Why Empires Expanded (19th–20th Century)
- Empires shaped the modern world by creating today’s borders, economies, and global power imbalances.
- They left lasting legacies in culture, language, identity, and political systems, which still influence countries today.
- Competition and expansion by empires drove major global conflicts and nationalist movements, setting the stage for WWI, WWII, and decolonisation.
1. Technological Advantages
- Steamships = fast travel → Europe goes from waiting for wind to basically running an early Amazon Prime delivery system across oceans.
- Railways = control → Like building a subway under your whole empire so you can move soldiers wherever things get messy.
- Telegraphs = instant communication → Victorian WhatsApp.
- Guns + machine guns → A few hundred Europeans defeat thousands with spears.
- Refrigeration + medical advances → Europeans stop dying the moment they step into the tropics.
- If the question ever asks “Why now?”, the answer is almost always technology.
2. Explorers and Missionaries
- Explorers “discover” places already full of people → maps → justification → conquest.
- Missionaries believed they were saving souls but often undermined local cultures.
- When they got into trouble, European powers swooped in, claiming to “protect their citizens” → cue annexation.
- Explorers drew the treasure map, missionaries softened the target, and then the empire walked in.
3. Economic Motives
- Factories needed raw materials (rubber, cotton, tea, cocoa, minerals).
- Home markets were saturated → needed new consumers.
- Colonies provided cheap labour, guaranteed markets, and no tariffs.
- India became Britain’s biggest customer, forced to buy British manufactured goods and supply raw materials like cotton and tea.
- Congo provided Belgium with rubber and ivory, enriching King Leopold II and Belgian companies.
- Nigeria supplied palm oil, essential for British factories producing soap, lubricants, and machinery.
- Egypt’s cotton industry fed Britain’s textile mills, making control of Egypt economically valuable.
- Malaya produced rubber and tin, both crucial for British industry and global trade.
- If the question mentions trade, factories, money, or resources → it’s economic imperialism.
4. Nationalism & Rivalries
- People felt proud of empire → national identity tied to expansion.
- Governments feared being left behind by rivals.
- Some colonies were useless economically but vital symbolically.
- Britain stayed in Sudan mainly to block French expansion in the region.
- Control of Sudan helped Britain secure the Nile River and protect its influence in Egypt.
- Sudan acted as a strategic buffer zone during the Scramble for Africa.
- The Fashoda Incident (1898) showed how close Britain and France came to conflict over control of Sudan.
- If the source includes emotional language (“glory,” “greatness,” “pride”) → think nationalism.
5. Strategic / Military Reasons
- Steam navies needed coaling stations everywhere.
- India provided troops and a strategic centre for British power in Asia.
- Controlling ports meant controlling trade.
- This is what turns economic empires into global military systems.
6. Population Growth
- Europe’s population grew from about 200 million (c. 1750) to around 600 million (c. 1900).
- People sought land, work, and opportunities abroad.
- Governments used colonies as a pressure valve.
- Europe became overcrowded, so politicians advertised emigration like it was the original study-abroad program.
Perspectives on Empire-Building
Cecil Rhodes
- Believed the British were superior and destined to rule globally.
- Wanted an unbroken British Africa (“Cape to Cairo”).
- Saw empire as his personal mission.
- Rhodes = nationalism + racism + destiny narrative.
Edward Wakefield
- Wanted organised emigration for Britain's surplus population.
- Saw colonies as extensions of British society.
- Use him to explain settler colonisation, not exploitation.
J. A. Hobson
- Claimed imperialism benefited the rich, not the nation.
- Said the working class paid the costs while elites profited.
- Hobson = economic critique.
- Perfect for questions about economic inequality or anti-imperialist thought.
Vladimir Lenin
- Saw imperialism as capitalism’s final stage.
- Predicted rival empires would eventually fight → World War-like conflicts.
- Imperialism = exploitation + global instability.
- Lenin = capitalism → imperialism → war.
Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles
- Advocated expanding British influence in SE Asia.
- Founded Singapore as a strategic trading centre.
- Use Raffles for economic strategy questions.
Rudyard Kipling
- “White Man’s Burden” → empire as a moral duty.
- Justified domination as “civilising.”
- Kipling = ideological justification.
How Empires Actually Ruled
- Direct Rule
- Imperial officials in charge.
- Used where Europeans didn’t trust local leaders.
- Indirect Rule
- Kept local rulers but controlled them from behind the scenes.
- Cheap and culturally safer for Europeans.
- Economic Domination
- Taxes, forced labour, and cash-crop systems forced colonies into dependency.
- Cultural Control
- Schools, missions, and language policies reshaped identity.
Why Did the USA & USSR Become Superpowers?
Superpower
A superpower is a country with global influence due to its overwhelming military strength, economic power, political reach, and cultural impact.
Superpowers can shape international events far beyond their borders.
- Military Reasons
- Both built huge militaries to defeat Germany/Japan.
- USA: biggest air force + nuclear weapons (1945).
- USSR: largest land army; no strong neighbours.
- Economic Reasons
- USA economy strengthened (industrial + agricultural boom).
- USSR devastated but still had huge manpower + resources.
- Old European powers weakened → power vacuum.
- Ideological Reasons
- USA: capitalism + democracy seen as victorious over fascism.
- USSR: communism claimed victory + appealed to post-war reconstruction.
- Each wanted to shape the post-war world in their ideological image.
Why Did Superpowers Create Spheres of Influence?
- USA feared communism spreading; USSR feared capitalism encircling them.
- Both used economic pressure, political influence, and military presence to secure friendly governments.
- Cold War tensions made both suspicious → control became security.
Why Did the Cold War Become Global?
- 1949: USSR develops nuclear weapons → balance of power shifts.
- 1949: China becomes communist → “bamboo curtain.”
- 1950: Korean War → USA commits to containing communism in Asia.
- Superpower rivalry spreads to Africa, Asia, Latin America through proxy wars, aid, coups, espionage.
China’s Role
- 1949: PRC established under Mao → initially aligned with USSR.
- 1950s–60s: Sino-Soviet split → China pursues its own communist path.
- 1960s: Develops nuclear weapons; becomes a third superpower.
- China’s unpredictability reshaped global Cold War dynamics.
NATO (1949)
- Why founded?
- Response to Soviet pressure in Berlin + fear of communist expansion.
- USA needed a permanent military presence in Europe.
- Key features
- Attack on one member = attack on all.
- Joint command structure under U.S. leadership.
- Nuclear protection guaranteed by USA (later UK/France too).
Warsaw Pact (1955)
- Why founded?
- USSR response to NATO + rearmament of West Germany.
- Key features
- Soviet-controlled alliance of Eastern Europe.
- USSR dominated military command.
- Claimed “mutual defence” but mainly ensured Soviet control.
Impact of Alliance Systems
- Europe split into two armed camps.
- Massive arms race (nuclear + conventional).
- Increased global tension; risk of accidental war.
- NATO survived after Cold War; Warsaw Pact dissolved 1991.
- Governance is never one method: usually a mix depending on the colony.
- Summary
- Empires expanded because they could (technology), because they wanted to (nationalism), and because it paid off (economics).
- They governed through a mix of military control, economic extraction, and cultural influence.
- People at the time either cheered, criticised, or rationalised imperialism and their arguments shaped global politics.
- Which motive do you think was the strongest, and why can’t the others be ignored?
- How would empire-building have been different without 19th-century technology?
- Compare Hobson, Rhodes, and Lenin: how do their critiques and justifications clash?
- Which governance method (direct vs indirect) was more effective, and why?
- How did missionary activity both help and hinder imperial authority?