Xyleksoll t1_ize7v03 wrote
Reply to comment by Swanky_Molerat in Why is the Spanish colonial empire often said/implied to be "less focused on trade" or "not prioritising trade" compared to other empires like the Dutch, British, Portuguese etc.? by raori921
And this is why Britain, when made to choose between India and America, chose India.
Kered13 t1_izffq4b wrote
They didn't exactly choose, their hand was forced by the American Revolution. Before the American Revolution, they very much considered North America to be the most important part of their overseas empire. Their holdings in India consisted of a few trading posts and they had just recently acquired Bengal. After the American Revolution they had lost the core of their North American holdings, so their attention shifted to India. They rapidly expanded their territory in India until they controlled nearly the entire subcontinent, and to secure their trade routes to India they also conquered South Africa.
Thus the British Empire is divided into two eras: the [First British Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#%22First%22_British_Empire_(1707%E2%80%931783)), focused on North America, and the [Second British Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#Rise_of_the_%22Second%22_British_Empire_(1783%E2%80%931815)), focused on India.
lsspam t1_izgwp2u wrote
> And this is why Britain, when made to choose between India and America, chose India.
Britain wasn't presented with a choice. This is a baffling position to assert.
Xyleksoll t1_iziil5q wrote
They could have focused on the North American continent and today Canada would have been bordering Mexico. They were stretched on two fronts and the schwerpunkt became India, for obvoius reasons.
lsspam t1_izj0af5 wrote
You need to do some reading friend
Xyleksoll t1_izj2wcu wrote
Sure, how about this :https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/04/the-tiger-aids-the-eaglet-how-india-secured-americas-independence/
lsspam t1_izj3qek wrote
Neat article. Doesn’t support your position. Britain devoted very little resources to the war against Mysore which they lost anyways. Your position is fantasy.
Xyleksoll t1_izrf40v wrote
...and I quote: "Consider the economics of Britain’s calculus. The raw goods to manufactured goods trade with the American colonies was profitable (North America accounted for thirty percent of English exports[15]), but it didn’t compare with the potential for gains in the East. Defending America had gotten expensive, as the Seven Years’ War showed, and the colonists were evidently unhappy to pay for that defense. In contrast, the colonial government in India made substantial revenue from taxes on Indians, and the goods traded, including but hardly limited to spices, were valuable. England was undergoing the agricultural and then the industrial revolutions; a growing market to sell goods was not overseas but right at home. This de-emphasized the market for exports, America, in favor of the source of imports, Asia."
lsspam t1_izrhndu wrote
That’s a reason India was more profitable longterm than America. What it doesn’t say is “Britain devoted more resources to losing the second Mysore war than losing the Revolutionary war”….
…because they didn’t. In fact it wasn’t even close.
nbgrout t1_izh589d wrote
Right? In the books, they seem to have actually taken the breakup pretty badly. They tried real hard to get us back and it wasn't until they saw us with our new French girlfriend that they accepted it was over.
[deleted] t1_izh50bl wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments