What made Britbongs more successful than any other empire?

What made Britbongs more successful than any other empire?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Gud Navy
    Not being bogged down on eternal continental warfare

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Money and Industry.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So israelites and masons

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    not having their land ravaged by war every 10 years i bet helped

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Invaded countries where people were fighting with bows and spears.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Britain became a successful empire long before they invaded whatever shithole you're from.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      /thread, but choosing your targets wisely is a virtue in and of itself, in a way.

      Britain became a successful empire long before they invaded whatever shithole you're from.

      It's just facts. There's no need to be butthurt about facts.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It's just facts
        >is actually lying
        disingenuous morons used to try harder than this.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You mean establishing trade routes and extraction points where primitive life just so happened to be? It happens.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Invaded countries where people were fighting with bows and spears.
      every other european power did that as well, and the british fought those european powers for the colonies notably the french in north america and india and just about everybody in the carribean, and India arguably the israeliteel in the crown had had muskets and gunpowder for a hundred years before the british conquest began in earnest and most of the indian armies had at least some western arms and training.

      they won by having sea control, and a lighter hand when ruling which lead to more effective colonial administration and fewer rebellions

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't they job to Zulus for a while?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        One big military disaster at Isandlwana, that was primarily due to Chelmsford and the rest of the senior offices in Natal being fricking morons, followed less than 24 hours later by a competently led contingent of invalids demonstrating what was actually possible. Ironically for the Zulu it was probably worse for them because they did so well as Isandlwana. It made dealing them an absolutely crushing defeat all the more important to the army afterwards.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, the Zulu in their prime (Shaka) weren't in combat with the English because at that time the Dutch Boers were the prominent colonial power in South Africa. Only after the Boers fought the Zulu off in the 1850s, then the British israeliteed control of Cape, Natal, and Transvaal colonies from the Dutch, was the Anglo - Zulu conflict of 1879, much later.
        I think a lot of people generalize the Zulu in both those extremes and combine them, their rise in the early 1800s during Shaka's time when they were expansionist and bullying all the pussy ass neighbor tribes is much different from Cetshawayo's era; when the big army to defend the kingdom from Britain was raised, the mass majority of Zulu warriors had never been in a fight before.

        One big military disaster at Isandlwana, that was primarily due to Chelmsford and the rest of the senior offices in Natal being fricking morons, followed less than 24 hours later by a competently led contingent of invalids demonstrating what was actually possible. Ironically for the Zulu it was probably worse for them because they did so well as Isandlwana. It made dealing them an absolutely crushing defeat all the more important to the army afterwards.

        >Ironically for the Zulu it was probably worse for them because they did so well as Isandlwana
        This was actually destructive for their army because of their religion was moronic; if a warrior is bloodied in battle, they have to go through a cleansing ritual and couldn't even touch or make contact with family, wives, or comrades until cleansed. Part of this was to cut open the torso of the dead enemy to allow their spirit to escape, hence why they appeared to mutilate all the dead at Isandlwana. So the sudden decisive victory early on at Isandlwana disbanded a lot of their army.
        But as I said in that thread a week or two ago, Rorke's Drift is overrated as frick as far as a victory.

        The US is weird because it was originally a prison colony like Australia, and it was originally full of weirdos and rejects.
        But then it gained independence and probably had the greatest immigration streak in world history.
        It used a combination of selective immigration and very successful branding to make it absolutely full of smart people.
        So it started out dumb, but then got exponentially smarter by just letting the smart folks immigrate and live their lives in (relative) peace.
        I guess it’s sort of like a human brain-haven the same way some countries are tax-havens.

        >The US is weird because it was originally a prison colony like Australia
        Georgia is the only colony that was remotely close to that but even that is a gross generalization. Yes, there was a non-negligible (but still not prominent) amount of migrants to the colonies who were indentured servants to pay off debts or other punitive arrangements, but that's a far cry from stating the colonies were prison colonies by design.

        So many words and you ignored the fact that their biggest advantage is the island spawn. They have no direct threats and any potential enemy must cross the channel first. When that's your situation, mastering the naval warfare is the obvious choice, that any would have made.

        Angle land is named for people who didn't "spawn" there.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Size is hardly the sole or best measure of success, but I’d say Britain acquired so much territory by controlling the sea lanes from 1804 onwards, and so secured unbothered expansion in Asia and Africa over the course of the century. Also Canada is really big.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Being an island helped, not being so very close to absolute lunatics, like the spanish.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How did they manage to lose 95% of it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Bad spending habits.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >How did they manage to lose 95% of it
      two little-known events called the First and Second World War
      read a history book

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The ultimate anti-white figure Adolf Hitler destroyed every European empire

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The ultimate anti-white figure Adolf Hitler destroyed every European empire
        Very true. But those efforts of Empire wasted building railways and educating and civilizing should never have been done, it was never appreciated. Should have stuck to simple slaughter, slavery and loot

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Silly anon. Brits aren't white, they're swamp people.
        >muh adolf
        The war was coming to europe from the east whether they liked it or not, the brits just chose to frick with the germans because of old grudges.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >empires that would have genocided whites in the future even if adolf hadn't existed

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      G*rmans killing europe twice because of delusion of grandeur

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The BRitish were responsible for WW1 and WW2 by deliberately fostering divisions between france and germany and trying to create balances of power because they did not want another threat from someone like napoleon. Remember the British monarchy are Germans butthurt about the loss of hanover and that was the real cause of WW1

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          read a history book
          France already hated Germany over the Franco-Prussian war which unified the Germans into one state and resulted in the lose of Alsace-Lorraine.
          France and Germany were at odds with each other twice over Morocco, too - it just so happened Britain sided with France because foreign policy at the time mandated that the balance of power in Europe be maintained purely because of how much Napoleon fricked things over a century prior - it didn't matter who was messing with it, and it definitely wasn't some anti-German conspiracy.
          Germany was a young nation with a monarch who wanted his country to be like the other European powers - big empire, military, etc...
          That's why you have the Anglo-German naval race which Germany also lost. Bismarck warned Wilhelm II about fricking around in Europe and for that he was sacked and instead replaced with yesmen who would do whatever their Kaiser asked.
          TL;DR - European geopolitics of that time is too intricate a subject to be boiled down into one factor. Go read a history book.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There's also the personal politics of Wilhelm who wasn't liked by his cousins, Nicky II and Edward VII, as he didn't understand social norms or diplomacy so when he got invited to the annual Cowes Boat Race which was a rich piss-up off the Isle of Wight he annoyed everyone by taking it seriously, beating everyone, wearing German fashion, trying to one-up his hosts every year with a bigger boat, and being no fun. Wilhelm also sacked Bismarck, created an anti-Britain alliance to support the Boers further ruining British-German relations causing Britain to side more with France than they were before and of course allowing the plan to march through Belgium.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >when he got invited to the annual Cowes Boat Race which was a rich piss-up off the Isle of Wight he annoyed everyone by taking it seriously, beating everyone, wearing German fashion, trying to one-up his hosts every year with a bigger boat, and being no fun
              Holy based
              I didn't realize willy 2 was such a chad

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, which history book?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          were very sorry that we wouldnt let you build a giant empire in europe off the backs of everyone else upsetting the balance of power

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >off the backs of everyone else
            Those fellows were quite industrious I don't this part of your statement is fair.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Lol, lmao even

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Romaboo
            > Roman Catholic
            Opinion discarded.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >wir dinduin nuffin

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >deliberately fostering divisions between France and Germany
          Ah yes the two countries in perpetual conflict for 1300 years sharing the longest border in Western Europe which is indefensible for either country unless they conquer at least 30% of the other country to complete their natural borders. That’s all just perfidious Albion

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          France and Germany's enmity is ultimately down to Charlemagne's frick ups in trying to split the land between multiple heirs.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >deliberately fostering divisions
          singling out Britain for doing what every great power does just makes you a whiner.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          this post drew out every seething nigel on the board like pus from a boil

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >He can't help but out himself

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I heard somewhere that they basically deforested Ireland, which was basically covered in trees because it was a undeveloped shithole, and that's how they got such an overwhelming Navy. More boats means more opportunity to go around the world and claim shit as yours. And more boats means you can usually beat rivals with sheer numbers

          who could be behind this post I wonder

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Are you a lunatic? The primary British foreign policy for the last 400 years has been to keep the powers of continental Europe balanced so they DON'T get sucked into idiocy like world wars.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So basically, their foreign policy failed spectacularly and they became Italy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      All those colonies quickly became money sinks after the government took over administration and eventually the British ran out of money to throw at them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Maintenance costs

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        USA has similar issues. Afghanistan too expensive. Ukraine too expensive. They only keep Israel, for now.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      traded it and more for a couple of wins against the strongest war machine humanity has ever known

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The United States?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Mobilising the Scottish and Irish against everyone but the English for a few centuries, not being invaded except once but that was an invitation, only having one major internal war and power struggle with Cromwell, not being invaded by and beating Napoleon, fighting all major wars away from home and with alliances, having an early start in North America and the Carribeans to send excess population to, head-start on the industrial revolution, getting a sub-continent, a continent and most of another continent.

      Bankrupted by the Boer and World Wars, American and Soviet influence in getting independence for the colonies, electing free-trade governments in the early 20th century when every other nation was protectionist harming domestic industry and internal Empire trade, Churchill, Edward VIII, Attlee, Wilhelm II and his specific brand of autism, and perhaps most importantly not intervening in the 1871 Franco-Prussian War on the side of France which allowed the balance of power in Europe to shift to Germany allowing it to threaten Britain.

      I see a bunch of answers here that try to pin down supposed inherent characteristics of Britain. But nobody mentions the enormous historically contingent advantages they held: the collapse of Spain leaving them as the sole maritime great power, followed by French obliteration of the Habsburg, followed by a British lead series of coalitions that obliterated France and left the continent in a balance of weakened powers, followed by the gradual collapse of Russia, China and turkey during the 19th century and the isolationism of the USA at this critical point in time, in addition to disorganized non-government in India during same era.

      The British, like the Romans 2000 years before them, were handed down a world of dilapidated and weakened powers who were only strong enough to check each other as Britain slowly swallowed up everything.

      Britain wasn't the sole maritime power, Venice hung around for a while longer than it should have and the Dutch were always clogging around.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The Dutch were destroyed by continental forces that elevated Britain, aka they were conquered and dismantled by France. Venice wasn’t even a factor by the nineteenth century, although it too was dismantled by French aggression.

        All this left Britain as the only real power.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >not intervening in the 1871 Franco-Prussian War on the side of France which allowed the balance of power in Europe to shift to Germany allowing it to threaten Britain.
        This. Gladstone badly underestimated the threat a unified Germany could (and, eventually, did) pose to the whole structure they had been balancing. Bismarck's assurances were worthless; Gladstone should've figured out the simple truth that, one day, there would no longer be a Bismarck, but there would still be a German Empire.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >electing free-trade governments in the early 20th century when every other nation was protectionist harming domestic industry and internal Empire trade, Churchill, Edward VIII, Attlee,
        elaborate on this pls

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Germany suicide bombed every European empire and handed the world to the US and USSR.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If you think about it logically, the US is basically Britain on steroids. USA is basically an island no? Just a bigger one with more people and more resources. American domination of the world was inevitable.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >American domination was inevitable
        It was only after the mid-19th century, if the British had been better at the Battle of New Orleans then America might've stopped existing or Canada would be bigger and a good chunk of the North or New England

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >if the British had been better at the Battle of New Orleans

          The outcome of the Battle of New Orleans changes nothing. It happened after the Treaty of Ghent was signed.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Strong evidence hints that British commanders were told to move forward with the operation to take New Orleans and ignore any news of a treaty between the American and British government

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >if the British had been better at the Battle of New Orleans

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >USA is basically an island no?
        If you ignore the definition of island and just want to spout braindead stupid bullshit, then sure. It's like saying France is an island.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          America never had a real European great power on its border. That’s significant. Canada and Mexico were faint shadows of their imperial masters. And there is no way to access America for a European army for attack except from the ocean. That makes America a kind of island, conceptually, in European/western context.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It is from a geopolitical standpoint, moron. Anyone who could threaten them is separated from them by an ocean. France has Germany and Spain and Italy on their borders.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I get what he means. We have an ocean on each side, our neighbor to the north is our best friend and our neighbor to the south is our biggest trading partner. We are effectively an island strategically.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I mean earth is just a big island, right

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        USA is Britain's Byzantium

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >USA is basically an island no?
        If you ignore the definition of island and just want to spout braindead stupid bullshit, then sure. It's like saying France is an island.

        I mean earth is just a big island, right

        He's right though.

        In terms of actually being invade-able the US is basically an island.

        There are like a handful of Canadians (wimpy white people) that live in the snow and couldn't invade Montana if they used their entire population.
        And there's Mexico (small/poor brown people who are separated from the mainland US by like a hundred miles of desert, logistically, from their production hubs.

        It would take heaven and earth for anyone to threaten the US with actual boots-on-soil.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >heaven and earth for anyone to threaten the US with actual boots-on-soil.
          Nah. It was a real concern in WWII and the interwar period- the US had harbor defenses and shore batteries well into the 1970s/80s and still has missile-based shore defense. A nip sub managed to shell the mainland at least once, so it definitely wasn't impossible. The Ivans and the Japs were highly conscious of the Bering Strait and Alaska and attacked the Aluetians with an eye to getting a foothold on the continent
          It became unthinkable only in the Cold War/pos-CW world when there was no peer or near peer that wanted to or could invade, and moreso in the modern era when the aspect of warfare has fundamentally shifted away from total war to asymmetric conflict and information warfare, but if China, as the only theoretically competitive hypermilitary, decided to shift focus to a land invasion, it could certainly make a very credible go of it, and the DoD is acutely aware of that possibility, which is why PACOM is the absolute monster it is today

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Nah. It was a real concern in WWII and the interwar period

            Nobody but the dumbest fricking idiots who took propaganda at face value over thought this.

            The Japanese never had the logistical capability to support a troop landing on the continental US, and never tried, the Aleutian campaigns were a feint to draw US and canadian forces away. And it goes without saying the Russians and Germans never had anywhere near the number of ships needed to manage the type of cross ocean naval landing it would require.

            Think about it for more than 2 seconds, dipshit, if the Japanese couldn't' even invade Australia or Hawaii, how were they going to get to California?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They got to California and bombed it. And if the US could invade Europe, which it did, the Japs could invade the US. They simply didn't want to.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They got to California and bombed it.

                A single submarine took random potshots at an oil refinery and damaged a catwalk. There is a colossal gap between that and being capable of getting an entire invasion force to the other side of the ocean.

                >And if the US could invade Europe, which it did, the Japs could invade the US. They simply didn't want to.

                I know this is going to be hard for you to understand what with the serious mental disability you have, but Japan is not and was not the US. They did not have the industrial capacity, fuel, manpower, or reach to get an entire invasion force across the pacific. Read a book you fricking moron.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >A single submarine took random potshots at an oil refinery
                If what you're saying is that it was so trivially easy for the Japs to invade US coastal waters that they did it for funsies them I concur.

                >Japan is not
                I'm just going to look at a map of the Japanese Empire and then a manifest of their naval and armed forces real quick aaaaand disagree with you.
                The reason was because they didn't want to, not that they couldn't.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not inevitable, but we made the most of our starting advantages and have inherited the role of global policeman from the Brits.

        (Everybody talks about all the bennies they got but nobody talks about the responsibilities that bought. Nobody went "Save me, Serbia!" when bad crap was happening somewhere in the 19th century)

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They did not support Israel enthusiastically enough.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not enough people under local direct rule to maintain it, and an unwillingness to fight its collapse.
      A small island of around 40 million bongs was not enough to tame the world anymore due to increases in world population, the stagnation of industry at home compared to others finally catching up with the easier tiers of industry, that created their advantage due to competition.
      They could have fought tooth and nail, instead they realised along with the US, that a new bong empire through financial debt slavery through NWO and shell companies in foreign countries was more cost efficient and valuable, and gave them up to it.
      That's all there is too it really, the country didn't really want its own empire anymore, they'd just spent 200 years fighting the slave trade and imperial Europe and finally took their own advice.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      America basically forced us and there was little incentive to keep it because while it made some people rich it turned out trying to culturally and technologically uplift the entire third world was a colossal waste of money.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The whole postwar European order was basically an American project. The old adage of "Keep Americans in, Germans, down, and Russians out" could really be "Keep Brits in, Germans down, and Russians out." divorcing the UK from colonies and pushing them to Europe was part of the US strategy to contain communism and keep things prosperous and productive, with the UK being the US proxy. And that's not schizoposting, the Committee for a United Europe was a nominally private but OSS/CIA funded and staffed organization that was seeking European federalism, and the Brits were vital as part of their goals. That's why the US political establishment was so pissed off about Brexit and why Obama was so vocally against it. UK as a European nation is a critical part of the US influence structure.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Big Irish wiener

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Turns out trying to invest in turdies was a bad idea

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because "Colonialism made Europe rich" is a myth. Europe dragged the rest of the world kicking and screaming out of darkness and barbarism into the modern world.
      https://altcensored.com/watch?v=aS7XUGh2meI

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This. Most of Scotland and Ireland were in a worse situation than modern Africa at the height of the British empire

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      US became better version of Britain and took the Crown from them

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        US is only better because of Britain. All of the best British became Americans and the low value people remained in England.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous
          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            kek this bong is so insecure about the brain drain suffered by Great Britain that he saved a delusional post he made on here to post when confronted with that reality.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >On here
              You really don't belong here, tourist.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >noooo not my PrepHole derivative
                >Britain is actually the world superpower

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >noooo not my PrepHole derivative
              >Britain is actually the world superpower

              >Can't argue the counterpoint to his dumb thesis
              >Commences turdie like screeching
              I accept your concession.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There wasn’t a rebuttal to my thesis to be argued.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lot of truth to this. No other nation in history has had the good fortune of Neurope.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >All this cope
            America was founded by elites with an average IQ of 120, that got diluted overtime with the arrivals of swarthies but not enough to change it till JFK got into power.
            Quite a lot of the groups moving to America were entire communities going all at once or those who wanted land because England was overcrowded and there were no jobs or land going and an entire continent one sea away.

            US is better because of better island.
            Larger and further from Hans. During WWII bongs realised channel is wide enough not enough to provide safety form continental autists trying to trash your home.
            If US was on island smaller than Britain they would never become what they are.(Of course people and race were important too, see Latin America, who were dealt similar island as US, but they failed in racial department).

            America got to be its island because after the Monroe Doctrine got announced Britain enforced it because it didn't want any power in South America after Spain left so lots of little nations suited British interests. Britain had a navy to enforce it whilst the Americans didn't.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Completely based posts, Americans will seethe about it

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sorta right. Can't speak for other nations, but in England, it was the weird religions.
            The English civil war was devastating. Seriously, look at the stats. In terms of male population of fighting age, percentage lost, it was the worst.
            Out of this hell on Earth, a whole bunch of truly weird religions and religious factions came about. Most of these groups ended up moving to the new world.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >friendly natives
            HA! Frickers skinned their prisoners for sport, not even to spook their enemies Vlad Tepes style, just for shits and giggles.
            >genocide
            Oh yeah, and I'd do it again to. And if they were friendly they were weak and deserve death for the sin of living.

            As for the US being populated by outcasts, yeah but not whom you might think. Also the poor and desperate mostly couldn't make it, passage ain't cheap. Cavaliers and their allied yeomen and the associates of Landsknechts were some of the most numerous early settlers. Not poor but also with no ties to Europe or place to make a living. The hateful, the cruel, mercenaries, killers, and yes by the new laws criminals. The fact that limeys see it as a problem is one reason I'm not fond of them.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              $30 and a rack of Modelo says that was written by a fat Mexican teenager in Laredo

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The US is weird because it was originally a prison colony like Australia, and it was originally full of weirdos and rejects.
            But then it gained independence and probably had the greatest immigration streak in world history.
            It used a combination of selective immigration and very successful branding to make it absolutely full of smart people.
            So it started out dumb, but then got exponentially smarter by just letting the smart folks immigrate and live their lives in (relative) peace.
            I guess it’s sort of like a human brain-haven the same way some countries are tax-havens.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The US is weird because it was originally a prison colony like Australia
              ....no it wasn't, the US was originally a business venture in the south and religious wierdos in the north. The Norf English and the Scots came with the Virginia company because thwy were poor, not because they were criminals.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wrong. It was actually a big reason for the rebellion.
                >With the passage of the Transportation Act 1717, the British government initiated the penal transportation of indentured servants to Britain's colonies in the Americas
                >During the thirty years before 1776, convicts composed more than one-quarter of all immigrants.[5] However, it is commonly maintained that the vast majority of felons taken to America were political criminals, not those guilty of social crimes such as theft; for example, it was noted of Virginia that "the crimes of which they were convicted were chiefly political, and the number transported for social crimes was never considerable."
                Some states also were even categorized for specific types of criminals.
                >The colony of Georgia, by contrast, was planned by James Oglethorpe specifically to take in debtors and other social criminals. Oglethorpe referred to them as "the worthy poor" in a philanthropic effort to create a rehabilitative colony where prisoners could earn a second chance at life, learning trades and working off their debts.

                >Fill frontier territory with political prisoners.
                >They rebel
                >Surprised pikachu face.jpg
                Nigel wants you to think early Americans were just kooks, but they were not.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >With the passage of the Transportation Act 1717, the British government initiated the penal transportation of indentured servants to Britain's colonies in the Americas
                The Virginia Company had already set up shop 100 years ago,

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >US is weird because it was originally a prison colony like Australia,
              wow. I was never that, not even a little bit

              >The US is weird because it was originally a prison colony like Australia
              ....no it wasn't, the US was originally a business venture in the south and religious wierdos in the north. The Norf English and the Scots came with the Virginia company because thwy were poor, not because they were criminals.

              >US was originally a business venture in the south and religious wierdos in the north.
              it was 13, count'em, 13 colonies that all operated with a charter from the British crown, and were all operated for the purpose of increasing British economic activity. All of them. They were founded and run by different groups but that was their only reason for existing as colonies.

              >The US is weird because it was originally a prison colony like Australia
              ....no it wasn't, the US was originally a business venture in the south and religious wierdos in the north. The Norf English and the Scots came with the Virginia company because thwy were poor, not because they were criminals.

              >Norf English and the Scots came with the Virginia company
              The Scots-Irish were imported by all the Southern Colonies as a backstop against only importing chattel slaves. Some came in penal servitude, some came by invitation or were press-ganged, or hired and sent abroad.
              Worst thing that ever happened toi the US; aside from slavery- We imported all the low-quality blacks in Africa and all the low-quality whites in England, and now we're stuck with both of them forever.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The energetic and motivated don't run to a new land, they stay and are succesful in their homeland.
            lol, lmao

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          US is better because of better island.
          Larger and further from Hans. During WWII bongs realised channel is wide enough not enough to provide safety form continental autists trying to trash your home.
          If US was on island smaller than Britain they would never become what they are.(Of course people and race were important too, see Latin America, who were dealt similar island as US, but they failed in racial department).

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ~~*Adolf Hitler*~~

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Judaism.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The reality is Britain was making very little actual money off the empire compared to what they were spending to maintain it. By the end of WW2 they basically only wanted to hold onto it out of pride.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Britain was making very little actual money off the empire compared to what they were spending to maintain it.
        I want to find the original source of this absolutely idiotic doggerel and beat them to death with an old shoe. Its like listening to creationists discuss paleontology, unreasonably infuriating

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Probably counterpoints to the moronic Indian nationalist propaganda where they claim the UK stole 57trillion from india during occupation. Both are moronic, the latter has half the entire Indian continent trying to manufacture a victim narrative and overinflate their losses to justify their own failures as a nation since independance.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's a lie, it's a deliberate lie pushed by British conservatives who are salty that they ever had to give up the empire. Because they know deep down that they will look like the bad guy if they say out loud that they liked that the empire was a resource extraction system meant to enrich the home isles

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      1. Britain was bankrupted by World War I and II.
      2. Unwillingness to maintain the Empire post-WW2.
      3. Significant international pressure to decolonize after WW II.
      4. Modern trade practices and security alliances made maintaining the Empire unnecessary.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Also the WASPs(actually descended almost entirely from Roundheads) who still ran America before the israelites fully infiltrated them deliberately dismantled it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The US put Britain so far into debt with Lend Lease so that they'd give up their colonies and leave America as the de facto world police.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they british spent a solid 300 years making precisely zero friends by fricking over all of their allies about 3.5 seconds after their interests were no longer aligned (besides portugal)
      so when they were forced to rely on two anticolonial powers to defeat germany in ww2 they had no friends left

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >fricking over all of their allies about 3.5 seconds after their interests were no longer aligned
        literally everyone did this

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This video explains a bit.

      Debate should Britian fought ww1

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Britain would have stayed out of the war if Germans weren't autistic enough to invade Belgium as part of a failed offensive

        "it could have been avoided if germany wasn't autistic" applies to most of the early 20th century.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      * India went full nationalist and there was basically nothing the bongs could do. Ghandi didn't free the country, it stopped the hindutvas from lynching every brit in the region
      * Africa was lost because both the US and the URSS set to dismantle all european empires. Everyone but the frog's lost their extra-continental territories.
      * For a completely stupid reason they also let the commonwealth get out of their hands.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >For a completely stupid reason they also let the commonwealth get out of their hands
        The more these commonwealth countries were built up, the less excuse there was not to hand them more and more autonomy and self-rule
        They had already found out in 1776 what happens when you have a colony that is actually capable of being self-governing but you refuse to hand them the formal ability to self-govern
        The colonies that were full of white people were always going to have an easier time developing good institutions and such that made autonomy, self-rule, and eventually full independence an inevitability
        It was precisely Britain's acquiescence to the fact of that inevitability that made these nations remain with Britain as long as they did, without messy nationalist movements that ended in violence like in the USA

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Broke after 2 World Wars.
      Rationing ended in 1959 for them.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Advantage of being an island - losing Calais in 1558 was actually a massive benefit in hindsight for Britain (still England at the time) which freed it from any continental holdings and thus the need to defend them. Britain could instead build a massive navy to control the ocean.
    The British Empire in the end was largely a financial power backed up by the colossal Royal Navy until its decline post-WWI.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What made Britbongs more successful than any other empire?
    Navy, easily defensible islands, stole a lot of money from the church and went north Korean with Henry VII-Elizabeth 1st embraced piracy and private armies like the west African company and the east india company, did not give a frick about their own population and used them as cannon fodder and slave workers

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Gud Navy
      Not being bogged down on eternal continental warfare

      >Muh Rool Da Waves
      They literally got 1 v all'd by a random Scot-American on a French POS, then went 0 - a lot with USN frigates designed by a literal pacifist. RN has always been a meme.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Living on an island

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Science. They knew there's a bigger world out there to conquer. And they had better ships and guns to do so.

      Also this:

      And eventually this:

      Maintenance costs

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Good navy, being surrounded by water, and getting really lucky in India. England was secure as long as the Navy was good and the Scots were pacified so they basically put all their money in shipbuilding Having a good Navy led to lots of trade opportunities and let them establish colonies all over the world eventually creating the biggest trade network of the 1800s.

    So...Good location->Good national strategy->Massive trade network->Good Empire.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >really lucky in India
      Clive simply had a Faustian spirit

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Good location->Good national strategy->Massive trade network->Good Empire
      Same playbook used by the USA

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Historic oddities of the system of government
    making parliament a powerful entity in a balance of power where the crown was much weaker than continental european states.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Same way the Romans and the Mongols did when you boil it all down: making use of the most effective method of communications available to them:
    For the Romans, that was roads
    For the Mongols, that was horses
    For the Bongs, that was ships

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >For the Romans, that was ships
      FTFY

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >For the Romans, that was roads
      Meme.
      Main bulk of the Roman logistics was done via sea (cost of transportation of grain from Egypt via sea was cheaper than transportation of grain 200 miles from Italian port into land by road). But despite been so reliant on sea transportation Romans never made any advancesin seafaring.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't really bother with the autistic shitfest that was continental warfare in Europe and just decided to start shooting browns on other continents.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    tl;dr: splendid isolation

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A relatively decentralized, free market economy.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This but also when it came to empire building.
      If you take a look at the East India Company, they used strategies that a government of the time period could have never come up with or even executed.
      The scrappiness and ingenuity of privately management and a little bit of luck made it super successful.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The inherent superiority of the Anglo-Saxon people. Simple as that.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tea.
    Effectively drug

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Navy.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I see a bunch of answers here that try to pin down supposed inherent characteristics of Britain. But nobody mentions the enormous historically contingent advantages they held: the collapse of Spain leaving them as the sole maritime great power, followed by French obliteration of the Habsburg, followed by a British lead series of coalitions that obliterated France and left the continent in a balance of weakened powers, followed by the gradual collapse of Russia, China and turkey during the 19th century and the isolationism of the USA at this critical point in time, in addition to disorganized non-government in India during same era.

    The British, like the Romans 2000 years before them, were handed down a world of dilapidated and weakened powers who were only strong enough to check each other as Britain slowly swallowed up everything.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, you can be handed things in a silver plate and still frick it up, look at Argentina, it basically had the same advantages of USA and still fricked it up, it's already almost a century and we still see the "were once the richest countries of the world" floating around. You need brains to capitalize on luck.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I’m just trying to answer OP’s question in a way that others haven’t. Most people are responding with various obvious distinctions Britain had but in my opinion any of the European great powers would have achieved the same if they got dealt britains hand. Hell, I’d argue that for two centuries that’s exactly what happened to Spain until it capsized

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Look at what the Brits talked about in their high point of the mid-/late 19th century: They were mostly terrified of invasion from alternately the French, the Russians, or the Germans.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Autism.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Their culture used to embrace the sort of anglo-autism seen in Lord Miles: to go gallivanting around the world for king, country, and profit.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The British army was shit and only good against primitive savages. They had a mixed reputation against peer European forces. Reason being the officers were all incompetent rich nepo babies. The Royal Navy had a stricter system of promotion based on competency to become an officer, hence why the RN was top notch.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      British had low key the best infantry for a long time. Their army wasn’t lacking except perhaps in cavalry. They acquitted themselves better than anyone against Napoleon except perhaps Russia. I’d argue better than Russia as well but it’s debatable. It’s true the army wasn’t large but it was good. As good as any other, at least.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Dutch handing their entire fleet over to them on 1799 makes the British dominance of the seas unrivaled until the rise of the U.S. as a maritime power in the second half of the 19th century.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    1. The country was ruled by lazy Protestants who couldn't agree on anything, so the government encouraged them to move the frick out and settle elsewhere.
    2. Their navy and economy focused their pursuits overseas while everyone else was fighting for Vienna or some moronic shit.
    3.They didn't find gold or silver like the Spanish so they couldn't destroy their economy.
    4. They overthrew their leaders when they got moronic, instead of worshiping them until it was too late like the French.
    5. They lost the Revolutionary War, which let them keep trading with America, but they couldn't moron their development like Canada. Also not having to pay for a standing army overseas was nice.
    6. Some dipshits accidentally figured out how steam works while everyone else is literally shoveling shit.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Make sure your people have nothing to live for at home, but let them form mercenary companies to conquer other countries. If they succeed, tax them. If they fail, bail them out and turn them into crown colonies. Repeat for 200 years.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anglo ethnic superiority is how

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Look at a map of where they conquered. Did they conquer Europe? Frick no, they couldn't even take France in the 100 years war. They had no chance against actually matched forces, ever, in all of England's history. They built a lot of boats, being an island nation and having a propensity towards that, and sailed off to conquer weak monkey tribes with no muskets yet. Once the monkey tribes got access to muskets they btfo the British. There's a reason why England is so strict on banning guns, they always did it to their subjects because the second they were equally matched they got btfo and the subjects liberated themselves.

    These were some of the worst warfighters on that planet, they just utilized their ships to attack areas of the world where they could take the extreme upper hand against the noguns locals with their guns.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      sun tzu, Black person

      >confucious say BTFO weak gays

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >100 Years War
      England won it with the Treaty of Troyes but the French kept fighting after it ended whilst England occupied itself with finishing the Wars of the Roses which was 1388-1471 so most of the war and more important for England.
      >Henry Tudor aka the Welsh usurping bastard, not my king
      No he that man born to the line of a scullery maid impregnated by Edward III doesn't count as part of the Wars of the Roses, it was between York and Lancaster. The Tudors turned up 14 years after Lancaster stopped existing and usurped the throne with assistance from a traitor, mercenaries and the French. Historians have for too long counted the Tudor usurpation of Richard III as part of the WoR when they weren't, Tudor propaganda has just been that effective and its more romantic to have the wars end with Henry instead of Richard.

      >when he got invited to the annual Cowes Boat Race which was a rich piss-up off the Isle of Wight he annoyed everyone by taking it seriously, beating everyone, wearing German fashion, trying to one-up his hosts every year with a bigger boat, and being no fun
      Holy based
      I didn't realize willy 2 was such a chad

      >Chad
      At least on one ocassion he got beaten up by his uncle, Edward VII, for ruining the festivities because everyone had had enough of putting up with the autist and were just angry with him and his gran, Victoria, who kept inviting him.

      >if the British had been better at the Battle of New Orleans

      The outcome of the Battle of New Orleans changes nothing. It happened after the Treaty of Ghent was signed.

      Arguably if Britain had won it they would have later opened diplomatic channels with the Confederacy, but they didn't fearing the Union and ultimately lost the last chance to ever stop America from full ascendancy.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Britain banned handguns in 1997 you dumb yank. It conquered shitty countries for their resources, like every other empire. You beat other empires by having more resources, not by walking up to the front door and smashing your head on it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Second amendment literally exists because bongs tried to ban muskets in America.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Weird, I've heard something approaching the opposite.
          The spanish in their empire really cracked down on guns so despite claiming huge tracts of land you could only live safely where the army was nearby.
          Whereas the british encouraged settlers to bring guns, since they'd defend their land, so you wouldn't need a huge military presence.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >spanish in their empire really cracked down
            Spanish empire was predicated on two things- The sanction of the Church and the deliberate interbreeding of the native populace to bring them into the fold.
            If you were making babies as a full time job with a bunch of Aztecs would you want them to have access to gund?
            >probably not

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you fell for a psyop, sorry anon

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      India, China, Egypt, were not monkey tribes. They were some of the most inportant countries in the world before the industrial revolution (which the UK was the leader of). UK also was by far the best colonizing power at civilizing the actual monkey tribes and leaving behind productive newly independent countries when they left.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >UK also was by far the best colonizing power at civilizing the actual monkey tribes and leaving behind productive newly independent countries when they left.
        You could argue France had a better track record in that regard.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Are you a moron

          they just snowballed by riding on the prussians winning the 7 year wars which remove France as their biggest and only actual colonial competitor in India and North America
          followed by ridding on the rest of the coallitions finishing France's place as Europe superpower crippling its demographic for the next century and preventing it to compete as hard as it used to do

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Did you ignore that I'm talking about how former French colonies turned out after decolonization, not France itself? Is there a single former British colony that's doing as well as Vietnam currently?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Is there a single former British colony that's doing as well as Vietnam currently?
              Australia
              Canada
              New Zealand
              The United States

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry, if it wasn't clear, I meant the former colonies that became former colonies because the 2 had to give up their empires post-WW2.
                Though I guess Canada still counts then.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Vietnam
              >A huge benefactor from US investment due to anti commie scare tactics and US aid
              >Existed as a Chinese protectorate before France got their claws into it
              >Was a relatively successful nation before France took it over
              >Trying to turn it into Frances victory
              Lmao

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >they couldn't even take France in the 100 years war.

      Consider the implications of failing to crush a rebellious vassal with external holdings so badly you have to re-frame it as a heroic century long conflict against a powerful foreign invader

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this guy gets it. all of the people replying with seethe are just coping. alexander conquered the persians. rome dominated the entire mediterranean. the british got btfo by some peasant girl and spent the next 700 years sneaking around the borders of civilization and scheming like israelites to undermine their peers because they couldn't beat them outright.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "That's not fair you can't just conquer all the most valuable places on earth and get an easy W to being the most powerful nation earth. You need to start a war in europe"

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          cope. you will never have been a real empire. even the mongols were more impressive than you.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Britain and the Mongols were the most impressive empires.

            Who now gets angry thinking about the 1st French Empire? It's only the British and Mongol empire who were so powerful they've mentally raped and are living rent free in the minds of their former subjects (Indians for the former and Russians for the latter) to this very day. As evidenced by all the asshurt in this very thread and every fibre of modern Indian and Russian society/politics.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              cope. you will never have been a real empire. even the mongols were more impressive than you.

              mongols were terrible and just took steppe lands and didnt do anything

              most influencial empires

              1.british
              2.spanish
              3.french
              4.umayadd
              5.ottoman

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The most influental Empires are the ancient ones. Alexander's Empire, Rome, the Quin dynasty. They forever echo throughout history and all later Empires and wannabe Empires have been influenced by them to various degrees.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >conquer
          Jen, they got humiliated in North America, then went off with the naked savages, bone in the nose tribesmen, witch doctors and sub bronze age natives to "conquer".

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Jen, they got humiliated in North America
            By that logic the French were humIiated during the Hundred Years War, since it was mostly the French fighting other Frenchmen until one faction won out and got to make the rules. Ditto for the revolution.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              By that logic, the bong empire was a meme, and nothing more.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Perfidious albion strikes again

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Napoleon wanted so badly to stomp Britain out, but he couldn't, because the ocean makes everyone its b***h. Throw in plenty of time to build a strong navy and voila, the greatest of great powers in the seafaring age

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A navy is conceptually different than an army. A strong navy requires independent command, on the individual ship level, the admiralty, and in naval staff. No country other than Britain could achieve that until the late 19th century for organizational reasons. Napoleonic France doubly so.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    a better question is, why most of British colonies ended up better than the French's after decolonization? literally from asia to africa, americas

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      True. And then there's Spain's colonies. Yikes.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        moron

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Your chart is as irrelevant to me, an American, as a latinx nation's history is to the modern world. Seethe.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because England took its colonial enterprise far more seriously than France ever did. It was vital to Britain, less so to France. Britain developed a long tradition of colonial management and local administration. France mostly fricked around, as if unsure of what it actually wanted.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The colonial government trained locals in governance by sending them back to the UK for university education and governmental training, and used them as proxies under one appointed bong leader, the colony was expected to grow, and the UK had the money to make the investments, the handover of power during the empires "collapse" often took a long time because they were looking to give them their own effective government before they let them loose.
      Thus the transition to decent governance was easier with a government minded educated elite within their population and the time to let them choose a good one instead of instantly cutting them loose.

      The only exceptions are ones with white black segregation like S.A. but that's more of a race class leadership different to the lower classes issue and was causes by USSR frickery.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      British colonies all had very educated people and often rich europeans along them leading them after independance
      French colonies had a handful of educated persons leading them afterwards, sometimes it turned out right (Sénégal, Vietnam) most often it didnt because they lacked any educated elites
      And then there's Cambodia where a very educated man was batshit insane and took power

      Frankly british colonies in Africa are all shit, they were lucky they populated parsely populated countries with brits or that Indians had a strong state culture

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its almost like maritime empires have done better historically than land based ones...

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Boats made with swedish lumber.

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Divine right.

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When you're living next to French and they're constantly fricking with you, you need to be a strong sea power and seek alliances and resources in far flung places as a matter of survival.

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Being an island, therefore allowing them to put most of their resources in their navy.
    That’s literally it.

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They were white

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >more successful than any other empire?
    Still not as good as Rome THOUGH.

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kate Middleton is missing. This is a massive scandal

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Do not bring that up. It’s a really sore subject for Brits

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Do not bring that up. It’s a really sore subject for Brits
        She's just acting out a fantasy in Amsterdam before she gets too old (this is actually true). Nothing to see there.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          She was killed by her ugly husband.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Is he the bald one or the redhead one with the tiny wiener

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    One thing people haven't mentioned on here really is the political and economic advantage Britain had over France and Spain, in which their was a national parliament which controlled legislation and not in the sole hands of the landed aristocracy, the monarch and the church. Parliament in Britain had to listen to commercial interests, and Britain adopted economic reforms like central banking much earlier. At the same time Britain had a larger population and far more natural resources than the Netherlands to exploit and so could overtake easily when the political organisation in Britain, as a result of revolutions in the mid- and late-17th century.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      France adopted central banking before Britain, Britain followed, because they listened to a Scottish conman who needed to settle some gambling debts and in both cases of the early central banks it led to financial crashes

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Except in France the commercial classes didn't have the same political power as they had in England after the civil wars, the power was still in the hands of the monarchy and aristocracy.

        >Britain had to listen to commercial interests
        Britain had a coup when dutch merchants hijacked the entire place with William the third just to protect their monopolies. Later a family fromm Germany took the place over because no one else wanted it. It has also been taken over by the french. Its the most successfully invaded places in Europe and frequently offered little or no resistance and happily joined the invaded by massacring their own people for gibs..

        >Britain had a coup when dutch merchants hijacked the entire place...
        No, you are a moron. It was English Whigs who got rid of James and replaced him with William and Mary, making them sign legislation like the Bill of Rights which made Britain a de jure constitutional monarchy rather than just a de facto one.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Britain had to listen to commercial interests
      Britain had a coup when dutch merchants hijacked the entire place with William the third just to protect their monopolies. Later a family fromm Germany took the place over because no one else wanted it. It has also been taken over by the french. Its the most successfully invaded places in Europe and frequently offered little or no resistance and happily joined the invaded by massacring their own people for gibs..

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That’s moronic. Britain survived gigantic civil wars with its entire system of government and society fully intact. Because it had tremendously effective and strong government. Any external influence was limited to noble bickering, never actual invasion or systematic collapse that would inevitably follow in any other country (see France, Germany, Netherlands, Prussia, etc etc)

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >never actual invasion
          The 1688 invasion notwithstanding, huh? Oh that's right, they invited the tribe in.

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What made Britbongs more successful than any other empire?
    Ritual rape of children by children in English boarding schools.

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What made Britbongs more successful than any other empire?
    Units of borris johnsons bred in Turkey and acquired at low cost.

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What made Britbongs more successful than any other empire?
    They were probably less successful than any other empire, their empire did not last very long from the establishment of the british raj to complete collapse was about 70-100 years and they spend 100 years and made their future a steam of endless brown people getting that far. Rome lasted for a millennia, the byzantine empire hundreds and hundreds of years and the actual British population lived in squalor for their imperial glory at least the citizens of Rome got some free grain.

  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Middleton doing a mid live crisis Madame Bovary in a dutch brothel. What the frick is wrong with them?
    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-normal-that-I-fantasize-about-being-a-prostitute

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I find the modern world is decaying too fast for me to keep up with the milestones like Kate Middleton. I guess she waited for the Queen to die. Maybe she was actually fond of her.

  44. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]

    It appears the damage control for the bongs is that Kate Middleton is in Amsterdam. May we see her?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No but there are actually bodyguards either end of the street she won't let any nearer. Its a fricking mess

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wait, so she's gone to Amsterdam to get gangbanged is the latest cope? This is bizarre.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No she's actually in a brothel doing line ups. No idea beyond that.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Prove it. And then link those bodyguards to Kate Middleton.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://nypost.com/2024/03/15/entertainment/dutch-king-willem-alexander-pokes-fun-at-kate-middleton-with-photoshop-jibe/

      King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands couldn’t help but poke fun at Kate Middleton’s recent photo-editing scandal.

      The Dutch monarch, 56, spoke to members of the public at a royal engagement in Zutphen, Netherlands Thursday where a little girl asked him about his family portrait.

      After exchanging a few pleasantries with the schoolgirl, the King quipped, “At least I didn’t photoshop it,” referencing Middleton’s recent digital mishap.

      The joke seemingly landed with royalists, who burst into laughter at the cheeky jibe in a clip shared on X.

  45. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do the British worship royals anyway? It just seems like such an alien concept to me. Imagine a taxpayer funded family that just does whatever the frick they want and the British subjects just eat it up. One of the ugliest royal families in the world too.

  46. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Schizophrenic arrived
    Time to abandon the thread, they really ought to stop letting this people have access to the internet

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [...]

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Different hair, teeth, lips, and shoulder profile can't tell eye colour but that's some rando, but look at me engage with you, I've already lost.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It seems like the mods have let the schizos run rampant over the last few months. Probably something to do with the upcoming election, but who fricking knows at this point.

  47. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >thread on why the biggest empire ever was so successful gets derailed due to some random princess
    lol. lmao.

    [...]

    >twitter post with 25 likes created by a gay tv presenter is evidence of a national scandal
    lol. lmao. what shitty bait.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The brothel guy is moronic but Kate Middleton going missing and the royal family sending out a doctored photo that was later recalled is a scandal. If she’s fine and is aware of the speculation and chose not to release a simple video is a scandal in itself

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        fair, there’s definitely a scandal surrounding her. she royally fricked up. looking forward to seeing how it plays out though.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nothing moronic about it, the kind in waiting was banging some old flame so she fricked off to Amsterdam with the blessing of the dutch monarch who can't stand her brother and has been going mental in the RLD and hanging around with hookers and gangsters

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Different hair, teeth, lips, and shoulder profile can't tell eye colour but that's some rando, but look at me engage with you, I've already lost.

      https://nypost.com/2024/03/15/entertainment/dutch-king-willem-alexander-pokes-fun-at-kate-middleton-with-photoshop-jibe/

      King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands couldn’t help but poke fun at Kate Middleton’s recent photo-editing scandal.

      The Dutch monarch, 56, spoke to members of the public at a royal engagement in Zutphen, Netherlands Thursday where a little girl asked him about his family portrait.

      After exchanging a few pleasantries with the schoolgirl, the King quipped, “At least I didn’t photoshop it,” referencing Middleton’s recent digital mishap.

      The joke seemingly landed with royalists, who burst into laughter at the cheeky jibe in a clip shared on X.

      >The Dutch monarch, 56, spoke to members of the public at a royal engagement in Zutphen, Netherlands Thursday where a little girl asked him about his family portrait.
      >After exchanging a few pleasantries with the schoolgirl, the King quipped, “At least I didn’t photoshop it,” referencing Middleton’s recent digital mishap.
      >The joke seemingly landed with royalists, who burst into laughter at the cheeky jibe in a clip shared on X.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        [...]

        https://nypost.com/2024/03/15/entertainment/dutch-king-willem-alexander-pokes-fun-at-kate-middleton-with-photoshop-jibe/

        King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands couldn’t help but poke fun at Kate Middleton’s recent photo-editing scandal.

        The Dutch monarch, 56, spoke to members of the public at a royal engagement in Zutphen, Netherlands Thursday where a little girl asked him about his family portrait.

        After exchanging a few pleasantries with the schoolgirl, the King quipped, “At least I didn’t photoshop it,” referencing Middleton’s recent digital mishap.

        The joke seemingly landed with royalists, who burst into laughter at the cheeky jibe in a clip shared on X.

        HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Never underestimate the power of schizophrenics on image boards, they can do and believe things you would deem insane or unreasonable and there is nothing that will ever stop them. This thread is now over and the best outcome is that it will be deleted or moved to /misc/ where it will be deleted

  48. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All this brownoid seethe.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Kate Middleton scandal

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I'M HURTING THE BONGS BY MENTIONING KATE MIDDLETON
        I really don't care lol. You seriously overestimate both your ability to influence people's emotional state and the importance of the Royal Family to the average Bong. People loved the Queen. Nobody cares about the rest of them.
        But as the guy said, you're winning simply because I'm engaging with you.
        t. Bong

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I really don’t care
          >seething paragraph

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I rate that moustache 8/10. It's a little thin but the sideburns put it above average.

      This. Most of Scotland and Ireland were in a worse situation than modern Africa at the height of the British empire

      >were
      Are

  49. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >/k/ - celebrity gossips and rumors

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Spooks and glowies at the water cooler. Putins daughter spent years in Amsterdam by the way hanging out in clubs

  50. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Given her chances off having an accident if you were her where would you go? She has the protection of the dutch monarchy and the RLD is completely controlled by dutch organised crime. She's untouchable there. No car accident for her. He's sleeping with an ex so she fricked off.

  51. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Continuing the Indo-European tradition of martial aristocracy, of being VERY good at war, and of decentralizing powers and territories into sub-polities
    >Is an island with limited land and resource and thus had to be good at seafaring and commerce, and was filled with spirit of exploration and discovery
    >Was the only people who preserved the Indo-European tradition of Rule of Law of Natural, Judge-discovered, Jury-of-peers-decided, Common Law system due to being an island while the rest of Europe eventually succumbed to the Roman/Napoleonic/Civil Law (or iow, Rule by Legislation) imposed upon them
    >Thus being the only people who could have discovered empiricism (literally applying Common Law epistemology to discovering and examining everything else)
    >Thus stemmed the scientific, industrial and economic revolution
    >Thus gained first mover advantage in almost everything
    They weren't perfect but they were definitely better than anyone else who had come before.

  52. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Weapons?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Weapons?

      https://i.imgur.com/2DAXHQZ.jpg

      What made Britbongs more successful than any other empire?

      >What made Britbongs more successful than any other empire?

  53. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    He banging an ex called Sarah Hanbury , she went to Amsterdam paranoid she was going to get whacked. You read it first here and strangely enough it is true

  54. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Been white and been on Island.
    Same thing on larger scale proped US after (US is just upgraded Britain, larger Island).

    Island empire > continental cucks.
    Continental cucks constantly big down in difficult recources consuming wars with neighbors. While island empire can invest mostly into Navy, grab world richest with this Navy and stay safe using this Navy.
    While continental cucks stuck bettwen choices of not having Navy and been overrun by Russians or Germans.

  55. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They ended world slavery.

  56. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Conquering empty wastelands of ice and sand, mostly.
    The only actually impressive conquest it has is India. Everything else was frozen tundra inhabited by a handful of paleolithic peoples, scorched desert inhabited by a handful of paleolithic peoples, or, marginally more impressive, savannah inhabited by early iron age villagers.

  57. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not so fast, Britbong.

  58. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    It's amazing how if nobody calls you out you eventually just out yourself in the most obvious way possible. This is a new low for you though.

  59. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Where is Kate? How many cherry bakewells did she consume?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      post kimber

  60. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Not being bogged down on eternal continental warfare
    You should study history.

  61. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What made Britbongs more successful than any other empire?
    "By 1850, at the apogee of its power, Britain had 1.8% of world population. The area of the
    British Isles is only about 0.16% of the world land mass. Yet Britain then produced two-thirds
    of world output of coal and one half of world production of cotton textiles and iron. Output per
    worker was higher in Britain than in any other country. It had enormous colonial possessions
    including much of India and Pakistan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland. Its navy
    was the largest in the world, and British defense doctrine called for it to be bigger than the next
    two largest navies combined. In 1842 it had humiliated the ancient Chinese empire and forced it
    to cede Hong Kong and to allow the British to ship opium into China. In 1860 the British and
    French captured Beijing and forced even more humiliating terms on the empire.2 Britain was so
    confident of its manufacturing prowess that it pursued an armed policy of forcing free trade on
    other countries, confident that its manufactures would sweep away protected infant industries in
    other countries."

    https://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/ecn110b/readings/ecn110b-chapter2-2005.pdf

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. So many poor quality answers in this thread, "They an Island" etc..
      The fact is that despite all the super powers of her time trying to crush Britain, despite being a small island not particularly blessed in mineral wealth, despite major religious factions vowing to destroy her, Britain prevailed.
      I don't care if you believe it was because of superior weapons and tactics.
      Or if you believe the British man to be somehow superior.
      But ultimately, you must acknowledge her success.
      Lets see any other nation step up and do similar. America, I'm looking in your direction. You've had 70 years at the 'big boys table', you've spent outrageous amounts on your military, you have mineral wealth and economic wealth. Now, do something with it. Before you become less than a 'hasbeen', you'll be a 'neverwas'.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >other nation step up and do similar. America,
        Literally that is the world today, the US has continually expanded and extended force projection capacity and protected economic interests (primarily through free trade and hyperagressive anti-mercantilism) since WWII. It is the Pax Americana and we are currently beginning its third phase
        >Phase I: consolidate western and industrialized countries into an economic suprablock
        >Phase II: regulate and enforce international economic growth via trade and global financing
        >Phase III: conglomerate and/or co-opt industrial production with China and secure next generation resource capital (i.e. cobalt and lithium etc)
        Phase IV will have to be determined by who comes out on top in the US-China metaconflict that begins Phase III

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Phase one conquer part of Mexico.
          After that all they've done is hold a torch passed by the British.
          They're literally Britain lite.
          Only rather than trying to create a better life for their people, they've been usurped. Now they work to create a better life for ((their)) people.
          Don't believe me? Take a look at the 'dual' nationality of the senate. What're the odds?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Lets see any other nation step up and do similar. America, I'm looking in your direction. You've had 70 years at the 'big boys table', you've spent outrageous amounts on your military, you have mineral wealth and economic wealth. Now, do something with it. Before you become less than a 'hasbeen', you'll be a 'neverwas'.

        "Why are you using your wealth, industry, and military to project soft power and coat the world in your culture and economy when you could invade nations in the age of the nuke and cause nuclear holocaust lol?!"

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >despite being a small island not particularly blessed in mineral wealth,

        Actually, we were (yes, yes, I know) - though we didnt know it.
        The UK had three significant mineral wealths, which together, resulted in the industrial revolution:

        the first is that our natural iron ores were mostly really shitty. Too much phosphorus, which makes it "short" - steel refined from it using the traditional methods would crumble, instead of being malleable. in the 17th and 18th centuries most steel was imported from Sweden.
        the second is that we had excellent tin reserves, but they were deep, and often extended out beyond the sea, making it dangerous to extract.
        the third was worthless. Coal in relatively shallow mine seams.

        The need for pumping to extract water from the tin mines drove the invention of machinery to enable pumping - the steam engine.
        That enabled a use for the worthless coal. that kickstarted a coal mining industry, which ended up with surplus coal. that encouraged others to work out uses for it, and that drove both the powered mills for textile industry, and development of coal-fired vessels for trade and hauling of goods, which led to the UK becoming an economic centre, but it also resulted in the Bessemer process, which allowed steel production from that "short" iron ore, steel which would enable the industrial production of military armaments.
        without the need for better water pumps, there was no incentive for steam industrialisation. The fact our mineral resources were shit compared to say, german steel and copper production is what enabled the industrial revolution.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Spain and Portugal were loss leaders in non-Mediterranean colonialism. As those empires stagnated and declined due to the economic missteps of colonialism, Britain, Netherlands, and France could step in and do it better with better tech (mainly shipbuilding) and avoiding the same missteps.
          France had moronic leaders throughout most of the 18th century though so they squandered their chances. Dutch didn't have the at-home resources or population to ramp up a positive feedback loop like the other two. By virtue of having a bigger home base and not being moronic, Britain becomes defacto inheriter of best empire during the 17th and 18th century.

          And this anon shows off how Britain extended their empire for another century and a half, because Industrialization was so incredibly OP that loss-leader issues simply didn't apply.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the text reads like it was approved by the PRC

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's completely correct

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          a less biased academic would write:
          >In its bid to shore up a large trade deficit, Britain forced China buy opium and cede Hong Kong despite armed conflict. This era is considered a great humiliation by successive governments to this day.

          what you cut and pasted borders on CCP agitprop.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Chinese straight-up refused to buy Western goods, despite those being better than domestic stuff (in some cases outright not available from domestic sources, like machinery). Though, in fairness, the British were kinda c**ty with how they proceeded. They could've simply waited a bit for their tea plantations to mature in India, Ceylon and elsewhere. After all, it's not like the Chinese couldn't be duped. The Eastern Roman Empire managed to pull a fast one over them with silk, and that was a bigger deal than tea.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It was a bit more complex
              >Chinese agree to a treaty
              >Europeans acts according to the terms of the treaty
              >Oh you can't do that, the Heavenly Majesty hasn't signed the treaty so it doesn't exist yet
              >Okay can you sign it?
              >Oh of course we will
              >Year passes without it being signed
              >Taiping rebellion starts and keeps asking the Europeans to join them and refused everytime
              >Europeans found and fund their own army to fight the Taipings because the Imperial Army is so useless
              >Britain and France send in an army to get the treaty signed
              >Force the army to fight them to advance and when not fighting delay them
              >Mistake fire by rank as the Europeans kow-towing to them
              >Despite being beaten numerous times refuse to accept the treaty
              >Mandarins don't want the barbarians to be seen on equal terms to them and the Emperor
              >Take prisoner some diplomats and soldiers
              >Torture them to Chinese standards
              >European army eventually gets to Peking
              >Loots the Summer Palace
              >Gets the surviving prisoners and the corpses back
              >So disgusted and horrified by the torture the survivors and the dead went through burn down the Summer Palace
              >European army lines the street as Elphinstone goes to the Forbidden City to have the treaty signed
              >All of China learns that the Emperor is not divine and that the barbarians beat him and destroyed his palace
              If the Chinese hadn't been so obstinate then none of it would've happened.
              The other best bit is it led to Chinese Gordon and he caused the Mandarins to get upset again by saying he wants their clothes because no Europeans and few Chinese ever got them so it further undermined them and their 1,000 year institution all because they wouldn't sign the treaty they said they would sign. All in all the Chinese massively lost face that would eventually see the end of their long empire and the rise of the CCP.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                fire by rank as the Europeans kow-towing to them
                that's actually funny

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >CCP agitprop
            >I have a better take than Danish National Research Council professor of economics Gregory Clark
            you are cogitatively reduced

            It was a bit more complex
            >Chinese agree to a treaty
            >Europeans acts according to the terms of the treaty
            >Oh you can't do that, the Heavenly Majesty hasn't signed the treaty so it doesn't exist yet
            >Okay can you sign it?
            >Oh of course we will
            >Year passes without it being signed
            >Taiping rebellion starts and keeps asking the Europeans to join them and refused everytime
            >Europeans found and fund their own army to fight the Taipings because the Imperial Army is so useless
            >Britain and France send in an army to get the treaty signed
            >Force the army to fight them to advance and when not fighting delay them
            >Mistake fire by rank as the Europeans kow-towing to them
            >Despite being beaten numerous times refuse to accept the treaty
            >Mandarins don't want the barbarians to be seen on equal terms to them and the Emperor
            >Take prisoner some diplomats and soldiers
            >Torture them to Chinese standards
            >European army eventually gets to Peking
            >Loots the Summer Palace
            >Gets the surviving prisoners and the corpses back
            >So disgusted and horrified by the torture the survivors and the dead went through burn down the Summer Palace
            >European army lines the street as Elphinstone goes to the Forbidden City to have the treaty signed
            >All of China learns that the Emperor is not divine and that the barbarians beat him and destroyed his palace
            If the Chinese hadn't been so obstinate then none of it would've happened.
            The other best bit is it led to Chinese Gordon and he caused the Mandarins to get upset again by saying he wants their clothes because no Europeans and few Chinese ever got them so it further undermined them and their 1,000 year institution all because they wouldn't sign the treaty they said they would sign. All in all the Chinese massively lost face that would eventually see the end of their long empire and the rise of the CCP.

            agree to a treaty
            are you talking about Najing or Tianjin? either way your timeline is ridiculous
            >If the Chinese hadn't been so obstinate then none of it would've happened.
            The British fought two hot wars with the Qing to force these treaties which even for the times were widely acknowledged as grotesquely, laughably unfair. Absolutely nothing, zero, nil, was negotiated without the direct threat of force

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Sign treaty with person who beat me
              >Don't hold up my end of the treaty because what are they going to do, beat me again?
              >They beat me again, destroy a wonder of the world, humiliate the emperor, and incidentally end a rebellion I've been struggling with for nearly a decade because it threatens their trade with me
              Chang really should've just held up his end of the bargain.
              By making the British march to Peking to enforce the treaty it created the conditions for Empress Dowager Cixi to form and cement her position in the Chinese court directly leading to the downfall of the Qings and rise of the CCP. If only they had signed the treaty in good faith or when Elphinstone started marching agreed to it then maybe they would still be around today, as it was in not wanting to lose face, they lost face and then a lot more.
              >Terms of a treaty forced on me to open my markets after I've broken treaties before and attacked Europeans are unfair
              The Mandarins shouldn't have underestimated the Barbarians or expected them to realise their offences and errors to his heavenly majesty and bowed down to him.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                that is frick and all as to what happened between 1842-1858 and you are deeply confused about the Taiping Rebellion to boot

                >Fight a war
                >Lose war
                >Terms in the form of a treaty are forced upon you
                Do you not know what war is or are you just moronic?

                You are not a serious person

                https://i.imgur.com/avb2ZRG.jpg

                I heard somewhere that they basically deforested Ireland, which was basically covered in trees because it was a undeveloped shithole, and that's how they got such an overwhelming Navy. More boats means more opportunity to go around the world and claim shit as yours. And more boats means you can usually beat rivals with sheer numbers

                who could be behind this post I wonder

                >basically deforested Ireland
                Scotland. Scotland used to be almost entirely deeply wooded, and the Scots pine was as famous as the cedars of Lebanon; both are almost nothing but memories.

                Phase one conquer part of Mexico.
                After that all they've done is hold a torch passed by the British.
                They're literally Britain lite.
                Only rather than trying to create a better life for their people, they've been usurped. Now they work to create a better life for ((their)) people.
                Don't believe me? Take a look at the 'dual' nationality of the senate. What're the odds?

                >Phase one conquer part of Mexico
                No, that happened in 1846 and was before the USA became imperialistic

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Okay gweilo, whatever you say, you can live in la la land where the world lives in awe of the centre of the universe because we are barbarians who only got things past China (pbuh) through trickery, were we honest China would still be strong tiger dragon hidden lotus *roar*

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Gweilo means westerner
                You use western machines, wear western clothes, speak western languages, use western concepts and theories, western inventions, make consumer goods for westerners, China is western and all the Chinese are westerners

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >In the future of our mature economies, yours will stay relatively flat while ours will inexplicably grow exponentially. That's just how it will be. Promise. It's science. Do not question why this is the case. Just accept it, gweilo.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Fight a war
              >Lose war
              >Terms in the form of a treaty are forced upon you
              Do you not know what war is or are you just moronic?

  62. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >people asshurt about Britain capturing insanely rich and poorly defended parts of the world to become the richest nation and most powerful on earth instead of fighting 15 wars over 100 square metres of flemish countryside.

    That in a nutshell is the reason why Germany and France could never match the British empire.

    The other is their inability to use a soft touch. It's something the Russians never learned during the Great Game: That Britain was able to extend their imperial influence across most of the middle east and to the roof of the world in Afghanistan by using protectorates and princely states to control local rulers.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Before someone mentions the t*rks by the end of the 19th century the Ottomans controlled the table scraps of the middle east while Britain had the halal beef wellington.

      >Ottoman empire
      >controls Asia Minor, Syria-Lebanon, Palestine, Transjordan, Iraq and Arabia allowing just enough overland trade from the Persian border to Europe to keep the sultan in Serbian slaveboys and silk kaftans.

      >British empire
      >Controls Gibraltar, Egypt (including the Suez canal), the gulf of Aden, northern Somalia, Kenya, Oman, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait (further cucking the turks out of sea access), Afghanistan, Pakistan/India, Burma and Sri Lanka
      >Allowing them to control and tax all sea trade from Cadiz to Calcutta as well as down the east coast of Africa and even all the way to china since Britain controlled Hong Kong and had cantonments controlling most worthwhile Chinese ports like Shanghai.

      That's true imperial power not autistic map painting of empty desert (which is what the Ottoman empire was side from the Levant and Iraq)

  63. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They say the true fall of the British empire was the adoption of an armored vehicle that was inferior to contemporary armored vehicles already in service

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nah. It was autism.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      have a nice day you obsessed Black person.

  64. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What a sad bong cope of a thread.

  65. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >industry means you have near infinite money and ability to rapidly equip your military
    >cutting edge science gives you an enormous technological advantage
    >worlds largest navy to lock down trade and bombard most coastal regions
    >absolute horror show northern industrial towns produce a conveyor belt of soldiers
    >rough coastal towns produce endless sailors
    >Ireland as a training ground for all your newest ideas
    >India becomes your empires personal cumdumpster

  66. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They were among the first to really get into the industrial revolution and happened to have a strong navy, being an island and all.

  67. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they just snowballed by riding on the prussians winning the 7 year wars which remove France as their biggest and only actual colonial competitor in India and North America
    followed by ridding on the rest of the coallitions finishing France's place as Europe superpower crippling its demographic for the next century and preventing it to compete as hard as it used to do

  68. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ever played Civ V multiplayer? England is basically the real life equivalent of that kid who never shuts up about the fact they spawned on an island with all the resources they'd ever need and 0 tangible threats.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >all the resources they'd ever need and 0 tangible threats.
      Frog cope lmao

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is this a joke? Or are you really this stupid?
      The French and the Spanish, the Scots (who were invaders from Ireland), the vikings, the Germans, the Dutch, the list goes on and on and on.
      As for resources, you think digging 200ft down to mine 1/2ft of coal is 'all the resources they'd ever need'?
      Every major European power has had a pop at England for various reasons. Perhaps this is why they became so strong.
      Through adversity. Alternatively, you might look into military history. The reasons they failed (mostly) in their attacks was superior English tactics and weapons. Look at the Spanish armada. The worlds largest naval invasion force at the time, defeated by a smaller force. Mainly because the English focused on gunnery rather than boarding action (a new method of warfare at sea). They had standardized cannon that were forged vertically making a stronger breach, they drilled gunnery and reloading, and when things looked at their worst, used fireships to defeat them.
      This was an attack by Spain, linking up with the Dutch and French.
      tl;dr If you think the English have ever had it easy, you're an idiot.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So many words and you ignored the fact that their biggest advantage is the island spawn. They have no direct threats and any potential enemy must cross the channel first. When that's your situation, mastering the naval warfare is the obvious choice, that any would have made.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Island
          I guess that's why Ireland is a global titan. Nonce.

          Reality is that it was the industrial revolution, rule of law and stable domestic politics.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh shut up. The only landwars you ever had were from your own damn island unless you want to go back to the Romans or Normans. Spain got buttfricked by goddamn muzzies, and Germany wasn't even a state until almost three centuries after the New World was discovered.

        It's basically the same reason America can basically operate unmolested. Who's gonna invade? Mexico? Texas alone almost beat them back.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the same reason America can
          I'll stop you right there. The only reason you exist as an independent country is because superpowers like France and Spain had your back. Which superpowers have ever threatened America?
          I mean even China doesn't have anywhere near the military spending America does and your shitting yourself. Lets see you fight off three China's at the same time you arrogant bell end.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You buggerists couldn't even hold onto India. Or Canada for that matter. America? Suck my dick.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Which superpowers have ever threatened America?
            Britain? You played yourself.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Look at the Spanish armada. The worlds largest naval invasion force at the time, defeated by a smaller force.
        The armada would've won if the Marquis of Santa Cruz had been in command.

  69. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Late start + capitalism turned out to be a peak colonialism meta.

    Brown 'empires' may have seemed like a prime cut, but everything you reviewed was a feudal structure where you replaced their previous overlords and some gold that will frick up your economy back home.

    Meanwhile sparsely populated lands can be given to the industrious folks from your country and they will soon figure out how to make a profit, while preserving most of the home country culture, because browns are rare and hostile.
    India is an exception but they got it almost accidentally and just decided to keep it.

  70. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    English is much more effective at relaying information in a short span of time than say Spanish and French. Allows for better communication and preventing mess ups that romance languages struggle with even today

  71. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Living in Britain is so miserable they'd be willing to do anything to get out. Desperation is an amazing motivator.

  72. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What made Britbongs more successful than any other empire?
    1. An island is fricking hard to invade.
    2. It's been proven time and time again that control of the sea is what wins wars.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Dutch and spain ruled the waves for a long time
      it's just because the armada was smashed, which was impressive

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Dutch and spain ruled the waves for a long time
        Problem is they can be invaded via land and have tough choice of building Navy and lose land war or build land military and lose naval war.
        Dutch age ended because Spain invaded then via landed and genocided them.

        Island can defend itself with a Navy

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          fair point
          though the english did spend a long time killing each other too

  73. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Doesn’t matter, new Bradley killing BMP video dropped
    They are very cool and very useful, thus all the variants. And they have done great work in Ukraine, in spite of the lighter armour. It would have been cool to have an entire "light mechanised" brigade of cvrt/mt-lb/amx-13 variants just for mud season counter offensives.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Warriortard got lost in his threads
      Fricking kek, I knew you were moronic but this is a new low.

  74. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Learning all they could about the native cultures in order to more effectively pit them against each other.

  75. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Harrison clock.

  76. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Bessemer converter
    The cotton gin
    The telegraph
    The Watt engine
    The factory system
    The central bank
    I could go on until I hit the character limit but the English or people who came to England invented like 90% of all the most impactful industrial revolution inventions.
    The English has invented 51% of everything invented for the last 1000 years.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is true, Industrial Age could simply be called the British Age.

      Lust for darkie bawds.

      The ultimate weakness of any EVROPEAN MAN: enjoyably poisonous exotic consumables and dark women.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The Bessemer converter
      decarburizing invented by the Chinese almost 1000 years prior
      >The cotton gin
      USian and noted abolitionist Eli Whitney
      >The telegraph
      USian Samuel Morse
      >The Watt engine
      Scottish
      >The factory system
      Francis Cabot Lowell, USian
      >The central bank
      Swedish
      >I could go on
      please don't you are painfully ignant, like a dusky gentleman

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The only thing you were right about was the cotton gin. Which was stolen from pajeets.

        >The first working telegraph was built by the English inventor Francis Ronalds in 1816 and used static electricity.[26]

        >Scottish
        Same thing

        >Swedish
        The Sverige Riksbank was fundamentally different to what we think of as a central bank, despite what wikipedia says.

        You are the Black person here my man.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >decarburizing invented by the Chinese almost 1000 years prior

        its amazing that chinese historians have found so many things invented by china that they never used or developed.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's not amazing, it's Implessive.

          this guy gets it. all of the people replying with seethe are just coping. alexander conquered the persians. rome dominated the entire mediterranean. the british got btfo by some peasant girl and spent the next 700 years sneaking around the borders of civilization and scheming like israelites to undermine their peers because they couldn't beat them outright.

          >seethe and cope
          >wojak propagation
          lol lmao even

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Chinese claim to "inventing" everything that they claim to have invented was that they recorded their use of a process that by absolute accident shares some features with a useful process, but which they never understood and never developed.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. The industrial revolution was the British revolution, all the other European countries just benefited from cultural or geographical proximity to Britain, riding their coat tails. Of course they couldn't compete when it came to building a overseas empire.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Jap ministry of trade once calculated that the most valuable discoverers/inventers in history were the British.
      Some additions:
      One of greatest physicists ever: James Clerk Maxwell
      Inventions:
      float glass
      turbine
      fuel cell
      propeller
      steam tech of all sorts, esp. trains/railways
      crucial early developments in flight and computation
      female creatives (literature)
      proto-impressionism (Turner)
      International played sports: soccer, rugby (x2), cricket, tennis, field hockey, golf

  77. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What in the frick does an upper class bong even look like

  78. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Get btfo in Europe
    >Cope by invading Black folk

  79. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lust for darkie bawds.

  80. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ugly women and bad food at home makes you want to go out an conquer for some better pussy and chow.

  81. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jews

  82. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Being driven by profit instead of pride, picking rrect targets based mostly on if it would increase profits, being willing to wage total war on the seas

  83. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Direct Divine intervention and favour.
    Q.E.D.

  84. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >form coalitions so hegemony is never established over the continent
    >maintain a large enough navy to deter invasions
    >leverage this navy to establish a large overseas empire
    >the economic benefits of which allow an even larger navy
    >snowball out of control until you have the largest empire to ever exist
    Shrimple as that.

  85. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mostly their Navy and political cunning

  86. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Maritime empire
    Control of the seas meant easy access to trade and the transportation of troops.
    >Efficient and reliable organization
    The bongs were absurdly anal about this. The Empire ran on time sheets that kept everyone, everywhere on the same page long before instant global communication was ever a thing.
    >Willingness to cooperate with the natives
    As ironic as this might be for an empire, the bongs preferred not to interfere if it could be avoided. Wars are expensive, and the Empire was ultimately more of a capital extraction system than it was directly imperial. They preferred to position themselves as kingmaker in a given region, build up allies (read: puppets), then annex land through concession rather than conquest wherever possible.
    >Genuinely improving shit for the locals
    They did a fair amount of this as well. There was an understanding that any lasting presence was going to need the consent of the governed, so they did some insane infrastructure work. It also helped that it makes trade easier to facilitate.
    >Soft power, soft power, soft power
    Speaks for itself. Especially after the Concert of Europe, the bongs took a mostly non-militarist stance and preferred to leverage their frickhuge economy to accomplish their aims. It probably helped in the long run. Getting curb-stomped in a war engenders much more resentment than losing access to cotton imports.
    >If you must have a war, make it brief.

  87. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    By not being mixed with darkies

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *