So in this book it says:

So in this book it says:

>The Corinthian decision was also, no doubt, part of the continuing contest over disputed colonies, a form of imperial competition familiar among European states late in the nineteenth century. It has long been clear that many of the European empires were unprofitable from a material point of view, and the practical reasons given for acquiring them were excuses rather than plausible explanations. The real motives were often psychological and irrational rather than economic and practical; that is, they derived from questions of honor and prestige.

Were the colonial empires that unprofitable for the mother countries? I thought they got rich and shit from having the colonies and extracting resources from them.

bump

Colonial affairs bankrupted a fair amount of them. But I don't think that can apply to all of them. It's hard to argue it didn't benefit the Netherlands economically, for example.

The countries or are we talking about businesses and shit?

I was referring mainly to the countries, although depending on the case they are closely tied together. Going back to the time period in the book in the OP, Athens received a sizable income once they decided to use taxes on maritimr trade in the empire rather than directly taxing the cities. So for Athens it was profitable.

Which ones got bankrupted? I mean did free trade really make countries like Spain and Portugal be 1st world nations now?

bump

>colonial empires that unprofitable for the mother countries?
French Empire, British Empire (late 19th century acquisitions), Portuguese Empire, mid-Spanish Empire possibly (in terms of relying on extractive colonial industries that were unsustainable in the long term)

They were dominant during their colonial periods. Did ears and internal strife eventually lead to their collopses, yes just like any powerful nation. That's like saying Rome's expansion didn't benefit it. Did their amount of territory hurt them during their fall, yes, but they were powerful before then for centuries.

(((kagan)))

The Persian Model was the perfect form of Empire building, this can not be refuted, you leave the conquered nations with their dignity intact, and create prosperity and security for everyone involved. Cyrus knew what he was getting into, Alexander did not.

they became socialists so they couldn't make money from them anymore due to their welfare states causing a giant loss. You just imagine how much universal healthcare would cost for India when they make pennies a day to tax.

But didn't France and Britain become rich because of their empires?

Not for creating a homogenous army. Their force was a hodge podge, were did not help.

In Alexander's defense he also died young without doing to much government building. Who knows what he could have built given more time.

not necessarily
Britain became rich through their early industrialization. Their industrialization, in part, fueled their colonialism, as the need for natural resources rose tremendously and they sought out other sources of these resources to fuel the rapid industrialization of their homeland.
Once the brunt of this development had passed, there was indeed little need to "hold" onto these colonies; peaceful trade of consumer goods with raw materials would not only accomplish what was needed, but even ensure the industrialized nation stayed hegemon (no need for nations to industrialize when all they require for a healthy economy is the harvesting of natural resources.)

french oversease empire of the late 19th century was only economically useful to the extent that it gave markets for ailing and inefficient french textile industries (among other ones) so as to ease rapid societal dislocation. The history of 19th century france is essentially a political history of the French elite trying to prevent another French revolution (and failing a few times at this), and critical to preventing this was creating social stability at the cost of economic growth. The colonial policy was one element of this thinking.

More on this? This is certainly what I got from a cursory understanding of general French history and how it relates to world history but a more in-depth look would be nice.

bump

This is only true if theres no war or hostile forces. In a peaceful world it would be much easier to just buy what you needed but in Europe's case you could easily be forced out of resources like rubber or silk. And this isnt like modern day where they just sell it to you at lucratives prices you could seriously be threatened out of necessary resources which could snowball into much larger issues.