Why did so many British people become colonists? How harsh was the Crown of different faiths? Were laws really strict that they needed more lands for house prisoners? Were economic opportunities much better in a rural New World than the developed British isles?
How come none of the other empires (Spain, France, Portugal) had as many colonists in comparison? Did they kill their religious and political dissidents rather than tie them back to the crown? Or did Britian just hold onto their lands better and while the others abandoned their penal colonies?
If you had the choice to live in a tropical paradise or fucking Britain, wouldn't you leave?
>>3320801
Isn't there a quote that goes along the lines of: "British food, British women, and British weather, and thus a great nation of sailors was born"
In all seriousness though
1. Cheap land for farming and selling crops in north america
2. Prisoner in North America and Australia
3. In non white colonies whites would hold higher social standing such as India so greater prospects to be wealthy
4. Missionaries would often stay
5. And most importantly in comparison to other European colonialists British colonialists would take their families. Spanish conquistadors were just men whilst Brits in north america and Ireland where whole families.
>>3320949
Spain is empty bro.
Spain needed colonizers for Spain itself.
The empire was about business and nothing else. Liberals try to tell u it was evil and the route of all hell but it was only about securing trade and investment. If everyone in the village is flogging cabbages then if the empitlre can protect u then go somewhere else and flog coconuts back to your friends back home.
>>3320962
Why don't they just import Mexicans and Venezuelans? They'd fit in far better than Muslims.
In Portugal in 1500 had a population of 1 million while his neighbour Dynastic Union of Crown of Castille with Crown of Aragon had 5 million.
France had 12 million and England had 10 million.
With very small population, it had to rely on locals including miscegenation and labour manpower in Atlantic archipelagos and Portuguese South America with in slavery mostly Subsaharan Africans from Atlantic Slave Trade.
While in SA, making settlements, it still garrison forts and cities in North Africa, and various feitorias along African shore, fortress in persian gulf; India and afterwards SEA, Macau and trading post in Japan.
In every journey, 10%-20% in 16 the century to India died from disease.
>>3322354
Latin americans are the first immigration group in Spain, not muslims. Muslims are not even the second, Romanians and other east euros are. If you divide them between countries Morocco is second and Romania first but it's kinda cheating since there's barely any non-moroccan muslim while latinos are "diverse".
>>3322201
>The empire was about business and nothing else
not really.