Expansion - Cost vs. Profit

           

War among nations both in and outside of Europe played a major role in imperial reconfigurations. (331) War is costly in lives and in resources. Many nations sought imperial expansion as a way to gain new goods and resources. Trading routes were expanded in the age of exploration and many nations found the wealth they sought. However, as Parsons points out, the time and money spent on overseas expansion could just have easily been spend on expanding and developing the land already claimed, thus adding to the economy and still aiding social expansion through means of stimulation of local commerce.

           

            Expansion is costly. England’s imperial conquests in India, the West Indies, the Caribbean, and the Americas were very costly. They failed to turn a profit for years, and even then the return started out slowly. Likewise Portugal experienced a similar cost profit and loss scenario with their territories.

            War is costly and expansion is expensive, and an entire nation disintegrating because of a lack of funds is unacceptable. Those in change do what they must to serve the people they rule. In hindsight historians can argue which choice would have been the most profitable and which most secure, but in the moment those in change did what they thought was best. The East India Trading Company had its stockowners to think about, England had its quickly emptying treasury. Social, financial, and political expansion happens in context of the age, and regardless of where expansion occurred, Europe was destined for change.