A common theme that leads to heated online arguments between armchair historians (and actual historians) is "when did the Roman Empire fall?" Most say AD 496 when the Germans deposed the last ruler of the Western Empire. Others argue it was actually AD 1466 when the Turks captured Constantinople. The reasoning being that while the Western Empire did collapse, the Eastern portion of the empire, and more importantly the administrative capital of Constantinople remained, though it was no longer a Latin country but a Greek one.
I feel a similar argument could be made about the British Empire and its "fall". Much like the Romans, the British made massive innovations in economics, military theory and administrative theory to punch massively above what their population size and initial starting territory might indicate were the upper limits of their ability to conquer. To the point that from 1600 to 1900, the Kingdoms of England and Scotland would go from monarchical union of two countries to the heart of a global empire spanning every continent and incorporating by some measures, nearly a quarter of the entire human population and the earths landmass. It fell in 1945 due to a combination of severe financial straights, population loss and the rise of nationalism throughout its colonies and dominions. At least in theory.
The heart of the British Empire however was not based around direct administrative control. The British Empire was at its heart a Mercantile and Defense organization. Britain kept the sea lanes open, allowed people to get rich using commonly administrated legal systems around the world, and maintained a network of ports and colonies to facilitate that global trade. It was in many respects highly decentralized with local military and governing authorities given broad latitude in action. A major innovation the Brits came up with the idea separate legislatures and governing institutions to the crown colonies. This allowed the Empire to extend its rule to the local level and keep subject peoples invested in the State, while at the same time making it more responsive to local concerns. Something necessary as the planet was huge, and as the French and Spanish found out, made it impossible otherwise to govern centrally. There was an obvious sting in this tail of course. Sometimes those local governments decided they did not want to take orders anymore. Like in 1776 when 13 of Britain's colonies in North America declared independence. Even so, after independence the new United States did not abandon the modes economics, law, and governing that the British Empire employed. Americas federal system was in many respects an effort to "reform" the decentralized system of Empire that had been employed. The Americans Liked the idea of a common union, but at the same time also really liked the idea of local autonomy.
When the British Empire came apart in the mid 20th century, the systems they created did not go away. In fact, the vast majority of the British Empires former colonies and dominions turned to Washington DC for support. The United States, eager to counterbalance the threat of the Soviet Union was more then happy to do so. It is no accident then the former dominions, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are now Americas closest Allies. "Ally" being the more acceptable term then Dominion, though there seems to be a very much understood arrangement that, while not spoken aloud is known by all the the US views the arrangement with these countries as something a tad more solid then a mere defense pact. For example, while Canada is "free" to do business and sign treaties with whomever they please, are they "free" to sign a defense pact with the Chinese and allow them to build a naval base and airfield in Newfoundland? Its an intellectual exercise to be sure. As an independent country Canada could certainly try and do so, but somehow I think any Canadian Prime Minister that tried would find themselves in trouble with Washington DC. This is of course not a one sided arrangement. Both Canada and Australia have to deal with serious international issues and the need to maintain access to the global economy without reprisal. Before World War 2, this was facilitated by the British, and post World War 2 it has been facilitated by the Americans. Considering the massive maritime border Canada shares with the Russian Federation, absent such an arrangement the amount of money that Canada would have needed to invest to defend its northern territories would be very different to what it does currently. As an example.
More broadly beyond the obvious passing of responsibility from London to DC over the more central Dominions, is the passing of responsibility for control of the sea lanes from the Royal Navy to the US Navy. It was in fact almost seamless, with most of the Royal Navies basing arrangements around the world going to the US Navy, and many former British Colonies finding the normal warship patrols that used to be done by the British passing seamlessly to the Americans. The US also took over responsibility to the network of global trade by backing the various international institutions that were created in the post world war 2 era. Necessary functions to keep together the newly independent countries that emerged from the collapse of all the European colonial empires.
So in the end the question is academic. Did the Roman Empire fall even though a Greek Empire that used the same structures and filled largely the same role take its place? And did the British Empire fall even though an American Empire that uses the same structures and fills largely the same role took its place?
I feel a similar argument could be made about the British Empire and its "fall". Much like the Romans, the British made massive innovations in economics, military theory and administrative theory to punch massively above what their population size and initial starting territory might indicate were the upper limits of their ability to conquer. To the point that from 1600 to 1900, the Kingdoms of England and Scotland would go from monarchical union of two countries to the heart of a global empire spanning every continent and incorporating by some measures, nearly a quarter of the entire human population and the earths landmass. It fell in 1945 due to a combination of severe financial straights, population loss and the rise of nationalism throughout its colonies and dominions. At least in theory.
The heart of the British Empire however was not based around direct administrative control. The British Empire was at its heart a Mercantile and Defense organization. Britain kept the sea lanes open, allowed people to get rich using commonly administrated legal systems around the world, and maintained a network of ports and colonies to facilitate that global trade. It was in many respects highly decentralized with local military and governing authorities given broad latitude in action. A major innovation the Brits came up with the idea separate legislatures and governing institutions to the crown colonies. This allowed the Empire to extend its rule to the local level and keep subject peoples invested in the State, while at the same time making it more responsive to local concerns. Something necessary as the planet was huge, and as the French and Spanish found out, made it impossible otherwise to govern centrally. There was an obvious sting in this tail of course. Sometimes those local governments decided they did not want to take orders anymore. Like in 1776 when 13 of Britain's colonies in North America declared independence. Even so, after independence the new United States did not abandon the modes economics, law, and governing that the British Empire employed. Americas federal system was in many respects an effort to "reform" the decentralized system of Empire that had been employed. The Americans Liked the idea of a common union, but at the same time also really liked the idea of local autonomy.
When the British Empire came apart in the mid 20th century, the systems they created did not go away. In fact, the vast majority of the British Empires former colonies and dominions turned to Washington DC for support. The United States, eager to counterbalance the threat of the Soviet Union was more then happy to do so. It is no accident then the former dominions, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are now Americas closest Allies. "Ally" being the more acceptable term then Dominion, though there seems to be a very much understood arrangement that, while not spoken aloud is known by all the the US views the arrangement with these countries as something a tad more solid then a mere defense pact. For example, while Canada is "free" to do business and sign treaties with whomever they please, are they "free" to sign a defense pact with the Chinese and allow them to build a naval base and airfield in Newfoundland? Its an intellectual exercise to be sure. As an independent country Canada could certainly try and do so, but somehow I think any Canadian Prime Minister that tried would find themselves in trouble with Washington DC. This is of course not a one sided arrangement. Both Canada and Australia have to deal with serious international issues and the need to maintain access to the global economy without reprisal. Before World War 2, this was facilitated by the British, and post World War 2 it has been facilitated by the Americans. Considering the massive maritime border Canada shares with the Russian Federation, absent such an arrangement the amount of money that Canada would have needed to invest to defend its northern territories would be very different to what it does currently. As an example.
More broadly beyond the obvious passing of responsibility from London to DC over the more central Dominions, is the passing of responsibility for control of the sea lanes from the Royal Navy to the US Navy. It was in fact almost seamless, with most of the Royal Navies basing arrangements around the world going to the US Navy, and many former British Colonies finding the normal warship patrols that used to be done by the British passing seamlessly to the Americans. The US also took over responsibility to the network of global trade by backing the various international institutions that were created in the post world war 2 era. Necessary functions to keep together the newly independent countries that emerged from the collapse of all the European colonial empires.
So in the end the question is academic. Did the Roman Empire fall even though a Greek Empire that used the same structures and filled largely the same role take its place? And did the British Empire fall even though an American Empire that uses the same structures and fills largely the same role took its place?
