The British Empire (or any Empire): Good or bad?

[streety]

Sorry Adrian II, in my joking I was merely trying to make things light-hearted in the face of your own telling ignorance on the subject. Napoleonic France was a dictatorship, Britain one of the most democratic nations of its day. And Britain effectively alone faced Napoleon from 1807 until the Austrians joined us in the Fifth Coalition in April 1809. However, Austria, for its part, lost its campaigns, and Napoleonic France reached its greatest extent in 1810. And then it wasn't until the start of the Sixth Coalition in 1812 that the British once again had more significant help.

As to Hitler, if you read up on the general situation following the fall of France in June 1940, you'll likely soon read that at that time the British Empire was effectively alone against the Nazis.

I will make no further direct, open responses to your comments if they are of a seriously insulting nature.

[Adrian II]

Napoleonic France was a dictatorship, Britain one of the most democratic nations of its day.

And which, pray, were the advanced democracies Britain sided with in that war? I think you better look again at my words: I said Britain had more in common with its foe than with its allies. And it didn't beat Napoleon or Hitler.

And my main point being that without the British Empire, either or both Napoleon's or Hitler's regimes could and probably would have taken over the World, or a big chunk thereof.

They provoked the opposition of most of the modern world of their days, of which Britain was a part in both cases. A major part around 1800, a minor part after 1940. But it's the Russians wot did both your enemies in. Can't be helped.

[Basiliscus]

The British empire stole much of ideas and initiatives from other nations. Like all good empire builders, such as that of the Romans (who stole much, from military organisation to religious beliefs, from the Greeks) the Brits took the ideas from other nations and improved on them.

They 'borrowed' (no pun intended) the idea of banking from the Dutch - of the government selling bonds to public and thus having a secure financial basis from which to raise armies (and navies). This is one of the reasons for British naval superiority, sound financial footing led to a military increase at no great long-term cost to the government.

In conclusion, a shrewd nation looks at the other nations and takes and improves anything which it feels is useful. This seems to be a reoccuring theme.

Whether the empre was 'good' or 'bad' depends what you would define as these terms. The Spanish empre comitted as many attrocities in South America as any, but then the civilisations before them (the Aztecs especially) cut out the still beating heart of a human to sacrifice it to the sun-god. Is that equally as humane as what the Spanish brought? Was it a matter of bringing them brick houses, catholocism and 'civilisation'? Or was it a thirst for gold and trade lanes to other continents?

Ultimately, whether an empire was 'good' or 'bad' depends on weighing up what is gained to the imperial nation, against what the subjected nation loses. In this case, the Spanish gained the famed 'El Dorado', gold and silver, exotic animals, 'indian' slaves and large amount of territory. The subject populations gained European diseases, famine, war and the authority of a government on the other side of the Atlantic. Is that a fair swap?

[Afonso I of Portugal]

Well guys,

I believe EVERY empire is, on the whole, a good thing for the colonial power and a very bad thing for those under control and opression.