Why was the British empire so much more successful than all other European empires?

Why was the British empire so much more successful than all other European empires?

Less gay orgies and the island nation buff

We perfected the concert of divide and conquer.

They started with trading first then empire building which ruined them

The colonies were mostly privately funded guaranteed by the crown

and ofc it was the british east indies company that needed the dutch to be driven off so they can monopolize the trading of spices

it wasn't until they became the go-to security in india then they decided to form the indian empire

mercantilism establish the british empire

Britain did a good job and colonizing the uninhabited spaces in the world, most of everyone else was exploiting a technology gap that fell apart in the post WWII world

Primarily because of the strong maritime tradition but also liberal Protestant attitudes and a commercially focused empire

The Dutch met this criteria also and they had a fuckhuge empire for how small their country was

TRADE AND MERCHANTS.

This allowed them to accumulate more wealth than other empires.

You ever wonder where the expression of "the empire in which the sun never sets comes from?"

They had it for a reason.

They were pirates, and attacked other colonies.

France still has its own.
"""""" successful""""""

because they conquered savages and had vastly superior technology

They were the first to industrialize thanks to Elizabeth I encirclement policy: people started moving from the fields to the cities and this led to the demand of an increase in textile production which culminated with the first textile machine which was moved by the power of v a p o r. They industrialized 100-50 years before everyone else. Britain started growing rich, and became the world's biggest supplier of textiles. As a result of that there was a demand in increase for raw materials which made the British seek off exporters of these materials, that's how they got into colonialism. They also are an island which helps a lot the development of naval strategies simply to defend themselves and as a result, even if not the initial objective, they develop a strong trading power with a huge merchant fleet. On top of that it is strategically located in Western Europe which is good since its close to Eurasia and at the same time to the Americas. Last but not least, they invested a fuck ton in scientific research - which made it possible for the Brits to have the upper hand in commercial and military technology in many cases, endless supplies of coal and rivers to power their industries (that still exist even to this day), and very efficient administrations with little corruption and much enthusiasm for overall development. The British are particularly serious when it comes to politics, or at least so it was in the days of their Empire.

Is there anything else about history that you want to know?

What's French Guiana like?

This guy gets it

>conquered a bunch of people which were vastly technologically inferior to them

That's not impressive. This is.

Why didn't he conquer Portugal?

Same reason he didn't conquer the Balkans; too irrelevant for him to care.

Looks like he conquered a bunch of backward savages to me. Don't worry though we sorted him out for ya.

Continentals fighting each other is about as impressive as watching two monkeys have a shit flinging contest

That lasted like 5 years and didn't earn France half as much money as a foreign empire could have.

Britain's best ally who wouldn't bend over and take napoleon's dick like every other country on the continent. France came close in the peninsular war.

He tried to twice, but Portugal and Britain had been allied since very old days.
Napoleon invading Portugal would ultimately result in an earlier declaration of independence by Brazil. This was a trend that was observed with Spanish colonies. This means that Brazil wouldn't be under Portuguese rule, therefore, Brazil, which was a colony of Portugal, and Portugal being allied to Britain, colonial Brazil supplied up to ~80% of all British coffee, sugar and, to a lesser extent, tobacco and meat. Independent Brazil means that there won't be any of these for Britain, so they sent a number of fleets and armies to hel the Portuguese. In all times Napoleon tried to take Portugal, he failed.
Important to note that it was at this time that the entire royalty, noblety and high society of Portugal moved to Brazil, which contributed later on to its independence. Most battles were fought by the British rather than Portuguese themselves. Also Britain had a fleet base there and it was considered as a landing terrain for further British reinforcements against Napoleon, so they couldn't just lose a base of operations like that.

Colonial Brazil also attemped to take over the French guyana but the garrissons there were surprisningly bigger than initially expected, arround 30k line infantry and some artillery regiments.

why is sub saharan africa so underdeveloped when compared to west europe?
why did the axis lose ww2?
will anime ever be real?
share your wisdoms

>why is sub saharan africa so underdeveloped when compared to west europe?
Numerous reasons. Read Guns, Germs and Steel for a broad if not controversial assessment of this topic

>why did the axis lose ww2?
In Europe they were outnumbered and had their supply lines to the West and South cut off by the Brits. Germany also didn't have the ability to win a protracted war against the USSR

In Asia the Japs never really had a chance of winning a war against the US once their shock and awe gambit failed.

Anime will NEVER EVER be real

>why is sub saharan africa so underdeveloped when compared to west europe?
Multiple factors, this is the topic of much discussion. To start with, there are more recent theories that state that man originated somewhere in Eastern Anatolia, which could explain why the Crescent Fertile was so ahead of the rest of the world. It is easy to understand why a region produces more culture when it's a few thousand years ahead of everyone else.
African soil is hard to harvest, the climate is more inospit, jungle makes it hard to develop an early city. It is well speculated that these factors contributed for the perpetuation of gathering nomad tribes, whilst the tribes in open terrain Europe with a lot of fertile lands and good places to create cities like grasslands and hilltops generated structured sedentary societies, cities like Rome, Gizah, Athens, what we today call Constantinople and Baghdad, all started from agriculture and slowly developed trough time. Notice how in more densely forrested areas like Germany it took longer for civilization to flourish (ie, compare Germanic tribes to Roman Empire). Eventually this difference became greater and greater due to the exponential growth of technology (while Europe was developing electricity Africans were still living in nomadism thanks to effects previously mentioned). Of course you could blame racial differences as well if you want.

>why did the axis lose ww2?
Soviet human tactics, US supplies. Defeats at Midway, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Hitler not invading UK and the bogging down of Japanese troops in Manchuria/China due to Chinese guerilla tactics made it hard for the Axis to make any significant advances. By the late war, for every carrier fleet the Japs produced, the US produced 10 and that's on the west coast docks only.
Also keep in mind that by the end of the war half of the world already sided with the allies, from brazil to australia.
>will anime ever be real?
It already is.

Thanks Brazilian historyfag

Brazil, explain to us why Hannibal nearly conquered Rome.

I'd like to read more about this theory that man developed in Eastern Anatolia. Got any links to anthropological journals or similar sources?

Hannibal was a master of logistics and inspected his troops every single day. He liked food, ammunitions and supplies more than troops themselves.

His tactic was to flank Rome from the north.

The romans had already aquired naval expertise from the Carthagians in the previous Punic war, and learned how to board ships, using their land borne strategy advatange as weapon even at sea by taking over Carthagian galleys.

This led Hannibal to attemp a different, innovative move.

He moved all the way trough Spain, south France and then the Alpes to attack Rome from the north, from where it was undefended as many Roman legions were arround Sicily, Naples and North Africa.

Along the way, Hannibal made several alliances with Celtic tribes, specially those alongside the Po river, and recruited many mercenaries into his army, and an even greater number of civilians to the supply trains.

Initially successful, the Carthagian war elephants were hopessly outnumbered by Roman equestrae. Javelinmen were particularly strong against the war elephants, and the conflict was eventually turned into a stalemate. Hannibal retreated from Italy, and returned to Carthage, when he faced Scipio and was defeated.

No, I just read it a few times on online newspapers and on /his/ but couldn't find any link. It has to do with the idea that Noah's arc hit mount Ararat, though, which is precisely in the border between Armenia and Turkey.

Ships and science and shit, innit.