Did the British policy of maintaining the European Balance of Power pay dividends?

Related question -- how would (continental) Europe have evolved differently over the past five centuries absent English interventionism? Would this mean (earlier) political and/or economic unification; if so, when?

No. Honestly, I think that however much Britain attempted to forestall a European hegemon, their necessity in one not emerging is overrated. The thing to focus on is France, which had a huge population advantage over the rest of Europe from the Middle Ages, but didn't become a real unified political entity until about 1500. At the time, the Hapsburgs were able to stand them down for about two centuries, after which Prussia gradually became more important, eventually becoming the new preponderant power as a unified Germany. Russia also emerged around the same time, and they and France kept each other in check. All of this could have happened with or without British meddling, really.
 
No. Honestly, I think that however much Britain attempted to forestall a European hegemon, their necessity in one not emerging is overrated. The thing to focus on is France, which had a huge population advantage over the rest of Europe from the Middle Ages, but didn't become a real unified political entity until about 1500. At the time, the Hapsburgs were able to stand them down for about two centuries, after which Prussia gradually became more important, eventually becoming the new preponderant power as a unified Germany. Russia also emerged around the same time, and they and France kept each other in check. All of this could have happened with or without British meddling, really.

France was rather unlucky that, right when it could have really become a hegemon, the Hapsburgs came into a gigantic inheritance in the 16th century, which became even more gigantic when the Spanish part of it conquered a huge empire in the Americas.
 
France was rather unlucky that, right when it could have really become a hegemon, the Hapsburgs came into a gigantic inheritance in the 16th century, which became even more gigantic when the Spanish part of it conquered a huge empire in the Americas.

Screw those uppity islanders, the Hapsburgs are the real defenders of European sovereignty!
 

BooNZ

Banned
Bear in mind that the previous wars in Prussia's/Germany's rise to prominence -- the Schleswig-Holstein War, the Austro-Prussian War, the Franco-Prussian War -- had all been decided very quickly, often by just one or two battles, and left the victor in a stronger position and not at all exhausted. The meat-grinder that WW1 became was a shock to everybody.
Again, you're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight, plus a hefty dollop of optimism. The overwhelming expectation in the years running up to WW1 was that any European war would be a quick matter, decided probably after one or two battles in the opening weeks, with any actions afterwards being essentially a mopping-up exercise. Given what people at the time expected to happen, as opposed to what we know actually happened, sitting tight and hoping that Germany would end up bleeding itself dry would have been foolish.
This was not the conventional thinking within the German military hierarchy, which expected the next war [i.e. WW1] to be a long one involving whole nations - not just their militaries. Both Schlieffen and Moltke (Jr) were independently on record stating something similar.
 
This was not the conventional thinking within the German military hierarchy, which expected the next war [i.e. WW1] to be a long one involving whole nations - not just their militaries. Both Schlieffen and Moltke (Jr) were independently on record stating something similar.

When you make big decisions regarding war and peace, it's not the right mindset to assume that your enemy will be too weak from winning to threaten you next.
 

BooNZ

Banned
When you make big decisions regarding war and peace, it's not the right mindset to assume that your enemy will be too weak from winning to threaten you next.
It's also probably not the right mindset to treat a traditional ally with a shared heritage as an automatic enemy, especially after it has been at peace for over forty years...
 
It's also probably not the right mindset to treat a traditional ally with a shared heritage as an automatic enemy, especially after it has been at peace for over forty years...

I think that ship sailed during the Second Boer War when they casually threatened to bombard Germany over what can only be described as a non-slight.
 

BooNZ

Banned
I think that ship sailed during the Second Boer War when they casually threatened to bombard Germany over what can only be described as a non-slight.
Mostly agree, but a reconciliation was still doable up until the Anglo-Japanese agreement - or perhaps a détente after the British and Russians inevitably fall out.

As an aside, what exactly did you mean on post #46 - I struggled to find the nexus to my post
 
As an aside, what exactly did you mean on post #46 - I struggled to find the nexus to my post

I thought you were defending the position that Britain could assume Germany would be too weak after beating France and Russia to be a threat to Britain afterwards. My point was that security planners aren't supposed to be that blasé.
 

BooNZ

Banned
I thought you were defending the position that Britain could assume Germany would be too weak after beating France and Russia to be a threat to Britain afterwards. My point was that security planners aren't supposed to be that blasé.

Ok - I was attempting to point out that a quick war was not necessarily an expectation among many military thinkers of that time.

Back to the original topic, it is arguable that by backing the Entente they were deviating from the whole balance of power concept i.e. Britain backed Russia and France which were actively seeking changes on the continent - some have argued that Entente appeared to be the stronger power block (Nial F).
 
Screw those uppity islanders, the Hapsburgs are the real defenders of European sovereignty!
Im torn, on the one side I agree screw those uppity islanders but on the other side i am a prussophile and Hohenzollern is love Hohenzollern is life.
 
No. Honestly, I think that however much Britain attempted to forestall a European hegemon, their necessity in one not emerging is overrated. The thing to focus on is France, which had a huge population advantage over the rest of Europe from the Middle Ages, but didn't become a real unified political entity until about 1500. At the time, the Hapsburgs were able to stand them down for about two centuries, after which Prussia gradually became more important, eventually becoming the new preponderant power as a unified Germany. Russia also emerged around the same time, and they and France kept each other in check. All of this could have happened with or without British meddling, really.

I think you underestimate Britain's central role, although this role became central only by 1688. And the you overestimate Prussia which became an important player only in the middle of the 18th century but was still a junior partner until after the napoleonic wars, compared to Russia, Austria and Britain.

Without Britain, France would have established and maintained hegemony over western continental Europe and Germany would have remained divided, i.e. open for projection of french power.
 
Top