What intrinsic advantages did the British possess that the other nations of Europe did not? Britain was late to the game of imperialism. Spain and Portugal preceded Britain and yet Britain ultimately surpassed them. Was it the industrial revolution? If you say so then it can be argued that the IR was not limited to Britain but spread throughout the great nations of Europe. Did being 1st to industrialize provide such a huge edge?
What made Britain able to establish such a huge empire?
- Thread starter Emperor Palpatine
- Start date
Allerlande
Banned
Compound interest. A bit of territory here, a bit of territory there, and not much in the way of losing any...
I'd say having no land borders with hostile, or potentially hostile, countries really helped.
Easier to throw just about everything into the navy when you need a minimal army. Easier to have an empire when you have a navy to protect it.
Easier to throw just about everything into the navy when you need a minimal army. Easier to have an empire when you have a navy to protect it.
A bunch of reasons:
- Naval superiority allowed the Brits to grab India, a big chunk of the Caribbean and defeat Napoleon
- Being an island nation stopped them from getting invaded, which did for the Spanish and Portuguese
- The industrial revolution provided a lot of capital to pay for expensive expeditions, and technological improvement (critical in the defeats of China)
- A private-led economy meant that money didn't accrue to the state to waste but into private companies which reinvested it
Also, the industrial revolution didn't spread to the other great nations of Europe. The first two large nations to follow were the USA and Germany post-1870, and they quickly challenged the Brits in world leadership after that. The other great powers didn't really industrialise until the 20th century.
- Naval superiority allowed the Brits to grab India, a big chunk of the Caribbean and defeat Napoleon
- Being an island nation stopped them from getting invaded, which did for the Spanish and Portuguese
- The industrial revolution provided a lot of capital to pay for expensive expeditions, and technological improvement (critical in the defeats of China)
- A private-led economy meant that money didn't accrue to the state to waste but into private companies which reinvested it
Also, the industrial revolution didn't spread to the other great nations of Europe. The first two large nations to follow were the USA and Germany post-1870, and they quickly challenged the Brits in world leadership after that. The other great powers didn't really industrialise until the 20th century.
The Battle of Plassey is regarded by some historians to be the start of British rule in India. The industrial revolution had begun at that time. It should also be noted that crown rule didn't begin until after the mutiny in 1857
Grey Wolf
Donor
1) Being an island and very difficult to invade, also very difficult to harrass unless you build a fleet the equal of theirs
2) Getting rich on maritime trade, meaning that they were able to finance wars against rivals, without over-committing or risking their own infrastructure
3) Turning their own ambitions outwards - no reclamation of Normandy or even aggrandisement for Hannover
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
2) Getting rich on maritime trade, meaning that they were able to finance wars against rivals, without over-committing or risking their own infrastructure
3) Turning their own ambitions outwards - no reclamation of Normandy or even aggrandisement for Hannover
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Riain
Banned
I'd say mental flexibility played a large part, the empire was ruled by different means in different places rather than trying to hammer square pegs into round holes which would have led to problems. As others have said it was the East India Company that took India, with the assistance of the RN, not the British Crown. British Malaya had 3 different polities: Straits Settlements, Federated Malaya States and Unfederated Malay States, rather than a single monolithic government apparatus.
Saphroneth
Banned
A combination of luck, momentum, an unusual amount of compromise for a great power, and not having to spend too much money on an army.
Also tea.
Also tea.
It's also interesting that mental flexibility allowed the UK to give up Empire without too much trauma. While France and Portugal hung on for dear life, and ended up bogged down in bloody, nasty wars, the UK just settled up and left.
Being an island nation which depended on a strong navy and merchant marine helped immensely since it helped avoid some of the disastrous foreign entanglements that paralyzed powers such as France and Spain in their colonial adventures.
The growth of that tradition from the late 1500s to the 1700s served to solidify the need for these institutions.
That the Napoleonic Wars then resulted in every other major naval power having a fleet which rested on the bottom of the ocean leaving no power to challenge their dominance and empire for over 100 years pretty much sealed the deal on the whole empire building thing.
There's a number of smaller factors in there like politics and fairly stable dynastic politics from 1600 on and the growth of an interesting democratic tradition alongside a number of other national quirks but in broad strokes this about sums it up.
The growth of that tradition from the late 1500s to the 1700s served to solidify the need for these institutions.
That the Napoleonic Wars then resulted in every other major naval power having a fleet which rested on the bottom of the ocean leaving no power to challenge their dominance and empire for over 100 years pretty much sealed the deal on the whole empire building thing.
There's a number of smaller factors in there like politics and fairly stable dynastic politics from 1600 on and the growth of an interesting democratic tradition alongside a number of other national quirks but in broad strokes this about sums it up.
libbrit
Banned
Britain is often said to have `acquired an empire in a fit of absence of mind`. Which is quite accurate-Britain rarely set off with the explicit desire to grab a colony, it often acquired them as a by product of something-look at India, it was a commercial venture that only really became British after the UK was forced to effectively nationalise the East India Company.
The settler colonies, and the American colonies prior to 1776 aside, it was an extremely ad-hoc reaction to technological innovations, but especially economic and intellectual innovations that gave Britain the economic clout to have a massive trading economy, with very little forethought or strategic planning.
All of which in turn required a large navy.
Which in turn got Britain into wars with other European powers, which Britain invariably won, and ended up acquiring more economic influence as a result.
Which got Britain into more more wars.
Which invariably ended with Britain winning MORE economic influence, and latterly, colonies/coaling stations to protect trade routes.
Which developed into colonies.
Which did this.
Which did that.
Then BANG, Britain has an empire.
It was also run in a very flexibl, British way, with compromises here there and everywhere. There was no uniform, one size fits all model, meaning there was sufficient leeway for a lot of on the spot improvisation which headed off a lot of rebellions-hell, dominion status was a rather ad-hoc innovation to start with, in order to keep Canada within the empire.
One way of recognising the rather hap-hazard British approach to empire was to consider quite how uninterested the British populace were in it, and frankly, beyond the dominions, how un emotionally invested in it the British political class was-as soon as the empire became more expensive to run, than it made, the establishment gave up on it, made favorable deals where necessary, set up a few bases, and left.
There were no riots, precious little malaise amongst the populace, and almost no attempt to fight the process, unlike France or Portugal-apart from thinking how cool the map looked with all that red, the British populace at large, generally didnt give the empire a second thought even when they had it.
The settler colonies, and the American colonies prior to 1776 aside, it was an extremely ad-hoc reaction to technological innovations, but especially economic and intellectual innovations that gave Britain the economic clout to have a massive trading economy, with very little forethought or strategic planning.
All of which in turn required a large navy.
Which in turn got Britain into wars with other European powers, which Britain invariably won, and ended up acquiring more economic influence as a result.
Which got Britain into more more wars.
Which invariably ended with Britain winning MORE economic influence, and latterly, colonies/coaling stations to protect trade routes.
Which developed into colonies.
Which did this.
Which did that.
Then BANG, Britain has an empire.
It was also run in a very flexibl, British way, with compromises here there and everywhere. There was no uniform, one size fits all model, meaning there was sufficient leeway for a lot of on the spot improvisation which headed off a lot of rebellions-hell, dominion status was a rather ad-hoc innovation to start with, in order to keep Canada within the empire.
One way of recognising the rather hap-hazard British approach to empire was to consider quite how uninterested the British populace were in it, and frankly, beyond the dominions, how un emotionally invested in it the British political class was-as soon as the empire became more expensive to run, than it made, the establishment gave up on it, made favorable deals where necessary, set up a few bases, and left.
There were no riots, precious little malaise amongst the populace, and almost no attempt to fight the process, unlike France or Portugal-apart from thinking how cool the map looked with all that red, the British populace at large, generally didnt give the empire a second thought even when they had it.
Last edited:
simple
higher literacy rates than the rest of europe
highest agricultural productivity in europe
high levels of urbanization
tariffs
solid focus on manufacturing
island nation
large navy
political stability post glorious revolution
ease of access to coal and iron
well developed transportation system eg toll roads
high levels of gdp per capita
most advanced railroad system in europe
solid banking industry
colonies
initially sought south afruca, suez, etc for access to trade routes. Then due to paranoia and wanting to protect said provinces begin to use divide, conquer. Took Egyt for said reason by extension Sudan. South Africa to Boers.
At the same time out looking for resource to fuel british industries. Said resources found in India, Egypt, and Sub Saharan Africa.
These were pretty much the reasons why Britain became so powerful by Victoria's era.
edit: Problems for spain and portugal
low literacy, low agriculutral productivity, lack of manufacting industires, lack of finantial centers, lack of railrods, lack of access to cheap coal, and instability, low levels of urbanization.
Ditto for Italy overall.
Russia same reasons as above compounded by serfdom.
same reasons eastern europe
Northern europe sans britain: Demographics
Netherlands: Industries destroyed by France and HRE
Belgium: Too small
France: Lack of experienced navy post revolution. reasons as above though slightly better off than other european nations, lower Agricultural productivity, same reasons as above though slightly better off.
Germany late to the game, lack of navy had too focus on land and sea.
HRE/Austria Hungary: Same issues as Spain though slightly better off.
These are the reasons why Britain became so big and the rest of europe sans Germany and Belgium post 1870s fell behind
edit 2: Here is an appendix with all the stats you need to draw these conclusion: http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/other_books/appendix_B.pdf
by Maddison
higher literacy rates than the rest of europe
highest agricultural productivity in europe
high levels of urbanization
tariffs
solid focus on manufacturing
island nation
large navy
political stability post glorious revolution
ease of access to coal and iron
well developed transportation system eg toll roads
high levels of gdp per capita
most advanced railroad system in europe
solid banking industry
colonies
initially sought south afruca, suez, etc for access to trade routes. Then due to paranoia and wanting to protect said provinces begin to use divide, conquer. Took Egyt for said reason by extension Sudan. South Africa to Boers.
At the same time out looking for resource to fuel british industries. Said resources found in India, Egypt, and Sub Saharan Africa.
These were pretty much the reasons why Britain became so powerful by Victoria's era.
edit: Problems for spain and portugal
low literacy, low agriculutral productivity, lack of manufacting industires, lack of finantial centers, lack of railrods, lack of access to cheap coal, and instability, low levels of urbanization.
Ditto for Italy overall.
Russia same reasons as above compounded by serfdom.
same reasons eastern europe
Northern europe sans britain: Demographics
Netherlands: Industries destroyed by France and HRE
Belgium: Too small
France: Lack of experienced navy post revolution. reasons as above though slightly better off than other european nations, lower Agricultural productivity, same reasons as above though slightly better off.
Germany late to the game, lack of navy had too focus on land and sea.
HRE/Austria Hungary: Same issues as Spain though slightly better off.
These are the reasons why Britain became so big and the rest of europe sans Germany and Belgium post 1870s fell behind
edit 2: Here is an appendix with all the stats you need to draw these conclusion: http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/other_books/appendix_B.pdf
by Maddison
Last edited:
Well the British Empire isn't that special in being a large empire controlled by Europeans. Also the Empire bloomed during the Industrial Age, with communications distances being reduced by the telegraph, steamships etc. Compare that to 16th century Spain, who only had a few opportunities each year to issue commands to the Philippines (via the Manila galleons).
Administratively the British Empire wasn't as reliant on its monarchs as absolutist France and Spain were. Philip II's Spanish Empire, for example, was consistently hobbled by the fact that Philip had to do everything himself and he was simply overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information he had to process, which played a large part in Spain's ineffective response to its European challengers. Not to mention that the Habsburgs shot themselves in the foot with their intermarriage policy.
Responsible government in the settler colonies also probably prevented Canada, New Zealand and Australia from going 'American', so to speak (especially Canada).
India becoming British was probably more due to a combination of luck (Mughal Empire collapse), divide-and-rule tactics and the fact that its major European rival on the subcontinent, France, was constantly being hammered by various pan-European coalitions throughout the 18thC.
Administratively the British Empire wasn't as reliant on its monarchs as absolutist France and Spain were. Philip II's Spanish Empire, for example, was consistently hobbled by the fact that Philip had to do everything himself and he was simply overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information he had to process, which played a large part in Spain's ineffective response to its European challengers. Not to mention that the Habsburgs shot themselves in the foot with their intermarriage policy.
Responsible government in the settler colonies also probably prevented Canada, New Zealand and Australia from going 'American', so to speak (especially Canada).
India becoming British was probably more due to a combination of luck (Mughal Empire collapse), divide-and-rule tactics and the fact that its major European rival on the subcontinent, France, was constantly being hammered by various pan-European coalitions throughout the 18thC.
Last edited:
I seem to recall Eddie Izzard suggesting it had something to do with an ingenious use of Flags.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hYeFcSq7Mxg shown with lego.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hYeFcSq7Mxg shown with lego.
Britain won France and Netherland but not Spain.
Not so instability save you are thinking about XIX century.
Norther Europe low literacy, low agriculutral productivity, lack of manufacting industires, lack of finantial centers, lack of railrods, lack of access to cheap coal, and instability, low levels of urbanization.
err yeah XIX is when Britain overtook rest of Europe as well as Spain.
Britain beat Spain, numerous times from the war of Jekins ear to the Napoleonic war, Spain lost most of the battles. Only when it was allied with the French ancien regime did it see some vitories against the British,
They were able to dominate North America because the only other rivals, the Dutch and the French, couldn't keep up or project power on the same level in the former's case, or their policy relied on giving up the colonies and trying to win gains from Britain by defeating their continental allies, which failed in the case of the latter.
Plassey was a near-run thing and I'm not sure domination of India would have followed on quite the same scale, but being able to again exclude a smaller (Portugal) power (later the Dutch) and the larger (France) competitor certainly helped. Britain also acquired strategic posessions from the Dutch and the Portuguese (Singapore, Ceylon, South Africa, New York etc...) without having to fight very hard for them. The Dutch and Portugal could never in the long run challenge Britain, who didn't have to worry about a professional standing army like the continental powers.
Plassey was a near-run thing and I'm not sure domination of India would have followed on quite the same scale, but being able to again exclude a smaller (Portugal) power (later the Dutch) and the larger (France) competitor certainly helped. Britain also acquired strategic posessions from the Dutch and the Portuguese (Singapore, Ceylon, South Africa, New York etc...) without having to fight very hard for them. The Dutch and Portugal could never in the long run challenge Britain, who didn't have to worry about a professional standing army like the continental powers.