• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Britain in it's prime more powerful than America in it's prime?

K

Kate M.

New member
Joined
Feb 17, 2013
Messages
14
Reaction score
4
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Britain was, no doubt, the world power in it's prime. But how does it compare to America's power and standing?
 
I am British, and the British Empire was certainly one of the most powerful Empires the world has ever seen. It accounted for over a third of the globe and had a collective population of over 1 Billion people (It would be well over 2 Billion today). However the Empire was largely based on trade, and nuclear weapons didn't exist during the period when Britain was a leading world power, and in this respect we weren't as powerful as the US is today. New technology means the US could destoy the world many thousands of times over if it so desired, technology making it more powerful than the British Empire ever was.
 
Kate M. said:
Britain was, no doubt, the world power in it's prime. But how does it compare to America's power and standing?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
rathi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not strictly true, although Britain was primarily a naval power, it had a very capable army which had previously famously defeated the French at Waterloo. In terms of the Crimean War we fought alongside the French and the German Ottoman Empire against the Russians, so didn't take the Russians on single handedly. During the later Boer War the British Army expanded to some 430,000 troops. Whilst at the height of the British Empire, considered to be around 1920, the British Army had just finished fighting WWI and was 3.8 million strong. The British once again fighting alongside allies in an alliance during WW1, this time with the Russians, the French, the Belgiums and many others including the Americans (who joined in 1917) against the Central European powers namely the Germay, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria. The Germans, were indeed a very powerful country and this was demonstrated during WWII when it took the efforts of numerous allies to defeat them.

BBC News - The time when the British army was really stretched
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
In terms of military power, no way was the UK stronger; in terms of political power, I would say the Empire was stronger than the US.
 
Oozlefinch said:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
samsmart said:
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."
Click to expand...

Yea, and you forgot to add the Annexation of Hawaii.

I never said that type of mindset never happened. It simply is not typical of how we deal with other nations. Yes, we did have a few "Expansionistic Wars", but they were for several reasons and not simply to gain territory. For example, in the Mexican-American War there is no question the US gained a lot of territory. However, it all started because the US voluntarily annexed Texas (at that point an independent nation that chose to join the US), and Mexico declared war against us. And in the end, most of the territory gained had actually already revolted from Mexico itself in the "Bear Flag Revolt".

In one of the most interesting little-known facts of that revolt is that the name is entirely wrong. When the unfinished flag arrived at one of the leaders of the movement, he misread the note which asked for the addition of a "pear" (to represent the strength and importance of California agriculture). He thought the note asked for a "bear", so the "Bear Flag" was born.

Believe it, or not. :mrgreen:
 
Kate M. said:
Britain was, no doubt, the world power in it's prime. But how does it compare to America's power and standing?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Oozlefinch said:
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.
Click to expand...

The British Empire was a trading Empire and the British tended to let the countries police themselves rather than have vast garrisons, the British would strike deals with the ruling classes and maharajas. India was the country known as the Jewel in the Crown and it supplied vast crops of tea and opium, which was sold to the Chinese and others across the world. The British kept a rather small army compared to most Empires prefering to by influence through trade thus making the local ruling classes very happy. In terms of a wog being a wog we never really intereferred in a lot of local custom, the Indians being mainly a Hindhu Country in which a Bramhim would always be a Brahmin and a Shudra always a Shudra. This may even have worked to the British advantage as it replicated the class system in Britain at the time, and the British trade increased the wealth of the Bramhim upper class, indeed the British were and still are popular in India, as well as other parts of Empire. In terms of the end of Empire it was done with surprising ease passing control back to the ruling classes or democratic government which had been established by the British. In contrast the Roman Empire was based mainly on military might and conquering countries rather than international trade (which was in it's infancy at the time) and industrialisation, the British home to the industrial revolution. If you look at the Nazi's they were very influenced by the Romans, even their famous salute was taken from the Romans.

Pyramid_of_Caste_system_in_India.png
 
Last edited:
Oozlefinch said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
samsmart said:
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.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the Romans built massive fortifications across Europe such as Hadrian's Wall and the Limes Germanicus in order to keep the barbarians out. :)

Frontiers of the Roman Empire - UNESCO World Heritage Centre
 
Last edited:
Chatter said:
The Romans built massive fortifications across Europe such as Hadrian's Wall in order to keep the Barbarians out. :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
samsmart said:
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.
Click to expand...

I certainly know as I often walk along Hadrians Wall Trial, the wall being built around 122AD

The Roman Emperor Constantine the Great was proclaimed Emperor in York in England in 306AD.

BBC - North Yorkshire - History - Constantine the Great

Boudicca, Queen of the Iceni people defeated the Roman 9th Legion in 60AD, taking Colchester, London and St Albans. Boudicca was finally defeated by a Roman army led by Paulinus at the Battle of Watling Street.

Queen Boudica (Boadicea) of the Iceni

Britain's history is one of invasion, we were part of the Roman Empire, were subject to Dane Law and the Vikings, the Germanic Anglo Saxon tribes settled here, we were later conquered by the Normans and if you look at much of our traditional DNA it is mostly closely related to the French Basques, quite a mixture and even more so given immigration post WW2 when many people from our own Empire came to settle here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom