QA问答：大英帝国几乎一半的领土都像加拿大和澳大利亚那样空空如也，为什么还被认为是伟大的？
正文翻译
图
Why was the British Empire considered that great when almost half of its territories were mostly empty Canada and Australia?
大英帝国几乎一半的领土都像加拿大和澳大利亚那样空空如也，为什么还被认为是伟大的？
大英帝国几乎一半的领土都像加拿大和澳大利亚那样空空如也，为什么还被认为是伟大的？
图
评论翻译
Allen Lobo
, Corporate finance, former physician & research physicist
Lord Curzon, the British Viceroy (governor at large) of India at the turn of the 20th century, once remarked in 1901 -
“As long as we rule India we are the greatest power in the world. If we lose it, we shall drop straightaway to a third-rate power.”
He wasn’t exaggerating at all.
The British Empire for all of its impressive extent when viewed on a map, in economical terms was pretty much the Indian subcontinent and then a riff raff of other frankly negligible pieces. We’re talking here in terms of economical heft of course not size of land, otherwise Denmark would have been one of the greatest empires in Europe with her dominion of gargantuan Greenland!
British India (present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) accounted in terms of GDP for five times as much as all of the other empire’s territories put together in 1870 at the height of British power during the Victorian Era. And four times as much as all of the others put together at the height of the British Empire on the eve of WW1 in 1913.
Yeah that’s right 4–5 times as all of the rest… Canada, Australia, Malaya and all. Put together.
The Indian subcontinent contributed no less than 40–50% of the empire’s productivity, with the British Isles themselves (England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland) contributing another 40–45%, leaving the rest of the colonies together putting in 10% or less.
While the above is a Wikipedia article, the original source is the 2017 book “Polarity, Balance of Power and International Relations Theory: Post-Cold War By Goedele De Keersmaeker” a detailed work which looks at military and economic strengths of various nations and empires in modern history.
I have said before that if the Brits were given a choice between keeping India on the one hand versus all of the rest of their colonies on the other hand, they would choose the former. In a heartbeat, it would be a no-brainer.
As far as Britain’s empire was concerned, India wasn’t merely the jewel in the imperial crown, it was nearly the whole damn crown!
The only part of the British Empire to ever compare to the GDP contribution from India was well….. Great Britain herself (i.e. England, Scotland and Wales). No surprise there, Britain was after all in terms of quality of human capital, the most advanced place on the planet from the mid-19th to the early 20th centuries.
For all of the talk about resources in places like Canada and Australia, most of the oil, iron or uranium was not exploited until well after those nations were de facto independent. Well past the time when their erstwhile imperial mistress could just suck out their resources relentlessly and ship it back to the mothership.
But in the era of rapacious imperialism? Their contributions were minimal as compared to India. It’s like how the Brits say that losing the American colonies wasn’t a really big deal to them at the time. But losing India? There was a reason they fought tooth and nail for nearly an effing whole century from 1857 to 1947 to stubbornly keep it.
GDP is a good reflection not of territory or even of population but of economic output. And that includes resources, labor and everything.
It’s also why people mistakenly think that America became the richest nation on earth only after The Second World War. No, America was on the cusp of that top rank on the eve of the First World War. That one nation birthed in such relatively humble origins from the thirteen little colonies in North America was already as rich as the entire British Empire combined in 1913 and pulling ahead fast. And now you might appreciate why. Because for all of the pieces of British imperial land that look so massively impressive on a map, in terms of economic output it was essentially a question of the USA as compared to the (British Isles + India).
20世纪初，英国的印度总督柯松勋爵在1901年曾经说过：
"只要我们统治印度，我们就是世界上最伟大的国家。如果我们失去了它，我们将直接沦为三流国家。"
他一点也没有夸大其词。
当我们看地图的时候，大英帝国的令人印象深刻的版图里，在经济方面几乎就一个印度次大陆，然后是其他一些可以忽略不计的部分。我们在这里谈论的是经济实力，当然不是土地面积，否则丹麦将成为欧洲最伟大的帝国之一，她拥有巨大的格陵兰岛！
英属印度（今天的印度、巴基斯坦和孟加拉国）的国内生产总值是1870年维多利亚时代英国权力鼎盛时期帝国其他所有领土总和的五倍。而在1913年一战前夕大英帝国的鼎盛时期，则是所有其他领地加起来的四倍之多。
是的，没错，是其他所有领地的4-5倍......加拿大、澳大利亚、马来亚等等，加在一起。
印度次大陆贡献了不少于40-50%的帝国生产力，不列颠群岛本身（英格兰、苏格兰、威尔士和爱尔兰）贡献了另外40-45%，剩下的殖民地加起来只有10%或更少。
大英帝国的经济——维基百科
虽然以上是维基百科的文章，但原始来源是基尔斯迈克尔于2017 年出版的《极性、力量平衡和国际关系理论：后冷战》一书，该书着眼于在现代历史中各个国家和帝国的军事和经济实力。
我曾经说过，如果让英国人在保留印度和保留其所有其他殖民地之间做出选择，他们会选择前者。在心底里，这将是一个不需要思考就能作出的选择。
就英国的帝国而言，印度不仅仅是帝国王冠上的宝石，它几乎是整个该死的王冠!
大英帝国唯一能与印度的GDP贡献相比的地方是.....大不列颠本身（即英格兰、苏格兰和威尔士）。这并不奇怪，毕竟在人力资本质量方面，英国是19世纪中期到20世纪初地球上最先进的地方。
对于所有关于加拿大和澳大利亚等地的资源的讨论，大多数石油、铁或铀都是在这些国家事实上独立之后才被开采的。已经过了他们昔日的帝国女主人可以无情地吸走他们的资源并将其运回母舰的时间了。
但在贪婪的帝国主义时代呢？与印度相比，他们的贡献是最小的。这就像英国人说，失去美国殖民地对他们来说在当时并不是什么大事。但失去印度？从1857年到1947年，他们咬牙坚持，顽强地保住了它，这是有原因的。
GDP是一个很好的反映，不是领土，甚至不是人口，而是经济产出。因为这包括资源、劳动力和一切。
这也是为什么人们错误地认为美国在第二次世界大战后才成为地球上最富有的国家。不，美国在第一次世界大战前夕就处于这个最高等级的边缘。这个从北美的13个小殖民地中诞生的国家，在1913年已经和整个大英帝国的财富总和一样富裕，而且还在快速发展。现在你可能会明白为什么。因为对于所有在地图上看起来如此巨大的大英帝国土地来说，就经济产出而言，这基本上是一个美国与（不列颠群岛+印度）相比的问题。
, Corporate finance, former physician & research physicist
Lord Curzon, the British Viceroy (governor at large) of India at the turn of the 20th century, once remarked in 1901 -
“As long as we rule India we are the greatest power in the world. If we lose it, we shall drop straightaway to a third-rate power.”
He wasn’t exaggerating at all.
The British Empire for all of its impressive extent when viewed on a map, in economical terms was pretty much the Indian subcontinent and then a riff raff of other frankly negligible pieces. We’re talking here in terms of economical heft of course not size of land, otherwise Denmark would have been one of the greatest empires in Europe with her dominion of gargantuan Greenland!
British India (present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) accounted in terms of GDP for five times as much as all of the other empire’s territories put together in 1870 at the height of British power during the Victorian Era. And four times as much as all of the others put together at the height of the British Empire on the eve of WW1 in 1913.
Yeah that’s right 4–5 times as all of the rest… Canada, Australia, Malaya and all. Put together.
The Indian subcontinent contributed no less than 40–50% of the empire’s productivity, with the British Isles themselves (England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland) contributing another 40–45%, leaving the rest of the colonies together putting in 10% or less.
While the above is a Wikipedia article, the original source is the 2017 book “Polarity, Balance of Power and International Relations Theory: Post-Cold War By Goedele De Keersmaeker” a detailed work which looks at military and economic strengths of various nations and empires in modern history.
I have said before that if the Brits were given a choice between keeping India on the one hand versus all of the rest of their colonies on the other hand, they would choose the former. In a heartbeat, it would be a no-brainer.
As far as Britain’s empire was concerned, India wasn’t merely the jewel in the imperial crown, it was nearly the whole damn crown!
The only part of the British Empire to ever compare to the GDP contribution from India was well….. Great Britain herself (i.e. England, Scotland and Wales). No surprise there, Britain was after all in terms of quality of human capital, the most advanced place on the planet from the mid-19th to the early 20th centuries.
For all of the talk about resources in places like Canada and Australia, most of the oil, iron or uranium was not exploited until well after those nations were de facto independent. Well past the time when their erstwhile imperial mistress could just suck out their resources relentlessly and ship it back to the mothership.
But in the era of rapacious imperialism? Their contributions were minimal as compared to India. It’s like how the Brits say that losing the American colonies wasn’t a really big deal to them at the time. But losing India? There was a reason they fought tooth and nail for nearly an effing whole century from 1857 to 1947 to stubbornly keep it.
GDP is a good reflection not of territory or even of population but of economic output. And that includes resources, labor and everything.
It’s also why people mistakenly think that America became the richest nation on earth only after The Second World War. No, America was on the cusp of that top rank on the eve of the First World War. That one nation birthed in such relatively humble origins from the thirteen little colonies in North America was already as rich as the entire British Empire combined in 1913 and pulling ahead fast. And now you might appreciate why. Because for all of the pieces of British imperial land that look so massively impressive on a map, in terms of economic output it was essentially a question of the USA as compared to the (British Isles + India).
20世纪初，英国的印度总督柯松勋爵在1901年曾经说过：
"只要我们统治印度，我们就是世界上最伟大的国家。如果我们失去了它，我们将直接沦为三流国家。"
他一点也没有夸大其词。
当我们看地图的时候，大英帝国的令人印象深刻的版图里，在经济方面几乎就一个印度次大陆，然后是其他一些可以忽略不计的部分。我们在这里谈论的是经济实力，当然不是土地面积，否则丹麦将成为欧洲最伟大的帝国之一，她拥有巨大的格陵兰岛！
英属印度（今天的印度、巴基斯坦和孟加拉国）的国内生产总值是1870年维多利亚时代英国权力鼎盛时期帝国其他所有领土总和的五倍。而在1913年一战前夕大英帝国的鼎盛时期，则是所有其他领地加起来的四倍之多。
是的，没错，是其他所有领地的4-5倍......加拿大、澳大利亚、马来亚等等，加在一起。
印度次大陆贡献了不少于40-50%的帝国生产力，不列颠群岛本身（英格兰、苏格兰、威尔士和爱尔兰）贡献了另外40-45%，剩下的殖民地加起来只有10%或更少。
大英帝国的经济——维基百科
虽然以上是维基百科的文章，但原始来源是基尔斯迈克尔于2017 年出版的《极性、力量平衡和国际关系理论：后冷战》一书，该书着眼于在现代历史中各个国家和帝国的军事和经济实力。
我曾经说过，如果让英国人在保留印度和保留其所有其他殖民地之间做出选择，他们会选择前者。在心底里，这将是一个不需要思考就能作出的选择。
就英国的帝国而言，印度不仅仅是帝国王冠上的宝石，它几乎是整个该死的王冠!
大英帝国唯一能与印度的GDP贡献相比的地方是.....大不列颠本身（即英格兰、苏格兰和威尔士）。这并不奇怪，毕竟在人力资本质量方面，英国是19世纪中期到20世纪初地球上最先进的地方。
对于所有关于加拿大和澳大利亚等地的资源的讨论，大多数石油、铁或铀都是在这些国家事实上独立之后才被开采的。已经过了他们昔日的帝国女主人可以无情地吸走他们的资源并将其运回母舰的时间了。
但在贪婪的帝国主义时代呢？与印度相比，他们的贡献是最小的。这就像英国人说，失去美国殖民地对他们来说在当时并不是什么大事。但失去印度？从1857年到1947年，他们咬牙坚持，顽强地保住了它，这是有原因的。
GDP是一个很好的反映，不是领土，甚至不是人口，而是经济产出。因为这包括资源、劳动力和一切。
这也是为什么人们错误地认为美国在第二次世界大战后才成为地球上最富有的国家。不，美国在第一次世界大战前夕就处于这个最高等级的边缘。这个从北美的13个小殖民地中诞生的国家，在1913年已经和整个大英帝国的财富总和一样富裕，而且还在快速发展。现在你可能会明白为什么。因为对于所有在地图上看起来如此巨大的大英帝国土地来说，就经济产出而言，这基本上是一个美国与（不列颠群岛+印度）相比的问题。
Emmanuel-Francis Nwaolisa Ogomegbunam
LOL!
When I saw this question, I said ‘because of India’. If that had not been your answer, I intended to post mine saying ‘because of India’.
I will add that in a time when European governments struggled to raise money and thus carry out military campaigns, it was India Army and the Royal Navy that gave Britain the impression of global heft. Together they could strike anywhere outside of mainland Europe.
To contemporaries it must have seemed about as magical as the US’s ability to print unlimited dollars.
哈哈!
当我看到这个问题时，我就想说'因为印度'。如果不是你已经这么回答了，我打算发表我的'因为印度'的答案的。
我想补充的是，在欧洲政府努力筹集资金从而开展军事行动的时候，是印度陆军和皇家海军给英国留下了全球影响力的印象。它们一起可以打击欧洲大陆以外的任何地方。
对同时代的人来说，这似乎就像美国有能力印刷无限的美元一样神奇。
LOL!
When I saw this question, I said ‘because of India’. If that had not been your answer, I intended to post mine saying ‘because of India’.
I will add that in a time when European governments struggled to raise money and thus carry out military campaigns, it was India Army and the Royal Navy that gave Britain the impression of global heft. Together they could strike anywhere outside of mainland Europe.
To contemporaries it must have seemed about as magical as the US’s ability to print unlimited dollars.
哈哈!
当我看到这个问题时，我就想说'因为印度'。如果不是你已经这么回答了，我打算发表我的'因为印度'的答案的。
我想补充的是，在欧洲政府努力筹集资金从而开展军事行动的时候，是印度陆军和皇家海军给英国留下了全球影响力的印象。它们一起可以打击欧洲大陆以外的任何地方。
对同时代的人来说，这似乎就像美国有能力印刷无限的美元一样神奇。
Sumanth Murthy
Lord Curzon was absolutely right.
The biggest mistake made by the British was entering the Great War in 1914 for a bunch of pointless reasons (Belgium’s neutrality?? Luxembourg? Tiny Luxembourg?? Come on!!) where it squandered the power of its youth and the independence movements took off in the “Crown jewel”.
The second war pretty much sealed its fate by making way for the US to emerge as the pre-eminent power on the planet.
柯松勋爵说得很对。
英国所犯的最大错误是在1914年以一堆毫无意义的理由（维持比利时的中立性？为了卢森堡？"小卢森堡"？拜托！）加入了大战，在那里它挥霍了年轻的人力，"皇冠上的宝石"的独立运动开始起飞。
第二次大战几乎注定了它的命运，为美国成为地球上的卓越大国让路。
Lord Curzon was absolutely right.
The biggest mistake made by the British was entering the Great War in 1914 for a bunch of pointless reasons (Belgium’s neutrality?? Luxembourg? Tiny Luxembourg?? Come on!!) where it squandered the power of its youth and the independence movements took off in the “Crown jewel”.
The second war pretty much sealed its fate by making way for the US to emerge as the pre-eminent power on the planet.
柯松勋爵说得很对。
英国所犯的最大错误是在1914年以一堆毫无意义的理由（维持比利时的中立性？为了卢森堡？"小卢森堡"？拜托！）加入了大战，在那里它挥霍了年轻的人力，"皇冠上的宝石"的独立运动开始起飞。
第二次大战几乎注定了它的命运，为美国成为地球上的卓越大国让路。
Derek Fancett
I think the reason the British chose to join the fight then was the realisation that, if they didn’t, in another 10 to 20 years they’d have to fight Germany alone. A Germany that would have control, or access to, all the resources of the European continental countries and founded on its own, considerable, manufacturing ability.
我认为英国人当时选择加入战斗的原因是意识到，如果他们不这样做，再过10到20年他们将不得不单独与德国作战。一个控制或获得欧洲大陆国家所有资源的德国，并且自身拥有者相当强大的制造能力。
I think the reason the British chose to join the fight then was the realisation that, if they didn’t, in another 10 to 20 years they’d have to fight Germany alone. A Germany that would have control, or access to, all the resources of the European continental countries and founded on its own, considerable, manufacturing ability.
我认为英国人当时选择加入战斗的原因是意识到，如果他们不这样做，再过10到20年他们将不得不单独与德国作战。一个控制或获得欧洲大陆国家所有资源的德国，并且自身拥有者相当强大的制造能力。
William Morrison
Quite: if you look at British foreign policy from the Middle Ages right to the present day, the one absolutely constant pillar has been the prevention of the emergence of a hegemonic power on the European mainland. From that perspective, our commitments to Belgium, far from being pointless, were actually the eternal point, and the entanglements in India were a came-then-went distraction of a few short generations.
没错：如果你看一下英国从中世纪至今的外交政策，一个绝对不变的主题就是防止在欧洲大陆出现一个霸权主义国家。从这个角度来看，我们对比利时的承诺远非毫无意义，实际上这才是永恒的重点，而在印度的纠葛只是短短几代人的事。
Quite: if you look at British foreign policy from the Middle Ages right to the present day, the one absolutely constant pillar has been the prevention of the emergence of a hegemonic power on the European mainland. From that perspective, our commitments to Belgium, far from being pointless, were actually the eternal point, and the entanglements in India were a came-then-went distraction of a few short generations.
没错：如果你看一下英国从中世纪至今的外交政策，一个绝对不变的主题就是防止在欧洲大陆出现一个霸权主义国家。从这个角度来看，我们对比利时的承诺远非毫无意义，实际上这才是永恒的重点，而在印度的纠葛只是短短几代人的事。
Stuart Clark
If the Earth decides to move, even a Giant like the British Empire must move as well.
Britain could not very well “sit out” the 1st WW as she had a pact with France and Russia (the Entente Cordiale) where they were bound to protect each other.
Any attack on the Low countries by any European Power always provoked a British reaction, from the time of the Spanish Empire, indeed since Britain was formed itself in 1707 it has been the centerpiece of all her Foreign policy. “No power shall dominate Europe and control the Channel ports, Low countries for a potential assault on Britain “
Britain could not have sat out and watched Belgian overrun, it was in her DNA to respond.
如果地球决定移动，即使像大英帝国这样的巨人也必须跟着移动。
英国不可能在第一次世界大战中"袖手旁观"，因为她与法国和俄国签订了条约（《友好条约》），它们必须相互保护。
任何欧洲大国对低地国家的攻击都会引起英国的反应，从西班牙帝国时期开始，事实上，自从英国在1707年成立以来，这一直是她所有外交政策的核心。"任何大国都不能主宰欧洲并控制海峡港口和低地国家，以便对英国进行潜在的攻击"
英国不可能坐视比利时被侵占，她的基因里就刻有对此的回应。
If the Earth decides to move, even a Giant like the British Empire must move as well.
Britain could not very well “sit out” the 1st WW as she had a pact with France and Russia (the Entente Cordiale) where they were bound to protect each other.
Any attack on the Low countries by any European Power always provoked a British reaction, from the time of the Spanish Empire, indeed since Britain was formed itself in 1707 it has been the centerpiece of all her Foreign policy. “No power shall dominate Europe and control the Channel ports, Low countries for a potential assault on Britain “
Britain could not have sat out and watched Belgian overrun, it was in her DNA to respond.
如果地球决定移动，即使像大英帝国这样的巨人也必须跟着移动。
英国不可能在第一次世界大战中"袖手旁观"，因为她与法国和俄国签订了条约（《友好条约》），它们必须相互保护。
任何欧洲大国对低地国家的攻击都会引起英国的反应，从西班牙帝国时期开始，事实上，自从英国在1707年成立以来，这一直是她所有外交政策的核心。"任何大国都不能主宰欧洲并控制海峡港口和低地国家，以便对英国进行潜在的攻击"
英国不可能坐视比利时被侵占，她的基因里就刻有对此的回应。
John McCluskey
Of course you speak from hindsight as no one fully understood the implications of what was going to occur when all the major powers went to war with modern technological industrial might. They all thought it would be quickly over like Prussia's wars with France and Austria. Also Britain had signed treaties committing itself to defending Belgium if attacked as had France and Prussia. So when Germany invaded Belgium the British Empire went to war. I'm sure Belgium appreciated it.
你说的都是事后诸葛亮，因为当时没有人完全理解当所有大国以现代技术工业力量开战时将会发生什么影响。他们都认为战争会像普鲁士与法国和奥地利的战争一样迅速结束。此外，英国还签署了条约，承诺在比利时受到法国或者普鲁士的攻击时，为其提供保护。因此，当德国入侵比利时时，大英帝国就开战了。我相信比利时一定很感激。
Of course you speak from hindsight as no one fully understood the implications of what was going to occur when all the major powers went to war with modern technological industrial might. They all thought it would be quickly over like Prussia's wars with France and Austria. Also Britain had signed treaties committing itself to defending Belgium if attacked as had France and Prussia. So when Germany invaded Belgium the British Empire went to war. I'm sure Belgium appreciated it.
你说的都是事后诸葛亮，因为当时没有人完全理解当所有大国以现代技术工业力量开战时将会发生什么影响。他们都认为战争会像普鲁士与法国和奥地利的战争一样迅速结束。此外，英国还签署了条约，承诺在比利时受到法国或者普鲁士的攻击时，为其提供保护。因此，当德国入侵比利时时，大英帝国就开战了。我相信比利时一定很感激。
Khengchat Ng
Your third paragraph about British India. Shouldn’t it include present day Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar in addition to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?
你的第三段关于英属印度。除了印度、巴基斯坦和孟加拉国之外，不还应该包括今天的斯里兰卡、尼泊尔、不丹、缅甸吗？
Your third paragraph about British India. Shouldn’t it include present day Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar in addition to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?
你的第三段关于英属印度。除了印度、巴基斯坦和孟加拉国之外，不还应该包括今天的斯里兰卡、尼泊尔、不丹、缅甸吗？
Roshan
British Burma was partitioned off of British India in the 1930s, but yes, it should count for anything prior to the 1930s. Sri Lanka was also partitioned off as Ceylon, and Bhutan and Nepal were subsidiary states that were essentially puppets to the British Empire, but technically weren’t in the same level of influence that other princely states in British India proper were.
英属缅甸是在20世纪30年代从英属印度分割出来的，但是是的，它应该算作20世纪30年代之前的东西。斯里兰卡也被分割为锡兰，不丹和尼泊尔是附属国，基本上是大英帝国的傀儡，但从技术上讲，它们的影响力与英属印度的其他王子国不同。
British Burma was partitioned off of British India in the 1930s, but yes, it should count for anything prior to the 1930s. Sri Lanka was also partitioned off as Ceylon, and Bhutan and Nepal were subsidiary states that were essentially puppets to the British Empire, but technically weren’t in the same level of influence that other princely states in British India proper were.
英属缅甸是在20世纪30年代从英属印度分割出来的，但是是的，它应该算作20世纪30年代之前的东西。斯里兰卡也被分割为锡兰，不丹和尼泊尔是附属国，基本上是大英帝国的傀儡，但从技术上讲，它们的影响力与英属印度的其他王子国不同。
Parliamentarian
A few questions Mr. Lobo, if you don't mind,
1 What do you think of British rule in India? By that I mean to say, do you think that, everything considered, it was beneficial or was it as parasitic as the Belgian one
2 Do you maintain, as historians Niall Ferguson and David Starkey do, that Britain's Empire essentially created modernity and that we, the rest of the world, should be grateful to them or do you see it as jingoism?
3 Is there a lesson to be learnt from the dismantlement of the British empire for the United States?
4 Where do you see Britain post Brexit? Do you think they'll regain some of the old glory (scientific and technological, not imperial obviously) as a result of the deregulating or “unshackling" of their finance, tech manufacturing etc. industries or are they destined to remain a diminished power with their relevance and might on the world stage decreasing as time goes on?
Also, thank you for writing on Quora, I'm quite grateful to read your opinions. They have helped shape my views on geopolitics, politics among other things significantly. Could you please write more about empires and superpowers. I'm particularly fond of reading about the United States and the British Empire. I'm currently reading about England's history, Ron Paul's manifesto for America, Macaulay's reforms in India, Admiral Horatio Nelson, East India Company, 7 Years War, Domestic Effects of the British Empire and Daniel Hannan's book about how the British invented freedom and their colonists took it to new heights (have you read his book? What do you think?)
如果不介意的话，我想问你几个问题，洛博先生：
1 你对英国在印度的统治有何看法？我的意思是说，你是否认为，从所有方面考虑，它是有益的，还是像比利时在非洲的统治一样是寄生性的？
2 你是否像历史学家尼尔-弗格森和大卫-斯塔基那样认为，大英帝国本质上创造了现代性，而我们，世界其他地方，应该感谢他们，还是你认为这是一种沙文主义？
3 从大英帝国的解体中，美国是否可以吸取教训？
4 你认为英国在脱欧后的处境如何？你认为他们是否会因为金融、科技制造业等行业的放松管制或"解除束缚"而恢复一些昔日的荣耀（说的科学和技术，显然不是在说帝国），还是他们注定要继续成为一个被削弱的大国，随着时间的推移，他们在世界舞台上的相关性和力量会越来越小？
另外，感谢你在Quora上的写作，我非常感谢能阅读你的看法。它们帮助我形成了对地缘政治、政治和其他事物的看法，这一点很重要。你能不能多写一些关于帝国和超级大国的文章。我特别喜欢阅读关于美国和大英帝国的文章。我目前正在阅读英国的历史、罗恩-保罗的美国宣言、麦考利在印度的改革、霍雷肖-纳尔逊上将、东印度公司、7年战争、大英帝国的国内影响以及丹尼尔-汉南关于英国人如何发明自由和他们的殖民者如何将其推向新的高度的书（你读过他的书吗？ 你怎么看呢？）
A few questions Mr. Lobo, if you don't mind,
1 What do you think of British rule in India? By that I mean to say, do you think that, everything considered, it was beneficial or was it as parasitic as the Belgian one
2 Do you maintain, as historians Niall Ferguson and David Starkey do, that Britain's Empire essentially created modernity and that we, the rest of the world, should be grateful to them or do you see it as jingoism?
3 Is there a lesson to be learnt from the dismantlement of the British empire for the United States?
4 Where do you see Britain post Brexit? Do you think they'll regain some of the old glory (scientific and technological, not imperial obviously) as a result of the deregulating or “unshackling" of their finance, tech manufacturing etc. industries or are they destined to remain a diminished power with their relevance and might on the world stage decreasing as time goes on?
Also, thank you for writing on Quora, I'm quite grateful to read your opinions. They have helped shape my views on geopolitics, politics among other things significantly. Could you please write more about empires and superpowers. I'm particularly fond of reading about the United States and the British Empire. I'm currently reading about England's history, Ron Paul's manifesto for America, Macaulay's reforms in India, Admiral Horatio Nelson, East India Company, 7 Years War, Domestic Effects of the British Empire and Daniel Hannan's book about how the British invented freedom and their colonists took it to new heights (have you read his book? What do you think?)
如果不介意的话，我想问你几个问题，洛博先生：
1 你对英国在印度的统治有何看法？我的意思是说，你是否认为，从所有方面考虑，它是有益的，还是像比利时在非洲的统治一样是寄生性的？
2 你是否像历史学家尼尔-弗格森和大卫-斯塔基那样认为，大英帝国本质上创造了现代性，而我们，世界其他地方，应该感谢他们，还是你认为这是一种沙文主义？
3 从大英帝国的解体中，美国是否可以吸取教训？
4 你认为英国在脱欧后的处境如何？你认为他们是否会因为金融、科技制造业等行业的放松管制或"解除束缚"而恢复一些昔日的荣耀（说的科学和技术，显然不是在说帝国），还是他们注定要继续成为一个被削弱的大国，随着时间的推移，他们在世界舞台上的相关性和力量会越来越小？
另外，感谢你在Quora上的写作，我非常感谢能阅读你的看法。它们帮助我形成了对地缘政治、政治和其他事物的看法，这一点很重要。你能不能多写一些关于帝国和超级大国的文章。我特别喜欢阅读关于美国和大英帝国的文章。我目前正在阅读英国的历史、罗恩-保罗的美国宣言、麦考利在印度的改革、霍雷肖-纳尔逊上将、东印度公司、7年战争、大英帝国的国内影响以及丹尼尔-汉南关于英国人如何发明自由和他们的殖民者如何将其推向新的高度的书（你读过他的书吗？ 你怎么看呢？）
Allen Lobo
On Q1 - It’s very hard to opine on that to be honest. The problem with condemning Great Britain for all of her exploitation of India (which was considerable, no question about it), is that you have to weigh that up not against some advanced democratic Indian state. But rather against a counterfactual of how India would have done under the Marathas, Mysore, Nizam and others among which India was divided when the East India Company gained and then consolidated its rule in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
In fact there was no such political entity as “India”, it was a vast number of empires, some large and others small, and then hundreds of tiny princely states. These empires were extremely wealthy but not technologically advanced in say even the late 18th century, in comparison to West Europe, and that includes not just civilian technology but military as well. In fact one of the largest empires, the Mughals, were sacked by Iran with absolute impunity.
So the question is “Would rule by these emperors have been better or worse than the British? And how would the fate of the Indian subcontinent have proceeded had the British never set foot?””
Well they (the former rulers) certainly wouldn’t have exploited India as mercilessly as the East India Company first (until 1857/8) and then Imperial Britain did. Nor have turned a blind eye to famine after famine.
But on the other hand, they wouldn’t have set up such things as administrative services, railways and communications, infrastructure and educational institutions including the English language, armed services with the level of efficiency that the British did. All of which India has and continues to benefit immensely from.
British rule in India was in no way anywhere as parasitic as that of Belgium in the Congo. The Congo was hardly left with any institutions or infrastructure of worth by virtue of Belgian rule. That was a straight-up loot and rape of the Congo, no excuses offered. You won’t find anyone weighing up whether Belgian rule was good or bad on balance.
Back to the Brits in India, I’ll leave the weighing up of such counterfactuals to the scholars, I’m honestly not qualified enough to pronounce judgment. But I say all of the above to at least demonstrate that several factors need to be taken into account before pronouncing any kind of historical judgment about the British.
关于第一个问题--说实话，很难对此发表意见。谴责英国对印度的所有剥削（毫无疑问，这是相当大的剥削）的问题在于，你不能将其与一些现在先进的印度民主邦进行权衡。而是与印度在马拉塔人、迈索尔人、尼扎姆人和其他国家下的表现相对比，当东印度公司在18世纪末和19世纪初获得并巩固其统治时，印度是由这些国家分别统治的。
事实上，并不存在"印度"这样的政治实体，它里面有几个帝国，有的大，有的小，然后是数百个小王子国。这些帝国非常富有，但与西欧相比，即使在18世纪末，技术也不先进，这不仅包括民用技术，还包括军事技术。事实上，最大的帝国之一莫卧儿帝国，被伊朗洗劫一空，却没有受到任何惩罚。
所以问题是"这些皇帝的统治会比英国人更好还是更差？如果英国人从未涉足，印度次大陆的命运又会如何发展？"
他们（前统治者）肯定不会像东印度公司（直到1857/8年）和英国帝国那样无情地剥削印度。也不会对一场又一场的饥荒视而不见。
但另一方面，他们也不会像英国人那样高效地建立起行政服务、铁路和通信、基础设施和教育机构（包括英语）、武装力量等。所有这些，印度都已经继承并继续从中受益匪浅。
英国在印度的统治绝不像比利时在刚果的统治那样具有寄生性。由于比利时的统治，刚果几乎没有留下任何有价值的机构或基础设施。那是对刚果的直接掠夺和强奸，没有任何借口可言。你不会看到有人会去权衡比利时的统治是好是坏。
回到英国人在印度的问题上，我会把这种反事实的权衡留给学者们，说实话，我没有足够的资格来宣布判断。但我说以上这些，至少说明在对英国人作出任何形式的历史判断之前，需要考虑到几个因素。
On Q1 - It’s very hard to opine on that to be honest. The problem with condemning Great Britain for all of her exploitation of India (which was considerable, no question about it), is that you have to weigh that up not against some advanced democratic Indian state. But rather against a counterfactual of how India would have done under the Marathas, Mysore, Nizam and others among which India was divided when the East India Company gained and then consolidated its rule in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
In fact there was no such political entity as “India”, it was a vast number of empires, some large and others small, and then hundreds of tiny princely states. These empires were extremely wealthy but not technologically advanced in say even the late 18th century, in comparison to West Europe, and that includes not just civilian technology but military as well. In fact one of the largest empires, the Mughals, were sacked by Iran with absolute impunity.
So the question is “Would rule by these emperors have been better or worse than the British? And how would the fate of the Indian subcontinent have proceeded had the British never set foot?””
Well they (the former rulers) certainly wouldn’t have exploited India as mercilessly as the East India Company first (until 1857/8) and then Imperial Britain did. Nor have turned a blind eye to famine after famine.
But on the other hand, they wouldn’t have set up such things as administrative services, railways and communications, infrastructure and educational institutions including the English language, armed services with the level of efficiency that the British did. All of which India has and continues to benefit immensely from.
British rule in India was in no way anywhere as parasitic as that of Belgium in the Congo. The Congo was hardly left with any institutions or infrastructure of worth by virtue of Belgian rule. That was a straight-up loot and rape of the Congo, no excuses offered. You won’t find anyone weighing up whether Belgian rule was good or bad on balance.
Back to the Brits in India, I’ll leave the weighing up of such counterfactuals to the scholars, I’m honestly not qualified enough to pronounce judgment. But I say all of the above to at least demonstrate that several factors need to be taken into account before pronouncing any kind of historical judgment about the British.
关于第一个问题--说实话，很难对此发表意见。谴责英国对印度的所有剥削（毫无疑问，这是相当大的剥削）的问题在于，你不能将其与一些现在先进的印度民主邦进行权衡。而是与印度在马拉塔人、迈索尔人、尼扎姆人和其他国家下的表现相对比，当东印度公司在18世纪末和19世纪初获得并巩固其统治时，印度是由这些国家分别统治的。
事实上，并不存在"印度"这样的政治实体，它里面有几个帝国，有的大，有的小，然后是数百个小王子国。这些帝国非常富有，但与西欧相比，即使在18世纪末，技术也不先进，这不仅包括民用技术，还包括军事技术。事实上，最大的帝国之一莫卧儿帝国，被伊朗洗劫一空，却没有受到任何惩罚。
所以问题是"这些皇帝的统治会比英国人更好还是更差？如果英国人从未涉足，印度次大陆的命运又会如何发展？"
他们（前统治者）肯定不会像东印度公司（直到1857/8年）和英国帝国那样无情地剥削印度。也不会对一场又一场的饥荒视而不见。
但另一方面，他们也不会像英国人那样高效地建立起行政服务、铁路和通信、基础设施和教育机构（包括英语）、武装力量等。所有这些，印度都已经继承并继续从中受益匪浅。
英国在印度的统治绝不像比利时在刚果的统治那样具有寄生性。由于比利时的统治，刚果几乎没有留下任何有价值的机构或基础设施。那是对刚果的直接掠夺和强奸，没有任何借口可言。你不会看到有人会去权衡比利时的统治是好是坏。
回到英国人在印度的问题上，我会把这种反事实的权衡留给学者们，说实话，我没有足够的资格来宣布判断。但我说以上这些，至少说明在对英国人作出任何形式的历史判断之前，需要考虑到几个因素。
Prince Yadav
Mughal Empire was parasitic. They never build Navy and Sea dominance like Bappal Rawal, Shivaji Maharaj and Rajendra Chola.
Not just that, heavy taxation meant that no non aristocrats Indians would able to go anything beyond other than 3 times meals.
Regarding your statement, India isn't a small country to rule. Distance between London and moscow is much less than distance between Delhi and Thiruvanathpuram, Kerala. Also when british start to exploit chance, it was because Mughal empire broke down which covered all parts of India even some boundaries going to Afghanistan. Sure politically we weren't always under one dominion but Bhārat country Consciousness did exist.
莫卧儿帝国是寄生性的。他们从来没有像Bappal Rawal、Shivaji Maharaj和Rajendra Chola那样建立海军和海上优势。
不仅如此，沉重的税收意味着非贵族的印度人除了三餐之外，留不下任何东西。
关于你的说法，印度并不是一个可以随便统治的小国家。伦敦和莫斯科之间的距离比德里和喀拉拉邦的蒂鲁瓦纳特普兰之间的距离要小得多。另外，英国人能够开始利用机会蚕食印度，是因为覆盖了印度的所有地区，甚至一些边界延申到了阿富汗的莫卧儿帝国崩溃了。当然，在政治上我们并不总是处在一个统治下，但巴拉特（大印度）国家意识确实存在。
Mughal Empire was parasitic. They never build Navy and Sea dominance like Bappal Rawal, Shivaji Maharaj and Rajendra Chola.
Not just that, heavy taxation meant that no non aristocrats Indians would able to go anything beyond other than 3 times meals.
Regarding your statement, India isn't a small country to rule. Distance between London and moscow is much less than distance between Delhi and Thiruvanathpuram, Kerala. Also when british start to exploit chance, it was because Mughal empire broke down which covered all parts of India even some boundaries going to Afghanistan. Sure politically we weren't always under one dominion but Bhārat country Consciousness did exist.
莫卧儿帝国是寄生性的。他们从来没有像Bappal Rawal、Shivaji Maharaj和Rajendra Chola那样建立海军和海上优势。
不仅如此，沉重的税收意味着非贵族的印度人除了三餐之外，留不下任何东西。
关于你的说法，印度并不是一个可以随便统治的小国家。伦敦和莫斯科之间的距离比德里和喀拉拉邦的蒂鲁瓦纳特普兰之间的距离要小得多。另外，英国人能够开始利用机会蚕食印度，是因为覆盖了印度的所有地区，甚至一些边界延申到了阿富汗的莫卧儿帝国崩溃了。当然，在政治上我们并不总是处在一个统治下，但巴拉特（大印度）国家意识确实存在。
Sirn Nedanri
I like your very well thought out and researched answers. I have but one comment on your assessment that had India not being taken over by the British empire the rulers would not have set up things like administrative services,, infrastructure, educational institutions etc. I'm not sure why you would claim that. Surely in the past, long before Western Europe was even much of a presence, empires such as that of Ashoka (3rd C BC), The Gupta empire (4–5th C), and And of course the mogul ruler Akbar (16th C) set up extensive and well maintained administrative systems. The Gupta rulers even employed d an extensive network of spies to ensure that people followed the rules! Similarly with regard to educational institutions, I don't think that India was lagging behind any of the other major nations in that regard. In fact the world's first secular university was in India. So
I think the best comparison would be with China, Which was mostly not ruled by the British, and developed all of these systems subsequently. About the only advantage that you mentioned in this regard would be the English language. However India paid a high price for this, not only losing its status as the world's second biggest economy when the the British empire began to ending up as a poor nation when they left. Not to mention the damage it did to the Indian psyche of not knowing their own history, and thinking that anything good had to come from abroad.
我喜欢你经过深思熟虑和研究的答案。我对你的评价只有一点意见，即如果印度没有被大英帝国占领，统治者就不会建立诸如行政服务、基础设施、教育机构等东西。我不知道你为什么会这么说。当然，在过去，早在西欧还没有什么存在感的时候，诸如阿育王（公元前3年）、古普塔帝国（公元前4-5年），当然还有大亨阿克巴（公元16年）等帝国都建立了广泛而完善的行政系统。古普塔帝国的统治者甚至雇佣了一个广泛的间谍网络，以确保人们遵守规则。同样，在教育机构方面，我不认为印度在这方面落后于任何其他主要国家。事实上，世界上第一所世俗大学就在印度。所以
我认为最好的比较是与中国的比较，中国大部分时间没有被英国统治，后来也发展出了所有这些制度。在这方面，你提到的唯一独特的优势是英语。然而，印度为此付出了高昂的代价，不仅在大英帝国开始时失去了世界第二大经济体的地位，而且在大英帝国离开时成为了一个贫穷国家。更不用说它对印度人的心理造成的伤害，使得他们不了解自己的历史，认为任何好事都肯定来自国外。
I like your very well thought out and researched answers. I have but one comment on your assessment that had India not being taken over by the British empire the rulers would not have set up things like administrative services,, infrastructure, educational institutions etc. I'm not sure why you would claim that. Surely in the past, long before Western Europe was even much of a presence, empires such as that of Ashoka (3rd C BC), The Gupta empire (4–5th C), and And of course the mogul ruler Akbar (16th C) set up extensive and well maintained administrative systems. The Gupta rulers even employed d an extensive network of spies to ensure that people followed the rules! Similarly with regard to educational institutions, I don't think that India was lagging behind any of the other major nations in that regard. In fact the world's first secular university was in India. So
I think the best comparison would be with China, Which was mostly not ruled by the British, and developed all of these systems subsequently. About the only advantage that you mentioned in this regard would be the English language. However India paid a high price for this, not only losing its status as the world's second biggest economy when the the British empire began to ending up as a poor nation when they left. Not to mention the damage it did to the Indian psyche of not knowing their own history, and thinking that anything good had to come from abroad.
我喜欢你经过深思熟虑和研究的答案。我对你的评价只有一点意见，即如果印度没有被大英帝国占领，统治者就不会建立诸如行政服务、基础设施、教育机构等东西。我不知道你为什么会这么说。当然，在过去，早在西欧还没有什么存在感的时候，诸如阿育王（公元前3年）、古普塔帝国（公元前4-5年），当然还有大亨阿克巴（公元16年）等帝国都建立了广泛而完善的行政系统。古普塔帝国的统治者甚至雇佣了一个广泛的间谍网络，以确保人们遵守规则。同样，在教育机构方面，我不认为印度在这方面落后于任何其他主要国家。事实上，世界上第一所世俗大学就在印度。所以
我认为最好的比较是与中国的比较，中国大部分时间没有被英国统治，后来也发展出了所有这些制度。在这方面，你提到的唯一独特的优势是英语。然而，印度为此付出了高昂的代价，不仅在大英帝国开始时失去了世界第二大经济体的地位，而且在大英帝国离开时成为了一个贫穷国家。更不用说它对印度人的心理造成的伤害，使得他们不了解自己的历史，认为任何好事都肯定来自国外。
Dana Carson
Not anywhere near an expert but I remember a chart of GDP per capita for India. During the time of British control it went up a lot less per year than before or after. It still went up but the curve was a lot flatter. And it jumped back to a sharper climb quickly after independence.
我不是什么专家，但我记得有一张印度人均GDP的图表。在英国控制时期，每年的增长幅度比之前或之后要小得多。它仍然在上升，但曲线要平缓得多。独立后，它又迅速跳回了一个更高速率的攀升。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Not anywhere near an expert but I remember a chart of GDP per capita for India. During the time of British control it went up a lot less per year than before or after. It still went up but the curve was a lot flatter. And it jumped back to a sharper climb quickly after independence.
我不是什么专家，但我记得有一张印度人均GDP的图表。在英国控制时期，每年的增长幅度比之前或之后要小得多。它仍然在上升，但曲线要平缓得多。独立后，它又迅速跳回了一个更高速率的攀升。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Prashant Deshmukh
As my way of thanking you for your very excellent answers, please allow me to add a dimension to the discussion: Princely states like Travancore, Baroda, Gwalior and even Hyderabad had a higher HDI and a higher development as compared to British India. And that disparity has continued till date.
So compared to even local princely states, British India lagged in terms of modernity and development.
It's an interesting what-if situation to ponder.
为了感谢你非常出色的回答，请允许我在讨论中补充一个方面。与英属印度相比，特拉万科、巴罗达、瓜廖尔甚至海德拉巴等王子国的人类发展指数更高，发展水平更高。而且这种差距一直持续到现在。
因此，与当地的王子国相比，英属印度在现代性和发展方面都很落后。
这是一个有趣的假设情况，值得深思。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
As my way of thanking you for your very excellent answers, please allow me to add a dimension to the discussion: Princely states like Travancore, Baroda, Gwalior and even Hyderabad had a higher HDI and a higher development as compared to British India. And that disparity has continued till date.
So compared to even local princely states, British India lagged in terms of modernity and development.
It's an interesting what-if situation to ponder.
为了感谢你非常出色的回答，请允许我在讨论中补充一个方面。与英属印度相比，特拉万科、巴罗达、瓜廖尔甚至海德拉巴等王子国的人类发展指数更高，发展水平更高。而且这种差距一直持续到现在。
因此，与当地的王子国相比，英属印度在现代性和发展方面都很落后。
这是一个有趣的假设情况，值得深思。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Greg Kemnitz
Don’t forget that Burma and Sri Lanka/Ceylan were also part of British India, which went from Thailand in the East to Persia/Iran in the West.
One wonders how the world goes if British India ends up becoming a single state and the “partitions” don’t happen…
别忘了，缅甸和斯里兰卡/锡兰也是英属印度的一部分，英属印度从东部的泰国到西部的波斯/伊朗。
人们不禁要问，如果英属印度最终成为一个单一的国家，而"分治"没有发生，那么这个世界将如何发展...
Don’t forget that Burma and Sri Lanka/Ceylan were also part of British India, which went from Thailand in the East to Persia/Iran in the West.
One wonders how the world goes if British India ends up becoming a single state and the “partitions” don’t happen…
别忘了，缅甸和斯里兰卡/锡兰也是英属印度的一部分，英属印度从东部的泰国到西部的波斯/伊朗。
人们不禁要问，如果英属印度最终成为一个单一的国家，而"分治"没有发生，那么这个世界将如何发展...
Roméo Rousseau
So many deaths…. So many civil wars……
那会有无数的死亡......无尽的内战......
So many deaths…. So many civil wars……
那会有无数的死亡......无尽的内战......
Prince Yadav
British were twice defeated by Mysore kingdom which has first rocket missile and one by Marathas. They were only capable of ruling India because of betrayal and internal feud among Marathas, if they went unlucky in any case, they would no longer hold the Influence.
Not to forget the army, resources, market and capital british get to industrialise itself. While colonial apologist point out to railways, truth was when Indians start designing their own locomotives much cheaper and at par with british, they bring laws and banned Indian workers to build locomotives, they made huge profits on Railways while all burden were on Indians taxpayers. Railways was a colonial scam.
Horace Walpole, Politician and writer went on tour and showed building after building in London built by money of India. He called England “Sinkholes of India's weath”.
英国人曾两次被拥有世界第一枚火箭导弹的迈索尔王国打败，一次被马拉塔人打败。他们之所以能够统治印度，只是因为马拉塔人的背叛和内部争斗，如果他们运气不是那么好，英国就统治不了印度。
更不用说英国在工业化方面得到的军队、资源、市场和资本。当殖民主义者的辩护者提出英国对印度铁路的贡献时，事实是当印度人开始设计自己的机车时，价格要比英国人便宜得多，但是英国人制定了法律，禁止印度工人制造机车，以使他们在铁路上获得了巨大的利润，而所有的负担都压在印度的纳税人身上。铁路就是一个殖民时期的骗局。
政治家和作家霍勒斯-沃波尔去参观了伦敦的一个又一个建筑，这些建筑是用印度的钱建造的。他称英国为"印度财富的黑洞"。
British were twice defeated by Mysore kingdom which has first rocket missile and one by Marathas. They were only capable of ruling India because of betrayal and internal feud among Marathas, if they went unlucky in any case, they would no longer hold the Influence.
Not to forget the army, resources, market and capital british get to industrialise itself. While colonial apologist point out to railways, truth was when Indians start designing their own locomotives much cheaper and at par with british, they bring laws and banned Indian workers to build locomotives, they made huge profits on Railways while all burden were on Indians taxpayers. Railways was a colonial scam.
Horace Walpole, Politician and writer went on tour and showed building after building in London built by money of India. He called England “Sinkholes of India's weath”.
英国人曾两次被拥有世界第一枚火箭导弹的迈索尔王国打败，一次被马拉塔人打败。他们之所以能够统治印度，只是因为马拉塔人的背叛和内部争斗，如果他们运气不是那么好，英国就统治不了印度。
更不用说英国在工业化方面得到的军队、资源、市场和资本。当殖民主义者的辩护者提出英国对印度铁路的贡献时，事实是当印度人开始设计自己的机车时，价格要比英国人便宜得多，但是英国人制定了法律，禁止印度工人制造机车，以使他们在铁路上获得了巨大的利润，而所有的负担都压在印度的纳税人身上。铁路就是一个殖民时期的骗局。
政治家和作家霍勒斯-沃波尔去参观了伦敦的一个又一个建筑，这些建筑是用印度的钱建造的。他称英国为"印度财富的黑洞"。
很赞 1
收藏