Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Most Effective Imperial Alliance/Empire

YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 5:04:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 4:05:25 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
5 Choices

Ottoman Empire
Sixth Coalition
British Empire
French Empire w/ Allies
Mongolian Empire

Obviously the British Empire.

The Roman empire deserves an honorable mention.
Tsar of DDO
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 9:28:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 5:04:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/15/2013 4:05:25 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
5 Choices

Ottoman Empire
Sixth Coalition
British Empire
French Empire w/ Allies
Mongolian Empire

Obviously the British Empire.

The Roman empire deserves an honorable mention.

I think it is the Sixth Coalition. The Sixth Coalition effectively destroyed the notorious French Empire.

The British Empire is only good overseas due to their massive navy during the mid-centuries, their inter-continental force/army is OK, but the French could have easily destroyed the Brits in a land war (and did), the Prussians could have also destroyed the Brits in a pure land war. Hell, the Ottomans almost could have beat the Brits in a land war. The Brits have a great navy, but if they ever had to dig in and fight in continental warfare, they would be crushed by any empire. The Sixth Coalition had the British Navy, the Prussian Army, and the great artillery and dragoons of the Austrian empire.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 9:44:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 9:28:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/15/2013 5:04:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/15/2013 4:05:25 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
5 Choices

Ottoman Empire
Sixth Coalition
British Empire
French Empire w/ Allies
Mongolian Empire

Obviously the British Empire.

The Roman empire deserves an honorable mention.

I think it is the Sixth Coalition. The Sixth Coalition effectively destroyed the notorious French Empire.

The British Empire is only good overseas due to their massive navy during the mid-centuries, their inter-continental force/army is OK, but the French could have easily destroyed the Brits in a land war (and did), the Prussians could have also destroyed the Brits in a pure land war. Hell, the Ottomans almost could have beat the Brits in a land war. The Brits have a great navy, but if they ever had to dig in and fight in continental warfare, they would be crushed by any empire. The Sixth Coalition had the British Navy, the Prussian Army, and the great artillery and dragoons of the Austrian empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Tsar of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 9:50:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
British
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 10:09:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 9:28:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/15/2013 5:04:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/15/2013 4:05:25 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
5 Choices

Ottoman Empire
Sixth Coalition
British Empire
French Empire w/ Allies
Mongolian Empire

Obviously the British Empire.

The Roman empire deserves an honorable mention.

I think it is the Sixth Coalition. The Sixth Coalition effectively destroyed the notorious French Empire.

"effectively"? Definitely not efficiently.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 11:05:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would go with Rome, just due to sheer longevity. Britain lasted, what, a little over a century? It's really in the same vein as the Mongol Empire (rapid expansion followed by dissolution) without covering as much ground. Ancient Rome lasted ~500 if you measure from the birth of Imperial Rome to the fall of Western Rome. If you measure from the birth of the Republic to the fall of Byzantium they survived for almost 2,000 years. Now that's lasting power, and how effective is an empire if it doesn't last?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 2:50:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 11:05:05 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I would go with Rome, just due to sheer longevity. Britain lasted, what, a little over a century? It's really in the same vein as the Mongol Empire (rapid expansion followed by dissolution) without covering as much ground. Ancient Rome lasted ~500 if you measure from the birth of Imperial Rome to the fall of Western Rome. If you measure from the birth of the Republic to the fall of Byzantium they survived for almost 2,000 years. Now that's lasting power, and how effective is an empire if it doesn't last?

The political culture of Rome was stronger than that of the Britain. Longevity is a viable metric, but it's not the only metric. Rome also was overwhelmingly stronger and better organized than the preponderance of those who would challenge it, which is not particularly the case with Britain (who found in France and to a lesser degree Spain and Portugal formidable competitive adversaries to expansion).
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 3:04:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 11:05:05 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I would go with Rome, just due to sheer longevity. Britain lasted, what, a little over a century? It's really in the same vein as the Mongol Empire (rapid expansion followed by dissolution) without covering as much ground. Ancient Rome lasted ~500 if you measure from the birth of Imperial Rome to the fall of Western Rome. If you measure from the birth of the Republic to the fall of Byzantium they survived for almost 2,000 years. Now that's lasting power, and how effective is an empire if it doesn't last?

IMHO there is a VERY easy comparison to make with Britain - Greece. Greece under Alexander set the stage for Roman domination just like how Britain spreading English culture and values around the world set the stage for American domination.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 3:09:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 3:04:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/16/2013 11:05:05 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I would go with Rome, just due to sheer longevity. Britain lasted, what, a little over a century? It's really in the same vein as the Mongol Empire (rapid expansion followed by dissolution) without covering as much ground. Ancient Rome lasted ~500 if you measure from the birth of Imperial Rome to the fall of Western Rome. If you measure from the birth of the Republic to the fall of Byzantium they survived for almost 2,000 years. Now that's lasting power, and how effective is an empire if it doesn't last?

IMHO there is a VERY easy comparison to make with Britain - Greece. Greece under Alexander set the stage for Roman domination just like how Britain spreading English culture and values around the world set the stage for American domination.

Explain your thoughts on this, I'm quite interested to hear them.
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 3:37:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 3:09:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/16/2013 3:04:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/16/2013 11:05:05 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I would go with Rome, just due to sheer longevity. Britain lasted, what, a little over a century? It's really in the same vein as the Mongol Empire (rapid expansion followed by dissolution) without covering as much ground. Ancient Rome lasted ~500 if you measure from the birth of Imperial Rome to the fall of Western Rome. If you measure from the birth of the Republic to the fall of Byzantium they survived for almost 2,000 years. Now that's lasting power, and how effective is an empire if it doesn't last?

IMHO there is a VERY easy comparison to make with Britain - Greece. Greece under Alexander set the stage for Roman domination just like how Britain spreading English culture and values around the world set the stage for American domination.

Explain your thoughts on this, I'm quite interested to hear them.

I'm not an expert in ancient Rome in any sense, but I do know that Ptolemy Egypt was a direct consequence of Alexander. The Hellenization of gigantic areas outside of Europe proper made pacification of these areas much easier for Rome, thereby expediting empire.

Similarly, Britain had a world-wide trade empire, one that obviously favored the English language. That India is still considered as an ally of both Britain and America is one gigantic consequence of this. Another is that Hong Kong, a massive capital hub for China, also still has a strong English-speaking heritage. There is also no question that English is the language of business today, and that this global cultural phenomenon was not only established by Britain, but is also something that America was and still is able to easily advantage itself of.

Language can't be stressed enough. I'm going to guess you're not aware of the "five-eyes" intelligence sharing community that consists of, coincidentally, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the US.

IMHO, there's also the means of American empire that are distinctly British in origin. Trade, currency control, and capital inflows/outflows are how America manages its empire, as opposed to a more heavy handed and traditional approach of the Germans and Japanese before and during WWII, or the USSR during the Cold War.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 3:43:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 2:50:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/16/2013 11:05:05 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I would go with Rome, just due to sheer longevity. Britain lasted, what, a little over a century? It's really in the same vein as the Mongol Empire (rapid expansion followed by dissolution) without covering as much ground. Ancient Rome lasted ~500 if you measure from the birth of Imperial Rome to the fall of Western Rome. If you measure from the birth of the Republic to the fall of Byzantium they survived for almost 2,000 years. Now that's lasting power, and how effective is an empire if it doesn't last?

The political culture of Rome was stronger than that of the Britain. Longevity is a viable metric, but it's not the only metric. Rome also was overwhelmingly stronger and better organized than the preponderance of those who would challenge it, which is not particularly the case with Britain (who found in France and to a lesser degree Spain and Portugal formidable competitive adversaries to expansion).

In the end I think that this comes down to the environment in which the global political climate develops. Every age is different: Rome saw expansion into bordering relatively uncivilized (there were exceptions like Greece and Carthage) lands. England existed in an era in which small mother countries fought it out on a crowded continent while simultaneously expanding colonial empires abroad. I think that the colonial model of empire building was relatively unstable; just look at how all of them collapsed after a century or two, and was a one-time phenomenon driven by naval exploration and the rapid introduction of vastly disparate cultures to one another. I could argue that the Roman model worked better, but would it matter? Could anyone apply that model today? Could anyone apply the British model today? No, as we lack the necessary conditions, and how an empire expands is governed by conditions external to said empire. It's easier, I think, to compare empires which employed similar models. Rome, Persia, and China, for example, all expanded while annexing bordering lands while England, Spain, and Portugal built a global colonial empire.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:33:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The British Empire hands down.

They were masters of organization and governance. They ruled a massive empire for years and years with very little trouble.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:57:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 8:33:04 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The British Empire hands down.

They were masters of organization and governance. They ruled a massive empire for years and years with very little trouble.

I think it's arguable that the French empire during the Napoleonic Wars was better. Remember the Britain never really fought their European Imperial Counterparts, they only directly fought Scandinavian nations such as Denmark and Norway. French successfully dismantled the Prussian Empire, and managed to hold out against the notorious Sixth Coalition for 4-5 years. If it wasn't for Napoleon's ignorance in Waterloo, he might have been able to destroy the Prussians and then Britain. If he would have retreated at Waterloo as soon as he realized the mass of the Duke of Wellington's army, he could have went back to France, met up with his army in Naples, and drove the Prussians + Brits back.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 9:00:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Roman Empire
The British Empire
The Mongol Empire under Kublai Khan
The Second Reich
The Chinese Empire under the Han Dynasty
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 9:43:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 9:00:35 PM, Subutai wrote:
The Roman Empire
The British Empire
The Mongol Empire under Kublai Khan
The Second Reich
The Chinese Empire under the Han Dynasty

American Empire
Chinese Empire
Roman Empire
Mongolian Empire
British/Greek Empire

Honorable mention - India, USSR, Napoleon/Hitler

I personally believe that within the next 50 years, the top two slots will switch. Historically, China has been unusually dominant by any standard.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 9:55:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 9:43:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/16/2013 9:00:35 PM, Subutai wrote:
The Roman Empire
The British Empire
The Mongol Empire under Kublai Khan
The Second Reich
The Chinese Empire under the Han Dynasty

American Empire
Chinese Empire
Roman Empire
Mongolian Empire
British/Greek/Persia/Egypt Empire (tie)

Honorable mention - India, USSR, Napoleon/Hitler

I personally believe that within the next 50 years, the top two slots will switch. Historically, China has been unusually dominant by any standard.

Added.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 10:27:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 3:43:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/16/2013 2:50:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/16/2013 11:05:05 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I would go with Rome, just due to sheer longevity. Britain lasted, what, a little over a century? It's really in the same vein as the Mongol Empire (rapid expansion followed by dissolution) without covering as much ground. Ancient Rome lasted ~500 if you measure from the birth of Imperial Rome to the fall of Western Rome. If you measure from the birth of the Republic to the fall of Byzantium they survived for almost 2,000 years. Now that's lasting power, and how effective is an empire if it doesn't last?

The political culture of Rome was stronger than that of the Britain. Longevity is a viable metric, but it's not the only metric. Rome also was overwhelmingly stronger and better organized than the preponderance of those who would challenge it, which is not particularly the case with Britain (who found in France and to a lesser degree Spain and Portugal formidable competitive adversaries to expansion).

In the end I think that this comes down to the environment in which the global political climate develops. Every age is different: Rome saw expansion into bordering relatively uncivilized (there were exceptions like Greece and Carthage) lands. England existed in an era in which small mother countries fought it out on a crowded continent while simultaneously expanding colonial empires abroad. I think that the colonial model of empire building was relatively unstable; just look at how all of them collapsed after a century or two, and was a one-time phenomenon driven by naval exploration and the rapid introduction of vastly disparate cultures to one another. I could argue that the Roman model worked better, but would it matter? Could anyone apply that model today? Could anyone apply the British model today? No, as we lack the necessary conditions, and how an empire expands is governed by conditions external to said empire. It's easier, I think, to compare empires which employed similar models. Rome, Persia, and China, for example, all expanded while annexing bordering lands while England, Spain, and Portugal built a global colonial empire.

I think that is an incredibly salient analysis, actually. I find myself in agreement.
Tsar of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 11:45:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 9:43:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/16/2013 9:00:35 PM, Subutai wrote:
The Roman Empire
The British Empire
The Mongol Empire under Kublai Khan
The Second Reich
The Chinese Empire under the Han Dynasty

American Empire

We aren't much of an Empire.

Chinese Empire
Roman Empire
Mongolian Empire
British/Greek Empire

Honorable mention - India, USSR, Napoleon/Hitler

I personally believe that within the next 50 years, the top two slots will switch. Historically, China has been unusually dominant by any standard.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 12:31:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 8:57:33 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/16/2013 8:33:04 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The British Empire hands down.

They were masters of organization and governance. They ruled a massive empire for years and years with very little trouble.

I think it's arguable that the French empire during the Napoleonic Wars was better. Remember the Britain never really fought their European Imperial Counterparts, they only directly fought Scandinavian nations such as Denmark and Norway. French successfully dismantled the Prussian Empire, and managed to hold out against the notorious Sixth Coalition for 4-5 years. If it wasn't for Napoleon's ignorance in Waterloo, he might have been able to destroy the Prussians and then Britain. If he would have retreated at Waterloo as soon as he realized the mass of the Duke of Wellington's army, he could have went back to France, met up with his army in Naples, and drove the Prussians + Brits back.

Your problem here is you're basing empire value on military. The British didn't fight as much, so what? That doesn't take away from their scope, achievements, organization etc. In fact, many would say they were more successful for having avoided wars as much.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 12:45:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 11:45:09 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/16/2013 9:43:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/16/2013 9:00:35 PM, Subutai wrote:
The Roman Empire
The British Empire
The Mongol Empire under Kublai Khan
The Second Reich
The Chinese Empire under the Han Dynasty

American Empire

We aren't much of an Empire.

Depends on how you define it. If you go by the (extremely) basic definition that troops occupy land belonging to the sovereign, we are several times the size of even the largest empires in history.


Chinese Empire
Roman Empire
Mongolian Empire
British/Greek Empire

Honorable mention - India, USSR, Napoleon/Hitler

I personally believe that within the next 50 years, the top two slots will switch. Historically, China has been unusually dominant by any standard.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 12:50:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 12:31:18 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 2/16/2013 8:57:33 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/16/2013 8:33:04 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The British Empire hands down.

They were masters of organization and governance. They ruled a massive empire for years and years with very little trouble.

I think it's arguable that the French empire during the Napoleonic Wars was better. Remember the Britain never really fought their European Imperial Counterparts, they only directly fought Scandinavian nations such as Denmark and Norway. French successfully dismantled the Prussian Empire, and managed to hold out against the notorious Sixth Coalition for 4-5 years. If it wasn't for Napoleon's ignorance in Waterloo, he might have been able to destroy the Prussians and then Britain. If he would have retreated at Waterloo as soon as he realized the mass of the Duke of Wellington's army, he could have went back to France, met up with his army in Naples, and drove the Prussians + Brits back.

Your problem here is you're basing empire value on military. The British didn't fight as much, so what? That doesn't take away from their scope, achievements, organization etc. In fact, many would say they were more successful for having avoided wars as much.

I think his point had less to do with military prowess and more that Britain didn't have anything close to sovereign control over any part of continental Europe.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 1:12:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 3:43:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/16/2013 2:50:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/16/2013 11:05:05 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I would go with Rome, just due to sheer longevity. Britain lasted, what, a little over a century? It's really in the same vein as the Mongol Empire (rapid expansion followed by dissolution) without covering as much ground. Ancient Rome lasted ~500 if you measure from the birth of Imperial Rome to the fall of Western Rome. If you measure from the birth of the Republic to the fall of Byzantium they survived for almost 2,000 years. Now that's lasting power, and how effective is an empire if it doesn't last?

The political culture of Rome was stronger than that of the Britain. Longevity is a viable metric, but it's not the only metric. Rome also was overwhelmingly stronger and better organized than the preponderance of those who would challenge it, which is not particularly the case with Britain (who found in France and to a lesser degree Spain and Portugal formidable competitive adversaries to expansion).

In the end I think that this comes down to the environment in which the global political climate develops. Every age is different: Rome saw expansion into bordering relatively uncivilized (there were exceptions like Greece and Carthage) lands. England existed in an era in which small mother countries fought it out on a crowded continent while simultaneously expanding colonial empires abroad. I think that the colonial model of empire building was relatively unstable; just look at how all of them collapsed after a century or two, and was a one-time phenomenon driven by naval exploration and the rapid introduction of vastly disparate cultures to one another. I could argue that the Roman model worked better, but would it matter? Could anyone apply that model today? Could anyone apply the British model today? No, as we lack the necessary conditions, and how an empire expands is governed by conditions external to said empire. It's easier, I think, to compare empires which employed similar models. Rome, Persia, and China, for example, all expanded while annexing bordering lands while England, Spain, and Portugal built a global colonial empire.

Greece, Carthage, Egypt, Persia. That's actually most of the Empire there, bud. Outside of that, you had Gaul and Spain, half of Britain. Nowadays those areas are major players, but back then, the first four I cited were much larger than all of Europe combined in every way that mattered, and Rome conquered them all.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 1:41:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 1:12:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
In the end I think that this comes down to the environment in which the global political climate develops. Every age is different: Rome saw expansion into bordering relatively uncivilized (there were exceptions like Greece and Carthage) lands. England existed in an era in which small mother countries fought it out on a crowded continent while simultaneously expanding colonial empires abroad. I think that the colonial model of empire building was relatively unstable; just look at how all of them collapsed after a century or two, and was a one-time phenomenon driven by naval exploration and the rapid introduction of vastly disparate cultures to one another. I could argue that the Roman model worked better, but would it matter? Could anyone apply that model today? Could anyone apply the British model today? No, as we lack the necessary conditions, and how an empire expands is governed by conditions external to said empire. It's easier, I think, to compare empires which employed similar models. Rome, Persia, and China, for example, all expanded while annexing bordering lands while England, Spain, and Portugal built a global colonial empire.

Greece, Carthage, Egypt, Persia. That's actually most of the Empire there, bud. Outside of that, you had Gaul and Spain, half of Britain. Nowadays those areas are major players, but back then, the first four I cited were much larger than all of Europe combined in every way that mattered, and Rome conquered them all.
I don't think that they ever conquered Persia; Trajan stopped at Parthia and that was the high water mark, and then they were pretty much in a perpetual state of war for over half a millennium. The conflict between Byzantium and Sassanid Persia actually resulted in them offering sanctuary to Nestorius after the political scheming of Cyril of Alexandria resulted in his exile. Persia then stifled all other types of Christianity, which were Roman affiliated, and the Nestorian Church flourished, eventually spreading to Mongolia, India, and China.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 2:03:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
/you know when i first read this post the first thing that come to my mind s that the 6 coalition is possibly the worse alliance in this choice. Because when I first read the theme I supposed that the best alliance is calculated in term of organization and integrity not the over all military strength and the 6th was just so fragmented, had Napoleon not returned to France they would have tear each other apart and possibly started another continental war (spearhead by Alexander).
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 2:53:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 1:41:45 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2013 1:12:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
In the end I think that this comes down to the environment in which the global political climate develops. Every age is different: Rome saw expansion into bordering relatively uncivilized (there were exceptions like Greece and Carthage) lands. England existed in an era in which small mother countries fought it out on a crowded continent while simultaneously expanding colonial empires abroad. I think that the colonial model of empire building was relatively unstable; just look at how all of them collapsed after a century or two, and was a one-time phenomenon driven by naval exploration and the rapid introduction of vastly disparate cultures to one another. I could argue that the Roman model worked better, but would it matter? Could anyone apply that model today? Could anyone apply the British model today? No, as we lack the necessary conditions, and how an empire expands is governed by conditions external to said empire. It's easier, I think, to compare empires which employed similar models. Rome, Persia, and China, for example, all expanded while annexing bordering lands while England, Spain, and Portugal built a global colonial empire.

Greece, Carthage, Egypt, Persia. That's actually most of the Empire there, bud. Outside of that, you had Gaul and Spain, half of Britain. Nowadays those areas are major players, but back then, the first four I cited were much larger than all of Europe combined in every way that mattered, and Rome conquered them all.
I don't think that they ever conquered Persia; Trajan stopped at Parthia and that was the high water mark, and then they were pretty much in a perpetual state of war for over half a millennium. The conflict between Byzantium and Sassanid Persia actually resulted in them offering sanctuary to Nestorius after the political scheming of Cyril of Alexandria resulted in his exile. Persia then stifled all other types of Christianity, which were Roman affiliated, and the Nestorian Church flourished, eventually spreading to Mongolia, India, and China.

Regardless, Rome comprised mainly of civilized people...one reason why it was so great was because it conquered much of the known world at the time - it was a true hegemony. More of its subjects consisted of elder civilizations as opposed to being "relatively uncivilized".

Britain on the other hand experienced the opposite - outside of a fragmented India and its incursions into China, its colonies were largely filled with relatively uncivilized peoples. What was deemed "civilized", i.e. Europe proper, was never under British influence. I find it very difficult to think that Britain was great because of this - it didn't have a hegemony in its own home turf, where it counts the most.

America on the other hand has all of this, and much more...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 3:08:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 2:53:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/17/2013 1:41:45 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2013 1:12:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
In the end I think that this comes down to the environment in which the global political climate develops. Every age is different: Rome saw expansion into bordering relatively uncivilized (there were exceptions like Greece and Carthage) lands. England existed in an era in which small mother countries fought it out on a crowded continent while simultaneously expanding colonial empires abroad. I think that the colonial model of empire building was relatively unstable; just look at how all of them collapsed after a century or two, and was a one-time phenomenon driven by naval exploration and the rapid introduction of vastly disparate cultures to one another. I could argue that the Roman model worked better, but would it matter? Could anyone apply that model today? Could anyone apply the British model today? No, as we lack the necessary conditions, and how an empire expands is governed by conditions external to said empire. It's easier, I think, to compare empires which employed similar models. Rome, Persia, and China, for example, all expanded while annexing bordering lands while England, Spain, and Portugal built a global colonial empire.

Greece, Carthage, Egypt, Persia. That's actually most of the Empire there, bud. Outside of that, you had Gaul and Spain, half of Britain. Nowadays those areas are major players, but back then, the first four I cited were much larger than all of Europe combined in every way that mattered, and Rome conquered them all.
I don't think that they ever conquered Persia; Trajan stopped at Parthia and that was the high water mark, and then they were pretty much in a perpetual state of war for over half a millennium. The conflict between Byzantium and Sassanid Persia actually resulted in them offering sanctuary to Nestorius after the political scheming of Cyril of Alexandria resulted in his exile. Persia then stifled all other types of Christianity, which were Roman affiliated, and the Nestorian Church flourished, eventually spreading to Mongolia, India, and China.

Regardless, Rome comprised mainly of civilized people...one reason why it was so great was because it conquered much of the known world at the time - it was a true hegemony. More of its subjects consisted of elder civilizations as opposed to being "relatively uncivilized".

Britain on the other hand experienced the opposite - outside of a fragmented India and its incursions into China, its colonies were largely filled with relatively uncivilized peoples. What was deemed "civilized", i.e. Europe proper, was never under British influence. I find it very difficult to think that Britain was great because of this - it didn't have a hegemony in its own home turf, where it counts the most.

America on the other hand has all of this, and much more...

I can certainly agree with that. The fact that Greece, for example, had knowledge and culture which benefited the Romans probably lead to them being given preferential treatment over, say, the Iceni who had little to offer and were mistreated as a result. Britain's brutal treatment of their colonial subjects were probably a result of the vast cultural and scientific disparities between the two, and that treatment probably did little to contribute to their long-term stability. Monty Python addresses it rather humorously.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 10:09:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll go with British and Ottoman Empires. In addition - Umayyad Caliphate is high on the list.

Other than that - the next Muslim empire will be number one.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:42:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Rule Britannia!
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:49:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 10:09:23 PM, Mirza wrote:
I'll go with British and Ottoman Empires. In addition - Umayyad Caliphate is high on the list.

Other than that - the next Muslim empire will be number one.

I can hardly wait.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.