How did such a tiny Island forge the biggest empire the world has ever known? Tell me the tale of how the British Empire came to be
They perfected their methodology on the Irish people before exporting it.
>>430743
Ships, being the first country to industrialise, and the desire to make money
>tiny island
Why do people assume more land = most powerful? It's so much more complicated than that.
>>430743
watch Niall Ferguson's Empire: How Britain made the modern world.
>>430770
>>My pastor once referred to an angel as an "invisible thing"
>>Therefore, all angels are invisible
>>Dismisses the entire Old Testament, where angels have regular interactions with people
>>Says that "Mainstream Christianity, Judaism and Islam" all have consensus on a certain topic
>>Could find out that they don't with 30 seconds on google
>>instead provides a single link from a
Also, as far as Island's go, only Japan and New Zeeland come anywhere close in habitable land.
>>430770
Its eu4 logic.
The bigger you are the strong you are.
>>430770
More people to do shit
The British Empire was first and foremost a trading Empire. Ironically, when it was at it's largest in the 1920s was also at it's weakest economically.
If you want to read up on the two dominating figures of the late 19th century, read up on Disraeli and Gladstone.
>>430792
More people also require more resources to maintain.
>>430780
More people/land= more potential, but that doesn't mean that the potential will be realized.
>>430799
and?
100 people 50 farmers 50 soldiers is stronger than 10 people 5 farmers 5 soldiers
They had Scotland to invent the modern world and start the industrial revolution.
>>430812
It depends on the level of productivity for the farmers and the force multipliers for the soldiers.
Western farmers produce more food than their 3rd world counterparts.
Western soldiers have more tools at their disposal, and are more sophisticated, than their 3rd world counterparts.
>>430743
They bought India and used indian troops to Zerg over the rest
>>430795
Weren't both of those guys jews, kek
>>430827
>>430799
Economies of scale. It's easier for 1000 people to produce a surplus than it is for 100 people.
>>430743
Boats
>>430743
perfidy
How? A combination of factors:
1. the English were tough, brutal and daring
2. they quickly neutralized the other inhabitants of great britain - the welsh early on and the Scottish with the union of crowns
3. they were lucky that the Scots went bankrupt with the Panama colony fiasco - and was forced to join with the English. Before this, the Scots were close allies wit the French
These above three items enabled the English to have complete control of their island with no worries about fighting on two fronts.
They were also lucky that they came upon India just in time when the Moghal Empire was collapsing and when the Marathas still treated their empire as a loose federation. 100 years earlier, the English were poor traders, completely outgunned by the Moghals -- during the time of Akbar. Akbar was also smart in that he did not antagonize the majority Hindus.
But Akbar's grandson did the opposite - Aurangzeb was a Moslem fanatic and caused the Hindus to fight against him. The English and French used this opportunity to pick off different enemies one at a time.
The English also lost the USA - and that taught them good lessons in how to run an empire by pulling strings and not being too oppressive.
>>430743
boats, money and civil law
>>430792
You're thinking of population density.
By your logic places like Greenland or Nambia have more people to do shit than the UK, which is clearly false.
India was really the only impressive part.
>>430743
An army and navy of horrible bastards born in garbage who live past age 6 by theft and murder, led by scheming greedy bastards with enormous egos and lots of education. Both of these classes united in a desperate struggle to find better weather and cuisine.
>>431289
don't feel bad just because you were born in france.
coal
Killer Apps
>>430743
most of their land was either tundra or desert
India was cash tho, and 13 American colonies would have basically made them unstoppable.
>>430743
Precisely because their island was tiny. Brits needed lebensraum.
>>430743
Political stability arising from Cromwell destroying all opposition and then the Glorious Revolution finishing it all off relatively peacefully. Ultra capitalism/liberalism arising from extreme individualism compared to other countries, which still exists. Fixing the 'too big' problem for empires by sending capitalists in first and then letting then natives rule themselves mostly with only a small garrison. Carrying favour with the natives by pitting one side against each other and letting the winner be a puppet. Smartly concentrating on controlling the worlds water when sailing was like our flying. Pitting other nations against each other instead of actually fighting, for example the napoleonic wars. Remember at the time france had many times our population as well.
>>431149
>3. they were lucky that the Scots went bankrupt with the Panama colony fiasco
It wouldnt have mattered anyway, the scots got decimated by us in war and the only way they could keep their independence is by being as good as us with money which eventually failed.
>>431039
And brilliant politicians. At least Disreli was. I don't know much about Gladstone. Disreli converted to Anglicism when he was 12 anyway.
>>430743
>The channel
Thks to it, for providing coward brits a place to hide.
Well, you know how normal people have a voice in their head that makes them feel bad or ashamed when they do something sneaky or mean? Brits don't have that.
>>431745
lol
>>431751
>being smart is a bad thing
new worlder or frenchman detected
Britain has a imperial shittonne of resources and has the benefit of not needing a huge military to it's shores. It just needs a strong navy, which it can use to project power across the globe.
First country to embrace free market capitalism combined with the intellectual/organizational abilities of the Victorian upper classes. And I guess they became well practiced in the art of colonialism. Capital + human capital = success. Sadly both of things have been declining rapidly since the war ended.
Boats, industrialization and not having to fight other serious rivals in their homeland for quite a bit. Japan was on its way to become British Empre 2.0 but they went full weeb and copied the German model instead.
>>430743
strategic geoposition.
Even those lazy spain and portugal managed to get an empire just because their position.
>>430743
They are seperated from mainland Europe. England was civilized by the Romans and used their civilization to conquer the barbarous scots and celts
>>430743
Western Europe in general was well positioned to be a competitor with other regions in the old world to advance technologically.
1: part of the vast interconnected area encompassing the Mediterranean, fertile crescent, Eastern Europe and the steppes
2: oceanic climate with a lot of moisture which can be cleared of forests, once new technology arose anywhere in the world, it rapidly spread to europe unless it originated in europe and countries like France had enormous resources to implement it and trade connections to foster new innovations
2a: because europe has few spices and the like, they had to innovate and find things they can manufacture to trade, this is a small factor
3: geographic location, Spain and Portugal are next to sea lanes from the med to northern europe and Africa, if the Ottomans suddenly decided to devote all their resources to colonizing florida the spanish wouldn't have much difficulty stopping them
Why Britain?
1: a secure island
2: since the time of Flanders being the center of the medieval wool trade, the alluvial netherlands with its productive flat farmland was the natural commercial center for its region, as someone said "size doesn't matter", what matters in a commercial center is the concentration of wealth
2a: due to Louis XIV's antics this place became dangerous and insecure, Britain initially fought the Netherlands but then later came into union with them during the glorious revolution, commerce shifted to London but the Netherlands gained the resources of Britain in fighting their wars, also the rich Netherlands merchants could easily move their business to London, we in fact see places like Belgium becoming the first to industrialize at the same time as Britain
3: So London became the jewel in the crown, if you were a scientist or a merchant in western Europe, London would be the most attractive place to be if you wanted to try something new.
>>432213
I would argue that Europe had enough resources to succeed, but not enough to be content forever. They had to invent and use technology to support their lifestyle, as opposed to Africa where there are so many natural resources there is no need to advance technologically.
>>430743
Being an Island nation forced them to Develop bigger and better ships than anyone else. Also the Waters of the English Channel were not the most forgiving so their ships had to be very sturdy.
They also had some of the biggest Silver, gold coal and other precious mineral mines in all of Europe.
In addition to all this they had some little amount of isolation with the rest of Europe so they weren't constantly stuck in feuds over whose border ends where.
huge technological advantage over the natives.
powerful navy to keep the other Europeans away.
playing the indians against each other and then back stabbing them.
Perfidious Albion
>>430743
By murdering over 1.8 billion people over the course of their murderous rampage across the world.
>>432549
>1.8 billion Indians dead
christ, India was huge.
>>431540
This map makes no sense. How is it quantifying a colony? Also ancient greece had many colonies.
>>430839
Yes but why did Westerners turn out that way?
>>432940
If it lacks citations, how much confidence do you have in the source?
>>431540
Didn't the Irish colonize Boston?
>>433149
who are "the irish"
what is "boston"
what is "colonisation"
there's your answer
The UK wasn't part of mainland europe so it avoided a lot of europe's shit
being an island helps
>>432550
well that was over a longer period than the Holohoax.
>>430759
This
Spanish Empire was on the decline due to a large amount of inflation, they shot themselves in the foot seeking out precious metals so aggressively, they flooded the market.
France was a major player, but tended to get regularly teamed up on, so the Brits just filled a power gap.
Its also of note that the Brits were a bit late to the Revolution, but due to superior access to coal, caught up and surpassed French and German production quickly.
>>432329
Scots have made the most contribution to the sciences relative to their size of any ethnic group, maybe only beaten by Jews.
>>430770
Britain isn't even that tiny. I mean, the islands of Great Britain and Ireland alone have more population that the entirety of France.
>>433149
Kind of.
There was no Irish government that colonized the land, but there were many Irish colonists in Boston under British administration.
>>432549
Oy vey don't let them find out about the 50 million Australian Aboriginals
>>433454
And your citation?
Since they were not connected to mainland Europe they could just sit on their little island and shit ships out the ass while the rest of Europe was fighting. Then they took those ships and conquered a bunch of niggers without armies and wastelands. Tada. You now have the "biggest" empire.
Truth is if Britain was on mainland Europe they would have gotten btfo by the big boys.
>>433660
we invented capitalism and sex.
i think that's enough.
>>433463
>kind of
You mean "categorically, no".
Because that's not how colonisation works
Do you think the English learnt the importance of ships from Viking invasions?
>>434396
>Truth is if Britain was on mainland Europe they would have gotten btfo by the big boys.
when will this meme end?
if we wanted land we would've taken it, all we were interested in was money, the land we took around the globe we only did because we could profit off it.
>>434421
no.
Henry VIII recognised we were an Island and as such we needed a beefed up navy, hence why he started the Royal Navies beef up and it carried on after him because it was a success
>>434437
>if we wanted land we would've taken it, all we were interested in was money, the land we took around the globe we only did because we could profit off it.
For such a large and old country, the Brits don't really have a very illustrious military history.
>>432329
angry arrogant scots who get their kilts in a twist when people forget about them
>>433660
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Enlightenment
>>434471
We British seem to be held to a much higher standard than anyone else. Our military history is better by leaps and bounds than the majority of Europe.
>>432221
I'm not sure how influential that is, populations generally increase to fit the resources available.
>>434471
>conquer a quarter of the globe
>win the seven years war
>win the napoleonic war
>win two world wars
In 2015 an anon posts that Britain doesnt have a very illustrious military history
>>432549
>>433004
because westerners innovate
Because they were especially hopeless at expanding in Europe, but also protected from invasion by being an island.
>>435961
if mainlander yuros weren't beta they wouldn't have let a tiny stretch of water stop them.
>>435986
There never was a point for most of history (except on a couple of occasions, when England was invaded). France wanted to expand its continental borders, and anyone else would have had to go through France first, which was much more desirable anyway. The first time England became enough of a nuisance to justify invading it was for Napoleon, but the French navy was too much of a mess.
>>435986
>they wouldn't have let a tiny stretch of water stop them.
Romans? Saxons? Normans? William III?
>>431382
> and 13 American colonies would have basically made them unstoppable.
They didn't intend to expand west. They made an indian buffer state. If they had kept the colonies it would be interesting to see what would have happened to the centre of north america, as there wouldn't be any obvious power to claim it.
>>436095
You forgot the Danes, Henry of Anjou, Louis of France, Isabella of France...
