Total People Killed

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm interested in some reliable statistics for the total amount of people killed by the British Empire. Rough guesses are great, of course.

[Martok]

603

The voices in my head told me so, and they're never wrong.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Martok]

My joshing aside, I think that would be a number all but impossible to quantify. I highly doubt there are any stats on how many native people died via hunger & disease when Britain was colonizing all over the place. Heck, I'd be surprised if anyone's even bothered to do a rough estimate.

[CountArach]

If you just talk about in war then I imagine you could find some very rough estimates. If you include Imperialism, then it is beyond quantifiable.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Let's say things that could be considered to be intentional, but not including armed conflict. So starving people to death, the Boer concentration camps, etcetera. Are there any professors who offer reliable statistics?

[Sarmatian]

Preparing the big guns for the "No better then them" thread?

On the issue, I doubt you'll find precise data for something so broad. Maybe if you limit yourself to some bigger conflicts of the British Empire and then make your own calculation.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Preparing the big guns for the "No better then them" thread?

No, quite on the contrary in fact. I'm trying to prove that the British Empire was better than someone, not worse.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

My conclusion so far, from a number of almost futile Google searches, is that plenty of people died in the British Empire, but many of these deaths were due to famine, disease, and neglect, and generally not policies of outright mass murder, and certainly nothing approaching the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or Mao's China. That is good.

[LittleGrizzly]

Were you trying to argue against a comparison to the big 3 ? (hitler, stalin and mao)

Are you going to be including deaths to the slave trade ?

Up until the war of independance the BE probably deserves a portion of slave trade and removal of native indians.... though im not sure if other country's helped out partially with the indians..

[InsaneApache]

Up until the war of independance the BE probably deserves a portion of slave trade and removal of native indians.... though im not sure if other country's helped out partially with the indians..

Actually if you forget the 230 year old spin, one of the reasons for the rebellion was because the King refused to allow the colonists to expand westwards. He'd signed treaties with various tribes and intended to keep to them.

In contrast with what followed....

It's probably impossible to say how many lives were lost during the British Empire, it was in place an awful long time. It started during Elizabeth I reign and didn't end until Elizabeth II reign.

To try and look at the empire in this way is to lose sight of why it happened in the first place. It was always a trading empire, not one of conquest. Sounds an oxymoron I know but the bottom line was always profit, not how much land was grabbed.

Oh, another reason for the empire was to keep the French in check.

And that's a good enough reason for me.

[Pannonian]

Oh, another reason for the empire was to keep the French in check.

And that's a good enough reason for me.

There's a thread in the TWC history forum right now, asking what was the British view of Napoleon: whether he was seen as a tyrant, the embodiment of enlightenment, etc. My first thought was that he was seen as a Frenchman, and that was enough to make him the mortal enemy of Britain.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Were you trying to argue against a comparison to the big 3 ? (hitler, stalin and mao)

More or less, yes.

[Meneldil]

There's a thread in the TWC history forum right now, asking what was the British view of Napoleon: whether he was seen as a tyrant, the embodiment of enlightenment, etc. My first thought was that he was seen as a Frenchman, and that was enough to make him the mortal enemy of Britain.

Awww com'on, can't we just hug eachother ?

[CountArach]

Awww com'on, can't we just hug eachother ?

I'd watch out. The British are probably holding a knife.

[KrooK]

Maniac - why just british.
Lets check how many killed II German Reich.

[KarlXII]

Maniac - why just british.
Lets check how many killed II German Reich.

Open your own thread, then.

Maniac- You will be hard pressed to find a reliable and close estimate of the total people killed under thr British Empire.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Maniac - why just british.
Lets check how many killed II German Reich.

Completely irrelevant Krook, as I'm trying to make the case that the British Empire killed less than the "big three."

Maniac- You will be hard pressed to find a reliable and close estimate of the total people killed under thr British Empire.

I'm aware, that's why I posted here. Google failed me.

[KrooK]

We can't compare killing people from colonisation time with killing people from XX century.
Killing people into colonisation was just a way to achieve objective. Killing people by "big three" was practically objective. Of course we can say that objective was "living area" or "international revolution" but reality was different - killing was objective itself.

[KarlXII]

We can't compare killing people from colonisation time with killing people from XX century.
Killing people into colonisation was just a way to achieve objective. Killing people by "big three" was practically objective. Of course we can say that objective was "living area" or "international revolution" but reality was different - killing was objective itself.

This topic is the total amount of people killed by (under?) the British Empire. Not Germany, France, Russia, Poland, or The Octosquid-Spider Alliance.

Feel free to open a new topic other than make this thread go off topic.

[PanzerJaeger]

I believe the British were involved in intentionally trading blankets and other items from smallpox victims with Native Americans. That could really bump up their numbers. I'm not sure if anyone has done a study of the decline in the native population from Jamestown to 1776 though...

Incidentally, while I'm not sure about the British, I think a case could be made against the Spanish in comparison to the genocides of the 20th Century. The natives they were directly responsible for killing in Central and South America numbered into the tens of millions. However, that's not really OT.

[Incongruous]

In terms of the British Empire's mandate for conquest, I believe it can be said that after the Napoleonic wars the drive was ever more ideological, first Romantic and then a purely Imperialistic "Our right!"type thing. By the 1830's the trade income garnered from the Empire was already touching a downwards slope and this meant an ever desperate scramble for markets. But quickly lead to full blown conquest for Imperium, much as the Romans attempted to do in Germania. The Empire was dfinatley a burden by the third quater of the century. We should have given India up then and sought to forge a close and lasting sense of friendship with the Imperial peoples via independence and alliances.

[InsaneApache]

We should have given India up then and sought to forge a close and lasting sense of friendship with the Imperial peoples via independence and alliances.

Not in the time frame that you mention but the British did. It's called The Commonwealth.*

Not many of the colonies left the empire and the commonwealth. The only two examples I can think of, off the top of my head, were South Africa and Ireland. Both for obvious reasons.

If you think about it it's quite extraordinary that an empire should collapse and then vote to stay, albeit loosely, together as a political/social entity. AFAIK it's the only time in history for this to happen.

*Not to mention gaining a former colony of a foreign power.

[Fragony]

If really interested you should look at the national archives, you should be able to come up with a decent estimate, after spending your entire life in the national archives looking for clues. The english have just about the most complete archive there is, good hunting.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think this subject defies a simple 'how many people did they kill?'

Over a timescale as long as the British Empire, the question will end up in a demographic 'what if' question. That is, pretty impossible to answer.

Like, how many people did the Romans kill? And how many did they save with plumbing? And how many would've been killed by the Parthians if it weren't for the Romans. Ectetera.

[Husar]

I think this subject defies a simple 'how many people did they kill?'

Over a timescale as long as the British Empire, the question will end up in a demographic 'what if' question. That is, pretty impossible to answer.

Like, how many people did the Romans kill? And how many did they save with plumbing? And how many would've been killed by the Parthians if it weren't for the Romans. Ectetera.

Just a matter of plus and minus, basic mathematics, can't be that hard.

[InsaneApache]

Just a matter of plus and minus, basic mathematics, can't be that hard.

More like algebra, methinks.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Just a matter of plus and minus, basic mathematics, can't be that hard.

I'm afraid it is more complicated than that. It involves a lot of counter-factual assumptions and what-if's. For example, if the British had not moved into Africa, how many would've died then? There needs to be a hypothetical counter history of Africa for that, which, as counter histories go, become increasingly hypothetive the longer the period.

What if the British had not build extensive railroads in India, how many Indians would not have been born?

Those are qauntitative difficulties. What of qualitative difficulties? Australia was a sparsely populated continent. Yet, it was also one the oldest settled by man. One of the most isolated. How many unique cultures, languages weren't wiped out forever? The numbers of indivuduals killed aren't that high, but ho to label the human cost of the genocide of hundreds of unique civilizations over an area the size of Europe?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Australia was a sparsely populated continent. Yet, it was also one the oldest settled by man. ?

Wow... do you have any info on this? I always thought Australia would be amongst the last to be settled, since some people must have hopped over from Indonesia at some point.

[Incongruous]

Wow... do you have any info on this? I always thought Australia would be amongst the last to be settled, since some people must have hopped over from Indonesia at some point.

No I believe the Aboriginal Australians have been there a very, very, very, very, long time.

[CBR]

Wow... do you have any info on this? I always thought Australia would be amongst the last to be settled, since some people must have hopped over from Indonesia at some point.

The American continent appears to have been the last to be settled. Australia was IIRC colonised by the first wave of humans that settled SE Asia.


CBR