Why Did Europe Conquer the World?

1. Europe's Unforeseen Ascent to Global Power

Now let your time machine whisk you forward to 1914. How startled you would be to discover that the once pitiful Europeans had taken over the world.

A historical paradox. Imagine traveling back to 900 AD; Western Europe would appear as a poor, violent, and technologically backward region, a stark contrast to the flourishing Muslim Middle East or advanced China. Yet, by 1914, Europeans had gained control of an astonishing 84% of the globe, spreading their languages, ideas, and military power across every inhabited continent. This dramatic reversal of fortunes, from a peripheral backwater to a global hegemon, presents a profound historical riddle.

Debunking common myths. The conventional explanations for Europe's conquest often point to factors like disease or superior gunpowder technology. However, these explanations fall short. Disease, while devastating to Native Americans, was not a unique European advantage; major Middle Eastern and Asian civilizations also possessed immunity. Similarly, gunpowder originated in China, and other Eurasian powers were initially proficient in its use. The true answer lies deeper than these superficial factors.

The unanswered riddle. The core question remains: why were Europeans, and not the Chinese, Japanese, Ottomans, or South Asians, the ones who ended up subjugating the world? These other civilizations, at various points, boasted powerful states and access to similar foundational technologies. The Industrial Revolution, often cited as the cause, began too late to explain Europe's control of 35% of the globe by 1800. The answer must lie in a unique set of conditions that fostered relentless military innovation in Europe, long before industrialization.

2. The European "Tournament" as a Military Innovation Engine

Between the late Middle Ages (1300–1500) and the nineteenth century, Europe witnessed a tournament with just as much intensity and commitment.

A unique form of competition. Europe's relentless military innovation stemmed from a peculiar form of competition among its states, which the author likens to an economic "tournament." This wasn't just incessant warfare, but a specific kind of contest where rulers exerted enormous effort, lavishing vast resources on armies and navies, driven by the hope of winning significant prizes. These prizes included financial gain, territorial expansion, defense of faith, or the glory of victory.

Rulers' biased incentives. Early modern European monarchs, unlike their counterparts in other parts of Eurasia, were raised to fight and viewed war as their primary purpose. They stood to gain a disproportionate share of the spoils—glory, reputation, and expanded domains—while the costs (taxes, conscription) fell largely on their subjects. This biased incentive structure made peaceful settlements difficult and fueled continuous conflict. Furthermore, the "prizes" of war, such as glory or reputation, were often indivisible, making negotiation impossible.

Massive resource allocation. The commitment to this tournament was staggering. Early modern states in Western Europe devoted immense portions of their GDP to warfare—over 7% in France and 12% in Britain by the 1780s, significantly more than China's military spending. This massive allocation of resources, sustained over centuries, created an environment ripe for "learning by doing" in military technology, constantly pushing the boundaries of gunpowder weapons.

3. Four Pillars of Europe's Gunpowder Supremacy

When they all hold, learning by doing will in fact improve the gunpowder technology.

The model's essential conditions. The author's tournament model identifies four crucial conditions that, when met, drive continuous advancement in gunpowder technology through "learning by doing." These conditions explain why Europe's military sector experienced sustained productivity growth from the late Middle Ages onward.

• Frequent War: Rulers must constantly engage in conflict, driven by valuable prizes and facing similar, low political costs for mobilizing resources.
• Massive Military Spending: Beyond just frequent war, rulers must lavish huge sums on their militaries, requiring valuable prizes and very low political costs for resource mobilization.
• Heavy Use of Gunpowder Technology: Rulers must primarily rely on gunpowder weapons, rather than older, less adaptable military technologies.
• Few Obstacles to Innovation Adoption: There must be minimal barriers to adopting military innovations, even from opponents, facilitating rapid diffusion and improvement.

Europe met all conditions. Western Europe uniquely satisfied all four conditions throughout the early modern period. Its fragmented political landscape fostered incessant warfare among states of comparable size, where rulers pursued glory and territory. Fixed costs for military action were low due to inherited systems and small distances. Political costs for mobilizing resources were also low, evidenced by high per capita taxation compared to other Eurasian powers.

Focus on gunpowder. Unlike China, Russia, or the Ottoman Empire, Western European powers faced no significant threat from nomadic cavalry, allowing them to specialize almost entirely in gunpowder technology. Innovations spread rapidly through espionage, imitation, and a robust market for military goods and expertise, ensuring that advancements were widely adopted and continuously refined. This unique confluence of factors created an unparalleled environment for military technological progress.

4. A Century of Unprecedented Military Productivity Growth

The implied rate of labor productivity growth over the 150 year period from 1600 to 1750 is 1.5 percent per year.

Quantitative evidence of progress. The historical record strongly supports the model's prediction of sustained productivity growth in Western Europe's military sector. This growth was not merely anecdotal but quantifiable, demonstrating rates unparalleled in other preindustrial economies. For instance, infantry firepower, measured by the rate of successful fire per infantryman, jumped tenfold between 1600 and 1750, translating to an annual labor productivity growth of 1.5%.

Naval and manufacturing advancements. Similar gains were seen in naval power, where total factor productivity in the English navy rose at 0.4% per year between 1588 and 1680, a remarkable figure for the era. The cost of weapons also plummeted, with the relative price of pistols falling by a factor of six in England between the mid-16th and early 18th centuries. This price decline signals significant productivity growth in weapons manufacturing, estimated at a median of 0.6% to 1.1% per year.

Beyond weapons. The innovation extended beyond mere hardware to tactics, organization, and logistics.

• Copper hull sheathing: Increased ship speed by 20% and fleet effective size by a third.
• Improved sanitation: Reduced illness and death rates among British naval crews, keeping experienced sailors at sea.
• Captain learning: British naval captains' fatality rates dropped precipitously (from 16% to 0.1% by 1810) due to learning from past mistakes and adapting strategies.
• Spanish infantry discipline: Praised and imitated for its training, discipline, and small-group cohesion.
  These multifaceted improvements underscore a continuous and rapid evolution of the gunpowder technology in Europe.

5. Eurasia's Faltering Pace: Why Others Fell Behind

But they could not keep up with the relentless pace of military innovation set by the Europeans.

Inconsistent conditions elsewhere. While other Eurasian powers possessed gunpowder technology and engaged in warfare, they failed to sustain the relentless pace of innovation seen in Western Europe. The tournament model reveals why: they rarely met all four conditions for continuous advancement simultaneously and consistently. Their progress was fitful, accelerating during periods when conditions aligned, only to slow or stop when they did not.

China's unique challenges. China, despite frequent warfare, primarily battled nomadic threats against which gunpowder weapons were often ineffective, diverting resources from its development. Its immense size, while making it a hegemon, also discouraged challengers, reducing the overall intensity of gunpowder warfare. Furthermore, lower per capita tax rates limited military spending, and obstacles like distance and political rivalries hindered the adoption of European innovations, leading to a lag in areas like siege and naval warfare.

Japan, India, and the Ottoman Empire. Japan's 16th-century civil wars fostered innovation, but the Tokugawa unification brought peace, halting military progress. 18th-century India, despite incessant warfare, suffered from high political costs of resource mobilization and internal succession disputes, leading to low military spending and reliance on imported European technology. The Ottoman Empire and Russia, while frequently at war, had to divide resources between gunpowder and older technologies (cavalry, galleys), and faced internal constraints like low tax revenues (Ottomans) or the need to import expertise (Russia), preventing them from leading in innovation.

6. Political History: The Deep Root of Europe's Divergence

Political history is then the ultimate cause here, but that means that the outcome was not at all preordained.

Beyond geography and kinship. The ultimate cause of Europe's unique military trajectory and political fragmentation lies not in physical geography or kinship ties among rulers, but in its distinctive political history. Arguments based on Europe being more mountainous or having a more irregular coastline are disproven by evidence showing China was more mountainous and amphibious invasions were common. Similarly, data shows no significant difference in the survival rates of defeated rulers in Europe versus other Eurasian powers, undermining the kinship argument.

Cultural evolution in a stateless era. After the collapse of the Roman Empire, Western Europe entered centuries without strong, centralized states. This prolonged period of warfare among small, stateless societies triggered a process of cultural evolution. Warrior bands, driven by "parochial altruism" (bravery for one's group, hostility to others), developed strong martial values, a high regard for victory, and a willingness to punish shirkers. This cultural legacy fostered enduring enmities and a fragmented political landscape, preventing the emergence of a lasting hegemon.

Political learning and state building. Over time, European rulers engaged in "political learning," figuring out how to mobilize resources at low political cost. This involved striking bargains with elites to gain rights to permanent taxation and developing financial innovations to ease borrowing. Examples include France's Charles V securing peacetime taxes during the Hundred Years War and Brandenburg Prussia's Frederick William offering concessions to nobility for military funding. This political history, marked by both cultural evolution and political learning, created the conditions for Europe's unique military tournament.

7. Western Christianity: An Unlikely Force for Fragmentation

The papacy strove to keep the Holy Roman emperor—or any other ruler—from permanently reassembling Charlemagne’s empire in western Europe.

A unique centrifugal force. Alongside cultural evolution, Western Christianity played a critical, albeit counterintuitive, role in preventing the political unification of Europe. Unlike other major religions in Eurasia, the Western Church possessed an organized, politically autonomous clergy that actively resisted attempts by secular rulers to consolidate power. The papacy, particularly after the Investiture Controversy of the 11th and 12th centuries, consistently worked to prevent any single ruler, such as the Holy Roman Emperor, from establishing a lasting hegemonic empire across Western Europe.

Papal power and political division. Popes wielded formidable spiritual weapons like excommunication and interdict, using them to rally support from Italian cities, German aristocracies, and even Norman allies against powerful emperors. By exploiting and accentuating Europe's existing political fragmentation, the Church ensured that no single secular authority could dominate the continent. This constant check on imperial ambitions meant that Western Europe remained a patchwork of competing states, rather than coalescing into a unified empire like China.

Absence of an equivalent elsewhere. No other major Eurasian civilization possessed a comparable autonomous religious institution. In Japan, fighting monks were eventually brought under state control. In China, religion was not separate from the state. Indian Brahmins were not organized in a way that could challenge political authority, and the Orthodox Christian clergy in Russia and Byzantium were subservient to secular rulers. The Islamic world's religious authorities were often divided. This unique European dynamic, where an independent Church actively fostered political division, was a key factor in maintaining the fragmented state system essential for the military tournament.

8. Political Learning: Forging Europe's Fiscal-Military States

The kings of France, for example, gained the right to impose permanent taxes during the Hundred Years War (1337–1453), which pitted them against the kings of England in an interminable battle to see who would rule France.

Learning to mobilize resources. European monarchs, through a process of "political learning," gradually discovered how to reduce the political cost of mobilizing resources for war. This involved securing rights to permanent taxation and developing sophisticated financial systems. These advancements were often forged in the crucible of war, as rulers negotiated with elites to fund their military campaigns.

Key examples of fiscal innovation:

• France: King Charles V, after a disastrous defeat, secured permanent taxes by demonstrating effective protection against brigandage, making subjects willing to pay.
• Brandenburg Prussia: Frederick William offered concessions to the nobility (e.g., greater power over serfs) in exchange for temporary, then permanent, tax increases to build a standing army.
• England: The Glorious Revolution (1688-1689) gave Parliament control of the purse, leading to uniform taxation and a dramatic expansion of long-term borrowing, which significantly lowered the cost of war finance.

The emergence of great powers. This political learning created a widening gap between rulers who could mobilize vast resources at low political cost and those who could not. The "great powers" of Europe emerged from this process, capable of funding massive armies and navies. Their ability to tax heavily and borrow cheaply, often facilitated by representative institutions, allowed them to dominate the military tournament and continuously advance gunpowder technology, leaving weaker states and non-European powers struggling to keep pace.

9. Private Enterprise: Extending Europe's Military Reach Globally

Without the rulers’ spending, western Europeans would have never done enough to improve the gunpowder technology.

Harnessing private initiative. European rulers, unlike many of their Eurasian counterparts, had a long tradition of relying on private entrepreneurs for military endeavors, extending this practice to overseas conquest and trade. While royal spending fueled the fundamental innovation in gunpowder technology, private adventurers like the conquistadores, and later joint-stock companies, were crucial for its application abroad. These private entities could leverage the advanced technology, recruit veterans, and access cheap, widely available firearms.

Incentives for global expansion. The blurred lines between public and private in Europe meant that personal financial rewards were powerful motivators for military and civilian personnel.

• Windfalls: The discovery of American silver and gold created immense excitement and funded further expeditions.
• Trade opportunities: Lucrative trade in spices, silk, cotton, and sugar provided strong economic incentives.
• Corporate ventures: Joint-stock companies like the Dutch and British East India Companies combined trade with military force, acting as extensions of state foreign policy and raising vast capital in burgeoning European markets.

Obstacles elsewhere. In contrast, other Eurasian powers often faced significant barriers to private military and trade ventures. China and Japan, under strong imperial rule, imposed bans on overseas trade, large ship construction, and private gun ownership, aiming to maintain domestic security and state control over foreign policy. Islamic commercial law in the Ottoman Empire hindered the formation of large, long-lived corporate entities, limiting their ability to mobilize fixed capital for distant expeditions. These restrictions meant that, outside Europe, conquest and large-scale foreign trade remained primarily government enterprises, lacking the dynamic, profit-driven impetus of European privateers and companies.

10. Armed Peace and Accelerated Innovation in the 19th Century

What reigned after 1815 was not a complete respite from hostilities within Europe, but rather an armed peace with occasional interruptions, an armed peace backed up by continued military spending.

A new era of competition. After the Napoleonic Wars, Europe entered a period of "armed peace," characterized by fewer, shorter wars within the continent but sustained and even increased military spending. This shift was driven by new incentives: the devastating costs of war (including the risk of losing one's throne) made peaceful negotiation more attractive, while the waning importance of glory and trade monopolies made prizes more divisible. However, political and administrative reforms simultaneously lowered the political cost of mobilizing resources.

Fueling innovation without constant war. The 19th century saw a dramatic acceleration in military technological change, despite reduced battlefield activity. This was possible due to:

• Political reforms: Uniform fiscal systems, parliamentary control of budgets, nationalism, and conscription drastically lowered the cost of raising taxes and troops.
• Increased military spending: Real military expenditures by European great powers rose by 1.7% per year between 1816 and 1913, a fivefold jump, offsetting the reduced value of war prizes.
• Research and development: The Enlightenment's emphasis on useful knowledge, coupled with the Industrial Revolution's scientific and engineering advancements, enabled continuous military innovation through peacetime R&D.

Widening the military gap. Innovations like rifled handguns, explosive artillery shells, and armored battleships emerged from this environment, often driven by private entrepreneurs (e.g., Krupp, Maxim) and military officers (e.g., Paixhans, Dupuy de Lôme). These advancements, combined with industrial-era infrastructure like railroads and medical breakthroughs (e.g., quinine for malaria), gave Europeans an even greater advantage in colonial conquests. By 1914, this technological might allowed them to expand their empires into previously inaccessible regions of Africa, Asia, and the Americas.

11. The Complex Legacy and High Price of Conquest

So even in Europe itself there was little that could offset all the harm that the conquest of the world did, at least if we consider the welfare (or even more narrowly the income) of the average person.

A dubious benefit for Europe. While Europeans gained immense spoils from conquest—silver, sugar, coffee, and new crops—the overall benefit to the average European's welfare is questionable. Much of the American silver funded more wars, and mercantilist competition over colonies fueled further conflict. The incessant warfare, though driving innovation, imposed crushing taxes, epidemics, and violence on European populations, far exceeding what was necessary for security. Even 19th-century colonialism, while expanding empires, often required subsidies and redistributed wealth from taxpayers to upper classes, yielding no net profit for the nation.

Immeasurable costs for the conquered. The human cost for the conquered populations was catastrophic. Beyond the horrors of the slave trade and the devastation of Native American societies by disease and violence, the Spanish conquest is linked to persistent poverty in Latin America today. The slave trade continues to keep parts of Africa poor. These problems stem from the bad institutions and unequal wealth distribution fostered by empire, which blocked institutional reform, mass education, and human capital acquisition.

The Industrial Revolution link: a controversial claim. Some historians argue that Europe's wars and empire-building, paradoxically, helped trigger the British Industrial Revolution. They suggest that wartime victories secured intercontinental trade, which boosted British wages and urbanization. These high wages, combined with cheap coal, incentivized inventors to create labor-saving machines like spinning jennies and steam engines. However, this argument is debated, with counter-evidence suggesting that high wages don't always spur such innovation and that skilled human capital, rather than war, was the true fuel for industrialization.

Political history: the ultimate cause. Ultimately, the European conquest of the world and the "great divergence" in wealth were products of political history. This history, through cultural evolution and political learning, created Europe's unique fragmented state system, its capacity for massive military spending, and its encouragement of private military enterprise. While other factors contributed, political history set Europe on an irreversible path to global dominance, a path that, while not preordained, profoundly shaped the modern world.

Last updated: February 20, 2026