Is the British empire the most overrated empire in history?
>claim a bunch of desolate sparsely inhabited land to beef up your area size on paper >all your large imperial population is mostly thanks to owning India >only places with successful British settlement are in remote desolate areas (Canada, Australia, Africa) >only viable large settlement colony rebels and gains independence >all your military conflicts are against colonial tribal uprisings with swords and spears >barely hold your own against a bunch of dutch farmers >when you have to fight against a similarly matched European industrial power you get your shit pushed in
Thomas Wood
You're speaking English so I'd say they did rather well
Tyler Richardson
Success breeds jealousy
Aaron Nguyen
>desolate, uninhabited land >India Good one Also, why on earth do you people get so mad about it? Literally no one ever discusses it in this country and yet I come on to Veeky Forums and there is always at least one thread whining about it. Quite pathetic desu
Nathaniel Ross
>implying that America's post-ww2 hegemony in the west isn't the reason why English is spoken as widely as it is
Isaac Harris
b-b-b-but muh naval power
Jonathan Turner
delete this
Elijah Richardson
*explodes*
Henry Brown
Not really. Having those holdings allowed a relatively small, island power to become one of the most dominant superpowers in the world, and enable it spread its culture to the point where its the dominant underpinnings of the modern world.
Their success at imperialism is what separated the British from the Dutch or Portuguese. The fact that you're speaking English, a formerly localized language that wasn't even spoken by the nobility, as the lingua franca is a testament to the British Empire.
I can see how people like to hate on it because Brits can be really annoying with their 'Muh empire', and I would never suggest its the greatest empire in history, but I also think those very reasons cause people to not give it the credit its due.
Noah Sanchez
Which was a consequence of British imperialism in the first place.
Thomas Miller
American success stemmed from their own policy decisions, not due to the brits. Even at the apex of british power, the language of diplomacy was french.
James Brooks
>napeoloebic empire is overrated it only lasted 9 years
Leo Powell
>Brittish empire >Dominant It was a tiger paper that just filled the void after the Napoleonic wars and the 20's,30's and 48 rebellions all around Europe.Germany and the US surprassed Britain pretty fast once they got their shit together
Gabriel Parker
>>napeoloebic empire is overrated it only lasted 9 years True statement
Nolan Cook
Dominant does seem like a bit of a misnomer. During its empire period the UK still had to deal with other empires as rivals (France and Russia for the main part), not inferiors, generally speaking. Compared to the US which basically became completely dominant in the western world following the world wars.
Jacob Brooks
>introduced code napoleon to european countries.
Kayden Cox
Yeah of course today only Portugal speaks Portuguese.
John Lopez
>code napoleon What is this a hack? Either way the Napoleonic empire was just a waste of an entire generation for the Ceasar complexes of a cucked manlet
Thomas Allen
Yup the Germans sure had a dominant cultural impact on the world, that country that existed for 40 years before imploding twice.
The Americans obviously have a massive impact but again, the US is a direct result of British imperialism.
I'm not a big fan of Britain, I think its pretty shit, I just think this board seems to hate on it more than its due because of 'le eternal anglo/perfidious albion' meme.
Yes like we're speaking portuguese right now dude lmao XD
Easton Parker
>Yup the Germans sure had a dominant cultural impact on the world, that country that existed for 40 years before imploding twice. >Marxism >The creation of the USSR >Starting 2 world wars >Ending colonialism >Quantum physics >The space program Germany is probaly the most important nation of the XX century when you start looking at it.Germany surprassed the UK's GDP in 1903 and had a way bigger army and if given the time probably a big enough navy to compete with Britain. >the US is a direct result of British imperialism Not really.The US is the result of a huge population boom in Europe and having tons of empty land for peasants.The US could have been a Danish colony and would have turned up to be the same
Justin Powell
>Germany is probaly the most important nation of the XX century when you start looking at it.Germany surprassed the UK's GDP in 1903 and had a way bigger army and if given the time probably a big enough navy to compete with Britain.
Yes and how is that a result of the German "Empire" with their few little holdings in the pacific and meme tier Africa?
Parker Bailey
I'm not sure what exactly you think you're comparing it to. To varying degrees what you said describes ALL the major colonial powers (they all grabbed a bunch of third world shitholes and underpopulated sand). The French Empire? Half of it was literally the Sahara Desert. Russia? Fucking Siberia. Portugal, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands? By 1900 their empires weren't even that impressive on paper.
The Brits had all of India, Egypt, some of the most fertile and livable parts of Subsaharan Africa, and a handful of more modest colonies and port cities in very important strategic locations (Singapore, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Bermuda, etc) as well as misc smaller territories dotting the entire globe. Frankly, it would have been an impressive empire even WITHOUT all the empty land in Canada and Australia.
Ethan Edwards
>and how is that a result of the German "Empire >The creation of the USSR They sent Lenin to Russia for a reason >Starting 2 world wars Direct result of the German empire >Ending colonialism WW's ended colonialism Having few colonies doesn't mean that Germany wasn'tmore powerful than Britain
Brayden Ramirez
Okay, so if thats how we're defining Empire, If sending in a non German seditious radical who drank the kool-aid written by a German is responsible for the USSR, then I don't know how you can argue that the British aren't infinitely more responsible for the creation of the USA, along with Canada, Australia, modern India, Hong Kong, and a bunch of other massively impactful modern nations and areas.
>Starting wars Who were the Germans fighting again? >WWs ended colonialism See above.
>Having few colonies doesn't mean that Germany wasn'tmore powerful than Britain
We're not talking about "power", we're discussing whether or not the British Empire is "overrated", which I think the only reason is up for debate is because this board hates "Anglos" almost as much as /pol/ hates jews.
Easton Davis
A lot of how modern India was made was completely different to how the british ran India. I get that this board generally knows little about history, but please try to read up. Things like the south indian language movement, more power to local village representatives and large investment in R&D happened AFTER india was independent. Several european countries like France and East Germany along with Britain did help but it was less due to empire and more due to governments signing agreements.
Colton Allen
Right so surely you MUST agree that if hundreds of years of colonial influence and rule are not responsible for the creation of a nation then providing a lunatic in a sausage shop free transportation back to his country can't be either.
>I get that this board generally knows little about history, but please try to read up
Oh I see then, You're just a shitposter. Why don't you hop along back to r/history?
Cooper Davis
>USA Brittish influence in the USA is overstated.It would have been succesful as long as millions of Europeans migrated there which would have happened either way >Canada, Australia Pretty irrelevant countries >modern India The colonial rule had nothing to do with modern India The USSR was a superpower and it would had never happened if Germans didn't particiapate on Russian's politics
Angel Smith
I am not the guy you responded to. I am saying that modern India developed a lot after independence and attributing it to the british rule in India is specious at best.
No one here is interested in discussing history, they just want a "beady anglo" thread to shitpost in. Just move along.
Nicholas Parker
yeah nigga but the sun never sets on our hood
Luke Watson
>Brittish influence in the USA is overstated.It would have been succesful as long as millions of Europeans migrated there which would have happened either way
The British have profoundly more influence on the creation of the USA than the Germans did on the USSR
>Canada, Australia >Pretty irrelevant countries
More relevant than anything Germany did.
>The colonial rule had nothing to do with modern India It had infinitely more to do with Modern India than German Imperialism had to do with one guy writing some ramblings down before Germany was even created, and then the military sending a guy in a train back to russia to poke a hornets nest that was already agitated.
Zachary Hughes
>what is brazil
Lincoln Jackson
A lot of modern indian institutions looked at british rule and decided not to follow it. The devolution of power to the states, respect for linguistic minorities and language based seperation of states was something that was pretty unique in post independence india.
Investment in R&D was also something that the Indian government encouraged from the start and resulted in a lot of institutions in india that came about as a result of local problems being solved.
The IITs were made with the help of american universities, and they successfully coexist with older british institutions like the Indian School of Mines which was established in the 1920s. The british had a very hands off bureaucratic policy with colonial india which resulted in the presence of a lot of indians who needed to be trained and educated to functionally run local states and governments.
The british did establish some pretty good institutions in india like the Roorkee civil engineering college and the Indian school of mines but for the most part their governance was pretty bad.
Samuel Sullivan
Right. So you're agreeing the British Empire is not responsible for the creation of the modern Indian state. So you have to agree Germany is not responsible for the creation of the U.S.S.R.
And if you're that other guy from before who doesn't like Veeky Forumswhy are you still replying?
Caleb Price
because I really like discussing history.
Hunter Taylor
Is Veeky Forums the worst board? It's just as historically illiterate as /pol/ and full of shitty, irritating meme posts... I don't see what the difference is
James Morales
>become one of the most dominant superpowers in the world >superpowers in the world >superpowers
No.
Logan Adams
you are typing in roman letters, which came from greek, which came from phoenician. So we should actually thank the Phoenicians
Carter Martinez
>A lot of how modern India was made was completely different to how the british ran India that's true, but the fact that india is a single nation rather than a bunch of northern micronations and a couple southern blobs showed how british insitutional reform within india during the past few centuries was the largest factor in its creation it's on the same scale as conquering vietnam, thailand, laos, cambodia, indonesia, singapore. malaysia, etc. and creating a unified southeast asia that stands the test of time
Cameron Turner
K
Andrew Murphy
>implying that America's post-ww2 hegemony in the west isn't the reason why English is spoken as widely as it is
