The British East India Company

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Coat_of_arms_of_the_East_India_Company.svg/2000px-Coat_of_arms_of_the_East_India_Company.svg.png

I suppose the majority of us have heard of the British East India Company before, but did you know that it was originally called 'Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies'? That's quite a name, isn't it? Apparently the term British East India Company wouldn't have been formal enough for the Royal Charter in 1600. So now that we have learnt about this significant name we can ask ourselves what precisely the British East India Company was for. What exactly did they trade into the East Indies? As we can already guess due to its name, the company was owned by some London businessmen who specialised in importing goods from South Asia. One of the most interesting facts about the company is that it was supposed to pursue trade with the East Indies but somehow ended up mainly trading with the Indian subcontinent and Qing China. The British East India Company mainly traded with cotton, silk, salt, saltpetre, tea and opium. However, the first thing they imported were spices.

https://thechatterjis.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/traders-652-353.png

Nowadays it is said that the company kind of formed the beginnings of the British Empire in India. The company received a Royal Charter by Queen Elizabeth I which made it to one of the most important European East India Companies. Of course those other European companies turned out as competitors, which is why the British East India Company eventually had to assemble its own military and administrative departments. The company was successful for quite a long time, it was very popular and one of the main importers of goods from different countries. However, there were some incidents, like for example the Indian Mutinity in 1857, which led to the fact that the company went out of existence in 1873.



http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/india/eic.html

Gibraltar - "Gate to Spain"

http://www.visitgibraltar.gi/images/homepage_slider/df1aw_slide2.jpeg

As we all know Gibraltar is still one of Britain's most popular colonies. Apparently, Gibraltar was ceded to Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. Since then, Spain has constantly been trying to regain their power over the British Overseas Territory which is part of the Iberian Peninsula. During WW2 especially the Royal Navy settled in the territory as it is kind of seen as "a gate" to the Mediterranean Sea.

Nowadays, almost more than 30,000 people live in Gibraltar, not only Gibraltarians but also other nationalities. Tourism plays a significant role in Gibraltar's economy. Duty-free shopping and several sights attract many tourists throughout the whole year. The most famous sight of the country is definitely the fortification of Gibraltar. As Field Marshal Sir John Chapple pointed out, it is "probably the most fought over and most densely fortified place in Europe, and probably, therefore, in the world".

http://www.gibraltar.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/trafalgar_cemetery.jpg

However, there are also other attractions which make tourists enjoy their visit, for example the local monkeys, also called Barbary macaques, are very popular all over the world as well as the flowstone caves of Gibraltar. The so-called Trafalgar Cemetery is a great tourist attraction too, whereupon its name is a bit misleading. Contrary to its denomination only two people who are buried there actually fought in the battle of Trafalgar. The majority of the people whose graves can be seen at this cemetery were victims of other sea battles.

http://www.abenteurer.net/wp-content/uploads/gibraltar-affen.jpg

Nowadays Gibraltar airport is a very important economic factor as it offers people from the United Kingdom a favourable possibility to get to one of Britain's main colonie, which is also considered as "the gate to Spain".




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortifications_of_Gibraltar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gibraltar

Malta and the British Empire

Malta's 'Britishness' today

When I switched on my tv on friday afternoon the image of Queen Elizabeth II immediately appeared on my screen. Apparently her majesty, her husband Philip Duke of Edinburgh as well as their son Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, had returned to Malta. The occasion for the queen's visit to this tiny island was a meeting of the heads of government from across the Commonwealth.

Malta officially became part of the British Empire in 1814 and regained its independence in September 1964. That means that they were under British rule for almost 150 years. However, if one travels to this historic island today they will immediately sense the aftermaths of the British Empire. 

When I was in Malta in June 2015 I noticed that it is not only bilingual street signs which can be found there but also left-hand traffic. Moreover, most citizens still speak English as their mother tongue. There is only a small percentage of inhabitants who are able to speak the original language Maltese. This became pretty obvious to me when I had a walk through Malta's capital city La Valetta. You can find English language schools wherever you go and a lot of students from abroad actually come to Malta to improve their English language skills. The fact that Maltese children wear school uniform was also very striking. Furthermore, the post boxes as well as telephone boxes which can be seen in the streets of Malta look similar to those British ones. During my holiday I also had the impression that you can figure out which buildings were built by British people as their archictecture leads back to the British building structure. 

http://www.malta-urlaub.eu/gfx/malta-wappen/malta-wappen.jpg

http://www.theflagshop.co.uk/ekmps/shops/speed/images/malta-flag-156-p.jpg

https://estherwarren.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/p1050825.jpg

The Widow of Windsor 

"Queen Victoria is associated with Britain's great age of industrial expansion, economic progress and, especially, empire. At her death, it was said, Britain had a worldwide empire on which the sun never set" (The British Monarchy).

Of course we have all heard about Queen Victoria before. She is one of Britain's most popular monarchs and has contributed to a huge part of Britain's history. She is not only well known as a connector during the industrialisation, but also for her marriage with the German Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and the establishment of the British Empire.

Victoria became heir to the throne in 1837 at the young age of 18. Since she was a young girl when she became queen she felt very insecure and was scared that she might not be able to be a good ruler. That is probably the reason why her first Prime Minister Lord Melbourne, as well as her husband Prince Albert, had a great influence on her.

Most of Victoria's nine children married members of other European royal families. Precisely, we owe this national diversity that is nowadays part of the British monarchy to her as she did not only marry a German man herself but also agreed on her children's marriages to non-English people. Even today we can still find that kind of openness towards other nationalities in the English royal dynasty if one considers for example the marriage of Queen Elizabeth II to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Philip has Greek, Danish and German ancestors.

After the death of her beloved husband in 1861 Victoria sank into depression and became a very distant woman. She hardly ever appeared in public and decided to stay on her own. Moreover, she always wore black which she became very popular for.  

"She was persuaded to open Parliament in person in 1866 and 1867, but she was widely criticised for living in seclusion and quite a strong republican movement developed" (The British Monarchy).

Victoria later became 'Empress of India' and was a "very strong supporter of Empire" in general.
"In her later years she almost became the symbol of the British Empire"(The British Monarchy).
However, she also played a huge part in industrialisation, for example she supported the construction of railways and was the first monarch to use trains. She also cared about society which is why she supported quite a few charities and was eager to fund hospitals and schools.

Victoria died in 1901. Her reign of almost 64 years was the longest in British history until Queen Elizabeth II became longest-serving monarch in September 2015.



http://www.royal.gov.uk/historyofthemonarchy/kingsandqueensoftheunitedkingdom/thehanoverians/victoria.aspx

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEjoKv8ZNxKi2cArHMeX0DDkeW0QlquWh2U0Y-LYcMijoQqNBZtvDbSFT9A1Lj5QKsRsMLNbMYLolAt4LLu8uteNMG_F7NR_efrX-OtF5QwSFt3WnWyVGflhJh-WNbwCos7uy8R37b46-m5_u0JGIujLObVbRtF3YvH3NAzvsTB6Pgnzy1pLswGu8QVgVi3SwKoTMk1b3-g1afeaakXXpk-dGN2N-BYHFGJopi5hHFKKvd2FC_YFbB2b8wuo0HtdLkxblmkXmOG9pv5KuP2BMA3HQsyfoI7RvUIJ-mRidADWXm-b-1dAOdemq0I=

Who was Lord Kitchener?

Most students of English History may have heard of the famous British Army Officer Lord Kitchener. However, there are only a few of us who know why this popular Irish man still is remembered nowadays. Field Marshal Horatio Herbert Kitchener, also known as 1st Earl Kitchener, was born in Ireland in June 1850. Kitchener was not only Senior Army Officer, he also became a Colonial Administrator of the British Empire and Minister of War in WWI.

Kitchener is particularly remembered for his re-conquest of Sudan after the collapse of British rule in Khartoum in 1898. By that time Islamic militants had taken control over Sudan which led to a battle at Kerreri, a village close to the town of Omdurman. Kitchener's troops allied with Egyptian and Sudanese troops and were able to achieve a great win against those troops of the Islamic militants, which were under the rule of the Mahdi's successor Abdullah al-Taashi. After winning this battle and securing control over Sudan again, Kitchener was given the title "Lord Kitchener of Khartoum". Kitchener was now considered as a "hero" and sent to South Africa where he fought in quite a few battles of the Boer War. Later on he travelled to India with the aim to re-organise the Indian Army. In 1909, he became a Field-Marshal. All these great achievements led to him being knighted as "1st Earl Kitchener" in 1914. 

At the beginning of World War I Kitchener was appointed Sectretary of State for War. He founded the British Expeditionary Force and was eager to recruit more people with the help of "motivating" posters on the streets, also known as "Lord Kitchener Wants You!" advertising.

In June 1916 Kitchener was travelling to Russia for negotiations and diplomatic talks when his ship hit a mine laid. More than 600 people including himself were killed.

Sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Kitchener#Egypt.2C_Sudan_and_Khartoum
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/02/10/article-2099436-0B66F6C300000578-903_306x435.jpg

"The Brtish Army was never an instrument of oppression, at home or abroad" (Neillands,4) : Truth or Lie?

When I read the excerpt of Robin Neillands' "A Fighting Retreat" one statement the author made, hit me hard. Neilland mentions that crucial events such as the Amritsar massacre, which took place in India in April 1919, should not be considered as a brutality on the part of Great Britain since incidents of this extent had been rather rare and not a permanent condition. 

Moreover, he points out that Great Britain had never oppressed any other nation. As we all know this is definitely not the case. For sure the British Army was never innocent when it comes to violence and suppression. If anything, they were professionals in terms of blowing smoke and making pointless promises.

"Britain's empire was established, and maintained for more than two centuries, through bloodhsed, violence, brutality, conquest and war. Not a year went by without large numbers of its inhabitants being obliged to suffer for their involuntary participation in the colonial experience. Slavery, famine, prison, battle, murder, extermination - these were their various fates". 

I found this quote by author Richard Gott on the website of  the guardian newspaper and thought it would be a good example to show that Robin Neillands' opinion regarding Great Briatin in fact is quite controversial based on the history of this country. Gott's quote proves that the inhabitants of those countries which belonged to the British Empire definitely had to suffer under the British rule and were not able to strike back against this oppression they sensed. It is obvious that the British Army was "an instrument of oppression". In my opinion there is no way to not face the bitter truth! I think the excerpt by Neillands is written in a pro-British style. It seems like the author really wants to defend the actions undertaken by the Brits and above all, convince us of the "greatness" of the British Army. 

However, the quote by Richard Gott also depicts that events such as the massacre at Amritsar obviously were not the only atrocity against other nations. 

As for Neilland, I think it would be best to overthink the whole "situation" and stop denying that Great Britain was the villain in this story! 

Why did the British Empire decline?

When thinking about possible theories for the end of the British Empire usually several different reasons come into our mind. On the one hand, there is the economic reason which refers to the time after the Second World War when Britain had lost a huge amount of money and the maintenance of the pound sterling as the main currency was threatened. On the other hand, it could also be possible that the end of this well-known powerful Empire occured in consequence of international reasons. After WW2 Great Britain had to face the bitter truth. They had lost their denomination as "the only real superpower". In the aftermath of the war other nations such as Russia and the USA had become stronger and more influential which made Great Britain suffer a setback.
Of course the above-mentioned theories are mere speculations as none of us is able to establish a general theory which would explain why the British Empire eventually ceased to exist.
However, there is one theory which seems to be the most logical one in terms of the decline of Britains influence. This theory focuses on the end of empire due to colonial nationalism. I suppose that most inhabitants of the colonies already felt oppressed in their countries long long long time before the beginning of the Second World War. They wanted to keep their own identity and did not want to assimilate. They were proud of their own culture and traditions as well as their native language and did not feel the urge to leave their "old life" behind. I can completely relate to their attitude towards the British people. No one wants to be forced to adapt a different and totally new lifestyle. However, it took years until the inhabitants of the colonies finally worked up the courage to refuse to accept the constant oppression they experienced by Great Britain... I bet you have all heard of Ghandi before, haven't you? So yeah, I won't go into too much detail but as you all know Ghandi helped India to gain back their independence in 1947. For sure this was one of the initiators for the other colonies to start fighting against the firm British hold too! And that turned out to be pretty successful as we can see today!