Empire may be gained by gold, not gold by empire. It used, indeed, to be a proverb that “It is not Philip, but Philip’s gold that takes the cities of Greece.”
Plutarch’s Lives: “Aemilius,” sec. 12.
1 reply on “Plutarch”
I don’t understand this. My understanding is that Britain was not rich until Britain invested what little she had in a Navy which got her the Empire and more and so forth. It’s not one or the other. It’s both. The first tribes who plundered further north and west in the British Isles had only a little bit. By the days of Victoria they say the Sun never set on British gold. As per usual I guess I’m on a rant about broad brushes and dichotomies.
1 reply on “Plutarch”
I don’t understand this. My understanding is that Britain was not rich until Britain invested what little she had in a Navy which got her the Empire and more and so forth. It’s not one or the other. It’s both. The first tribes who plundered further north and west in the British Isles had only a little bit. By the days of Victoria they say the Sun never set on British gold. As per usual I guess I’m on a rant about broad brushes and dichotomies.