And the United States didn’t give the vote to blacks until the Grant administration, to women until the 20th century, blah blah blah. The UK was as much as representative democracy as the USA was at first, it was the heart of more scientific exploration and innovation than we could even begin to recount, and the fact is they were tremendous innovators and leaders in capitalism. Those were the three things you cited and the UK had them all first. They may have gotten improved upon later, in the UK and elsewhere, but they had them.
Emperor Caesar dealt with a senate of elected representatives. But his reign is considered the beginning of Empirical rule and the end of the Republic.
The US has always been a Republic. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly when the UK should be considered to be a Republic rather than a Monarchy (probably sometime between 1803 and 1830). Technically, it still is a monarchy.
There’s no question in my mind that Great Britain has the "greatest " history in the world
Starting with the evolution of the world’s predominant language, several millenia ago, the evolution of modern democracy and the rule of law since Magna Carta and the development of an empire of such size and scope under Victoria which no nation has come close to rivaling, suggests to me the no nation comes close to Britain wrt to the impact their history has on the present condition of the peoples of the world.
I’m going to chime in with Great Britain as well. I suppose it all depends on the definition of ‘great’…if you mean longest then I suppose China or perhaps Egypt. Myself, I think that the Brits had the only truly world spanning empire in history, and were the most dominant power during their time. I think that qualifies as ‘greatest’, especially when you consider the size of the British Isles and the relatively small number of the population. They also have one of the most colorful histories, IMHO, both in it’s length and in the sheer amount of events packed into small bursts of time. They did truly amazing (and terrible) things during their time as well…and I think more than any other power they shaped our modern world.
And they are still about today doing interesting things, despite losing their empire. Of course so is China…but China isn’t the same China as it was during it’s own hay day, nor is Egypt the same Egypt or Greece or Rome the same Greece or Rome. But the Brits ARE the same…just diminished a bit.
JMHO, but that’s where my vote goes. YMMV and all that rot and bother…
-XT
Granted, it wasn’t an exact copy, that was a bit tongue in cheek.
The Republic of the United Provinces had rather stumbled on ‘democracy’ as they did away with the king. They didn’t quite know what next, there was no precedent, hence the function of the Stadholder. While the nation grew to the new ‘democratic’ situation, the function of stadholder became more and more the same, certainly in foreign perception, as a sort of king. This would later cause much conflict between royalists and republicans.
While the aristocracy certainly made up a large part of the regent class, al lot of regents were of wealthy merchant stock. I need not remind you that in the early US certainly not everybody had voting rights.
So while the function of stadholder kind of re-evolved to the status of king, for a period the Dutch were the shining example of democracy, be it primitive in our modern eyes.
A lot was copied. Like the name; Republic of the United States vs Republic of the United Provinces.
The declaration of independence is based on the Dutch document.
The early Stars and Stripes, that had no jack with stars, could also be striped red white and blue. Which would give you the Dutch naval flag of the Amsterdam admiralty, whose ships would certainly be a regular sight in American harbours.
To those american colonists that dreamed of independence from Britain, Holland was certainly the shining beacon of freedom.
Of course it wasn’t an exact copy but an idea to be built upon and improved.
Oh and by the way, the institution of the US Senate was expressly to ensure that there would not be a ‘danger’ of a direct democracy. The founding fathers actually wanted an intermediate aristocratic organ. The use of the name ‘republic’ was also in this light, as ‘democracy’ referred to the direct democracy as practised in ancient greece. That would not do, only ‘the best among the people’ should have a voice.
No.
-
The way into the Senate changed many times but, in general, senatores were not elected representatives; they were appointed - though magistrates, who were elected, automatically became senatores.
-
Though Caesar was imperator, that doesn’t mean he was emperor. The Romans had no equivalent word to the English term; during the Roman Republic, imperator was a title for a commander of troops who had achieved an outstanding victory; it was a prerequisite to ask the Senate for a triumph. The commander was allowed to add the title after his name but had to cease using it after his triumph.
Caesar, otoh, was honored by the Senate to use the title as a permanent part of his first name (see Suetonius: De Vita Caesarum, 76, I), but it didn’t turn into an exclusive title of the Roman ruler (or one of his family) before Augustus’ reign.
- When Caesar was killed, he was Consul V (without a colleague) and Dictator V; and the Senate elevated his dictatorial title to dictator perpetuo (technically, Dictator VI).
At the feast of Lupercalia (on February 15, 44 BCE), Caesar had refused a diadem, the symbol of the Hellenistic monarchs, offered by Marc Anthony but even Cicero admitted (Cic. fam. 11,27,8):
Still, Caesar died before he was officially declared a king and established hereditary rule – otoh, he was elevated to the rank of god, and that’s not bad either.
- The Republic didn’t just end, not even after Octavian won the civil war; Augustus was the princeps, the first among equals, not a monarch; theoretically, his autocratic rule was a temporary diversion from the republic – and even the new constitution didn’t establish an order for succession that was in any way hereditary. But Augustus’ long and successful rule established the idea of the princeps and there weren’t many who denied him the right to name a successor in the same way, a patriarch named his heir in any Roman family.
And blacks were effectively excluded form the democratic sphere until the mid 60’s in large parts of the country and women couldn’t vote for years after universal suffrage in parts of Europe including the UK.
Honestly - American self-regard. If we could use it as a clean energy source.
I just have trouble thinking that such a Johnny Come Lately to the scene as Britain can have the ‘greatest’ history.
If influence on others is your criteria though, then the British don’t hold a candle to either the ancient Greeks or the Jews, who inarguably have the greatest influence on history of any groups in all of history.
It’s unfortunate that we moved to directly electing the Senate. It was a very poor decision.
South Africa, Apartheid,
US, American Indian
India, Indian Indian
Canada, First Nation
Australia, Aborigine
New Zealand maybe?
But in the end, every large civilization has stuff to be incredibly ashamed of.
I would say that the greatest civilization should be judged not by the reach of their military or financial empire but by the greatness of the people and ideas they produce.
I would say that in recent history that has been India with Ghandi but if we are talking about all of history, then I would put Babylon near the top for the Code of Hammurabi. Nothing is more necessary for the society we live in today than laws.
One man should be considered an anomaly and not evidence of a nation’s greatness. Ghandi was a great man, but he can’t carry a civilization by himself.
I thought about that and they are probably near the top of the list. I also thought about the Greek philosophers and their effect on the world today, India seems to be the cradle of spiritualism (Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, etc.), China had its philosophers and great thinkers, Rome had its republic, etc.
I am no free market worshipper but capitalism has done more to increase global wealth than almost anything else. There was a time when kings didn’t live as well as our middle class.
Yes, I don’t think many people realize the scope of ancient Hellenism after Alexander’s conquests. That the ancient Greek Masters were required reading for the educated from Iberia to the Khyber is a pretty significant contribution.
Can Jesus or Mohammed? Isn’t part of the rationale for Jewish greatness Christianity and Islam. Don’t those come down to Jesus and Mohammed? Gandhi represents more than the achievemments of one man, Gandhi did not overthrow English rule of India alone, he had the support of hundreds of millions of Indians and the legacy of that fight for freedom resonated in people like Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr, and the cause of human and civil rights around the world.
However powerful Britain once was, Gandhi showed them and the world that a single man can defeat all of Britain’s guns and money with words and ideas.
All that is true but until we created laws, everyone was living one heartbeat away from chaos.
That is all true, but the government of India is still quite repressive in some cases with police beatings a normal every day occurrence. I don’t think that Gandhi ended up encapsulating the gestalt of the Indian state. His kin certainly did not live up to his example.
Jesus and Mohammed were individuals yes, but there is a long history based upon what they started. With India that history is still rather nascent.
The United Kingdom is not a republic or else it wouldn’t be called “The United Kingdom.”
I’m not sure what being a republic has to do with anything. Cuba is a republic, Australia is not; which is more democratic?
Conveniently overlooking the contribution from Egypt and Mesopotamia (controlled waterworks for mass production of agricultural products, which are the reason we can have cities), the Greeks (who thought up that whole democracy thing in the first place), and numerous other advances in society and science too numerous to mention. Shill for the US much? 
A republic is simply a state where the wellspring of governmental authority derives from the people (res publica: the people’s thing), as opposed to residing in a single divinely ordained person (monarchy), the official religion (theocracy) or some other source. It has nothing to do with the principle of “democracy,” which discusses how decisions are made. As noted, Cuba and the PRC are republics, but not democracies; the United Kingdom is a monarchy that is essentially a democracy, and in the case of Australia, the word “essentially” need not be appended to that statement.
It should be noted, too, that the United States in its early years had a number of franchise limitations, such as property qualifications, the need to be a freeman, male, of 21 or older, etc. It wasn’t until the period of Jacksonian Democracy (around the 1820s and 30s) that the property qualifications gave way entirely, and as noted, the franchise was restricted in other important ways for another century. So it’s a bit disingenuous to suggest that the United States was somehow massively different in its setup as a “democracy” than what was being tried in parts of Europe. It WAS helpful that we were not trying to implement democracy over the top of an existing monarchial hierarchy.