Did it? It helped the businessmen, and it paid for many fine industrial projects like the Iron bridge and so on, but did the average servant or manual worker see any benefit?
No more than the average American today sees much benefit over the average Western European. The vast monies, as ever, go to the top of the society.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Conquering people and subjugating them to your monarch isn't oppression...? 🤨
No, actually, the local people were subjugated to their own local rulers, who then in turn agreed- because they made a ton of money out of it- to give allegiance to the Monarchy.
We couldn't have FORCED them to do anything- we didn't have the military strength- except at Sea, but precious few countries cared about that (other than the money they could make, making use of the Royal Navy).
"The Empire was only about oppression thats why it failed."
Good Lord no... it failed because it ran out of money.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, actually, the local people were subjugated to their own local rulers, who then in turn agreed- because they made a ton of money out of it- to give allegiance to the Monarchy.We couldn't have FORCED them to do anything- we didn't have the military strength- except at Sea, but precious few countries cared about that (other than the money they could make, making use of the Royal Navy).
"The Empire was only about oppression thats why it failed."
Good Lord no... it failed because it ran out of money.
Thats true it was all about money your right but not money for the people of Britain money for the good and the great.(the rich)
Not that it did not have its oppressive points. When the Chinese tried to stop the Brits selling opium to their country, we sailed a few ships to Guangzhou and cheerfully shelled it until they changed their minds- though again, that was about the money, not any form of Chinese conquest.
But the Empire as a whole relied not on oppression, but greed- the greed of the locals who would help us because they too would become rich, as much as our own greed.
And in generating money it also generated advancement and security and develoment and ots of other things which it would be silly to ignore...
... but it was still divorced from morality. It might not have been actively evil but when its money supply was threatened, ethics went out the window.
Still, seem to have been drawn off-topic a bit... the Commowealth of today might be mainly ireelvant but I find it rather touching. It also gives a large number of countries a certain voice and common community (and goes to show that the Imperial Legacy wasn't THAT hostile- places like Palastine hate the UK, who did indeed conquer them militarily, far more than nearly all ex-Imperial nations).
And so it is very unlikely we would turn arms against them. Mind you, member nations have been suspended before.
Ah now- the East India Company is proof that Corporate power is NOTHING to what it used to be...
The East India Company had its own army, with Captains and Generals and artillery... the lot. An army responsible to the EICs shareholders!
It's amazing really. Say what you like about Microsoft, at least they can't militarily invade their rivals.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Oh absolutely, some of them made a killing working with the Brits.And when the wars in India came, we sent troops, sure, but the majority of the fighting was done by locals!
However as the Brits and the EIC grew in power in India we wiped the princes out one by one,with help from other princes ofcourse.
The next big war will be MacDonalds versus Burger King... Pepsi will throw in its lot with BK, and Coca Cola with McDs.... Walmart will supply uniforms and food to both sides, and KFC will sell mercenary troops to the highest bidder (cries of "Chicken!!" reverberating around the battlefield...) Fortunately both sides will use vehicles supplied by GM and Ford, so they will be forever breaking down before combat can be joined, and the only casualties will be down to excessive weight gain and cholesterol poisoning...