connection Charlemagne had to all this was that he united the territories of the Kingdom of the East Franks with each other, and this kingdom became the Holy Roman Empire. Neither the fact that they were mostly territories not in his original kingdom, nor the fact that they were later separated from that kingdom, should be allowed to cloud the fact that he united them with each other.The names we call the empires by is a bit problematical. Please see the related question below for more on this.


How did the Roman Empire develop after the Fall of Rome in 476?

At the time of the "fall of Rome," the empire was divided into the East Roman Empire and the West Roman Empire. The event called the fall was actually the abdication of the last emperor of the West Roman Empire in favor of the emperor in Constantinople. In theory, this reunified the empire, but the areas of the West actually under imperial command consisted mostly of an area in the north of modern France, a part of what is now Morocco and Algeria, most of Italy, and a bit of Croatia. In practice, however, it only meant that the East Roman Empire had lost control of Italy to a man who recognized the emperor, but did not pay attention to him otherwise. Under indirect control, however, was most of the old empire, not including north Africa and Britain, because the Germanic kings accepted the nominal leadership of the empire, though they did not give the empire any real support. This continued for quite a while. Justinian I sent armies to get the old empire back. This succeeded in regaining most of Italy, a bit of southeastern Spain, and North Africa. But the advance was stemmed again and was never renewed after Justinian died in 565. Later, the loss of Egypt and the Holy Land to the Arabs made the East Roman Empire, which in this later period we now call the Byzantine Empire, merely as shadow of its former self. Separately, Charlemagne built the Kingdom of the Franks into an extensive empire of his own, and on Christmas Day, 800, Pope Leo III crowned him Emperor of the West. This title was clearly intended to bring about the resurrection of the old West Roman Empire, and was very much resented by the Byzantines, who believed Empress Irene should have agreed to such a thing before any such action was taken. Charlemagne's Empire, which we call the Carolingian, was divided after his death, and was ancestral to the Kingdom of France and the Holy Roman Empire. The reason the Holy Roman Empire was called Roman, was not because it was centered in Rome, or even because Rome was in it (which it usually was not), but because the rulers of it were claiming to be the rightful heirs to the Empire of the West, and, through it, to the West Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire barely survived the ravages of the Crusaders, and remained an ever decreasing state until it finally fell in 1453. The Byzantines called themselves the Empire of the Roman people to the last. The Holy Roman Empire, also claiming to be heirs to the Roman Empire, but with somewhat more uncertain legality, survived until it was destroyed by Napoleon.


Which Roman emperor moved the capital of the Empire to Byzantium?

The emperor Constantine I (or the Great) did not move the imperial capital of the roman Empire from Rome to Byzantium. He moved the imperial capital of the eastern part of the Roman Empire from Nicomedia (in north-western Turkey) to the nearby Byzantium, which he redeveloped and renamed after himself -- Constantinople (City of Constantine). Milan remained the imperial capital of the western part of the empire.Nicomedia and Milan had been designated as the imperial capitals of the east and west respectively by the emperor Diocletian. Rome had already ceased to be the imperial capital before Constantine.

Related questions

Why do most western Europeans have a limited understanding of the Christian rituals?

AnswerMost western Europeans are either not Christians or only nominal Christians. For them, an understanding of Christian rituals is unimportant.


Does the law of supply and demand affects currency exchange rates?

Yes. Nominal exchange rates depend on the flow of the currency itself and its availability between countries. As currency is harder to get and in demand, its nominal asking rate increases and vice-versa. This was more important in the past (i.e.) 16-17th century Europeans looking for gold in the mercantilist system) than it is now.


3 important activities in accounting process?

real accounting, nominal accounting,personal accounting


Is politics nominal or ordinal?

Nominal.


is sex ordinal or nominal?

nominal


Difference between real executive and Nominal executive?

nominal executive a person who heads the executive branch but does not have the power to execute major and important decisions. normally a king. real executive a leader who holds real power. make a important decisions for the country. Prime Minister.


Is BMI a nominal or ratio data?

nominal


Is favourite sport ordinal or nominal?

Nominal


Is work settings nominal or ordinal?

They are nominal.


A sentence with the word Nominal?

i had to pay Nominal fees. Nominal charges might apply on your purchase.


Advantages and disadvantages of nominal scale?

The advantage of using a nominal scale is that it can help with classification. The disadvantage of using a nominal scale is that it is the most primitive system.


Liabilities is real accounts or nominal accounts?

nominal account.