Most powerful empire in history?

Discussion in 'History' started by mountainhare, Dec 5, 2005.

  1. Harold Godwinson Registered Member

    Messages:
    15
    I have no Idea why there is any discussion at all. The British Empire was by far the Greatest ever. It was as big as the Spanish, French and Roman Empires put together!

    Land Area of the Biggest Empires Ever at their height

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Population size of the Biggest Empires ever when they were at their height

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Here is an introduction of the British Empire I made for a website that I am in the process of Creating:

    Once there was an Empire that spanned the globe. The "Sceptred Isle"Ruled over a third of the World, oppressing Slavery, bringinng levels of prosperity to the world that were never before experienced. It was the largest in history until its hasty dismantling saw the British Empire nearly disappear completely from the face of the globe. I hope this page answers the question an anxious George V whispered on his deathbed- 'How is the Empire?'

    The origins of the British Empire can be seen as going back to the Middle Ages with the beginning of the conquest of Ireland (1169) and conquest of much of France during the Hundred Years' War. However, the modern British Empire can be considered having started in 1497 with John Cabot's claim to Newfoundland. The British Empire was the largest Empire in history; At it's zenith it held sway over a population of nearly 500 million people — roughly a quarter of the world's population — and covered about 14.3 million square miles (17.4 million including Antarctic claims), almost a third of the world's total land area. During the mid-19th century Britain was the sole developed hyperpower, enjoying unparalleled prosperity. Britain was "the work-shop of the world," and even by 1870 she still was producing well over 30% of the global industrial output, no other nation coming even close to her production superiority. In 1885 America and Germany can be considered as having become industrialised, but Britain was still the world's most developed nation until around 1913 when she was surpassed by America. Even in 1900, The United Kingdom was the only nation on earth to have less than 20% of its population employed in agriculture, compared to France, who even in 1950 was still 25% agricultural. In modern Britain about 1% of the population are farmers. Due to the supremacy of the Royal Navy Britain was largely a thalassocracy, and truly did rule the waves for centuries. With territories scattered across every continent and ocean and in every time-zone, the "Empire Under Palm and Pine" was accurately described as "the empire on which the sun never sets."

    The Empire facilitated the spread of British technology, commerce, language, and government around much of the globe through Pax Britannica and British Imperial hegemony. The contributions the British Empire made to the world, the technology, philosophy, literature, medicine, investment, institutions, and plain advancements of man-kind have left a profound legacy. She was the birthplace of both the industrial and green revolutions (The green revolution was huge improvements in farming that led modern farming methods, so that much more food could be produced). As the birthplace of the industrial revolution she was more technologically advanced than any other nation on Earth.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2006
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Whooaaaaa! I understand that modern research is making it a lot more complicated than that regarding "Celts". For starters, the only link relating UK populations to "Celts" is the language. Genetic studies suggest that the language was imported, rather than the people, or else it's origins were much further back into the Bronze age. Plus we need to make sure we talking about the same "Celts". If you mean celtic languages, then I will roughly agree with what you are saying. If you mean Celtic people, ie genetics etc, then I will disagree slightly. All we can really be certain of is the language link, but the Celtic culture and multiple invasion waves theories (La tene spreading outwards etc.) that have dominated the scene for over a hundred years are somewhat out of date. Not to mention that there is either only one, or no, references at all by the ancient writers calling the Britons "Celts".
    Also do you have any good resources?



    As for the thread title, well, if you mean most powerful as "Most able to destroy stuff", then the USA's hegemony after WW2 comes first. However, if you go by population and cornering of the world economy, then I think the UK empire comes first.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Well, you type "Celtic Britons" into Google and you get a quarter of a million hits. Even after you toss the ones with titles like "Proud History of the Magnificent White Race," it's chaotic. They go into about the same level of detail, talking about the Celtic Picts who lived in what is now Scotland when the Romans came and the Celtic Britons who lived south of there at the same time. Some say that the Welsh and Cornish were already established as distinct tribes and are not descended from fleeing Britons.

    None of them really impresses me with authoritativeness, footnotes, or original scholarship. This is what I've been reading all my life and I had no idea that it was controversial. It must be a well-loved theory because I've never encountered an opposing viewpoint before yours, but I see that it could as easily be legend as history.

    I am swayed to think that the Celts may not have been the first Indo-Europeans in Europe. Archeology says that the Indo-European diaspora started spreading in that direction around 4,000BCE. A likely scenario is that the Celts showed up 2,500 to 3,000 years later with their Bronze Age weaponry, and the Neolithic tribes they overwhelmed were simply previous Indo-Europeans who had missed out on the Paradigm Shift to metallurgy.

    As for genetics, I'm of the opinion that DNA analysis of modern humans is not a promising approach to sorting out the migrations of their ancestors. The Romans made long-distance travel safe and practical, and they welcomed foreigners, if only as slaves. If that didn't stir up the genetic pot to the point of obliteration, subsequent transporation technologies like full-rigged sailing ships and railroads certainly did. You might find occasional pockets of recognizable gene pools in the backwoods of New Guinea or Brazil, but not in England.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    Yeah, has anyone bought that thing yet? Or at least has a country attempted to claim it entirely?
     
  8. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Fragglerocker, your definitely right about the chaos. First I should say I do not know about Indo-europeans in Europe, that has been somewhat outside my interest so far, since I have started with my home country (Scotland) first and am working outwards as I go.

    Much of it is due to the continuation of misguided and totally wrong victorian ideas. I have had nasty arguments with people about it before, especially since I've started reading more up to date material, such as the Historic Scotland book on Celts in Scotland, in which the author essentially says that Celts is something of a misnomer, and really only refers to the language, and that we arent really as certain about the culture as people like to think. For example, when lokoed at with modern eeys and techniques, the archeological record does not show invasion of the UK by Hallstatt and La Tene celts, unless you are somewhat biased. Instead, it looks more like trade, movement of important people by marriage or such, leads to artefacts turning up in out of the way places.
    I have also read a modern book called "The Celts: origins, Myths and Legends", by John Collis, professor of Archeology at the University of Sheffield and the leading British authority on the European Iron age. Or in other words he very likley knows his stuff. In it he points out that at most, only one ancient source calls people in the UK "Celts", and ex[plains how the word has spread from meaning the tribes/ peoples around Northern Italy/ southern France, into covering an entire language group. Yet the simple fact is that people in the UK speak a variant of a Celtic language, so, my idea and one that I shall be reading more about, is that the Celtic languages may have been spread in the Bronze age. The Historic Scotland book I mentioned above suggests that Celtic started as much as a trade language like Swahili or similar, and changed and grew over hundreds of years, a reasonable hypothesis based on the evidence we have. Which to be honest is nowhere near as much as we would like. So much of the popular understanding of "Celts" is based upon old pre modern studies, wishful thinking, biased writing and propaganda.

    About gene studies, it was one about red hair I was meaning, that found the mutation to have occured a few thousand years ago in the UK/ Ireland, and seeing as that is where red hair is to this day still found, the investigators suggested that meant that there had not been wholesale population replacement by "Celtic" invaders in the British isles. I shall see if I can dig the url out.
     
  9. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
  10. terryoh Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    388
    i'd say the mongols or the hapsburg empire at it's zenith. if i'm not mistaken, the hapsburg empire (under the family) at one point ruled the Holy Roman Empire (Germany, Austria, Western Poland, etc...), the Spanish Empire (including all of it's South America, Central American, and Asian colonies), and had various alliances with other families through marriages. it was absolutely HUGE.

    if we were to include any political entities (not just empires), i think America was one of, if not, the most powerful "empire" in history. of course...that might not last too long hah.
     
  11. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    You forgot Hungary, Croatia, Lombardy, Venetia, Modena, Luxembourg, parts of the Netherlands, Galicia and Lodomeria, Portugal + Portugese Colonies, Burgundy, etc.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Gott Erhalte Franz den Kaiser.
     
  12. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Hapsburg:

    We're men, we're men in tights.
    We roam around the forest looking for fights.
    We're men, we're men in tights.
    We rob from the rich and give to the poor, that's right!
    We may look like sissies, but watch what you say or else we'll put out your lights!
    We're men, we're men in tights,
    Always on guard defending the people's rights.

    We're men, MANLY men, we're men in tights. Yeah!
    We roam around the forest looking for fights.
    We're men, we're men in tights.
    We rob from the rich and give to the poor, that's right!
    We may look like pansies, but don't get us wrong or else we'll put out your lights.
    We're men, we're men in tights (TIGHT tights),
    Always on guard defending the people's rights.
    When you're in a fix just call for the men in tights!

    We're Butch!
     
  13. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    In reply to by nirakar's: "It's the USA in 1991."
    Yours is a rather useless definition. Would you say that a rose ceases to be what it is, if we change the name?

    The pope is not called and "emperor," but he sure heads and empire, by any reasonable definition of "empire."

    To be clear, I will define an "Empire" as:
    Any organization that collects more than half of it income as tribute from distant peoples, by some form of intimidation.

    Usually the "organization" is political, typically a state with citizens and has some central ruler or rulers.
    Usually the "some form of intimidation" that get the tribute paid is military might. (The Pope also uses fear, but it God’s wrath, not bullets and clubs etc.)

    With this definition, rather than whether or not the leader is called an "emperor", then clearly, nirakar has a case for the USA as an empire, probably the most powerful and efficient that has ever existed, but the Catholic Church has done well longer. Both may be in danger of collapse by being over extended and no longer are serving their citizens/members well.

    These are the usual reasons why empires collapse - to much wealth is corruptly concentrated into the hands of the few - Enron, corruption of Congress, four straight years of average wage decrease, etc. in case of USA. Pedophile priests eating in the best restaurants with gold plated Churches and hungry congregations (especially in 2nd and 3d world countries), difficulty in replacing aging priest, growing secularism, etc. for the current Roman Empire)

    The next Empire will be one of the oldest, much transformed, called China, but it certainly has already sown the "corruption seeds" well, but even with this, the influx of tribute wealth is so great that the people's lot is rapidly improving.

    One can notice the increasing efficiency of Empires:
    All pre-Christian ones simply sent the army in and took what they could that the central group wanted. (Usually setting up a local administration, who could call the army back, if needed, to continue taxing the concurred group.)

    Post Christian ones need a rationalization (or face saving justification) to do the same. (Usually this was to "save the souls" of those whose natural wealth was being stolen. The church cooperated, and participated but did teach the natives their language)

    The now dead British, dying American and rising Chinese empires have less need of "save the souls" but "white man's burden" (to civilize), "make the world save for democracy" or "establish the people's welfare" seem to be adequate replacements.

    Perhaps the British empire failed because they spent to much making India speak English, building schools, rail roads etc. rather than simple looting, as in the "good old days." The Spanish and Portuguese, managed to get gold out of South and Central America, spread their languages, etc. without failing because of this Effort. (Napoleon occupied Portugal, driving the king to what is now Brazil, and the British seamen destroyed the grand Spanish fleet.)

    American made a quantum leap in efficiency of collecting tribute wealth, especially oil. - The US fiat dollar*. - Most of the world gives valuable goods, reasonably willingly still, for pieces of paper with no real lasting value that have been printed in such quantity that soon their near worthless nature will be apparent to all. (These pieces of paper cost less than one cent to make, yet while they are accepted, buy 100 times more. - Many more circulate out side of US than in it. Definitely the most profitable export ever invented, at least for now.)

    China is making further efficiency improvement. - They exploit the workers to help the capitalist of the world! (Poor old Carl Marks must be spinning!) China is the first country in history to have an influx of greater than US$ 100 billion direct investment by foreigners in one year. Soon they will need a stick to beat away the hordes wanting to bring wealth to them. - Now that is efficient collection of tribute, will little external deployment of the army or administrators required!
    ___________________________________
    *Normally in the case of oil, the US does not even give these green pieces of paper, just brielfy changes some bank records, which are returned to their original values in days, at most, when the previous owner of the oil buy US's IOUs. (called Treasury bonds etc. - You must grant that is a "quantum leap" in efficiency of tribute collection.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 23, 2006
  14. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    Your definition would be wrong, then. How can it be an Empire without an Emperor?
    American Superpowerdom, maybe, but there has never been an American Empire.

    China has been Empire in the past, but isn't and never will be until another family takes up the Mandate of Heaven, a sort of transferrable right to the throne.
     
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    What is your definition of Emperor? (non circuLar, PLEASE.)

    I like discriptive definitions. Can you desicribe an empire, even if you define it as any domain of influence by someone must call himself (or is commonly called) "emperor."

    BTW - I am the Emperor of my fish tank, so that is an empire.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. devils_reject Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    659
    I'd say the British, just for the fact that a tiny Island managed to achieve such a feat, and that English is still the second most spoken language in the world behind Mandarin.
     
  17. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    Someone with the official title "Emperor", and is recognized by a third party.
    Not observed or recognized by a third party, thus not valid.
     
  18. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Hapsburg:
    I recognize that Billy T is the Emperor of his fish tank Empire...
     
  19. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    You still have missed my point.
    An Empire is a nation with an Emperor. It can be a multiethnic nation, but if it doesn't have an Emperor or regent, it's not an empire.
     
  20. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Hapsburg:
    Not true.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/empire-1
     
  21. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    In the broader sense, yes. But, fuck the broader sense. I'm talking about the simple version, going to the root of the word.
     
  22. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Then why are we arguing?

    ???

    If that's how you choose to interpret it...
    Although you are really constraining yourself by claiming that only emperors/empresses can rule empires.
     
  23. Jack Rabbit Slim Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    The issue here isn't really whether an empire has to have an 'emperor/emperess' as such (although to be fair, the clue is in the word empire), no, the issue is what an empire actually is. I've been through many web deffinitions and one of the most common I found was: 'a group of countries under a single authority; "the British empire"'.

    A single authority could be a group of people, e.g, one government, and not an emperor, controlling a number of different countries. But again, that isn't the point, the point is, an empire is a group of countries under a single rule, submitting to one nation, one flag, one law and under control by one nation. America, in no sense of any of these definitions, has an empire. It does not controll any other countries except its own! Sure, it has military bases and embassies in other countries, but only because those countries allow them to be there. And if one of America's trading countries decided to halt all trade with America, they could do nothing about it, unlike the British empire, which controlled all trade, politics, military etc etc within the countries it ruled, and every nation was under the British flag and embraced british rule, law and language. No-one can deny that America is the most powerful NATION at the moment, and that it has a significant presence throughout the world, in terms of economy etc, but it does not qualify as an empire, by any traditional sense of the word. It did have an empire once though, back in "1915-1934, when it controlled not only the Philippines, but also had occupied Haiti." which ranks it 12th in the list of the world's largest empires.

    If you wanted to totally stretch and distort the definition of what an empire is, then sure, you could probably include America, just like, if I wanted to stretch and distort the definition of 'genius', I could probably include G.W.Bush

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But even if, by some twisted stretch of the imagination, you wanted to include America into the list of poweful empires, it STILL would not come close to the power of the British empire. A quote from wikipedia: "On a world scale the power of America is rivaled only by the peak of the British Empire during the 19th and early 20th centuries."

    The British empire once controlled about 1/4 of the world's land surface, and almost a third of its population, making it the lagest empire in history. No nation has ever achieved that kind of power, and that is a fact. And what's more, Britain held sway over the ENTIRE ocean, which comprises a lot more aread then land! There was no area of the sea on the globe that the British navy did not have controll over, and again, no nation or empire has ever achieved that. To me, this isn't a debate, the British empire wins this topic hands down, it isn't open to debate, its just a fact that no other empire was more poweful then the British empire, and to suggest differently is like trying to argue that 2+2=5

    The British were also unique in that instead of pillaging and plundering their conquered lands and buggering off home, they actually paid for and built schools, hospitals, trading ports etc etc, and put a lot of money into the whole empire, which is one of the reasons why it went bankrupt! I'm not saying the British empire was all goodness and done for the benefit of others, and I know the British committed some seriously bad crimes, but no other empire ever put as much work into building up its colonies and lands as the British. They gave the world education, law and medicine, established the world's first real global trading network, introduced people to the english language, started the industrial revolution which brought the world into the modern era...the list could go on and on... And it is a credit to the greatness and uniqueness of the empire that there is still a commonwealth of nations, all of whom were former colonies of the British empire, and areas such as Hong Kong and America/Canada/Asutralia etc still use the English legal system, still speak English, and some even refuse to drive on the right!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This image shows all the land conquered by the British, though the Eastern seaboard of the USA was gone before the colonial expansion that occured later on:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page