Talk:British Empire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I've finally revamped this article. The structure is much improved (but still bad, indicative of its terrible state before); I hope that everyone finds it more readable too. 172

NOT 23,000,000 sq. km.

When converting from miles to kilometres, you have to use a formula for square miles to square kilometres, which is different than just miles to kilometres. Whoever doesn't know this, and keeps changing the size from 37 million square km to 23 milliom sq. km., please stop. -- (said someone who didn't sign)

Let's make this explicit

1 sq mile = 2.59 sq km

Maximum Imperial Area = 14,157,000 sq miles

Therefore Maximum Imperial Area = 14,157,000 * 2.59 sq km = 36,667,000 sq km

The area of the empire is either 8,880,000 sq mi/23,000,000 sq km or it is 14,157,000 sq mi/36,667,000 sq km, depending on the date that you pick, but it cannot be 8,880,000 sq mi/37,000,000 sq km unless you are using a different definition of sq mi/sq km from the rest of us. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

I think that some of the early material confuses English with British e.g. William the Conqueror had British allies who helped him defeat their traditional ennemies the English. These Britons had been living in Brittany (= Little Britain}. The political evolution of the English monarchy includes when it was part of the Angevin Empire which included parts of modern France, but not Scotland. This needs more work to tease out the distinctions. Harry Potter

William also had English allies, the most noticable of whom was Tostig, the estranged brother of King Harold, who viewed the Normans as helpful to his desire to revenge Harold.

The Map

I like the map. Thanks for adding it. Unfortunately I have a couple of minor quibbles over it.

Firstly the caption. It says "Territory controlled by the British Empire at its height" (which was during the 1930s)

Actually, no, though this is misleading. The greatest formal extent was in the 1940s after peripheral areas like Sarawak and the Danish possessions in India were taken over. Certainly, this was merely a formal preliminary and tidying up exercise before the retreat from empire, but just like the way a eunuch's bones grow more than those of an entire man - and for similar reasons - the greates extent of the British Empire as measured on the map was after its ringbarking by the new world order: in the 1940s. PML.

but the map seems to show "every territory under Imperial control at any time". The Empire didn't control the eastern seaboard of North America when it was at its height for instance, although the map seems to show that it does.

Secondly, I'm not sure about some of the territories. Can you confirm at what time Libya was part of the empire ? I always thought that it was under Italian control until the Second World War and under UN control until regaining independence.

However I repeat that the map is a good idea. Perhaps we need more than one, in order to show the evolution of the Empire through the years -- Derek Ross

I agree. This map was just the biggest one I could find. Does anyone have a better one? user:J.J.

This map is in error: Cyprus and Sri Lanka are shown as white instead of red. I think the borders of British control over Papua New Guinea may've been slightly different from what is portrayed too Crusadeonilliteracy

Also, it shows the whole of Somalia as red when only what is now Somaliland was British. And the southern Thai peninsula was never controlled by the British. I think it should show the British Empire at its height, and not every single territory ever controlled by the English/British, otherwise we should include much of France, and Hanover as well. Let's also try to get an image that shows the Falklands and Antarctica. Did the maps of the British Empire actually show it in red, or pink? Andrew Yong 09:19, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

History of the British Empire

Reddish pink. Hence the term "the pink bits" Crusadeonilliteracy

Empire vs Imperialism

We're dealing with separate, but related phenomena. We're going to have to define the complex relationship. I have to go now, so I don't have time to defend my changes, but I will later today. 172 16:54, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This article is about an Empire, not about the philosophy or (disputed) economic motors of imperialism. I'm tired of having obsolete material from other articles pasted in 5KB chunks where it has no place (this article is already 33K, and has the makings of a very good 30K), and where the task of rewriting them is only multiplied needlessly (how many articles does the same content need to be in?). The article links to the existing New Imperialism and related articles. Readers seeking such insights can go there. Graculus 17:42, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Tired or not, we're going to have to link imperialism and empire if we're going to illuminate what factors contributed to the expansion of the empire. The two sections that you're removing, which at least aren't copied verbatim from New Imperialism, are an imperfect start. We're working on a very contentious subject, and we're going to have to deal with many assessments that are disputed and subject to multiple interpretations. We both fully understand the controversy surrounding the content that you keep removing, but it can be integrated into the article in a neutral manner, after a little rewriting, without slanting the article toward a particular interpretation. 172 19:27, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is linked, so why repeat it here? This isn't a POV issue, it's a simple matter of empirical fact: give me a single piece of evidence (not second-hand surmise) that the material you want inserted is in any way relevant to this article and I'll back you to the hilt. Graculus 20:03, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'll rewrite it accordingly, as you're requesting. But I won't be able to get to it until twelve hours from now. BTW, if you chose to remove it again, keep in mind that there were other changes aside from reinserting the disputed two sections. 172 20:21, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've already rewritten it, thanks, and I requested nothing of the sort. I see no worthwhile revisions and have reverted accordingly, which is something I do not like to do. We've collaborated fruitfully in turning New Imperialism into a fit article, 172, and as I've said elsewhere I don't want us to fall out over this. My above challenge stands: one piece of actual evidence - is that too much to ask? Don't make this out to be an ideological disagreement, because there isn't one: I'd hoped you'd have worked that out by now, and I'd rather we were working together where there was real business to attend to. Graculus 21:47, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You can't avoid a certain amount of redundancy, because the link in running text doesn't necessarily explain its own significance. You need to set at least enough context so that readers can know whether they need to read New Imperialism or can just say "yeah sure, economic engine of empire, I heard of it" and continue on. But the trick is to set it up for a broad range of readers without digressing into excruciating detail. Not a matter of evidence or proof, it's just a matter of good expository style. Since this is an encyclopedia and not a collection of self-published textbooks, we should also go for succinctness above all else, and then list all the books that readers should go to for the completely in-depth story (a list missing from this article btw, hint hint) Stan 22:33, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Repeating the same text in every empire-related article isn't doing anything for a broad range of readers except turning them off. It's covered elsewhere. This article is full. And I'm not a bibliography service. Graculus 00:49, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite the two sections, with the evidence that you're requesting, when I have time, so that there isn't excessive overlap with New Imperialism. Right now, I'll leave the disputed content out of the article. 172 08:20, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I didn't say "repeat the same text", I said "set context". As someone who has so many strong opinions about how encyclopedia articles should be written, I'm surprised to see that you seem unwilling to Wikipedia:Cite your sources; that's just basic scholarship. The lack of references seriously impairs the credibility of this and the related articles. How do I know you're not just making all this stuff up? Stan 13:27, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thank you. And please remember one and ten: "keep it short". Good material will have to come out of this article as it is, which is a shame. Graculus 09:19, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

May I have some more time for the write of those two sections? My activity on Wiki is going to have to be reduced over the next week due to other obligations. So it might take a day or two. 172

The Map Again

That map: Why is the Upper Midwest of the United States in red? When were Minnesota and the Dakotas ever part of the British Empire? And why isn't Sri Lanka red? RickK 03:51, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Excellent work on the map....but it still needs work: the following nations got their independence from the British: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Belize, Cyprus, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Malawi, Qatar, Swaziland, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Also, Bermuda and the Falkland Islands are still under British control. Kingturtle 04:12, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

US upper Midwest was claimed in the late 18th/early 19th centuries, although it wasn't exactly closely governed at the time. A single map to represent over three centuries of change is kind of misleading; it would be better to have several, for instance at 1763, 1815, and 1900. Stan 17:24, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Review"

The whole page needs to be more descriptive and less historic. I have moved the History section to the duplicate History of the British Empire page, and reduced the history content on this page to a summary. It is still a bit patchy, and needs to be recomposed as a summary.

Andrew Yong 09:19, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What are we, chopped liver?! :)

Am I crazy or do British colonization of the Americas and 13 colonies deserve a mention? I mean, like, Virginia, was a British colony at one point, right?

Am I not getting some nuance of "At its height, the British Empire consisted of the following territory..."?

Let us back in the Empire! :) jengod 00:58, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

I just came in here to post the same thing. One problem is that "At its height" is sort of an ambigious phrase. Does it mean at its height of power (presumably sometime in the late 19th century/early 20th), or is it just a way of saying "All the countries that have ever been part of the British Empire are..." I think it should be the latter, and I think the USA needs to be included on the list! In fact, if there are no objections here, I'm going to add the USA. Moncrief 05:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You could add specific colonies to the article under "First British Empire". "At its height" is clearly meant to mean at the height of its power, during what the article calls the 2nd British Empire. I gather an illustration once made this clearer. A "List of areas once under dominion of the British Crown" would be a different list. But the U.S.A. wouldn't be on either list, as it was not formed until after the colonies involved were no longer "in" the British Empire. -- Nunh-huh 05:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah, good point. I still think it would be useful, though, to have a list of all areas that were ever part of the British Empire at any time, not just at the Empire's "height." Moncrief 05:49, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but a map of it is far more impressive. I wonder why it

was removed? - Nunh-huh 06:04, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agree. What shall we call it. List of British territories, colonies and possessions? jengod 06:09, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

The Map Yet Again

I see that the map's been removed. That's a pity. -- Derek Ross 06:01, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If we find one, of course, the Empire has to be shown in pink, right? RickK 06:02, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yup, that's The Rules(tm)

James F. (talk) 11:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

the second link http://www.btinternet.com/~britishempire/empire/empire.htm does not work.

• Thanks for the heads up. I removed it. Kingturtle 02:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Size of empire?

In the entry you stated the Mongol Empire was the largest empire ever. This is correct to some extent, it was the largest ever in the lifespan of one ruler and possibly in terms of population. The website below has figures on the sizes of the worlds empires:

http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html

The British Empire is widely considered as the largest empire in terms of land as maps and the figures from the site above prove. If you mean in terms of population the Mongol empire was the largest empire I think this should need clarify on the pages.

Cheers -Andrew

In terms of population is questionable. If it means total numbers present day China with over a billion takes it. If it means as a proportion of world population then that would still need proving. The British Empire was 1/4 of the world's population. If you include the Americas I doubt if Gengiz Khan did better. In area & widespreadedness it certainly is. Neil Craig 10/11/4

• The mongol empire was the largest contiguous empire ever. Super Saiyan Plough 09:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The article, under the picture of John Cabot in Newfoundland, says that "Newfoundland was England's first overseas colony". Well, I was just down at Sandymount strand this evening and I can confirm without hesitation that there is an awful lot of sea between Ireland and England and, for that matter, Britain. As the great old song says 'The sea oh the sea long may it reign between England and me; it's a sure guarantee that some day we'll be free- oh thank God we're surrounded by water!" ;-)

The Map One More Time

A new map has been uploaded, but I'm afraid I have some problems with it. Firstly it is a .jpg. It should be a .png. Secondly it's too small. A larger map would be handier (thumbnailed for this page). Thirdly it's not clear what date this map is for. It shows Iraq as part of the British Empire so I presume it is sometime between 1919 and 1941, however the geo-political boundaries look modern. Fourthly the image page has no information about its source or copyright status. Lastly - IT'S GREEN. Everyone knows the the British Empire should be shown in pink. Mintguy (T) 20:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't include Nova Scotia or New Brunswick either. -- Derek Ross | Talk

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/pinkbits1897.htm is rather nice, if not exactly at its height; perhaps we could use it? (I imagine it's PD, given that it's from 1897...)

James F. (talk)

I'm creating a map right now. It might not work, or I might get bored with it though. Mintguy (T)

1897 - Excellent! That'll do nicely. -- Derek Ross | Talk

I got bored with it. Mintguy (T)

Does anyone know the cartographer / volume this map is drawn from?

should there be a map that shows every where the british had control at one point, incoulding America?

Americas

Rather than a list under ""At its height, the British Empire consisted of the following territories" would it not be more useful to list all of the territories that were at one time in their history (with dates etc..) part of the British Empire? Thus including the North American colonies etc.. Mintguy (T)

That's not a bad idea, Mintguy. It might well get around the current problem (unless the user concerned can't accept that the rebel colonists won the war of independence). -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:55, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

Denying The Truth?

There seems to be a ruthless individual who deletes any attempt at setting the record straight over the 13 colonies in North America, his deletions never show up in the deletion log, talk about looking through rose-coloured glasses.

TwoBells {T}

That's just the way it goes. Some people are more interested in jingoism than accuracy. We just have to keep on fixing it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:05, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

Whether the edit war is sensible or not and which side's position is better is not an issue I want to go into, but it strikes me that the problem lies in the first bit of the 'Extent' section which starts 'At its height, the British Empire consisted of the following territories -' without giving a year for 'its height'. This leaves two options - (1) inserting a date; (2) listing all territories which were once under British control. Clearly, if we go for option (2), the thirteen colonies would need to be listed (along with a lot of other territories like Menorca, Heligoland and the Ionian Islands); if we go for option (1) we have the argument as to what date we pick, but after that we can go for a factual answer (and any sensible choice of date would be after the thirteen colonies were lost). Who supports which option? Jongarrettuk 21:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Option 2 is basically what Mintguy suggested above. It's a good idea. It would be more work than option 1 but it would also be more informative. It makes sense to do option 1 short-term and option 2 long-term. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:45, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

Superiority of the British Empire

A recent anonymous editor removed the following text claiming it to be subjective (ie POV in Wikipedia jargon).

"Some argue that those countries which were colonised by Britain were spared the incompetence and brutality of some other European empires, such as the Dutch, French, Belgian and Portuguese empires"

This seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what the statement is saying. Of course it is objectively verifiable, since it says that there are people who believe the superiority claim to be true and this can be checked by looking for the names of these people. It does not say that the superiority belief itself is true (and was almost certainly worded this way to avoid saying so). However I don't think that the statement should be returned to the article unless we replace "some people" by some named references. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:53, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

That sounds very sensible. Furthermore I would suggest that the "some people" replacement would carry much more weight if it was a historian or politician from one of the former colonies. However, it may well be that there are no examples of such a quotation; if this is the case then the assertion may well be just a popular misconception in this country, and should probably not be made at all. Mintguy (T) 21:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about Lord Alfred Milner, Commissioner for South Africa, 1897 - 1905, a self-declared "English race patriot"? He espoused those types of views... Dafyddyoung 11:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would be a bit like getting a McDonalds spokesman to say that hamburgers are good for you. Not too surprising and not too credible as a result. We would need someone a little less closely tied to the system -- no, make that a lot less closely tied to the system before the statement could be used in the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:42, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

I come to this not as a historian but as someone who studied imperialism/decolonisation in politics. I think we should remember that we are not trying to justify the statement: our job is not to give the statement 'weight', but to present it to the reader as a viewpoint that is or could be held by some people (I for one hold this view at least as far as Africa is concerned), and ideally give him enough objective information to decide whether or not to accept it. The argument is basically based on two premises: 1. for e.g. most Africans in the late 19th/early 20th century the alternative to being colonised by Britain was not having an independent nation state, but being colonised by another European power; and 2. the British in Africa were not as brutal/incompetent as say the Belgians in Congo or the Portuguese in Angola. I definitely came across both statements when I was studying politics, and they might be easier to obtain examples separately. The counterargument that should be included to provide balance would be that of course this is only mitigation, and it does not excuse the British for what brutality or incompetence they caused or allowed to happen in the areas that they controlled. Alternatively, in an ideal (some might say fantasy) world the British would have established free states under their protection. I think as long as we make the arguments judiciously I can't think of anyone objecting. Andrew Yong 20:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, Andrew. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:50, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

Superiority could be difined as success of the former colonies(democracy,standard of living, economic success).Britain did "establish free states under their protection". Some examples are Canada, Australia and New Zealand all of which enjoy a high standard of living at par or better than Great Britain, not to mention all the colonies in the carribean which enjoy for the most part political stability and high incomes.Correct me if I'm wrong, what other Nation or empire can boast that? Look at the success of the former colonies of France, Spain, Belgium, ect and you will see what I'm gettin at. P.S :please excuse my spelling...peace

Pre 1600 bits

I have some problems with anything pre-James I/VI in this article. Discussion of an English empire would surely be better elsewhere, that could include the Angle and Saxon settlement of Britain or Henry II's invasion of Ireland. The article does not explain how this background material is relevant to what resulted in the British Empire. I cannot see how the sort of economic and political manoeuvring described in section 1 had any bearing on the eventual form of the British empire unless it can be demonstrated that these acts were any different from those undertaken elsewhere in Europe at the time. Lumping a thousand years of history into one page smacks of an effort to exploit that supposedly convenient breakoff date of 1066, yet English society changed immensely between William I and Elizabeth I.

And another thing (!) How do a few shrewd royal marriages between the continental and English monarchies in the middle ages constitute 'English colonialism' anyway?. adamsan 22:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree - apart from the fact that it wasn't Britain before then (or even prior to 1707 when Scotland & England became 1 state rather than 2 with 1 head) the mercantile empire under discussion is different in kind from the dynastic Angevan Empire & its offshoots. Neil Craig

I think it's fairer to say that the Empire started in the reign of Elizabeth I (with the founding of Roanoke and the East India Company, and the coining of the term itself by John Dee). The French holdings of earlier English monarchs only need to be mentioned in order to make it clear that they are not considered to be part of the British Empire. Similarly the consolidation of England, Wales and Scotland is a necessary part of the context, but not part of the Empire. Naturally, the history of Ireland ruins this convenient distinction. The gradual English conquest would be relevant, but unfortunately I can't find an account of it anywhere in Wikipedia. --Townmouse 09:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)