Greatest Empire ever

The British Empire is unironically the greatest empire ever. It lastes fairly long given the age in which it was born, slowly ousted it's rivals through economic and later naval power and for over a century dominated the world. Other empires have not come close to the kind of global domination enjoyed by the Brits. There hasn't been another global hegemon who truly ruled the world (not just the 'known world'). Throughout the empire period so many scientific advancements occured that no other period in history except perhaps the 20th century compares in how much technology advanced. Also "but they killed natives" is not an argument as it only shows Britain's technological ingenuity. All major powers were BTFO'd by Britain such as France in the seven years and Napoleonic wars, Russia in the Crimean war and great game, Germany in WW1 and pretty much all the rest in the scramble for Africa given that Britain got the largest and most lucrative colonies. This isn't even a bait post, I can't think of an intelligent reason that any other empire was greater. Inb4 "b-but muh roman empire lasted 6 gorillion years" or "haha londonistan"

Other urls found in this thread:

people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Your whole rambling boils down to:
>British empire was hegemonic for 150 years or so.

If it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking German though.

It's really a matter of difficulty. The borders of Germany, France or Spain were formed by waging brutal wars against other advanced Europeans or Middle Easterners, while Britain was playing on easy mode and acquiring territory through blowing up bone-in-nose, 75 IQ, stone age primitives with 36 pounder naval cannons.

Also the period of Pax Britannica was unlike any other period of peace enjoyed by the globe for thousands of years. With a navy larger than all the navies of the world combined at it's height Britain had no rivals even against a union of other great powers. The size of the navy allowed for easy naval blockade of countries that would crash their economy and starve them, basically a superweapon. Also probably going to get comments like "hur dur wasn't an empire as everyone ran themselves", this is just a meme as the British collected resources from all it's colonial territories and conscripted their people into the navy. Even if you for some braindead reason argue that, the Royal navy stilled undoubtedly ruled the Oceans of the world literally making it rule the waves. Face it romefags, your empire is nostalgia in comparison

That's the tl;dr of it yeah. Point being there had been no other hegemonic power.

Also "they had it easy" isn't an argument, otherwise it's like saying Russia would've ruled the world if they had been an island. 'Woulda coulda and shoulda" doesn't change what was

I didn't use a woulda coulda shoulda argument. I said Britain acquired their empire by fighting literal 3rd world niggers which is why other people don't take it that seriously.

>Inb4 "b-but muh roman empire lasted 6 gorillion years"
Yeah that also doesn't change the fact that it still fairly superior compared to the British "empire".

Every empire fought their equivalent of third world niggers. Who do you think rome fought in most of celtic europe? Disorganised naked tribespeople with sharp sticks. Gauls literally shat themselves when they saw Roman siege engines. Mongols invaded huge swathes of empty nomadic land. Spain invaded aztec and incan niggers which literally saw conquistadors as gods. Only notable exception is Alexander the great who took over the Persian empire.

t. lindybeige

>how many layers of jpg are you on right now?
>dunno, like maybe 10 or 11, my dude

Rome ran it's colonies similarly with vassal provinces that were mostly self governing under some roman governor who swore loyalty to the empire. Just like how Mughal princes swore loyalty to the Crown, but mostly self governed. I know what you're implying by "empire" and it's not an intellectual argument.

>Mongols invaded huge swathes of empty nomadic land
>China, Persia, Mesopotamia
>huge swathes of empty nomadic land
Don't be a denial.

>deliberately omitting chunks of Russia and the steppe
Nice try pal, but Britain invaded the Indian subcontinent

Mongols conquered Persia and China, who the fuck did Britain conquer? Bare-assed niggers with spears, and still managed to lose a battle or two to them.

If an empire controlled the whole world, would it evolve to be so decentralized that it would be viewed like the UN while its kingdoms would be viewed as countries?
Also shit thread

See Also Britain conquered most of the French occupied colonies in North America after the Seven years war

>India after 16th century
A joke.

Britain also conquered China, see opium wars and boxer rebellion.

China in 19th century =/= China in 13th century. Apples and oranges really.

Name another power that hasn't been successfully (if at all) invaded in a thousand years. Even Rome was sacked (twice) be Celts.

>over 6 centuries they went backwards

Russia.
>inb4 Mongol invasion
That wasn't Russia, just a bunch of independent principalities.

During boxer rebellion and opium wars they were fighting with sticks and spears, during Mongol invasion China was one of the most advanced powers in the world.

Angloism transcended nation statism Unga-bunga. Its the greatest collective military and intelligence force on the planet. The power gap that exists between second place is insane.

England was successfully invaded by the Normans.

Seconded.

If it weren't for us,the empire would've been larger and might've lasted

Angloism contains colonialism which is complete cuckery.

Bait

...

The British Empire was trash when you realise that it was basically a glorified company with no transcendental idea that wasn't at the service of capital returns. 1688 was a mistake

They objectively did, although it was from the last Ming rather than the late Song that they started backpedalling heavily. However the problem with your argument is you're equating a conceded city and some trade treaties with a nearly two century long occupation.

>devote significant amount of money to building schools and hospitals for niggers while English children slave away in coal mines and sweatshops and people in London drop dead from cholera
>the only people who actually benefit are the Rothschilds and other Jews like Alfred Beit using their soy goy puppet Cecil Rhodes because of diamonds
>a few decades later let all the colonies go without fighting them and actually IMPORT the shitskin colonials to your own country because the Jews said you should feel guilty over something they did
Colonialism was the most cucked thing that ever happened to Britian.

>Roman empire
>Italian flag
top kek

This.

Literally any nation could have dominated 1/4 of the world's landmass, had complete mastery of the the seas, and controlled global trade.

Just because only Britain did it, doesn't mean that other nations weren't good enough, they just didn't want to.

Brit had a hand in collapsing every single one of these and EU doesn't hold a torch to combined anglosphere economically or militarily, in fact ur Anglo cuck. BTFO

>anglosphere
>bongs still think they matter when they're nothing but a cocksleeve for big daddy US of A
Lmao

I'm anti.imperial but you are completely retarded. Congrats

>they just didn't want to
You will probably get spammed by (You)s from Anglos but it's the truth, Germans for example were heavily biased against colonization because they saw no benefit in that shit. Sure you could harvest some raw material like diamonds and rubber but it's not worth mantaining an entire colonial empire over it. The prospect of going to war with another power over some dusty shithole with some rocks in the ground doesn't sound like a good strategy either.
And the "European wealth was built on colonialism" meme is nonsense peddled by white-guilt ridden leftists and not actually based in reality, Paul Bairoch debunked it in his book "Myths and Paradoxes". There's a good argument that Britain would've actually been wealthier if they never colonized those shitholes.

>anglosphere
The only Anglosphere country that's relevant is the USA and they're barely even Anglo.

>thinks nation statism is endgame

This is why you're a sub species.

>ur a retard instead of arguing your position
Go back to /int/

...

Canada, New Zealand and Australia could evaporate tomorrow and the world wouldn't even notice. Britain itself is a second rate country on par with Italy and Brazil at this point of history, and most of the world views them as a toothless American puppet.

>Canada, New Zealand and Australia could evaporate tomorrow
One can only hope

Bahaha oh lord

>Germans for example were heavily biased against colonization because they saw no benefit in that shit
Germany missed the boat, they didn't unify until 1871, and had no naval power to speak of. It wasn;t a concious choice they made, it was simply their circumstances.

That's why they ended up with so little in Africa, and virtually nothing elsewhere, despite their desire for more.

You have to admit that their delusion of relevance is first rate though

Its the worlds hegemonic power. Look at the GDP, natural resources, geopolitical dominance. USA is a big big big dog on a leash projecting interests to a global paradigm. English is name of the language of the world. This paradigm IS Anglo. You don't know shit. The world will dissapear first tomorrow before us.

They were good, and are largely responsible for the benefits we have today.

All the butthurt at them really just proves that it was a successful empire.

If they really were weak and did nothing worthwhile there would be no need to talk shit on them all the time

>Literally any nation could have dominated 1/4 of the world's landmass, had complete mastery of the the seas, and controlled global trade.
Then why the fuck didn't they?
What you and dumb fools like don't understand is that Britain wasn't only fighting some primitive natives, all of this was won through competition, economic and military, with the other world powers. France, Netherlands, Spain, they wanted India, Africa, China, they wanted all the same things, and they tried, but they were defeated.

Stay jealous.

>You will probably get spammed by (You)s from Anglos but it's the truth, Germans for example were heavily biased against colonization because they saw no benefit in that shit. Sure you could harvest some raw material like diamonds and rubber but it's not worth mantaining an entire colonial empire over it. The prospect of going to war with another power over some dusty shithole with some rocks in the ground doesn't sound like a good strategy either.
Hahaha what the fuck is this.

The Germans started two world wars over their eternal butthurt from not having an empire. They wanted their place in the sun, their own words.

The US is more German than Anglo.
t. American

I was employing hyperbole for comedic effect.

Perhaps I was too subtle.

>they coulda but didn't wanna
Fuck off faggot this is a history discussion not a fantasy. If it's so easy were other countries just too retarded to be the preeminent power?

>4th most powerful country and 5th largest economy doesn't matter
Ok retard

>if the 10th and 13th largest economies along with 70 million people disappeared, no one will notice
Where do you draw the line faggot. This is not an argument against a """historic""" empire

>having
Anglos a combination of all the best from Rome France and (nth) German. But what the fuck is hereditary genetics when you're a continental brainlet left behind to evaporate each other for 1500 years straight?

>boasting about American power while not being even American
>getting buttblasted about America and "colonial brainlets" when you get corrected
You irrelevant countrylets are literally just piggybacking us.

In broad terms America is fundamentally more Anglo than German.

It's language, law, and general intellectual leaning has always been more English/British than continental.

Not to mention your political elite was and is in large part still Anglo, e.g. most Presidents have been of British extraction.

Why are you talking about the USA? They are literally irrelevant to this discussion as they left before the empire peaked. They haven't even had an empire.

Woo lad nationalism meme

w-w-We didn't even want an empire anyway

When America was almost completely Anglo (before the 1840s), it was an irrelevant colonial backwater in the same category as modern Canada and Australia. The influx of German blood into American gene pool made America great and turned the country into an eventual global hegemon.

Whats to say it wasn't all the Irish immigration?

>

Yeah. Left Germany. Joined anglosphere.

Meant to tagInstead of

New Zealand is objectively more Anglo than America, why isn't New Zealand more significant than America then? Your theory is hogwash.

go back to /int/, retard

this thread is so useless

>tag
Go back to Facebook you normalfag trash

Wow epic insult D D DD:

New Zealand is one of 5 partners who each sit 1 per seat at the table. How buttblasted are you????

Fuck off fag or contribute something useful

New Zealand is the drooling retard kid eating crumbs from under the table adults are sitting at.

>This thread

Was Pol Pot on to something?

They conquered India, they made China accept their demands. Different things.

Don't you mean when the Jews started handling matters in the US?

>Anglos
>Jews
What exactly is the difference? They always acted in unison.

This is why Anglos gained hegemonic status. Britain had the highest Jewish population in 19th century W Europe, which meant that Britain was able to work with the Jews and get powerful.

Meanwhile Germany had the highest Jewish population in 19th century W Europe, which meant that Germany was dragged down by the Jews.

people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

i reported it

For what?

During the opium wars large areas of land were captured by the british and China was effectively dominated by Britain afterwards. To see how dire the situation was in 1842 Britain was days away from seiging Nanking which would result in forced Chinese surrender and all of China submitting

China knew they were effectively conquered
Http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War

>We didn't want to waste time and ressources to maintain colonies who are 10 times the size of our colony for ressources we could have gotten through trade
Seems like a fair argument

The size of our country*

I see your point, China was too large to handle like India, too.

You're fucking retarded the Germans were quoted as saying they wanted their time in the sun as the reason for ww1

the place in the sun quote is from a speech of chancellor von Bülow, justifying having colonies at all. It was heavily ridiculed afterwards, e.g. by "Kiautschau is pretty hot already, hot enough to melt millions (of cash) like butter."

By this logic there would be no roman empire as Rome was a small city state that took over land more than 10 times it's size and made wealth through trade before. Colonies didn't mean no trade. After Britain lost USA it still traded with them and Britain collected a lot of expensive resources from the colonies. They didn't just invade for the sake of it.

>Colonies didn't mean no trade.
At what point did I even imply that? I said that the colonies ressources could be acquired through trade and that without the hassle and the expenses of managing a colony. Also over expansion was one of the reasons the Roman Empire fell

>Fairly long.
>200 or so years
Steppenigger dynasties lasted longer than that.

You're right, thanks USSR bro

>overtaken by its own fucking colony
Lamo

Holy fuck the people replying to you are fucking retarded.

More bong "we wuz kangs and sheeit".

>Bongs honestly thing the US is anglo
The only reason the US got any sort of relevance was AFTER germans became the ethnic majority. face it bong, germans are just better.

The bong navy couldn't even defend itself against determined attack in the 20th Century, let alone exercise this faux superweapon status you've fantasized. The Germans cucked them on their front porch, and the Japanese cucked them in Asia, and this was after the Americans forced them out of North America and the Caribbean in the 19th Century, intimidating them out of armed patrols by their supposed superweapon, which was in actuality a waste of money and ultimately unable to even provide home defense, let alone influence world affairs in any meaningful way.

>british navy
>unable to even provide home defense, let alone influence world affairs in any meaningful way.

>what is the kievan rus

>19th century
>royal navy being intimidated by irrelevant upstart country
Germany got dominated by the royal navy in WW1. Within a year most of their dreadnoughts were systematically hunted down and Germany blockaded. Germany didn't stand a chance at sea. Also the royal navy greatly influenced global affairs such as trade relations and battleship diplomacy with stubborn nations like China and Japan. Continentalfags need to realise you can't swim an army across an ocean and that the navy dominates.

And what did steppeniggers accomplish in that period of time that is nearly as old as the USA.

t. Disgruntled colonial who hates being cucked by a superior power

That's why Germany won WW1. Thus is irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that Germany made the USA is a poor conspiracy theory. Britain laid the foundations for it's law, language and economics. Why do they not speak German? Why did they side with Britain in the world wars? If they had such a German majority as you claim then the language would've changed and they would've sided with Germany. Most Americans who claim they are of "American" descent have ancestry in the British isles. Next time instead of we wuzzing about the accomplishments of others look to your own. Germany and Britain have contributed so much to the sciences and technology without claiming the successes of Americans.

not that guy but
>Why did they side with Britain in the world wars?
Err...to ensure Britain would pay back the insane credits which would only work if they won. Also to make their rich richer.

You posted the wrong pic mate.