Final answer:
The British army's small size before World War I was a strategic choice, due to their focus on naval power and belief in 'splendid isolation.' Economic stability often affects military funding and strength, as seen in historical examples like the decline of the Roman Empire.
Step-by-step explanation:
At the onset of World War I, the British army was significantly smaller than its continental counterparts, relying largely on volunteer troops known as the Old Regulars who numbered just over a quarter-million. The weak military forces in the UK were less a reflection of Britain's capability and more indicative of its strategic reliance on naval superiority. Britain's doctrine of "splendid isolation" banked on its strong navy to maintain its defenses, recognizing that most European issues would not immediately affect the island nation.
These historical observations resonate with the understanding that weak economic conditions often necessitate a prioritization of military resources. Such was the case with Roman armies in the west during the decline of the Roman Empire, depicted as under-funded, under-manned, and vulnerable, contributing to the empire's downfall. This highlights the intrinsic relationship between economic stability, military funding, and overall defensive strength. However, it's important to note that the assessment of a country's military strength is complex and multifaceted, often involving not only the size of the force but also technological advancements, strategic doctrine, and other factors.