The last minute in history: a note (from an old post)

[fpb]

It is a curious phenomenon how certain important historical developments have tended to take place at the very last minute in which they were possible. When the Colonies revolted against Britain, Britain’s power was growing, but still limited: the country had barely ten million inhabitants, as against three million Americans, and the effort of a long and major operation beyond the seas was simply beyond it. Twenty years later, Britain had more than fifteen million inhabitants, was able to fight major and very lengthy wars in Europe and India at the same time, settle Australia, and build up a naval presence in the Mediterranean so strong that Napoleon was never able to dislodge them from Sicily, Sardinia, Corfu or Malta. An American insurrection in 1800 would certainly have failed. By the same token, Italy won independence and unity in 1859-60 after decades of unrest and occasional insurrections and war, mainly through Garibaldi’s genius for insurgent warfare; but the 1860s were also the decade in which the new technology of repetition and machine guns and heavier artillery became widespread. From 1789 to 1848, rulers and governments had had no answer to revolted cities and insurgent warfare, but by 1871 they definitely did, and the fate of the Commune of Paris served notice on the world that barricades and revolts in capital cities would no longer be an effective way to regime change. If Italy had not been united in 1860, it never would have been. More such examples could be made.

Comments

[spaceanjl.livejournal.com]

...? Wouldn't it be more true to say that certain important historical developments are brought into being by the confluence of such factors as technological progress, population increase and social politics? No event happens in isolation.

For example, technological progress leading to increased urbanisation and population increase put pressure upon resources, forcing an outward expansion and political friction.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Except it didn't. Outward expansion of the serious kind, leading to mass settlement and Europeanization, was almost over by the time the Industrial Revolution got into gear. Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands had not only conquered all their historical empires, they were in decided decline. The Europeanized colonies of Spanish and Poruguese America had gained their independence, and soon, in an odd way, the Dutch settlers of the Cape were to do so as well. Russia had already reached the Pacific and Alaska, and even Britain had transformed North America and set out in earnest on the settlement of Australia and the conquest of India. The colonies conquered during and after the Indistral Revolution were mostly in Africa and were mostly not settled at all. What is more, the main colonizing impulse, with the exception of the Netherlands, came from external countries on the European continent - Russia, Portugal, England, even Spain - that were among the least advanced and urbanized in Europe, certainly less than Italy, France and the Rhine Valley countries. The exception is the Netherlands, but that was also one of the least successful among the colonial powers - its only permanent settlement was in South Africa, and that was wholly unplanned.

Besides, if you want to challenge something I said you ought to focus on what I said. Am I wrong in saying that the kind of urban revolt that made the revolutions of 1789, 1830 and 1848 had become wholly impossible by 1879? Amd I wrong in saying that the Britain of 1800 was much stronger than that of 1775, and could have crushed an American revolt as easily as she in fact conquered most of India? That is what you ought to show is incorrect.

[spaceanjl.livejournal.com]

It was less of a challenge, and more of a desire to discuss with another history buff. :) I actually have a (Medieval) History degree, but I'm admittedly rusty at academic debate, sorry.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Please, there is NOTHING to be sorry about. Answers as to method are part of academic debate, and I did not mean to knock you down in any way. In fact I am glad I got a response which, though in my view not wholly correct, was neither foolish nor off the point. And the Dark and Middle Ages are one of my specialisms.

[rfachir.livejournal.com]

But Britain did crush the USA in 1812. What was the plan? That they already had Canada, and were busy exploiting more profitable areas, so they didn't want the old colonies anymore?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

As far as Britain was concerned, the US were a sideshow. The struggle against Napoleon was just then becoming very hopeful, and they did not want to be bothered with yet another colonial war. Even so, had it not been for Andrew Jackson's victory at New Orleans, the war would have been an unmitigated disaster: the odds and ends of military strength that Britain could spare from the conquest of India, the liberation of Spain and the invasion of France were enough to burn Washington DC down and beat the Americans on every front. And that gives you an idea what could have happened if Britain had faced the US alone in 1816 or something. The period between 1800 and 1850 was the climax of British power.

New Orleans happened too late

[rfachir.livejournal.com]

As I was taught, the war was over before that battle was fought. But now I feel a little insulted - we weren't even worth re-colonizing.

Re: New Orleans happened too late

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Yes, it did - the point is that it was good for American self-respect. Without it, a number of things might have been different - there was talk of secession in the New England states at one point. But as far as the British were concerned, I imagine there was a profit-loss calculation. The UK was doing very well trading with the US in peacetime, and it had two huge wars on its hands as things were. Giving upstart Americans a smacking was one thing, but trying to conquer a country that had doubled in size and more than doubled in population since independence would have been expensive, and even at best might have wrecked the very trade that Britain relied on. Plus, I know that their best general, Wellington, absolutely refused to be sent to America, though I don't remember his reasons. And there is the issue of intellectual contagion. The British leadership at the time of the Napoleonic wars was an horrendous crew, as reactionary as it was corrupt, and they might have looked askance at forcing millions of people imbued with republican and egalitarian ideas back into the Empire. Who knows - better out than in?