Judea was pretty powerful befor the ROmans conquered it, though it wasn’t like, say Persia, in their heyday.
Not much of an Empire. Though we do have cultural assimilation out the yin-yang. 500 years from now, everyone will be speaking a dialect of English!
^^
_
Although Ireland was never part of the empire, Britain did not really give us our independence - a guerilla war etc. did have something to do with it. Similarly, I doubt if Americans, Kenyans, Zimbabweans etc. would appreciate being told they were ‘given’ their independence. It was their right and they fought for it.
I assume you are defining great by land area?
Untrue. Many European powers (and America) could have matched it arm for arm.
It was also repressive, racist, and indifferent.
Since we are talking about Empires, conquest is allowed. No need to apologize.
I’m sure that’s what they taught you in school…
According to my addittedly limited understanding of law, Canada and Australia have no monarch, nor do the Royalty of England have any formal position in said governments, including the figurehead position of head of state.
Prepare to have your knowledge be unlimited, or at least less limited. From the Govenor General of Canada web page:
Not at the height of its power. Which is what is being discussed as far as I can tell. England ruled the seas. Spain was its only real contender.
Of course we look at it that way with our modern views. That has nothing to do with its greatness at the time. When was there a time in history besides modern times, when an empire was NOT repressive, racist and indifferent? This has no merit on the “greatness” of an empire, only on its moral structure.
Then teach us out of school instead of just saying ambigious, doubious statements.
IOW: Cite?
Wierd. But interesting all the same.
Ah, but I would argue that this is one reason why the Empre fell through. In truth, they could conquer peoples, but not govern them, becaue they were ultmately selfish. The British Empire essentially screwed over many of the places it colonized and ruled. And it rather quickly fell through, taking a look at many of the great historical empires. the Indian and African domains lasted by a scant century or less.
Take a good look at the circumstances of the British Empire. For some of the areas you contention is correct. But, for one lone example, examine India. Britain only freed the nation because it couldn’t hold on anymore. They saved face. And then there was the US of A.
I would definetly disagree with the characterization of it as progresive and forward thinking, except in terms of British economic interests.
Check your dates. Spain was long gone as a great power by the 18th century, but France, Germany, and the US of A were fast coming up. BY the end of the Civil War the US had more men, better trained men, and better equipment than the Brits, and our fleets could have matched hers in a defensive campaign at the least, and thats not counting our early advances in iron-hulled ships.
Still disagree, they were rather more substantial than that. But I’ll agree to disagree ;).
Georgia, yes. Afghanistan, no, not even close. The farthest east the formal Roman border extended was to about the Euphrates and that for only a few years under Trajan. I agree with much of your defense of the Roman Empire, but not with the characterization that they expanded as far as they were content to. Expansion further east was blocked militarily by Parthian/Sassanian Persia. Expansion into Germany was proceeding apace until the disaster of the Teutoburger Wald caused a retrenchment. I’ll agree that part of this was simple logistics, but at least in Persia’s case it also involved an unmoveable foe.
Eh, disagree here as well. They were a pretty minor power, more on the level ( if that ) of a Pergamum.
[/quote]
Originally posted by foolsguinea
This simply isn’t true of the Mongols nor Alexander.
[/quote]
In addition to agreeing with Maeglin on the influence of Hellenism, I’ll add that the Mongol legacy in political history at least was lasting. The legitimacy of Chingisid dynasties or those that claimed legitimacy based on a supposed Chingisid connection was important at least down to the 18th century in central Asia.
At Britain’s height, Spain was no longer a contender in any way. Spain was a contender only pre-1650 and in a lesser way ( as a French ally ) during the Spanish Bourbon period. And due to manpower considerations, while Britain did indeed have an dominating naval presense, it’s land forces were inevitably not as formidable as the greatest continental powers like France and later Germany and Russia. Indeed that was the whole reason depended so heavily on naval power - They couldn’t fight alone on equal terms on the continent, at least on paper.
*Even the central claim that the balance of power mechanism works effectively to prevent hegemonies from forming derives from the European experience, which has been characterized by the absence of a sustained periods of dominance of a single great power over the European continent over the last millennium. (the strongest violations being Napoleonic France after 1806 and Hitler’s Germany for a few years). The 19 th century may have been one of Pax Britannica, and Britain has often been described as a hegemon during the later part of the century, but if Britain was a hegemon it was a hegemon in finance, trade, and naval power on a global scale, not a hegemon over Europe…
Whereas European hegemons would threaten their neighbors by virtue of there very existence, the same is not true of global hegemons, who do not posses the combination of large armies and geographical proximity or contiguity that generates the potential to impose their will on other Great Powers. Global Powers may impose their will on smaller states, but that is not directly relevant to for testing balancing hypotheses or balance of power theories more generally.
Thus balance of power theories generally do not predict balancing against rich naval powers with small armies and geographical separation from the European continent, such as Britain in the 18 th or 19 th centuries. *
From here: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jacklevy/balancin.pdf
Did any Chinese kingdom ever start an expansionist drive beyond China? I remember reading about a king who at that time had the most powerful navy fleet in the world and just took it for a mini-world tour instead of a conquering expedition.
There’s also a complete listing of Commonwealth countries here.
I would also add that the British influence on the Commonwealth countries goes much beyond just the monarchy. Political insititutions generally, the common law, the court system have all been heavily influenced by the British example. In my personal experience, I’ve found that it’s much easier to explain my country’s constitutional structure to other Commonwealth citizens than it is to explain to citizens from other poltical traditions, such as Americans.
Checks his sources Blink
Guess I gotta go back to school, I’m getting rusty.
Yes, indeed. The concept of China as a closed, inward-looking kingdom, while it has a real kernel of truth, especially as regards the most recent late Ming and Qing dynasties, has been a bit exaggerated.
Han China expanded south of the Yangtze for the first time in history, creating what we now refer to as southern China, as well as attempts into Yunnan and Vietnam. They also attempted to expand into Korea and Manchuria, and conducted an active international diplomacy program ( emissaries to Persia and Rome among others ).
T’ang China was actively expansionist, briefly conquering much of Central Asia, subjugated Manchuria and Korea, frightened Japan into building a large conventional army to defend against them, intervened in the internal politics of Sassanian Persia ( at a critical juncture in 662 ), and pushed south to central Vietnam. In 745 they opened up a counter-offensive against the Arabs in western central Asia, only to lose one of histories decisive engagements to the Arabs at Talas in 751. They also intervened in India, setting their choice of candidate on the throne vacated by the death of the great Indian ruler Sri Harsha.
The Sung were mercantile giants, with by far the largest merchant fleet in the world - The Southern Sung in particular were extremely active traders.
The Yuan ( Mongol ) dynasty was of course anything but quiescent, permanently adding Yunnan to China and launching numerous offensives elsewhere.
The early Ming launched offensives against their former overlords in Mongolia, as well as Manchuria and Vietnam ( as always ) and launched famous ‘treasure fleet’ voyages of admiral Zheng-He ( 1405-1434 ), that criss-crossed the Indian Ocean, reaching as far west as eastern Africa.
The Qing ( Manchu ) conquered all of what today we call western China, incorporated Manchuria and Mongolia ( Outer Mongolia broke away in the 20th century during a period of weakness, but Inner Mongolia is still Chinese ), subjugated Korea, campaigned against Southeast Asia ( Vietnam, yet again and Burma, which they invaded four times ), and at least partially vassalized Tibet ( just how partial being a matter of dispute ). Their last offensive campaign outside their borders was a punitive expedition against Nepal in 1792 to punish them for raids into Tibet.
Northpiper it was already establiushed that the Queen O England is the queen O a lot of other countires now only vaguely related to England.
Except, ironically enough, she’s not the Queen of England. She’s the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
What, you don’t like tangential discussions? 
Actually, no. They irritate me. A lot.
Sorry.
Oh how naive you are ;). The U.S. may not conquer militarily but it does it economically and the aura of a military threat is always there but not implicitly carried out.
A few years back, Victor Davis Hanson wrote a highly controversial examination of Alexander the Great for Military History Quarterly, entitled “Alexander the Killer.” Unfortunately I don’t have that article and I don’t think it is (legally) posted online.
Hanson asserts that some one to two percent of the entire world population died as a direct result of Alexander’s expansion.
Another way to look at it is like this: the entire world population is estimated to have been less than two hundred million people in about 331 BCE. Historians seem to be convinced that about two hundred thousand people fought at Gaugamela. That means that on one day 2300 years ago, Alexander managed to set one in a thousand of all humans against each other on a single battlefield. A significant proportion of those people engaged died.
The thing is, Alexander simply wrecked and reconsolidated virtually the same empire (including much of Greece) that the Persians controlled for centuries.
Alexander inherited the same title that Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes all held: “the Great.” But Alexander’s inheritance lasted only as long as he lived. It fractured upon his death and was never the same afterward. If you ask me, I think Alexander is better viewed as the destroyer of an empire rather than the creator of one. But the amount of violence he unleashed is mind-boggling. If that’s how you measure greatness, then Alexander and his empire had it in spades.
I don’t completely disagree about Alexander per se, Sofa King, but as Maeglin ( I think ) pointed out, he did usher in a new age of Greek cultural dominance that had an arguably significant impact on world history. While states like the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Egypt were ultimately political ephemera ( in hindsight of course, at the time they were giants ), the impact of Hellenistic thought on Rome and the west may not have been so profound and widespread if Greece had remained a political backwater. Also, one wonders if the Roman advance east would have been quite as successful against a perhaps revitalized ( or at least more stable ) Achaemenid juggernaut, rather than disintegrating, internally conflicted Hellenistic successor states.
If nothing else Alexander certainly re-arranged the established order in a pretty dramatic way.
OK, skip that sentence about people still speaking dialects of Latin. The Romans built infrastucture, and they kept territory together. Alexander didn’t. The Khans didn’t for more than two generations. Alexander, the Khans, Charlemagne, people like that just divvied up their empire. Rome was an institution for centuries.
I’ll see your Alexandrias & raise you Caesareas, plus roads, centralized taxation, etc.
(Besides, the West still speaks dialects of Latin, as I said. Hard to say whether the Near East would still have populations speaking Hellenistic dialects if the Arabs hadn’t conquered it, so I won’t try to prove anything with that.)