[fuser]

Fact remain the 19th century was more peacful than the 18th or 20th. It wasnt that bad on our watch

Hmm, I doubt that. Number of people killed has been rising progressively and risen exponentially since industrial revolution, hence no competition for 20th century.

But 19th wasn't special in this regard, with Taiping rebellion being the biggest conflict. Japan which had remained rather peaceful for last two centuries or so saw the boshin war.

Then, napolenic wars, crimean war, various Russo Ottoman war, Russo Persian war, various anglo indian states war, Austro Prussian war, Franco Prussian war, Italian unification, hardly it was a peaceful century even comparatively to any other century.

Metternich system bringing peace for Europe in my humble opinion is largely a myth.

[layman]

The Napoleonic wars started the 18th century. I guess I am mainly talking about the post-napoleonic - WW1 era.

Yeah there were wars but nothing like what we saw in the 18th, 17th, 16th in europe. Just check wiki to see the difference.

Even from a non-european perspective it looks much more peacful. It was also a time of massive human progress ie the Industrial revolution and population explosion.

people killed has been rising progressively and risen exponentially since industrial revolution, hence no competition for 20th century.

There is an interesting youtube lecture that discusses this. Even when taking population numbers and technology into account, the 20th century was still more murderous that any other with possible exception to the Mongol Invasions.

Niall puts this down mainly to ethnic conflict.

[fuser]

I will say that peaceful or not, pax Britannica had no major role in that. After all ww1 broke out during the pax Britanica (obviously it doesn’t mean that without British Empire ww1 wouldn't had happened).

Also, from this wiki page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe, number of wars/conflicts in 18th century in Europe 42, in 19th century 51.

hardly 19th century can be passed as comparatively peaceful than other preceding centuries.

[Akuma]

Yes it is quite interesting actually. I guess this is what we get for having our hands in so many pies.

Fact remain the 19th century was more peacful than the 18th or 20th. It wasnt that bad on our watch ...

Akuma, Japan wasnt a proper empire until you actually tried to get one (WW2). Of course Japan used the UK as a template for empire in a technical sense, especially the navy.

Japan is an empire since 660 before christ. Check history and facts.

[layman]

Anyone can call anything an empire.

The Empire of Japan (大日本帝國, Dai Nippon Teikoku?, literally "Empire of Great Japan") was an empire and world power that existed from the Meiji Restoration on 3 January 1868 to the enactment of the post-World War II Constitution of Japan on 3 May 1947.[3]

I guess wiki is wrong here. Either way, Japan didint have an empire and only made minimal (failed) attempts to get one.

[Thompson_NCL]

I will say that peaceful or not, pax Britannica had no major role in that. After all ww1 broke out during the pax Britanica (obviously it doesn’t mean that without British Empire ww1 wouldn't had happened).

The period between the end of the Napoleonic wars and WWI were certainly amongst the most peaceful that Europe enjoyed until after WWII. If you look at the period prior to this, Europe was in a constant state of war.

I am sure there is scope for debate on how Britain was involved in that, but I'd suggest that the worlds first super power being willing to back the underdog in any war certainly gave expansionist powers pause to think.

Japan is an empire since 660 before christ. Check history and facts.

There is a distinct lack of continuity in the Japanese 'empire'.

[Siberian Fox]

Moderation note: Moved to the History forum.

[Doomhammer]

Then, napolenic wars, crimean war, various Russo Ottoman war, Russo Persian war, various anglo indian states war, Austro Prussian war, Franco Prussian war, Italian unification, hardly it was a peaceful century even comparatively to any other century.

Metternich system bringing peace for Europe in my humble opinion is largely a myth.

There were wars, certainly, but that period between the unlimited aims wars fought by Napoleon and the industrial war fought by the West in WWI - those 99 years - really were, as TNCL said, "peaceful." The fact that the great powers could come together, sit at the same table, and forge working international agreements (however unjust) suggests a level of civility and stability. Millions still perished in wars and ethnic cleansing attempts, but as far as the core European countries were concerned, there were 2-3 relatively quick wars that were fought for limited aims (the German wars of unification and the Crimean War).

[Thompson_NCL]

Absolutely, it was Britain which presided over a great deal of this agreement making. Usually in concert with another power or powers, but they were more often than not involved.

[layman]

A lot of the wars listed on that wiki page are wars of idependance, civil wars, wars of unification etc.

I conceed that the total number looks to be higher but I think that masks the reality that europe was relativly peaceful.

[fuser]

The period between the end of the Napoleonic wars and WWI were certainly amongst the most peaceful that Europe enjoyed until after WWII

First of all this is an arbitrary distinction, then as showed earlier the number of conflicts were actually numerous in 19th century than 18th. And that is true even if we discount the Napoleonic conflict and add early 20th century.

I am sure there is scope for debate on how Britain was involved in that, but I'd suggest that the worlds first super power being willing to back the underdog in any war certainly gave expansionist powers pause to think.

Britain was not driven by any ideal where it was supposed to save an underdog in Europe, it did so when it suited her interests other times it happily crushed little guys or looked other way when the little guy was being crushed.

The fact that the great powers could come together, sit at the same table, and forge working international agreements (however unjust) suggests a level of civility and stability.

Only this factor was unique not that the whole era was peaceful.

there were 2-3 relatively quick wars that were fought for limited aims (the German wars of unification and the Crimean War).

And Italian war of Unification and another Russo Ottoman war, Russian wars with Caucasian states and Persia.

More than anything if there was peace in 19th century it would be more because of weakness of Ottoman Empire which now no longer had wars with Hapsburgs or Italian states in 19th century rather than because of British Hegemony.

Finally if you are ending pre pax Britanica with bloody Napoleonic wars, then it would be only fair to end Pax Britanica with ww1.

A lot of the wars listed on that wiki page are wars of idependance, civil wars, wars of unification etc.

Same is true for 18th century too.

[layman]

Finally if you are ending pre pax Britanica with bloody Napoleonic wars, then it would be only fair to end Pax Britanica with ww1

Clearly there was no Pax Britanica during the Napoleonic wars. France was far far stronger.

There wasnt even a Pax Britianica running up to WW1 in my opinion. America had overtaken the UK in GDP around 1890 I think. Germany had a far superior army, as did france. In fact the UK never really had that much land force power projection at any time. This is why I argue against the UK every being a "super power".

Personally I am not arguing that this alleged lack of war was even to the credit of the UK. I am just clear that europe was more peacful. You have to take the length and scale of the wars into account. Conflicts like the thirty years war, ottoman wars and seven years wars were seemingly endless and bloody. The 19th century wars were generally more decisive.

I think for the purposes of discussion that civil wars should all be treated differently. It is really conflicts amoungst different nations that is core to my argument. I know there are grey areas and so forth but no kind of "world order" can really prevent civil unrest within nations.

[fuser]

I will argue that prior to Napolenic wars, Britain was stronger than France particularly after the seven years war it was only during the napoleon era and leave en masse that France was able to become militarily more dominant on land for a short period of time.

Yes, the wars were more decisive and short because of technological advancements and not because of any hegemonic power or diplomacy as number of conflicts didn't reduced substantially.

[layman]

I will argue that prior to Napoleonic wars, Britain was stronger than France particularly after the seven years war it was only during the napoleon era and leave en masse that France was able to become militarily more dominant on land for a short period of time.

In terms of projecting hard military power into Europe, Britain was certainly far weaker. You just need to look at the events of the Napoleonic wars to see that. It was no 1 at sea following the seven years war but this did not equal dominance. Nothing like compared to the US navy today, for example.

Wiki actually agrees with you that it ended in 1914.

Code: Select allPax Britannica (Latin for "the British Peace", modelled after Pax Romana) was the period of relative peace in Europe and the world (1815–1914) during which the British Empire controlled most of the key maritime trade routes and enjoyed unchallenged sea power.

I would totally dispute this though due to physical facts. That is the relative power between the USA, UK, Germany, France, Russia.

Yes, the wars were more decisive and short because of technological

Mostly, I agree. However, the threat of British (or other powers) getting involved did shorten a lot of wars. The Franco-Prussian war is no exception here. This involves debating a lot of "what ifs" though which is always going to be troublesome.

[Akuma]

Lack of continuity? Japan has an emperor since 660 before christ. The emperor rules Japan in an unbroken line from 660 befroe christ till today. One empire, one dynasty. The mandate of heaven never changed in Japan and stayed always at our imperial family. We are the worlds oldest monarchy. Our current Tenno Heika is the 125 th Tenno in an unbroken line of one family. The continuity in our monarchy is unmatched worldwide.

[fuser]

French of late 18th century had the most correct idea about their monarch and monarchy. Japan should learn from them.

[Istanbuller]

Europe and the Middle East are more important parts of the world. Much of the modern world history shaped by nations and their wars in these tiny regions.

[Akuma]

French of late 18th century had the most correct idea about their monarch and monarchy. Japan should learn from them.

Why? Because all european monarchs are corrupt? Japanese emperor (or empress in some cases) were never corrupt. It is a completly different thing. Our tenno is not compareable to a european monarch. It is more like a mixture of monarch and pope. Even that is not 100% true but comes close to the function he fullfills. No japanese emperor ever lived a pompous life. The palace is vast but no luxus. It embraces nature and spirit. Just compare our imperial palace with european ones. It is a totally different thing. Japan is quite happy with our system. The Tenno stands above it as a symbol for our nation. As he did always.

Japan could not exist without the Tenno system. It guides us from beginning.

I have no respect for democracy. I accept it because the Tenno want that i do. democracy is bad. A democratic leader never represents the entire nation. Only his voters. That way many people are excluded. Democratic leaders are not prepared for their duty. Most are corrupted. Japan is a fake democracy and that way it is acceptable for us in a way. We play democray and push it over the old aristocratic system. Because that only one party gets elected again and again (LDP) prime ministers are always from same families as well as leading ministers. Its always same. A continuity that real democracy could never give.

[Doomhammer]

First things first... regarding my earlier conversation with Potemkin:

Only this factor was unique not that the whole era was peaceful.

But think about it: apart from Prussian wars (and the revolutions of 1848), which by themselves did not actually upset Europe so much, the only wars took place in the periphery of the concert system. The Crimean War started because Louis Bonaparte had an imperialist foreign policy which he wanted to pursue outside Europe (the whole chestnut with the Holy Places in the Middle East) and the Russo-Turkish war of 1878 which again featured two states peripheral to the concert. Perhaps I'm being too zealous in my advocacy of the Metternich system. I don't know. If you consider the Ottoman Empire though, between 1815 and 1908 the Ottomans had an aggregate 13 years of peace (internal and external)... which is just horrible. If the 16th century was the 'Magnificent' century, the 19th century should aptly be named the 'Longest' century for the Ottomans.

Absolutely, it was Britain which presided over a great deal of this agreement making. Usually in concert with another power or powers, but they were more often than not involved.

The absolutist states in continental Europe were important though. I would say Austria was the lynchpin of this... reactionary enterprise. Regardless, you're right about Britain. The initial treaties of the international order were pretty much hammered out by the British and Austrians. It is interesting however that after Germany became a unified country, it quickly usurped Britain's role. Consider the Treaty of Berlin 1878 when the Germans pretty much decided the fate of eastern Europe.

Finally if you are ending pre pax Britanica with bloody Napoleonic wars, then it would be only fair to end Pax Britanica with ww1.

I wouldn't have it any other way. I would however say that the Pax Britannica evolved into Concert of Europe, which was much later hijacked by the Germans and then boom: war.

If y'all are interested in the quantifiable/material capabilities of states, check out the Correlates of War project. You can find data as far back as 1816.
http://www.correlatesofwar.org/datasets.htm

[fuser]

Doomhammer, you forgot Italian wars of unification again.

As I said weakening of Ottoman Empire and established supremacy of Russia in east were far more greater reasons for less intensive wars in 19th century than metternich systems. It didn't stopped conflicts from occurring.

Also on a more serious topic, Indians too drive on left side of the road and drink tea. This is the correct way, of course.