Rate them

colonial historical achievements ? or historical achievement ?

Colonial

6
6
10
8

But how can you say that foreign territories weren't actually controlled by these European powers when most of Siberia is an empty wasteland? Even today, so few people live there as to make it irrelevant as a region on the world stage.

America made the largest colonial drives of them all through the 19th century, and were the only ones aside from Russia to succeed in these ambitions long-term. The western states are now (barring occasional LARPing incidents and some angry Mexicans) firmly part of the American nation.

The key difference is that America and Russia were predominantly land powers in the beginning with very little naval projection ability (though they would both go on to develop great navies after their respective colonial periods), whereas every other colonial power relied on its navy coupled with small regiments of highly advanced infantry to police their overseas possessions. If trouble happened on the home front that seriously drew the attention of the navy, the integrity of these respective empires became at great risk to fracture by local partisan movements or mass protest.

The key difference is that their colonies were either part of the same contiguous landmass or held a tiny, tiny population unable to resist the slightest show of military might.
Like compare US rule over Hawaii or Cuba and Russian rule over Alaska with British rule over the Raj

GB > Portugal > Spain > France

Spain and Portugal are on a higher plane because of the adventure and danger of the portuguese explorations and spanish conquest, without steamboats or "just paint on this map your territory and call it yours"-tier politics

They actually had to go out into the unknown and do the dirty work

>just paint on this map your territory and call it yours"-tier politics

Portuguese Africa was bascially that though.

While true in some cases this is a vast generalization. Notice even areas settled by Euros and more "developed" still are independant today (Australia, New Zealand, etc ). Russia's advantage was that its empire was one continuous piece of land, although integration doubtlessly helped. Your assertion is more accurate in regards to Africa, but even then integration/settlement and development efforts were made. See: French Algeria, and South Africa.

French empire of course.
It still exists today even, only having lost indochina and the levant.

They left these stone pillars as proof of their presence/control

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padrão

...

They only had the coast that they really owned. Only in the 1920's did the Portuguese make incursions deep into the colony to actually enforce the presence and rule.

>or held a tiny, tiny population unable to resist the slightest show of military might.
> with British rule over the Raj
The British didn't rule India like that wew. They allied with dozens of other kingdoms, large or small and gave special privileges to the elite (Brahman, certain warrior castes etc etc) as an incentive to keep them on their good side.
What bothered people more than the British were all the kingdoms that were directly affiliated with them as seen in the Sepoy Rebellion.

incursions were being made deep into the Kongo, present day Angola and Mozambique in the 16th century. Those countries were finally taken over and borders setup by the mid 1800s.

R-rate pls
Be gentile

Britain 7
France 4
Spain 6
Portugal 9

5/10
Had potential but could be worse.

>Russia
>great navy
*teleports behind Port Arthur*

I'd say it was pretty good

Bretty good Im a fan of thallasocracies

Way to misread my post.
My point was that you can't rule the British Raj merely with a very small show of military strength, which is different to the US and Russian colonies because you can do it over there.

The sun never sets on the British Empire.

1. Perfidious Bongistan
2. Spain
3. Portugal
4. France

>Including portuguese colonies

Kek

It's a anachronic map

Clockwise:
8/10
9/10
8/10
8/10
All awesome tbqh, but I still prefer the German Colonial Empirelet.

>Portugal explores the world while the Spanish sit around being lazy
>literal only spanish exploration achievement was Columbus (who gave the information to Portugal first because they're just cool like that)
>Portugal opens up all trade to Asia
>somehow not important than a bunch of moors who pillaged a bunch of native nations
Woah

What happened in those spots in China?

Trading bases, something like Hong Kong with the British

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiautschou_Bay_concession

The German Empire in China consisted of a Hong Kong style Lease in the Jiazhou peninsula, which was nothing but a tiny town and a Beer Brewery.

Daily reminder Japan wanted this.

Went to Japan.

*cuts off your railroad*

Columbus was a spy

top tier: britain, france
good tier: spain
ok tier: portugal. netherlands
meh: italy, germany
nothing but snow tier: russia

>British ****empire****

Lol no they still fought wars of establishing presence within Angola ffs lol and I mean the actual "you fucked are Portuguese now *kicks local rulers asses*.

Portugal often faced bullying from other African colonial powers because Portugal until very late did not have the money to extend itself past coastal areas (that's how they lost/failed to get the middle part between moz and angola(

> still fought wars of establishing presence within Angola
That was a war agaisnt their independence forces, like MLPA

And there was portuguese military presence in the region that would become Zambia, but someone had an autistic dream of building railroads in that area

You forgot a few territory

All of them were shit, its funny how a chunk of the Bong Empire AKA America becoming independent fucked it over forever.

Global Hegemon When?

>Inb4 Americunt fag spotted

I'm just curious if you think the world will ever be united under one flag, organization, group, etc.

Do you think this will happen? Why or why not?
doesn't necessarily have to be the USA

Maybe if all people get assimilated into one culture through globalization...

The Human Empire

Not the colonial wars user. Fighting native rulers and entities. When everyone else already finished that shit in the 1920's Portugal was still doing it.

>And there was portuguese military presence in the region that would become Zambia, but someone had an autistic dream of building railroads in that area

and that presence wasn't good enough because brits already made deals with locals and were more entrenched in it so Portugal lost it's claim

>Fighting native rulers and entities
Who?

*blocks your path*

>conquering a few thousand kilometres in europe
vs.
>conquering an entire continent, over half of 2 continents, an entire subcontinent, islands, nations, and trading posts over the world

*loses hundred years war*

*loses Napoleonic Wars*

Pax Britannica or Portuguese Mar Clausum?

5/10 - didn't genocide natives, lost it by fighting against Hitler like retards instead of electing Mosley, imported said natives, at least managed to pacify 1/3rd of the world's population with a tiny populace
2/10 - literally a desert and too busy having sex with natives, turned Paris into Morocco 2.0
3/10 - created the second most disgusting race aesthetically and resulted in shitty countries, rather than genociding natives like USA
2/10 - created Brazil, kudos for holding onto Africa until the 1970s though

British gets a 10/10 for being the GOAT colonial empire

France gets a 7 for that juicy and useful chunk of Africa

Spain's gets a 4 because the 19th century was one huge fuckup and their colonial possessions after the Spanish-American War were memes

Portugal gets 8 for longevity

The king of Belgium and his private army conquered 2,344,858 km2 of land in Africa.What Britain did was totally unimpressive and mostly just general dickshowing as they never paid attention to those colonies

>The king of Belgium and his private army conquered 2,344,858 km2 of land in Africa

No he didn't. The Congo Free State was practically untouched outside of the land along the Congo River. To act like conquering and managing India and 1/4 of the world is unimpressive just because the natives were under equipped (and in India's case they often weren't) is retarded, especially when they were competing and warring with other European powers the entire time.

>never paid attention to those colonies

lol holy shit

The British Empire was the only empire that ever conquered an entire continent. That's pretty impressive to me.

India was basically the EIC bribing Pajeets and then going bankrupt.Once Pajeets started to uprise they BTFO British rule.The British empire was always a paper tiger.
>lol holy shit
They left some families run the colonies while building some railroads to transport materials.British influence in its colonies is close to zero

>The British Empire was the only empire that ever conquered an entire continent. That's pretty impressive to me.
>Australia
>Anything else than wasteland and a couple of stone age abbos
Whatever

Australia isn't a continent

Per the USSR census of 1926 the various "Asian" ethnicities (Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Tatars, Chuvash, Azeris, etc.), mostly Turkic and Caucasus people, accounted for 30% of the population, or 40 million people. Which is sparse compared to the large area they inhabited, but still a lot of people by the standards of what used to be colonial possessions bar India. It's a sizable number. By comparison 1926 Algeria had fewer than 6 million people, including colonists; French Indochina, about 17 million; British Malaya, under 5 million; British Kenya, 2.4 million. And these people were integrated economically and culturally much better than any other colonial possession (except maybe for the USA with the tiny populations of Hawaii and Puerto Rico).

Even today when the empire is gone and Central Asia is independent, Russia is 20% non-Russian in terms of ethnicity. Most of these can be classified as Asian people. And they have quite a bit of autonomy despite being well-integrated, cf. Tatarstan.

The EIC lost hard when they started actively trying to expand their rule. Fucking hell, post 1857 the brits just twiddled their thumbs and trying to make maximum money while cranking up repression until uncle sam and based salt man cucked them.

>Australia isn't a conti-
Huh.

Retard

If you use that map Spaniards were the first to rule an entire continent (South America)

>What is Portugal
>What is Brazil

Pic related

They had portuguese there too

>>>

Outdated

The entire region east of Australia has been shown to be a seperate continent named Zealandia making Australia its own continent

>What is the iberian union (1580-1640)
*Yawn*

Portugal was still a seperate entity
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortes_de_Tomar

Oceania is a region, not a continent.
The continent of Australia is made up of 3 nations today : Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Australia itself. At one point, all of the territories claimed by these modern nations belonged to the British Empire. Therefore, the British ruled all of the continent of Australia, and that makes them the only empire that ever conquered an entire continent.

>Portugal was still a seperate entity
The king of Castile was ruling it.They were as independent as Aragon,Peru or Naples

>The continent of Australia is made up of 3 nations today : Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Australia itself. At one point, all of the territories claimed by these modern nations belonged to the British Empire. Therefore, the British ruled all of the continent of Australia, and that makes them the only empire that ever conquered an entire continent.
Spain did it first though

clockwise order starting from top right***

counterclockwise**

>"Se trata, pues, de una unión dinástica, no territorial, ya que no se producirá una homogeneización administrativa y jurídica"

He wasn't "the king of Castille", he was Philip I of Portugal and Philip II of Spain

Spain never owned an entire continent.

>He wasn't "the king of Castille
He was
>he was Philip I of Portugal and Philip II of Spain
And Phillip I of Milan,Phillip the IV of Burgandy and so on.Portugal was still ruled by a Castilian that lived in Madrid

SA between 1580-1640

Is losing Napoleonic Wars a bad thing when you conquer all Europe against multiple coalitions ?
Don't be mad, you'll never have a Napoleon

>Is losing bad
Of course it is loser

South America was barely claimed at the time

Even if you count Portugal as part of Spain during the Iberian Union, the Spanish still were not able to conquer all of South America.

>1581
>modern borders on African countries

Australia is barely claimed even to this day let alone in 1850
Spain's claim of SA was pretty similar to the British one on Australia.Most of Australia was never settled or control under British rule.

Well, Western Papua was never British.

9/10 | >history's foremost empire
9/10 | >poor colonizer, but great conqueror
8/10 | >smaller than most, but performed legendary feats with very limited resources
7/10 | >mostly in Americas. Built great viceroyalties and ruled them far better than
that which came after. Doesn't have many outwordly achievements, tho.

>Doesn't have many outwordly achievements, tho.
Like being the first colonial,global empire and arguably the first superpower?

Portugal was the first global empire. Not Spain.

The blue is wrong. The Portuguese had already penetrated deeper in Brazil, including the Amazon River and Rio Grande do Sul.

>Portugal was the first global empire
Portugal never had colonies in Oceania or Europe outside of its core.Spain did