In your opinion, what made the United Kingdom win the fight against France for world domination?

[Julie4]

[nightdrot]

The question is a bit of an oversimplification. Pick any given moment in time, and one or the other of the two powers was the dominant global power. Such is the nature of human affairs.

However, to the extent that the premise of the question is true, much of it can be explained in simple terms of geography. As a continental power, there was never a moment, even at the height of its' power, when France could project its' economic and military power that it did not face a potential threat somewhere.

By contrast, as an island nation, Britain was free to project its' power without facing a proximate geographical threat from somewhere else. Any nation on the continent that threatened Britain - be it Germany, France, Italy, Russia, could not threaten British power without facing a threat from another proximate threat on the continent.

Thus when Germany occupied France, it faced at the same time threats from the USSR. When Napoleonic France was at war with Britain, it sat on a continent with another rival. Thus, in effect, France always fought facing in one direction but with potential threats from two or three others.

Britain, by contrast, could only ever be threatened from one direction. Any rival power would have to project its power across the seas - and usually with other rival powers facing it on the continent.

Being on the continent - a simple fact of geography - meant that France was always fighting with one hand tied behind its' back. Whereas, surrounded by the sea and protected by a large navy, Britain was free to project its' power unhindered.

Then throw in other domestic factors. In economics, the industrial revolution came to the UK first. Thus giving the UK an economic and technological advantage over any rival power on the continent - France included.

There were also cultural factors at play. France, as someone once said, had a reputation for ungovernability. The French revolution being the most glaring example, but even outside of that, France has had five republics and at least two monarchies in the time when the UK's political culture - not without its' moments of turmoil to be sure - was relatively stable.

This, by the way, probably influenced by geography to some extent. After all, France sat in physical proximity to a continent filled with rival with a boiling cauldron of other cultural and ideological influences. Britain, by contrast, could use the sea to block the infiltration of people with other ideologies and produced a relatively - please note RELATIVELY - homogeneous cultural and ideological identity. (Even then, not perfectly so - see also Ireland.)

Bottom line, Britain as an island nation with a relatively homogeneous cultural and ideological identity, was able to safely project its power to an extent that even at its' height, France was not completely free to do. This again being a gross generalization of an infinitely more nuanced reality across time.

[strateguy632]

all fancy theories as if we haven’t had BOATS since noah.

[Julie4]

Could you tell me why exactly my question is a 'simplification'?

In any case, your explanations seem correct to me. However, I would say that the English ultimately proved to be more intelligent than the French because they managed to create financial institutions that allowed them to finance maritime power. Moreover, the English successfully formed continental alliances, whereas France only managed to worry its neighbors. It appears that you may not give enough credit to English ingenuity in this story, even though your arguments are entirely true.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the renowned French historian François Crouzet, who wrote a book titled 'The Superiority of England over France.' At the end of his book, he states:

'The history of England is a success story, even in its decline—a tale of a people who played their cards to the best of their ability. In contrast, France's history is, in a sense, a sinister farce—a tragicomic rhapsody of missed opportunities, wasted chances, adventures, and disaster.'"

[nightdrot]

Well, I say it is an oversimplification because at any given moment in history a specific set of factors and circumstances will come into play. The ones I mentioned being important, but not always predominant.

For example, the geographic and other factors that I mentioned were very important in the lead up to World War II. However, for France, the trauma - unprecedented to that time - of the First World War had left cultural scars that influenced French conduct to France's disadvantage.

The author you cited makes valid points, but again, at any given moment, the cultural influences may or may not play their part. Thus under Napoleon, for example, France was not lacking in intellectual prowess or material power.

However, even with all the advantages it had, geography and its geographical position on the continent, both as against Britain and against Russia, inhibited France's ability to secure its' strategic advantages over the long haul. Thus, in effect, the UK was able to wait out France, as it were.

Anyhow, that is what I was driving at. Your question - as always - was a good one. I just think it postulated, in effect, an either/or where, in fact, many other variables - geographic, economic, etc. - were at play in any given period.

[nightdrot]

@strateguy632 Not sure of your point. "Boats" are the tool - the means to the end. Like any tool, they only work when properly employed. In any case, as you will see from my exchange with @Julie4, my point to her was that there were other factors at play.

[Julie4]

Oh, now I get it. Thank you for your detailed explanation.

I hope you and your family are well, take care.

[nightdrot]

Thanks - and the best to you and yours' too!!

[Julie4]

If I may just add that for me the apogee of France was under Louis XIV because France was able to be the leader on land and sea.

Unfortunately, under Napoleon, despite all the resources France had at its disposal, it was never able to match England's maritime power. Part of this can be explained by the fact that during the French Revolution, many naval officers etc. loyal to the monarchy left, and it took many years to train sailors.

[nightdrot]

I don't disagree - they didn't call Louis XIV the "Sun King" for nothing. I merely used the Napoleon example as it would be the one that pops to mind with most people.

Here again, though, you m=emphasize my point. At any given point, there is a variety of specifics at work. The ones I noted being fairly consistent is not always of equal weight.

[NamerOfStars]

The Magna Carta. More generally, the trend toward the distribution and decentralization of power, and the knock-on social effects. When it came time to actually settle the colonies in the New World, England encouraged its minority groups and dissidents to go; France allowed only the loyal Catholics, who tended to be richer and socially better off, with less willingness to leave their comfortable homes in France.

In other places- as I recall, the French reached Australia less than a month after the English did, and distances THAT large from the homeland meant that even England's rightfully famed navy might've been hard-pressed to win a fight, but the French leaders basically decided the land wasn't worth fighting over.

Later on, France backed the nascent United States against England in the American Revolution, but that was more about revenge than any practical goal; England was humiliated, yes, but that didn't bring a single franc of profit back home. Interestingly, the economic theories of the time were all about building colonies to profit from them, and by the dawn of the twentieth century, France was turning a surprising profit from NOT having to support far-flung colonies; what threw them back into the effort was the rise of ironclad ships, and the consequent need for frequent coal resupplies, as well as engine repairs.

[RavVid]

Interesting question and it depends on the time period we are talking of as well

Prior to the 1800's for much of the time England had a population of 6 million and France about 20 million so France should have been superior by dint of greater population.

During the Napoleonic wars France had difficulty sourcing masting timber but that should have resolved by peace.

I'm inclined to pick on commerce and financial systems including insurance. Insurance meant risky voyages would not ruin the merchant. England picked up where the Dutch left off and William of Orange brought Dutch practices to England. Loans to government became a prized asset instead of a very dodgy debt. The so called Consol loans where only all paid off only about 10 years ago. Private debt was also freer. Land became an asset that could be borrowed on.

In the napoleonics England issued Consols they didn't have to pay off till a time of the gov'ts chosing whilst Napoleon forced banks to print off several hundred mill of Livres for free. Good money chases bad money out.

Issac Newton was instrumental in putting UK on the gold standard by the way.

So I think it probably revovles around the financial systems and once there was some momentum it was probably hard to stop. Can't prove anything. I don't know when France became modern in financial systems so I can possibly be destroyed with a single observation.

[DJB72]

The stability in England. France was still having revolution and dissident battles in the early 19th Century where Britain had been more or less stable since the mid 17th Century by then. That foundation meant the British Empire could grow relatively easily.

Some dumb decisions by French commanders helped. Cook landed in Botany Bay less than a week before the French got there. The French ships could easily have taken out the British at that point, but the commander for some reason turned round thinking the land was worthless. Can you imagine the Aussies speaking French? 🤣🤣🤣

"Bonjour mate", "jette une autre crevette sur la Barbie" 🤣🤣🤣

[strateguy632]

because napolean error. france expansion was on land, spreading almost to moscow n acre (israel) where he lost those 2 battles. never tried anywhere else.

brits spread AROUND WORLD pacific australia east indies india china caribean africa.

admittely france had a bit in pacific n in north america but then war against brits french n native lost!

all europeans stole africa but worthless desert n jungle... except brits got diamonds in africa. so brits controlled world for hundreds of years n even now the "commonwealth" is led by britan.

[Syntosi]

Because to achieve world domination back then, and also coincidentally to invade England you needed boats and France was a land based army. Strictly speaking, France could basically control mainland Europe and everything they could actually reach with their armies but no further. Great Britain however had the entire world open to them thanks to their navy.

[goaded]

Which fight? We lost in 1066, but made up for it the next 800 years.

[Staximus]

Limeys haven't dominated the world since the 1700's with their Navy

[purplepoppy]

They had help from countries napoleon pissed off.

[northerngal]

The Royal Navy.

[RebelinSteel]

We have better trees

[Julie4]

Haha 😂

[goaded]

Had. We cut them all down to make the Royal Navy.

[purplepoppy]

When the navy stopped using wooden ships it was a disaster for woodland. They were either cut down or left unmaintained and of course they stopped planting them

[RebelinSteel]

@purplepoppy yeah very much so, we used to have large plantations of woodland specifically for the building of ships.

[goaded]

@purplepoppy I hadn't heard that, it makes sense. In the 1970's, the government paid farmers to remove hedges. In the 1980's, the government paid farmers to build hedges. Guess how much money the sensible farmers who left the old hedges in got?

[purplepoppy]

Nowadays 90% of British Oak is planted by jays

[monorprise]

The magna carta

[DryGermanGuy]

Merchant navy and Royal Navy.

[msc545]

Better ships and better seamanship

[butterly248]

A mix of things

[ThaiGirl]

They never won

[Mettbltt]

more colonies

[mickeysmonkey]

Navy