Remix.run Logo
▲ usrnm 7 hours ago

Because it was not any different from any other aristocracy in the world at the time. The question the article is trying to answer is "why Britain?" Of all the competing european empires what made that particular one especially successful?

▲ivell 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Britain had large amount of colonies and therefore access to a large market. The markets were designed to extract wealth, see for e.g. https://averyreview.com/issues/57/empire-salt-tax

The industries in Britain had access to such huge monopolistic markets, so not really a surprise.

▲ 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
▲tsunamifury 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I love comments like this... they say "well like just build amazon, easy as that"

▲glitchc 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The legal framework was a big part of the puzzle. Britain's lawyers and legal system were head and shoulders above their peers. Colonies and companies in charge were controlled by complex legal contracts guaranteeing profits to those in charge, from the Crown down.

In most cases, the indigenous populations signed their rights away first through clever negotiation and the companies subsequently used force to enforce their contractual rights. Over time, the companies themselves could not muster sufficient force to maintain status quo as they relied mainly on mecenaries who could only be sourced from the local populations and were notoriously fickle, so the Crown inevitably took charge.

▲TheOtherHobbes an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The Industrial Revolution hugely increased production and improved logistics.

The Navy was the best in the world.

There was a capitalist investment culture which linked elements of the aristocracy with inventors and traders, so ventures were relatively easy to fund.

The Royal Society helped spread scientific research and insights.

Private military ventures like the East India Company were closely linked to the state and 'too big to fail' (at least for a while.)

The educational system produced administrators, adventurers, soldiers, and politicians with an unshakeable, almost cult-like, sense of patriotic entitlement.

Britain was isolated physically, which meant the possibility of a distracting land war stopped being a risk after Waterloo, and sea war more or less after Trafalgar.

Basically England was a mature nation state with stable borders and a workable (if brutal and very imperfect) investment-oriented economy, while the other European powers were still fighting each other and - in many cases - trying to self-organise a national identity.

▲graemep 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

The UK, not England!

The article says.the education they received was less rigorous than schools in France, Germany or Italy. Despite this and the educational focus on the classics Britain made huge contributions to science and technology. Maybe schools did not matter that much educationally, but did, as you say, create loyalty and character.