What made Britain able to establish such a huge empire?
- Thread starter Emperor Palpatine
- Start date
Wrong. Spain beat Britain... In XIX century in Brion, Buenos Aires, Montevideo... in XVIII century in the War of Jekins ear etc etc... British conquested the French Empire but never the Spanish one.
"[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Against the Spanish dominions we have never been able to do much[/SIZE][/FONT]"
I think Spain beat Britain and Britain beat Spain ... but Britain always failed to conquer the Spanish Empire ... much stronger than the French one.
there was a rather vocal, albeit tiny opposition to the dissolution of the empire in the form of the empire loyalist league. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Empire_Loyalists
Caesar Biden
Banned
It all has to do with their accents. Once natives heard it, they couldn't stop begging for more.
I mean, have you heard Standard British? If it doesn't scream "Imperialism" to you, I don't know what does.
On a more serious note, they were in an excellent position for empire building. Controlling the British Isles meant a strong naval tradition could be established, which led to them controlling tons of overseas territories. Then, they were in an excellent position to industrialize (coal, so much wow), and did so. The rest, as they say, is history.
I mean, have you heard Standard British? If it doesn't scream "Imperialism" to you, I don't know what does.
On a more serious note, they were in an excellent position for empire building. Controlling the British Isles meant a strong naval tradition could be established, which led to them controlling tons of overseas territories. Then, they were in an excellent position to industrialize (coal, so much wow), and did so. The rest, as they say, is history.
Maybe it's just a question of timeline.
The Spanish and Portugal Empires started way earlier and as such disbanded or lost power earlier.
France just (re)started its empire later. If France had been able to keep its colonial possessions prior to the 7 years war, Britain wouldn't have been to be that much ahead.
The Spanish and Portugal Empires started way earlier and as such disbanded or lost power earlier.
France just (re)started its empire later. If France had been able to keep its colonial possessions prior to the 7 years war, Britain wouldn't have been to be that much ahead.
Well, by writting an arbitrary date, the Spanish Empire in its grandeur, began in 1492 and ended in 1898... I know Spain had dominions before 1492 (Canary Islands, Sicilia etc.) and after 1898 (Marianas, Palaos, Carolines, Sahara, Guinee, Morocco etc etc.)... but as a large Empire, 1492 - 1898: 406 years.
British Empire as a large Empire begun in 1815 and ended in 1970? 155 years.. I Know Britian had Dominios before 1815 and after 1970...but as a large Empire, between 1815 to 1970... maybe 1960?
Unlike Spain, France lost its empire in British hands.. and the French Empire begun in 1870 and ended in 1970... or sooner (1952)... It last about 100 years.
Portuguese Empire begun about 1415 and ended in 1975, about 560 years
Derek Pullem
Donor
Honestly - do you really believe some of the stuff you write.
In 1492 the Spanish empire is the Canary Isles. By that definition the British Empire started with the invasion of Ireland in 1169.
The British Empire was a "large empire" only in 1815? - in 1770 It held most of North America - large chunks of India and had just claimed Australia. Britain's place in the sun began in 1763 after the Seven Years War and possibly earlier. It probably finished in 1947 when India was granted indepedence.
The Spanish Empire wasn't really formalised until the Audience of Lima in 1542 and was basically gone by 1821.
So say 184 years for Britian and 279 years for Spain.
The Portuguese Empire is indeed the longest "Grand Empire" of the Imperial era - not that it did them much good of course in the long run.
The British Empire really was an accident. Britain was far more interested in trading posts, to get raw materials (which could then be processed for manufacture at home). However, actually defending all these interests required political and military activity, so you wind up with the East India Company having its own army, and meanwhile, Britain already had a strong navy to start with, courtesy of fear of a French invasion. Put all this together, and you end up with an unplanned Empire that Britain spends a century trying to run on the cheap.
Spain meanwhile was only interested in looting gold from the New World. It became incredibly wealthy, but gold rather than goods will only get you so far (and turned out to be quite inflationary).
Spain meanwhile was only interested in looting gold from the New World. It became incredibly wealthy, but gold rather than goods will only get you so far (and turned out to be quite inflationary).
Saphroneth
Banned
Nitpick - silver.
And the first English colony in the new world was a tobacco plantation, as I recall. Wrecked the soil, unfortunately...
French Empire started again in the 1830's with the invasion of Algeria. In 1870, it's mostly stabilised, need to move inland in Africa, pacify the Tonkin and Madagascar but yeah, the bigger shapes are there
Portuguese Empire had a very loose control of its regions (got basically housted out of Mozambic by the brits for this very reason). So Saying it still had an Empire that far in time is like saying France still has a colonial Empire because technically la Nouvelle Calédonie is French.
Also, bit of French wanking here, France is the only country on which the sun never sets. Hehe
Thande
Donor
Quoting Libbrit's post here because it covers the situation very well (especially the point about how the population at home were largely uninterested except in the sense that emigration to settler colonies could be a way of escaping poverty). Indeed I don't recall the exact quote but I seem to recall someone claiming that "The British Empire" was made up by the Conservatives as an election slogan for one of the 1870s elections and nobody had talked about it before then. (That's a bit of an exaggeration, you can find references to the term going back to the 1750s, but there is a kernel of truth in it).
One point I just wanted to add is that even the American settler colonies were originally part of the 'acquire colonies by accident due to trade' thing - although there were cases of people fleeing religious persecution and founding plantations and so on, the primary original reason for the colonisation of the North American seaboard was that they thought that the North American continent was narrower east-west than it is (compounded by the Longitude Problem), and it would be only about a dozen days' march to the west coast where they could then build a port and access the rich Far Eastern trade that way. In the same way that England (not Britain at that point) mainly started in India because it had failed to compete with the Dutch in the East Indies (modern Indonesia) and India, where they went into port on the way home, was the consolation prize. It was all about the eastern trade, for all the European countries, and it just so happened that they way Britain did it and the way that history turned--helped, as some have said, by the fact that we're an island and therefore focus more on naval power that helps one build a maritime trading empire--that Britain ended up on top of the empire game, almost by accident.
If somebody had invented a good clock and solved the Longitude Problem at the start of the seventeenth century, the United States (or any major English-speaking state in North America) likely would not exist.
Saphroneth
Banned
That would be an interesting TL. What do you think the world situation would be like instead?
First, in 1492, Spaniards arrived to America and built Fort Navidad. Columbus took possesion October 12, 1492.. by the same time, the Spanish kings were in Sardinia and Sicily..
Columbus set forth commanding three small ships, and after a long drawn-out journey landed on the coast of a Caribbean island. Thus commenced the Spanish conquest of America.
1492 is not 1542... Early XVI Century Spaniards were in Florida, Texas, Cuba, Jamaica, Mexico, Yucatan, Darien, Venezuela, New Granada... in 1540 they have crossed through Amazona.. from the source to the mouth...the same years, the Spaniards arrived to Grand Canyon
The first Europeans reached the Grand Canyon in September 1540.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area#cite_note-Tufts1998p12-1 It was a group of about 13 Spanish soldiers led by García López de Cárdenashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/García_López_de_Cárdenas, dispatched from the army of Francisco Vasquez de Coronadohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Vásquez_de_Coronado on its quest to find the fabulous Seven Cities of Gold.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area#cite_note-Casta.C3.B1eda1596-5 The group was led by Hopi guides and, assuming they took the most likely route, must have reached the canyon at the South Rim, probably between today's Desert View and Moran Point.
Spaniards arrived to Venezuela in 1498, Honduras in 1502...Argentina in 1516, Chile in 1520, Florida in 1513, Texas in 1521, Massachussetts in 1524 "Cabo de las Arenas" (Nowadays Cape Cod)...Spaniards crossed Apalachee in 1539.. built forts in Sapelo Sound (Georgia) and Winyah Bay (South Carolina) in 1526...they passed through North Carolina and Virginia from side to side etc etc in 1573 they were in Chesapeake (Bahia de Santa Maria)....
By the way, in 1770, british didnt hold the most of North America.
http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/hist110/North America 1763 map.jpg
The Spanish Seaborne Empire begun in 1492.
[/QUOTE] If somebody had invented a good clock and solved the Longitude Problem at the start of the seventeenth century, the United States (or any major English-speaking state in North America) likely would not exist.[/QUOTE]
Doesnt adress the issues spain and other euro empires faced in terms of literacy, productivity, access to cheap coal, good waterways, transports, naval focus etc. Essentially the empire/growth game was rigged from the start in favor of thw UK. The only real way I see the english or british for that matter not industrializing and by extension dominating the world is if somehow before the 19th centry the English/British were either conquered by a foreign power or collpsed into numerous competing states. Essentially a successful invasion of England by another european fleet that also assimilates english into their culture unlike the Dutch should do it.
In regards to Spain, unfortunately the only way I see Spain being able to continue competing with the brits by the 1800s is if they could retain the Spanish Netherlands or at least Belgium which in turn would give them access to the belgian manufacturing and industrial base, not to mention the vast coal fields and thus be able to compete with Britain. having the Netherlands as well would give Spain a competitive edge as well though even then unless Spain proper somehow fixes the above issues they will fall behind jsut far less. For that matter perhaps the Hapsburgs of Austria keep the Netherlands and Belgium an win the thirty years war and somehow centralize the HRE could do it as well with access to Belgian, Dutch, and Ruhr and Sudetenland coal fields. That would be one hell of a superstate.
Doesnt adress the issues spain and other euro empires faced in terms of literacy, productivity, access to cheap coal, good waterways, transports, naval focus etc. Essentially the empire/growth game was rigged from the start in favor of thw UK. The only real way I see the english or british for that matter not industrializing and by extension dominating the world is if somehow before the 19th centry the English/British were either conquered by a foreign power or collpsed into numerous competing states. Essentially a successful invasion of England by another european fleet that also assimilates english into their culture unlike the Dutch should do it.
In regards to Spain, unfortunately the only way I see Spain being able to continue competing with the brits by the 1800s is if they could retain the Spanish Netherlands or at least Belgium which in turn would give them access to the belgian manufacturing and industrial base, not to mention the vast coal fields and thus be able to compete with Britain. having the Netherlands as well would give Spain a competitive edge as well though even then unless Spain proper somehow fixes the above issues they will fall behind jsut far less. For that matter perhaps the Hapsburgs of Austria keep the Netherlands and Belgium an win the thirty years war and somehow centralize the HRE could do it as well with access to Belgian, Dutch, and Ruhr and Sudetenland coal fields. That would be one hell of a superstate.
Last edited:
Sior
Banned
The English (saxons,angles,jutes) have a long history of grabbing other peoples lands and slaughtering the original inhabitants!
Saphroneth
Banned
True as far as it goes, but probably not the causative factor. Same also applies for several other groups - the Norse come to mind. Meanwhile, a substantial part of the British Empire was NOT colonization-with-replacement - most of Africa and India, say.
Derek Pullem
Donor
The British seaborne empire began in 1066 when the King of England was also Duke of Normandy. Bit misleading though.
In 1420 The British empire including half of France. Bit misleading though
In 1492 Spain was only fourteen years old. The lands before that were either Castillian or Aragonese. Misleading?