Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Why was Britain able to establish an Empire? Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 20:27 |
Originally posted by Maharbbal
Problem: other nations got into slave slave trade but it is England that started the Industrial Revolution not the others (Netherland, France, Portugal).
Why? So triangular trade may have been a necessary condition but certainly not a sufficient one.
|
Yes. I agree Indeed. England is the only nation of those that had a Newton and a James Watt. That made the difference. However, the availability of financial resources helped.
Originally posted by Maharbbal
Then there is another problem: chronology. Quite logically the English American empire happened before not after the appearance of the trade so it cannot explain it. The relationship between slave trade and the Indian side of empire is also very dubious (see Brenner's book on the London Merchants). Hence slave trade is just an element of Britain's power and by no mean THE reason.
|
Slavery and piracy where the starting engines.
Originally posted by Maharbbal
I wouldn't say either that greed is a sufficient explaination: were the English the only greedy in the world? Were they the greediest? How do you measure a people greediness?
|
No. They weren't the only ones at all. It was an European fashion at those times.
Originally posted by Maharbbal
Other factors may have played: England was the oldest nation-state in Europe (and island indeed which decresed the importance of the government as a provider of violence). A rather free society helped as well.
|
It is strange though that such a free-society promoted piracy and slavery for a long time. And that cutting heads of fine ladies at court was part of the British entertainment during those days.
Originally posted by Maharbbal
And lets not forget luck, many countries having known their days of glory but somehow Britain managed to lock in its advantage
|
Yes. They were lucky. No doubt about it.
Pinguin
|
|
New User
Shogun
Joined: 04-Mar-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 218
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2007 at 14:35 |
Not much historical facts here just sort of anti British sweeping statements
|
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2007 at 16:11 |
Originally posted by xi_tujue
The british never had an empire in a classical sence.
They did alot of "sneaky" stuff tobecome so powerfull as they were. I have said this and will say it agian The Brittish empire was a trade empire nothing more.
|
So the British Empire had the following characteristics....
-Force is used only a last resort. Instead, economic and political pressures are tried first
When force is needed....
- Small numbers of experienced regiments are employed
-They use technology, communications, and mobility to leverage their relatively small numbers
-When possible, they work closely with armed Pro British locals
These methods then create a long lasting Empire that economically enriches Britian. This is not "sneaky". Rather, it is very efficient, intelligent and leads to fewer British and fewer colonial casualties. Contrast this approach to the brutal Imperial Japanese approach.
Edited by Cryptic - 13-Mar-2007 at 16:44
|
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2007 at 16:24 |
Originally posted by Cryptic
Originally posted by xi_tujue
The british never had an empire in a classical sence.
They did alot of "sneaky" stuff tobecome so powerfull as they were. I have said this and will say it agian The Brittish empire was a trade empire nothing more.
|
So the Brtish Empire had the following characteristcs....
-Force is used only a last resort. Instead, economic and political pressures are tried first
When force is needed....
- Small numbers of expereinced regiments are employed
-They use technology, communications, and mobility to leverage their relatively small numbers
-When possible, they work closely with armed Pro British locals
These methods then create a long lasting Empire that economically enriches Britian. This is not "sneaky". Rather, it is very efficient, intelligent and leads to fewer British and fewer colonial casualties. Contrast this approach to the Imperial Japanese approach.
|
Very true, Cryptic.
|
Join us.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2007 at 17:01 |
Originally posted by New User
Not much historical facts here just sort of anti British sweeping statements |
True, indeed. Something like the Anti-Spanish (Black Legend) statements we see quite often in the English languages sources
(That was my point, anyways)
|
|
Maharbbal
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2007 at 19:33 |
Originally posted by xi_tujue
The british never had an empire in a classical sence.
|
What is the "classical sense" of Empire?
Originally posted by xi_tujue
They did alot of "sneaky" stuff tobecome so powerfull as they were.
|
Such as? Besides its sounds a bit too romantic to say that there are sneaky empire building methods and straightforward ones
Originally posted by xi_tujue
I have said this and will say it agian The Brittish empire was a trade empire nothing more.
|
Once more what is a "trade empire"? What's the "more"? Your case will
be difficult to defend in regard with South Africa, America or Nigeria.
Originally posted by xi_tujue
Also they kept there neigbours sadisfied due to the whole "Balance of power" stuff
|
Well the least you can say is that the Portugese, the
Dutch and the French were all but satisfied in regard with the colonial
situation. You apparently mistaking the position of England on the
European mainland and overseas.
Originally posted by xi_tujue
they only fought battles abroad long way from home and mostly other people did the fighting.
|
It is not untrue but it was the case of each and every European army
overseas. To an extent in many case (India and the Americas for
instance) the English used less native troups than other European
powers.
Originally posted by xi_tujue
Not conquering but econmicly exploiting people was the goal
|
I am not quite sure to get the difference. Once more what about North America, the Carabbeans and South Africa?
Originally posted by xi_tujue
thats all
|
That's hardly an end... to be continued.
|
I am a free donkey!
|
|
New User
Shogun
Joined: 04-Mar-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 218
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2007 at 18:16 |
So if we can agree that trade (including slavery) were major factors in the British Empire .I would suggest we have to look at what made it possible for us to partake so greatly in trade. ie the role of transport, stability of nation, control of shipping routes etc
Anyone fancy starting out. How did Britain become such a major sea power?
Edited by New User - 14-Mar-2007 at 18:17
|
|
Maharbbal
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2007 at 19:13 |
@ New user, I think you got it right in the first part of your post but then restricted the question with the old and often debated topic of the naval superiority. Which btw was all but established before the period 1680-1730.
So I propose: what made it possible for the dirty Brits to partake so greatly in trade. What was the
role of transport, stability of nation, control of shipping routes?
Exiting!
|
I am a free donkey!
|
|
New User
Shogun
Joined: 04-Mar-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 218
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2007 at 19:34 |
I see your point and agree, thanks. A much better proposal with which to answer the thread.
|
|
Kashmiri
Samurai
Joined: 07-Mar-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2007 at 19:47 |
british stole a lot things from india like all the mughal jewels
|
|
Kapikulu
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2007 at 19:57 |
Originally posted by Kashmiri
british stole a lot things from india like all the mughal jewels |
British are famous historical artifact thieves.
|
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;
A Strange Orhan Veli
|
|
Maharbbal
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2007 at 20:42 |
Originally posted by Kapikulu
Originally posted by Kashmiri
british stole a lot things from india like all the mughal jewels |
British are famous historical artifact thieves. |
the Mughal jewels were stolen by the pirate captain Kidd from other Englishmen who were protecting the convoy. The parthenon marbles have been put in a museum and the fanstastic collections of the Summer Palace have been locked in the Queen's private collection. No fuel from the economy. It seems difficult for many to accept that the Brits' success comes from their business skills and not their ruthlessness.
|
I am a free donkey!
|
|
Crusader3943
Knight
Joined: 11-Mar-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 80
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 08:53 |
Britain was the greatest naval power for a long time.
|
Crusader3943
|
|
Maharbbal
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 11:07 |
For the role of slavery in the development of the British economy please see the summary of Eltis and Engerman (2000).
|
I am a free donkey!
|
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 12:26 |
Originally posted by xi_tujue
The british never had an empire in a classical sence.
They did alot of "sneaky" stuff tobecome so powerfull as they were.
I have said this and will say it agian The Brittish empire was a trade empire nothing more.
Also they kept there neigbours sadisfied due to the whole "Balance of power" stuff
they only fought battles abroad long way from home and mostly other people did the fighting.
Not conquering but econmicly exploiting people was the goal
thats all
|
True to some extent. They were invincible in sea warfare, but they met many defeats in land, such as Boars War.
|
Join us.
|
|