How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? - Foreign Affairs - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Foreign Affairs / How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? (12100 Views)
How Did Ancient Black Egyptians Become White Or Lightskinned. / From King Lobengula To Zimbabwe: How The British Tried To Steal The Land. / Biafran Son/Daughter Won In The British Election & Become Parliamentary MPs! (2) (3) (4)
| How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by sonyvaio(f): 9:03pm On Jul 23, 2011 |
The British army is due to be reduced to 82,000 by 2020, prompting claims it will be the smallest it has been since the 19th Century. But if Britain had a small army then, how did it control an empire? Considering the British Empire at its peak included a quarter of the world's population, But the British Empire managed to maintain hegemony over dozens of colonies with a relatively tiny number of men. Defence Secretary Liam Fox announced this week he planned to cut regular army numbers to 82,000 - 120,000 in total including the Territorial Army (TA) - by 2020. It was widely reported this was the smallest it had been since the Boer war. So has the army ever been smaller than it will be in 2020? Scene from Cecil Rhodes BBC documentary The British Empire's expansion into Africa was driven by traders like Cecil Rhodes "The first regular army - the New Model Army [of England] - was created by Oliver Cromwell and it grew in size from 44,000 to 68,000," says Rylance. The army kept growing throughout the 18th Century (as the British army after the acts of union of 1707) and after the Napoleonic Wars it fell to 92,000 in 1817, before growing again as the British Empire expanded. But Michael Codner, head of military science at the Royal United Services Institute, says Britain has never had a large army. "What we needed was the Royal Navy and a system of indigenous constabularies overseen by a small but professional British army," he says. Military historian, Dr Huw Davies, from King's College London, points out India was garrisoned by hundreds of thousands of locally-recruited sepoys, supervised by fewer than 30,000 British troops. "The empire had to pay for itself and had to be profitable and if you put too much into building up the army the empire is no longer a profitable enterprise," he says. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14218909 |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by owo2390(m): 9:12pm On Jul 23, 2011 |
They had the most advanced navy at the time. And they had ambition. 1 Like |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by sonyvaio(f): 9:51pm On Jul 23, 2011 |
I think the most important point is they were very professional, couple that with discipline and you have a small group of officers overseeing a conquered colony effectively. , and don't forget the infamous[b] divide and rule[/b] tactic  1 Like |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by duduspace(m): 4:33am On Jul 24, 2011 |
One major word, Organisation and clearly defined lines of communication. They also had superior weaponry. |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by ElRazur: 10:06am On Jul 24, 2011 |
As already mentioned, they had/still have a good navy. Also back then it was the norm in the British society to promote "exploration", thereby spreading the British influence. Men who conquered and discovered new places were highly respected etc. Also to add an angle to this debate, future war won't be about numbers how how large an army is, rather it will be about how efficient the actual army is and the type of weapon at their disposal. Israel has demonstrated this in the past, where they defeated Syria, Egypt and a few nations in the "seven days war". China is recognizing this too and hence why they escalated the modernizing of their army. USA is far ahead in this aspect too with the biggest defend budget than any other nation in the world. In fact, most western nation with small army tend to have speciality of somekind that works very well in their favour. 1 Like |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by sonyvaio(f): 10:53am On Jul 24, 2011 |
ElRazur: The British army is now a shadow of itself, reducing it to 82,000 won;t do any good. Former US sec of defence, Robert Gates criticized NATO allies for their inability to maintain a campaign of about 5 months in their backyard (Libya), some are running short of ammunition already and are calling for US help. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/gates-rebukes-european-allies-in-farewell-speech/2011/06/10/AG9tKeOH_story.html |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by ElRazur: 12:25pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
sonyvaio: Your post is saying different things in my opinion. Modern warfare is not always about numbers, rather how well trained, well equuipped and how efficent an army is. China's army is the most in the world terms of sheer numbers, however tthey are poorly equipped and not as efficient when compared to say that of US or perhpas Japan and Canada. Remember the movie 300? It was based roughly on war events that happened in Persia (now called Iran). About 300 men fought according to history to keep over 5 thousand men at bay for 3 good days or so due to how efficient they were back then. Also, Israel army is small when compared to that of Egypt, yet due to the efficiency of IDF (Israeli defence force), they handed the Egyptian and Syrian Army a beating that is forever written in history during the seven days war. My point? Well, it is not always about numbers and future wars will rely more on efficiency rather than large number of men on the ground. As per your quote on what Robert gates is saying, you seem to forget that NATO is not only UK but a combination of other EU nations too. As such, there will be political debate/differences as to committing troops to a potential war that it isn't strongly supported by the UN and to a lesser extent, the arab world. Also take into consideration the current economical climate, and you'll realise that no nation is keen on a long-running war. |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by sonyvaio(f): 1:52pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
I'm not saying different things I am just comparing the powerful and efficient British army of the past to the present one. Modern warfare is really expensive and with the current Defence budget cuts, it can only get weak |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by ElRazur: 2:26pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
sonyvaio: Military technology of Western nations are usually so advanced that a few years budget cut won't be enough to make a massive dent in the general advancement of military technology IMO. UK PM already stated that while a few projects - war ship and possible nuclear war heads - may be scrapped, UK will spend money in areas that are needed. I think he cited counter-insurgency etc. That is, hitting the enemy before the threat even materialise (Similar to what Mossad of IDF are good at perhaps?) I think one can make the argument that while there will be defence cut, there will also be improvement in areas that UK military see fit, in order to remain efficient. |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by Katsumoto: 3:08pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
The British just copied the Roman model 1. Divide and conquer - explore divisions between groups in lands they seek to conquer. 2. Enlist the conquered in the Brtish Army under British officers 3. Conquer other lands using conquered soldiers. For instance, when the British conquered Nigeria, the bulk of their force were Africans. 1 Like |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by sonyvaio(f): 3:55pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
^^ and they (Britain) only lost the American war of independence because of French and Spanish interference. The world is really boring these days, warfare is changing.  What we have now is low intensity wars between nations and organisations e.g Israel vs Hezbollah, Hamas; US and allies vs Al-qaeda, Taliban nations vs ideology; war on terror |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by Katsumoto: 5:00pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
sonyvaio: Partially true but crucially, the Americans had also been trained by the British and used by the British in fighting the French and Spanish Armies in several campaigns in the new world. When the war started, the continental Army was using Indian battle tactics which inflicted heavy damage on the British but didn't result in victory in battle. The war changed when the Continental Army started using European war tactics (linear battle formation) which required that the troops maintain formation regardless of hits from canons and muskets. Any side which broke formation was going to lose the battle. So in essence, it was a war between Europeans and it was European military strategy that won the war. I agree with you that warfare is not the same anymore. The last great war was the second world war. The Americans have a new fighter-jet called the F-35. It has been suggested that this will be the last manned fighter-jet. Future fighters will be un-manned; meaning that wars of the future will be won by the most technological advanced countries. The influence of strategy and numbers in war is reducing day by day. |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by ElRazur: 5:15pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
Speaking of unmanned aerial craft, the US, Israel, UK, Germany and perhaps France are way ahead of any nation on earth. Those who regularly give comments on world conflicts already stated from almost 5 or 6 decade ago that warfare of tomorrow will be via robots. I think this is already happening anyway. The first gulf war saw Iraqi army surrendered to a UAV during a battle. Exoskeleton are being built and tested already. These allow a soldier to have the power and capabilities of say a small army in terms of raw strength or firing power. Robotic dogs/beast that can ferry wounded soldiers are prototype ready as of last year or so. Israel already developed a gun that can see what's round the corner. This means a soldier can take out enemies with shots without exposing himself to incoming fire etc. |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by sonyvaio(f): 6:02pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
Katsumoto:TRUE , but the war was heading to a stalemate before the entry of France. France dragged Spain into the war because of a ‘Family Compact' which called for each monarch to provide military and naval forces to the other, should either of their respective nations be attacked. The monarchs were related. The French extended considerable financial support to the American forces.Washington's ragtag poorly fed, poorly dressed troops[i](on the verge of mutiny, many were deserting[/i]) and were paid with french money. France also supplied vital military arms and supplies, and loaned money to pay for their purchase. Spain and France sought to reduce England's substantial power, the two countries had different priorities as to particular geographical objectives. The Royal Navy suffered its most significant defeat in nearly 200 years at the hands of a French Admiral. The battle which led to British surrender was as a result of a French General's strategy and tactics, he lent money to Washington's army and French naval and army personnel outnumbered Americans by 4 to 1 in that battle , at the end of the war, France was near banktrupcy as a result of the financial burden. |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by sonyvaio(f): 6:29pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
ElRazur:Why is china omitted? I don't know if they have unmanned aerial crafts but China has the second largest defence budget in the world behind the US. And at a time when other countries are reducing defence spending ($400billion for the US by 2023) China is increasing its and this has been a source of worry for United States. The US is already considering reducing its order of F-35s joint strike fighter: the most expensive military-industrial programme in history. The average price of each F-35 is $133m today and the cost of maintaining the total fleet, $1trillion over the planes lifetime A Chinese defense expert named Dingli Shen in Shanghai was talking about the irrelevance of traditional land and sea power in the dawning age of combat - when weapons will include cyberattacks, space weapons, lasers, pulses and other directed-energy beams. With a laser weapon fired from space, "any ship will be burned." China's future isn't in competing to build aircraft-carrier battle groups, argues Shen, but in advanced weapons "to make other command systems fail to work." The nature of warfare is nearing another "hinge point" attributable to the advance of technology. He says that he's grateful that the United States is willing to spend so many billions of dollars to protect the sea lanes on which China depends for its global commerce. But instead of competing to build ships and tanks, he says, China will focus on the weapons that can cripple them. Guess what, In 2010, China matched the United States in the number of rocket launches into space (15), the first time any nation has equaled the United States Modern warfare is not for cash strapped countries |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by ElRazur: 7:01pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
sonyvaio: China do indeed spend big. However, I personally do not consider them a threat. They readily admit they are at least 25-30 years behind america when it comes to military technology. Also their idea of advancement is to copy and copy and never anything original. Remember the jet fighter that was built by China and showed off recently? It was believed to be built based around tech that were stolen - sold by a rouge Israeli agent who had business interest - and the rest based on salvaged American jet fighter that crashed off their coast or something. That technology is years old (still advanced though) but china ripped it and used it for their new stealth plane. Remember the Osama bin laden raid and the helicopter crash? Well, that helicopter according to Aviation enthusiast and experts is said to be a stealth Helo. Expect to see a Chinese version soon as there are concern in the CIA that Pakistan may have allowed Chinese spies to have a look when the site was secured/cleared. Anyway, my point is this - China is still modernizing and it will take a while to get there. They may make plenty stuff from their country, but when put to test against a western equivalent, they do not perform as expected (That do not mean they aren't deadly though. I just do not personally rate their tech) Nations like US, UK et al are already modernised and keep moving forward. That is the difference in my opinion. |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by owo2390(m): 7:07pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
Good points. And China's population poses another problem. In the future, it would be fiscally irresponsible to spend a lot of money on defense when most of their citizens are suffering from poverty. |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by Katsumoto: 7:13pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
Another thing about China - economic prosperity. When Japan had issues with China during the Chinese fishermen incident last year, China just refused to sell Rare Earth materials to Japan knowing fully well that Japanese corporations cannot survive without Rare Earth materials. Rare Earth materials are used in technological products and China controls 80% of the market even though it only has 30% of reserves. At the end, Japan had to bow to the wishes of the Chinese. China owns a significant amount of US debt; it is in position to crash the US market by just dumping its stock. Although, it would be costly to do so, but it leaves America very vulnerable as China still doesn't have the capability to send missiles to the US. |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by ElRazur: 7:17pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
^^ Actually new rare earth deposit were found on the sea bed off a western country (or one that is an ally). Also the relationship between US - China - and western world is so interwoven that China may harm herself more if she plays hardball. Oh here is the link. RM found off hawaii by japanese experts http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/04/japan-ipads-rare-earth |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by owo2390(m): 7:22pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
If the US economy fails, China's economy would also fail. The US is China's biggest consumer. |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by Katsumoto: 7:34pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
ElRazur: A third of Rare Earth materials are in the US but those mines were closed because it was no longer viable to mine it there. Hence why China controls that market. America will be able to resume mining when it reduces labour costs. owo2390: China would be affected but it wouldn't fail. China trades heavily with the E.U, South America and Africa. It has diversified its interests significantly. Besides, China does not need the America economy to collapse, it only requires leverage for negotiations. During the cold war, both the US and the USSR could decimate each other but there is no gain in self destruction. |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by ElRazur: 7:55pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
Katsumoto, I'm just saying China's 'monopoly ' may come to an end soon. |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by sonyvaio(f): 8:01pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
ElRazur: Very correct, you are talking about the F-117 shot down in Serbia in 1999 which china used for their J-20 ElRazur: Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Wednesday stated that he is “genuinely concerned” about China’s expanded military programs. Admiral Mullen said in a speech in Washington that he was worried by China’s “heavy investments” in sea and air capabilities and its rejection of military contacts with the US. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/0610/US-concerned-about-China-s-military-investments The Chinese defense budget in 2010 was close to $80 billion USD, which is dwarfed by the U.S. government's $530 billion investment yet guys like Mike Mullen can make such remarks, I think you should consider China a threat
|
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by Katsumoto: 8:24pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
ElRazur: Ok but until the US finds a way to reduce its labour costs, it won't be able to mine new Rare Earth finds even if they are significantly more than Chinese reserves. The US currently has significant reserves but isn't mining them because it isn't viable. |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by Nobody: 8:55pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
ElRazur: Bro no misinform others, it is 6days war |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by Nobody: 8:59pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
sonyvaio: China may be growing, but US still remains the strongest for decades to come, beside, why did u upload that retired plane? |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by sonyvaio(f): 9:41pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
odiaero: just confirming what ElRazur said and it really looks stealthy 
|
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by owobokiri(m): 9:43pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
At the risk of derailing this thread further, let me remind those of us who buy into that line always thrown out by smart chinese officials about how china is still decades behind the west militarly of some important milestones in Chinese military improvements in recent times. It is important to remember that China has just produced a missile capable of destroying an aircraft carrier. (The Soviets failed at this). You can not project power in this age without an aircraft carrier so if yours can easily be blown out of water, your influence is being challenged. China will launch her own aircraft carrier any moment and her fifth generation stealth bombers are almost ready. Most importantly, China tested a missile that actually shot down an orbiting settlite. For those well versed in defence matters, the last example is one huge achievement. Why? Somebody just said that the F35 maybe the last manned fighter to be biuld. If you are going to be fighting with robots and unmanned fighters, you need hundreds of sattelites for the GPS guarding systems and to guide the missles. Before the French and other NATO members could fly in to bomb Tripoli, they first asked the Americans to fly in some guided cruise missles to destroy the Libyan air defence systems. Imagine a situation where the sattelites responsible for all these are knocked off the night before the fight! Again when analyzing American and Chinese military budgets, remember that the Chinese source most of their hardwares locally and that means 'cheaply', that also means maybe ten times lower than America. Admiral Mullen knows that the Chinese are very close and are almost ready to go. |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by sonyvaio(f): 9:54pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
owobokiri: ANSWER, The United States said May 11 it wanted to set guidelines with China on the use of space, voicing worries that the Asian power is increasingly able to destroy or jam satellites. China stunned the United States in 2007 by becoming the third country to shoot down one of its own satellites in space, the first such test in the more than two decades since Washington and Moscow halted their "Star Wars" programs. Gregory Schulte, a senior U.S. official in charge of space defense, described China's investment in the field as "eyeballing" and said he has asked his Beijing counterparts in past talks to set "rules of the road" moving forward. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6478947&c=ASI&s=TOP |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by itsme2(m): 10:31pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
*rollz eYEz* preety deep insights |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by Sunofgod(m): 10:43pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? The were the first to militarize 'GUN POWDER'. It was all about superior weaponry. |
| Re: How Did The British Run An Empire With Such A Small Army? by ElRazur: 10:51pm On Jul 24, 2011 |
Owobokri, I'm using my tablet so I gonna keep it short. Missiles with powerful warhead can sink most carrier. However, you need to beat the onboard counter-missile defence System. Also most carrier are built to withstand direct hit - HMS invincible of the UK navy took a direct missile hit during the Falklands war with Argentina. The US also admitted that china may not be telling the truth as per their military budget, but fact remains that USA is ahead. PS IDF have shield system that shoot missile down. Basically it is a gun that fires multiple bullet at an incoming missile while tracking it. USA have an advanced version of this too. Oh recently US army shot down an hyper-rocket using laser (one of the most difficult weapon to make). Video on YouTube or popsci. |
New US Ambassador, Nicholas Burns Arrives In Beijing Amid Tense Relations / "Elderly Man With Poor Memory": Biden Escapes Trial for keeping Classified Docs / US-China: Biden Calls Chinese President Xi Dictator Day After Beijing Talks
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 81 |