Comment by TheOtherHobbes | Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheOtherHobbes | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

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.

The Brits weaponized their most intelligent, and made them work for the crown.

That being said, mercantile navy based nations never really last beyond a few hundred years compared to the nations near the Steppe.

Mercantile entities like the East India Company operated with little to no oversight. This is bound to rile up natives rather soon as oppression and loot are the only objectives. Britain had to fold the company to maintain its rule over India(after a revolt).

This is certainly in contrast to something like Norman invasion of England or Mongol invasion of China where the invaders fused with the local culture.

> This is bound to rile up natives rather soon as oppression and loot are the only objectives.

it was a lot more complex than "natives" vs the East India Company. In many places they replaced Mughal rulers who were not natives either. Some groups of natives supported them in order to get rid of rulers or existing oppressive systems (or they did not care because it made little difference to them).

> Norman invasion of England or Mongol invasion of China where the invaders fused with the local culture.

The Normans fused gradually, over time. Longer than British rule in India lasted. There were many cultural influences both ways, as can be seen in language, cuisine, political and legal institutions. British people who remained in India became Anglo-Indians, and much the same happened elsewhere in the Empire.

Local rulers who descended from Mughals were largely considered natives. Taking Siraj-ud-Daulah as example, it's true that the Local population was happy to see him go(at least the non Muslims were) but he was definitely considered a native, especially when compared to Europeans.

The key difference I was trying to highlight with my comment was assimilation vs extraction. By early 19th century, it was pretty clear among British polity that India is to be treated as a colony for resource extraction and nothing more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com