The 19th century was a period of unparalleled European imperial expansion.

If the broad
dimensions of Europe’s expansion overseas are uncontroversial, every other aspect of the
subject has been exposed to intense scrutiny and debate. The intellectual giants of the
period, from Adam Smith to Lenin, and including writers like James Mill, Karl Marx and
J.A. Hobson among many others, formulated interpretations of the causes and
consequences of imperialism that echoed throughout the 19 th century and beyond to the
present day. Eminent scholars, such as Seeley, Froud, and Leroy-Beaulieu, placed the
study of modern empires on a professional footing for the first time.

Scholarly opinion on the subject is split into two main camps. One group, drawing on
radical intellectual sources, chiefly on Marx, linked 19 th century imperialism to the
development of industrial capitalism. According to this interpretation, the process of
capital accumulation generated internal contradictions that found expression during the
last quarter of the century in new forms of imperialism. [In most great industrial states a
vast amount of surplus capital seeking profitable outlets was invested in various colonies,
plantations, etc. in Africa and Asia.]

The struggle for the control of the world was not confined to the acquisition of colonies
but culminated, in Lenin’s views, in the First World War. Although capitalism was
everywhere aggressive and exploitative, it was also inescapably progressive in ‘showing
the face of the future’, as Marx put it, to the rest of the world. The spread of capitalism
through the agency of imperialism was destined, in dialectical fashion, to throw up the
forces that would eventually lead to the downfall of colonialism and usher in a new,
socialist order.

The other camp, larger in number but less focused in purpose, was grouped around a
liberal-conservative banner. Critics and defenders of empire reject Marxist viewpoint and
elaborate a range of alternative accounts of empire and imperialism, giving diplomatic,
political, social and cultural, as well as economic, reasons of empire building. The role of
individuals like Rhodes was also emphasized. Lenin’s belief that capitalism was
inherently aggressive was met by Schumpeter’s argument that it was pacific by nature
and assertive by default. The claim that imperialism was exploitative nature was
countered by pointing out that it brought benefits as well.

This long running debate has been repeatedly surveyed and summarized, but current
approaches to the subject are no longer derived from the conflict between capitalism and
socialism. The subject has recently been opened to new ideas and approaches as a result
of changes in the world. [For example- other considerations such as national prestige,
military ambitions, civilizing missions, power politics, also provided sufficient motives
for colonial expansion.] Two developments in recent years have influenced scholarship:
the end of the European empires in the 1960s and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The
end of the great age of empires has profound implications for the way the subject would
be treated in future. To study the history of imperialism and empire is now to investigate
an important aspect of world history and not to take sides in an ideological debate on
topical issues.
Imperialism was not a new factor in history. By 1815 the world had known some four
hundred years of expansion of Spain, Portugal, Dutch, French, and British colonial
empires. Therefore, in 1870s there was nothing new about extension of European control
over other parts of the world. Yet imperialism was almost a mid-19 th century invention,
and the generation after 1870 has come to be known, in some specially significant and
discreditable sense, as ‘the age of imperialism’ for its peculiar features.

The basic motive, in spite of giving political, religious or idealistic explanations, was the
capitalistic greed for cheap raw materials, advantageous markets, good investments, and
fresh fields of exploitation. It cannot be denied that the search for lucrative and secure
overseas investment played a great part in the European urge to acquire colonies at the
end of the 19th century. Lenin in his pamphlet on Imperialism the Highest Stage of
Capitalism (published 1916) emphasized the priority to find new outlets for investment
rather than new markets. In the backward colonial peoples, Lenin argued, capitalism had
found a new proletariat to exploit. But the Marxist argument ignores the fact that all
foreign investment of the European powers was not in colonial territories only but in
countries like South America and Russia, and that the standard of living of the working
classes was high in countries like Denmark and Sweden which had no colonies, but low
in France and Belgium which had large colonies.

The motivating factor of this new imperialism therefore needs further explanation. In
fact, during the first three quarters of the 19 th century, few European states had shown
keenness in acquiring territories outside Europe. Most states were preoccupied in their
fission with their immediate neighbours. Even Britain, which had emerged from the
Napoleonic wars with greatest dependencies all over the world, had no plans to acquire
territories in Asia and Africa, but the situation began to change in the 1870s and 1880s
with the appearance of major economic, political and cultural trends that began to emerge
from about the middle of the century.

It marked the beginning of intense imperialist competition that characterized the years
leading to the First World War, called the period of new imperialism. By 1870, a number
of interlocking economic and technological changes began to transform the landscape of
continental Europe, especially of Germany, France and Belgium. With the use of steam
power striking gains were made in production and transport efficiency. Railways had
been built from mid-century onwards. These developments cut the cost and increased the
movement of goods and people dramatically. The use of electricity, telegraph, and
submarine cable further speeded technological advancement. These developments greatly
strengthened the connections between Europe and the rest of the world. The volume and
value of trade also expanded to unprecedented levels. Even more significant was the
change in the structure of the international economy as increasing specialization
produced the pattern of exchange whereby Europe exported manufactures and the rest of
the world concentrated on producing raw materials and food stuffs.

The expansion of world trade was closely associated with the export of capital and the
movement of people. From mid-19th century, financial flows from Europe were of
growing importance in funding the development in the rest of the world, for example – in
the Ottoman Empire and Latin America. From the 1870s, growing proportion of finance
was raised for private ventures and also for railways. With increasing scale and
specialization, a new set of large banks and complementary commercial and shipping
firms emerged to manage the international economy.

The political developments of 1870 onwards are highly relevant to understanding

overseas expansion and imperialism. It has been argued that late 19 th century imperialism
was an expression of changing balance of power and also that it was the product of
nationalism. The new states opened up the prospects of manipulating and responding to
public opinion, for example – the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902) is probably the bet-
known example of popular support for imperialism. Its result was that imperialism
became a prominent item in the political agenda after 1870.

The late 19th century was a period of intense rivalries. The idea of enhancing national
prestige was also an important consideration as in case of Italy and in the 1880s and 90s
empire building became an accepted policy of all major powers. In 1883, John Seeley
published his book The Expansion of England in which he pointed out that the growth of
Russia and the United States would completely overshadow states like France, Germany,
and even Britain, if it remained as “simply a European state”. Similar arguments were put
forward in France by Leroy-Beaulieu, who stated that colonial expansion for his country
was “a matter of life and death”, and that, if France did not become a great African
power, it would only be a question of time before it would be reduced to the position of
Greece and Rumania. Similar views were expressed in Germany.

Another striking factor about the new imperialism was its concentration upon two
continents – Africa and eastern Asia. These were the only two important regions on the
globe which had not been brought under European influence before 1870. It was this
combination of new economic conditions with rival political ambitions and power
politics which explains the nature of the new imperialism.

Besides, the direct political motives such as the desire to strengthen national security by
acquiring strategic naval bases such as Cyprus and the Cape or to secure additional
sources of manpower as the French sought in Africa. Christian missionaries,
administrators, and soldiers also played their roles in colonization.

Expansion of Europe
Virtually the whole of Africa was partitioned and subsequently occupied by Britain and
France, between 1879, when the French advanced into Senegal, and 1912, when they
established a protectorate over Morocco. Further east, the British expanded into the
Malay peninsular between 1874 and 1909, annexed Upper Burma in 1886, following the
Third Anglo-Burmese War, and they established protectorates over Sarawak, Brunei, and
North Borneo in 1888. The French advanced into Cochin-China, Annam, Cambodia, and
Tonkin from bases established in the 1860s, created the Union of Indochina in 1887, and
declared a protectorate over Laos in 1893.
Besides the major role of Britain and France in late 19 th century, other European countries
also shared the spoils. The Dutch consolidated their possessions in Indonesia. The
Portuguese, having lost Brazil earlier in the century, managed to get Mozambique and
Angola. Spain was less fortunate. After losing in the Spanish-America War of 1898, it
was forced to cede Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, a transfer that signaled the
emergence of Britain’s ex-colony as an imperial power in its own right. Russia moved
ahead with plans of extending its land-based empire in central and east Asia, taking
territories from China and expanding into Manchuria until halted by Japan’s victory in
the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5. The presence of the aspiring colonial powers was felt
mainly in Africa. Hence, the term ‘scramble for Africa’. Germany acquired sections of
West, East and South-West Africa in 1884-5 and a few islands in the Pacific as well.
Italy, having failed to conquer Abyssinia in 1895-6, acquired Libya in 1911. The vast
private estate established in the Congo by King Leopold II of Belgium during the 1880s
came under direct Belgian rule in 1908.

Besides annexation of territories, European states also carved out spheres of influence
and created informal empires. Thus, although Latin America, the Middle East and China
did not become European colonies, their independence was seriously compromised. A
number of Latin American republics, headed by Argentina, were dominated by British
finance and trade, and their political elites by British liberalism. The Ottoman Empire
increasingly fell under the control of Britain, France and Germany after its defeat in
1876. Britain and Russia divided Persia into spheres of influence in 1907 and large
sections of China were also partitioned after the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-5 between
France, Britain, Russia and Germany. Though China retained its formal independence,
Yuan Shi-kai, who was appointed President of the Republic in 1912, after the Revolution
of 1911, was first interviewed for the job in London.

European expansion overseas that had started as early as the 16 th century reached its
climax by 1914 motivated by economic, political and cultural objectives. However, the
question remains why expansion was converted into imperialism and then into empire at
certain times and in certain places. Britain exported manufactured goods, capital, and
people to the United States in the 19th century and French capital played a significant part
in modernizing Russian economy. But no attempt was made by the two states to
dominate either state and their relationship remained on equal terms. Therefore, it was
inequality between expanding states and the receiving states which converted into
imperialism and colonialism.

Besides, all theories of imperialism emphasize the role of industrialization in empire-

building. But glory and profit went hand in hand. French imperialism was essentially
quest for glory pursued by military officers, missionaries, etc. Therefore, French
imperialism was the highest stage, not of capitalism, but of nationalism. However,
detailed work in Lyons, the centre of the silk industry, has drawn attention to the
prominent part played by businessmen in promoting French advance into Indo-China and
that there was a close link between French industry and the colonies.
The process of industrialization has also featured prominently in the debate of German
imperialism. The concept of social imperialism has been deployed to link the growth of
colonial movement with rising urban unemployment in 1880s. It has also been applied in
revisionist approaches to Portuguese and Italian imperialism, which have attacked the
traditional emphasis on non-economic factors and have emphasized instead the important
part played by the emerging industrial sector in seeking raw materials and markets.
According to this interpretation, the smaller colonial powers differed in scale but not in
kind from the role model, Britain.

But after 1870 Britain’s predominance came to be challenged. One significant impact of
imperialism on traditional societies was the beginning of nationalism in these colonies.
One by one they were exposed to rapid economic change. With it came conflict between
the rulers and the ruled. Thus, imperialism became an instrument of social and political
change in these colonies.