This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
Nimbus · M
@Thinkerbell Interesting.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@Thinkerbell The Spanish were faltering long before the British Empire was a reality.
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@ninalanyon
They were doing pretty well until the 1820s.
That's when they lost most of their South and Central American colonies.
And who knows? If the British hadn't already been there, maybe the Spaniards would have moved up the North American east coast from Florida in the 1600s.
They were doing pretty well until the 1820s.
That's when they lost most of their South and Central American colonies.
And who knows? If the British hadn't already been there, maybe the Spaniards would have moved up the North American east coast from Florida in the 1600s.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@Thinkerbell The problem for the Spanish is that never understood that trade was the thing that makes an empire last, and that trade has to be both ways. The Spanish empire was almost entirely extractive whereas the British was based first on trade. I'm not defending the British empire of course, there were plenty of things it did wrong but it was mercantile and to a large extent (not entirely of course) based on bilateral transfers of goods rather than on simple plunder. For all its faults this made it last longer.
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@ninalanyon
What you say about plunder and trade (albeit unequal) is roughly true, but both empires lasted about 400 years.
Spanish: 1500-1900
British: 1600-2000
What you say about plunder and trade (albeit unequal) is roughly true, but both empires lasted about 400 years.
Spanish: 1500-1900
British: 1600-2000