'The main motive for imperial expansion was national prestige.' How far do you agree? Explain your answer. [40]

This question asks how far you agree that national prestige was the main motive for imperial expansion. A strong answer evaluates prestige against economic, strategic, and ideological motives.

Evidence that national prestige was a major motive:

• In the late nineteenth century, possessing colonies was regarded as essential to great power status. Countries without empires were seen as second-rate powers.
• France sought to rebuild its international standing after its humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 by expanding into West Africa, North Africa, Madagascar, and Southeast Asia (Indochina).
• Germany under Bismarck and especially Kaiser Wilhelm II pursued colonies in East Africa (Tanganyika), South-West Africa (Namibia), Togoland, Kamerun, and the Pacific partly to demonstrate that Germany was a world power ('Weltpolitik').
• Italy's attempts to conquer Ethiopia in 1896 (defeated at the Battle of Adwa) and Libya in 1911 were driven primarily by a desire for prestige and great power recognition.
• The competitive atmosphere of the Scramble for Africa meant that countries often claimed territory simply to prevent rivals from acquiring it, even when the territory had little economic value.

Evidence that other motives were also important:

• Economic factors: Britain controlled Malaya for its tin and rubber, and southern Africa for its gold and diamonds. Belgium exploited the Congo for rubber and minerals. Trading companies directly drove expansion in many regions.
• Strategic considerations: Britain's control of Egypt and the Suez Canal (from 1882) was motivated by the need to protect the sea route to India, its most valuable colonial possession. The Cape Colony guarded the alternative route around southern Africa.
• Missionary and ideological motives: The belief in a 'civilising mission' provided moral justification for colonisation. Missionary activity and the campaign against the slave trade motivated some expansion, particularly in East Africa.
• Technological opportunity: Steamships, the telegraph, the Maxim gun, and quinine made expansion feasible. Some expansion occurred simply because the technology made it possible and relatively low-cost.

Reaching a judgement: National prestige was a powerful motive that helps explain why so many European nations competed for colonies simultaneously. However, economic interests and strategic calculations often determined where expansion occurred. In practice, these motives frequently overlapped: a colony valued for strategic reasons also enhanced national prestige. The strongest answer would argue that prestige was the common thread running through most imperial ventures, but that its importance varied by region and by country.

Mark scheme guidance:

• Level 5 (33-40): Balanced evaluation of prestige against other motives, with specific country and regional examples, reaching a sustained and nuanced judgement.
• Level 4 (25-32): Good analysis of multiple motives with relevant evidence, but the judgement may be less fully developed.
• Level 3 (17-24): Some explanation with evidence, but may focus too heavily on one motive or use general rather than specific examples.
• Level 2 (9-16): Descriptive account of imperial expansion with limited analysis of motives.
• Level 1 (1-8): General statements with little specific evidence.

Exam tip: To reach the highest levels, link your examples to the argument. Do not just list what France did and what Britain did. Explain why each example supports or challenges the claim that prestige was the main motive.