Talk:Pax Britannica

2003
This isn't something I know much about, but the Market House Dictionary of British History seems to think it is more about a general idea of maintaining peace than it is about one particular period. --Camembert 01:19, 10 January 2003‎
 * Yes, the British would think that. Well, compared to the Pax Dubya I am sure they did a better job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.82.58 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 23 January 2003‎


 * No, they wouldn't - at least not anyone who studied history. I think this article should cover some of the debates - it should certainly be longer than the one on the so called "pax americana". However... I can't remember any of them at the moment. :( However, the historical reference is definitely better known and more important than the wargame. Switched around. Wiki-Ed 20:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

---

This is not much to say about a period of 100 years when Britain ruled half the planet and all the seas!!!!! Considering all the flap about New Imperialism it is amazing that this earlier period got such short shrift.

Yep, the article is very thin. --Dumbo1 15:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Try British Empire... Wiki-Ed 20:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

New Imperialism (1870-1914)
New Imperialism (1870-1914) is the era following Pax Britannica (1818-1870). Waterloo and the Congress of Vienna ushered in Pax Britannica. New Imperialism is the consequence of the breakdown of Pax Britannica.

The article had earlier confused these two eras of British colonial expansionism, marked by Britain&#8217;s shift from informal colonialism to formal structures.

172 04:16, 23 April 2003‎ (UTC)

When colonies had the capacity
The sentence "When colonies had the capacity (but not the right) to trade directly with each other, challenges to central rule erupted, and New Imperialism largely arose as a response. " is very incorrect. First of all, it connects relations with what would become known as the Dominions with the scramble for Africa. The drive into Africa became known as New Imperialism -- it had nothing to do with the Dominions. Relations with the Dominions developed after Great Britain changed to a liberal trade policy in 1846 -- first in the case of Canada (being the first, 1840s/50s), later Austrialia, New Zealand, and South Africa (being the last in 1910). The sentence makes no historical sense and whoever believes in it could at least mention the Durham report which is a controversy in and of itself. Most importantly of all, it came in 1839, while "New Imperialism" did not come until the 1880s! "New Imperialism" was ultimately a result of the alteration of the international system in response to the unifications of Germany, Italy, and America (end of the Civil War). Germany defeated Austria and France, altering the continental balance of powering and pushing the others to expand their influence overseas.

I'm justgoing from memory here, but when I learned about about this in my history lessons at school in England, it was explained in a much more comprehensive and conceptual fashion. To put it in simple terms, I was taught that England told everybody to behave themselves and not to challenge the world order. Importantly, they reserved the right to interverne in the affairs of any nation that did not comply. Am I wrong? 69.159.196.56 14:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It is stated on this article that the Pax Britannica began at the Battle of Trafalgar, although, according to the article on the United Kingdom, it began at the battle of Waterloo. Which is correct? --203.217.54.49 03:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That depends on the definition of Pax Britannica which is almost self-contradictory in the article intro. After the Battle of Trafalgar there were no other countries with the naval strength to prevent British expansion overseas, which is given as one feature of this period. However, Europe would remain dominated by France until the Battle of Waterloo. Events on the European mainland were largely unconnected to British expansion once Britain regained control of the shipping lanes, and the article needs to specify whether the term refers to unopposed expansion outside Europe or British dominance over the "balanced" powers within Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.167.253 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 11 July 2007‎

Pax Britan.. What ?
So erm, various revolutions, the Italian Wars of Independence, the Crimean War, the Franco-Prussian War, WWI, right here I'm having a hard time seeing what this "pax" Britannica is all about, besides, the British Empire is fine and all, but being an empire built overseas far far from the shores of Europe, hardly gave Britain control over the European continent. Is this term actually used with any frequency ? It really sounds self congratulatory and devoid of any real meaning to me. 212.27.60.48 (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read the article? Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for asking. 212.27.60.48 (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And to avoid further snide remarks :
 * "Pax Brittanica" is modelled after "Pax Romana" says the intro, however, "Pax Romana", according to Wikipedia's entry "was the long period of relative peace and minimal expansion by military force experienced by the Roman Empire". Yet, according to this entry here, "Pax Brittanica" refers to a period of "British expansionism", is derived from "europe's being relatively peaceful", but Europe was not in fact, particularly peaceful during that period, neither was it under British domination, the actual empire was overseas. I have to either question the actual usage of the term, or the way it is presented here. 212.27.60.48 (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the principal reasons for the general usage of the term Pax Britannica is not so much because of its military might at the time (although the threat of facing British naval might often led to nations even as powerful as France backing down instead of fighting a war they could not win- ie see Sudan) but because for much of the 19th century Britain had overwhelming economic dominance and had the hegemonic position in global finance right up until WW1 (everything was done in sterling). This led to the greatest financial stability the world had ever seen.--Willski72 (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "the United Kingdom played the role of hegemon, where the balance of power was the main aim. It is also in this time that the British Empire became the largest empire of all time[1]. Imposition of a "British Peace" on key maritime trade routes began in 1815 with the annexation of British Ceylon[2]:pp.191 – 192. The global superiority of British military and commerce was guaranteed by dominance of a Europe lacking in strong nation-states, and the presence of the Royal Navy on all of the world's oceans and seas. "


 * This single quote is antithetic. If UK was "hegemon", "largest empire", "globally superior", "dominating europe lacking strong nation states" then there is absolutely NO "balance of power". It's just as silly as if someone said Napoleon aim was balance of power by conquering all europe. Totally inconsistent.


 * The whole article doesn't seem too much serious and, after the myth of "second hundred years war", the myth of Waterloo being mainly a British vicotry, and the myth of Napoleon being short, looks just like another stone to the wall of British fanboys propaganda to promote their nationalistically biased feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.196.55 (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

no currency
Outside of a few obscure references (and a boardgame) this term doesn't really have a lot of currency. Jooler (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps to you, however the Pax Brittanica is and was an important and fundamental historical reality for over one hundred years. If you take a moment and read the Pax Americana page which happens to be quite a long article although it's period has been relatively short I think you can be assured that Pax Brittanica has far more currency than you suppose.

The end of pax britannica
I am thinking this article is worded wrong, in the beginning, the pax britannica is defined as the relative peace between european powers, but doesn't say it ends when that relative peace ends - in WW1. So I'm editing the latter part unless someone tells me why it should be otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelersfan7roe (talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There wasn't peace between european powers anyway:
 * First Italian Independence War
 * First Schleswig War
 * Crimean War
 * Second Italian War of Independence
 * Second Schleswig War
 * Austro-Prussian War / Third Italian War of Independence
 * Franco-Prussian War
 * Not to mention wars involving the Ottoman Empire or minor conflicts such as during the revolutions of 1830 & 1848 or several civil wars. 82.231.41.7 (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of comments here that are missing the point - Pax Britannica is merely used to indicated a period of relative peace. Note, "relative". That is, between the indicated dates there was not a great war, or general European conflict. It was peaceful relative to a) the Napoleonic Wars, which convulsed Europe for an entire generation, redrew the map, caused empires to rise and fall, and altered world politics forever. At the other end of the time-line, the First World War, which cause millions of deaths, brought about the Russian Revolution, the end of several empires, and marked the beginning of the end of the era of European colonial power. Next to these two bookend events, the wars in the intervening years were comparatively trivial. Hence the use of "Pax".142.167.124.34 (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll argue that the birth of Italy or Belgium, the rise of Prussia and the making of Germany, the decline of the Austrian Empire reshaped as a dual monarchy, the fall of the Second French Empire, or the second wave of European colonization were map redrawing, world politics altering events. Very relative notion indeed. It seems to me the only reason why this discussion is taking place is because Britain - rather than Europe - was "relatively" at peace during that period with the rest of Europe. Equendil Talk 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting of the paragraph
I did the rewriting of the paragraph because the wording: "The Empire's strength was guaranteed by dominance of a Europe lacking in strong nation states," is historically false, how can someone affirm that in XIX Century France, Russia and later Germany were not great and strong national states? And about the dominance of Britain over the continental Europe during the same period? In reality the first goal of Britain foreign policy during this period was the maintaining of the peace by a balance of power, not a dominance... thank you for your attention ---kayac71- (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean by "great and strong". Compared to what they had been or would become they were fairly weak during this period. Moreover, it didn't say "Britain's strength", it said the "Empire's strength" - other European nations efforts to colonise and conquer overseas territories (as in beyond Europe) were much more limited. The wording was not perfect, but your edits did not change the emphasis accurately. I've adjusted it to reflect the fact that the balance of power was a key plank of the diplomatic strategy. However, the point has to be made that neither France nor Russia nor Germany were at any point pre-eminent during this period (that is, until the rise of Germany ended it). And note, this article is written in British English which means capitalisation of nouns and no 'z's where there should be an 's'. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Opium Wars?
There is no direct connection between Pax Brittanica and the Opium wars, I am removing it as it is completely redundant.Twobells (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

contradictions in this article
The lead of the article says that Pax Britannica is Latin for "the British Peace" and was the period of relative peace in Europe and the world (1815–1914). Where it says "the period of relative peace" it links to List of wars 1800–1899 which is quite a full list. It then states what major conflicts Britain was involved in during this time of British "peace", which includes the Crimean War where they used 250,000 soldiers and lost 21,097-22,000, and the two opium wars.  D r e a m Focus  07:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is like saying there was no Pax Romana because the Romans were fighting wars. Shii (tock) 08:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pax Romana had no major wars, and the 90 years of civil wars had ended. Totally different situation here.  They didn't have to send a quarter of a million troops to participate in a war.   D r e a m Focus  08:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The key word is "relative" and your definition of "major war" may be different to that of 19th century British historians. The conflict in the Crimea posed no threat to Britain itself, nor did any of the other expeditionary wars or continental conflicts that took place during the period, regardless of scale. Also, there is a sort of imperialistic arrogance associated with the phrase: an assertion that there were no major threats to civilisation during this period, the assumption being that Britain was the centre of civilisation. Conflicts on the periphery (even if those regions are now quite important in global affairs) were not a threat to peace in the centre. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Err ... sorry, Dream Focus, did you mistake this for a debating forum about the topic? As you well know (or ought to, anyway), Wikipedia talk pages are for discussions about improving the article, not for polemics about whether the subject's premise makes sense.  I'm sure you can find any number of venues where you can argue whether a "Pax Britannica" genuinely existed.  Wikipedia is not one of them.   Ravenswing   17:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am discussing the article here, and what it says that seems to be a contradiction.  D r e a m Focus  17:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Errr ... I just want to make sure I have this straight: you're criticizing a sourced article based around a well-known concept because you disagree with the subject matter? Once again, this isn't a debating forum.  By way of example, I think that Holocaust deniers are the people at whom the lunatic fringe sneers, but that sentiment is irrelevant on Talk:Holocaust denial.  If you have some reliable sources which explicitly state that the concept of "Pax Britannica" is hogwash, sure, add those to the article, but that's as far as it ought to go.   Ravenswing   14:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (edited to reword it)You seem to have misread or not understand what I have said. Something in the article seemed odd, so I discussed it here to make certain it was accurate.  Now stop trying to turn this into a forum.  You start up a conversation that ended over a month ago, to mention something totally unrelated.   D r e a m Focus  23:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Pax Britannica" did exist and is relative to the 18th and 20th Centuries
There seems to be a bizarre set of comments above that pick on relatively minor wars and suggest that therefore the Pax Britannica did not exist. Contributors should contemplate the period 1914 - 1945 or the eighteenth century/19th C to 1815 and compare the global warfare that prevailed with the period 1815-1914. We have recently had a Pax Americana for similar reasons - any attempt at global war after 1945 would have been crushed by US military might.

Come on people, just put Pax Britannica into Google Scholar and have a look at a few of the couple of hundred thousand articles! Here are a few "off the top":

http://www.academia.edu/2013776/Pax_Britannica http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5301360 http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-rise-and-fall-of-england-8-pax-britannica http://www.hudson.org/research/10136-pax-britannica-a-nautical-chart-for-pax-americana- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.235.151 (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What Was Pacified?
I am reading this article, and I feel that the introduction doesn't explain what the Pax Britannica actually did for continental Europe. Relative peace doesn't mean much, if it isn't explained which kind of conflicts disappeared. Reading the article, it would appear that Pax Britannica simply means "no British soldiers were deployed in Western Europe" and "GB ruled a lot of lands outside of Europe, as well as the seas themselves, and had the economic upper hand".

There were many European wars in this time, and they did redraw the political map of Europe. Just think of Italy and Germany coming up, with continental power shifting to Germany, or the Russo-Turkish war, changes in the Balkans, Greece, and so on. Many of them were part of larger series of wars. There also were the years 1848-1849. Maybe the definition "relative peace" should be changed to "lack of wars in Europe comparable in size to those of Napoleon".

There is a good paragraph from this page which could be used here: The entire era had a general lack of major conflict between the great powers, with most skirmishes taking place between belligerents within the borders of individual countries. In Europe, wars were much smaller, shorter and less frequent than ever before. The quiet century was shattered by World War I (1914–1918), which was unexpected in its timing, duration, casualties, and long-term impact.

The global police force meaning also isn't explained in the article, with the exception of impeding slave trade in West Africa (which alone isn't enough to be described as global).

If there will be edits to this article I suggest a read of this paper, which has a very balanced structure and shows with detail both strength and limits of the concept, and what it actually meant at the time from a practical and ideological point of view.

I think there is a mistake in the opening paragraph, in not limiting the definition to a certain area of use. "was the name used in XXX/ is the name used in XXX storiography/by XXX to refer to..."

Viny 95.237.98.109 (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Biased
The article is clearly biased, lack of information about criticism about the term. And about the affirmation that Britain helped the United States with the Monroe Doctrine i think it should not be here. How they "helped" USA is not clear, and this is controversial, Britain allegdly tried to stop American advance into the West, supporting natives, and there was a lot issues about territory between America and UK, that were peacefully resolved, but the "help" is not clear. USA was not a major ally how it is today, USA was a former colony expanding fastly, this "help thesis" is at least controversial, after all. I think it should not be in this article, and this is not oftenly cited as a major factor in the use of the term Pax Britannica.


 * There should be a criticism section, since that is consistent with the standard practice with looking at terms on Wiki that describe events or interpretations of events. On a related note, the article gloats about "stopping slave traders", which has zero to do with Pax Britannica as a term. It has more to do with what happened in the period of Pax Britannica, from that person's view. It's not clear why the part about slavery is in there otherwise, although it seems to be more of the same self-aggrandizement that permeates academia, based on a thick coat of gloss that hides power imperative under the illusion of moral imperative. I say this because stopping other countries from importing labor and producing with less overhead was going to help keep the UK on top, with no country with the wealth to build a fleet to challenge its own and take away its markets. How convenient. Actually, if anything is to be sourced and included, that bit should because at least instead of saying what happened during Pax Britannica, it reveals the sort of strategy that explains Pax Britannica's duration until the dreadnought era. What the article needs is a scrub, an explanation as to what Pax Britannica was, why it lasted and a criticism section which challenges the idea that there ever was peace to begin with - i.e. because everyone was figuratively chained by these imperialists, like those in the asbestos mines or diamond scam (ironic when we talk about "but they stopped slavery1"), or there was plenty of fighting going on, like putting down occupied populations. --Asdf12345sixseveneight (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)