Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Which nation would have been better for the British? India or China
  • Subject: Which nation would have been better for the British? India or China
Subject: Which nation would have been better for the British? India or China
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

We know India was the crown jewel of the British Empire due to the resources taken from the country funded most of the Empire.

However right now China is more economically powerful than India but has similar numbers and technology so would China have been more valuable to the Empire?

  • 12.20.2012 8:06 AM PDT

WALL OF SHAME-Posting stupidity since 2010
__________________
Posted by: Maximus Decimus
Agreed. All the changes are good and add variety. Do we really want another Halo 3? Just running around with one gun and no armor abilities? It's good that 343 wants to try something new. Do we really want the same thing for three more games?

Indochina.
easy

  • 12.20.2012 8:06 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I lov teh rabbits nd wanna life off a da fatta da land.

MERICA

  • 12.20.2012 8:08 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: pieman1178
MERICA
We ditched America when we started fighting in India.

  • 12.20.2012 8:11 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Antarctica

  • 12.20.2012 8:11 AM PDT

The Wonderful LeSieg!

There's a large amount of history and reason behind Britain's conquest of India being the more sensible option compared to China. China is massive and nearly every country wanted a piece of it.

The height of the British Empire was in the late 1800s, China didn't become economically modern until the 1970s, and only economically significant in the 90s. They would have had to sink tons of resources and wait a looonnnggg time for a return on that investment assuming the only change in history was that China was under British rule (but still somehow controlled by the Communist Party).

  • 12.20.2012 8:15 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

1st off I would like to correct you and say the height of the Empire was 1921 after creating Iraq from the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Also if China was ruled by the British the same time as India was (Only replace India with China is this scenario), could things be similarly profitable? I can't remember when the Qing Dynasty came in.

[Edited on 12.20.2012 8:22 AM PST]

  • 12.20.2012 8:19 AM PDT

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out"
- Bill Hicks


Posted by: LeSieg
There's a large amount of history and reason behind Britain's conquest of India being the more sensible option compared to China. China is massive and nearly every country wanted a piece of it.

The height of the British Empire was in the late 1800s, China didn't become economically modern until the 1970s, and only economically significant in the 90s. They would have had to sink tons of resources and wait a looonnnggg time for a return on that investment assuming the only change in history was that China was under British rule (but still somehow controlled by the Communist Party).


This

We were better off just trading a -blam!- ton of opium in China than trying to subjugate it.

We still got plenty of other trade out of China too and, I believe, are the only foreign power to bring it's Emperor to heel. We did have to destroy one of the most wonderful man made structures ever made to do so though which, unsurprisingly, got the British High Commissioner to China at the time, Lord Elgin, labelled as a barbarian by history

[Edited on 12.20.2012 8:39 AM PST]

  • 12.20.2012 8:20 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

India.

  • 12.20.2012 8:38 AM PDT