Talk:British Empire/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

How about splitting the article, into English Empire (pre-Union), Scottish Empire (pre-Union) and maybe one more for all of those nations temporarily joined to England or Scotland due to a shrewd marriage? --LupusCanis 14:21, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)

System of Government

I'm not sure if this would necessarily be appropriate in terms of content, but I find that there is a strong need to discuss the progression of governance, or at least to an extent, the system of government used by the British Empire during its history. I feel that in reading through the article there is a lack of context or direction in terms of the actions of the Empire on a whole. -- User:216.211.52.93

There is a particular idiot, and a very bigoted one at that, who needs to do a little more thinking and work, if that is at all possible for one of his intellectual prowesses [sarcastically] which [rolling eyes now] are insurmountably imprudent and impudent. He, or it may even be a she, regardless of the sex, needs to fathom [sighing] the fact that the British empire, while not a contiguous continental empire, was indeed the world's largest empire at 14 million sq. miles [36 million sq. kilometres], this is common knowledge available from just about anywhere. The Mongol Empire, far smaller and much more volatile, was at a mere 11 million square miles [30 million sq. kilometres], this too, is common information. You may receive this sort of information from all over the internet, encyclopedias [kingfisher, dorling kindersley, britannica, etc.], books, almanacs, and the like. Perhaps, before that person reverses the British Empire and Mongol Empire pages back to the stupidity of his bigotry, he might consider his idiocy and actually do some RESEARCH. [oh! The idea!] If time will allow me to continue, which it does not, visual confirmation or comparison I should say of the two empires will reveal [to that idiot's utter consternation I am sure] that the true champion is the British Empire. Thank you for your time and patience. Vale!

If anyone is in doubt, you may visit an un-biased website, i.e.

http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html

Actually, after the mongol empire's size had been adjusted to show that is was smaller that that of the British Empire, there was a notise posted that if "that person changed it again, it would be considererd vandalism and he would be blocked from revising it again." Obviously, the person who manages the Mongol Empire page on wikipedia is aggresive, stupid, and in control of the wikipedia page, perhaps maybe an administrator. God knows and god cares, just fix the article to make it accurate: the British Empire is larger, sorry, Mongol sympathisers, just accept the fact.

Well there isn't supposed to be anybody managing any Wikipedia page, Mongol or otherwise, but I take your point. Checking this, I note that 1861 the census reported that its size was 8,500,000 sq miles; in 1891 10,500,000 sq miles according to http://century.guardian.co.uk/1899-1909/Story/0,6051,126377,00.html; in 1900 Australian schools were teaching that the Empire was 12,000,000 sq miles and about 400,000,000 subjects (over a fifth of the world's population) according to http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve03/1149catch.html. Since the Empire increased in size over the next 20 years, 13,500,000 sq miles looks plausible for 1921. The current 11,000,000 miles seems to refer to its extent in 1891; Indeed this Isolationist writing in 1940 believed that the empire was 13,300,000 sq miles at that time. I take it that the 14.1 million figure refers to the extent just after WWII. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:31, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

FAC?

Wow - just stumbled upon this (as a result of the comment to the nomination of Mongol empire on WP:COTW - this looks almost WP:FAC-ready to me, although some explicit reference would be good. Comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quite a lot of refences, I would think, for an article this long and expansive.

James F. (talk) 12:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Superpower

I am very uncomfortable with this anachronistic dubbing of the British Empire as a superpower. In its heyday it was just one of the great powers and was certainly not head and shoulders above countries such as France. It competed on equal terms with many other countries in the scramble for Africa, had to play the Great Game and couldn't wrap up the first world war against a country in its first few decades of life. The term superpower was specifically coined to describe the emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union from this old world order and to emphasise the shift that he occurred. Surely it's a mistake to project it backwards? --Mr impossible 11:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Do you think that perhaps it would be better to describe it as the world's first global power?! Jooler 22:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant and duly done. --Mr impossible 14:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still, the Wikipedia article insists on referring to Britain in the 19th century as "the world's sole developed superpower", which in my opinion is a wrong concept. Britain has never been the dominant power in Europe, neither in political nor in military terms. Instead, the continent was characterized by a multipolar equilibrium where Britain and France were probably the two powers with the greatest global reach (as a result of their large colonial empires and cultural importance), but several regional empires like Austria-Hungary, Russia, and later Germany were also major players. On the other hand, as it has been already pointed out, ideas such as the notion of a country being a "superpower" or "developed" (as opposed to "underdeveloped") are post-WWII concepts that do not apply to the 19th-century world.

Britain was number 1 at more or less all times, France occasionally looked threatening but Britain in the 19th century was as powerful as America today in comparison to other nations if not moreso. Anyway, the article says sole developed super power- meaning the only nation that is developed and is a super power. There were other powers (though not in the league of Britain) i.e. France, Russia, etc... and other develoepd nations i.e. Belgium though none with both. Developed and underdeveloped apply to the 19th century, they meant different things to today though they apply to which nations were industrialised and which not. --Josquius 20:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, the nomenclature of 'super-power' applies perfectly to the expansive British Empire, it's from this that all modern civility that we currently endure arose, with smaller contributions from others a long the way. During the total disorganisation before the rise of the powerful empires of the last age, Britain and it's Empire would most definately be a super power. The term was not coined for the US/USSR debarcle at all, and the expensiveness of the British empire overshadows both the US and USSR combined. Jachin 1 July 2005 04:54(UTC)

Another reason you could include the British empire as a 'super-power' was its massive economic clout. As the first truly industrialized nation, Great Britain had an enormous advantage from the mid-to-late nineteenth century in terms of production. As an example, in 1870, Great Britain alone produced 112 million tonnes of coal, vs. 40 million by the United States, the next greatest. When you consider that coal drove the Industrial Revolution, this is a pretty good glimpse of the extent of the economic clout of Great Britain.

Quite agreed with the previous two. Britain was certainly a superpower. It was the world's greatest trading power for decades, even up until 1939. It ruled the seas without dispute and at its height was able to call upon an army from all over its empire that rivalled that of the USA. Britain was unquestionably a larger power than France and the other European powers. Locutus 7 December 2006 (GMT)

Accuracy of the Maps

Hello, I have noticed a glaring error on the map that shows the extent of the British Empire in 1921, as well as the map showing all the territories ruled from 1770 to 1948. The error in these 2 maps is that one of the countries that was never a part of the British Empire -- Nepal -- has been colored red in both maps! While Nepal was involved in a war with Britain that it lost, it was not a part of the British Empire at any time. For the geographically challenged, Nepal is the nation to the north and center of India. I hope this mistake will be recognized and fixed soon!172.144.221.36 03:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They had a special agreement which effectivly made them a protectorate and so part of the empire. --Josquius 19:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

A definite error is the inclusion of the entire Philippine archipelago on the map showing all territories ruled from 1770 to 1948. The only time the British controlled any Filipino territory was in 1762 when the British East India Company occuppied Manila. But it made little or no attempt to expand beyond the city. The Spaniards still controlled the rest of the archipelago from another city (Capiz, if I'm not mistaken). See History_of_the_Philippines for details. I hope this will be fixed soon. [[User:Boreanesia|Boreanesia] 00:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Expansion on former British territories

Is there a list of all British overseas territories ever existed or this is it? I would like to see this expanded to include status of each that shows the evolution from colonies to independent countries, not just any the extent of the Empire at a given point of history. I wouldn't mind doing it or should I start a new article just for it? This list will be quite bulky. I propose to name it "Former and Current British Territories Overseas" such that it would not be confuse with the proper terminology of British Overseas Territories. This list will include territories of all status, colonies, possessions, dependencies etc. --Kvasir 13:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"First" global power?

I have a great doubt regarding the claim that "The British Empire was the world's first global power", since already in the 16th century there were at least 2 world powers, Spain and Portugal, both of them ruled over possesions in all continents.

In fact Spain and Portugal come under the same rule from 1580 to 1640 so their common sovereigns ruled "an empire were the sun never sets" long before the British. (This statement was in fact invented by the Spanish)

This empire comprised in rough terms (the same you use to descrive the British Empire) Spain, Portugal, Naples, Sicily, the Netherlands(briefly) The all of South America including Brasil and Paraguai (Portuguese) Central America and most of the caribean islands What is now Mexico, Florida, California, Texas and several other US territories Most of the western coast of Africa Posesions in North Africa and in the estern coast of Africa the Philippine Islands Many Possesions in India Several other possesions in the Indian area -- anon - (81.193.176.222)

We all know about that though their actual control over these areas was limited and compared to Britain at its height their military strength was very much lacking. Britain was a super power during the age of globalisation so is a global power whilst the Spaniards and Portugese were just European powers. --Josquius 10:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

In his book, Imperial Spain 1469-1716, John Huxtable Elliott (british historian btw) refers to spain as the "first global power". Therefore I think the part claiming the british empire as the first should be removed or reworded so as to say some claim it was the first global power. I would add personally that Spain exerted much control over most of it's colonies. For example, Britain would try several times to seize the spanish main (war of jenkins' ear, napoleonic wars) but failed miserably always. European powers had some success taking caribbean colonies but spain would keep the most profitable ones (cuba, hispaniola, and puerto rico). Also spain had a huge cultural impact on the latin american colonies as well. In fact, they have much more in common with spain than any of britain's former non-caucasian colonies. (Bill)

---

We all know that these remarks represent a point of view and not a fact. Ignorance about the history, extent and military strenght of the Portuguse, Spanish, Mongol or whatever Empires should not be an excuse for a biased article. Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias representing all views fairly. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". -- 217.22.55.50 ---

Indeed, keeping this article NPOV with all the anti-British bashing through subterfuge is very difficult. Jachin 1 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)

In his book, Imperial Spain 1469-1716, John Huxtable Elliott (british historian btw) refers to spain as the "first global power". Therefore I think the part claiming the british empire as the first should be removed or reworded so as to say some claim it was the first global power. I would add personally that Spain exerted much control over most of it's colonies. For example, Britain would try several times to seize the spanish main (war of jenkins' ear, napoleonic wars) but failed miserably always. European powers had some success taking caribbean colonies but spain would keep the most profitable ones (cuba, hispaniola, and puerto rico). Also spain had a huge cultural impact on the latin american colonies as well. In fact, they have much more in common with spain than any of britain's former non-caucasian colonies. (Bill)

"first global power" explicitly indicates a power exerted around the world to some effective degree. It is not about so called "overwhelming force" or "hyperpower". A "global empire" implies such a power. How could a global empire be established and maintained without the capacity to exert power, to some degree globally? Therefore Portugal & Spain take precedence - (but who cares about such a label when the term "global empire" already implies some level of "global power"!) However, the 19th century Brit empire WAS the biggest empire in history, and certainly - despite American protestations - a genuine (and the leading) SUPERPOWER, by the criteria stated in the superpower article ( but not a hyperpower - see British invasions of the river Plate, Concert of Europe, Afghan Wars, "great game" in Central Asia, Crimean War, the European balance of power politics and alliances, esp in later 19th century). This is a little harder to discern in earlier global powers - though they did exhibit some of the tendencies of a superpower in parts of the world (nascent superpowers?) (I wonder how a tercio would have performed against, say, Ming dynasty soldiers? I remember reading an account of a clash between defending Portuguese soldiers and a large body of attacking Japanese pirates that were the terror of the Chinese coast - bit of a disaster for the attackers) Robert 25-12-05

40% of the world's habitable land

Most of the British empire was not habitable land (Australian desert, most of Canada, Desert of Rajahstan, Kalahari Desert, Antarctic Peninsula, Arabian Desert, etc.), so saying that the British Empire covered 40% of the world's habitable land makes no sense at all. If you want to give a credible figure, you would have to calculate exactly how much of the British Empire was habitable, and then you would have to find out how much of the world exactly is habitable land (in 1921, which is a different number than in 2005), then you would have to divide the former by the latter. I don't think anyone can obtain these data, so in the meantime I am deleting this absurd and inflated 40% claim. Hardouin 12:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on some of your points but not all. When you state that Canada is not habitable, or a place like Rajasthan in India is not habitable either, I think you have got the concept completely wrong. I don't know much of how you percieve the world, but I suggest that you re-study world geography and history.

Delirious chauvinism

Actually, reading this article more in detail, I am realizing that a good part of it is just nationalistic inflated propaganda. It doesn't honor Wikipedia. A few examples:

• "The British Empire is one of the most important empires in human history, many saying in the future it will be regarded as the most important surpassing even the Romans for its enourmous part in the creation of modern technological civilization." -- This is totally subjective view that has nothing to do in an encyclopedia. We are not the frontpage of the The Sun here. Besides, I am sure there are many people in the world who beg to differ with this inflated claim.
• "The zenith of the empire was during the mid 19th century when as the world's sole developed nation Britain enjoyed unparalleled prosperity." -- This is totally WRONG. In the middle of the 19th century, both France and the UK were the two most developped nations in the world, having both entered the Industrial Revolution first. To say that the UK was the world's "sole" developped nation discredits a lot the intellectual level of this article.
• The section about the Middle Age and England's involvement in France has nothing to do with this article. Do people here really understand the notion of "colonial empire"? We can't talk of colonial empires before 1500. Besides, let us all remember that, ironically, in the Middle Ages it is England that should be considered the colony, since it was conquered by the rulers of Normandy, and settled by them, and they imposed their language, and their law, and their administration to England. Sounds pretty much like a colony. Anyway, the medieval part of this article is totally mixed up.
• In the section called "Extent", I have noticed a couple mistakes:
  • It is not Cameroon that was part of the British Empire, it is British Cameroon, which is only a small part of Cameroon. Most of Cameroon was part of the French colonial empire.
  • Bhutan was not part of the British Empire, it was not even a protectorate. It was merely a state in the British sphere of influence.
  • Same about Nepal.
  • In 1921 there was no more a British concession in Shanghai. It had disappeared 58 years before already!
  • Helgoland was not part of the British empire in 1921. It had already been ceded back to Germany.
  • On the other hand, I am surprised the nationalist people here forgot the New Hebrides (now called Vanuatu), which were part of the British Empire in 1921 (but were shared in condominium with France, and that should be specified). It was the only condominium in the world.
• The section "Post World War II Extent" is perhaps the most delirious of all. Here are a hotchpotch of territories, some of which were occupied for some years during the second world war, some of which were not occupied but briefly under British military command (Ethiopia), and some of which never ever saw any British troops (Reunion). The whole section doesn't make sense altogether, it is greatly misleading, and should be deleted. This has nothing to do with a colonial empire. Areas temporarily under military command during a war (with the British government never claiming them) have nothing to do with the British Empire. I mean, who can seriously consider that the British occupied part of Austria was part of the British Empire?!!
• In the section called "Territories Lost by British Empire before 1921" are also a few mistakes:
  • Medieval territories in France have nothing to do with the British Empire
  • Hanover was NEVER under British rule. It was under Hanoverian rule, and happened to have a ruler who at the same time was also the ruler of the United Kingdom. But the administrations were never merged.
  • Hawai and Florida are borderline. Hawai was never occupied. As for Florida, it was occupied only during wars.

Hardouin 13:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Nationalism was one of the main forces that destroyed the empire by its expression in movements for independence. Imperialists fought against it from the late 19th century onwards, so it seems to me inappropriate to use the word here. Wherever you used the word you would have been better to use the word "chauvinism" since that is what you are actually talking about. However be that as it may, you make some reasonable points in amongst your colourful phrases. In particular, thank you for explaining why the 40% figure was not useful. Now that you have explained your reasoning I can happily agree with you. Chauvinism is a continuing problem with this article and can only be kept under control by continuous vigilance. Now that you have identified some of the problems, I hope that you will move to correct them. Just bear in mind that it is an ongoing process rather than a once and for all effort. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:59, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Hardouin - Some, but not all of what you say is true -
• In the middle of the 19th century, both France and the UK were the two most developped nations in the world, having both entered the Industrial Revolution first. - Well an element of confusion on both sides of this argument. The Industrial revolution in Britain began in the late 18th century. France was far behind, the French nobility did not encourage industrial development and it didn't really kick off until Napoleon was in charge, even then so much money was poured into wars that industrialization remained slow. A good guide to industiralization is the developemt of the railways. France only started to build railways in the 1840s and again progress was slow. See History of rail transport in France. By the late 1860s France remained predominantly an agricultural power. Industrially they were soon overtaken by the Germanic states, and it was as a direct consequence of this that they lost the Franco-Prussian War. Jooler 15:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• "The British Empire is one of the most important empires in human history, many saying in the future it will be regarded as the most important surpassing even the Romans for its enourmous part in the creation of modern technological civilization." - agreed hyperbole.
• The section about the Middle Age and England's involvement in France has nothing to do with this article. - It is about English possessions overseas. Colonies and overseas territory are not synonymous, but both can be viewed as Empire. The possessions of the Channel islands were part of the Empire and they are a legacy from this period.
• In 1921 there was no more a British concession in Shanghai. It had disappeared 58 years before already! - over entusiastic recent addition by someone.
• Helgoland was not part of the British empire in 1921. It had already been ceded back to Germany. - Correct.
• The section "Post World War II Extent" is perhaps the most delirious of all. ...who can seriously consider that the British occupied part of Austria was part of the British Empire?!! -Agreed, this is quite a recent addition, someone was obviously being over enthusiastic.
• Medieval territories in France have nothing to do with the British Empire Not in a truly literal sense of the Empire of Britain, yet a description of English overseas territories would be incomplete without mentioning it.
• Hanover was NEVER under British rule. It was under Hanoverian rule .. the administrations were never merged. - This is not relevant. The Empire, was an Empire of the Crown, not of the Government of Great Britain (later UK). Today the islands of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man are crown dependencies, what remains of the empire were once known as crown colonies.
• Hawai (sic) was never occupied - a gross simplification. Britain originally took possesion of Hawaii in 1794, though it was not officially recognised. Britain still maintained protection over the islands and ran an administration there. There was a good deal of British interest there. In 1843 the islands were ceded to Britain to forestall a French invasion. - see http://www.islander-magazine.com/british.html

In answer to the two previous comments. Well, I did not want to correct the article myself, because I know this is the kind of articles where you are reverted, over reverterd, and over over reverted. So better build some consensus before. Another thing is this: if the article is "a description of English overseas territories", then it should be renamed to make that clear. As far as I'm concerned, "British Empire" specifically refers to colonialism and colonies. There are still British overseas territories today, yet nobody think of them as "the British Empire". So either the article is about British colonial expansion and British colonies/protectorates, etc. since 1500, either the article is about England's overseas extensions since the year 1000, you choose, but you make clear what it is. Finally, again to say that Britain was the "sole" industrial power in the middle of the 19th century is simply not true. Any historian in most countries that I have heard talking about the Industrial Revolution recognizes that England was the first to enter the Industrial Revolution around 1770, followed a few decades later by France. By 1850 England and France were the two largest industrial powers in the world. Usually that's expressed in total amount of cast iron produced (in tons). England and France dwarfed any other country with respect to cast iron. Then historians usually agree that by 1880 unified Germany reached French and English production levels, while by 1890 the USA reached (and soon largely surpassed) French, English, and German levels. Hardouin 19:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The establishment of the British Empire came about through trade and conquest. Colonialism was a side-effect. I agree that the word sole shouldn't be used, but it is wrong to suggest that France was anywhere near as industrialised as Brtain. If you want to use Iron production as a scale of industrial development then fair enough. According to [1] British annual production of pig iron was up to 1,700,000 tons by 1840. According to [2], France's annual production of pig iron uptil 1870 never exceeded more than 320,000 metric tonnes. France wa sa net importer of iron. Britain was a net exporter. Next to Britain the biggest iron producer was probably Sweden. As I said France was still predominantly an agricultural nation. According to [3] In Great Britain, the proportion of the population living in urban areas was 25 percent in 1831, became more than 50 percent in 1851, and had reached 77 percent by 1901. In Prussia, and then Germany, the transition period was longer, beginning with 26 percent in 1816 and becoming more than 50 percent in 1900, whereas France's population was still slightly below 50 percent urban at the end of the 19th century - Jooler 22:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm, hm... on your document #2, table 3, I am reading that in the 1850s France produced 780,000 metric tonnes of pig iron annualy. In the 1860s it produced 1,191,500 metric tonnes annualy, so I don't know where you got your "never exceeded more than 320,000 metric tonnes" claim. At the same time, table 4 shows that the total pig iron production in all the northern German states combined was only 411,500 metric tonnes in the 1850s, and 1,022,500 in the 1860s. In any case, total amount of iron consumed would be a more interesting data than total amount of iron produced (some countries with larger iron ore deposits may produce more, although they may not actually be very industrialized and may consume little of it, and vice versa). Also, your data about urbanization prove nothing I'm afraid. France had three times more inhabitants than England back then, and a much larger territory, so even with a much lower urbanization rate, it could still put as many people at work in factories as in the UK. Also, in France many industries were located in the countryside, close to hydro power. Anyway... we are really getting off topic here. British Empire it is. So back to the subject, you say that colonialism is only a by-product, "the British Empire came about through trade and conquest" you say. Well, if conquest for trade interests is not colonialism, then what is? Or maybe you're thinking that colonialism is only the white man's burden and all that moralistic litterature? In all objectivity, it makes absolutely no sense to put in the same article the Franco-English Plantagenet Empire in the Middle Ages, which had to do with complex things including vassality and family ties, and the British Empire expansion, which had to do with trade expansion and also national prestige. Hardouin 00:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I was looking at table 8, and in fact I now see that I was looking at the wrong figure, so I apologise for that. The figure for 1840 is 347,900 metric tonnes (compare with Britain 1,700,000 tons), for 1850 is 405,700 metric tonnes and for 1870 is 1,178,100 metric tonnes. According to [4] "British production of pig iron rose to 2.5 million tons by 1850, and reached 6 million tons in 1870". It still proves my point. It was you who suggested iron production was a good indicator, but you now want to move the goalposts. According to [5] the population of Britain in 1851 was 27,533,755. In 1850 according to [6] (and other sources) the population of France was 36 million. Not really the 3:1 disparity you mention, or were you limiting the comparison to England only? I don't know why you are continuing to argue the point. France was not a heavily industrialized nation at this time. The majority of the French population were agricultural labourers right up until the early part of the 20th century and it remained primarily an agrarian economy. Regarding the other point - The British Empire (in its classic sense) came about as a result of trade. As British trading interests were threatened by other European nations (as they saw it), Britain began defending those overseas interests aggressivly to the point where Britain (or the chartered companies), declared its "protection" of various islands and outposts, this developed into colonialism. In short the protection of trade initially through the establishment of trading ports and later ouright conquest) led to colonialism, whereby the indigenous population of the colonies ended up being subject of the Crown. What are you complaining about? The brief mention of English overseas territories in the paragraph "Expansion in the British Isles and France" or the inclusion of "Mediæval territories in France" is the list of "Territories Lost by British Empire before 1921"? I think the first is entirely in context. The second is debatable, an inclusionist would include it, because it was "Territories lost by England before 1921" an exclusionist would say (as you do) that it was not part of the British Empire. On reflection I would probably agree with you. Jooler 04:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course I was comparing England only and France. The figure you give for the UK includes Ireland, which was very populated indeed until the Potato Famine and its aftermath, so it skews comparisons. At the 1831 English census, England had 12,993,000 inhabitants, and at the 1831 French census (metropolitan) France had 32,569,000 inhabitants. That's a ratio of 2.5:1. This was down from a ration of 3.5:1 in 1789, and the ratio went further down to 2.13:1 in 1851. As for France being an "essentially agrarian economy", that's an exageration frequently heard that you are repeating. I ask you one simple question: today a majority of the Chinese population are still agricultural labourers, yet, can we really say that China is an "essentially agrarian economy"? In any case, you yourself agree with me that the adjective "sole" shouldn't be used, so I guess the whole point of this little squabble is moot. Hardouin 12:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

In British English moot means debatable. Only in American English does it mean irrelevant. Yes I conceded from my first post on this issue that whoever used the word sole industiralized power on this page was wrong, but I was merely attempting to correct your inaccurate assertion that France was equally industrialized. Comparing England alone to the whole of France makes no sense whatsoever, one might as well compare England with Picardy or Ile-de-France. England and Wales have been treated as a joint entity since the first act of Union in the 16th century. Wales was home to many of Britain's heavy industries including coal and steel production. Many of Britain's greatest industrialists (and I'm sure Derek would have pointed out) were Scots. Parts of Scotland became heavily industrialised, the shipbuilding industry flourished there and that industry was also strong in Northern Ireland. The population of Britain as a whole expanded greatly at a time when the population of France remained almost stagnant. People in Britain moved away from the land (many coming across the water from Ireland) to find work in the cities. In order to feed that city dwelling population, Britain became a net importer of foodstuffs (one of the reasons for the expansion of the Empire). We could go one all day long about population density figures and so on but at the end of the day - China may have a large population living and working on the land, but the country still cannot feed itself. It is also a net importer of food. France was and remains a net exporter of food. You don't accept the iron production figures as a basis for determining industrialization (despite it being your suggestion), you also don't accept the size and extent of the railways system, you don't accept the shift in population figures, and I would hazard to guess that you wouldn't accept the net food import/export status. The simple fact is that France lagged behind in terms of industrialization and has been pointed out elsewhere, Belgium was actually more industrialised than France and this was primariliy due to the British men William and John Cockerill. Yes this is off topic. If you want to discuss this with me further then my talk page is always open. Jooler 15:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It's also off-topic, interesting as it may be. As Hardouin suggested earlier, this page is for discussion of the British Empire article. Let's return discussion to that topic. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:23, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

True. So about the British Empire, I've just had the curiosity to check what Encyclopedia Britannica had to say about it, and this is what I've found: both current Britannica and Britannica 1911 DO NOT MENTION England's extension on the continent during the Middle Ages. This is the definition of the British Empire given by the current Britannica: "A worldwide system of dependencies--colonies, protectorates, and other territories--that over a span of some three centuries was brought under the sovereignty of the crown of Great Britain and the administration of the British government." So that means two things. Number one, the British Empire started around 1600. So it confirms what I said earlier that the section "Expansion in the British Isles and France" is totally irrelevant, as well as the mention of the "medieval territories in France". Number two, note the very important "and the administration of the British government". What this means is that Hannower cannot be considered part of the British Empire, because it was not under the administration of the British government. Hardouin 15:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

'"The British Empire is one of the most important empires in human history, many saying in the future it will be regarded as the most important surpassing even the Romans for its enourmous part in the creation of modern technological civilization." -- This is totally subjective view that has nothing to do in an encyclopedia. We are not the frontpage of the The Sun here. Besides, I am sure there are many people in the world who beg to differ with this inflated claim. ' - I'll look up his name though there is a major historian saying this. Many others too. It is perfectly true. The British empire is responsible for the creation of the modern world which makes it pretty damn important.

That paragraph looks pretty contentious. It's important that you get a reference for it. Adding "According to noted historians, x, y, and z, the British Empire..." will make the difference between keeping it and getting rid of it as far as I'm concerned. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:57, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

"The zenith of the empire was during the mid 19th century when as the world's sole developed nation Britain enjoyed unparalleled prosperity." -- This is totally WRONG. In the middle of the 19th century, both France and the UK were the two most developped nations in the world, having both entered the Industrial Revolution first. To say that the UK was the world's "sole" developped nation discredits a lot the intellectual level of this article. - it depends what year we're talking about. By the late 1860s France was developed as were other places though before that in the mid 19th century it was just Britain and Belgium (which I suppose warrants mention but Belgium are hardly a world power). Bhutan was not part of the British Empire, it was not even a protectorate. It was merely a state in the British sphere of influence. Same about Nepal. - They were painted pink on contemporary maps and are generally regarded to be part of the empire. I agree with you on all the stuff about England and France in the 19th century. The British Empire only really starts with the tudors and the establishment of the navy and the age of exploration. This article should show the British empire in the positive light it acted in and not in the misled America centric view of stupid red coats shooting natives and all that rubbish. --Josquius 20:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I am removing the following paragraph until we agree what do with it.

The British Empire was an institution of the United Kingdom which is largely seen as having lasted from its formation to the era of decolonisation in the 1960s. The British Empire is one of the most important empires in human history, many saying that in the future it will be regarded as the most important surpassing even the Romans for its enormous part in the creation of modern technological civilization, which is up for debate as there has been tremendous amount of destruction, slavery and racism within its realm

My reasons are as follows. Firstly it states a chauvinistic opinion as if it is absolutely true; secondly it is speculative; thirdly it makes the sort of statement that belongs in a conclusion, not an introduction; and lastly it is highly contentious. Before returning it to the article all these faults need to be fixed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:10, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thats not what it said, it had been grafitied. It was not chauvinistic, the British Empire is the most important in history for being the empire that gave rise to modern civilization. The one we live in right now. --Josquius 19:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The Empire that "gave rise to modern civilazation" was the British one, and many others before it. As a good profilatic measure against this "delirious chauvinism", I would recommend the reading of the Wikipedia articles:

- Wikipedia:POV - Wikipedia:Neutral_Point_of_View

212.22.50.55 , June 26 ---

This topic seems to be grasping at straws. You see, you will get slightly off-NPOV in any area where people are proud of their history, take a look at any article to do with a currently existing super-power entity. One thing is for sure though, there is also quite a bit of British Empire bagging which is also NPOV, eventually these things balance each other out.

However, I call into question many of the points you made, rather than dragging it out and dealing with them individually and engaging in discussion, I will leave it at merely my stating that I disagree with a lot of the issues you raised as NPOV and find them to be baseless both in fact and quite biased in opinion also.

Jachin 1 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)

I agree with you Hardouin that some of the article has chauvinism and propaganda, but I disagree with your points here, *The section "Post World War II Extent" is perhaps the most delirious of all. Here are a hotchpotch of territories, some of which were occupied for some years during the second world war, some of which were not occupied but briefly under British military command (Ethiopia), and some of which never ever saw any British troops (Reunion). The whole section doesn't make sense altogether, it is greatly misleading, and should be deleted. This has nothing to do with a colonial empire. Areas temporarily under military command during a war (with the British government never claiming them) have nothing to do with the British Empire. I mean, who can seriously consider that the British occupied part of Austria was part of the British Empire?!!

How, Hardouin, is it that an area placed under military government and occupied by soldiers drawn from the colonial empire (e.g. Iraq or Iran) has nothing to do with the British Empire? And how can Ethiopia not be occupied but placed under military command, isn't that physically impossible? How would the military command be effected? And since when was the article entitled "British colonial empire"? If this article is to only talk about formal colonies then a lot of territories traditionally considered part of the empire would have to be deleted including Egypt. The occupation of Egypt in 1882 was meant to be temporary as is stated in the wikipedia article on Egypt: Egypt_under_Mehemet_Ali_and_his_successors#Egypt_occupied_by_the_British As it was meant to be temporary it was never claimed for the Crown or for the government, however it is still included in the British Empire. So what is the difference between Egypt, the Trust Territories and areas "placed under military command"? And is it not true that the Ethiopia had been annexed into Italian East Africa and that the colony of Italian East Africa was then occupied and militarily governed by the British before they restored most of Ethiopia (minus the Ogaden for a brief period, which had been attached to Italian Somaliland since Italy's 1935 invasion) the Ethiopian government? So in that case, why should the case of Ethiopia be discarded but Egypt and Italian Somaliland retained?

As for Réunion, how could it have been occupied in WWII and never see British troops? And Reunion was occupied twice by Britain, first from 1810-1815 and then during WWII from 1942-1946.

*In the section called "Territories Lost by British Empire before 1921" are also a few mistakes:

• • Medieval territories in France have nothing to do with the British Empire
  • Hanover was NEVER under British rule. It was under Hanoverian rule, and happened to have a ruler who at the same time was also the ruler of the United Kingdom. But the administrations were never merged.

So in that case the only areas under British rule would be England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, but not the Isle of Man, Channel Islands and so on, since their administrations were never merged with that of the UK. True, those islands are slightly different, but not vastly so and even then if the example of Hannover was maintained, then Ireland was never under British rule until 1801 and before that just happened to share a ruler with the UK. Also, what of the various protectorates? They never had their local government abolished and replaced by a colonial government and since they were never under colonial rule, were they also never under British rule?

**Hawai and Florida are borderline. Hawai was never occupied. As for Florida, it was occupied only during wars.

I believe someone already dealt with the case of Hawai'i and showed it to be more complex than you presented. As for Florida, it was never only occupied during wars (and if then so what?), you do realize that it was traded to Britain by Spain in exchange for Havana (or Cuba depending on your historical source) in 1763 and was then divided into the 2 British colonies of East Florida and West Florida, with the West colony being retaken by Spain in 1781 and the East colony being ceded back to Spain in 1783 as part of the settlement that brought about an end to the American Revolution, right?

Why the British Empire IS A Superpower

The Definition of a Superpower is: A state with the ability to influence events or project power on a global scale. A Superpower is not a country that is "head and shoulders" above the rest but a country that fits a aforementioned definition.

Also, they are not the world's "First Global Power" as there were other power projecting Empires before the British took over as the worlds most powerful nation.

So the term superpower fits the British Empire very well. I would word it "Power projecting Superpower"

Two problems here

a) The British Empire is two men and a dog as of the beginning of the 21st century, so the most that could be true is that it was a superpower during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

WTF? This is a history article, nowhere does it claim the British empire still stands, Replying here as this bit was just added in. --Josquius 14:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? It wasn't "just added in"; it was added a week ago. And it's got nothing to do with the article; it's a reference to this section of the talk page. Take a look at its title if you want to know WTF. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:44, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

b) the term "superpower" is anachronistic. It was coined to describe America and Russia during the Cold War. It's not appropriate to describe the Empire (whose leaders thought of it as one of the Great Powers, not as a superpower).

I suggest that we would be better to avoid foreign style exaggeration and go with good old British understatement here. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:43, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes to superpower doesn't mean totally above the rest. To a degree anyway. It does mean it is one of the elite, not THE elite but one of the top nations. Britain was the first global power, it was the most powerful nation at the dawn of the entire world being discovered. The Spanish empire was mainly restricted to Europe and South America. Great power is just a more victorian way of saying super power. --Josquius 19:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yup. And that's why I think that it should be used instead of superpower. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:33, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ah I see where you are coming from now 'The zenith of the empire was during the mid 19th century when as the world's sole developed superpower Britain enjoyed unparalleled prosperity.'. The keyword there is developed. Britain was the only industrial nation and the amount it made through this was unmatched by the rest of the world --Josquius 19:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The British Empire is certainly a superpower, after all thew still have quite a large commonwealth that includes Britain (proper), Gibraltar, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Singapore, India(which include Pakistan), Hong Kong, Austalia, New Zealand, the Falklands, Bermuda, Canada. As well they are one of the few nations with nuclear power. They also have the fourth largest economy in the world. They in fact do have have military power, economic power, and influential power. Aswell you must'nt forget, that the sun never sets in the British Empire.

My view is that British power is substantially reduced, but if it ever came down to the crunch as it did in the two world wars, the White Commonwealth would act as one if any one member was directly threatened, despite the lack of any formal military alliance. Collectively, the Commonwealth Realms are probably second only to the US in terms of ability to project power on a global scale. Nudge 21:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Axis occupied territories

I'm unhappy about the inclusion of occupied mainland European Axis territories after WWII, both in the article and more specficically on the map. Quite frankly it's nonsense to suggest that this was part of the Empire. Jooler 11:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above. The Axis countries were never intended to be colonies; their occupation was always intended to be temporary, a matter of restoring order rather than acquiring posession. The same goes double for the colonies of Allied nations. DJ Clayworth 15:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, those countries were protectorates under the Commonwealth of the British Empire and therefore would be considered to have the same state aknowledgement in the Crown as any other member for the duration of their protectorate status. Just because you don't understand how a system of Empirical government (in this case the Commonwealth) works, doesn't mean that listing those countries as part of the Empire is incorrect or inaccurate in anyway. Come on guys, a little homework before starting threads. :P Jachin 1 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)

Sorry that is just rubbish. They were not protectorates under the Btish Commonwealth. They were goverend by the Allied Control Council (for Germany) and Allied Commission for Austria and elsewhere, and divided into military (not governmental) occupation zones. How about doing some homework of yourself. Jooler 3 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)

So why does an area have to be a colony to be regarded as being part of the imperial system? If that's the case then most of the territories in Arabia would have to be removed since they were protectorates and not colonies (and protectorates are entirely different). Even though the Axis occupied territories were never intended to be colonies, neither were the protectorates (and at least officially) Mandates and moreso Trust territories. And if the occupation zones were compared with protectorates, it would be seen that protectorates (at least some of them) had FAR more independence than the occupation zones and yet were included in and considered part of the Empire . Comparing trust territories (and class A mandates) with the occupation zones would show that in both cases British rule/control was never meant to be permanent as in the case of colonies and so if the occupation zones shouldn't be included because they were temporary then the trust territories shouldn't be either (and how can that be justified? After all the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands was considered to be US territory for the duration of the US administration). Sure the zones weren't in the same class as any other area, but then so what of it? The individual zones were not ruled by the Allied Control Commission (that only oversaw policy for all 4 zones as a whole), each country had some leeway towards implement its own policies in its own zone (hence the division in the first place) and each zone was governed by a military government created by the armed forces of the country governing a respective zone.

Empire Size

Wasn't the Mongolian Empire the largest empire ever, not the British Empire?-Shyvek

It was close but not quite. We actually had a comparison stating the difference between the two but some one has removed it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Mongolian empire was nowhere near the size of the British empire, it had the potential to cover large areas of land though it didn't. Most of Siberia was never even stepped upon by Mongolians. -josquius

217.22.55.50 keeps disrupting this page. Despite my appeal on his talk page. Jooler 3 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)

Superpowers

As I understand, the British Empire was called a "great power". It did reach a point of having greater financial and millitary power than any other empire, and could project this power on global scale more effectively than ever before in history. But "superpower" is really a 20th century term, and is a qualitatively different concept. Peter Grey 17:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Jooler

Yep. Wyss 17:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Which is why first "global power" is correct and superpower is incorrect. Some people seem to be struggling with this. here is what I have said to a few people. The British Empire was the world's first global power and history's largest Empire.

• a) - The British Empire was the world's first global power
  • The key word here is power Britain was able to exert overwhelming power on every continent. That is every habitable continent - North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australasia.
    • I would imagine that you contend that either the Portuguese or the Spanish Empire was the worlds first global power. They were empires that existed in a global context but they did not exert power. One might argue that the Portuguese Empire was not an oceanic empire rather than a global one. It was mainly a network of coastal outposts connected by sea lanes. The Spainsh Empire was more impressive in size. Spain lay claim to a huge amount of territory, but it is illusory to think that Spain had any kind of real power over all of that territory. The vast majority of it had never seen the foot of a Spaniard. Half of the continent of North America was claimed by Spain as "New Spain", but it was not explored until that territory had been acquired by the United States. Spain had but a toehold in Africa and no possessions on the Asian mainland, the Treaty of Tordesillas put paid to any ambitions of global domination.

• b) - The British Empire was ... history's largest Empire.
  • This isn't even worth arguing about. See http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html

It's important to consider whether measuring "global" and "power" by modern or contemporary terms. One could argue that, before the 19th century, being a global power was not possible for any state because of limitations of technology. (Although Spain did pretty good in the Americas because there horses were a new technology.) Peter Grey 17:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Super power and great power mean exactly the same thing. Global power was just the popular term in the 19th century whilst today we use super power. They were the world's first global power and were a superpower however were not the world's first superpower. A superpower is simply a nation with a large superiority over its competitors, there had been many in history before Britain that enjoyed this. -Josquius

No they don't mean the same thing at all. It's anachronistic to use Superpower. Superpower is a modern term that was applied to the two major forces that arose from the ashes of the Second World War. during the 19th and early 20th century we had the Great Powers of Europe. They were all destroyed or bankrupted by two world wars and what emerged was a world dominated by two Super powers which between them had the power to destroy the world. Jooler

The term super power is a post world war two term that applies to nuclear powers with deep capacity to deliver their aramaments essentially anywhere in the world, presumably at the level necessary to sustain the principle of "mutually assured destruction." The British Empire was a global power but never a superpower in the sense the word has been used since it was invented. The only two "superpowers" I know of have been the USA and USSR and since the latter fell, there has been but one. Wyss 22:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Even if some people use 'superpower' to mean something other than the USA or the Cold-War era USSR, I don't think there's any reason or need to use the term in this article. That's not to say that there wasn't something different about the British Empire compared to it's competitors, and that fact needs to be mentioned. Peter Grey 22:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

To nudge that a bit more, I don't think foreign policy wonks or professional commentators have ever used the term superpower in relation to anything other than the post-war US or USSR. Misuse of a word is not a citation. Wyss 22:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep. For all those reasons plus the ones mentioned earlier on the talk page: Superpower/Hyperpower -- bad; Great Power/Global Power -- good. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Australia not declaring war and the Statute of Westminster

I've removed the following text and reworded that paragraph:

other than Australia, which had not yet legally adopted the Statute of Westminster

This didn't make sense, because New Zealand, which had also not adopted the Statute of Westminster, did declare war separately. The connection between the Statute of Westminster and the need to declare war separately needs to be explained or omitted.

Ben Arnold 02:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Probably a weak and ambiguous connection, and probably best ignored for the purposes of this article. Peter Grey 04:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Why no mention of white supremacy as an official policy

The British Empire installed white supremacist systems in Southern Africa, India and the Australian sphere. It was believed that the British gentleman was superior to the colored savages. Also, like many other colonial powers also did, the British used the 'divide and rule' policy in order to make ruling easier. Britain deliberately set Muslims and Hindus up against eachother in India to prevent any unification of those 2 groups against their colonial oppressors, the British.

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/European_Imperialism.htm

Also, there seems to be no mention of the fact that most of the land conquests of the British Empire would, in 21st century terms, be known as 'illegal occupations'.

The British empire was not, as so many express in their POV's, a benevolent entity functioning to spread wealth, but rather, to remove wealth from the occupied territories and bring it back to Britain, but as said before, this was not different from what other colonial powers also.

It did handle things better than Belgium. GraemeLeggett 07:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

no argument from me there, but Belgium is not the topic here --Marcel1975 23:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This was a bias held by almost all European governments at the time and since it was part of the context of the era, its mention would be misleading and unencyclopedic. It' like saying, "Abraham Lincoln was a racist." He was a racist, but since almost everyone in his professional and social circles were also what we would now call "racist", it's not notable. Wyss 23:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. "White supremacist" is a word for this century, and if transplanted onto attitudes of 200yrs ago is entirely misleading. Incidentally, a quick look at the history of the Indian subcontinent before and after 1948, and indeed before 1750, is required before blaming the British for inter-religious strife. DJ Clayworth 18:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Also, there seems to be no mention of the fact that most of the land conquests of the British Empire would, in 21st century terms, be known as 'illegal occupations'." - First, 'illegal' says who? International law? Such laws to my knowledge did not exist in the 19th C. There was nothing illegal about colonialism, it had existed in one way or another for centuries. Secondly, to judge historical events by today's values is bad history and, to me, does not have a place in an encyclopedia. - Johnbull 03:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"* Francisco de Vitoria [c. 1483-1546] is widely considered to be a founder of international law. Scott holds that Vitoria's 16th century school of international law and his important Reflectiones, De Indis Noviter Inventis and De Jure Belli (the text of these are included in the appendix) are in fact the origin of the law of nations, which was to become the international law of Christendom and the world at large. In Vitoria's writings described herein he held that pagans had the right to freedom and property, declared slavery to be unsound, upheld the rights of Indians, questioned the Spanish conquest of the New World in the time immediately following Columbus' discovery of America which gave rise to his thesis that the community of nations transcends Christendom." Walker, Oxford Companion to Law 1279-1280. Harrypotter 19:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"British Oppression to prevent unification? You must mean the British rule of India that unified it, industrialised it and eventually allowed the creation of a Muslim state separate from the Hindus? White Supremacy isn't applicable 200 years ago, a point at which most Indians were living in backwards, rural villages. White Supremacy is a political term contrasting politicised whites to politicised blacks. These Indians were originally no more politicised than indigenous peoples in Africa, Australia and the Americas. Also, if we were judging by 21st century terms, 1920s Southern USA was a human rights fiasco; i.e., you can't compare governments of 100 years ago or even 50 years ago to the morals of today. Different pragmatics, different situations, different beliefs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Locuteh (talk • contribs) 12:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

British Empire Map

I changed the map because: 1 It wasn't detailed enough. 2 After WWI Britain controlled all of Papua New Guinea, not just the south 3 only the part of Cameroon that joined with Nigeria on independence is shown 4 I changed it to 1919 because the British still controlled Afghanistan at this time 5 Vancouver wasn't coloured pink 6 Long Island and Cape Cod weren't on the map 7 And many other smaller reasons

Well, the map needs revising again, since you have included too much of Cameroon (the majority of it was taken over by France).

Recent edits by anon IP

I've removed the following edits because they are way over-the-top POV, there may be some merit to the content but not using this language. Jooler 13:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The Crown proved its heritage by nearly destroying the native cultures in all these places by sending the most unwanted of the British society there. For instance, Australia was for the convicts and New Zealand was for the lunatics and psychopaths. ... It might be falsifying to call it export. Essentially, the Empire bled its colonies of economical and cultural wealth. India and South Africa were bled of huge amounts of gold and precious stones. Priceless artefacts were shipped to England and today, reside in the London Museum (sic - the editor presumably means the British Museum). It is a shame that a museum must stand witness to the gory history of the empire. Even more shameful is that it is glorified and more revenue is made from it. .... The British were amongst the most oppressive of cultures, and considering that the worst part of the English population had been transferred to South Africa, North America and Australia, it is not surprising that these countries continued slavery and owe their current prosperity to the toil and torture of millions of slaves. Unfortunately, not much of this is documented like say, the Holocaust. This also means that it is not viable to legally punish those responsible. ... If a wholesome view of British history is taken, then it is obvious that this argument is very probably true. Unfortunately, the Crown was cunning enough to make sure there was no documentation with regard to its crimes

Global Empire

The previous statement was that the Brittish were the first global empire.(Actualy they would be the only one under his definition). Now a statement like that needs a source otherwise I am going to put an NPOV tag on the article. Now I am going to add reasons why it was not the first gloab empire.

1. Not as large as Spanish Empire.

Nonsense. Jooler 06:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

When Spain absorbed the Portuguese empire in 1580(therbye eliminating the only other major colonial power then) they controlled more territory than any other empire in history even the Mongolian.

This is just utter rubbish! See http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html This assertion and the other factoids you put forward as arguments simply don't hold any water. Jooler 19:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Portuguese controlled the known world. There is a such thing as a Trade Empire. Not all empires are measured in military force

Known world is not the globe. - By the use of the word POWER we ARE talking about force.Jooler 06:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Power can be economic. Remember phrases like, leading economic power, political power etc.

Qualifed use of the word "power" Jooler 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

3. The Spanish fleet was as dominate as the British. Remember the Spanish competed with the Portuguese and the Muslims. The Brittish competed with the French and Dutch. Both were equall dominant. And either way our opinions here do not conform to NPOV.

With so much competition there was no real dominance. Officially the hemispheres of exploitation was divided by Pope Alexander VI between Portugal and Spain with the Treaty of Tordesillas. The period of Spanish naval supremacy (ohh look no article on it!) was fleeting and was not exploited in the same way as British naval supremacy where Britain had a policy of maintaining the Royal Navy at a size where it was at least as big as the world's second and third largest navied combined. Jooler 06:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Except the Portuguese were conquered by the Spanish. The Spanish Empire brought in billions of dollars of gold, something that no other navy would ever match. While the Spanish empire was in decline longer than British that doesn't change anything about the empire's height.

Yes the Spanish shipped tons of gold across from the New World but the Spanish crown was declared bankrupt in 1557, 1576, 1596, 1607 and very nearly in 1627. Where did the money go? It was wasted. A billion "dollars" is an inconceivable sum for this period. The Portuguese terriroty that came under the crown of Castille mostly amounted to a few far flung trading posts. Jooler 21:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Check out Anglo-Spanish War (1585) and its discussion page for the relative merits of the Spanish and English navies in the 16thC. Also, bankrupt is a legal term that wild-haired historians shouldn't mess with - declared insolvent is more accurate ie. unable to pay its debts as they fell due. The US would probably be in the same state today, were it not for the forebearance of its creditors - it's a recurrent problem for imperial powers.--shtove 23:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

. The first global empire is well before any of these becasue a global empire can only control the known world. So effectively the Romans, the Greeks, the Babyonians etc were the first global empires. Falphin 19:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Double nonsense. Jooler 06:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

First Global POWER - not Empire - your arguments are not valid. Jooler 06:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Like I said under you definition the British were the only Global Empire. You should note I did not mention the Egyptians, Hitites, Persians, Libyans, Ethiopians, Khemers, Japanese, Byzantine, or any other early empires because they didn't control the known world like I mentioned. Look at the article on global empire again we are still using different definitions, which should be clarified in the introduction. 12.220.47.145 16:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous nonsense. Jooler 19:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Global empire necessarily implies some degree of Global Power. Robert 25-12-05

Nonsense. A few far flung trading posts does not give power. Jooler 09:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

India?

Shouldn't there be some information here about how India was conquered? Or some description of the Raj? Its seems oddly absent. --JW1805 05:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"Every aspect of the Empire was an aspect of Christ" - James Morris author of Pax Britannica: Climax of an Empire

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/European_Imperialism.htm

Perhaps you should refer to India being brought under British rule as opposed to being conquered. Not only is it a bit of a POV statement, I don't recall the ruling Princes of Indian provinces objecting overly to British rule, as it secured them from invasion by another province. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Locuteh (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Late Victorian Holocausts?

I haven't read this radical-left book, but it claims that British colonial policies contributed to massive famines that starved around 50 million people in India and China. (Verifiable is the Bengali famine of 1943, which killed 4 million Indians).

Refer to http://www.atributetohinduism.com/European_Imperialism.htm

I'm not sure why British imperialism is supposed to have been "better" than Belgian or Portuguese. The British contributed more to the concept of "white man's burden" and the colonial remapping and exploitation of Africa and Asia than any other global power IMO. Britain indeed is one of the foremost constructors of the modern capitalist world and its infinite positive advancements in social terms, but not without massive bloodshed before its direct colonial control was relinquished. Romantic visions of benign empire like Lawrence of Arabia, etc. are Hollywood fairy tales (entertaining, but still fiction). Britain has bombed, gassed, starved, and enslaved millions of people, just like the other Western powers and virtually every empire in human history. My point is let's not get overboard with "Pax Britannia" and "UK civilized the world" or other jingoistic assertions...try to balance the good with the bad of Empire. how is Lawrence of Arabia romantic, a fairytale or fiction? Bwithh 23:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comparisons have to be contemporary. Anachronism (and revisionism) using modern standards plague a lot of history articles in Wikipedia. In this case the comparison with the Belgian rule of the Congo is used quite frequently to illustrate the difference between contemporaneous empires of the late 19th century. Famines were and are still widespread and have a variety of causes. We cannot "fix" them even now so any source that tries to blame an institution of the past for causing them and/or failing to remedy them is questionable. I've read this article several times over the last few years and I think it has improved a lot; For such a contentious subject it is quite balanced - if not quite yet "perfect". If you think something needs to be toned down then you can do it yourself. (Edit - that last sentence reads poorly - it is not supposed to be an imperative) Wiki-Ed 13:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There has never been a famine in a democratic capitalist country a la the United States or Hong Kong or numerous others. Are you suggesting the totalitarian government of Communist China was not responsible for exacerbating the Great Leap Forward famine through its policies if not STARTING it in the first place? I agree the Victorian Holocausts book is biased but some have argued the policies of the Raj made Indian famines worse. Obviously it's a matter of debate; anything is "questionable".

Refer to http://www.atributetohinduism.com/European_Imperialism.htm

Deal with India?

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/European_Imperialism.htm

What is this nonsense about a deal with Indian nationalists at the onset of WWII. Does nobody here know of the Quit India Movement. I hope somebody will please correct this.

Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow

What "nonsense" are you referring to exactly? WW2 started in September 1939. The article you linked to starts in August 1942. Wiki-Ed 14:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal Unions: Kingdom of England

I do object to Scotland being included under as being part of the Kingdom of England from 1603 - 1707. Scotland was in a personal union with England sharing a Monarch. However by placing this fact under the heading of Kingdom of England, suggests that Scotland was somehow part of that Kingdom. The reverse could be argued considering that the shared monarch was a Scot from the Scottish dynasty and not the English dynasty. However, that also wouldn't necessarily be true. Instead this should possibly be placed under the heading of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Since that was the self styled, non official, name given to the kingdom by James VI. In no way was Scotland part of the Kingdom of England within the dates you suggest. I'm new to Wilkpedia so I apologise if I haven't followed any formal procedures in pointing out mistakes etc User: Japanesewhispers 13:39 5 December 2005 (Tokyo)

Hi. Did you look at the rest of the stuff in that section? The section is entitled 'Personal unions', and also includes the unions with places like the Netherlands. It in no way implies that Scotland was part of the Kingdom of England. Morwen - Talk 17:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The bits on the Dutch provinces were similarly deleted recently by someone who failed to understand the concept of personal union. --Kvasir 07:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That person being me, I do understand the concept of a personal union. William III was a Dutch stadholder before and during his rule over England. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE NETHERLANDS WERE PART OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE.

Sander 11:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the section is that it is too anglocentric. The United Kingdom is composed of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, so just having England and then the various personal unions of the United Kingdom seems biased.--anon 19:09 March 20, 2006

Sepoy Mutiny

I altered the discussion of one of the causes of the Sepoy Mutiny, which claimed the sepoys were unhappy because they had to bite the pig and pork fat greased cartridges before putting them into their Lee-Enfield rifles. The rifles the sepoys were using were actually muzzle-loading Pattern 1853 Enfield rifles. The Lee-Enfield was a bolt action rifle not invented until 1895, named after James Parris Lee, who designed the bolt action used in this weapon. I also changed the text from a statement of certainty that the cartridges were covered in pig and cow fat, to say that they were covered in animal fat that was rumored to be pig and cow fat, as it is unlikely they were a mixture of both, this was most likely a deliberate falsehood spread by the formentors of the Mutiny to galvanize Hindus and Muslims alike. M. Myers 20 December 2005

Zenith 1919 or 1921?

Because of some shennanigans over the last few day, the text now refers to 1921 whilst the image refers to 1919, with Afghanistan included. Were there any significant additions between 1919 and 1921? Jooler 10:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Zenith was in 1919 when the British Empire still included Afghanistan. That is why I put the Image of it's zenith in 1919 there. However, I have recently discovered that a very brief British Protectorate existed over Iran (Persia) from 1919 to 1920.

Iran needed financial help and this led to Lord Curzon's Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919, which established a British protectorate over Iran, similar to that which then existed over Egypt. Opposition to the proposed agreement's effective establishment of Persia as a British protectorate led, in 1919 to Reza Khan, an officer of the Persian Cossacks Brigade, seizing power by force in 1920 and abandoning the agreement, which restored Iran's independence.

Should I add Persia (Iran) to the map? Arthur Wellesley 2:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)