Okay, a) IMHO this is a slightly silly and ultimately unanswerable topic ( which perhaps makes it perfect fodder for debate ) and b)…
Zagadka while I actually would agree with you that Britain’s run was extremely impressive in the modern era, I have to agree with a number of clairobscur['s criticisms. You are indeed cherry-picking, both in limiting the timeline to the modern era and in downplaying some of the other states under discussion. You’re also flat-out wrong on a couple of things :).
Such as? No, sorry, England did not control a global seaborne empire in 1600. The only thing they held somewhat firmly was Ireland ( Elizabeth I was still alive in 1600, so the merger with Scotland had yet to happen as well ). The only nation that did was Spain ( still the dominant power in Europe, continental and otherwise, the blip of the Spanish Armada notwithstanding ). Portugal had been absorbed twenty years earlier ( and would remain so for forty years further ) and the Dutch were only just beginning to be a threat overseas.
Frankly the 1600-2000 span just doesn’t make sense. Shave off the last 40 or so as Britain declined pretty quickly after WW II. Shave off the first 100 at least and in terms of Asia the first 150 ( in some places 200 ), in terms of Africa the first 250 at least.
Why not :)? Britain at it’s peak was more powerful than Spain at it’s peak, but Spain was hardly a piker.
Nonsense. First of all under the Spanish Hapsburgs it dominated Europe from 1520 to ~1640. It’s overseas empire was immense and lasted until the early 19th century ( in some areas even longer ) and for a brief period under the Bourbons ( before the Napoleonic wars ruined it ), it underwent a revival that brought at least to “European power” status, though not a “major power” like France or Britain.
Now, see - both unnecessarily dismissive and inaccurate. France replaced Spain as the dominant power in Europe from 1648-1812 and was never less than one of the great powers afterwards up until post-WW II.
Actually every attempt to quash the French Revolution by arms failed ;). And Europe didn’t “step in” to solve France’s problems under Napoleon - they were forced to struggle for their existence.
You are overestimating England’s relative power vs. France in this period. Yes, Britain was more powerful overall at this point, but it could hardly afford to heedlessly rush into war with France, still a major rival.
Well, this is certainly true. I’m not sure how much that can be chalked up to deliberate policy, though. England’s colonies in North America and Australia often prospered under a sort of “benign neglect”.
Again, the defeat of the Spanish Armada, though significant, did not break Spain. And Spain’s nastiness as an exploitive colonial power is neither here nor there in regards to this discussion.
Pretty darn impressive then, eh :p?
Nonsense. My namesake was indeed just a warlord who depended entirely on his own person to run his state, such that he made no serious provisions for it’s survival after his death. The Mongol empire was an entirely different kettle of fish. While the unitary state only lasted from 1206-1259 ( starting from Chingis adopting an imperial title ), the immediate Mongol successor states dominated world politics until the mid-14th century ( and the fiction and theory at least of a centralized state continued until then ) and continued to play important regional roles right down to the 19th. In 1600 the Mughul Padishah Akbar was almost certainly wealthier, more powerful, and had more subjects than Elizabeth I :). The same could be said for Ming China AND the declining Ottomans.
Again, no quibbles that the Pax Brittanica was extremely impressive and the British empire’s impact has been vast, perhaps dominant in the modern era. But I do think you are just a little guilty of overselling it.
Tamerlane
p.s. - Quick quiz: Who was the wealthiest European monarch in the first half of the 18th century? Not most powerful, mind you, just wealthiest. It’s appropos of not much really, but I always found the answer interesting.
What would a debate be without overselling and cherrypicking?
It was never my contention that England was the greatest nation ever.
For the purposes of this thread, however, it fits most of the requirements best, including land mass, control, economic and business influence, cultural influence, etc. I gave it bonus points for being relatively stable.
Further, if you will notice in my first post on this thread, I said that England would be one of the frontrunners of the modern era. It is very hard to compare countries in ancient times with modern times.
I’m just saying that with the given properties of this thread, England “scores” better than most countries over the entire modern era. That doesn’t mean that they are the best, or without problems, and I never claimed that.
Frankly, I don’t really like England as a historical entity, but I won’t deny what England accomplished.
Fine. You stated that if one was talking about anything after 1600, you had england somewhere in it. Since wars are majors events, I would have expected them to be included in “anything”. But aparently not. So, in what exactly was England involved which wouldn’t be true fot other european nations? Science? Exploration? Philosophy? Religion? I can’t see anything in which only England would be involved in after 1600, not even in which it was significantly more involved than other nations. Could you give some precisions?
You stated that the british empire extended to all these places. Including any place which was controlled (or even only influenced, as in the case of China that you didn’t hesitate to include) for any lenghth of time, at any moment between 1600 and the decolonization in the second part of the XX° century is disingeneous at best.
So, could you define exactly what you include in “England’s expansive empire that included but wasn’t limited to …” . When was there an empire including at the same time “South-Africa, North-America and China”? Don’t you see that such statements are either nonsentical or disingenuous? If you state that the british empire included north-america, then it’s true too for the spanish and french colonial empires. They did too. If China is included, you can as well include it in the russian, french, american, japanese “empires”.
At least, we’re going to agree on the fact that it’s not an argument showing that England was present in everything everywhere since 1600. You still failed to to give some evidences to back this statement, but we already know that this british omnipresence isn’t related to wars, nor to colonialism.
First, you were refering to an age when every other nation was collapsing or in rebelion. Do you withdraw this statement, since apparently you’re unable to prove your point and only refers to some dates (and late dates, at that)?
Now…1812,1832,1849
1812? Did you then mean “at war”, like England was too, rather than “collapsing or in rebelion”? Are you under the feeling that the UK single-handedly saved Europe from Napoleon, or somesuch? How were Prussia or Austria collapsing in 1832? France or Russia in 1849? Apparently, nations didn’t collapse that much since usually they were around for quite a long time.
Or does it suffice that any other country is involved in a war, has troubles, or is “collapsing” at a given moment for “every over nations” to be “collapsing or in rebellion” during a whole “age”? Then, anybody could claim that for any nation : “look, in 1625, country A was at war, in 1650 there was a revolt in country B, in 1675, the government collapsed in country C : it clearly proves that all these foreign country were all time collapsing or in rebellion”.
Different ages, different practices (Im’ assuming you’re refering to a comparison between the british empire in 1875 and the spanish empire in 1525, or some such nonsense)
Anyway, this comment has nothing to do with the flaw in you reasonning that I was pointing out : the fact that your statements I was responding to were only valid for a very precise and limited period of the UK’s history. And you failed to adress my point, instead prefering to sidetrack to an irrelevant comparison.
First, indeed, I’m going to criticize every one of your statements. Second, since your statements applied to “all other nations”, so giving only one counter example would suffice to prove you’re wrong. That’s the problem when was one is making ludicrous generalizations. Beside, in this case, i was disagreeing with you mentionning “dictatorships”, something which didn’t appear often until a recent time in history. I don’t need to cherrypick. Essentially all nations of this era are counter-examples of what you stated.
And then? You made a statement about England having, contrarily to other nations, various qualities. For each of them I picked a counter-example to show that it certainly wasn’t unique to England. For the “long-lasting” part, I choose an obvious example which demonstrated how ridiculous it was to pretend that England was particularily “long-lasting”. But if you don’t like my example, can you tell me in what way France hasn’t been as “long-lasting” as England?
That certainly wasn’t my whole point. I also asked you too, for instance, if you believed that England has been the leading country in science, philosophy, arts, etc… It was only my first point. And since you were stating that the UK was present in everything which mattered since 1600, asking whether she was present in some major conflicts which shaped Europe’s history was certainly on topic. Don’t you think its absence show that in European history, it didn’t have any more importance, than, say, Austria?
It was a joke according to whom? Certainly not to the monarchs reigning in Europe at this time. Spain was the most wealthy and powerful european country. Carlos I reigned on Spain, Italy, the wealthy Flanders (now Netherlands and Belgium) , the Americas, Austria, part of what is currently France, and to top this, was also the Holy Roman Emperor. This was a joke? Well…in the same way the US is a joke now, then.
And if it falls under the short-lived category (the fact that the spanish empire lasted until the XIX° century notwithstanding), then , as I already pointed out, so does the british empire, which didn’t last for long. Certainly way less than the 400 years which are, according to you, required for a country to even be mentionned.
Hmm…from the 1600’s (convenient date to avoid talking about the various civil wars, religious bloodbaths, switching and executions of kings and pretenderd to the throne in England by the way) …there’s the “fronde” in 1648 and the revolution in 1789, one century and a half later. What were these “constant rebellions” you’re talking about?
Fine, you didn’t. And usually, countries fight in their wars. England did. Other european nations did. In other words, there’s nothing particularily noticeable in the UK’s behavior. I’m still waiting to know what made England tremendously important and special.
What you said was to oppose England and other countries which had, according to you “religious divisions”, amongst other things. So, it seems you now agree that England had its share of religious divisions too. Which, once again, makes her not different from any other european nation. Why then did you bother mentionning these religious divisions in other countries. In what why does it show that England was any better since it was the same over there?
Except that the whole issue was pretty-long lasting. It began with Henry VIII around 1500 and ended with William III, two centuries later. Meanwhile, there was unrest, revolts, religious persecutions, contenders to the throne fighting the monarch in place, Cromwell dictatorship, etc…Not that stable in my book. I suppose minor problems like the Irish issue aren’t worth mentionning, by the way.
I already adressed this point. What constant rebelions?
Maybe. Nor worst nor better than any other european monarchy, IMO.
These would be? What is an international blunder? Could you give me a list of all major international actions by france from 1600 to say 1900, then list which ones were blunders and which ones were success? Are you that familiar with french history?
You like to apply this word to various nations, apparently. It doesn’t prove much, though.
And when did I brag, exactly? Could you quote my intense displays of patriotism?
As for other nations “required” to step in , I suppose you refer to european monarchies packing to crush the french revolution? Something to brag about, perhaps? I believed that these countries were all a bunch of of decadent, opressive, war and rebellion-torn “jokes”. Not sure why the so admirable UK decided to side with them.
May I point out that the terror, for instance was a direct result of france being invaded by essentially everybody and his dog, England included. And that so was the rise to power of Napoleon? Without these nations “steping in” to solve " France’s problems" (read : suppress a threat for the the autocratic system in place), France could have become and stayed a democracy. But the liberal and so progressive british seemed to prefer a reactionnary Louis XVIII ruling france rather than a bunch of lawless democrats.
I won’t answer to this one, since I don’t understand what you’re refering to.
It was a sarcasm, ending a response to your statements about several other nations beside england being essentialy irrelevant. I take for granted that you’re not disagreeing with me, then, and that the nations you mentionned (and the nations you didn’t mention) weren’t particularily irrelevant?
I’m still waiting for you making your case about England mattering more than these nations.
It makes for a powerful empire at a certain point in time, a point when England was “a joke”, since you like this word, when compared to the Ottoman empire. Once again, you’re only considering a country when it’s convenient for your stance. You’re totally ignoring the fact that the Ottoman empire (in this case) has been a major power, and are only willing to compare it to England when it was decadent and England was blosomming.
It has been, as I already pointed out in my previous thread, your “tactic” from the beginning. Only compare other countries at their worst to England at her best. With this reasonning, you can make any country the most important/ progressive/enlightened, etc…
Am I allowed to compare the caliphate with England at the time of William the conqueror to prove it was a shitty country at the first place ? And then dismiss british achievments in the XIX° century by comparing them with US achievments at the end of the XX°, and finaly deduce from that that the UK has always been a “joke” of a country? That’s exactly what you’re doing.
You’re the one obsessed with it. Apart the fact that wars are of tremendous importance in history (actually the most important events due to their consequences) barring perhaps the birth of new religions, could you then, once again, tel me in what way England has been in the world leader in say, art, science or philosophy? Or economically before the XIX° century?
I’m not sure why, but fine. Then, what makes Spain less significant than England?
I’m going to pass on a new long comment about England not being involved in european wars and this not being relevant. Already adressed these points. Of course, though you mention that it’s not the reason why England was successful, you still don’t say what make England that successfull in your book.
Fine. We now know that england achievments are unrelated with european achievments. So, I keep asking the same question. If you want to ignore European successes, what makes England so special amongst the world’s nations? I assumed it was somehow related to sciences, technics, and the domination of the world by western nations, but apparently not.
Of course, by questionning my euro-centrism, you avoid answering any of the questions I was asking. But i begin to get used to it.
So, if the european major scientists and thinkers weren’t necessarily british, it ensues that world’s major scientists and thinkers weren’t necessarily british, either. So, we just ruled out another potential reason for the UK being a particularily important nation.
British wars against France and Spain are exactly as important as france’s wars against Austria or Prussia, or Russia’s wars against Sweden or Turkey. I don’t particularily ignore them, they just don’t make England peculiar in this respect.
So, what makes it a nominal power in the world? And when? Why the particular era during which England was more influential is more important than others era when it was a “joke” by comparison to other powers. Still the same questions. I’m stubborn, you know…
Yep, i’m going to argue about this point… The former british colonies that reached success were the colonies who were massively settled by europeans (USA, Australia, canada) who replaced/wipped out/displaced the native population. In other words, europeans tentacles in other parts of the world.
Former british colonies who weren’t so settled are currently in the same situation as similar former colonies of other countries, which means generally speaking not a very appealing situation. Former british colonies/protectorates in south-east asia, the middle-east or africa aren’t in any better shape than former Dutch, Portuguese or french colonies in the same areas. Which shows that the situation in these countries is not related to the country which used to rule them.
As usual, you’re only interested in the moments when England is in a better situation than the country you’re comparing (and ignoring the point I made, as usual) . In this case, only after the destruction of the Armada. Why so?
Why is England (and the storms, for a large part) beating the crap out of the Spanish fleet more relevant than the french army beating the crap out of the similarily supposedly invicible “tercios”?
I believed that military victories were irrelevant, anyway?
4)Are you going to argue that this famous british empire (which included the USA and China, or somesuch) never wronged the locals? Never abused its power?
Do you actually intend to compare the practices in 1500 with the practices in 1900? Believe that english people would never had “raped natives” had they been in position to seize south-america around 1500? (Of course, she wasn’t in such a position, since England was “a joke” at this time and the relevant countries were Spain, Portugal, the Ottoman empire, etc…, but it doesn’t matter, since countries are to be judged only by their importance at the time when the UK was more important than them).
Then, if we must judge spain by the standard used at the time of the british empire 4 centuries later, similarily the british empire must be judged by our current standards. And by these standarts, the british empire was a total moral failure.
Not being more impressive than the Mongol empire is not exactly an insult. But whatever…
As I pointed out…err…a dozen times…the british empire didn’t last longer than the spanish empire (actualy significantly less) and the british glory was as short-lived as the spanish one. Began during the XIX° century, ended with WWI. Not that impressive, either. And certainly doesn’t meet your 400 years standard.
You’re taking me at task by making statements about the french colonies in Africa and when I compare them to the british colonies in Africa, you’ve an issue with that? May I know why a comment about african colonies is valid when aplied to france, and invalid when aplied to the UK?
Sorry. I had mistakenly assumed that writing they are :
Afraid of butterknives after a century of clusterfucks *
was a prejudiced statement when it’s obviously a plainly objective one.
Fine. Then , once again, what makes british achievments more impressive than Netherland’s?
I’m going to pass on this one and let it live on its own “merits”.
Fine. You didn’t. So, the british record as an imperial power isn’t that laudable, either. We’re going to run out of fgood reasons to praise this country. Still waiting…
And Spain started off as some smallish kingdoms north of the territories occupied by the moors. The Netherlands who were “almost” impressive started as a province of Spain. Gengis Khan that you think is particulary unimpressive started as nothing. The arabs started as some irrelevant nomad tribes in the desert. England was in a much better situation than that at the start. So, can we rule her out for good, since she doesn’t fit the purposes of the thread?
Great argument. I’m going to nominate Sudan. Don’t argue and don’t ask me why. Just re-read the OP.
I’m not dismissive of eastern europe. I just don’t see why one side would deserve praise for their “valiance” while the other wouldn’t. And indeed, the Slavs didn’t fare that well againgst the turks, on the overall, until a late period.
I rather believe that you’re not very well informed about the Aztec and Incas if you believe that their empires were long-lasting. The Aztecs : less than 200 years. The Incas did better : perhaps 400 years? Of course, for most of this time, these empires were much less extended than when the Spanish met them. They were nothing, conquered their neighbors, briefly became rose to power, were conquered and destroyed.
[/quote]
I seem to recall the Brits having an empire lasting more than 100 years.
[/quote]
Great. Perhaps we’re going to have some actual facts. So, what do you include in the “british empire”, when does it begin, why makes it more significant than the spanish one, for instance, before the XIX° century, and when does it end?
And the empires which were created by the divisions of Gengis Khan an dhis successors’ conquests were unimportant?
Sure, you merely explicitely included China in it, which was a blatantly false statement. And indeed stated that England has been involved in everything everywhere for 400 years, and was much better than all these shitty not british countries. Mixing both statements was mine, indeed, but I think you deserved it for making both a blatantly false statement and another unsupported one.
And nope. Not to each his own. The brittish empire ended around 1950. 400 years before that would be 1550. So, can you let me know how extended was this “powerful” british empire in 1550? One century later, in 1650? in 1750? What made this 1750 british empire (that would be 300 years after its beginning, according to you, it must have become incredibly powerful by then) more impressive than the spanish, french, portuguese, dutch, etc…empires?
