• 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!

The Greatest Empire in History

The Greatest Empire in History?

  • Persian Empire

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mayan Empire

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Portuguese Empire

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Spanish Empire

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Russian Empire

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    49
Thing is most Americans I speak to actually resent America being called an empire.
That's pretty much been my experience, also. The great majority of Americans with who I associate, consider such competition/comparisons to be banal and irrelevant. This nonsense only ever takes form on the internet. Irl, no one cares.
 
The Internet was invented by Robert E Kahn and Vint Cerf, both Americans.

Well, Wikipedia seems to disagree with you.

Wikipedia seems to think that, as Kahn and Cerf both directly say, they had a part in its creation, but it wasn't their invention -- in fact, it was many peoples', because it's not something that can actually BE invented.

However, networked computers CAN be invented, and a Briton did it -- Donald Davies..

The modern format of the Internet, the ubiquitous and universal World Wide Web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee, another Briton.
 
A French invention. Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot invented the first automobile that we could vaguely recognise as a car in 1769. You're probably thinking of Henry Ford, who very certainly did NOT invent the first car -- he popularised a particular type of production method for them.

I'll give you this one. I'd credit Karl Benz from Germany for inventing the first modern "car."
 
Thomas Edison, an American, invented the light bulb.

No, he emphatically did not. He even admits so in his own personal journals -- his work was based off of many other inventors. The man usually credited with inventing the 'first' light bulb was Humphry Davy, as I said.

Who was British.
 
All but reggae are American inventions.

Sorry, you think folk music is an American invention?!

Anyway, ska is British, punk is British, folk is just old, electronic is German, dubstep is British, house is American, trance is German, drum and bass is British and reggae is Jamaican.
 
In essence, I think you do not understand the scope of the influence of the British Empire. America's influence truly pales in comparison -- though this is not an insult, I very much think of the US as something of a successor to Britain.

You're very wrong to think America's influence was actually anywhere near as pervasive as Britain's. You cite things (some of which just proved false) like American music, or American corporations. Britain does you one better on all of these charges and more:

Britain has given the world industrialism. The computer you're typing on? The chair you sit on? The house you live in? All because of Britain's truly unprecedented (in all of human history) decision to try something totally new instead of mercantilism and human labour.

Britain has given the world institutional organisation -- bureaucracy as we know it, in fact, is a product of Britain ruling half the world from one city on one island. The transport you take, the food you eat, the railroads and roads that service it all -- British.

Britain has given the world international diplomacy. The idea that nations can treat with each-other in a society of states is a direct product of the British Empire's meddling in the affairs of literally every nation on Earth.

The language you speak (English), the concepts you adore (democracy, the rule of law, sovereignty), the means by which your life operates (wage work, entrepreneurism, corporations), and the very society of nations that we find ourselves in (the UN, NATO, the EU, etc.) are all directly a product of the British Empire.

Britain did at one time rule the waves, but not to the extent America does today. In part, this is due to advancements in technology - imagine what the British could have done in Asia with aircraft carriers.

The fact is, the United States has coasts on both the Atlantic and Pacific. So to say that the British dominated the Pacific as the Americans do today defies common sense.

I certainly credit the British for the industrial revolution. No argument there.
 
No, he emphatically did not. He even admits so in his own personal journals -- his work was based off of many other inventors. The man usually credited with inventing the 'first' light bulb was Humphry Davy, as I said.

Who was British.

Google "who invented the light bulb."
 
I'm sure there are folks in rural Alabama that believe America built the pyramids, what's the point?

Roman influence on Europe is undeniable.

More than Britains? Not a chance.

Next week in Brazil are they hosting the Gladiator world cup?
 
I think there's a strong argument for that, yes. But there's also a much, much more vast institutional gap between Rome-Britain and Britain-America. I definitely agree that much of Europe's history has been shaped by Rome, passed down across the centuries.

But the United States is directly and pervasively the child of the British Empire. Its institutions, legends, history, culture, language, beliefs, and mindset are all Britain's -- the US is a successor to Britain. Which is obvious, of course, because it was a British colony -- so there's no surprise there.

The difference lies in the institutional continuity. While William the Conqueror may have thought of Rome as some mythical and grandiose concept (or maybe not), even he, at the beginning of 'England', was 1000 years out from the heyday of the Roman Empire.

The US, by contrast, was directly moulded by the heyday of the British Empire, which I would say extends from 1815 to 1945, whence it ceased to be a superpower, and America took up the gauntlet. It was a direct successor and in fact continues close relations to this day.

Ancient England's relationship to Rome was nothing of the sort.

I don't disagree with any of that.
 
There's a thread bumping around about American exceptionalism, and a common theme in that thread is noting that many great nations have exceptionalist viewpoints and tendencies.

Over the course of the thread, one user posted a poem as a response to Rudyard Kipling's 'White Man's Burden', a sort of nod to American imperialism in the Philippines marking the US's transition from upstart colony to proper colonial power.

The poem is extremely well-done, and I am in total awe at how perfectly it nails the response to Kipling. It can be found here:

Ex-Conservative: The Judgment of Peers

You'll note that the poem evokes the imagery of the great empires of the world judging America on its imperial capability -- and this imagery got me thinking about the empires of the past.

So, Debate Politics, vote, for which you think the greatest empire in history was!



Your options, in chronological order:

The Persian Empire -- It gets a mention because it was the first empire in recorded history, and brought some pretty revolutionary ideas into common use, like codified law and local government.

The Roman Empire -- The ancient world's most extensive, and certainly most famous empire. Lasted for an exceptionally long time, especially if you think of the Byzantine Empire as a direct continuation of the Roman Empire, though this isn't well-advised, as the institutional differences between them were vast. Still, there's no doubting that Rome's literature, architecture, philosophy and engineering has made a lasting impression on Europe, and thus the world.

The Han Empire -- A shining page in Chinese history, in which figures from earlier ages like Confucius and Sun Tzu were mythified and spread across Asia. Impressive legal reforms and a (relatively) meritocratic examination system meant that all of East Asia, from Vietnam, to China, to Mongolia, to Korea to Japan all sought to emulate the Han Empire in the following centuries.

The Mayan Empire -- Though lost to history and the creep of the jungle, Mayan ruins still tell a story of a civilisation with unique ideas about cosmology and theology. It stretched over much of modern-day Mexico and Central America until the mysterious Mayan Collapse -- the reasons for which no one is quite sure.

The Mongol Empire -- Through the iron will of one fierce leader, the Mongols were the scourge of the Mediaeval world, and conquered southern Russia, Central Asia, the Middle East and even China. After Genghis Khan's death, the Mongols fractured into four 'hordes', evoking imagery of Alexander the Great's successor kingdoms. While the Mongols were eventually driven out by the Russians, Arabs and Persians, they managed to hold on to China for another century. Often depicted as an unstoppable horde of mounted warriors, what the Mongol Empire lacked in administrative capability, it made up for in strength of arms.

The Portuguese Empire -- The first global empire! Portuguese navigators sailed around the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn, and showed up in places as far apart as Brazil and Macau off of mainland China, with trading posts by way of Africa and India. Though her influence has waned tremendously, Portugal's exploration paved the way for the next six centuries of European colonialism.

The Spanish Empire -- At one point stretching from California to Florida to Argentina, Spain's legacy on the New World is unsurpassed in terms of demographics, culture and language. Spain's conquistadors brought about the apocalyptic destruction of the Incas and Aztecs; colonised the New World and sent traders around the Old; and by the time they were done Spain had become so rich that even a moderately wealthy hidalgo wouldn't work a day in his life. Not to say it was not without issues -- Bartolomeo de las Casas was an outspoken critic of Spain's brutal slavery and serfdom systems in the New World.

The Russian Empire -- The largest contiguous land empire in history (by most counts), the Russian Empire spanned the crown of the world from Alaska to Poland and Finland. An evocative image is the fact that if you were born in 1800, you were more likely than not to live somewhere to the south of the Russian Empire. Even more evocatively, this remains true today. An old and vast country, the Russian Empire inspired both a Northern European Renaissance in beautiful cities like St Petersburg, while remaining shockingly backwards for a European country, only abolishing serfdom in 1862 -- the year before the US abolished slavery.

The French Empire -- Often called the 'liberal empire' (though this may not seem like such a compliment to some at Debate Politics), revolutionary and Napoleonic France was an intellectual and military powerhouse. Not only did it conquer Europe with one hand and hold off the British with the other, it instituted sweeping revolutionary reform everywhere it went, and its legal system (Napoleon's Civil Law) is now the most widely used legal system on Earth. It was so powerful, both ideationally and practically, that even in defeat at the end of the Waterloo Campaign, it retained a seat at the council presiding over its own peace treaty.

The British Empire -- The largest empire the world has ever seen, conquering almost a third of the world and leaving its mark indelibly upon modern life. The architect of the Industrial Revolution, international diplomacy, modern civil reforms and labour laws, it is very true to say that we still live in the world created by the British Empire today. For more than a century it remained the foremost global power, administering and arbiting international disputes around the world. With territory on every continent on Earth, there was no corner of the globe that did not feel the power of the British Empire.


That's it guys, hope you liked the write-ups -- and go vote!

The US is not an empire so what's your point here?
 
Britain did at one time rule the waves, but not to the extent America does today. In part, this is due to advancements in technology - imagine what the British could have done in Asia with aircraft carriers.

The fact is, the United States has coasts on both the Atlantic and Pacific. So to say that the British dominated the Pacific as the Americans do today defies common sense.

I certainly credit the British for the industrial revolution. No argument there.

I think we're mixing up the objective-subjective context thing again. Remember that no one is denying that the firepower that the US commands is greater than any other nation in history. This is obviously and reasonably true -- technology has advanced. But imploring me to think of what 'Britain could do with aircraft carriers in the Pacific' makes me think you haven't taken this lesson to heart.

At the height of the British Empire, the Royal Navy was overwhelmingly more powerful than any other navy in the world. The US Navy today is overwhelmingly more powerful than any other navy in the world, too, but not to the same extent.

The Royal Navy was so powerful that after Britain decided to outlaw slavery, the RN policed the entire world's oceans to make sure the slave trade was really abolished. Their global reach was so pervasive that they passed a law and then just FORCED the entire world to follow it -- think of that!

As well, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that Britain didn't have command of both the Atlantic and Pacific. It certainly did! British territory across the Pacific, some of which it still owns, included Australia, Pitcairn, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Fiji, Vanuatu, Kiribati, the New Hebrides and the Solomon Islands.

In the Atlantic, the British owned (and still own) Bermuda, the Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, Canada, Nova Scotia, the Bahamas, Jamaica, British Guyana, so much of Africa I don't even know where to start, and of course the British Isles themselves.

In the Indian Ocean, Britain owned (and also somewhat still owns) India, Pakistan, Zanzibar, the Chagos Islands, Ceylon, the Arabian Peninsula, and South Africa.

In the Southern Ocean, the British owned parts of Antarctica, the Falkland Islands, Australia (again), and New Zealand.

In the Arctic Ocean, Britain owned Canada, Orkney, and Shetland.

So I'm not sure what you mean when you say Britain's reach didn't extend to two oceans.
 
I don't understand what you mean. My point is to discuss empires, and ask which Debate Politics thinks was the greatest empire in history. Who's talking about the US?

Seems to me you are saying the US is an empire or at least implying so.

"There's a thread bumping around about American exceptionalism, and a common theme in that thread is noting that many great nations have exceptionalist viewpoints and tendencies.

Over the course of the thread, one user posted a poem as a response to Rudyard Kipling's 'White Man's Burden', a sort of nod to American imperialism in the Philippines marking the US's transition from upstart colony to proper colonial power.

The poem is extremely well-done, and I am in total awe at how perfectly it nails the response to Kipling. It can be found here:

Ex-Conservative: The Judgment of Peers

You'll note that the poem evokes the imagery of the great empires of the world judging America on its imperial capability -- and this imagery got me thinking about the empires of the past.

So, Debate Politics, vote, for which you think the greatest empire in history was!"
 
Seems to me you are saying the US is an empire or at least implying so.

"There's a thread bumping around about American exceptionalism, and a common theme in that thread is noting that many great nations have exceptionalist viewpoints and tendencies.

Over the course of the thread, one user posted a poem as a response to Rudyard Kipling's 'White Man's Burden', a sort of nod to American imperialism in the Philippines marking the US's transition from upstart colony to proper colonial power.

The poem is extremely well-done, and I am in total awe at how perfectly it nails the response to Kipling. It can be found here:

Ex-Conservative: The Judgment of Peers

You'll note that the poem evokes the imagery of the great empires of the world judging America on its imperial capability -- and this imagery got me thinking about the empires of the past.

So, Debate Politics, vote, for which you think the greatest empire in history was!"

Oh, no, not really. The thread about American exceptionalism got me thinking about empires, due to the poem I linked, which does seem to regard the US as an empire.

But I don't think the US should really be considered an empire -- you've only ever been halfhearted at it. The Philippines? Hawai'i? Puerto Rico? I think you could do better if you were really trying.

Rather, I think the US sort of has this existential crisis, because it follows in Britain's footsteps thinking it has the best way forward for the world and that the world would be better off for it, but it's not really always willing to go the extra mile and actually start to administer far-off places like Iraq or Afghanistan.

So I think it's in kind of a twilight zone regarding imperialism -- it definitely has the will and power to do so, but it doesn't really have the institutional capability or popular support for it.
 
Empires confiscate, America liberates.

Yes, you've done a great job liberating Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

Anyway, that's a very simplistic way of viewing it. I think it's more nuanced to say the US has grown up too late to have really gotten into the imperialism game, and as a consequence is somewhat scared of the prospects, as it doesn't really have the institutional capability to deal with imperialism.
 
Empires confiscate, America liberates.

I don't know I think given your world military presence and the level that the NSA listen to its allies you could make the arguement that America is the world's hegemony.
 
Yes, you've done a great job liberating Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

Anyway, that's a very simplistic way of viewing it. I think it's more nuanced to say the US has grown up too late to have really gotten into the imperialism game, and as a consequence is somewhat scared of the prospects, as it doesn't really have the institutional capability to deal with imperialism.

Neither were taken by force.
 
Back
Top Bottom