Britain did own parts of "France", see the 100 years war, etc. Now what's more valuable, British territory in France or North America and India and many spice/run/sugar islands? It's different choices for the times; Rome is cool and all, dont get me wrong.
As an example, like Rome didn't have an economic or political need to "conquer" the Sahara or to the Indus Valley and into India; or head all the way to Mongolia or Moscow or even hold the Caucasus. The military war promotion and money system, made the campaigns into Gaul/Germania plenty busy; along with suppressing internal revolts/etc.
And from a seapower persepctive, Britain sure beat Carthage more than a few times in destroying the fleets of France, Spain, etc. many times over, more than the reverse (yes Britain did have some bad loses too, but that's like Hannibal marching around Italy for a few years.)
In all the world history, every nation, country, empire, kindom, etc runs up against some other territory/tribe/nation which it doesn't conquer or peacefully co-exist with.
Rome had it's neighbors, be it on Britania/Ireland; viking lands; Germania; to the north; or others to the South & East.
Every historical entity runs up against a "limit" in communication and other things across it's territory which limit it's size; including internal structure of how it's government is formed/run.
Example: Mexico today, it's Constitution was written and adopted during the Mexican Civil War just over 100 years ago; and it wasn't agreed to by all parties; and when you read it, you'll see why Mexico can't "rule" over it's entire country any better today, than it could in 1917. It's Constitution isn't a "national" Constitution the way ours in the USA is. It's more like a "State" Constitution. So if the northern 2/3rds of Mexico joined the USA; then finallly the Mexican government from Mexico City, could likely finally have Law & Order upon the remaining State sized territory/population.
In all the world history, every nation, country, empire, kindom, etc runs up against some other territory/tribe/nation which it doesn't conquer or peacefully co-exist with.
Yes, but therefore we can estimate the share of global world power that an empire has at its time. The Romans has a much, much bigger share of world power than the British. See the chart I posted in my previous comment. Simply put
You can't seriously argue that dominating the Mediterranean sea, which was the birthplace of human civilization with lots of powerful empires contending it, is the same thing as going off to the other side of the world and planting a flag in a huge deserted wasteland.
I agree and understand most of what you say. There are redpills though which are even the ancient Greeks (who spread across the whole of the Med and founded those cities like Carthage, etc.) and the Romans who founded more cities and conquered/annexed/sacked/etc. all those cities and more.
Even the ancient Greek & Romans knew about India, and Eastern Europe, & Northernmost Europe, & desert tribes/Africa.
Example: The Celts, started way over on the right side of the map, and were displaced/moved/fought etc all the way over to the Iberian Pennisula and Ireland.
There was a whole lot of movement, pre vikings (pre sea peoples), pre greeks/romans, pre Mongols, pre Ancient Egypt, and of course the whole history of all the peoples in "China" before the Chin unification; and of course were not even talking about the Inca, Maya, or Aztecs who made some pretty sizeable-blobs on a CIVILIZATION gamemap or two as well.
On any powergraph, the USA today is yuuuuuuge. But we have Cuba sitting a short few miles off our coast. From historical points of view, this wouldn't look right in a powergraph, but there are other things besides "conquering" land/people and power projection.
It's alot harder for the British Empire to conquer North America, India, and the globe, than it is to conquer their "neighbor". Just as it was harder for Rome to conquer Scotland or the Black Sea Peoples, than Carthage.
The Romans didn't conquer Scotland because they didn't want to, because it was not important at all. No offense to Scottish people but at the time a territory so cold and harsh was strategically useless. That's why the Romans didn't conquer the Sahara desert: because it was useless.
As I said before, the British conquered no advanced civilization. They just took lands from either savages or from peaceful people. At one point they even got their ass kicked by the Zulu with spears and cowskin shields!
On any powergraph, the USA today is yuuuuuuge. But we have Cuba sitting a short few miles off our coast. From historical points of view, this wouldn't look right in a powergraph, but there are other things besides "conquering" land/people and power projection.
I would agree with this, as the influence of a civilization is not just in the size of land.
But the Roman empire again comes out on top: they invented a shitton of things. From agricultural methods, aqueducts and sewers, military equipment and tactics, systems of government, to their famous law and philosophy. European countries that don't speak English still have their judicial system based on Roman Law, by the way. Oh, and the alphabet that we use right now: was invented by the Romans. And the calendar.
The cultural influence of the Romans in their own time makes them the greatest empire; although I'll say that the British do much better in this aspect as they have exported the ideals of freedom and capitalism around the world.
The map I linked earlier is not about share of land. It's about historical and cultural influence.
Yes I agree on most points, but one simple thing as proud as Romans were (and since they pretty much founded London too); but if you had the ability to take the leaders of ancient Rome, and transport them to 1775 British Court, and showed them all the technology, the map/scale of the Empire; all the luxuries, goods, peoples, infrastructure, medicine, astronomy, books (including the re-discovery of ancient Greek & Roman texts) etc. Most ancient Romans would probably agree that the British Empire was far greater than the Roman one, by a great many different standards; even if Britains rivials were greater too.
Of course a proper true proud ancient Roman would likely take credit for Londinium conquering the world, and say see Constantine should have moved the Capital there instead :)
We Americans are very fortuneate, and inventive, to be able to have the best of all worlds in our shoulders to stand on. This very conversation being a great example of that.
Britain did own parts of "France", see the 100 years war, etc. Now what's more valuable, British territory in France or North America and India and many spice/run/sugar islands? It's different choices for the times; Rome is cool and all, dont get me wrong.
As an example, like Rome didn't have an economic or political need to "conquer" the Sahara or to the Indus Valley and into India; or head all the way to Mongolia or Moscow or even hold the Caucasus. The military war promotion and money system, made the campaigns into Gaul/Germania plenty busy; along with suppressing internal revolts/etc.
And from a seapower persepctive, Britain sure beat Carthage more than a few times in destroying the fleets of France, Spain, etc. many times over, more than the reverse (yes Britain did have some bad loses too, but that's like Hannibal marching around Italy for a few years.)
In all the world history, every nation, country, empire, kindom, etc runs up against some other territory/tribe/nation which it doesn't conquer or peacefully co-exist with.
Rome had it's neighbors, be it on Britania/Ireland; viking lands; Germania; to the north; or others to the South & East.
Every historical entity runs up against a "limit" in communication and other things across it's territory which limit it's size; including internal structure of how it's government is formed/run.
Example: Mexico today, it's Constitution was written and adopted during the Mexican Civil War just over 100 years ago; and it wasn't agreed to by all parties; and when you read it, you'll see why Mexico can't "rule" over it's entire country any better today, than it could in 1917. It's Constitution isn't a "national" Constitution the way ours in the USA is. It's more like a "State" Constitution. So if the northern 2/3rds of Mexico joined the USA; then finallly the Mexican government from Mexico City, could likely finally have Law & Order upon the remaining State sized territory/population.
Yes, but therefore we can estimate the share of global world power that an empire has at its time. The Romans has a much, much bigger share of world power than the British. See the chart I posted in my previous comment. Simply put
You can't seriously argue that dominating the Mediterranean sea, which was the birthplace of human civilization with lots of powerful empires contending it, is the same thing as going off to the other side of the world and planting a flag in a huge deserted wasteland.
I agree and understand most of what you say. There are redpills though which are even the ancient Greeks (who spread across the whole of the Med and founded those cities like Carthage, etc.) and the Romans who founded more cities and conquered/annexed/sacked/etc. all those cities and more.
Even the ancient Greek & Romans knew about India, and Eastern Europe, & Northernmost Europe, & desert tribes/Africa.
Example: The Celts, started way over on the right side of the map, and were displaced/moved/fought etc all the way over to the Iberian Pennisula and Ireland.
There was a whole lot of movement, pre vikings (pre sea peoples), pre greeks/romans, pre Mongols, pre Ancient Egypt, and of course the whole history of all the peoples in "China" before the Chin unification; and of course were not even talking about the Inca, Maya, or Aztecs who made some pretty sizeable-blobs on a CIVILIZATION gamemap or two as well.
On any powergraph, the USA today is yuuuuuuge. But we have Cuba sitting a short few miles off our coast. From historical points of view, this wouldn't look right in a powergraph, but there are other things besides "conquering" land/people and power projection.
It's alot harder for the British Empire to conquer North America, India, and the globe, than it is to conquer their "neighbor". Just as it was harder for Rome to conquer Scotland or the Black Sea Peoples, than Carthage.
The Romans didn't conquer Scotland because they didn't want to, because it was not important at all. No offense to Scottish people but at the time a territory so cold and harsh was strategically useless. That's why the Romans didn't conquer the Sahara desert: because it was useless.
As I said before, the British conquered no advanced civilization. They just took lands from either savages or from peaceful people. At one point they even got their ass kicked by the Zulu with spears and cowskin shields!
I would agree with this, as the influence of a civilization is not just in the size of land.
But the Roman empire again comes out on top: they invented a shitton of things. From agricultural methods, aqueducts and sewers, military equipment and tactics, systems of government, to their famous law and philosophy. European countries that don't speak English still have their judicial system based on Roman Law, by the way. Oh, and the alphabet that we use right now: was invented by the Romans. And the calendar.
The cultural influence of the Romans in their own time makes them the greatest empire; although I'll say that the British do much better in this aspect as they have exported the ideals of freedom and capitalism around the world.
The map I linked earlier is not about share of land. It's about historical and cultural influence.
Yes I agree on most points, but one simple thing as proud as Romans were (and since they pretty much founded London too); but if you had the ability to take the leaders of ancient Rome, and transport them to 1775 British Court, and showed them all the technology, the map/scale of the Empire; all the luxuries, goods, peoples, infrastructure, medicine, astronomy, books (including the re-discovery of ancient Greek & Roman texts) etc. Most ancient Romans would probably agree that the British Empire was far greater than the Roman one, by a great many different standards; even if Britains rivials were greater too.
Of course a proper true proud ancient Roman would likely take credit for Londinium conquering the world, and say see Constantine should have moved the Capital there instead :)
We Americans are very fortuneate, and inventive, to be able to have the best of all worlds in our shoulders to stand on. This very conversation being a great example of that.
Christ almighty, I love it when history geeks converse. I learn something new everytime.