Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)22:05:47 | 3 comments
Were the British even trying to rule the world, or did that just happen accidentally?
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)22:09:21 No.17451569
>>17451562
They never ruled the world though. Getting some poos to call you saar and having a couple shitty colonies in africa doesnt mean you rule the world.
They never ruled the world though. Getting some poos to call you saar and having a couple shitty colonies in africa doesnt mean you rule the world.
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)22:23:17 No.17451585
>>17451562
UK = americas lapdog
UK = americas lapdog
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)22:32:26 No.17451595
>>17451562
The British Empire is one of the strangest empires to have formed. They literally fell as backwards into and they were constantly fighting to restrain themselves instead of taking more land. Every book I read about British colonial history, especially at their peak, goes something like this
>we have trade and diplomatic interests in x area
>government is happy with the current arrangement. Does nothing but send some diplomatic missions and trade.
>French/Russians/whoever are up to something. A few hawks spread worry that they’ll infringe on our sphere
>liberal government does nothing
>a couple guys on the ground go out of their way without proper approval to strengthen control of x area
>liberal government doesnt like it—too expensive
>french/russians/whoever start showing up more. Get worried
>Conservatives win election, government expands
>liberals win next election. New expansion is too expensive, dial it back to half or less than half of what could’ve been possible
>repeat
There’s never a broad, unified vision of what the empire should be. It’s always focused on trade and mercantilism and the government is always fighting itself and trying to keep it’s guys on the ground restrained. Then when they have it, people in government are always lamenting the cost and trying to cut back wherever. This isn’t to say the British had good intentions: it’s more like they had no idea where or how to move forward except build boats and secure trade. Controlling land wasn’t the priority. I mean, even for things it’s settler colonies were more a result of its surplus people on the ground wanting to get the fuck out and the government just dealing with it as they go instead of directing it (Australian penal colonies being an exception). The best example is with America where they told the guys on the ground to stop expanding beyond the Appalachians. I don’t think they ever set out to become an empire, minus glory seekers on the ground.
The British Empire is one of the strangest empires to have formed. They literally fell as backwards into and they were constantly fighting to restrain themselves instead of taking more land. Every book I read about British colonial history, especially at their peak, goes something like this
>we have trade and diplomatic interests in x area
>government is happy with the current arrangement. Does nothing but send some diplomatic missions and trade.
>French/Russians/whoever are up to something. A few hawks spread worry that they’ll infringe on our sphere
>liberal government does nothing
>a couple guys on the ground go out of their way without proper approval to strengthen control of x area
>liberal government doesnt like it—too expensive
>french/russians/whoever start showing up more. Get worried
>Conservatives win election, government expands
>liberals win next election. New expansion is too expensive, dial it back to half or less than half of what could’ve been possible
>repeat
There’s never a broad, unified vision of what the empire should be. It’s always focused on trade and mercantilism and the government is always fighting itself and trying to keep it’s guys on the ground restrained. Then when they have it, people in government are always lamenting the cost and trying to cut back wherever. This isn’t to say the British had good intentions: it’s more like they had no idea where or how to move forward except build boats and secure trade. Controlling land wasn’t the priority. I mean, even for things it’s settler colonies were more a result of its surplus people on the ground wanting to get the fuck out and the government just dealing with it as they go instead of directing it (Australian penal colonies being an exception). The best example is with America where they told the guys on the ground to stop expanding beyond the Appalachians. I don’t think they ever set out to become an empire, minus glory seekers on the ground.