How did Great Britain have so much power and influence considering how small it is? How did they manage to colonise the entirety of India so easily?
In: 167
Great Britian, being an island nation, had no real land-based conflicts. This meant that they didn’t need to waste much money on armies, comparatively. It also meant that they didn’t get embroiled in many of the conflicts of the European mainland.
They did, however, have strong enemies just a short boat ride away. This mean that their naval forces needed to be very powerful – as any act of offense or defense would start with the navy. Naval supremacy allowed them to not only colonize far away, but control the shipping lanes to and from colonies.
Controlling those shipping lanes meant that if you wanted to trade, you needed to be in the good graces of the British Empire. Local colonies would support colonization because the _right_ local people were made very rich through the profits from trade. As is true today, if you make the right people rich you can subjugate any society.
By building and controlling the railway system the Brits could move troops and supplies incredibly fast. Also it was very profitable of course to move people and good around the many Indian states. Those profits were then used to “hire/train/arm” local troops.
Often those states were hostile to each other and British diplomats were quick to exploit local squabbles for alliances.
Also, extreme violence.
Indian here .. India was so divided about 350 years ago that it took very little effort and remarkably little bloodshed.
Also, due to difficult terrain and jungles, much of the nation was uninhabited.
The British had to convince local feudal lords to pay tax or else. While the number of white soldiers were very few they were armed to the teeth with latest weaponry. The local lords thought that discretion was the better part of valour.
The only time Indians really tried to go to war (1857 Sepoy Mutiny) they almost succeeded in toppling the British.
Edit Add – this might come as a surprise to many who don’t know our history that “India” was created by the British. From time of Emperor Ashoka, almost 2000 years ago, to Mughals about 500 years ago there have been many mighty empires some of which streched as far west as Afghanistan and as far east as Burmese border but one nation known as India is a construct by the British. It is a construct we are happy to keep but fact remains that we are not a single nation like France or Japan but an aggregation like Europe.
You still have an Medival Mindset that Land = People = Power.
Since the Enlightenment Industrial Output is mostly decoupled from raw Land / People / Ressources. Ask yourself the question, what is worth more, a hand of Sand and Dirt, or an Iphone you can construct out of that Dirt if you have the know how, technology and Industry. Or in more cynical terms, who is contributing more to a war, a woman birthing 10 insurgance fighters in some 3rd world country, or the woman having a phd in engineering working for Lockheed Martin building Hellfire Missiles to blow hundreds of those fighters up?
Britain had its lead on the rest of Europe which had its lead on the rest of the World. So during colonial times each person in Britain was worth several people in the colonies in an economic and military sense.
And finally, we are living in very wierd time historicaly speaking in a population distribution sense. Before the invention of artificial fertilizer, land != land. Basically Europe China and India had nearly all good land, (with some “small” river lands like Egypt as the exception). Which meant that for a long time, Europe, India and China each had 20-25% of the world population, with the rest of the world sharing the remaining 25-33%. Thats as if today Europe would have 2B instead of 650M People (with Russia). So while Europe was Small, it was not that much smaller in population terms.
For India there is also the fact that India was divided into hundreds of small kingdoms during that time, so the East India Company basically became the go to mercenary company for the local kings, who made bank by selling out to EIC in return for being able to overthrow their local rivals. Britain did not conquer India. The local Rulers sold India out for their personal gain, EIC profited, the Kings that played ball profited, The Indian People suffered.
India was not a united country but a country of many parts, usually controlled by feudal princes or majarahas. So it wasn’t a case of taking over a “whole country” – but bit by bit as they conquered or negotiated with these princes.
Also…. I differ with the poster who said there were no land conflicts. I think the Duke of Wellington and thousands of soldiers who lead and fought in the Napoleonic Wars would disagree with you.
In conquering India, “technology” was a big help with things like artillery that the Indians didn’t have.
There was also a massive trade with India that helped win many people over. Or at least, helped to not care.
Advanced communication, transportation, and military technology.
Commitment to worldwide resource exploitation supported by government, military, and business.
A keen understanding of vulnerabilities of remote target cultures to be divided and exploited.
Natural naval country (global reach), protected from invasion and the first to industrialize.
Great Britain’s rise to power, despite its small geographical size, is a fascinating story involving many factors, including superior technology, strategic skill, economic strength, and quite a bit of luck.
Think of it like this. Imagine you’re playing a massive multiplayer online strategy game. You start with a small base, but it’s located near a rich source of resources, like gold or iron. You’re also lucky enough to have access to advanced technology and tactics because you’ve got some of the best players on your team.
In real life, Britain’s “rich resources” were its advanced agriculture and trade system, which provided a strong economic base. Its “advanced technology” was its formidable navy, the most powerful in the world for a time, which gave it the ability to project its power around the globe. Britain was also the first country to undergo the Industrial Revolution, giving it technological and economic advantages that other countries didn’t have.
Now, back to our game. You’ve got a good base and resources, and you’re strategically savvy. You decide to expand your empire by forming alliances with smaller bases and slowly taking over bigger ones. That’s essentially what Britain did to grow its empire. It used a mix of diplomatic alliances, economic leverage, military power, and sometimes outright force to gain control over other territories.
As for colonising India, it wasn’t as “easy” as you might think. The British didn’t just sail in and take over. It took about 200 years, from the establishment of the East India Company in 1600 to the formalisation of British rule in 1858. Initially, the East India Company was more interested in trade than conquest. But as the company grew more powerful, it started playing a bigger role in Indian politics.
The Indian subcontinent wasn’t a unified country at the time, but rather a patchwork of different kingdoms and empires. Through a combination of strategic alliances, economic control, and military force, the East India Company was able to gradually increase its influence over many of these regions.
There were also cases where the British exploited divisions among local rulers, stepping in as “mediators” in conflicts and then taking control. Over time, the British government took more direct control, culminating in the establishment of the British Raj in 1858.
So, it wasn’t just about Britain’s power, but also about how that power was used strategically. However, it’s important to remember that this process involved a lot of conflict, exploitation, and harm to the people in these colonised regions. The legacy of British colonialism is a complex and controversial topic that’s still being debated today.
What are we going to do today Britain? Try to take over the world Pinky!!
There are lots of contributing factors but it all comes down to access to energy and resources. And Scotland had an abundance of coal and iron.
Then the world transitioned to oil and the US had massive oil fields and an even more advantageous geographical position than the UK.
It will be interesting to see what happens when we move to primarily electric power via renewables.
Latest Answers