How did the English annex half the world?

Ush1

I could probably google it and go over it bit by bit but could someone tell me how they managed it with a country of such a small size?

Comparable to Ireland really in size.

frag420

Cups of tea and strong handshakes!!

and footy of course!!

smash

They missed a bit..

unclejunior

good question, a combination of luck and genius i suppose. somebody had to be top dog so they ened up being it

Logical Fallacy

Mostly it was down to a large and effective Navy and early industrialisation.

Basically they needed things and had the means to get them.

AnonoBoy

Was it their winning charm?

Mr.Applepie

A stiff upper lip and a love of killing people gets you far in life.

Vastly superior Navy.

General Relativity

Investing in Science. Then annexing the poorer regions of the world first, rape their resoruces, then move onto bigger fish from there. Rince and repeat.

kincsem

Guns. Lots of guns.

biko

Flags.

Gyalist

A large navy and they mastered the practise of "divide and rule." In every country they colonised they identified a minority group and installed them as the political and commercial leaders.

John Doe1

Racism, guns and the accent:)

the_syco

Maybe the vikings. As the vikings attacked them with longboats, they needed a navy. When the viking stopped attacking them, they probably went around look for a fight colonising?

ejmaztec

They excelled in bribery and pretending that they had an army of fifty million soldiers hiding around the corner.

claddy

They invaded countries with no armies

Duggy747

They exported Coronation Street which kept people glued to their TVs while the Brits snuck in.

Quite.

Ush1

Didn't they even have a large portion(or tried to get a portion) of America?

What the hell were we doing back when us and them were on an even keel?

marienbad

Ush1 wrote: »

Didn't they even have a large portion(or tried to get a portion) of America?

What the hell were we doing back when us and them were on an even keel?

we were ''them'' back then .

king_kong_ill

Ush1 wrote: »

I could probably google it and go over it bit by bit but could someone tell me how they managed it with a country of such a small size?

Comparable to Ireland really in size.

a balanced combination of dry wit and barbaric savagery

Ush1

marienbad wrote: »

we were ''them'' back then .

How do you mean?

Surely there was a point when we seperated, split islands and they soared ahead and we were twiddlin' our thumbs?

uncle_sam_ie

I read a book on this called The Mother Tongue. Basically English is a bastardised language that has the ability to evolve absorbing words from other languages.

steddyeddy

I would be more impressed with Ganghis Kahn and alexander the great's efforts to be honest.

king_kong_ill

Ush1 wrote: »

How do you mean?

Surely there was a point when we seperated, split islands and they soared ahead and we were twiddlin' our thumbs?

all empires drain the colonys and return thier wealth to the mother country , happened in india , africa , china

Ush1

king_kong_ill wrote: »

all empires drain the colonys and return thier wealth to the mother country , happened in india , africa , china

I'm not sure if you get what I'm asking. I'm saying that before the English had an empire to speak of, what was the crucial advances that they made and that we didn't pick up on during that time?

Dravokivich

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

I read a book on this called The Mother Tongue. Basically English is a bastardised language that has the ability to evolve absorbing words from other languages.

To some degree all languages pick up bits and pieces from others as a result of popular appeal.

I noticed back in August that casual German speech seems to have been influenced a bit by Italian as an example. I wasn't even in an area close by.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm not sure if you get what I'm asking. I'm saying that before the English had an empire to speak of, what was the crucial advances that they made and that we didn't pick up on during that time?

Probably the most important things were advanced shipping and explorers. The countries that coloniosed most of the world from abotu the 15th century on were the ones with the longest coastlines and the most advanced shipping fleets. For one thing, you have to be able to get there, but you also need to be able to get the raw materials back for it to be worthwhile. Britain also had some of the best known and most adventurous explores at the time.

Toby Take a Bow

Guns, Germs and Steel (by Jared Diamond) suggests that geography is key, but obviously with other factors included. Success at the time of Europe's rise favoured small countries with good natural defences. England's naval strength was based on continually being attacked, so they needed a strong navy for defence. When that was assured, along came the prospect of far and distant lands, which they capitalised on by having a well-developed navy. This early success allowed them to capitalise on their natural resources when the industrial revolution arrived.

So: geography and a lot of luck, I suppose.

Chamone MF

In the same way the Spanish took half of the American continent. Simply they were more advanced and had knowledge and technologies that less developed civilizations didn't.

The noticeable gaps in the British empire are any country that had any proper government or military with technology of a similar level.

i.e any european other countries.
Basically they picked on the smaller kids using a combination of technologies from earlier civilizations.

the english channel has been their savior on more than one occasion, thats why their relatively small numbers could get away with it.

gurramok

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm not sure if you get what I'm asking. I'm saying that before the English had an empire to speak of, what was the crucial advances that they made and that we didn't pick up on during that time?

We lost the Battle of Kinsale which heralded in the English as the rulers for centuries after. Having a few plantations with English settlers as landlords and the native Irish as tenants along with discrimination helped 'put us down' ensuring we never excelled.

Globally, the English had superior weapons than their victims thanks to luck of industrialisation whereby lots of raw materials were on British soil itself(Ireland never had this) helping them to develop a superior navy and army. It all fell apart for them when the Germans\French\USA\USSR overtook them.

I Heart Internet

steddyeddy wrote: »

I would be more impressed with Ganghis Kahn and alexander the great's efforts to be honest.

They all had their strengths i suppose.

England
- birthplace of the industrial revolution (due to access to sea, coal, iron, early breaking of serfdom, protestant work ethic?, enlightenment thinking...)
- Extraordinarily powerful navy - dwarfing (by far) competitors
- Trade, trade, trade.

Gyalist

Chamone MF wrote: »

In the same way the Spanish took half of the American continent. Simply they were more advanced and had knowledge and technologies that less developed civilizations didn't.

The noticeable gaps in the British empire are any country that had any proper government or military with technology of a similar level.

i.e any european other countries.
Basically they picked on the smaller kids using a combination of technologies from earlier civilizations.

the english channel has been their savior on more than one occasion, thats why their relatively small numbers could get away with it.

The Spanish didn't take half of the Americas. It was gifted to them in 1494 by the Pope under the terms of the Treaty of Tordesillas. One half of the "New World" to Spain, the other half to Portugal. Later on neither of them could withstand the might of the Royal Navy.

Jimoslimos

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Guns, Germs and Steel (by Jared Diamond) suggests that geography is key, but obviously with other factors included. Success at the time of Europe's rise favoured small countries with good natural defences. England's naval strength was based on continually being attacked, so they needed a strong navy for defence. When that was assured, along came the prospect of far and distant lands, which they capitalised on by having a well-developed navy. This early success allowed them to capitalise on their natural resources when the industrial revolution arrived.

So: geography and a lot of luck, I suppose.

The small island nation theory is a good one, other than minor skirmishes with the Scots the border was determined by the coastline.
There are also a few similarities to be drawn with Japanese imperialism, small island nation dominating much larger continent.

Logical Fallacy

claddy wrote: »

They invaded countries with no armies

This is actually part of it, they did a great job of finding countries with an inferior military, defeating them, enforcing conscription and then using that to bolster their own numbers.

Spore

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm not sure if you get what I'm asking. I'm saying that before the English had an empire to speak of, what was the crucial advances that they made and that we didn't pick up on during that time?

The English got the Romans - we didn't. That's the single biggest difference between our histories.

Chamone MF

Gyalist wrote: »

The Spanish didn't take half of the Americas. It was gifted to them in 1494 by the Pope under the terms of the Treaty of Tordesillas. One half of the "New World" to Spain, the other half to Portugal. Later on neither of them could withstand the might of the Royal Navy.

So who was it invading and pillaging the natives?
And if they couldn't withstand the royal Navy why were they in control for so long and why does s.america speak spanish to this day.

Logical Fallacy

Spore wrote: »

The English got the Romans - we didn't. That's the single biggest difference between our histories.

Indeed, the Romans built a solid and quite advanced infrastructure across a lot of England. Improved their farming methods, trade routes, industry etc.

Logical Fallacy

Chamone MF wrote: »

So who was it invading and pillaging the natives?
And if they couldn't withstand the royal Navy why were they in control for so long and why does s.america speak spanish to this day.

The English shored up their colonies in Africa and the East before turning their full attention to America.

In Africa and Asia they could take things with far less of a fight than in the Americas. You have to remember that the Spanish had a presence in South America a full two centuries before the British arrived there.

mike65

Spore wrote: »

The English got the Romans - we didn't. That's the single biggest difference between our histories.

Well they were invaded by the Romans, you make it sound like they won a prize!

Logical Fallacy

mike65 wrote: »

Well they were invaded by the Romans, you make it sound like they won a prize!

Effectively they did. The Romans tended to improve the countries they invaded...if you compare what happened in Ireland under the English to what happened in England under the Romans they definitely won a prize.

mike65

Well Ireland was only good for cheap labour and trees.

poppyvally

Read "Guns, germs & steel" by Jared Diamond

dpe

Chamone MF wrote: »

In the same way the Spanish took half of the American continent. Simply they were more advanced and had knowledge and technologies that less developed civilizations didn't.

The noticeable gaps in the British empire are any country that had any proper government or military with technology of a similar level.

i.e any european other countries.
Basically they picked on the smaller kids using a combination of technologies from earlier civilizations.

the english channel has been their savior on more than one occasion, thats why their relatively small numbers could get away with it.

That's a pretty simplistic (and untrue) assessment as The War of The Spanish Succession, The Seven Years War and The Napoleonic Wars all show. Yes Britain had the strategic advantage of being an island, and having a strong navy , but it didn't have a strong navy by accident, it was policy from the 1800s to have a navy twice the size of the next two navies combined, and they spent a lot of treasure doing it. Having a big navy was a symptom of their success, not a cause of it.

The real reasons were:
1. Banking and the Joint Stock Company. Other countries invented banking and joint stock companied but the English were really good at it, to the extent that their companies did a lot of the colonising with minimal cost to the state. India wasn't won by the British Empire, it was won by the EIC.

2. The Triangular Trade. Once again, other countries started the slave to trade to America (Portugal first, then Spain, then the Dutch) but the British got so efficient at it that they actually got the contract to run the Spanish slave trade as well as their own (the Assiento), which in turn let them control the Caribbean sugar trade, which generated mind-boggling amounts of money at the time (far more money than the slave trade itself).

3. Parliament. France was controlled from the center, and decision-making was slow, Britain, with a few odd exceptions, was never controlled by the centre, in fact the centre (parliament, not the king) deliberately took itself out of the loop, so decisions were made locally. Half the time the country was acquiring new territory central government had no particular interest or desire to own.

4. The public school system. In the later years the whole English school system revolved around making beraucrats to run the empire and it worked beautifully.

5. Understand local politics. Its been said on this thread, the usual ploy by the British was to turn up, back up the local minority (who'd always been oppressed), turn them into (grateful) rulers, and oppress the majority. They did it time after time, and large parts of the world are still paying the price.

6. Utter, utter, ruthlessness. Everywhere you look. All the European empires were ruthless, some were pointlessly cruel (like the Belgians), but for the British the ruthlessness was ultimately always about the money. They'd claim a moral purpose, and in the later stages of the empire even believed it, but at bottom, it was about the money.

fianna saor

all of the above, and hitler was the evil one but sure england are grand:rolleyes:

eyescreamcone

Gunboat Diplomacy

mike65

fianna saor wrote: »

all of the above, and hitler was the evil one but sure england are grand:rolleyes:

you are new here clearly!

fianna saor

mike65 wrote: »

you are new here clearly!

what gave it away the join date of may 2012

poppyvally

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Effectively they did. The Romans tended to improve the countries they invaded...if you compare what happened in Ireland under the English to what happened in England under the Romans they definitely won a prize.

EXCUSE ME! the Brits left us some beautiful architecture.walls and bridges. LOOK at our Georgian houses, our Post offices.banks to name but a few. Compare this to the sh1t that passes for architecture nowadays

dpe

Chamone MF wrote: »

So who was it invading and pillaging the natives?
And if they couldn't withstand the royal Navy why were they in control for so long and why does s.america speak spanish to this day.

Because the British didn't need to invade South America. They pretty much got all they wanted from South America by either taking it (lots of Caribbean islands, which they wanted for sugar plantations), making it worth Spains' while (the Assiento - slave trade contract, won basically by an English protection racket), Stealing it (at one point English "privateers" were taking something like 40% of all the Spanish gold convoys), and in later years building it (nearly every railway in South America was built by the British, most of the South American ships in the 19th Century were built on the Mersey or the Clyde, and most of the South American banks were part owned by British banks).

Chamone MF

The Spanish colonized half of the American continent.
They were more advanced and had knowledge and technologies that the indigenous people didn't.

This is similar to how the British colonized countries.
They too were more advanced and had knowledge and technologies that the indigenous people didn't.

/

mike65

fianna saor wrote: »

what gave it away the join date of may 2012

You are going to be a fun contributor, you can enjoy the various Anti-Brit threads as and when they crop up