the BBEG is the British Empire

>Never conquered anything of note,

Their military and economic policies were the single most dominating force in determining global trade policies for at least a century, and up until the 1940's they were still one of the largest players in the game.

I don't like them either, user, but they did quite a bit, user.

Also

>Rwanda
>Civilized

You do know that British codification and cementation of social class on ethnic groups is what directly caused the Rwandan Genocide, right?

>not in the picture: The negro on whose neck he's standing in order to keep his face pressed in the rotting corpse of an American

I start singing "Rule Britannia" at the top of my lungs.

>Never conquered anything of note

India. They conquered India. Place was rich, productive and had a subcontinent-spanning banking system that was flushing money around 24/7.
It kept them afloat through two world wars.

This. It took over a century and two world wars before the Empire dissolved

There is absolutely nothing wrong with genociding undesirables in your country

WTF i hate America now

Britain never ruled Rwanda, it was first German, then Belgian

...and a lot of civil wars all over the Empire and the loss of India's resources and an attempted transfer of the imperial functions within their territories to internationalist factions in the USA.

Like, as a group, or is there some single entity that is somehow an embodiment of the entire empire?

Oh? Fine, this is my character.

>Never conquered anything of note,
India,
Suez,
Malaya

Here is your nemesis.

I suppose I should of said "anything with a military of note" that's my bad I'll admit.

>muh goalposts

The French Empire was better

Hate to say it but that'd be an easy win for America. The USS Iowa significantly out-classed the HMS Warspite in every regard...

It's a bit embarrassing, but I think the reason Britannia still ruled the waves until WW2 was that since the Napoleonic War, it had never really been properly tested.

>What is the blockade of Germany in WWI?

>Rwanda
>British

Come on, user

>make economically sound decisions
>never get tied up with messy European land shit after the 100 Years War
>Unless the continent needs a regime adjustment

You have something of a point but then you must consider the success and longevity of the Empires that tried otherwise.

Blockades are all well and good, but after the Battle of Jutland, where we lost more ships than the Germans, there were no major engagements left that the Royal Navy took part in.

I mean sure, the sinking of the Bismark in WW2 was impressive, but it was one ship against an entire strike force! We never really had a Midway or any the like, the way the Americans and Japanese did. Most of our dust-ups with the Kaiserliche Marine or Kriegsmarine were in convoy escorts.

Everyone's always looking for an empire to be Rome, but the thing is, that really doesn't work at any other time than when Rome rose.

Loss of ships is irrelevant to the strategic victory won by maintaining the blockade that ruined that nation.

WWII contained no such German engagements because the entirety of German naval strategy was to avoid the decisive action that the Royal Navy favoured.

The United States is in its ascendancy at the time, fighting the largest naval campaign ever against an enemy that very much wanted to take part in conventional surface battles. It is the dominant state at the time and facing a foe all too eager to let them prove it.

I introduce a disease that can be prevented by good hygiene.
Problem solved.

Fixed that map for you lad.

You know funnily enough Sweden is one of the only countries on the planet we haven't invited.

Yet.

Sweden and Argentina make some sense, but what's wrong with all twelve people and their 100 sheep in Northern New Zealand?

>and if you're taking Madagascar, you might as well keep the Comoros Islands as well, more naval bases to interdict those waters is always helpful. Not like there's hardly any people there either, you can always repopulate with good Brits.

Ahhh yes, I too recall how such diseases that were rampant across the world, swept in and destroyed the squalid British population! Oh how the people cried out for famous doctors and renowned institutions to save them and introduce ground-breaking reforms and civil works that ushered in the modern age of medicine! But alas, none appeared and so all of Britain and its mighty empire was laid low in an almost Wellsian stroke!

Twit.

True. But regardless of the British victory at Jutland, it was more the caution of the German navy that kept them bottled up in port for the rest of the war. Given how things swung at Jutland, we may well have still carried the day in another engagement, but we were hardly unquestionably dominant, as the world assumed we were.

I would never discount the Royal Navy as a paper tiger; far from it! The Royal Navy was feared for a damn good reason! But I think that as the first half of the twentieth century rolled around, we may have been just a the smallest bit over-hyped compared to our actual abilities.

A bluff you're never called on is as good as a royal flush.

Why would we want Sweden anyway? Doesn't London have enough Muslims?

>India
>Not of military note
Nigga.
They lost the first few wars against them.
They only got the place because of trade deals.

Britbong takes massive bait, uses edgy "intellectual" speak, and showcases the retardation native to his lands in the process!
More news at 11 folks

oh god i remember this.
still hilarious, 30 years later

I have to frame that map and put it up on our geography wall. Awesome.