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

[TBear]

Including credit for the beatles and stones. Pretty high.

[UglyPug]

Originally Posted by TBear

Including credit for the beatles and stones. Pretty high.

Actually, they were the result of centuries of colonialism, and warring mentality of the Brits. . . The mentality, and liberalism that swept over England after they withdrew all their control over foreign territories.

Probably would never have had them, if not for the history of England.

[Mikhnienko]

Originally Posted by UglyPug

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).

The Germans conquered almost all of Europe, really? When the fvck did this supposedly happen? If you're talking about early Germanic tribes during 3 C.E.- 8 C.E. then we can include the Normans and Angles and Saxons having conquered England. Even those early Germanic tribes didn't conquer almost all of Europe like you claim.

Mainland Europe bereft of natural resources? I suggest your do some research. Almost anything they desired was available on mainland Europe it was just easier to sail half way around the world to get rather than attempt to conquer European Nations, something they realized was futile and they wouldn't succeed at.

As far as their cultural impact it's North America, Australia and the lasting effect is mostly due to economics and trade. They would get massacred against Timur or Magyars, forget about the most formitable Empires in history.

[Southpaw Stinger]

I'm more interested by the political savvy behind creating the empire than simply the military aspect.
The East India Company in particular. What started as a small trading firm went on to control such a massive country. Not a people controlled primarily by the sword, since the native population vastly outnumbered any kind of military presence. You can talk about vast armies overwhelming their enemies but clever use of diplomacy, money and propaganda can reap even more impressive results.

[TBear]

Originally Posted by UglyPug

Actually, they were the result of centuries of colonialism, and warring mentality of the Brits. . . The mentality, and liberalism that swept over England after they withdrew all their control over foreign territories.

Probably would never have had them, if not for the history of England.

Sorry forgot about all that. That too!

[Capaedia]

Originally Posted by UglyPug

I still say the Roman Empire was probably the most powerful relative to their contemporaries.

The Han Chinese were roughly as powerful as the Romans and in the same time period.

After the Napoleonic war there was no-one even close to the strength and influence of the British Empire. 50% of the tonnage on the worlds seas was Royal Navy owned and operated, their diplomats held the most sway, they had the best power projection capabilities, they were the richest country, and most importantly they were the only fully industrialized nation until Belgium caught up. That didn't exactly knock them to second place.

If all that sounds familiar, it should, they were in a very similar spot to the one the US found itself in after WWII. That is the only contender I would give them.

Originally Posted by Mikhnienko

Undoubtedly the most overrated hypejob in history. They're an island nation that built up their navy and sailed to the far corners of the world to "conquer" a bunch of Natives who didn't have blackpower or firearms. If they were so formitable and dominant why didn't they conquer mainland Europe, they couldn't even get the best of their closest neighbours.

i.e. they used their geographical advantages to their advantage.

Fact remains, they became the most powerful and influential country of their time, why does it matter how they did it?

For example if England was geographically positioned where Poland is surrounded by Germany, Scandanavia, Ukraine, Russia, Hungary they would have ceased to exist by the 16th century. Magyars alone would have owned them.

They wouldn't be England then. Would they?

If the Mongols were on the British Isles, they would've never made it to the mainland because the French were on the other side and they would never have been able to gain the momentum they did by uniting the tribes above China.

[UglyPug]

Originally Posted by Mikhnienko

The Germans conquered almost all of Europe, really? When the fvck did this supposedly happen? If you're talking about early Germanic tribes during 3 C.E.- 8 C.E. then we can include the Normans and Angles and Saxons having conquered England. Even those early Germanic tribes didn't conquer almost all of Europe like you claim.

Mainland Europe bereft of natural resources? I suggest your do some research. Almost anything they desired was available on mainland Europe it was just easier to sail half way around the world to get rather than attempt to conquer European Nations, something they realized was futile and they wouldn't succeed at.

As far as their cultural impact it's North America, Australia and the lasting effect is mostly due to economics and trade. They would get massacred against Timur or Magyars, forget about the most formitable Empires in history.

Obviously you are biased. Germany did either completely take over, or partially occupy a lot of inland Europe during WW2.

You are too emotional to discuss this with; like little girl!

I'm interested in discussing this with people who are not inherently biased against a culture, or a country for whatever reasons. You bear some sort of hate, or dislike towards the British Empire.

[UglyPug]

Originally Posted by Southpaw Stinger

I'm more interested by the political savvy behind creating the empire than simply the military aspect.
The East India Company in particular. What started as a small trading firm went on to control such a massive country. Not a people controlled primarily by the sword, since the native population vastly outnumbered any kind of military presence. You can talk about vast armies overwhelming their enemies but clever use of diplomacy, money and propaganda can reap even more impressive results.

Agree completely man. . . So very true. .

Are there any movies (fictional is fine too!), or documentaries about the East India Trading Company?

[Southpaw Stinger]

Originally Posted by Capaedia

The Han Chinese were roughly as powerful as the Romans and in the same time period.

After the Napoleonic war there was no-one even close to the strength and influence of the British Empire. 50% of the tonnage on the worlds seas was Royal Navy owned and operated, their diplomats held the most sway, they had the best power projection capabilities, they were the richest country, and most importantly they were the only fully industrialized nation until Belgium caught up. That didn't exactly knock them to second place.

If all that sounds familiar, it should, they were in a very similar spot to the one the US found itself in after WWII. That is the only contender I would give them.

Which is a much better way of evaluating empires. People think it's simply about military force and who had the best army. Empires are just as much about business.
The primary goal behind empire building was to make money and to spread your political control around the world. Two things the British Empire was very good at.

[New England]

you talkin about murica jr.?