so how was England able to support such a large army and navy at their peak?

[Dis]

I'm guessing they did it because they exploited the terriories they conquered economically. But you look at them today and they can't do it, so how were they able to do it back then? Or perhaps they exploited their own citizens and they had lower standard of living back then comparitivily.

[Kataphraktoi]

Yes, the only way you can support armies and navies in ye olde days is to oppresse the people

I assume they supported it based on taxes on trade, for instance. They controlled what, 25% of the landmass at one point? And with naval dominance they had a huge amount of commerce and such. Its like the USA,spending only a tiny ammount %wise and still outspending everyone without oppressing anyone(much )

[lord of the mark]

they never had a large army, except during wartime. What do you consider their "peak"? In terms of share of world GDP, and general power influence, it was probably the 1860s or so.

They had, then, a small, long service, all volunteer army.

And easily the worlds dominant navy. Which they paid for through taxes on the the worlds dominant industrial economy, at a time when hardly anyone else had one. And oh yes, they had some resource rich colonies, Canada and Australia especially, and some very populated ones, like India, but they sold to the whole world, not just their colonies.

There are loads of books on the industrial revolution, the british economy, the empire, Im not sure where you should begin.

[lord of the mark]

and of course the reason they couldnt do it later, was cause other countries with larger populations industrialized too, and passed them. Both the US and Germany did so in about 1905 or so. France caught up, and has since been close. Then during the '20s I guess, Russia passed them.

For this narrative, I suggest Paul Kennedy, Rise of the Great Powers.

[VetLegion]

I'm guessing they did it because they exploited the terriories they conquered economically.

I don't think it's that simple.

But you look at them today and they can't do it, so how were they able to do it back then?

The reason why former powers look so weak today is not them becoming poorer (in absolute terms all of them are richer), but symbols of power becoming not just expensive, but enormously expensive.

I think airpower is a nice example. In WWII countries built and operated tens of thousands of aircraft , today they buy them in dozens. UK bought 200 eurofigthers. They used to lose that many planes in a month of fighting in Europe.

Then, there are aircraft carriers. France, by no means poor, is literally struggling to operate its tiny fleet of one big one and a couple of smaller ones.

If you want to seem powerful today it is more expensive than at any previous point in history.

[Proteus_MST]

I agree.

What did you need to build a sailship (aside from workers to build them)?
Lots of wood (easy to get if you have colonies with lots of forests) as well as large amounts of rope and cloth. Also small amounts of iron (for exmaple for the anchor and the guns).

So most of the things you needed were regrowing natural resources (which were processed in 2-3 steps), something which really benefits colonial powers who have enough land to grow them.


Modern warships in contrast are more complicated and need metal alloys as well as masses of electronics (and maybe even a nuclear plant). Stuff that comes from several branchesof industry is processed in several steps from the natural resources.

Also take maintenance.
In sailships most of the maintenance can be made by the crew itself and didn´t even need special replacement parts, like checking and replacing parts ot the takelage or sails. There were not many more complicated things (one example would be to free the hull from barnacles).
Nowadays you cannot repair/maintain your warships by just felling some trees
Most of the repairs need replacement parts that have to be bought (and kept in stock) and maybe even need different specialists (much more specialised than the ship carpenters of sailships).

But they seem to be worth the effort. I assume you only need a single destroyer to sink the spanish armada

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Also take maintenance.
In sailships most of the maintenance can be made by the crew itself and didn´t even need special replacement parts, like checking and replacing parts ot the takelage or sails. There were not many more complicated things (one example would be to free the hull from barnacles).

There was a lot more to it than that. The average lifespan of those ships was about 20 years at most, even when looked after. In many cases it was less due to toredo worm infestation.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
Yes, the only way you can support armies and navies in ye olde days is to oppresse the people

I assume they supported it based on taxes on trade, for instance. They controlled what, 25% of the landmass at one point? And with naval dominance they had a huge amount of commerce and such. Its like the USA,spending only a tiny ammount %wise and still outspending everyone without oppressing anyone(much )

Ever hear of press gangs?

[Lancer]

Lots of boiled beef, wheat, rum, and limes should be added to maintenance. Casks, blocks, cannon, sails, rope, gunpowder...

This was the advantage of the French. They just had building costs with almost no maintenance.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by VetLegion
I think airpower is a nice example. In WWII countries built and operated tens of thousands of aircraft , today they buy them in dozens. UK bought 200 eurofigthers. They used to lose that many planes in a month of fighting in Europe.

If the UK devoted 60% of its GDP to making weapons, like in WW2, then it'd be able to afford thousands of eurofighters.

[Kropotkin]

Where they needed an army of sime size, they used colonial troops recruited from the local population and/or a specific minority. Like the British East India Company's private army of indian sepoys for example. Setting som other advantages (and disadvantage) aside, it's a lot cheaper for any colonial power.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
they never had a large army, except during wartime...

Too right. Remember the British army that drove George Washington out of New York in 1776 was the largest British expeditionary force up to that time.