Um, yes, though they also might not be there at all if we hadn't decided it all belonged to us.
Empires
- Thread starter Fothsn
- Start date
Um, yes, though they also might not be there at all if we hadn't decided it all belonged to us.
Today’s society is very much different though, like I said there won’t be another Empire like this, yes we have created problems but have given so much.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
perhaps a personal longing to have been part of something so great, or to have been born at a time when mere cities ruled the world.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
Hmmm perhaps great for the tiny island that ruled and exploited, I'm guessing not for the millions more that were part of it.
Not entirely sure what you mean by the last part.
I was wondering about that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
Yeah that’s the impression I have of them as wellmust have being very strange discovering these islands and wonder what was there!
Agreed, a lot of Africa, (Zimbabwe prime example) is in such a state because we withdraw, when were were actually there it was the bread bin of Africa.
We lost America because the French helped them and we were fighting in India, Africa at the the time, both of which were far more important in terms of resources.
Yes the Royal East India Trading company had a lot to do with our control of India, had the largest private army ever I believe. Oh and we also wanted tea from China but got fed up of giving them silver for it so we got them addicted to opium and traded that with them instead.
The war in Iraq is slightly different to what used to happen. For a start we're not trying to conquar the country, we're 'peace keeping' with america.
Quite true, there were two main issues as to why there are now problems in Africa and the ME.
1. When we (europeans) decided to leave we didn't separate places up according to tribes and ethnicity etc, we separated them up according to empire boundaries and juristicional boundaries that we set up.
2. We left/were forced out in to much of a hurry in certain places. In the places we left at our own pace we left good judicial and governmental standards and organisation, these places generally went on to thrive and be peaceful. The places we were turfed out we left nothing in place, there was generally a power vaccum and the most powerful thing in the country (generally the only thing that was well organised, the army) took over, which is the main reason there were so many military dictators around.
You could also argue that the people in Africa had been fighting each other for centuries/millenia and so weren't just going to become "civilised" overnight because we told them to. Instead they carried on doing what they did before we arrived, but this time instead of spears and stones they had guns and explosives...
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
Hmmm perhaps great for the tiny island that ruled and exploited, I'm guessing not for the millions more that were part of it.
Not entirely sure what you mean by the last part.
well of course, i'm not suggesting that, i'd also point out at this point that many of the natives were more than happy to facilitate our expansion.
in the case of the Roman empire for example.
says it all really
one could still argue that it's forced occupation.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
need to stop double posting 
Hmmm perhaps great for the tiny island that ruled and exploited, I'm guessing not for the millions more that were part of it.
TBH the only people that probably really cared in a lot of places were the ruling families, everyone else probably just went on like normal. And it's not like we were any worse to the people abroad than at home, remember this was the time of workhouses and mills, where people were paid next to nothing to work 12 hours a day just to survive.
Shhh! Don't tell the Americans that, they might get grumpy.
Was that part aimed at me? If so I wasn't connecting the actual politics behind the examples, just the differences in armed forces. When you have state of the art weapons (the US and UK) fighting a few people with AK47 and a few rusty tanks left over from the last war isn't going to put up much resistace.
The Romans struggled a lot more with the natives than we ever did i'd say. They had loads of uprisings and rebellions. I agree with your point though.
Oh yes I agree but in the past we'd turn up, beat their army, kill half the population, and force the other half to trade with us, very effective, (although I'd like to make it clear i'm in no way implying we should kill half the population of Iraq ) Now tho with been buggering around there for years, essentially trying to plead with the local population for us to like them. Of course a lot of it is to do with the press bashing the army for making even the slightest move.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I can't say I pine for the British Empire as such, I wasn't around for any of it. I just recognise it as an outstanding achievement for such a comparatively small country to rule over approx one quarter of the World (depending on which metric you use), talk about punching above your weight!
Maybe it has created a lot of problems but surmising that the situation around the World would have been any better without the Empire is merest supposition at this point.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,087
- Location
- Berkland
lol, polish-lithuianiun empire??? Is that happening now in the UK?
Shhh! Don't tell the Americans that, they might get grumpy.
LOL
I assure you it wasn't aimed at any one. Ironically enough the same weapons the Americans sold them to defend themselves against the Russians!!!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
That doesn't justify anything :/
Having a forced hand doesn't quite make it peaceful and la-di-dah
Just because it's peaceful doesn't mean it isn't forced/intimidated on a country/kingdom/race.
You can't compare the two empires at all really.
For a commodity yes.
--
I'm starting to thing the exclusion of certain empires is flawed and a bit puzzling - it doesn't quite make sense. It seems to have plucked a reason out of thin air just such that British Empire could end up top.
Punched above it's weight? It certainly did, and that's a phenominal...phenominel...phen (bah) feat.
I agree, the whole trying to predict what places would have been like without a foreign ruling party is pretty much guess work. I was referring to what happend while there was a foreign ruling power in place.
Last edited:
I think a lot of the issues countries have now with uprisings and guerilla fighting is because there is much more conciousness about nationality. People now are proud and understand they are a member of a nation, whereas 200+ years ago most people didn't care. What if the people in the castle change, we will still be living the same way we were before...
Kings and rulers created armies from their labour force, the labour generally didn't care about the cause, just that they had to fight (and most probably fought just to stay alive). The Romans were different as far as I know, they population seemed to actually care and had a conciousness about nation statism.
That generalisation was not always true, there were plenty of times when invaders turned up and the population fought because they wanted to but most of the time it was because they had to.
Every bit of information about Empires puts the British empire out on top, you seem to be a bit funny about something?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
it's far easier to crush a rebellion if you can prevent it quickly and with surgical precision, especially if you have extremely superior technologically (ok, the romans had some good **** but it was still sword and shield vs sword and shield (and ballista in some cases
)) when you consider how long it lasted even after half of it collapsed it's quite amazing, internally rebellion wasn't too common anywaycompletely agree, but the vast majority of the mindset in the area was never going to have welcomed us as friends or as conquerers, it's all extremely internal. we'd have done better by sending the SAS in to assassinate him. but it really never was about removing saddam, USA was quite happy with him there until he started turning the wheel that supplies the oil.
i'm not sure it's that people didn't care, more that it was very hard for a village to feel connected to the rest of a country when such poor methods of communication exist, and certainly in those countries where certain important social figureheads challenged the accepted norm all hell would break loose, you only have to look at the area of germany and of northern england (two areas heavily under the influence of the druids) to see what a stirring up of the population can cause.
money turns the world, the armies of Rome were paid well and got good benefits (even the auxiliaries) it was easy to recruit and unless you were posted to a right crap hole it was a fairly safe 'job' you knew your fmily would be supported by your income, and hopefully one day they might even be able to become a citizen (which gave its own benefits) it was an incredibly well run system (for the time and resources)
Last edited: