Which empire had the greatest cultural and social impact on its conquered lands?

Which empire had the greatest cultural and social impact on its conquered lands?


  • Total voters
    73

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,867
India
And the Second Anglo-Maratha War was from 1803-1805, I said that from 1805 Britain was expanding into inland India, so you agree with me on that. Industrial revolution is considered to have begun in the 1760s at earliest. I also claimed that Britain didn't own most, let alone all of India until the period from 1805-1820. You seem to agree as you say that in 1805 most of India was under British influence, so not in the 18th century.

Here's a map:


You can add Mysore after 1799, still not most of IndiaView attachment 18520

The language of Mysore is Kannada, with Tamil and English being spoken as well. I don't know what this has to do with the British Empire in the 19th century but still.



So you claim it is propaganda but you don't refute the claim? Means nothing to me. Tharoor just recited what was said earlier in the thread about India's economy dropping among other things and half his speech was composed of aggressive jokes mocking colonialism.
What is the international standard for taxes? Saying taxes were collected at gunpoint is again exaggerating. The American Revolution started for dozens of reasons and you can't just boil down to ''high taxes, so revolution''. This also doesn't compare to India in this case.


Yes, and? Since you complain that India was not industrialised because it was exploited why should the same not stand for the white dominions? Or could it be that your comment on the War in France in 1940 was just ridiculous, because you are either trolling by this point or just don't understand military history and military theory.




Irrelevant to our discussion. But again there is more than just ''they nationalised their oil fields, so it's good.'' You again demonstrate a lack of economic knowledge. USA, France, the UK etc. didn't conquer Libya in a boots-on-the-ground invasion and stayed. If they did and ran it like a legitimate colony, the region might be more stable. This ''New Imperialism'' is much different than old imperialism of the 19th century. Anyhow new imperialism is irrelevant to our discussion.



I and several others have answered for India. China was never colonised except for small outposts like Hong Kong so you can't compare it to India or others. They industrualised under Xiaoping. South Korea was a Japanese colony. Indonesia was under the Dutch, my knowledge on the Dutch Empire ends in 1830 so I can't comment for it.

In school I was thought a very brief history on the Napoleonic Wars, the Eastern Question and the history of Serbia between 1804 and 1914, this is what is thought in schools here on the 19th century. The British Empire is irrelevant to my country so why would we learn about it in schools?

I'm convinced that it's not worth arguing with you if you continue to talk nonsense like this.
Perhaps you are not aware with the concept of princely states, British had complete control over them although they were ruled by local kings. There were around 565 princely states at the eve of India's independence and most of them were British creations. After Tipu Sultan was defeated, Mysore's former ruler Woodeyars were reinstated and Mysore ended up as a part of British Empire as princely state.

Industrializing India was not in British interest, India was meant to be the source of cheap raw material for factories in Britain and the dumping ground for the factory goods of Britain. Even rail network was built for that purpose. Infact, the regions that were connected with railways were more vulnerable to famines than isolated areas.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,867
India
I asked about Mysore for a simple reason - if you lived/visited the place, or found out information online. Mysore is the old name of Karnataka state. It's language is Kannada, and Tulu along with Konkani. Tamil is spoken by Tamil immigrants who are mainly present in the city of Bangalore/Benglaru. Bangalore also has a good number of Malayali migrants from Kerala. When I was in Bangalore a couple of years ago, many of the auto rickshaw drivers also spoke Hindi. Mysore is also a city in Karnataka.

The whole paragraph above is to show the complexity of India, which can't be summarized in one or two sentences.

Now to the white dominions. I am not sure if the racial aspect of colonialism is clear to you. It was an Apartheid system. Non white colonies were treated completely different from white ones like Canada or Australia. In India, for instance, Indians were not allowed in European only neighbourhoods, schools, hotels, restaurants, streets, etc. There was no universal franchise for elections. Indian police officers could not arrest a British citizen. And here is a timeline of the famines under British Rule, where 55 million Indians died:-
Timeline of major famines in India during British rule - Wikipedia

As for Libya, I hope you are aware that Italy did colonize Libya for decades, and handed over to the British after World War 2. In 1969, when Gaddafi took over, it was one of the poorest countries in the world. Under Gaddafi it became a lot richer. So Gaddafi was far better for the Libyan economy than Italian Rule.

Now to South Korea. It was a colony, and as poor as Ghana in 1961. The interesting aspect of South Korea, Taiwan and China is that they had Japanese colonialism, and have far better economies today than countries that were ruled by the UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands or Portugal (in Asia or Africa).

Finally to China. Do you really think that the Opium War - at the end of which China was forced to buy opium, was the decision of an independent country? If you think drug cartels today are bad, what is your opinion of the British Navy - which forced China to buy drugs? The Boxer Rebellion was put down by foreign (mainly European) armies, whose presence was a lot more than the coast. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:-

"The Boxer Rebellion (拳亂), Boxer Uprising, or Yihetuan Movement (義和團運動) was an anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, and anti-Christianuprising that took place in China between 1899 and 1901, toward the end of the Qing dynasty. They were motivated by proto-nationalistsentiments and by opposition to Western colonialism and the Christian missionary activity that was associated with it."

Boxer Rebellion - Wikipedia
Mysore state was just a portion of modern day Karnataka, other Kannada speaking region were in Bombay province and princely state of Hyderabad. Now a days terminology like Old Mysore, Bombay Karnataka and Hyderabad Karnataka are used for these regions within Karnataka. Bangalore-Mysore are the key centres of Kannada culture, the Bangalore-Mysore variant of Kannada as a standard of Kannada language.
 
Feb 2019
863
Serbia
Perhaps you are not aware with the concept of princely states, British had complete control over them although they were ruled by local kings. There were around 565 princely states at the eve of India's independence and most of them were British creations. After Tipu Sultan was defeated, Mysore's former ruler Woodeyars were reinstated and Mysore ended up as a part of British Empire as princely state.
I know. The map is supposed to show India before 1799. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Marathas and most northern territories were not princely states or British protectorates until 1805.


ndustrializing India was not in British interest, India was meant to be the source of cheap raw material for factories in Britain and the dumping group for the factory goods of Britain. Even rail network was built for that purpose. Infact, the regions that were connected with railways were more vulnerable to famines than isolated areas.
I think it goes without saying that colonisation is done for the benefit of the colonising country. As such the colonising country will take the resources of the colonies for its own benefit. However what I and others were doing here is debating the claim that India was looted dry of resources and that it didn't grow or industrialise under the British. I don't think anyone claimed that Britain did what they did with the goal of purely helping India.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,867
India
I know. The map is supposed to show India before 1799. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Marathas and most northern territories were not princely states or British protectorates until 1805.
Marathas Empire was actually completely destroyed by British and Peshwas were receiving pension from the company, however many regional warlords of Marathas ended up as the princely state of British. In second Anglo-Maratha war, Marathas had to cede large chunk of their Empire to British.



I think it goes without saying that colonisation is done for the benefit of the colonising country. As such the colonising country will take the resources of the colonies for its own benefit. However what I and others were doing here is debating the claim that India was looted dry of resources and that it didn't grow or industrialise under the British. I don't think anyone claimed that Britain did what they did with the goal of purely helping India.
That's not true. British taxation was pretty harsh on Indians, debt trap was quite common among farmers, even monsoon fails there was no tax waiver to farmers. Millions of Indians were starved to death by Europe's hero Winston Churchill during World War 2 to fight Britain's war. To claim colonialism was good for Indians, Britain would have to treat Indians at par with Native Brits in resource allocation and taxation but that was not the case.
 
Oct 2015
1,138
India
I voted for the British Empire due to the spread of the English language worldwide as well as the spread of Anglo-American ideas of democracy and human rights to large parts of the world.

I will admit that I don't know anywhere near as much about the cultural and social impact of the first two empires in your poll here on their subject populations, though.
My views are exactly the same as @Futurist .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Mar 2018
792
UK
Does the whole world speak Latin? No, but English is the wrld’s second language. Wonder why that is...
Because the British Empire faded 80 years ago, but the Roman one faded 1600 years ago? So it's had 20 times longer for it's influence to disappear?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulius

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,644
San Antonio, Tx
There is nothing ignorant or narrow-minded about that statement. Colonial expansions had one and one goal only; exploitation and nothing else. In contrast, empires like Roman Empire, Macedonian Empire, Ottoman Empire, even Mongol Empire had a different agenda; incorporating and ruling the places they conquered expanding the idea of country. In fact, post 17th century, possibly barring Spain/Portugal, Europeans had nothing to offer for locals other than genocide or exploitation. I think there is also cultural interaction between Dutch and Japan, but that's not expansionist in nature, they were basically trading. This is precisely why no one was able to enlist cultural impact of Brits barring the language in five pages. All Brits, or other Colonials for that matter, brought was misery and pain to the locals. Another hilarious point here is that people think it is British that made English lingua franca. No, not at all. Post WWI, Lingua Franca was French. Only with rise of USA in world stage English became prominent.
Of course colonialism was about investment and economic exploitation. Has anyone said otherwise? Some Colonial exploitation - as for example the British in India and the Dutch in the Indies - began as private ventures which eventually were taken over by their respective governments. It didn’t start out as a colonial effort run by a national government, but rather as a private venture until the company initiating the contact went broke or outgrew its capacity to govern.

It’s difficult to generalize about colonialism because there were so many flavors of it. One responder in here apparently believes that colonialism was uniformly awful and terrible, and there some very bad colonial experiences that would make Madame La Farge blush. But it was not always a one way street and rather a great deal of technology transfer did take place where the European power quite naturally shared information and transferred technology to the host colony. The colonial host country sometimes educated natives either in-colony or in the home country. Ironically, colonial natives sometimes discovered that the history and values of colonial powers were completely at odds with the internal governance of the colony.

The rather obvious disconnect between the colonial power’s proudly held belief and the daily reality on the ground was often stark and quite confusing. So when independence movements demanded recognition and the same treatment for natives as for their colonial masters, the differences couldn’t be explained by either the masters or the colonized because the colonizers knew it was on very shaky ground.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,644
San Antonio, Tx
This i
Which you interpreted as indicating that the British took 90% of India's wealth, as though this were a zero sum gain in which a fixed amount of wealth is redistributed. What happened over that period was the development modern industrial economies which cast the traditional type of economy represented in India into the shade, in which wealth was based on the hand-production on relatively small amounts of luxury goods. India's share of the world economy would have fallen exponentially whether or not it had fallen under British control, just as happened with China, and both India and China have grown their economies as a result of westernization, not by developing the traditional modes of production that they relied upon before the industrial revolution.
This s good.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,644
San Antonio, Tx
Why did Asian country become the place to industrialize in the mid 20th century? Was it due to the nuclear fallout from Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or was it post colonialism?
What does this mean? There was virtually NO FALLOUT from the two bombs used in Japan.