What was it that allowed the British to become as dominant

Forced into colonization due to lack of land in Europe.

England is the most geographically perfect place on earth

The collective naivete and good-nature of the rest of mankind, which prevented them from stooping to the moral lows of perfidious Albion.

>>702121


Their crap cooking and weather. Millions of British would endure any hardship, undergo any risk, for a chance of making a living somewhere that isn't in Britain.

Ruthless naval expansion driven by trade, plus wars with other European colonial powers

>>702121

it wasn't "allowed". fortune favours the brave and cuntish.

>>702139

soz - misread the quetion. still, that's the answer. the were brave and cuntish. brave enough to explore new lands and cuntish enough to conquer those they could and raid those they coun't conquer.

basically, they were vikings in red coats. if ragnar hairy britches had a foppish wig, natty coat and platform shoes, he'd also join the HEIC, fuck shit up in india, fuck a bunch of indian women and retire to the shires as a gentleman squire with wealth beyond the dreams of avarice.

>>702121
Brits have (or had, at least) a tenacity ingrained in the culture. This let them discover, invent and write things that placed them ahead on the world power scale, which turned into colonisation.

>>702121
Joint stock corporations

Ships. Total disregard for other people.

Perfect location + Protestant ethics

this >>702128
Britain was well placed to be at the forefront of technology.

1: The mediterranean connects a huge area
2: the North Western European plain could produce a lot of grain and support dense populations in Europe
3: Britain was a secure island, free from wars and political instability in Europe

>>702127
>>702129
>>702136
>>702136
>>702139
>>702159
>>702179
>>702197
>all these meme answers
every population expanded to fit the resources available, every large state became tyrannical and sought to expand without much regard for morals, Britain wasn't the exception

>>702191
just one innovation out of 1000s
>>702197
>>702202
half true

>>702121
What's the source of that picture?

Are people really this butthurt about the British?

>as they did

Scotland providing the intellectual muscle

>>702270
Let's not make this an England/Scotland thing. We know that both of them pulled their weight.

Wales and Ireland though, that's a whole other story.

File: lolbrit.png (477KB, 886x2410px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 886x2410px

>>702121
Technology
The only places they ever dominated were the beckward shitholes they conquered in the 19th century thank to superior technology (remember the film Zulus?)

That's also the reason why they never dominated Europe (unlike France, Spain and Germany), because technological advantage didn't work there and actual skill was required instead.

>>702289
t. Butthurt Pierre

>>702121

because we are literally the only normal people in the world. no one else can ever understand the glory of being british

>>702329
This is obviously bait, but there is some truth in the way the Britain just gets on with things in a way other nations don't seem to manage.

The whole "Keep calm and carry on" thing is a bullshit marketing meme, but there really is something to be said for British stiff upper lip attitudes.

Also they do the patriotism thing differently to other countries.

>>702289
europe is small scale for small minds

Let's welcome everybody to Planet Brit
And show 'em what worldwide Anglos is

Why you think they call me Mr. Worldwide?
Let's show 'em why they call me Mr. Worldwide
Why you think they call me Mr. Worldwide?
Let's show 'em why they call me Mr. Worldwide
Hold up!... Cause bitch I'm worldwide
t. MR.WORLDWIDE

>>702121
Navy

>>702294
obsessed

>>702369
>The whole "Keep calm and carry on" thing is a bullshit marketing meme
it came from the blitz where people did essentially keep clam and carry on with their lives, those posters weren't even used and yet they fit perfectly for what was happening at the time

I think it's that no matter what, Brits have a really die hard love of their country. It's not as obvious as it is in America, for example, but it is there.

The British are patriots, care about order (not in a Germanic way, but in a traditional sort of way), and know above all else that they're right and anyone else just needs to learn that.

File: 1444243119412.jpg (519KB, 3968x2232px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 3968x2232px

>>702121
Culture and politics; their mix of democratic tendencies and centralised power structures. Essentially they were a couple of centuries ahead of the rest of Europe - when most of Europe was a collection of feudal territories loosely bound under the nominal rule of a king/Emperor, England was a relatively centralised state. Then when the rest of Europe started to centralise and move away from feudalism to truly autocratic monarchy (or in the case of the Holy Roman Empire, make the effort and fail miserably), England moved on from autocratic monarchy to nationalism and representative government. This allowed the growth of a middle class earlier than the rest of Europe, which in turn benefited trade and scholarship (merchants and scholars being pretty much the entire middle class back then), which had a knock on effect in the development of technology. All the groundwork for this was laid right back during the time of Alfred the Great, who set the stage for the unification of England as a single kingdom with a strong centralised monarchy and strong institutions to support it.

tl;dr England was culturally (and hence economically and technologically) about a century ahead of the rest of Europe

>>702236

It's the newest and therefore dankest of maymays, so all the super cool edgy kids are vomiting it all over every board. Same as how "cuck" was the in thing a few months ago.

>>702609
Pretty much all true.

It's actually quite interesting, I find, the way that they were ahead of the curve in so many things. It's why I think it's funny that people make out Britain is backwards because it still has a monarchy, despite the fact it had the first modern parliament.

>>702419

There's a wonderful story of a German Jewish refugee living in London during the blitz. The first time the sirens sounded she didn't know what to do, so she went to the kitchen and made a cup of tea, because that is how she had seen the British respond to every other crisis so far.

>>702395
Worldwide Anglo needs to meet the worldwide Mongol

>>702628

I think part of the problem with people who throw a shit fit over the British Monarchy are Americans, who seem to be under the impression that because it's a monarchy, it's exactly like the monarchy in 1776.

>>702640
even in 1776 the British monarch was well on its way to becoming a figurehead. In fact, the British monarch's powers at that time resemble quite closely the American President's powers today (which isn't a coincidence) - the power of veto, and the power to make certain appointments, but otherwise at the mercy of his legislature.

>>702294
t. perfidious albion mad

Britain never had a revolution.

>>702849
you wot m8?

It had 2...both in the 1600s.

>>702849
what about the English civil war?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

>>702849
Dat is wivowt a dowt da dumest thing evar anon

>>702849
The stupidest post on /his/ right now.

>>702881
The civil war wasn't a revolution.

>>702609
Dam did not know that, I knew Alfred had a big impact but not that big of an impact.

>>702275
>Wales and Ireland though, that's a whole other story.
Ireland provided tremendous numbers of manpower to the British military, the Welsh were quite famed for their mines. Ireland being passive also allowed the British to maintain a (relatively) stable position against the continentals.

Ireland never wanted to be part of the Union yet still contributed massively to it militarily.

Location: the British isles are not in continental Europe which makes it difficult for a land army to invade. Away from the politics of continental Europe, the brits had room to find themselves and grow. Same reason why the US became a dominant power: they rose pretty much uncontested in the region (minus the skirmishes with Mexico)

Navy: After the destruction of the Spanish fleet the Brits no longer had any tremendous threats on their heels. Using resources like the East India company allowed them to explore, trade, and begin amassing land to their empire.

Industry: Britain was at the forefront of the industrial revolution. Coal mining for steam engines spurred them forward as they began to modernize themselves before other nations. They would eventually fall behind Germany after the turn of the century.

Also, the fact that they had so many territories (islands in the atlantic and pacific) allowed ships to stop and resupply for longer trips.

The political side stabilized itself after the Glorious Revolution and English Civil war.

>>702221
> Calls the first post a meme answer
> Continue to say the same shit with different words

wew nigger

The real answer

>Dutch destroy Spanish naval and military dominance over Europe
>English backstab the Dutch

T R I A N G L E
R
A
D
E

Good location+Culture+Being free from Europe's bullshit= British Colonial Empire.

>>703071
>>704262
>free from Europe's bullshit
even the most cursory glance at Britain's history would tell you that this isn't true. They may have had slightly better protection from direct invasion because of the channel, but they still fought the rest of Europe a LOT, both on the continent and around the world, expending vast amounts of manpower and money in the process

>dominant

What you see on that world map is nothing but scraps.

See, Brits have spent a lot of effort convincing themselves and others that conquering savages is somehow the pinnacle of glory. In reality, colonialism is a consolation prize for countries that have become incapable of keeping up with other European powers.

>>702289
>Italy is the Roman Empire

>>704992
given england were the first to industrialize I'd say they kept up pretty well

>>702289
>German """"""""""""""empire"""""""""""""""

Now that is just embarrasing. Literally any country could charge head first into another country and linger around like a bad smell until they are expelled.

>>702121
>Dominant
> Couldn't beat Germany alone
>Zulus humiliate them with sticks and spears
>Just bullied undeveloped countries

Britain was never as dominant as Spain, France or the US..

nigels on suicide watch

>>704992

If that's the case why did every other European power have a Colonial Empire too?

Name one European nation in the past 1000 years that has had a significant long lasting Empire within European borders.

How is 1/4 of the planet, and most of its rich land "Scraps"?

Why are Americans so obvious due to their ignorance even without flags?

>>705211

When did the Zulus beat Britain?

>>702275
>Let's not make this an England/Scotland thing

t. Englishman taking advantage of Scottish labours

>>702275
mae hwn yn barth dim bwli ;_;

>>705183
Explains the British empire.

Being an island has the huge advantage of only needing to maintain a navy at all times

Compared to all other states in Europe that needed to pour money into both armies and navies

>>705224
Battle of Isandlwana

>>702121
First comment says it pretfy much. But I also think the loss of the Thirteen Colonies drove Britain to rebuild their colonial empire and find other avenues of colonisation. That's pure speculation but I think it makes sense.

>>702270
This argument could be made with any of the UKs nations

>>702289
>lol itz al skil xdddddddd oui oui I surendr

It's more to do with population IMO. Britain historically has had a much smaller manpower reserve than the other European empires. Spain, France, Germany, Russia and Poland-Lithuania were all much populous than Britain. The
island was also split up until 1707, so even less population, less resources, and less soldiers to conquer mainlanders.

>>702849
Yes we did. It won and England lived under a totalitarian dictator who banned a fuckton on benign shit because of religion. Stuff like wearing makeup and going to church on Christmas Day.

>>704213
You mean the Spanish Succession? That
was an Anglo-Dutch effort.

>>705224
They whooped our arses HARD. Casualties were far higher for them and they had 25,000 men against a stupidly small British force but it's still an embarrassing defeat.

>>705618
>They whooped our arses HARD
The Zulus beat a single British advance column by throwing every man they had at it. Casualties were more or less equal, actually. But either way while it might have been a tactical victory for the Zulus it was a huge strategic mistake. The government of South Africa (Cape Colony at that time) had pushed for the war, but the government in London was mostly against it. The defeat at Isandlwana forced London to really commit to the war to regain its dignity. The British withdrew, regrouped, and then came back and smashed the Zulu armies just as easily as they'd first thought they would, marching all the way to the Zulu capital, burning it and then captured the Zulu king. Isanlwana might have been an huge embarrassment politically, but in strict military terms it was hardly more than a minor setback.

The reason Chelmsford split his forces in the first place was not so much arrogance (although there was a large amount of that involved) but because he expected the Zulu to pursue guerilla tactics rather than meet him in the field, which meant he spread his forces over a large area as possible in order to encircle the Zulu forces and trap them.

>>702191
That was Dutch.

UK was successful mainly because they played their cards of perfidy well, also because they were on an Island and weren't under a constant threat from nearby European powers, they could project their power across globe and protect themselves from invasion with their navy. This is especially true after late 17th century.

Also 30 years wars, wars of Spanish and Austrian succession as well as Napoleonic wars completely destroying continental Europe while Britain remained stable.

>>705592
Well that's just wrong lad. UK and Spain had comparable populations for example at 17th century, peak of Spain.

>>704983

It's a more nuanced point than the Anons articulated.

England was pretty much perpetually on the brink of bankruptcy for centuries on end as the crown poured stupid amounts of money and manpower into bloody and expensive wars against the French.

However, once the island monkeys lost all their continental territory (culminating in the fall of Calais in 1558), they were no longer compelled to engage in constant, arduous warfare over European clay.

This marked an important shift in the country's trajectory. English and then British foreign policy was, to a large extent, no longer centred around territorial ambitions on the continent. From that point onward, it became about fostering trade, colonial expansion, and the maintenance of a balance of power in Europe.

While they nevertheless did have to engage in periodic interventions, they were able to choose the extent of their participation from that point onward, with their European allies tending to provide the majority of the ground forces in any continental war while Britain focused on naval and colonial theatres.

This was not a luxury that many of their European rivals possessed, directly caught up as they often were in European land wars of existential significance.

>>702270
From a historical perspective it's amazing how a bunch of woad painting, hut dwelling people who still shat on the ground formed a society with an intellectual elite.

Africa is next, mark my words.

They weren't that dominant, though. Unless you count owning land that's populated either by a) nothing or b) utterly incompetent Indians and blacks, there is almost nothing noteworthy about the British, who preferred to pick on peoples who lacked the technology and organization to resist. In comparison to other European powers, the British were relatively incompetent and proved this in both World Wars. They deserved to lose every inch of their prized empire.

>>705503
Why would countries with much, much smaller coastlines need to invest in similarly sized navies?

>>702121
Geography, stable government institutions, and wise economic choices