Hall of Fame Member
Posts: 10,505 
Location: The Evil Empire
Location: The Evil Empire
May 8th, 2007, 04:19 PM
Quoting Blackleaf
Seek help soon.
Well, if the British never discovered Australia and no-one populated it, it would consist solely of the Aboriginals. So how would Australia then have become a rich, Western World society?
The same is also true of canada and the US. If the Europeans never populated those two antions you'd both still be Third World nations consisting entirely of just Native Indians and Eskimos.
The same is also true of canada and the US. If the Europeans never populated those two antions you'd both still be Third World nations consisting entirely of just Native Indians and Eskimos.
House Member
Posts: 3,306
May 8th, 2007, 04:41 PM
I'd have to agree.
1.) If Europeans didn't make contact, someone else would have. China supposedly already landed on Australia when Zeng Hi was going about in the early 1400's, seeing as he made as to the straights of Madagascar on the other side, its entirely believable.
The Mandike Empire (Subsaharan africa) tried to send two rather large fleets to find the America's, didn't take..but sooner or later they would have tried again, this was in the 1300's when they eclisped Europe.
2.) Even if they didn't, in the Case of the America's its entirely plausible at some point the contact would have been made the other way. The Inca were an expansionist bronze age society, well regimented, they also had a history in the region of naval exodus (thats how the easter Islands got populated), sooner or later they would have made contact with Polynesia and thus the east (or west if that is still colonized).
3.) Lots of nations went from backwards and medieval to first world nations without colonization, A Japan effect is highly possible.
I'd have to agree.
1.) If Europeans didn't make contact, someone else would have. China supposedly already landed on Australia when Zeng Hi was going about in the early 1400's, seeing as he made as to the straights of Madagascar on the other side, its entirely believable.
The Mandike Empire (Subsaharan africa) tried to send two rather large fleets to find the America's, didn't take..but sooner or later they would have tried again, this was in the 1300's when they eclisped Europe.
2.) Even if they didn't, in the Case of the America's its entirely plausible at some point the contact would have been made the other way. The Inca were an expansionist bronze age society, well regimented, they also had a history in the region of naval exodus (thats how the easter Islands got populated), sooner or later they would have made contact with Polynesia and thus the east (or west if that is still colonized).
3.) Lots of nations went from backwards and medieval to first world nations without colonization, A Japan effect is highly possible.
House Member
Posts: 3,365
Location: USA
Location: USA
May 8th, 2007, 05:08 PM
Right on the money Zzarchov. Revisionist like to portray the culture of the Aztecs, Mayans, and the Native Americans as a Utopian society... each one before the Europeans came but that is so far from the truth. Aztecs, Mayans, and Native American tribes were made of men and women and they were no less forcefull or cruel to each other before Europeans arrived. They conquered, slaughtered, stole and did everything that has been stuck to the European White Male if you will.
The Iroquois Nation in North America absorbed hundreds of tribes and destroyed their cultures long before the Europeans arrived. They also contributed to the extinction of North American Mammals as the decline of these creatures coincides with the earliest crossing of Asians over the Bearing Straight. They were people too and were not immune from greed or violence.
Right on the money Zzarchov. Revisionist like to portray the culture of the Aztecs, Mayans, and the Native Americans as a Utopian society... each one before the Europeans came but that is so far from the truth. Aztecs, Mayans, and Native American tribes were made of men and women and they were no less forcefull or cruel to each other before Europeans arrived. They conquered, slaughtered, stole and did everything that has been stuck to the European White Male if you will.
The Iroquois Nation in North America absorbed hundreds of tribes and destroyed their cultures long before the Europeans arrived. They also contributed to the extinction of North American Mammals as the decline of these creatures coincides with the earliest crossing of Asians over the Bearing Straight. They were people too and were not immune from greed or violence.
Newbie
Posts: 29
May 8th, 2007, 05:22 PM
Jews in Auschwitz were fed, and Australian Aboriginals receive welfare payments and some are middle-class. In general, both situations are similar with devastated families.
German and Japanese industrial policies were superior to other countries in 1930's, and that is why Britain and Australia had to submit to the Reich and the Asia Co-Prosperity rule by Japan. It was British stupidity that refused those benefits.
John
Jews in Auschwitz were fed, and Australian Aboriginals receive welfare payments and some are middle-class. In general, both situations are similar with devastated families.
German and Japanese industrial policies were superior to other countries in 1930's, and that is why Britain and Australia had to submit to the Reich and the Asia Co-Prosperity rule by Japan. It was British stupidity that refused those benefits.
John
Newbie
Posts: 4
May 15th, 2007, 10:57 PM
What country or empire you can think of that has complete control and influence in your everyday lives and around the world? America. We have influenced and exerted our control for years and we have the military might which leaves us the only superpower existing. If you wish to point out this or that dont bother, really ask yourself and in your heart of hearts you know this to be a truth, that all men are created equal but not countries or empires. America has the most deadly and scariest weapons on the earth and we havent even seen a fraction of what is in the arsenal. Thats the reason why everyone distrust america because we preach democracy and capitalism and were the best at what we do it is called keeping everyone else in line. The world should have destroyed itself 10 times by now with its weapons, why not? because we can manipulate how big a war is and contain or control it. Scares me just thinking about it.
What country or empire you can think of that has complete control and influence in your everyday lives and around the world? America. We have influenced and exerted our control for years and we have the military might which leaves us the only superpower existing. If you wish to point out this or that dont bother, really ask yourself and in your heart of hearts you know this to be a truth, that all men are created equal but not countries or empires. America has the most deadly and scariest weapons on the earth and we havent even seen a fraction of what is in the arsenal. Thats the reason why everyone distrust america because we preach democracy and capitalism and were the best at what we do it is called keeping everyone else in line. The world should have destroyed itself 10 times by now with its weapons, why not? because we can manipulate how big a war is and contain or control it. Scares me just thinking about it.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,535
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Location: Calgary, Alberta
May 15th, 2007, 11:44 PM
Pangloss
*and more literacy training. . .
Quoting American Man
The above is the best argument for gun laws* I've read in a long time.
What country or empire you can think of that has complete control and influence in your everyday lives and around the world? America. We have influenced and exerted our control for years and we have the military might which leaves us the only superpower existing. If you wish to point out this or that dont bother, really ask yourself and in your heart of hearts you know this to be a truth, that all men are created equal but not countries or empires. America has the most deadly and scariest weapons on the earth and we havent even seen a fraction of what is in the arsenal. Thats the reason why everyone distrust america because we preach democracy and capitalism and were the best at what we do it is called keeping everyone else in line. The world should have destroyed itself 10 times by now with its weapons, why not? because we can manipulate how big a war is and contain or control it. Scares me just thinking about it.
Pangloss
*and more literacy training. . .
NHL Hockey Insider
Posts: 3,581
Location: Vancouver Island
Location: Vancouver Island
May 16th, 2007, 01:45 AM
how 'not' to have friends, how 'not' to be diplomatic, how 'not' to run a war, how 'not' to lead the world, how 'not' to find weapons of mass destruction, how 'not' to vote for a president, etc. etc.
Quoting American Man
Yes, you've shown the world many things, MOSTLY how 'not' to behave, how to 'not' have any class,
What country or empire you can think of that has complete control and influence in your everyday lives and around the world? America. We have influenced and exerted our control for years and we have the military might which leaves us the only superpower existing. If you wish to point out this or that dont bother, really ask yourself and in your heart of hearts you know this to be a truth, that all men are created equal but not countries or empires. America has the most deadly and scariest weapons on the earth and we havent even seen a fraction of what is in the arsenal. Thats the reason why everyone distrust america because we preach democracy and capitalism and were the best at what we do it is called keeping everyone else in line. The world should have destroyed itself 10 times by now with its weapons, why not? because we can manipulate how big a war is and contain or control it. Scares me just thinking about it.
how 'not' to have friends, how 'not' to be diplomatic, how 'not' to run a war, how 'not' to lead the world, how 'not' to find weapons of mass destruction, how 'not' to vote for a president, etc. etc.
Newbie
Posts: 1
October 12th, 2007, 04:18 AM
After reading a few articles on histories of various empires, I tried to google what is considered the greatest empire of all times. Found myself on a couple of history site forums which were too serious to dig in with all the literatures but yours,.... yours... simply amusing ... which i thus intend to share a bit though.
I think the greatest empire belongs to Galatic Empire. yeah,... you got it,... Star Wars is the greatest empire.....
=) cheers ain't it... but ficticious sigh.... so well....
The future greatest empire belongs to Israel where the whole world will stand against it. As for the past empires that have stood and fallen... how does one really define greatness? You mentioned briefly about a year ago.. but seriously,... is blood count led by someone who was the absolute warrior considered great, or is it the empire that left the greatest impact for us to be considered divine, or yet the one that left the most history pages, even or the one that shook cultures and defined their ways.
And thus,... by blood count status i shall vote Rambo as the greatest warrior. Oh wait,.. Alice of Resident Evil against umbrella corp should be the one...
Hahahaha,... seriously i think none empires could be defined as greatest anymore. They were just a fad that passed with constant revovling. And all empires had their own greatness of their time.
After reading a few articles on histories of various empires, I tried to google what is considered the greatest empire of all times. Found myself on a couple of history site forums which were too serious to dig in with all the literatures but yours,.... yours... simply amusing ... which i thus intend to share a bit though.
I think the greatest empire belongs to Galatic Empire. yeah,... you got it,... Star Wars is the greatest empire.....
=) cheers ain't it... but ficticious sigh.... so well....
The future greatest empire belongs to Israel where the whole world will stand against it. As for the past empires that have stood and fallen... how does one really define greatness? You mentioned briefly about a year ago.. but seriously,... is blood count led by someone who was the absolute warrior considered great, or is it the empire that left the greatest impact for us to be considered divine, or yet the one that left the most history pages, even or the one that shook cultures and defined their ways.
And thus,... by blood count status i shall vote Rambo as the greatest warrior. Oh wait,.. Alice of Resident Evil against umbrella corp should be the one...
Hahahaha,... seriously i think none empires could be defined as greatest anymore. They were just a fad that passed with constant revovling. And all empires had their own greatness of their time.
Bright Spark
Posts: 476
Location: Zurich
Location: Zurich
January 1st, 2008, 07:56 PM
Jersay, "Greatness; How long it lasted, what kind of mark it left on the world, how big it was, what kind of achievements did it complete."
I agree with 'what kind of acheivements', even how big, but not how long. To put the United States of America up against Egypt would be ludicrous. What kind of acheivements? Contest over, U.S. wins. But how do we adjust for time? Is it fair to compare the modern athlete to the old, say to let the modern marksman shoot it out at 100 yards against a naked Greek with a javelin?
The US collection of states was not assembled like other empires. This was a remarkable event, founded upon the high English civilisation that bred it. Some would not call it an empire, others would.
What is an empire?
The English empire, including Canada, USA, Australia, Great Britain, Bermuda, and others, takes the cake if you'll allow the definition, because these empires are related, British and American, and in cultural terms are one and the same.
Jersay, "Greatness; How long it lasted, what kind of mark it left on the world, how big it was, what kind of achievements did it complete."
I agree with 'what kind of acheivements', even how big, but not how long. To put the United States of America up against Egypt would be ludicrous. What kind of acheivements? Contest over, U.S. wins. But how do we adjust for time? Is it fair to compare the modern athlete to the old, say to let the modern marksman shoot it out at 100 yards against a naked Greek with a javelin?
The US collection of states was not assembled like other empires. This was a remarkable event, founded upon the high English civilisation that bred it. Some would not call it an empire, others would.
What is an empire?
The English empire, including Canada, USA, Australia, Great Britain, Bermuda, and others, takes the cake if you'll allow the definition, because these empires are related, British and American, and in cultural terms are one and the same.
Newbie
Posts: 12
February 1st, 2008, 12:13 PM
Given the definition of "greatness" I'm getting from this thread, the American Empire is clearly the greatest.
First, though, we need to establish that America is an empire. An empire typically encompasses multiple "nations." The USA proper is not an empire at this point. Most everyone everywhere in the US from Alaska to Florida regard themselves as nationally American. However, the US does have foreign possessions that include groups that do not count themselves as American: American Samoa, Puerto Rico, various island groups, etc.
Now why is the USA the "greatest" empire? Let's count the qualifications for greatness as: Size, Military Power, Economic Power, Cultural Power, and Authority (authority: the ability to get what you want done by others or to be believed by others simply by saying so, rather than direct use of force.) Let's take the US at it's high point to date: around 1999. The United States clearly fails in size. It never constructed the huge sort of empire that the European powers could because it was too young during the main bursts of colonisation. However, it is quite large (currently the 3rd largest country in the world by land mass, as well as in terms of population.) The United States more makes up for that shortcoming in military power. The USA has the most advanced military in the world in proportion to all other militaries. This is significant because while the British armed forces, Russian Imperial forces (in the early 1700s), Ottoman and Roman forces were all more advanced than other states', they were still relatively close in terms of technological advances. The USA, though, has military technology far outstripping its next closest competitors (probably the UK, France, and just maybe Russia.) The US Navy is capable of projecting power far inland, and, much as the British Empire's once did, is widely credited with ensuring the security of the world's waterways, giving the US extraordinary direct hard power over the global economy. Furthermore, the USA in 1999 had a virtually monopoly on space. Finally, the US has more serviceable nukes than anyone. If worst comes to worst, America can blow any nation off the face of the earth and if it doesn't have nukes, the likelihood of retaliation in kind by a nuclear power is virtually nil. Now on to economic power: the United States in 1999 (and still mostly does) comprised the global economic infrastructure. The US bought everything from everyone, our dollar was the international currency, and we had (and have) the largest and most powerful economy there is. In terms of cultural or soft power, the United States has Hollywood, most of the major media services, is effectively the "home" of the internet, had enormous respect abroad thanks to the triumph over the Soviet Empire, is the largest English speaking nation, possesses the worlds largest multinational corporations, and has the best universities in the world. Now for authority. The USA could get pretty much whatever it wanted done just by asking. The US's military, economic, and diplomatic prowess were unmatched and the States were widely viewed a "positive force" in the world.
The US simply was (and still is) the closest thing the world has ever had to a global hegemon. And certainly still is a regional hegemon (no offence meant to the Canadians.) And that position was further reaffirmed and entrenched by something relatively new: international law. International law, by my view, doesn't matter for much, but it does have some importance, and the vast majority of world institutions were made by or with the USA and thrived thanks to America's support, this resulted in institutions that favour the status quo of US dominance. (Which is why George Bush's insistence on ignoring international institutions and norms to pursue some sort of dogmatic independent-minded nationalism is arguably the most idiotic thing he could do.)
So in the end, the USA in 1999 is the resounding choice for all possible assessments of "greatness," except for size which in the modern day is both an obsolete measure and which is made up for by just how far ahead America is in all the other categories.
PS- The level of mindless nationalism, hatred and inability to view past events through a historical lens is extraordinary. I think it can be agreed that the British Empire was worse for the world than the US Empire. It had a lot longer to screw things up, and it existed in a time when overt colonialism was totally acceptable and not only politically palatable, but in fact desirable. All Western (and most non-western) cultures avidly pursued empire, as such it is entirely unreasonable to pass judgment on these empires based on modern perceptions and morals. American territory would've been imperialised by someone. Africa would have been dominated by one group or another. Debating the legitimacy of past action based on modern standards will do nothing to promote the stability and prosperity of the modern political situation.
Given the definition of "greatness" I'm getting from this thread, the American Empire is clearly the greatest.
First, though, we need to establish that America is an empire. An empire typically encompasses multiple "nations." The USA proper is not an empire at this point. Most everyone everywhere in the US from Alaska to Florida regard themselves as nationally American. However, the US does have foreign possessions that include groups that do not count themselves as American: American Samoa, Puerto Rico, various island groups, etc.
Now why is the USA the "greatest" empire? Let's count the qualifications for greatness as: Size, Military Power, Economic Power, Cultural Power, and Authority (authority: the ability to get what you want done by others or to be believed by others simply by saying so, rather than direct use of force.) Let's take the US at it's high point to date: around 1999. The United States clearly fails in size. It never constructed the huge sort of empire that the European powers could because it was too young during the main bursts of colonisation. However, it is quite large (currently the 3rd largest country in the world by land mass, as well as in terms of population.) The United States more makes up for that shortcoming in military power. The USA has the most advanced military in the world in proportion to all other militaries. This is significant because while the British armed forces, Russian Imperial forces (in the early 1700s), Ottoman and Roman forces were all more advanced than other states', they were still relatively close in terms of technological advances. The USA, though, has military technology far outstripping its next closest competitors (probably the UK, France, and just maybe Russia.) The US Navy is capable of projecting power far inland, and, much as the British Empire's once did, is widely credited with ensuring the security of the world's waterways, giving the US extraordinary direct hard power over the global economy. Furthermore, the USA in 1999 had a virtually monopoly on space. Finally, the US has more serviceable nukes than anyone. If worst comes to worst, America can blow any nation off the face of the earth and if it doesn't have nukes, the likelihood of retaliation in kind by a nuclear power is virtually nil. Now on to economic power: the United States in 1999 (and still mostly does) comprised the global economic infrastructure. The US bought everything from everyone, our dollar was the international currency, and we had (and have) the largest and most powerful economy there is. In terms of cultural or soft power, the United States has Hollywood, most of the major media services, is effectively the "home" of the internet, had enormous respect abroad thanks to the triumph over the Soviet Empire, is the largest English speaking nation, possesses the worlds largest multinational corporations, and has the best universities in the world. Now for authority. The USA could get pretty much whatever it wanted done just by asking. The US's military, economic, and diplomatic prowess were unmatched and the States were widely viewed a "positive force" in the world.
The US simply was (and still is) the closest thing the world has ever had to a global hegemon. And certainly still is a regional hegemon (no offence meant to the Canadians.) And that position was further reaffirmed and entrenched by something relatively new: international law. International law, by my view, doesn't matter for much, but it does have some importance, and the vast majority of world institutions were made by or with the USA and thrived thanks to America's support, this resulted in institutions that favour the status quo of US dominance. (Which is why George Bush's insistence on ignoring international institutions and norms to pursue some sort of dogmatic independent-minded nationalism is arguably the most idiotic thing he could do.)
So in the end, the USA in 1999 is the resounding choice for all possible assessments of "greatness," except for size which in the modern day is both an obsolete measure and which is made up for by just how far ahead America is in all the other categories.
PS- The level of mindless nationalism, hatred and inability to view past events through a historical lens is extraordinary. I think it can be agreed that the British Empire was worse for the world than the US Empire. It had a lot longer to screw things up, and it existed in a time when overt colonialism was totally acceptable and not only politically palatable, but in fact desirable. All Western (and most non-western) cultures avidly pursued empire, as such it is entirely unreasonable to pass judgment on these empires based on modern perceptions and morals. American territory would've been imperialised by someone. Africa would have been dominated by one group or another. Debating the legitimacy of past action based on modern standards will do nothing to promote the stability and prosperity of the modern political situation.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,194
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
February 4th, 2008, 09:30 AM
Talmudic Zion, 3700 yrs of continuity and enormous power wealth. Never as powerful as it is today and never as close to completion of it's ancient mandate. Directly delivered unto thier mouths by Dog himself.
Talmudic Zion, 3700 yrs of continuity and enormous power wealth. Never as powerful as it is today and never as close to completion of it's ancient mandate. Directly delivered unto thier mouths by Dog himself.
February 4th, 2008, 11:27 AM
@ Bilton101: While the US is and was certainly powerful, a lot of what you've mentioned is all great in theory but the US hasn't even been able to defeat small countries like Iraq, Vietnam, Korea. If their military might was really so great, I would have thought they would have been able to take any country they wanted like the British did.
@ Bilton101: While the US is and was certainly powerful, a lot of what you've mentioned is all great in theory but the US hasn't even been able to defeat small countries like Iraq, Vietnam, Korea. If their military might was really so great, I would have thought they would have been able to take any country they wanted like the British did.
Newbie
Posts: 12
February 4th, 2008, 11:39 AM
This is a reasonable point, however, we must also keep in mind the changes in warfare. The British only had to fight states or otherwise massacre whole tribes sufficiently to ensure they could not fight back.
The USA is not in the same political situation. In Iraq, America did defeat the Iraqi state, but now it faces asymmetrical warfare, and unlike the British, the USA can't just go in and kill as many people as possible to put down insurrection. Because of modern media and the highly democratized nature of America, any effort to do so would result (rightfully so) in immediate public objection.
The cases of Vietnam and Korea, both of which I could easily argue as potential victories in different ways, are irrelevant. We're talking about America at the height of its power in the late 90s. Vietnam and Korea occurred during a time when there was a parallel power to fight against the US, a power which also had a home-court advantage.
Now the British could go and colonize whomever they wanted; they were powerful enough for that. The British could handily defeat any two nations together at sea. That was, in fact, national policy. However, the British Empire certainly could not bring down any single state, which the United States certainly could. The Empire could not have invaded France and defeat them. Nor Germany, nor Russia, nor Austria-Hungary. Let us recall that when WWI broke out, Britain was likely close to the greatest power it had ever reached. It could not, though, prevent the advances of one strong country and 3 extraordinarily weak countries despite the support of many other reasonably strong countries. The United States was needed to come help out.
So in short, the USA could topple any single state in the world with its military, a feat unimaginable by any previous empire.
This is a reasonable point, however, we must also keep in mind the changes in warfare. The British only had to fight states or otherwise massacre whole tribes sufficiently to ensure they could not fight back.
The USA is not in the same political situation. In Iraq, America did defeat the Iraqi state, but now it faces asymmetrical warfare, and unlike the British, the USA can't just go in and kill as many people as possible to put down insurrection. Because of modern media and the highly democratized nature of America, any effort to do so would result (rightfully so) in immediate public objection.
The cases of Vietnam and Korea, both of which I could easily argue as potential victories in different ways, are irrelevant. We're talking about America at the height of its power in the late 90s. Vietnam and Korea occurred during a time when there was a parallel power to fight against the US, a power which also had a home-court advantage.
Now the British could go and colonize whomever they wanted; they were powerful enough for that. The British could handily defeat any two nations together at sea. That was, in fact, national policy. However, the British Empire certainly could not bring down any single state, which the United States certainly could. The Empire could not have invaded France and defeat them. Nor Germany, nor Russia, nor Austria-Hungary. Let us recall that when WWI broke out, Britain was likely close to the greatest power it had ever reached. It could not, though, prevent the advances of one strong country and 3 extraordinarily weak countries despite the support of many other reasonably strong countries. The United States was needed to come help out.
So in short, the USA could topple any single state in the world with its military, a feat unimaginable by any previous empire.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,194
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
February 4th, 2008, 01:03 PM
Actually the American Empire has defeated ,destroyed and sacked every economy it ever touched, conquest was revolutionized by modern banking many generations ago.Warfare changed long ago as well, imperialism has more than a geographic face these days, all though the geographic reality is still very much a fact armed outposts and all, control od air and sea lanes to boot.
The Criminalization of the State: "Independent Kosovo", a Territory under US-NATO Military Rule - by Michel Chossudovsky - 2008-02-04
camp bondsteel the Balkan beginning
Actually the American Empire has defeated ,destroyed and sacked every economy it ever touched, conquest was revolutionized by modern banking many generations ago.Warfare changed long ago as well, imperialism has more than a geographic face these days, all though the geographic reality is still very much a fact armed outposts and all, control od air and sea lanes to boot.
The Criminalization of the State: "Independent Kosovo", a Territory under US-NATO Military Rule - by Michel Chossudovsky - 2008-02-04
camp bondsteel the Balkan beginning
February 4th, 2008, 02:56 PM
I'm totally confused by what I've read of this thread.
America can't even enter the contest, let alone be declared 'greatest empire' so the arguments are all kind of moot. If I know anything about American history the US is a republic, not an empire. Or are we all just sort of ignoring that? Am I being too technical in terminology?
I'm totally confused by what I've read of this thread.
America can't even enter the contest, let alone be declared 'greatest empire' so the arguments are all kind of moot. If I know anything about American history the US is a republic, not an empire. Or are we all just sort of ignoring that? Am I being too technical in terminology?
