The British Empire at its peak... Where does it rank?

[Drunken Cat]

Well, geography plays a huge role in it. THey weren't located in inland Europe, so they weren't wiped out by the 16th century.


They were never conquered, even briefly, by the French, like the Spanish were. Or how the Germans conquered basically all of Europe except the English.


They had no use for inland Europe; they were all about resources. Spices, precious metals, etc.


They have without a doubt left the most lasting impact upon the world of all the most recent empires (French, British, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese).

Some suggested reading.

[Mikhnienko]

^^^^^ See the area in bright red? That's the fullest extent of German conquests in 1941. The pink are countries allied or puppets. I'm pretty sure that's what's being referred to.

Poet

Perhaps you should try reading the entire conversation.

Care to explain what WW2 has to do with the British Empire or that era? When you stated they had never been conquered i didn't correct you because i assumed you were talking about that specific era. Seems that you're just cherry picking whatever fits your assertion instead.

When you brought up Germany i even helped your weak argument by bringing up their success in a earlier era 3 C.E. - 8 C.E. which was their most successful and influential period but also noted that if you're going to be bringing that earlier period up then the Angles and Saxons along with the Normans would obviously have to be included in relation to England.

As for your personal remark its amusing and ironic considering that you never cease with your constant attention whoring posting pics and vids and whetever else you do to aquire attention on here, lets not FORGET YOUR CONSTANT CAPS. The only poster that is as feminine with their behaviour on here is Boss Lady.

Considering his initial claim of them not having been conquered i assumed he was talking about within the era of the British Empire. I brought up the success of Gemanic tribes before that era making note of it not fitting into that time period and the same would go for WWII. It appears he's is either cherrypicking what fits his argument or worse ignorant of England's history since he stated they had not been conquered.

Regardless of that i don't think territorial gains for a couple years within a half decade period during a World War qualifies for what we're talking about here.

[Mikhnienko]

Some suggested reading.

Or ask himself something as basic as why the term Anglo-Saxon is associated with English culture and the origin of it.

[Earl-Hickey]

Or ask himself something as basic as why the term Anglo-Saxon is associated with English culture and the origin of it.

Don't waste your time, threads like this simply breed ignorance

[TensionKiller]

Britain isn't weak. We have a small but good Army. The numbers may not side with us, but operationally we are good. Only issue is enough equipment and numbers. Heck if we had a full 1 vs 1 I believe we are top 4. Numbets wise in planes, ships etc... Perhaps not.


Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

[Capaedia]

Basic human rights are the only thing stopping them from being attacked OUTRIGHT by every nation that has a settle to score with them.

And the UK's nuclear arsenal.

Or said countries utter inability to 'attack them outright'.

But hey, thats cool too.

[Earl-Hickey]

And the UK's nuclear arsenal.

Or said countries utter inability to 'attack them outright'.

But hey, thats cool too.

just ignore him, he's obviously been cooped up in the trailer for too long

[UglyPug]

Some suggested reading.

britain was not an rmpire then. . . In 1066, LOL. . . feudalism was raging. . Land, and territory changed hand on the regular throughout Europe. British Empire would not come into existence until centuries later.

Sorry, but you need to do your reading broseph.

And yes, during ww2, british empire was very much in existence. . . in fact, you could argue WW2 is what pretty much ended all European conquest, and colonialism - inside, and outside of Europe. . .

[UglyPug]

Don't waste your time, threads like this simply breed ignorance

Ignore me bruv? Why do you think Im ignorant?

Or were you referring to somebody else?

The dude you're responding to is the one who came into the thread with an ignorant mindset of not only England, but apparently all of Europe.

[UglyPug]

Perhaps you should try reading the entire conversation.



Considering his initial claim of them not having been conquered i assumed he was talking about within the era of the British Empire. I brought up the success of Gemanic tribes before that era making note of it not fitting into that time period and the same would go for WWII. It appears he's is either cherrypicking what fits his argument or worse ignorant of England's history since he stated they had not been conquered.

Regardless of that i don't think territorial gains for a couple years within a half decade period during a World War qualifies for what we're talking about here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

British Empire was very much in effect during WW2. Like I said - it's arguably what started the fall of not only the British empire, but all European colonies, and further conquest. . .


I'm not cherrypicking anything. It's a known fact that Germany conquered (i.e. they had control) over a lot of inland Europe during WW2 (once again, check your history - during the era of the British Empire).

It seems you are the one who is trying to change definitions to detract from your clear ignorance of European history.


I said England had never been conquered during the era of THE BRITISH EMPIRE - which is what this thread is discussing That's all, thanks!