Comments
By AtlasBarfed 2026-01-1923:3014 reply I get they are fictional, but what strikes me from typical Victorian England proletariat dramas... Is that the British empire at the time had the largest empire in the history of the world. And their people lived in squalor in London.
Victorian England was the richest country in the world by GDP per capita. But the world was just very poor before the industrial revolution: a per-capita GDP around $900. By 1800 England was more than double that. Today almost every country is richer than England was in 1800: https://www.broadstreet.blog/p/how-the-world-became-rich-par...
I would be interested in hearing an actual historian's opinion on whether conditions were better or worse in England at the height of the British Empire, compared to continental Europe.
I got the impression from Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London that English workhouses near the end of their life were basically the predecessor of the modern homeless shelter, where visitors would get a single night of accommodation by law. The conditions a century earlier seem to have been truly hellish and tantamount to slavery. I have no idea whether either was better or worse than the rest of the world at the time.
By FridayoLeary 2026-01-200:491 reply I've never heard anyone suggest that Britain should have focused on improving conditions at home before engaging in empire building. I always assumed the two were not mutually dependent. The expenses in running an empire probably paid for itself and no doubt returned a lot on the initial investment (after all the whole point of having an empire is to secure better trading). Meanwhile the conditions in the cities were a separate problem, and one which was hard to fix quickly given the population explosion and the Industrial Revolution.
All of which to say, is while you raise an excellent point all the evidence i've seen suggests the two are entirely unrelated projects. If anything increasing globalisation in the long term increased prosperity for everyone involved (just not necessarily by equal amounts) and vastly improved conditions.
If anyone has a counterpoint, by which i mean historical complaints or serious academic analysis, i'm happy to hear. None of this is a moral judgement on the relative evils and merits of empires and Victorian England, which is not the topic, just my opinion of why from a practical standpoint one has very little to do with the other.
Implicit in your statement is the assumption that the purpose of a government is to maximize the well-being of all of its citizens. This is a somewhat new idea, and shouldn't be taken for granted when we look at historical situations.
Yep.
Britain controlled the largest empire in history, yet most of its own population lived in dire poverty. I don’t believe this was accidental.
Imperial profits flowed almost entirely to a small propertied class (the landed gentry). The working classes.. who provided the soldiers, sailors, and labour.. saw virtually none of it whilst living in squalor. Before 1918, most British men couldn’t vote at all; franchise was tied to property ownership.
When we discuss ‘the British Empire,’ we’re largely describing the actions and enrichment of perhaps 3-5% of the British population. Most Britons today can trace their ancestry back through generations of poverty and disenfranchisement, not imperial beneficiaries. It’s an important distinction that’s often lost in broader discussions of imperial responsibility, as if those who are generationally impoverished should share guilt.
By hermitcrab 2026-01-2012:401 reply I believe that it was generally held at the time (by the rich anyway), that the poor were poor because of some sort of defect of character. Not because of lack of access to education and other resources. It is an idea that is super appealing to the rich and seems to be making a comeback.
By gerdesj 2026-01-200:05 I'd give the dramas a miss mate and stick to boring old history or efforts to try and describe what happened in the past, with evidence. This article is in the second camp.
The article is describing an "early" veteran's struggle to deal with being disabled in a war and how society treats them. London isn't mentioned at all.
And the conditions for their vaunted military (both army and navy) was as bad or worse. A trip to the Fusilier Museum in the Tower of London really drove that home. Being a soldier absolutely sucked until pretty much the 20th century.
That's because any "Empire" is the extension of the ruler's ego.
They weren't being imperial for their people.
It was so they could brag to other royals and rulers that their kingdom was bigger.
The people were resources and toys for the rulers' entertainment.
By infecto 2026-01-2023:11 Agree! The one thing that stood out to me watching KBurns new documentary was at the time most British could not own land. You had royalty a class of landowners and then the commoners and commoners had no real means of upward mobility. Compared to the colonies at the time which had the highest literacy rate and much more mobility between classes than Britain.
By kkkqkqkqkqlqlql 2026-01-2017:44 China, Russia, USA in <current year>
Empires have always had poor people in their capitals. I guess the effect was more pronounced back then because the industrial revolution was also happening.
By hexbin010 2026-01-205:30 Luckily in the US there is no poverty, as their GDP is so enormous
By tempest_ 2026-01-200:46 I mean you can only judge squalor if you also talk about how other people in capitals that were not London lived. Relative squalor might have been nice comparatively, or not, I have no idea.
Plenty of poor people in the US yet people still go there.
By weirdmantis69 2026-01-1923:12 [flagged]
By wglb 2026-01-162:55 [flagged]
