3 ms·

Yes, this is basically the standard reading of history around the period in question, and was a huge factor in India/China (in the mid-late 18th century, you ha

Yes, this is basically the standard reading of history around the period in question, and was a huge factor in India/China (in the mid-late 18th century, you had armies of a few thousand British/sepoys beating armies 10-20x but by the 19th century, native-ish Indian forces were starting to catch up...I say "native-ish" because a lot of the forces in what we would call India today, weren't from India). From somewhere around the War of Spanish Succession until probably the Napoleonic War there were huge changes in military technology/organisation, and the ones who innovated fastest ended up winning (also, guns were one of the first products to be manufactured in a factory system...so there were spillovers). There was, of course, innovation after but this period was when the modern military really took shape. However, it is also probably true that the military was often an output of economic strength, not a technological input (in the way that we might think of technology/knowledge today). A big reason why there was military innovation was because of the huge growth in govt borrowing and creation of financial markets in the 18th century. So you saw countries start to take power that could innovate financially (i.e. Dutch Republic, Spain) and then you saw these countries implode when they couldn't keep pace with France and Britain (France is kind of tricky because they frequently imploded through the 18/19th century, always making a miracle comeback...usually through dint of having such a huge population i.e. Napoleonic Wars). To give a concrete example: one part of British dominance was the Navy (which was in part a technological advantage), another part was their ability to subsidise pretty much every other country in Europe to fight France...there isn't really one without the other. In terms of the 20th century, it is probably true as well. Like Britain in the 19th century, the US has kind of guaranteed security and freedom of trade around the world...and to do this you need to have the resources to bash some heads every once in a while (and btw, the US has done this in a far less evil way by seeding multilateral institutions). And, as you know, that investment is the reason why we have Silicon Valley so there are definitely spillovers from military tech still. Pretty meandering answer but there are quite a few threads here because the military has never been easy to separate from the rest of the economy.

nickik 6y ago
We should be careful not to go from 'some military is needed' and 'investment in military can have spillovers' to 'military spending = good'. Or that military investment is always the best investment, I would argue the marginal $ spent on the military is a terrible investment. 1% of your budget into the military is probably a great investment for many countries, some countries maybe up 2-3% and when you are higher then that you either need very great reasons, or you are probably doing something stupid. Britain controlled the world trade with small % of its budget and with a tiny % amount of the whole imperial trade size. I would argue their success was precisely because the didn't need gigantic military to reach their aims. An part of that is to have reasonable aims in the first place. Iraq and US military spending is case and point, Iraq was a both a strategic disaster and a very expensive one. If you didn't have the aim of remaking the whole middle east, you would need that much spending. Germany before WW1 is a great example of spending lots of money on stupid aims. They invested in a fleet that was utterly useless and was directly opposed to what their aims should have been. No amount of military spending by itself gets you anything, only military spending combined with great strategy focused on your particular nation can be great investment.
- hogFeast 6y ago
  Again, it is true that they controlled world trade with a small % of their budget but they spent most of the 18/19th century subsidising other people's armies. So the reason they didn't need a gigantic military was because they paid other people to fight for them. They also got involved tactically, even someone like Palmerston who was an interventionist didn't intervene before the point when it was necessary. And a lot of the direct military intervention was to secure trade in countries where you had a gun, and the enemy had a spear. So they really maximised what they spent in a way that others couldn't. Compare this to France, who probably spent the most on military, if war breaks out then they don't have a choice...you are getting invaded. Britain didn't need a big standing army (and really didn't have one until WW1). Also, whilst British expenditures were small relative to budget (I don't know this but assuming you are correct), it was still very difficult for anyone to catch up until the late 19th century because their economy was so much larger. Germany invested in a fleet because they, correctly, concluded that the only way to beat Britain was their navy. France tried the exact same thing in the mid 18th century, they were actually predominant for a short period, but they imploded financially (this was pre-Napoleonic, although they obviously tried to rebuild with Napoleon). I think the issue for Germany was their economic strength was kind of shaky (they were still a largely agricultural economy until the 1960s) and there was no scenario in which they wouldn't need to spend heavily on the army as well. But it wasn't useless or opposed to what their aims should have been. War started, they got blockaded almost instantly (just like France in the Seven Years War), and that crippled them. So I don't think there was any easy answer (there was no way in which they were going to avoid war either). I am not sure I said military spending by itself is valuable...but I don't think it is.
  - nickik 6y ago
    > Germany invested in a fleet because they, correctly, concluded that the only way to beat Britain was their navy. The invested in a navy because the Kaiser was gelly of his cousin, so he promoted the people who wanted a big navy and used his power to get it. That would absolutely not have happened without the Kaisers personal opinion. Many in Germany thought it was an idiotic idea and it was. It was simply bad strategy, bad decision making against the strategic interest of Germany. First of all, a Navy that is can operate in the North Sea is basically spending crazy amounts of money and saying publicly, "We build this to destroy Britain". Second, they knew they could not out-build Britain, so trying would be utterly useless. And as it turned out, it was utterly useless when the war started. If that is not bad strategy then nothing is. > I think the issue for Germany was their economic strength was kind of shaky That is not necessary a negative, they were very elite economically by WW1, but Britain could still cut their supply. Without that they would have been unbeatable. > But it wasn't useless or opposed to what their aims should have been. Yes it was. German had no strategic conflict with Britain, outside of a few people stuck in the last century who still believed that Germany need to create a colloquial empire. Britain was perfectly happy with German economic growth and the British dominated world had nothing but advantages for Germany. Germany was increasingly surrounded by 2 strong powers and thought 'Great idea, lets do everything we can to get even more enemies'. Britain was the natural enemy of Russia, by far the most dangerous enemy for Germany. There was a huge amount of common interest between Britain and Germany with regards to policy in the East. Its only historically bad diplomacy on a level that boggles the mind that Britain ended up fighting on the side of Russia. > War started, they got blockaded almost instantly (just like France in the Seven Years War), and that crippled them. Yes and all the money they invest in a navy helped them how exactly? And btw, the got blocked because their idiotic generals had the totally wrong believe that invading Belgium was a great idea. Again, from the time Willy takes over, Germany foreign policy is just historically terrible and misguided. And its a real battle between the generals, the foreign office and the Kaiser himself who makes dumber moves. When Bismark left Germany was in a historically strong position in Europe, 20 years later the next 3 powerful states were against at them.

nickik 6y ago

We should be careful not to go from 'some military is needed' and 'investment in military can have spillovers' to 'military spending = good'. Or that military investment is always the best investment, I would argue the marginal $ spent on the military is a terrible investment. 1% of your budget into the military is probably a great investment for many countries, some countries maybe up 2-3% and when you are higher then that you either need very great reasons, or you are probably doing something stupid. Britain controlled the world trade with small % of its budget and with a tiny % amount of the whole imperial trade size. I would argue their success was precisely because the didn't need gigantic military to reach their aims. An part of that is to have reasonable aims in the first place. Iraq and US military spending is case and point, Iraq was a both a strategic disaster and a very expensive one. If you didn't have the aim of remaking the whole middle east, you would need that much spending. Germany before WW1 is a great example of spending lots of money on stupid aims. They invested in a fleet that was utterly useless and was directly opposed to what their aims should have been. No amount of military spending by itself gets you anything, only military spending combined with great strategy focused on your particular nation can be great investment.

hogFeast 6y ago
Again, it is true that they controlled world trade with a small % of their budget but they spent most of the 18/19th century subsidising other people's armies. So the reason they didn't need a gigantic military was because they paid other people to fight for them. They also got involved tactically, even someone like Palmerston who was an interventionist didn't intervene before the point when it was necessary. And a lot of the direct military intervention was to secure trade in countries where you had a gun, and the enemy had a spear. So they really maximised what they spent in a way that others couldn't. Compare this to France, who probably spent the most on military, if war breaks out then they don't have a choice...you are getting invaded. Britain didn't need a big standing army (and really didn't have one until WW1). Also, whilst British expenditures were small relative to budget (I don't know this but assuming you are correct), it was still very difficult for anyone to catch up until the late 19th century because their economy was so much larger. Germany invested in a fleet because they, correctly, concluded that the only way to beat Britain was their navy. France tried the exact same thing in the mid 18th century, they were actually predominant for a short period, but they imploded financially (this was pre-Napoleonic, although they obviously tried to rebuild with Napoleon). I think the issue for Germany was their economic strength was kind of shaky (they were still a largely agricultural economy until the 1960s) and there was no scenario in which they wouldn't need to spend heavily on the army as well. But it wasn't useless or opposed to what their aims should have been. War started, they got blockaded almost instantly (just like France in the Seven Years War), and that crippled them. So I don't think there was any easy answer (there was no way in which they were going to avoid war either). I am not sure I said military spending by itself is valuable...but I don't think it is.
- nickik 6y ago
  > Germany invested in a fleet because they, correctly, concluded that the only way to beat Britain was their navy. The invested in a navy because the Kaiser was gelly of his cousin, so he promoted the people who wanted a big navy and used his power to get it. That would absolutely not have happened without the Kaisers personal opinion. Many in Germany thought it was an idiotic idea and it was. It was simply bad strategy, bad decision making against the strategic interest of Germany. First of all, a Navy that is can operate in the North Sea is basically spending crazy amounts of money and saying publicly, "We build this to destroy Britain". Second, they knew they could not out-build Britain, so trying would be utterly useless. And as it turned out, it was utterly useless when the war started. If that is not bad strategy then nothing is. > I think the issue for Germany was their economic strength was kind of shaky That is not necessary a negative, they were very elite economically by WW1, but Britain could still cut their supply. Without that they would have been unbeatable. > But it wasn't useless or opposed to what their aims should have been. Yes it was. German had no strategic conflict with Britain, outside of a few people stuck in the last century who still believed that Germany need to create a colloquial empire. Britain was perfectly happy with German economic growth and the British dominated world had nothing but advantages for Germany. Germany was increasingly surrounded by 2 strong powers and thought 'Great idea, lets do everything we can to get even more enemies'. Britain was the natural enemy of Russia, by far the most dangerous enemy for Germany. There was a huge amount of common interest between Britain and Germany with regards to policy in the East. Its only historically bad diplomacy on a level that boggles the mind that Britain ended up fighting on the side of Russia. > War started, they got blockaded almost instantly (just like France in the Seven Years War), and that crippled them. Yes and all the money they invest in a navy helped them how exactly? And btw, the got blocked because their idiotic generals had the totally wrong believe that invading Belgium was a great idea. Again, from the time Willy takes over, Germany foreign policy is just historically terrible and misguided. And its a real battle between the generals, the foreign office and the Kaiser himself who makes dumber moves. When Bismark left Germany was in a historically strong position in Europe, 20 years later the next 3 powerful states were against at them.