precisely because they are not primary needs that they are precious. Spices are not necessary for cooking, but without them food is simpler.
But you hardly can develop a really strong economy based exclusively upon production/reselling the very expensive items. The real boost starts when you are managing to lower the cost to such a degree that these items became a commodity available to the millions. You are lowering a profit margin on a single item and gaining much more on a volume.
yes, post napoleonic with a "controlled" France. without the country vying for real power with the uk
“Real power” is meaningless because it is too vague. Britain did not have resources to grab the whole world (not due to the lack of trying) and had to accept the fact that other players are going to grab their shares of a colonial pie. And, in practical terms, it could oppose France in the places remote enough for the naval supremacy becoming a critical factor. Opposing the French colonial activities in Algeria would be quite difficult.
They didn't have a navy because they wanted to isolate themselves, when they look at the world again, the navy becomes the most important part, or one of the most important. Having one of the biggest navies in the world in +-2 generations
True, but not really convincing as a demonstration of a pattern. In one of two available cases one lived for centuries without a navy and the reasons are really irrelevant. OTOH, non-island countries were routinely getting quite big navies. The US ended up with a biggest one, Germany had a very big one and even pretty much land-locked Russian Empire had by the reign of AIII the 3rd or 4th biggest navy in the world. So
to me it looks like a technical & financial ability to have it rather than a geography.
yes, having a powerful navy is not unique to island countries. But having an almost exclusive focus on the navy is almost always something of an island country due to the need to defend itself. Just like a continental country has a big army to defend itself
Japan had a big navy and a big army simultaneously. Actually, in pre-modern time it defended itself quite successfully without a navy and its first big imperialistic exercise in the XVI century was done with a navy inferior to one of the victim of aggression (Korea). Its second round, in the late XIX also happened with the fleet
technically inferior to one of China. In both cases, and later, it had a very strong army. So I would not make it into a pattern: there are simply not enough examples.
yes, the med. Controlling north africa or at least part
