Talk:Pax Britannica
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This isn't something I know much about, but the Market House Dictionary of British History seems to think it is more about a general idea of maintaining peace than it is about one particular period. --Camembert
- Yes, the British would think that. Well, compared to the Pax Dubya I am sure they did a better job.
-
- No, they wouldn't - at least not anyone who studied history. I think this article should cover some of the debates - it should certainly be longer than the one on the so called "pax americana". However... I can't remember any of them at the moment. :( However, the historical reference is definitely better known and more important than the wargame. Switched around. Wiki-Ed 20:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
---
This is not much to say about a period of 100 years when Britain ruled half the planet and all the seas!!!!! Considering all the flap about New Imperialism it is amazing that this earlier period got such short shrift.
Yep, the article is very thin. --Dumbo1 15:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
- Try British Empire... Wiki-Ed 20:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
New Imperialism (1870-1914) is the era following Pax Britannica (1818-1870). Waterloo and the Congress of Vienna ushered in Pax Britannica. New Imperialism is the consequence of the breakdown of Pax Britannica.
The article had earlier confused these two eras of British colonial expansionism, marked by Britain’s shift from informal colonialism to formal structures.
The sentence "When colonies had the capacity (but not the right) to trade directly with each other, challenges to central rule erupted, and New Imperialism largely arose as a response. " is very incorrect. First of all, it connects relations with what would become known as the Dominions with the scramble for Africa. The drive into Africa became known as New Imperialism -- it had nothing to do with the Dominions. Relations with the Dominions developed after Great Britain changed to a liberal trade policy in 1846 -- first in the case of Canada (being the first, 1840s/50s), later Austrialia, New Zealand, and South Africa (being the last in 1910). The sentence makes no historical sense and whoever believes in it could at least mention the Durham report which is a controversy in and of itself. Most importantly of all, it came in 1839, while "New Imperialism" did not come until the 1880s! "New Imperialism" was ultimately a result of the alteration of the international system in response to the unifications of Germany, Italy, and America (end of the Civil War). Germany defeated Austria and France, altering the continental balance of powering and pushing the others to expand their influence overseas.
I'm justgoing from memory here, but when I learned about about this in my history lessons at school in England, it was explained in a much more comprehensive and conceptual fashion. To put it in simple terms, I was taught that England told everybody to behave themselves and not to challenge the world order. Importantly, they reserved the right to interverne in the affairs of any nation that did not comply. Am I wrong? 69.159.196.56 14:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
It is stated on this article that the Pax Britannica began at the Battle of Trafalgar, although, according to the article on the United Kingdom, it began at the battle of Waterloo. Which is correct? --203.217.54.49 03:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- That depends on the definition of Pax Britannica which is almost self-contradictory in the article intro. After the Battle of Trafalgar there were no other countries with the naval strength to prevent British expansion overseas, which is given as one feature of this period. However, Europe would remain dominated by France until the Battle of Waterloo. Events on the European mainland were largely unconnected to British expansion once Britain regained control of the shipping lanes, and the article needs to specify whether the term refers to unopposed expansion outside Europe or British dominance over the "balanced" powers within Europe.
[edit] Pax Britan.. What ?
So erm, various revolutions, the Italian Wars of Independence, the Crimean War, the Franco-Prussian War, WWI, right here I'm having a hard time seeing what this "pax" Britannica is all about, besides, the British Empire is fine and all, but being an empire built overseas far far from the shores of Europe, hardly gave Britain control over the European continent. Is this term actually used with any frequency ? It really sounds self congratulatory and devoid of any real meaning to me. 212.27.60.48 (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Did you actually read the article? Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you for asking. 212.27.60.48 (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- And to avoid further snide remarks :
- "Pax Brittanica" is modelled after "Pax Romana" says the intro, however, "Pax Romana", according to Wikipedia's entry "was the long period of relative peace and minimal expansion by military force experienced by the Roman Empire". Yet, according to this entry here, "Pax Brittanica" refers to a period of "British expansionism", is derived from "europe's being relatively peaceful", but Europe was not in fact, particularly peaceful during that period, neither was it under British domination, the actual empire was overseas. I have to either question the actual usage of the term, or the way it is presented here. 212.27.60.48 (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] no currency
Outside of a few obscure references (and a boardgame) this term doesn't really have a lot of currency. Jooler (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The end of pax britannica
I am thinking this article is worded wrong, in the beginning, the pax britannica is defined as the relative peace between european powers, but doesn't say it ends when that relative peace ends - in WW1. So I'm editing the latter part unless someone tells me why it should be otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelersfan7roe (talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
