You can see there's a pattern with the British empire and their colonies. They only settled where the most primitive people lived, Australia with it's aborigines, America with the Indian savages.
They couldn't properly replace the people of Egypt or India for example.
Very ignorant post but too lazy to tell you why
Sure thing Nigel
I find it interesting you didn't mention a single thing about population density
Go on...
stupid post
Then why didnt the others do the same?
What is Quebec what is the orange free state what is Gibraltar what is Cyprus and Malta
>You can see there's a pattern with the British empire and their colonies
Yea there is a pattern, but you totally missed it.
Quebec is french, dipshit.
"British" colonies were private business ventures dude
What?
Shareholder returns maybe? See
The pattern is climate, temperate regions where you can grow a lot of European grain and areas connected to temperate regions.
>temperate regions where you can grow a lot of European grain
Bullshit, climates where non-European cash crops such as sugar, cotton and indigo grow were favoured. Better profit.
But Europeans never replaced the native populations in those areas like they did in Australia and America.
They brought slave labor from abroad to grow crops. Not in British India though.
What a dumb post.
If you're talking about the demographics, the Americas recieved gigantic European emigration figures, whilst European diseases had wiped out most of the native population.
In Australia the indigenous were extremely primitive and quite low in population.
The population of India was gigantic, and in Africa European diseases didnt devastate the population so unlike in the Americas the African tribes remained the majority population.
Places such as Egypt were held for less than 100 years and experienced very little European immigration. And the British weren't concerned with some grand ideal to populate the whole world with Anglo-Saxons in the 1900s
This is my reply, do with it as you wish.
northern US: temperate
southern US: warm temperate
South Africa: temperate
southeastern Australia: temperate
NZ: temperate
Cash crops are a source of wealth but only for the minority of wealthy and they often used slaves or natives for the labor. The majority of European settlers were small farmers and attracted to temperate climates where they could grow the crops they were familiar with.
>Le Ebin muh empire is better than yours because its hard to conquer peoples with guns than savages
The long answer to why Britain did this is because people who run countries aren't autistic and instead make decisions based off least cost for greatest profit.
Costs a shit ton to invade France but invading bongo bongo land is so cheap even private businesses can do it (see EIC, Cecil Rhodes).
Invaded France would cost a shit ton to police and maintain for not much profit (as now you need more resources for there industry) but bongo bongo land is cheap as chips to maintain and is rich with resources for your own industry to refine.
The short answer is MONEY and not looking at the world through autism.
>British empire and their colonies
SeeWhat the fuck do settlers and what climates they prefer have to do with Britains model of privatized (company/charter company) colonialism? They were for-profit ventures for shareholder returns in London.
This. At least one other person in this thread gets it.
How much profit did the colonies actually make?
They could've invaded France after they beat Napoleon
And then they should have shared it with their allies
Britain was never at any point in its history able to invade France alone
If they decimated the army after the war they could've had a pop.
>what is the hundred years war
If a few events had turned out differently, it would have been a very different Europe that we'd have today
Dunno dude im not the British archives.
That information may not even be available to the public, considering that many company records were held in the archives of the shareholders/operators fraternal lodge ie not available to outsiders.
A temperate climate could support European settlers growing grain who could in turn support local laborers free to perform other activities, many of which were as good investments as cash crops. For example in Jamestown's early years, once they started producing food and weren't starving, they produced many timber related products like potash, tar, incense, pine resin, planks, turpentine and pitch and also glass using the ample charcoal.
>They were for-profit ventures for shareholder returns in London.
Many private investors were also middle class gentry who wanted to own land in the new world as opposed to high aristocracy that might be more interested in owning plantations while remaining in England. Many of Jamestown's first residents were gentry, though most of them starved.
I generally agree with you and , it does not contradict what I said if you take a broad perspective.
What is the Angevin Empire
because there was a fucking lot of people in Egypt and India, you fucking retard
>implying we were trying to replace those other groups.
I don't know who you are, but you're likely from a group we should replace.
>populate the whole world with Anglos
Good Lord, who would we annoy?!
Honestly the only British colony that actually became something great was USA. Everything else was either a shitty penal colony, a military base or a bunch of resources to be extracted.
Singapore,Brunei and Hong Kong turned out fine
Singapore turned out fine DESPITE the brits, and I'm from there
do you expect they would done better if it was Dutch,Portuguese or god forbid, J*horean/Acheh rule?
>we were only pretending to colonise nigger countries!