Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What Event Marked the Decline of the British Empire?
Godofgamblers    3/31/2009 2:45:59 AM
When did the Decline of the British Empire Begin? I think in the case of the French Empire, the beginning of the end was very clear: The War of 1871. The creation of Germany and the military fiasco with Napoleon III at its head was the deathknell of France’s ambitions as a world superpower. The creation of Germany meant an eclipsing of France’s greatness, a new rival (a rival which was much more powerful) and the defeat of Napoleon III dashed all hopes of a New Empire. But for the British, the timing of the decline is much less clear. Some may argue that WW2 ended Britain’s reign as it was destitute and had to relinquish many of its colonies (notably India). I feel that WW1 marked the end; the mass culling of its elites in the suicidal Franco-Prussian War Part 2 killed off the best human resources of the Brit Empire. Some say the Boer War marked the beginning of the end as a handful of brash upstarts managed to better the British army. Or did the decline begin with the US Revolutionary War? Your comments, as always, are much appreciated, Gentlemen…
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
Necromancer    WW2   3/31/2009 2:53:59 AM
of course- and could u recommend all vacation spots in Indo. Its my next vacation spot.
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       3/31/2009 4:49:29 AM
Go straight to Bali:)
 
No need to go anywhere else. The gov't is really pushing Lombok (an int'l airport is being built there) but too much malaria there, something which is never publicized.....
 
In Bali go to Dreamland.... known to very few, possibly one of the best beaches on the planet.
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    According to Byron Farwell   3/31/2009 9:42:54 AM
The Battle of Majuba Hill, 1881, First Boer War.
 
Quote    Reply

the British Lion       3/31/2009 10:35:41 AM

The Boar War was costly for sure, but it had no impact on the decline of the British Empire. A lot of parallels can be drawn between the British and Roman Empires, but one that stands out here is the dogged determination to ultimately win and the ability to adapt. Even though the Brits were humiliated several times during those wars, they didn't quit and eventually won.In fact, the lessons they learned would prove very useful in future wars.

 
No, the decline started when it lost its industrial dominance towards the end of the 19th century. It got steeper following the massive cost (both in monetary and human terms) of World War One. And World War Two finished it off completely.

Hope that helps.


B.L. 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    No B.L.   3/31/2009 11:10:44 AM
Majuba Hill was the FIRST time, in modern Imperial history, that the British Empire did NOT advance, but in fact, suffered a disastrous defeat.  The British troops RAN, in a panic, down the hill, and at the hands of Boer farmers.  Farwell's point, and mine is more rhetorical, than real but it does kind of mark the ebb-tide of British Imperialism.
 
Quote    Reply

bob the brit       3/31/2009 11:13:00 AM
this is an interesting one GoG. i'd usually take the line that a variety of events [rather than one single event] contributed to the decline of the british empire [though this is more because i'm not thoroughly versed in the history of the empire than anything else]. i suppose i could fill in for herald here [though he might disagree] and say that the decline of the RN marked the decline of the empire. i'm sure we can all agree that the navy was pivotal in maintaining global influence and empire. so when the RN began to shrink, so too would the empire. however, i'm not well versed enough in naval history either, so i'm not entirely sure when the RN began to decline significantly [aside from usual fluctuations in size of fleet]. i'd hazard a guess at the washington naval treaty, but i'm most likely incorrect.
 
Quote    Reply

the British Lion       3/31/2009 11:31:47 AM

Majuba Hill was the FIRST time, in modern Imperial history, that the British Empire did NOT advance, but in fact, suffered a disastrous defeat.  The British troops RAN, in a panic, down the hill, and at the hands of Boer farmers.  Farwell's point, and mine is more rhetorical, than real but it does kind of mark the ebb-tide of British Imperialism.

Yes, a single army in a single battle was disastrously defeated and ran for it... but I fail to see how that event marks the decline of an entire global empire.
 
If you really think that, please go into further details. I'm open minded.
 
B.L. 
 
Quote    Reply

strat-T21C       3/31/2009 11:32:24 AM
At the end of WW1 at Paris 1919. This was the beginning of the end for almost all the 'old powers'. Pres W.Wilson's declarations of 'self-determination' for new nations started the ball rolling. The breaking of the colonies in the far-East in WW2 by the Japanese did the rest. This includes the Dutch holdings as well.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    B.L.   3/31/2009 12:02:25 PM
Well the British Army ran...from farmers, from the indigenes...that hadn't happened in a long, long time had it.  in fact, not only did they lose the battle, THEY LOST THE WAR.  The Boers actually gained what they wanted independence from British rule....for the first time the Brit's didn't advance the Imperial boundaries, irrespective of the wants of the locals...to be distinguished from the wants of the other European Imperialist powers.  The Locals, fought off the Imperials.  As i say, it's a rhetorical point, certainly Britain was not MATERIALLY diminished by this little skirmish on the veldt.  But I like Farwell's point, that this is the first sign of the ebbing of Empire.
 
Britain's REAL decline occurred when Britain ceased being the dominant World Economic power, sometime in the 1880's/90's.  Certainly by 1900 Britain did not produce as much steel, iron, or coal as Germany and certainly not America.  It meant that Britain would not be the richest nation on the planet or the most militarily dominant.  And that was the decline, the First World War only put the seal on that, actually bankrupting Britain, but the handwriting was on the wall 20-30 years prior to the Versailles Conference or the London Conference or the Washington Conference.
 
Quote    Reply

the British Lion       3/31/2009 2:40:51 PM
 
Well the British Army ran...from farmers, from the indigenes...that hadn't happened in a long, long time had it.  in fact, not only did they lose the battle, THEY LOST THE WAR.  The Boers actually gained what they wanted independence from British rule....for the first time the Brit's didn't advance the Imperial boundaries, irrespective of the wants of the locals...to be distinguished from the wants of the other European Imperialist powers.  The Locals, fought off the Imperials.  As i say, it's a rhetorical point, certainly Britain was not MATERIALLY diminished by this little skirmish on the veldt.  But I like Farwell's point, that this is the first sign of the ebbing of Empire.

 

Britain's REAL decline occurred when Britain ceased being the dominant World Economic power, sometime in the 1880's/90's.  Certainly by 1900 Britain did not produce as much steel, iron, or coal as Germany and certainly not America.  It meant that Britain would not be the richest nation on the planet or the most militarily dominant.  And that was the decline, the First World War only put the seal on that, actually bankrupting Britain, but the handwriting was on the wall 20-30 years prior to the Versailles Conference or the London Conference or the Washington Conference.


 
 
I still don't see any connection at all. Look at the Roman Empire and the Battle of Teutoburg Forest. 3 Roman legions wiped off the map in the year 9 by German barbarians. Complete humiliation, and the loss of a war... the Roman's never took Germania. Yet the might of the empire was completely undiminished and it only grew in power.

That defeat to the Boars could be compared to that. The reasons for the fall of the British Empire were totally unrelated to that battle and even that war. Had Britain?s industrial and economic might remained unchallenged than the Empire would have carried on just fine regardless of that battle.
Maybe at a stretch you could use hindsight and say it somehow, symbolically, represented the eventual end of the empire... but that's it. I very much doubt anyone said after that battle "gee, guess that means the British Empire's on the rocks..." I mean the Boars even lost in the end, so I really don't see it.
 
B.L. 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics