We were all taught about Christopher Columbus landing in what he thought was east India and the events that followed. But what isn't as clear (to me, anyway) is whether the subsequent enslavement and exploitation of the natives was a consequence of their meeting what they believed to be 'savages'--or if they were planning on conquering as much as they could, even if they had discovered a society with technology on par with their own.
The implication I always felt in school was that Columbus & co. landed looking to trade, and only conquered when they saw how easy it would be. Is that the case?
Colombus was from Genoa, financed by a Castillian monarch. Colombus's template was probably similar to Genoese colonies in the Eastern Mediterranean, notably with the Byzantines and the Ottomans, where a mix of trade, diplomacy, and armed naval and land forces were able to secure favorable trading conditions and small outposts. The Castillian expansion model was that of the Reconquista, subduing non-christians by force and occasionally diplomacy when force was unavailing. Then these non-christians were converted, enslaved or otherwise exploited by a military aristocracy. Once Columbus was politically sidelined, his Castillian backers did what they would have done in the Iberian peninsula, with the "lucky" aid of massive epidemic disease.