Did the British Imperialism improve the world?

[Wtiberon]

Originally posted by Ozz


Rome collapsed to corruption, plague, military rule and economic stagation. Same with China, lowtech does'nt conquer hightech unless hightech becomes a total
basketcase.

If Bengal was economically comparable to England. They
wouldn't have been conquered, they would have conquered India themselves

Rome collapsed for many many reasons...much of which was internal (corruption, weak leadership, etc) and much was external with Barbarian tribes ritually sacking Rome until it was finally conquered and caused a dominoe effect of the entire western Empire. So your both right...drop it.

Bengal was a wealthy nation...but so was South America and Iraq. Just because someone is wealthy does not mean it automatically possess a strong military. To bring up the Roman analogy again...Rome was not a particularly wealthy nation (at first) but it possessed a knowledge of warfare (in both tactics and training of troops) that they were able to conquer more wealthy (i.e. the Greeks) nations.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I strongly disagree. Before the British began scarfing up the subcontinent India was divided into continually warrring petty states. The last of the great Moghul emporers, Aurangzeb, had doomed his empire to split apart by instituting a host of policies that discriminated against the Hindus. Moderate Muslim princes deserted the empire, and rebel Hindu states gradually gained in power.

My point is these states would eventually merge into one, or possibly a few large ones that have stable borders and a much more tolerant political climate wrt poltical issues. You need to mentally devise an alternative history for the region, i.e., how would it develop without British imperialism.

[Az]

They wanted to build a pipeline from Iraq to Haiffa. They set up their mandates and zones of influence to control the entire distance from the Iraqi oil fields to Palestine.

What do you thing the 'H' in H-2, and in H-3 stands for ?


Barbarians conquering Rome is a wrong example of low-tech defeating high tech.Emperial Rome, a powerhouse of logistics, engineering, construction, was very weak in military technological innovation. The Germans' mounted forces were more advanced technologically than their Roman counterparts, As well as many other strong points.

[Wtiberon]

Also Remember that the Roman Army near their end had employed a majority of Barbarians who held no loyalty to Rome. This hurt them in two ways...Barbarian armies were full of ex-Roman trained soldiers and Roman armies were less effective against them because of they weren't as willing to fight.

So to say that the Barbarians were low tech is a misnomer since the Roman army was not much more technologically advanced than the other tribes. Even more so since tribes were beggining to use horse calvary (ala Huns) as a main attack weapon which the rigid Roman army refused to do.

A better example would be the U.S. v Vietcong. This was definitly a case of low tech and greater motivation v high tech and low motivation. The vietcong won that war because they had the much greater will to win then the U.S.

[Dinner]

Leaving aside the issue of whither they should have been doing it to begin with there is still the facts of roads built, legal systems bequithed, rail roads & bridges constructed, telephone & electrical lines installed, people educated, and the like.

There is no question that they improved the areas the ruled even if they did it just so they could make money and better control the area.

[Wtiberon]

There is no question that the British empire changed the colonies that they ruled but did they really 'improve' them. I would say yes and no.

he United States without question

Canada, well the english parts are ok

India absolutely the entire region would have broken up into small nations that would have constantly been at war with each other had the British not unite them with Pakistan the only exception.

Africa, its hard to say, compared to much of Africa I would say yes but since we don't know the alternative history I can't say it with confidence.

Australia, very much so. This has to be one of the poorest nations on earth (in terms of resources) but still manages to produce a respectable GDP.

Hong Kong, not only did the British improve Hong Kong by they improved China once they reaquired it. China saw immidiatly the potential in Hong Kong for its entire nation.

Middle East, no they really dropped the ball here. Yes they improved the economies and infrastructre but did not unite it nor socially temper the region. Also the fact that they gave their holdings in Palestine to the Jews...well we all know how that turned out.

[Dinner]

Remember they were in the middle east for only a short period of time so that partially explains why they didn't clean up that sess pit.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wtiberon
Also Remember that the Roman Army near their end had employed a majority of Barbarians who held no loyalty to Rome. This hurt them in two ways...Barbarian armies were full of ex-Roman trained soldiers and Roman armies were less effective against them because of they weren't as willing to fight.

So to say that the Barbarians were low tech is a misnomer since the Roman army was not much more technologically advanced than the other tribes. Even more so since tribes were beggining to use horse calvary (ala Huns) as a main attack weapon which the rigid Roman army refused to do.

A better example would be the U.S. v Vietcong. This was definitly a case of low tech and greater motivation v high tech and low motivation. The vietcong won that war because they had the much greater will to win then the U.S.

The Vietcong were decimated in 1968. The North Vietnamese Army carried the burden of the fighting. They were very effective.

Also, getting back to Rome, IIRC, the Germans did not use cavalry in any manner different than the Romans. The Goths, though, relied on heavy cavalry. After Theodosius became Emperor, he employed Goth cavalry in the Roman army.

The major deciding factor in the fall of the Western Empire was Alaric, King of the Goths, and the split in the empire at the same time that prevented the strong Western army from decisively defeating him when he first got out of control in the East. Later, when Alaric conquered West, he forced Stilicho to strip the frontier of troops to defend Italy. This caused the Germans to invade, first Italy in 406, and then Gaul in 407. The West Romans never really recovered from these events. In 408-410, the Roman army in Britain move into the Northern Gaul. Britain was abandoned. The Franks took up permanent residence in the Low countries. The Burgundians settled into a good portion of the Empire. The Goths settled in Gaul. The Vandals, Suebi and other German tribes held Hispania and soon took Africa.

From these positions, the Germans and Goths slowly expanded until only Italy and Provence were under Roman control. Then Odacer revolted.

The death of the Empire was decided by politics.

[Wtiberon]

Originally posted by Ned


The Vietcong were decimated in 1968. The North Vietnamese Army carried the burden of the fighting. They were very effective.

Also, getting back to Rome, IIRC, the Germans did not use cavalry in any manner different than the Romans. The Goths, though, relied on heavy cavalry. After Theodosius became Emperor, he employed Goth cavalry in the Roman army.

The major deciding factor in the fall of the Western Empire was Alaric, King of the Goths, and the split in the empire at the same time that prevented the strong Western army from decisively defeating him when he first got out of control in the East. Later, when Alaric conquered West, he forced Stilicho to strip the frontier of troops to defend Italy. This caused the Germans to invade, first Italy in 406, and then Gaul in 407. The West Romans never really recovered from these events. In 408-410, the Roman army in Britain move into the Northern Gaul. Britain was abandoned. The Franks took up permanent residence in the Low countries. The Burgundians settled into a good portion of the Empire. The Goths settled in Gaul. The Vandals, Suebi and other German tribes held Hispania and soon took Africa.

From these positions, the Germans and Goths slowly expanded until only Italy and Provence were under Roman control. Then Odacer revolted.

The death of the Empire was decided by politics.

Your misinformed...I know of the battle you are talking about where on Tet Holiday they launched a massive campaign against S. Vietnam. 37,000 vietcong where killed including top leaders but this did not "decimate" them. They continued to operate into the 1970s (which was only 3 years before we left) from Cambodia...obviously they were far less effective than the North Vietnamese army but still very effective

The fall of Rome is far too debatable topic to discuss in this thread as it will take us waaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic. If you want to start a thread I would be more than happy to discuss this.

The point I was trying to make anyway was that military might is wholly different from economic success. While each one can greatly enhance the other having one does not give you the other.

[gunkulator]

"Apart from the aqueducts, sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, and public health, what did the Romans ever do for us?"

[Ned]

Watch out fellow Apolytoners, Wtberon is an Army Ranger.

Wtberon, did you consider going back to help out in Iraq?

[Wtiberon]

Hmmm...not sure how my being a Ranger has to do with this argument?

[Ted Striker]

I think he was just giving you props for being a ranger.