The Rorke's Drift VC
Discussion Forum
(View Discussion Rules)
** IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL USERS ** PLEASE NOTE: This forum is now inactive and is provided for reference purposes only. The live forum is available at www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum
(Back To Topic List)
Date | Original Topic | 6th February 2002 | Victoria By Billy Why did victoria attack all small empires and want so much power? | Date | Replies | 6th February 2002 | Gary Laliberty Billy,
I think you are refering to Queen Victoria.
Gary | 6th February 2002 | James Garland Why not. It's no good judging past ages based on our modern concepts of fair play. The British Empire conquered the Zulus who had previously conquered other weaker tribes. In those days it wasn't generally thought of as wrong though there were a few dissenting voices. Many Victorians believed they were benefitting and civilising savage peoples. It's only now that we have seen where all this can eventually lead (Nazi death camps) that we seem to have come to our sences. | 8th February 2002 | Bill Power The Empire needed a Coaling[fueling]station on the route to India!! This being before the Suez Canal. Likewise,the Falklands were critical for the sea route 'round the Horn-a mob of mutton being neither here nor there-more than sufficient in NZ!! The critical issue in any trading is open lines of traffic-these must be insured! A blockade can strangle a country, see the German Unterzeeboots in both WW's,the Brits cut off the Chilean Nitrate Trade during WW1[there were,literally, mountains of Guaono-a polite way of saying the metabolic byproduct of seabirds-to stop the production of explosives[even today ,explosives depend on the unique character of the Nitrogen bonding],thus,forcing Chemists to discover the catalytic fixing of N2,giving us fertiliser-or the fact,during the Napoeonic war,most of the British Fleet was on blockade or interception of French commerce. On;y later did Cecil Rhodes[ and Barney too] appear! Gave us DeBoers & the Boer War-thanks to Jamieson! The point is,History is not simple! The more you look,the more complex!
| 11th February 2002 | Julian Whybra Hmm. The British Foreign Office re coaling stations around the world (to protect trade)was informal rule where possible, formal rule where necessary. Informal meant treaty agreements, protected status, etc., formal was often limited to the area in the immediate vicinity of the coaling station - even then local rule and customs were not generally interfered with (though they sometimes were). It was only The Scramble for Africa begun by Germany, Belgium, France that led to expansion and delimitation of borders - a foreign threat to the coaling stations and to trade, see? All this (the Robinson and Gallagher Theory) is much better explained by them in their book 'Africa and the Victorians'. Interesting though, I'm not aware of a single occasion when the British Govt broke a treaty made with any native power; whereas I don't think the Americans ever kept one with the Red Indians. |
|