Britain was, no doubt, the world power in it's prime. But how does it compare to America's power and standing?
The British army was not the most powerful in the world even during the height of the British Empire. They were not capable of defeating France, Britain, or Russia alone.
You can't compare the two.
The British Empire was a colonial power. It developed colonies all over the world and imposed its governance on other areas all over the world. In this way, they used government to implement their own British social order.
The United States is a military and corporate power. The US does not make colonies. Rather, we open markets in other countries so our corporations can sell their goods and services there. In this way, it's international corporations that influence the social order, not the US government directly. We also have no problem with governments governing themselves, so long as their policies stick with our interests as well, and we use both diplomatic and military means to enforce such rather than outright conquering and administrating other lands.
You pretty much said what I was going to.
One thing the US has never really been is "Expansionist". Mostly we as a nation have mostly been interested in trade. Yes, at one time we were a "Revolutionary" nation, that some thought would be a springboard for "Democratic Revolutions" around the world. And several of the Founding Fathers thought this would be an excellent idea.
Then the horrors of the French Revolution showed them the folly of that idea. Even the firebrand Thomas Jefferson realized the mistake in that and changed many of his beliefs.
One thing that is very different about the UK at it's height and the US today or at pretty much any other time is how they deal with other nations.
The UK traditionally saw them as good, bad, or somebody to conquer. First impression was to if they could be taken over, then if they could be threatened. Then they could make an alliance with them, but that was generally only temporary, and could be changed at almost any time. War with France, side with France, side with Russia, fight Russia. The history of the UK is full of incidents like that.
The US on the other hand generally had no interest in trying to rule anybody else, we simply wanted to trade. So while the UK got a lease with total control on Hong Kong and held it through several changes of Government, the US simply tried to safeguard Shanghai and the surrounding countryside. Where the UK sent fleets to conquer other nations like India, the US simply showed it's "Great White Fleet" and sailed away again (a bit of gunboat diplomacy yes, but the main goal was actually to get Japan to stop killing sailors and traders who entered their territory). Even in our first "Extraterritorial Wars", we simply went in, fought the war, then sailed away again. We did not try to conquer and rule Tripoli or the Barbary Coast, simply to pacify it and make the area safe for trade.
So I would say that the US was the strongest, simply because it got the vast majority of it's power from mutual assistance and cooperation with other nations, and not through force. This in the end has given us a march larger sphere of influence, because a great many nations saw us as "dealing fairly" when we were dealt with fairly.
I however do not look at it in the same way you do, as in "Corporations", but "corporate", as in a "corporate mindset". We as a people by and large do not care who a nation trades with, or does not trade with. All we basically ask is that such trade is fair. And to give us the same consideration in return, and not attack or provoke us simply because of who we decide to trade or deal with.
For the last half of the 20th century, a lot of the tensions we had in the Middle East mostly dealt with our relations with Israel. And many of those nations proclaimed us their "enemy" simply because we supported Israel. Yet interestingly enough, most of those same nations (without a real change in government) now welcome the US, and even try to get us to increase relations with them and even open military bases there. Because they have seen we support our friends, and have no interest in how they treat others (as long as it is civil). Yet ironically, one of the nations in the region we have had the most troubles with is the only one in the region that has not gone to war with Israel.
Read up on the Banana Wars in the early 20th century and you'll find that our wars were very much indeed "corporate" as in "corporations."
Britain was, no doubt, the world power in it's prime. But how does it compare to America's power and standing?
I don't know. Sun never set on the British Empire; America never owned quite as much. Of course our armies are very different given changes in technology and such. We did beat the British for our Independence back during their glory years. But was there ever an empire so successful? I don't know...probably should learn more history.
I would say the Roman Empire was far more successful if you are looking historically. It lasted for much longer, and controlled more "populated civilized territory" then the British Empire ever did.
What you are confusing is size with the respective power of the Empire. During most of the last 200 years of the British Empire, it was spending huge amounts of money and manpower just to keep it together. There were brigades scattered all over the world, from India and China to South Africa and Canada, just to keep the population in check and doing what they were told. And once it started to fall apart, it fell quickly and decisively.
And those "citizens" most times never really enjoyed the citizenship of their Empire. After all, "A wog is a wog" was the common concept of these "foreign" citizens of the Empire. And that was a conceit reserved not just for the "Non-white" citizens. Most of the anger that started the American Revolution came about because the Colonials dared to demand their "Rights as Englishmen". Parlaiment did not care that their rights as demanded by the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights was being violated, they were only Colonials, and did not deserve such rights.
I would say the Roman Empire was far more successful if you are looking historically. It lasted for much longer, and controlled more "populated civilized territory" then the British Empire ever did.
What you are confusing is size with the respective power of the Empire. During most of the last 200 years of the British Empire, it was spending huge amounts of money and manpower just to keep it together. There were brigades scattered all over the world, from India and China to South Africa and Canada, just to keep the population in check and doing what they were told. And once it started to fall apart, it fell quickly and decisively.
And those "citizens" most times never really enjoyed the citizenship of their Empire. After all, "A wog is a wog" was the common concept of these "foreign" citizens of the Empire. And that was a conceit reserved not just for the "Non-white" citizens. Most of the anger that started the American Revolution came about because the Colonials dared to demand their "Rights as Englishmen". Parlaiment did not care that their rights as demanded by the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights was being violated, they were only Colonials, and did not deserve such rights.
The problem with the Roman Republic / Roman Empire, however, was that their system of government was so wracked with problems that it caused continual social problems right from the beginning. Rome was constantly facing crises - from slave revolts to plebeian resistance to fighting their own Italian allies to fighting barbarian incursions - following their victories over rival nations, such as Carthage.
So, yeah, while roads and aquaducts were built from time to time, I'm not sure how effective that was when various factions trying to control the hub of power in Rome were so merciless in their grabs for power, especially following the Gracchus brothers.
The Romans built massive fortifications across Europe such as Hadrian's Wall in order to keep the Barbarians out.
I know.
My point, though, was that the late Roman Republic and the Roman Empire was under constant conflict of various kinds. The resolutions of which were decided usually by many people - up to the tens of thousands - winding up dead.
That takes away quite a bit of luster of the prestige of Rome if you think about it. And while there is no longer a British Empire, it does make the Commonwealth of Nations much more preferable to both in comparison.