The United Kingdom is the great defender of the balance of power on the European continent. Why, did it not defend the the same principle at sea?

[Julie4]

Why, in the days of its omnipotence, did it not defend the same principle at sea?

The need for security was far from justifying the omnipotence that the United Kingdom had acquired at sea, and the lack of balance that reigned on the seas.

Of course I don't speak for now

[Drewtate]

Because it had superiority at sea and its empire depended on control of the sea.

Britain was the defender of the balance of power on the European continent simply because it had a small army but couldn't allow nations like Spain & the holy roman empire to be unified, or the huge global empires of spain and Portugal to be unified.

Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it’s worked so well?

Hacker: That’s all ancient history, surely?

Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn’t work. Now that we’re inside we can make a complete pig’s breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch… The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it’s just like old times.

[RavVid]

Hypocrisy? It could not hope to dominate Europe by armies and so had to play the balance of power. After Hollands sea power collapsed it could dominate the seas.

One of the startling things is how few people there were in Britain. In the 1700's there were 6 million though it started to rise rapidly after 1750 to 9 million. The American colonies had 2 million. France had 20 million in 1700 and 29 million in 1800.

Now it is 67 million (UK), 56 million (England only), 59 million (England & Wales) and 68 million France. Two very comparably sized countries now but not so in 1700's.

It would impossible to go head to head with France with 1/3 it's population. And I think this also sheds some light on the American Revolution. Britain was 4.5 times bigger but it had to ship troops over. As France & Spain had declared war, shipping enough redcoats over was possibly problematic.

[Julie4]

Just for the anecdotes, under Louis XIV around 1690 France was the world's leading navy, and the English and Dutch had to join forces on the sea to defeat France.

[RavVid]

Yes. It was an interesting struggle. Everything could have gone differently.

[purplepoppy]

As the old song goes, "rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves" it's about their own power and not defending the balance."

Nowadays we can't even build a boat that can leave port without breaking down.

[RebelinSteel]

It was about ensuring no single European power could gain superiority on land over the others. The naval principle was to be larger than the next two largest navies. Covering global trade requires a number of ships. It was mainly the numbers of 2nd rates that counted. The move to Dreadnought was a bit of an own goal as it levelled the playing field. For most of modern history it was controlling France and Spain, the other European countries never really mattered.

[strateguy632]

a, false, not balance! it was against Germany regardless.

2 sea wanted its own power. not balanced

[Anonymous]

Homework, eh?

[Julie4]

No lol