Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
New forum here!

Season V in Development on a new forum! Come visit and make an account!

Events ~|~ Buying/Selling ~|~ Mutation ~|~ Research

Special Action ~|~ Tournaments ~|~ Moulder Monthly

Welcome to Moulder Pitfighters, the text-based arena of death/roleplaying game set in a spin-off of the former Warhammer World!

Play as a Master Moulder on the Shattered Isle of Hell Pit, creating hideously mutated fighting beasts to pit against other players' creations... or to use to pursue your own nefarious ends.

Sign up today and join our community!

If you're already trapped on the Shattered Isle, please log in:

Username:   Password:
Did the British Empire do more harm, than good?
The British Empire was a Force for good, and it benefited many more people than it harmed 5 (38.5%)
The British Empire was terrible, and it harmed more people than it helped 5 (38.5%)
This Poll is Stupid. / Insufficient evidence to decide. 3 (23.1%)
Total Votes: 13
The British Empire
Topic Started: Tue 03 Jan 2012 14:51:42 (543 Views)
Warlord Arskittar
Member Avatar


I am currently studying the British Empire, and I also have quite an interest in it myself. As such, I was wondering if anyone on MP knows a lot about the Empire, especially on why we formed it, and how we managed to keep hold of it.

My current ideas are:

-Why It was Formed

The Empire was originally formed out of neccesity, every other nation in Europe had one, so we needed one if we were to survive

-Why we Managed to keep hold ofit

We had a superior Navy, and we used the class divisions in different countries to ensure they could not unit against British occupation.



I would be very interested in your views.

Also, I am aware that there are some Norwegian members of the site, so I would be very interested in what Norway's situation was at this time.

I have also added a poll to answer that long though of Question 'Did the British Empire do more harm, than good?'
''This is all your fault.''
- Mork (or possibly Gork) on MP Season IV

Total Fights:
Wins (1) Losses (0) Draw (0)

The Lab of the Boss
The Coppergrabb Chronicles

Services Provided: Contact me via PM for more information on how I can help you! Please use IC PMs!
Proper Good Business (Spying and General Thuggery) Kinda Good Stuff (Gambling Information and Odds) Dead Shifty Stuff (Bet Fixing Rings and Schemes)
Offline
 
Glod-Unbaraki
The Lord Glod
Packlord
I know a surprising amount about this, however I'm not going to go into it fully because gods damn is there a lot to talk about.

1) The "empires" all rose at the same time, because colonising is what you did as a country.

2) Superior Navy, better trained troops, better designed weapons and a much better way of dealing with the locals than our main rival, France, did (In over-simplified and mostly incorrect terms: English - "Sure, keep your customs, but the Queen is in charge and all your money is ours.", French - "You will become like ze us and do exactly as we les do.")

In more specific battle-based terms, it was because we had a few very brilliant generals who could be far more effective with a few thousand troops than most of the locals were with tens of thousands (actually, there are recorded battles of odds much larger than that in which the English won hands down).


If you're actually interested in this, but can't be bothered to pick up a History book or flick through Wikipedia, check out the "Sharpe" books by Bernard Cornwell or the "Hornblower" books by C. S. Forester. They're both brilliant series of books which are based on true battles and the like from that period AND should be available in your school library (if not they'll order them in for you I'm sure).



-Glod
Offline
 
Silvermane
Ex-Packlord, Ex-Richest Rat S2, Indiana's father

Similiar answers to Glod, few variations;

1) An Empire isn't just formed out of nessecity, to a degree its about the resources and greed, to be bigger, better and stronger than your rivals. In Britains case, this tended to be France for the majority purely due to boarders, but to a degree and for a few hundred years, the spanish. The term Empire is used for a nation whom other nation's owe their allegience to, for example, England was the heart of the empire, with the nations of Scotland, Wales, Ireland (Well... i could have shortened that by saying the british isles :P ) and several others too.

2) Agree with Glod, superior navy, better-but not the best-trained troops, design of the weapons is somewhat moot, yes, we had several more specialised weapons, but in general it was musket vs musket for the majority of the empire, which is the same as most other countries, even the lesser developed at the time like poland, hungary and belgium etc, but, the key to British Superiority in alot of the conflicts came down to this... the colour red. People saw red coats, they KNEW it was the british, sure, they may win THIS battle, but then we'd send more troops, and they couldnt cope with it and they knew it. It was psychological, much like war shouts etc. Lastly, the disipline of the british army was indisputably better than every nation going, france, germany, whoever. You have to remember that most large battles were organised affairs, whereby the general staff of each army agreed a place and time to fight and mostly kept to the arrangements. Hense the "line" formation you tend to see represented in many films, that isnt made up, it happened. You stood there, you fired, you took the shots, you fired, you took the shots and then you charged, 2 shots was a rough average, and both sides would usually have lost a good chunk of their lines at that point.

3) Technological advancement. The british either made it first, or made it bigger. Thats pretty much the entire explanation :P

4) Sharpe is awesome. If you dont want to read, go watch the TV series with Sean Beane in it, it will show you many things that were fact. eg. in the british army, if they were attacking a fortified town, the first man to breach the wall was promoted to Captain. Assuming he survived... So much so, that entire regiments volunteered to be in the line of fire first and pass through mine fields and so on JUST to be first. 95% of the time, this would result in the annihalation of the regiment that volunteered to the man, but... they did the nessacary job... they cleared the path for the main army and for them, it had purpose, it had honour, and they were glad to do it.

Also, dunno why this came to mind, but note that in the days of the empires, execution was a common punishment, however, one british idea about this in the armed forces was if you survived the hanging, you were deemed innocent and given back your rank, titles, whatever. However... civilians often got the sentance "to be hanged until dead" which meant... you were boned either way. Soldiers only had to survive the drop and potential neck breaking.
Edited by Silvermane, Tue 03 Jan 2012 18:47:31.
Offline
 
Warlord Arskittar
Member Avatar


Very interesting views, and I agree with all, but one of them.

As far as I am aware, the British, despite having an Immensely good army at the time, were out-done in land based conflicts and discipline by the Prussian's I think?


Also, I watch Sharpe, and Hornblower, its what sparked my interest in this period.
''This is all your fault.''
- Mork (or possibly Gork) on MP Season IV

Total Fights:
Wins (1) Losses (0) Draw (0)

The Lab of the Boss
The Coppergrabb Chronicles

Services Provided: Contact me via PM for more information on how I can help you! Please use IC PMs!
Proper Good Business (Spying and General Thuggery) Kinda Good Stuff (Gambling Information and Odds) Dead Shifty Stuff (Bet Fixing Rings and Schemes)
Offline
 
Silvermane
Ex-Packlord, Ex-Richest Rat S2, Indiana's father

The Prussians? No way... :P The Prussians had several fanatical generals who punished retreat in battle not just as insurbordination, but as treason as well, which carried the death penalty. They didnt have better discipline, but the ones who were the least disciplined tended to get executed. But... threat of execution doesnt always stop desertion, sometimes it encourages it.
Offline
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

In general I think it's agreed that the British had the best troops of the period, both on land and on sea (especially those insane Scottish buggers in the kilts and bear-skin hats).
Agreed with Silver, dependant of the ways that corporal punishment was used, it could be a powerful tool or the worst thing an army could do to itself.

As far as I remember, the main reason for the collapse of the empire was politics. :P

 
Warlord Arskittar
Member Avatar


And the first world war...

Insane Scottish buggers=Scots Guards or Black Watch?
Edited by Warlord Arskittar, Wed 04 Jan 2012 20:53:42.
''This is all your fault.''
- Mork (or possibly Gork) on MP Season IV

Total Fights:
Wins (1) Losses (0) Draw (0)

The Lab of the Boss
The Coppergrabb Chronicles

Services Provided: Contact me via PM for more information on how I can help you! Please use IC PMs!
Proper Good Business (Spying and General Thuggery) Kinda Good Stuff (Gambling Information and Odds) Dead Shifty Stuff (Bet Fixing Rings and Schemes)
Offline
 
Rusty Tincanne
Unequivocal Winner of MP.net Season 8

As Silvermane stated, empires came into being because they wanted the natural resources of brown-skinned people. It is still that way, which is why the CIA works so closely with multinational companies to install military-dictator-puppets. As do other European nations. Greed. Greed. Greed. The wealthy want more money so they get governments to change rules to allow them to profit off the poor.

And they did not all come about at the same time. The Spanish were out looting the world while England and France were attacking one another across the English Channel. The English rose to power because the Spanish used all their own natural resources to build an armada that went up in flames. They had nothing to rebuild it with, leaving a power vacuum. That is how the British empire gained momentum.

@ Glod: The Brits never said, "keep your customs..." I would say that, at least in the New World, the Brits insisted that the colonies were a parody of England. The French (the cour de bois in particular) lived with and intermarried with the natives. Sure there were the Jesuits, but my impression is that the French were much more "Live and let live" than you lot were.

@ Silvermane: In the American Colonies the red was just a big target, both in the French and Indian war and then the American Revolution. And in both those cases the line formation became a moot strategy. In both the wars I mentioned, the Brits maintained their yen for large open fields of battle (and won many of those engagements), but the French and colonists all took to guerilla tactics - small hit-and-run raids in the dense forests.

@ Arsk: What "period" of time are you referring to? As I mentioned, European empires went on and on and on for at least three centuries.


And to answer the poll question: The lasting impact of the British empire has been a foul thing. In short, it set a precedence for racism, elitism, greed, etc on a global scale. In the New World millions of native americans were killed (by the brits/colonists/etc) with guns and germs for land and resources. Our litigious form of government (based on yours) is geared to keep money and resources in the hands of the wealthy rather than to improve the lives of all its citizens. This is the same in India and Australia, and all of their African colonies (has South Africa really improved itself since the end of apartheid?) I am jealous that the UK managed to establish universal healthcare and a few other socialist/labour-driven programs. We never caught on to that stuff.
Sikatriks' Lab
Offline
 
Undead_Rat
Member Avatar
Master Mutator
[ *  *  * ]
Rusty Tincanne
Thu 05 Jan 2012 02:48:16
And to answer the poll question: The lasting impact of the British empire has been a foul thing. In short, it set a precedence for racism, elitism, greed, etc on a global scale. In the New World millions of native americans were killed (by the brits/colonists/etc) with guns and germs for land and resources. Our litigious form of government (based on yours) is geared to keep money and resources in the hands of the wealthy rather than to improve the lives of all its citizens. This is the same in India and Australia, and all of their African colonies (has South Africa really improved itself since the end of apartheid?) I am jealous that the UK managed to establish universal healthcare and a few other socialist/labour-driven programs. We never caught on to that stuff.
Actually, that part is increasingly more to do with the emphasis on neo-liberal economic policies that are perpetuating in American politics. I won't deny that prior to the 70s the gap between rich and poor was considerable, but it was nothing compared to the gap that has grown since.

Admittedly, the groups that were rich both before and after the rise of neo-liberalism have remained the same, but I would blame America's lack of universal healthcare more on this weird obsession you guys have with an ultra-right wing economy. It's kinda funny to watch from a distance, really. It's as if a good chunk of the population absolutely refuses to accept that they're never going to be rich despite the overwhelming amount of evidence against it because of some blind faith in the American Dream that would let them succeed, so they refuse to change from a neo-liberal economy because they all hope that they'll be the one in a million that by some miracle actually manages to succeed within it. Honestly, I wish Australia would follow mainland Europe's example more than America's, but I'll give us this. At least we're not as bad as the United States.

Anyway, I have to say that from the perspective of indigenous people in the majority of colonies, European settlement was a decidedly bad thing. It has resulted in a lot of social inequalities and, here in Australia at least, attempts at outright genocide. If you thought Nazi Germany was bad, well, here in Australia the British actually succeeded in wiping out entire races and cultures.
Offline
 
Morkskittar
Member Avatar
Yay! My Rat Ogre! ^_^
Packlord
The British East India Trading Company was awful, and set the real first precedent for the ascendance of corporations, what with them essentially governing India for a time. American consumerism is the basis for modern-day economic exploitation and capitalism, yes, but the building blocks for this were first laid down by the British via their use of slaves, the Industrial Revolution, and aforementioned BEITD. It was the British slave-model in the Caribbean that set the standard for the American model (indeed, the model existed first under the British in the Americas), and it was the British Empire wide reach that helped fuel the beginnings of globalization (blacks in Africa, Latin America, the US, and Asia actually formed some of the earliest global movements and global consciousness, with word spread through black sailors to blacks who had been exported as slaves across the world. This network was created partly by European slavers who essentially created the African Diaspora, and the British and French Empires had the most to do with this).

So, I would argue that the British Empire's influence was negative, as it laid the basis for globalization and racism that was exacerbated by the United States. Additionally, look at the problems the British Empire created with colonialism. The mess Africa is in is a direct result of colonial exploitation by the European powers (not just the British, of course, but also the French, Belgian, Portugese, Dutch [oh yes, the Dutch]), and the Middle East before the US' rise to power is almost entirely the British's doing. Don't even get me started on the Palestine Mandate and the atrocious system they fostered and helped create in Israel (I wrote a lengthy paper on Israeli discriminatory practices), not to mention the awful dividing lines and semi-dependent monarchies they created in Iraq and Jordan, the oppressive, totalitarian Saudi Regime that they put into power, and of course them being generally hypocritical power-grubbers and going back on their word to pretty much everyone there.

Not a fan of the British Empire. I may have a slight bias here, however, as I study social history at university, particularly in the Middle East (primarily medieval, but also modern). :P

Just my two tokens. :P

Pillz
Novels Written and For Sale: List
Posted Image
UE Pub Fight Deaths: 334. Pillz and Pyllz are © by Morkskittar
Dark Lord Nihilus Regarding Me: "You're the love child of Vishnu and Pegasus."

Posted Image
Stop Geen Toegang! / Complete Works of Morkskittar / Ask a Skaven! 'zodi
Offline
 
Silvermane
Ex-Packlord, Ex-Richest Rat S2, Indiana's father

Pffff... the British didn't start racism for racism's sake. They did what any nation wanting more power and wealth did, they found cheap labour, in this case, it happened to come in the form of less developed nations who were technicoligally way behind and had little hope of fighting back. They didnt take slaves BECAUSE they were racist, people became racist to the slaves BECAUSE they were now slaves. So yes, the slavery situation did give momentum to worldwide racism, but slavery wasnt caused BY it.

With regards to Medieval social history, there was no "british" social history, as the welsh, english and scots were all completely different. You've heard the saying for example, The Scots hate the English, The Scots hate the French, The Scots hate the Welsh, The Scots hate the Irish, and naturally... The Scots hate other Scots. (Reference 1: Willy The groundskeeper, The Simpsons. Reference 2: Dremore. Reference 3 through to 6,000,000; The other Scots :P )
But anyway, joke aside, you cant really bring the social standings of England during 10th-14th centuries into how they acted during the 16th-19th Centuries. Yes, obviously what happened during the 10th-14th affected how they became in the 16th-19th, but the contrast in Social Structure and Society Classes etc is huuuuuuuuge. There's not really any comparisons i can think of that even relate to each other... the only similarity of note is that it was still a monarchy.
Offline
 
Chieftain Quickitt
Dis season rocks
Packlord
Time to meddle in.

Silv, I think you got Morky's argument wrong. He doesn't say that the British started racism, he merely says what you already said in return, you're practically saying the same.

The British empire (and all European colonialists) did things right and things totally wrong. India, Africa and America are results of awful practise of slavery and oppression. Colonialists tend to go to the dictatorial direction, because they have to maintain power there, that's a natural result of the time in which most people believed that violence wasn't bad. However, with the exception of Africa, both countries I said have experienced technological advance, especially America. Yes, the English destroyed quite some cultures and people, but the technological aspect of colonisalism can't be neglected.

Then there's the next thing, and that is that the British empire somehow made Empirism possible (terms not akin). The European wasteland has a long tradition into believing in a direct seperation of soul and body, a tradition mostly made by the Christian belief and by the philosophers in ancient Greek (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle mostly). A distinction between soul and body also means a distinction between mind and body and it was generally believed that the mind was superior and needed more treatment than the body. In Christian terms: eating nothing has no result in whether you go to hell or not, while if you practise moreally bad habits, you'll not find heaven. Philosphers like Descartes and Leibniz as a result decided that only maths and direct thinking would lead to true knowledge, because your senses may be clouded (like in a dream).
Then came the English, who, in all their stubbornness, decided that instead of thinking, we should experience more. This lead of the mindset that objectivity was superior to subjectivity and the development of science became huge. Philosophers like Locke and Hume, physicians like Newton and Maxwell, geologici as Lyell and biologists as Darwin, the list is endless. If anything, only the Germans could rival England if it comes to famous scientists. The mindset, most made possible by Francis Bacon as advisor of the Queen in the 16th century, has made the science as we know it possible. there are only so many things that just couldn't have existed if pure-mind thinking was still the main belief.

The reason this belief originates in England is because England is the hipster country amongst hipsters. They don't want to have ot do anything with Europe and they still have that mindset these days, because they don't talk about themselves as Europe, even the politicians don't do that. They are eccentric and refuse to take part in anything European. That was already shown in the 16th century when Henry the 8th decided to f*ck with the pope and started the Anglican Church.
No one expects the Hell Pit Inquisition
Offline
 
Rusty Tincanne
Unequivocal Winner of MP.net Season 8

Chieftain Quickitt
Mon 09 Jan 2012 14:38:14
That was already shown in the 16th century when Henry the 8th decided to f*ck with the pope and started the Anglican Church.
I thought he was trying to "f*ck with" one of the Bolleyn girls. :rolleyes: :P


*nervously waits to be temp banned for his lewd joke...* (I love not being a moderator here! :P )
Sikatriks' Lab
Offline
 
Warlord Arskittar
Member Avatar


Rusty Tincanne
Mon 09 Jan 2012 15:57:24
Chieftain Quickitt
Mon 09 Jan 2012 14:38:14
That was already shown in the 16th century when Henry the 8th decided to f*ck with the pope and started the Anglican Church.
I thought he was trying to "f*ck with" one of the Bolleyn girls. :rolleyes: :P


*nervously waits to be temp banned for his lewd joke...* (I love not being a moderator here! :P )
Correction, both of the Bolleyns....
''This is all your fault.''
- Mork (or possibly Gork) on MP Season IV

Total Fights:
Wins (1) Losses (0) Draw (0)

The Lab of the Boss
The Coppergrabb Chronicles

Services Provided: Contact me via PM for more information on how I can help you! Please use IC PMs!
Proper Good Business (Spying and General Thuggery) Kinda Good Stuff (Gambling Information and Odds) Dead Shifty Stuff (Bet Fixing Rings and Schemes)
Offline
 
Morkskittar
Member Avatar
Yay! My Rat Ogre! ^_^
Packlord
No, I did not claim that the British made racism for racism's sake. At least, I didn't mean to say so, because they didn't. I agree with what you said. :P They helped racism arise because of their initial early role in the slave trade, which led to racism.

And yeah, medieval social history is funky, especially in Europe. My focus is on Iran, on which there are extensive written sources due to the nature of the Iranian language and the infused Islamic tradition, so it's slightly easier. :P My point about medieval history was merely a modification, however, to the fact that I study the Middle East, to point out that the modern Middle East is not my focus. The reason I brought that up is that my view is colored by the British Empire royally messing up the modern Middle East with their Mandates and broken promises, so my view of them is not positive. :P The medieval bit is irrelevant outside of that statement; I was not making any claims as to the effects of medieval society on the present in that regard. I am fully aware of how minimal that impact was. :P

Sorry to confuse. Just ignore the last bit if you wish. :P

Pillz
Novels Written and For Sale: List
Posted Image
UE Pub Fight Deaths: 334. Pillz and Pyllz are © by Morkskittar
Dark Lord Nihilus Regarding Me: "You're the love child of Vishnu and Pegasus."

Posted Image
Stop Geen Toegang! / Complete Works of Morkskittar / Ask a Skaven! 'zodi
Offline
 
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »

Packlords: Glod-Unbaraki, Morkskittar, Chieftain Quickitt
Theme created by tiptopolive. Find more great themes and skins at the ZB Theme Zone.