History's Greatest Empire

Great Debates
21

Threll’s support so far:

Even though no one can likely actually know the total number of nukes (in number or megatons output) of both nations. Nor know whose would be more effective (quanity doesn’t equal quality). I think its safe to say that assured mutual destruction isn’t a strong supporting quality for greatest empire.

This is total silliness. Virtually all great nations were concerned with science and engineering, from the Chinese and gunpowder, the Roman’s to roads and irrigation, the Mayan’s food preservation, all the way up to Space exploration. Sputnik is a more relavent example to the Russian pressure on the US’s space race. Both nations were involved (if not fully committed) in the Space race before Gagarin. Regardless, the US was working on Space exploration before Sputnik, so its foolish to attribute the US’s obvious domination in the long run to Russia’s pressure. Space was clearly a important frontier and it would have been conquered regardless of the US’s or Russia’s interest.

Prove it…not that more is better anyways. By that arguement China has the most powerful military (most men) and Rome 2000 years ago dwarfs all these nations in headcount.

Just did. But the point is that I clearly placed the burden on you to offer a valid, supported arguement in my OP. Why should I be expected to shoot down a fully unsupported arguement like yours? You points are considered invalid until you offer evidence to the contrary. Pretend you’re the prosecution, and I’m the defense.

Again, prove it! But even if this were substantiated, the Soviet’s navy is still pathetic in comparison to the respective Britsh Naval Fleet a century or two earlier.

22

It should be noted that the Soviet Fleet’s size was derived from two traditions of the Russian military that make a direct ship-for-ship comparison with the U.S. or British fleets at any period of very low meaning.

The Soviet (and Russian, when Ulyanov was still a gleam in his father’s eye – he should only have remained so) military has always emphasized large amounts of cheap equipment that were intended to be used up and thrown away. This is undoubtedly related to the poor quality of the typical Russian and Soviet conscript, including sailors. Soviet ships, riding at anchor and unable to proceed (as Rolls-Royce would have put) were not an uncommon sight even in the heyday of the Soviet empire.

The Soviet navy was also never a deep-water navy. Its traditional role was to deny the coasts of the empire to hostile forces, not to interdict the oceanic trade which played so large a role in British and American naval thinking, let alone to command the seas. As such, it was structured in a very different way from the fleets of the naval powers.

23

By a similar token, the Soviet Union also had more tanks than the U.S… However, they would still have been outgunned in a tank battle against the U.S.: the cannon on the Soviet T-something-or-other tanks has an effective range of one mile, while the cannon on the U.S. M-1 Abrams tank has an effective range of two miles. The M-1 Abrams can also shoot while it’s moving, a feat no Soviet tank can duplicate. This was one reason the land war in Operation Desert Storm was over with so quickly – the Iraquis were using Soviet-built tanks.

24

It would seem to me that the British Empire (which as far as I am concerned, started at Trafalgar and ended at the Somme) is clearly the greatest of all empires in world history. Largest, richest, most formidable, etc. - all superlatives are theirs.
I am quite surprised that this was not a more common assertion in this thread. None of the other listed empires would seem to even begin to compare - in a relative sense - to the empire that the Sun never set on. Rome (starting at Actium, ending with the Fall) is the clear runner-up.
The contemporary USA does not really rate on such a list, IMHO.

25

Richest? I don’t think the British Empire comes close to the wealth of the US today. Our GDP is simply off the scale. Far beyond Britain considering the added influence of a global economy at the moment. I’d also argue that in adjusted wealth Rome greatly surpassed both the US and Britain when placed in comparision to their contemporaries.

All the claims that the British Empire is the largest I’ve inspected consider all the land of the North American continent (excluding the Spanish held regions) as well as massive amounts of arid desert in Africa, and vast unexplored regions of Australia. While these regions aren’t contested in the global scale of occupation, I see no reason to credit the British with occupation when they have not set up permanent residence in any of those regions. They didn’t even extract and type of tribute or trade benefits from them. Extending one’s Empire takes more than adjusting the lines on one’s map.

The British have strong claim of the crown of greatest navy, but they are by no means the most formidable military force. They lost the American colonies to a poorly armed and untrained militia arguably at its peak. The far reaches of her empire inherently weakened the formidablity.

The British Empire also lasted a very short time on the scale we are discussing.

26

Omniscient wrote:

The American colonies had a leeeeeeeettle bit of help from France and Spain.

27

First, a response to Threll:

Military power does not equate imperial strength.

  1. If we simply use military statistics, North Korea would be said to have a greater empire than america for having an army of 10 times our manpower. Rediculous.

  2. The Soviets * may * have had a larger peacetime standing army than the U.S. That doesn’t mean they had military superiority. The U.S. had a FAR greater mobilization potential. For evidence, look at U.S. army statistics from 1940 (the year before Pearl Harbor) and 1945 (when WWII ended). I don’t have them here, and I don’t want to misquote, but it’s unreal how fast and how well the U.S. industry can mobilize an army that was about as large as that of Belgium. If pressed, the U.S. industry could far outstrip the Soviet industry if it came down to a protracted military conflict. We would win any longterm war by attrition. If it came down to nukes, its moot. We had enough to entirely annhilate the Soviet Union. If the Ruskies had three times as much, so what? It’s like pouring water into a glass. If the glass can hold enough water to drown the world, we had a pitcher of water. The Soviets had three pitchers worth. But we only had to fill the glass to reach maximum nuclear threat.

28

Flip answer to Threll:
If the Soviet Union was so powerful, where is it now? Huh? Huh?

Reasoned answer to Threll:
1.) As stated before, military power is not the same thing as ‘force of empire’. Even if the Soviets had a larger army than the U.S., that doesn’t necessarily make them the greatest empire ever.

2.) You vastly over-rate the scientific achievements of the USSR, and then miscategorize them. Quote:

In fact, they had a very strong threat pushing them on- the US dominance in nuclear weapons and the placement thereof. The ‘space race’ started as an off-shoot of trying to develop bigger and better missiles to carry nuclear weapons. There was also the propaganda effect; the US and USSR were definitively competing for the support and favor of other nations- by showing their technological superiority, the USSR expected to look better and therefore gain the support of other nations.

Secondly, stating that this empire “spent its [resources] on science” is somewhat disingenious- do you mean to say that the Computer Age of the United States or the Renaissance of the Italian city-states doesn’t really count because it was individuals, not nations? In which case, why not compare what the Romans did with laying aqueducts and roads that are still used to this day?

Finally, I’d like to point out that even though the Soviets did start the space race and took an early lead, they lost the race, and it wasn’t even close at the end there.
And for your last point:

Ayup. And the US could have destroyed the Soviets with a single blow or taken all of Europe fom before the time the Soviets could, and well after the time what was left of the Soviet Union dissapated. Why does this make the Soviets supreme but the US not?

As to the OP: I’d consider excluding any current empire from the list of consideration; it’s hard to decide how great the American ‘empire’ is when we don’t know what will happen in twenty years (China may suddenly start a cold/hot war, and within twenty years China has control of half the globe; Pat Buchanan may win the Presidency, and within three years the US has disintegrated (in every sense of that word); etc.).

Given that, I’d have to say that the British Empire was the strongest- the largest, the most powerful, the richest, and the most influential (in how many countries- even prior to WW2 and the rise of US dominance- was English a first or second language? How many countries have their judicial system based upon the English common law model?)

29

Without doubt it’s Athens. They went through the full gambit of government (despotism to tyranny to republic and to the only true democracy yet seen). The one city was the founding father of Western thought, philosophy and science. It established colonies all over the Mediterranean and Black Sea, and then left them to self rule… the best gig yet, 'cause they got exclusive trading rights but didn’t have to waste Athenian soldiers guarding foreign ports (England’s mistake). Their financial and trade monopoly puts the US’s to shame, their fleets were more feared then Britain or Egypt at their heights. And best of all, they did it first.

30

K, in this sense, I have this tiny little feeling that in terms of * percentages* the British Empire controlled just a tad bit more of the world’s commerce…you know, before Japan, China, and the US had signifigant investments in the world economic system…who knows, I’m no Cecil, I could be wrong…

31

I was a ticked off that night(personal problems). I did wonder why this discussion didn’t have any mention of the USSR. The country looked good on paper, but human greed got to it. They did help the USA in the rise to power and had done some things that should be mentioned. But they weren’t the best empire in history.

32

Hmm, you know, I’ve found that’s true of communism too!

33

I never even got around to mentioning that folly that was communism…

Damn you Threll for stepping back your assertion and robbing me of my rant.

Agreable, I’m getting the feeling that it’s gonna take a grand effort to decide who really was the richest nation, especially when you consider percentages of global wealth and unexploited resources. Also I think there are several immeasurable factors like exclusive trading rights and stability of economy. In short who knows, I like the USA for my dollar. One fact that makes it more impressive to me is that the US has accumulated its wealth without a colonial or imperialistic policy. All the other wealthy competitors made their fortune through occupation of land and extolling great amounts of money in the form of pilliaging or tributes, and following it up with exclusive trade agreements. Essentially padding their pockets at the business end of their military. The US’s dominance and wealth is mainly comprised of a massive technological edge and domestic productivity levels unseen anywhere else.

Occam, I am a fan of Athens’ (Greece’s) accomplishments. They were indeed the most influential force in current Western thought, and likely made some of the greatest philosophical advances still in practice today. Their naval force could be compared to the British when considering the era we’re considering, and their land occupation compares well with Rome and Britain for the time period. The major flaw however is that they were tragically lacking in civil rights and the society wasn’t good for the general citizen. They had a rigidly classist system and it was brutally patriarchal culture that was very unenlightened to women and their slaves. Much of what was gained in their philosophy was lost in the human rights of teh time. Rome on the other hand is very similar in many respects, and surpasses them in military might and wealth and had a much more inclusive society. Their slave practices were even forward thinking, frequently offering freedom and land after good service. Rome dwarfed Athens in all engineering concerns, a potentially more substantial credit that the science of Greece.

34

Rome had an advantage in that it was not a true democracy. It would have been impractical for all of Rome to come together for meetings every week or so. They elected a representive for a group of people so they could go about their work and let the reps vote for them. True democracy has only come to be possible on a large scale just recently, i.e., the internet. Would you vote every day?

35

Damn right…but, after much internal stuggle, I’m going to submit to patriotism (damn tories!) and assent; the US is economically superior, for its time. More importantly, it has * absolute* technological dominance- apparently, if the US stopped all research, China still would not be able to catch up for 20 years. Not bad at all…

36

Threll asserts:

No, whilst Rome was not an Athenian-style democracy, it never had a representative system. Personal attendence at the comitiae (assemblies) was necessary to vote in them. Indeed, that is thought to be one (but only one, and not the strongest) of the causes of the decline of the Republic: the average Roman citizen, living away from Rome, could not afford to take time off and travel to the city for political purposes.

37

Omniscient said:

It’s always seemed to me that the US created it’s Empire by creating markets and (from the formation of NATO and the Korean war onwards) being seen to protect world leaders and/or countries that were it’s markets. Isn’t that what it’s all been about ?

It’s an Empire built on economic influence and supported by military might. History shows the reverse was true until the 20th century. But then capitalism wasn’t around in quite the same way.

The US, like Europe, did and does indulge in “pilliaging”, etc except in the capitalist world it’s called “Third World Debt” i.e. lend the leaders the money (create the market), conditionally, keep lending (let them abuse it), extract important military (strategic) concessions when the interest becomes too great and in the mean time make sure they buy their modernising tech (and second rate military equipment) from you (after all you did lend them the money in the first place). Then lend them more money to pay the interest.

38

What about some of the ancient central and south american civilizations. I am not going to say that they were anywhere close to what the US is today, Brits were back in the day, etc… but I seem to remember the Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs being relatively bad ass and fell prey to things they couldn’t control (ain’t infectious disease a bitch…) Can anyone expand on this???

39

Indeed it does. Which country ensured that third party nations such as all Europe, Australia, and the Pacific rim were not allowed to export their own products to potential US enemies because it might give them a technological leg-up?

Which country decided that it had every right to interfere in Nicaragua’s internal affairs when that nation presented little if any threat to the security of the US?

Which country invaded Granada, Panama, Haiti because those governments were not toeing the US line?
Which country threatens sanctions on countries who do not wish to import genetically modified foodstuffs that have not been proved to be completely safe but refuses to accept liability, if in the future, there is a problem?

Which country threatens to impose sanctions on countries who do not want the presence of nuclear armed military vessels in their territorial waters?(NZ & AUS)

Which country has supported some of the nastiest little tinpot dictators on the grounds of them not being Communist and yet disregarded the human right violations of same(Chile, Iran, San Salvadore,)

This is not a diatribe against the US. Lord knows there are plenty of others who are just as guilty in their own way.

Every empire has had to ‘do what it takes’ to maintain itself. The US has the luxury of not having to put its own young men into battle to achieve its aims, usually.

There can be no doubt in my mind that the US is the greatest empire the world has ever seen, culturally the French try to stem the tide but they will fail simply because you cannot legislate for culture.

The concept of empire has changed from being a largely military enforced one to an economically enforced one.The British pioneered this but the US has perfected it.

The meaning of empire is changing further still to include the enforcement of human rights in a legal framework.We now find it unacceptable to allow third world citizens to butcher each other, slowly but surely the concept of a worldwide police force is creeping into existance and it is the standards of the developed world that are being applied.

The future looks like giving us large trading blocks Europe, Pacific, North American, empires but the differance is that mutual interest will be the driving force (I hope)rather than the conflict driven system of the past.

40

Casdave, LOL - how come you missed out using the UN as a tool to enforce sanctions by withholding annual contributions ? – only kidding. No empire is pretty to watch as it exerts muscle, it’s the Mafia with knobs on.

I’d certainly agree that the US is the most significant cultural empire the world has seen. But that is a product of its time. Hollywood, TV, MacDonalds, etc, American media is all pervasive.

Militarily, I suppose most of the empire’s mentioned completely dominated their times. It’s difficult to measure the respective degrees of total domination – perhaps it’s enough that they had it.

Economically, again, I suspect it’s relative to the time. Until the Industrial Revolution, most of humanity lived in small self-supporting farming communities. They may or may not have paid an annual tribute but economic threat’s, sanctions and ‘sphere’s of influence’ were irrelevant (not least as trade was usually by barter).

In the end, I think it’s no different to comparing sports stars from different eras. We’ll never know who was the greatest but it’s fun having opinion’s

The only other observation I’d make is that empires seem to have grown more benevolent through history. The more recent examples seem to be leaving democracy, some degree of indigenous equality through legal frameworks and sustainable political frameworks. Can’t quite imagine the Mongolian Empire leaving a democratic Commonwealth of 50+ former colonies as its epitaph. Or the world wide wealth, even greater democracy and tech advancement of the current incumbents.