[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

The timing is wrong though. Industrial Revolution started in 1760. By that time the British had already laid the foundation for their rule of India, and the other powers also were well on their way to colonization.

In fact, looking at the timing, one could almost make the argument that the Industrial Revolution was the effect of colonization and exploitation of the rest of the world and not the cause.

[blululu]

The Watt steam engine is roughly contemporaneous with the Battle of Plassey and the British ascendency over Bengal, but the Watt steam engine is not the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It built upon cultural and technical innovations from 50 years prior. The British had been engaged in a radical period of industrialization since the start of the 16th century.

[ameister14]

The British absolutely had not engaged in a 'radical period of industrialization' from 1500 on. That's just not correct.

The major corporate movement didn't even start until the 17th century.

[qwytw]

The Dutch did though and they later kickstarted the industrial revolution in Britain.

[ameister14]

That's arguable, but sure. Even there it was more in the late 16th century, which makes sense given Spanish priorities prior to independence. Britain absolutely copied the hell out of it.

[uncletaco]

I don't know about that. A lot of people forget that the biggest war the British fought in the late 1770s and early 1780s was the first Anglo-Maratha war (which they lost) and their dominance wasn't really established until after the second and third Anglo-Maratha wars in the early 19th century.