British Empire and Roman Empire

When people compare the Roman and British Empires why do they always understate the territorial extent of the British Empire as consisting of empty land with no civilisation?

The argument is that all the British did was invade tribal people with no technology and take over empty land. Is this very different from Romans? Take the province of Gaul for example, it was a mostly empty land full of tribes people (the Gauls). Also their technology was inferior to that of the Romans, they had little to no armour and no siege weapons.

If anything surely the technological advantage should be treated as a testament to the inginuity of the Empire.

Also considering the usefulness of the land, it wasn't just empty deserts for the British empire. All the land taken had some advantage whether it was a port, diamond mine, oil mine etc. True some of the land was just desert but it still consisted of more (quantitatively) useful land than the roman empire.

Finally addressing the "British empire only lasted 12 seconds" point. It lasted for about 400 years max which is still a considerably long time and it probably did a lot more in that short time for the modern world than rome did.

Btw butthurt brit here if you couldn't tell

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-FoCsDnPmE0
youtube.com/watch?v=MwynFJf5ZZ0
youtube.com/watch?v=ZsHd7k7OOTs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Good bait

The British didn't really control most of their territory. Sure, they had a monopoly on force within it, and the people of those territories nominally paid tribute to the UK. But they were not members of the British Empire in any meaningful sense. When war actually came, for example,every part of the empire except the settler colonies proved disproportionately irrelevant. Even economically they weren't much of a help, at times the empire was a net drain on the UK.

Rome, on the other hand, took over a bunch of dense and rich regions and INTEGRATED them. Everyone was a Roman and as a result they got much more out of their occupied territories than the British ever could. Do you know what the most wealthy and developed part of the empire was after Italy? Egypt.

>Do you know what the most wealthy and developed part of the empire was after Italy?
>Egypt
>Literally the country that had been wealthy and developed for thousands of years already
>Literally the country that had already become even more wealthy and developed under Greek rule

Of fucking course Egypt was a wealthy and developed part of the Roman Empire. Attributing that achievement to the Romans themselves is dumb.

If the Romans were acting like Brits, Egypt would have been turned into an extractive shithole with its infrastructure recked and constant famines.

>it was a mostly empty land full of tribes people (the Gauls). Also their technology was inferior to that of the Romans, they had little to no armour and no siege weapons.
lol

>If the Romans were acting like Brits, Egypt would have been turned into an extractive shithole with its infrastructure recked and constant famines.
Well that did basically happen. Egypt became fuck all after the Roman empire split and fell.

If you're going to talk about the empire in terms of influence you might as well include the world in the british empire. Most countries in the world were in the british sphere of influence (excluding some european nations). Take China for example which isn't officially a british colony but was essentially dominated by Britain.

>excluding some european nations
Ayo hol up. We basically had nearly all of east europe sucking our dicks.

Only South America's got away iirc.

It's true. Does anybody have that extract of Gauls immediately surrendering after seeing siege technology?

Yankee here, I also find it silly when people claim that the Brits only fought dumb natives.
Yes, they conquered dumb natives, but those dumb natives were only conquered because of the value of the land they lives on, and Britain didn't just compete with them for that land, they had to compete with France, Spain, the Dutch, the Portuguese, the Danish, Hell, even the Germans, Italians, and Belgians eventually got into the colonization business.

Again not really a mattter of Roman policy. Egypt becoming fuck all is more the fault of so many successive Islamic conquests, leaving it a war-torn shithole under a government with no real desire to repair it.

I agree. Look at the Seven Years' War as an example of Britain fighting another great power for territorial possessions. Also Britain's conquest of India and (to some degree) China who were both economic superpowers for most of history.

From a militaristic pov, China is much more impressive imo.

They had a possession in India since 16th century but it's only after the late 18th century that they started making some serious gains with the rapid decline of the Maratha dynasty and attacking the Sikh's when they had a succession crisis in rapid divide and conquer strategies.

But they still nearly lost centuries of preparation in the rebellion of the sepoys half a century later.

Whereas China was pretty centralised but they still lost hard (fuck the Qings DESU)

The only reason China wasn't a british dominion is literally due to the morality of the British. All Britain had to do was take Nanking (which they were preparing to do) and China would've been forced into surrender as Nanking controls the Yangtze. Britain only wanted compensation and trading rights. This demonstrates that British imperialism was not for the sake of expansion, but to gain wealth.

>The only reason China wasn't a british dominion is literally due to the morality of the British. All Britain had to do was take Nanking (which they were preparing to do) and China would've been forced into surrender as Nanking controls the Yangtze. Britain only wanted compensation and trading rights. This demonstrates that British imperialism was not for the sake of expansion, but to gain wealth.
No...
This would have created some serious tensions and the constant uprisings would have fucked thrown Britain off. It's worth remembering that after the Sepoy rebellion they only controlled 3/5ths of India directly and had the rest as tributaries by local kings (whom they kept a positive relationship between to keep happy). They upped their divide policies to the extreme too ( religion, caste, ethnicity etc etc).

This wouldn't have happened in China, which was just as diverse but pledged allegiance to the central authority of China. The only reason they even stopped the 1857 rebellion was from the support of various non-Muslim kings who hated the Mughals.

>tl;dr: it would have turned ugly if Britain tried annexing all of China

The Chinese were only loyal to the emperor if the emperor was loyal to the mandate of heaven. An overwhelming Chinese defeat would see the emperor disgraced and most likely lead to civil war within china further weakening it. It would end up a shithole, but Britain would certainly take the opportunity to reap the benefits.

You had colonies, rome had an empire

Fuck off you pale inbreed fuck

>t. Ex-colonist

The same thing happened to China a century later when Japan invaded, but even though all the Chinese warlords were going neck to neck with each other the one thing that they ALL had in common was that they despised Japan.

Yet Japan maintained control over Manchuria until the Soviets kicked them out. Also in 1931 China was more technologically advanced and Japan was far weaker than the British empire. So if Japan could do it to a stronger China, Britain could conquer a much weaker China.

In fact the Japanese atrocities made the Chinese hate Japan, whereas British policy of 'benign neglect' or maybe even industrialisation would have evoked a more favourable view on their colonial masters.

>The only reason China wasn't a british dominion is literally due to the morality of the British.
Actually, it was because
1) Collapse of central authority in China would mean general war among the Chinese to determine who gets the Mandate of Heaven. You can't rule over that sort of populace.
2) Other Europenises would fight Britain and each other over divyying up China. This was the greatest fear of the late 19th Century Imperialist politics.

It eventually happened, but Europeans were unable to exploit it because
1) The 1911 Revolution was ostensibly a democratic one. Europeans can't be seen as crushing a Democratic republic.
2) When that republic collapsed. Europeans were busy killing each other in 1916 and emerged weaker in 1918.

Britain wouldn't need to directly rule China. After the surrender of the Qing emperor, China would officially be a british dominion. Yes it's true there would be conflict among the populace, but it wouldn't be directed at the British. At this point Chinese trade would be fully open to Britain essentially allowing Britain to run the economy. With a broken china, coercion of the populace into british rule would require little force. Also it's important to consider the average person's view on the British liberating them from an unfit emperor and industrialising their nation.

Regarding other European competition, it's clear who has the advantage, who has the power to impose their will and make unfair trade agreements. At worst China would be carved up in a way that gives Britain the most lucrative areas. At best, China becomes a mostly self-governing british dominion.

Bump

>Yes it's true there would be conflict among the populace, but it wouldn't be directed at the British.
Yeah, just like the Taiping and Boxer rebellions didn't aim for either or both the throne and Foreign- oops, they fucking did.
>Regarding other European competition, it's clear who has the advantage
Except what you described didn't happen precisely because Britshits didn't want it to happen because is right. They kept propping the Qing emperor up all the time to keep Chinese government down but the semblance of independence and unity up.

In fact they're been criticizing Germany & Japan for starting shit in China that would touch off a competition in china between the Imperial Powers. Britain knew no matter what advantages they had (herpderp muh navy) they've no way of knowing who'd win.

>WW1 (started by the Germanic) ruined everything
The similarities between the Roman and British empires are spooky.

...

The Taiping rebellion had little input from the British and by the time of the boxer rebellion, China was the playground of great powers not just Britain.

>There's no way of knowing who'd win
Are you suggesting for example France or Russia would beat Britain in a fight for China? This would be a mostly naval conflict and both nations together would still be outmatched.

In the scenario where Britain actually gains official control over China, any attempt by another power to take parts of China would be a declaration of war against the British Empire which in the 19th century at the zenith of her power, would be foolish. If anything the situation in China would be similar to that of India.

And what do you call nations with colonies?
A colonial... empire...

Actually British colonial rude did leave infrastructure like railroads and government buildings better off.
Same as the Romans actually.

Uhm... where does the word colony come from again user?

Reminder that Bhagat Singh and Manga Pandey did nothing wrong.
youtube.com/watch?v=-FoCsDnPmE0
youtube.com/watch?v=MwynFJf5ZZ0

Greek colonies like Massilia, which were basically just a city and trading port buying from the local tribes. The Romans expanded on this by introducing (allied) tribes to Roman ways and helping to increase production. Romano-Gauls would become an integral element of the Empire.

The Anglo didn't want to put the effort into Empire building or racemix, they just wanted short term profits, their colonies were merely staging posts for suave merchants to exploit and scam the populace unhindered.

it was actually just genociding the populace until they stopped acting like niggers. Then they built stuff.

> introducing (allied) tribes to Roman ways and helping to increase production

you mean enslaving them and putting them in the most horrible living conditions possible while working in mines and factories?

that sounds fammiliar

>The Anglo didn't want to put the effort into Empire building
Why put the effort in when you're so powerful you don't need to. That aside, look at Canada, USA, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia. Shining examples of what British colonialism left in it's wake. In fact most of the world benefited from the inventions of the Roman Empire.

Also "s-stop claiming creditz for other peoplez work" implying the foundations of these countries weren't laid by the british.

Sorry britbong, but British foreign policy of the empire was shit.
The best traits of the British though, lie not on colonisation, but in industriousness and the ability to developers their own land.
That is why the British settled colonies are all so well off.
t. American
Thanks for the culture britbong

Tbh if you're talking about cultural influence USA dominates Britain. If anything Britain should thank USA for culture.

Surely an Empire that leaves well developed societies in it's wake is better. After Rome fell it was almost like it was never there. Europe fell into the dark ages and Roman values and systems fell into disuse.

I think perhaps some of the argument is because of the insane technology gap. Sure, there was a technology gap between the Romans and primitive European/Near Eastern tribesmen, but it was nowhere near the technological gap between, say, African/Native American/Aboriginal tribes without gunpowder vs. an industrialized empire with industrialized weapons capability.

The Africans did actually manage to acquire British tech and use it to their advantage. Though it is, as i said, a testament to british inginuity to have technology way ahead of other people's at the time. For example British naval supremacy came not only from size, but technology as well. Iron-hulled steam ships blew everything else out the water.

Do not use fucking America and Canada as good examples of British colonialism. The rest I agree on completely, North America as a whole are the cuck Anglos.

Romans aren't admired for their muh big empire. They actually did something with the conquered land and not just steal shit.

if i may be so bold as to post in this den of austis. the Romans were all about conquest, consul and senators competed with each other for the honour of bring some new lands into the empire, Caesar set out to add gaul to the republic, Claudius Britannia, Pompey the east, the Scipio's Spain and later Greece, Trajan wanted everything. once an area was conquered the legions were settled into colonia and the process of romanization begun so that in a few decades the natives spoke like Romans, acted like Romans. thought like Romans and so were Romans. we have the grandfather of spetiumus Severus a punic who spoke only latin, or tarjan from mixed roman and Hispanic stock. maximinus thrax thought of himself not as an illyrian but as a roman. the English government by contrasts wanted nothing more than to trade and peacefully co-exsit, hence most of the empire was not not by prime minsters but by adventures, ireland was conqured by strongbow and 200 of his mates, north america by dissenters and fleeing cavaliers, Rhodesia by private expedition, India by bored traders. were ever the british went they lived apart from the population, and were generally comfortable receiving taxes. occasionally a wigh might insist they do something and civilise the natives but in general britan was hands off. you rarely saw British regiments settle down in new conquered lands and marry into the locals, nor did you see foreigners in the British parliament. these were two very diffinet empires with two very diffient ways of dealing with things take rodiesia for example conqured by ceceil rodes the richest man in the empire at his own expense and with private means. society was stricaly segregated, brits at the to,p Africans at the bottom. the Government in the home isle wanted to abandon the colony and only accepted the colony when rodes threatened to join the Portuguese. 60 years later the colony issued a udi and fell into a 20 year long race war which ended with the more or less expulsion

if it was the romans who took rodeisa well for one the name would matableum or some shit. but the land would be conqured by some ambitious goverment offical, not by private enterptise, city would have founded on the site of some legionary camp and the legions who conquered the land would have been settled in the surround area. with thousands of strapping Italian lads finishing their twenty years of duty, if they dint bring their wives and children with them u could bet by Jupiter fat smelly cock they would marry a native. The highest ranking of the defeated chiefs would have see his daughter(s) happily married to a centurion(s) and his sons sent off to roma to be educated in latin and the classics of the ancient world were picking up roman culture along the way. let the province marinate for 60 years and you have large culturally roman creole class all any ambitious young matabe man needs to do is put his dick in the right hole and make sure he remembers to put the declensions in the rights spot and he's gold if he plays his card right his grandson might become a roman senator in roma and from there who know>>> not start a decades long race war or go on an empire running hunger strike.

They colonised it, taxed it and build a road or two

>tfw no Becky

i know senpai would perfer one over a Stacy anytime of day

>ywn spend time with the sad virgin
>ywn develop a romantic relationship with her
>ywn make her happy

I dunno if a relationship is the right mechanism to try and change someone's outlook on life, user.

If you drag sad becky into a relationship she'll unwittingly springboard herself into a better place by using your relationship as a vent to get rid of her crazy. So you have to deal with all her crazy and she doesn't improve as a person because the moment you two aren't a thing she explodes on herself.

It takes a comitted circle of friends slowly pushing for people to adjust their behaviour.

Yeah, you're completely right - it's just an unrealistic fantasy of mine that I like to stroke every now and then.

I know that I've got something of a whiteknight complex. I oughtta work on it at some point.

all good, I didn't mean to be disparaging.

Just remember that help starts from within.

Actually depends on the place.

It's true that Rome did improve their provinces (mostly), but when Rome fell all that disappeared. Most of the reason we care so much about the Roman empire is the renaissance and because it's old.

On the other hand the British left behind industrialised and developed nations. Railroads, factories, schools/universities, medicine, human rights, political systems and all the infrastructure for a modern nation. People act like the british colonies are all shitholes, but they're all now more developed than europe was in the 18th century before colonisation.

Don't use "muh 56%" pol-tier logic to understate the success of north american colonies. USA is the most prosperous nation in the world and Canada is very well developed, more so than the UK.

>Britain fighting another great power for territorial possessions
"Eh". They were fighting 10,000 settlers the French king had abandoned any hope of safekeeping and which were lightly supplied and armed, and cut off from their government in all ways. It was more a fight against a lone colony than a full-blown war against France.not only that but they got their shit kicked in for the American Revolutionary War where they actually pulled their ressources together for a war abroad with Britain.

A more accurate example would be their use of pirates to weaken Spain's hold over the Carribeans.

>but when Rome fell all that disappeared.
The Frankish empire was built on the network of roman institutions and churches though. There's a reason the franks styled themselves roman emperors.
And so was the Byzantine and then Ottoman Empire.

>but they're all now more developed than europe was in the 18th century before colonisation.
Only the settler colonies. And in those, the native population like the aboriginese, boers and maori were very severely treated, and I doubt that the fancy roads and suburbs for british colonial overseers really mattered to them.

>USA is the most prosperous nation
so debt counts as a sign of wealth? this must be that common corps '2 plus 2=5' logic Ive heard about

Literally whenever anyone says USA is rich someone comes in with "muh $20 Trillion debt" without actually knowing what that means. They have a GDP per capita of $50k and have the highest total GDP. Pretty much every trade market is dominated by the USA and hence why the trade language is English.

>500,000 dead
>fought across the globe
>involved every major European power
>cemented Britain's role as the dominant colonial power
I'd hardly call it a minor conflict

But did I say that though? I only said it wasn't the greatest example of Britain fighting another great power for colonies head-on since it was a side-theatre in a much more wide-spanning war.

Hell, even the Indian theatre is a better example for this what with how Louis Xv tried to man the Indian french holdings at first, but never did so for New France.

Of course it was of huge importance. Not debating this.

Only if they posed a threat. War was expensive, politically as well as financially, there was also the risk of failure. For the Roman, aggression had to have a justification. Only the Anglo conducted intentional genocide against nonbelligerent populations (by orchestrating famines, the cowardly way).

Slavery was ubiquitous in the ancient world, the Romans didn't make much difference in this regard. The proportion of slaves in Italy during certain periods is an outlier and misleading and due to a sudden influx of displaced people after a war, people who would have otherwise been killed were instead sold into slavery. The vast majority of the population were always free commoners and the Romans generally allowed a proportion of these to obtain citizenship or find work in the cities, improving the lives of many.

The opposite was true of the Anglo whomst would seek to reduce previously proud peoples to mere agricultural laborers growing tea and opium for them.

Typical Anglo sophistry.

>Canada, New Zealand, Australia
They WERE Anglos.

>USA
They had to rebel to achieve their fortunes.

>Singapore
Their prosperity came after the Anglo left.

>Hong Kong
They achieved asian tiger prosperity, due to economic and geographical reasons, they would be wealthy in any case. The Anglo cowardly betrayed them to the dictatorial PRC instead of the democratic RoC. They were too afraid of the PRC. Thatcher had jelly legs after meeting with them.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZsHd7k7OOTs

Most of the major cities?

>Calls it Anglo sophistry
>Proceeds to spout pajeet-tier anti-'britishers' propaganda
It's not as if America would've been a failure if Britain retained control. It is the perfect opportunity to build a prosperous nation and who do we know is best at that? Britain the first industrialised nation would surely see it's most lucrative colony developed to the highest standards. Heck US colonists had higher standards of living than people in Britain.

So what if Canada, Australia and New Zealand are Anglo countries? Just shows how efficient the Anglo is.

Most of the modern world was built in the engines and factories of the Anglo.

Wow what a great post!