Why was Britain able to establish an Empire?

Not much historical facts here just sort of anti British sweeping statements

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.

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.

@ 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!

british stole a lot things from india like all the mughal jewels

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.

For the role of slavery in the development of the British economy please see the summary of Eltis and Engerman (2000).