I wouldn't consider the British Empire to be 'cool' but I can appreciate that it was a phenomenal military and logistic machine. One tiny country conquered most of the world that was worth conquering. There's something impressive about that.

Worth conquering? Not really. Arguably there was a lot more to conquer, but the rest of the world might've fought back.

So more like: "One country grabs a lot of land too underdeveloped to fight back."

The only noteworthy resistance was mounted by other western powers.

Whether one slave-master triumphing over another is something to be applauded, I'll leave to the reader to decide.

> One country grabs a lot of land too underdeveloped to fight back

If they were just grabbing a lot of "land too underdeveloped to fight back" then why weren't other empires able/willing to grab up the same amount of underdeveloped lands? Do we really believe that other empires were simply too morally upright to exploit underdeveloped lands? Or is there a more interesting, nuanced explanation?

In whichever case, I find it fascinating that the British Isles went from being an irrelevant archipelago at the end of the known world to being the dominant superpower and the largest empire in human history. One can simultaneously appreciate that historical narrative and also condemn the atrocities accumulated along the way.

> then why weren't other empires able/willing to grab up the same amount of underdeveloped lands?

Except there were. There were dozens of conflicts and wars over the span of multiple centuries for control over territory.

I think you’re mistaken. The British empire was the largest empire that has ever existed. That other empires existed (and had centuries-long conflicts/wars) does not refute this fact.

I tried to interpret your sentence in the only way it would have addressed your quote of myself in a coherent manner. I tried to be charitable.

Okay. So let's interpret it as it was written instead.

> If they were just grabbing a lot of "land too underdeveloped to fight back" then why weren't other empires able/willing to grab up the same amount of underdeveloped lands?

Whether or not there were other empires able or willing to grab up that same amount of land doesn't affect the statement in the slightest. The sentence is nonsense.

If you strike "same amount of" the sentence actually does make some sense, which is why I chose to respond to that when I wrote my first response.

Whatever X may be, you will always find countries that did/have the most X, which however doesn't change the nature of X.

"You are mistaken. China has the highest mountains and also a lot of them. Therefore mountains can't be made of stone!" doesn't make much sense, does it.

Neither does: "Britain grabbed more land than everyone else. Therefore the land that everyone was grabbing can't have been underdeveloped!"

And let's face reality here for a second: Open up a map of the British Empire and tell me straight to my face that the vast majority of that land wasn't underdeveloped.

> I tried to interpret your sentence in the only way it would have addressed your quote of myself in a coherent manner. I tried to be charitable. Okay. So let's interpret it as it was written instead.

Neither of those "interpretations" are "as written". I'm not speaking in subtext here, so I don't know why you're trying to decipher instead of addressing the actual content. In whichever case, hopefully this post clarifies.

> And let's face reality here for a second: Open up a map of the British Empire and tell me straight to my face that the vast majority of that land wasn't underdeveloped.

No one suggested the territory of the British Empire was fully developed pre-conquest. The OP suggested that military and logistic achievements of the British Empire were impressive, and you argued the contrary "[they merely grabbed] a lot of land too underdeveloped to fight back". Of course, the British Empire profited fantastically from those conquests so they were clearly worthwhile and other empires were equally willing to conquer weaker nations so it isn't a question of scruples either. And if it's not a question of worth or scruples then surely it must be a question of ability, contrary to your implication.

Are you doing an efficient market hypothesis for imperialism?

Rejecting the notion that the British were uniquely evil is not the same as supporting any particular hypothesis.

It was underdeveloped to start with. Later the British economy was actually dependent on India. Why? Because India became Britain’s main market for her manufactured goods with 60% of British exports going to India by 1913. Employed Indians were buying that stuff! British investment in India totalled around £400 million or 10% of overseas investments before WW1, Like it or not, the British modernized India during their rule. They built 40,000 miles of railway track plus postal and telegraph systems with employment of millions. It's an unpalatable truth for many that a significant number of Indians found benefit and were willing to accept the rule (at that time and in those circumstances) rather than rebel against the British presence. All this doesn't add up to a PR job for the British because we're all very well aware of the cons of British Rule but objectively we know that's not the whole story. In history we need to see that the past is a done deal which we should examine in all its aspects, pros and cons.

Modernized some of their infrastructure, yes. But India's economy was also destroyed. Whether India would have been able to modernize themselves with a functioning economy and under their own rule is another question.

"There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income."

— Manmohan Singh

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Economic_history_of_India

> They built 40,000 miles of railway track plus postal and telegraph systems with employment of millions.

I mean, okay? How nice of them to share some technology progress that was made during colonial rule. It's not like India got a chance to built any of that under their own rule.

I'd call developing the land you are ruling doing the bare-minimum. And we can't exactly say the British did a good job at that considering the state India was in at the end of colonial rule.

After freeing a slave you just don't get to pat yourself on the back and say: "I've been feeding him for 25 years, given him clothing, and even work! What would he have done without me!"

India does not strike me as particularly underdeveloped.

From wiki: Trading rivalries among the seafaring European powers brought other European powers to India. The Dutch Republic, England, France, and Denmark-Norway all established trading posts in India in the early 17th century. As the Mughal Empire disintegrated in the early 18th century, and then as the Maratha Empire became weakened after the third battle of Panipat, many relatively weak and unstable Indian states which emerged were increasingly open to manipulation by the Europeans, through dependent Indian rulers.

Yes, India was unstable. That is not the same as underdeveloped.

USA has had several peaks of instability during its existence, arguably is on such a peak right now, but is fairly developed, though very unequally so.

> Yes, India was unstable. That is not the same as underdeveloped.

And it's valid to point that out. But at the end of the day for what reason India was unable to fight back against the western powers doesn't really matter.

In India's case there still was no heroic conquering. Just bullying. And then bullies fighting against each other from relative safety with their colonies as pawns.

Indeed, India represented about a quarter of the world's economy in 1700:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_economy_of_the...

It was not at the time from a purely economical point of view, but it had other, political, problems that made it fall to the British (and other colonial powers) without resistance.

Let's also not forget that British controlled a lot of that economy, which they pivoted into political control.