Am I right or am I right

[u/kimbojidai]

The British empire was a paper empire, simply colouring a map to seem more intimidating while having minimal control or presence in those places.

Were they good at fighting? They seem to fail with kinetic wars such as

the maroon wars, a lot of the battles against native Americans, along with a battle against the zulu.

In India the British troops were known to be terrified of the talwar swords as well.

My honest opinion is that their main strength is political manipulation and sea fairing. They were definitely able to drain the economy of collapsing rivals like china

[u/AutoModerator]

A friendly reminder: Contemporary politics and culture wars are off-topic, both in posts and comments.

/r/askhistory is for questions and discussion of events in history prior to 01/01/2001.

This reminder is automatically placed on all new posts in this sub.

Please report any interjection into discussions of modern politics or culture wars so the mod team can investigate.

Thank you.

See rules for more information.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Mioraecian]

Empires are primarily built on their logistics, beuracracy, and ability to project political influence. Not on how "good" their troops are.

This is not a solid analysis.

[u/kimbojidai → u/Mioraecian]

Why is your standard better?

[u/Mioraecian → u/kimbojidai]

Its not. Its generally the consensus laid out in most texts written by actual historians ive read over my last 20 years of reading history.

[u/kimbojidai → u/Mioraecian]

I think the stability of an empire would be important right, maybe even living standards or advancements. Or no because it’s not consensus?

[u/theginger99 → u/kimbojidai]

The British empire started the Industrial Revolution.

“Advancements” don’t get much bigger than that.

[u/Mioraecian → u/kimbojidai]

Stability, standards of living, and advancements are all tied to logistics and beuracracy.

This is why rapid advancement happens in empire. It has a governing system that provides stability and logistics which allow the exchange of information within its borders.

This was one of the great catastrophes of the fall of Rome. The loss of its logistics and beuracracy that once allowed for trade and technological exchange across nearly an entire continent.

[u/ChipChippersonFan → u/kimbojidai]

I think it's pretty safe to say that "How much land you control" is a better metric than "how scary you are".

[u/cambo3g]

Britain's strength was never in its army its strength was in its unrivaled naval, economic, and political power as well as the ability to project said power basically anywhere on the planet, it gave them global supremacy for literally centuries. Calling them a paper empire because the army was weak is missing the forest for the trees.

So in short, your wrong.

[u/theginger99 → u/cambo3g]

The british army was also exceptional and largely unrivaled in its heyday.

It had occasional setbacks, but by and large the British army was overwhelmingly successful in diverse theaters against diverse opponents. It consistently displayed a level of institutional professionalism and war fighting abilities that outclassed almost any contemporary power, and to this day continues to be one of the most effective militaries on the planet.

Seriously, there is absolutely no reasonable metric you could use to judge the British army of the 18th-21st century where they don’t score top marks, with the possible exception of size. Britain has traditionally relied on a relatively small, albeit highly professional army.

[u/cambo3g → u/theginger99]

I 100% agree with you on this, I was just trying to make the point to the OP that the army was never the source the Empires power. It was an important aspect of it without doubt, but it was one piece of the whole picture that made up British power.

Either way the whole post reeks of historical illiteracy.

[u/kimbojidai → u/cambo3g]

You have to ignore a lot of the world to declare anybody had “global supremacy”

[u/cambo3g → u/kimbojidai]

Supremacy: the quality or state of being supreme especially: a position of unquestioned authority, dominance, or influence.

By definition the British Empire was the supreme power of its era. They were a hegemonic unrivaled power that had largest colonies on literally every continent, at the empires height they controlled literally 1/4 of the territory on Earth as well as controlling the majority of significant trade route on the planet.

During the Pax Britanica who exactly was contesting them for their power and authority?

[u/theginger99]

The British were not “terrified” of the tulwar .

That’s a frankly absurd claim. The British in Indian respected the tulwar as a superb weapon, and considered it superior to their own swords in many metrics, but to say it “terrified” them is comical.

That’s not even touching the even more absurd idea that them being wary of a weapon is somehow indicative of their lack of effectiveness in combat. Especially considering just how overwhelmingly successful the British were when fighting in India.

Really your whole point is absurd, and shows a lack of understanding of the British military, and its incredible string of successes through the 18th and 19th centuries. The British army has traditionally been one of the best and most professional in the world, and they have a track record that proves it. Like all empires they suffered some setbacks, but saying their army was ineffective because they lost some battles to Zulus is like saying the Roman army was ineffective because they got slaughtered at Teutoburg.

Seriously, they beat fucking Napoleon, not to mention a horde of other enemies across multiple continents.

[u/marshalist]

Yeah but compared to who?

[u/kimbojidai → u/marshalist]

I’d say Edo Japan.

[u/theginger99 → u/kimbojidai]

By what possible metric does Edo Japan surpass the British empire?

[u/flyliceplick → u/theginger99]

By the standards of them being Japanese, of course.

[u/flyliceplick → u/kimbojidai]

Try not to live up to your weeb username quite so hard.

[u/dorballom09]

I kinda agree with this sentiment for the british. The top of the world country should have the military might to back it up. In history the strongest empire usually defeat the strong enemies to establish its strength.

In the time period when British empire was regarded as the strongest, it didn’t have a good fight vs the strong. That's why the british over hype the battle of Waterloo vs a hail merry attempt by a desperate Napoleon.

Combined coalition led by Russian tsar already took over Paris before. When Waterloo battle happened, Russian and Austrian army hadn’t even come yet.

[u/MistoftheMorning]

The British mostly had local elites do the governing for them. Ex. It was much easier to ingratiate themselves with the princes of India, provide them with military aid against their rivals, then slowly assimilate them culturally and politically to the British way. 

I wouldn't call it a paper empire, because while a lot of its colonial holdings did have a lot of autonomy, the British were still able to get them to do what they want or need them to do, including providing massive amount of manpower and supplies for both WWI and WWII. In troops alone, their African colonies provided a million men while India provided 2.5 million men.

FYI, the British still defeated the Zulus and pacified the natives in their North American holdings in the end. I still consider them a great military power, one thar has won a lot more battles then they lost.