lsspam t1_izj0af5 wrote
Reply to comment by Xyleksoll 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
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments