Only a quarter of the USA was part of the British Empire? I thought it was more. I know some was under French control and a fair bit was still owned/controlled by native Americans, but that 25% figure surprised me.
well, Alaska was russian controlled, Florida and a very big part of the south west were spanish/mexican, france had Louisiana which was far more then just the state of Louisiana. basically england only controlled new england, most of the eastcoast, the south minus louisiana and florida and the big lakes
English possessions in what is today the USA were very small. Nowhere near the 25% the British Empire eventually controlled. I'm not sure about Wales but Scotland's contribution to the empire was enormous. To downplay other nations involvement is disingenuous. Not only does it reek of English superiority, but it also absolves Scotland of responsibilities committed by the Empire.
I'm surprised it was anywhere near as high as 25% of the modern day country. Would have guessed it was closer to around 15%. It was the 13 colonies after all, which is a quarter the number of states that currently exist. Factor in how all those east cost states are much smaller than west and central ones and I'm still surprised the British territories took up as much as 25%.
I think the US won some land from Britain outside the 13 colonies after it gained independence, roughly stretching from the Great Lakes to (almost) the Gulf of Mexico.
Yes, the UK itself was my first guess. Didn't realize the British Empire controlled such large portions of so many other countries. For those wondering, the UK is 242,500 sq km.
Yeah; that map QM used as a source is misleading. PARTS of Afghanistan were territory of the Empire, but only small bits, mostly areas around their military bases. They never controlled the whole country.
The status of the "white dominions" was fuzzy, but I think that South Africa's independent status had reached approximately that of Canada's by the end of WWI. And then, I think, German South-West Africa (Namibia) was transferred directly to South Africa under the mandate system. Could be wrong.
Yes, Namibia was not under British rule as SA was already a dominion when the mandate over the former German South-West Africa was given to it. It shouldn't count imo.
This is not as clear cut as you may think and there is a debate as to exactly when South Africa could be considered to be independent. The Union of South Africa was formed in 1910 and had dominion status like Canada, Australia etc. This didn't mean it was independent though. It wasn't given a choice to enter in WWI, which would indicate it wasn't independent. It did sign the Treaty of Versailles as if it was an independent country though. That treaty gave SA control of Namibia. It was only in 1926 though that the UK passed the Statute of Westminster, which in theory gave all Dominions independence. This law had to be incorporated into domestic law though, which in South Africa's case happened in 1931. No doubt that SA was independent during WWII though as it nearly stayed out of the war. It became a full Republic in 1961. As such, a case could be made out certainly between 1919 and 1926 that the UK controlled Namibia via South Africa.
I never knew Britain once ruled the whole of the Canadian territory? I thought parts were once part of the French empire, for example Quebec, hence why French is an official language there
French people were the original settlers to Canada, the British came after and conquered it from the French. The highest concentration of french people at the time of British colonization were in Quebec and Acadia (what's now New Brunswick and parts of Nova Scotia). Quebec fiercely defended their French culture and resisted assimilation for many years and when Canada became an independent country, French was given official status to accommodate the Quebeckers
I'm skipping quite a few steps in there but that's the gist of what happened. Source: Canadian with French heritage.
Well, the British claimed sovereignty over the whole area, but had transferred a huge portion (Rupertsland) to the Hudson Bay Company in 1670, without ever having "ruled" any of it. The company held it until it was sold to the government of Canada in 1869. So, it's fuzzy, like so much else about sovereignty.
The one with India is incorrect. Parts of India like Goa were part of Portugal, while Pondicherry French, Sikkim was an independent Buddhist Kingdom like Bhutan.
I believe (I may be mistaken) that Sikkim was eventually under British rule, and my guess about the other European colonies is that they are very small, so that the percentage is closer to 100%
I wouldn't say that. The parts of Pondicherry, Chandannagar, Goa et cetera are really very small... So yeah maybe UK didn't controlled 100% of India but it had nearly 99% of it
What's most upsetting as a Brit is that if we hadn't treated the inhabitants of those countries so appallingly we might still have the majority of those countries.There's a lesson for all empire builders right there (*cough* Russia, *cough* China)
I'm skipping quite a few steps in there but that's the gist of what happened. Source: Canadian with French heritage.