What was more important for the British empire, technology,

>>3138244
Conquering deserts and shitty mudskin lands and gloating about it.

Thats what the Anglo thinks was an "Empire"

roflmao pathetic

>>3138302
More like sucking money out of India, becoming obscenely rich and then gloating about our navy. That's pretty much it, no one gloats about having a shit ton of Africa or Malaya or whatever.

>>3138244
Technology. The first industrial revolution started in Britain and that was a huge advantage for a while.

>>3138381
The industrial revolution only helped with making money.

>>3138480
And how do you pay for soldiers, weapons, supplies, etc. you dingus?

>>3138244

Technology allowed the to conquer, bureaucracy allowed them to govern their vast conquests efficiently.

>>3138244
A couple of hundred Oxbridge graduates were in charge of the entire Indian subcontinent. It certainly wasn't bureaucracy.

>>3138302
This sort of "point" is so childish. There is no doubt that the British Empire was a result of the European Age of Exploration and subsequent colonialism. However every single one of its rivals was trying to do the same thing.

The British Empire was a result of Britain outfoxing and outfighting its continental rivals.

>>3138480
And you know, the production of industrial goods. Like weapons, ammo, and military equipment.

Bureaucracy. Britain contributed a large share of core discoveries and important scientists, though not the majority. What they did was make better use of technology.

If you had a new innovation, your best chances to turn it into an economically productive business would be in Britain which had a free press, an open society and a reliable financial system (by the standards of the day). Good wholesome ubermensch seeking to advance technology and civilization could operate largely undisturbed. To this day Anglos are stalwart defenders of free markets and free trade unlike most of the world whomst are commies of some descript if not reactionary authoritarians.