[en]Where from?

[Ben Nevis]

Sorry, but the British Empire did not have its backbone in Africa. Of course England ruled over South-Africa, but this was mainly because of it's strategic location before the Suez-canal was dug. The British also ruled the middle-East, but the British cashcow was definately India. Although several researchers argue that none of the colonies have brought any prosperity and only cost money, I don't agree with this. I think Brittain definately prospered after having colonized India as well as the Dutch with current Indonesia. It is true, though, that a lot of colonies only cost money, such as the US and Australia for Brittain and Suriname for the Netherlands. But of course all of this is in a different time frame than KoH. Hector, I just think you don't entirely realize how the British dominated the world after the 18th century.

[Ben Nevis]

I guess that Hector thinks of "great empires" as outstanding countries which are culturally beyond their time. Like Rome, Egypt and Greece (let's just call it a country for the duration of this post).

I agree with you that during the BE the British did not stand out of the crowd concerning technological development (not taken into account the industrial revolution), cause what is it that made countries stand out culturally beyond their time? I think this is for a large part attributable to technological development, such as parchment, the wheel, being able to extract metals and make tools and weapons out of it, etc. I don't think this really has anything to do with culture. Of course related to cultural development is the development of art, but this is not the reason why the empires were "great". Art is mainly a result of increased productivity resulting from technological development. People had more spare time and/or a Maecenas all as a result of this increased productivity. Besides I think the Greek were based on the Arts far greater than the Romans, but still most people consider the Roman empire to be "greater". Thus I don't consider this "Cultural Greatness" very viable.

[Hector]

Originally posted by Ben Nevis
Sorry, but the British Empire did not have its backbone in Africa. Of course England ruled over South-Africa, but this was mainly because of it's strategic location before the Suez-canal was dug. The British also ruled the middle-East, but the British cashcow was definately India. Although several researchers argue that none of the colonies have brought any prosperity and only cost money, I don't agree with this. I think Brittain definately prospered after having colonized India as well as the Dutch with current Indonesia. It is true, though, that a lot of colonies only cost money, such as the US and Australia for Brittain and Suriname for the Netherlands. But of course all of this is in a different time frame than KoH. Hector, I just think you don't entirely realize how the British dominated the world after the 18th century.

I know that the british ruled 1/3 of the world but they almost never brought their way of life buildings art etc. with them but if you look at the roman empire you can still see great buildings.

[Ben Nevis]

The roman empire is the single empire that copied literally everything. Buildings, art, the Gods, the myths. Trust me, all (or almost all) that you consider "Roman culture" is copied. Again, the RE was big in size but nothing compared to the BE. On the other hand, the Greek were much "bigger" in culture. Thus no matter what way you consider the Roman empire "the greatest empire" I don't agree with you.

[Elewyn]

it was not the biggest by area, nor by culture (actually, Greeks were on higher cultural level), but it's impact was much larger than any other empire did.
1) There was no such empire lasting 1000 years (you can divide it into some eras, of course, but at least, since conquest of Greece, Italy, Iberian peninsula and most of northern Africa - until 150 BC - untill the fall of Rome it was over 600 yrs, then byzantine empire, as ancestor, another 1000. Rome from the beggining to 476 ove 1000 yrs.
2) cultural impact in Europe. Yes, Romans were not the highest culturally, but they "broughto culture to: nowadays Germany, France, Spain, Danubian area, Illyria...
3) last but not least: government and law. Untill today Roman law is the core of every law-sturies! Romans had neither the best warriors and commanders (it was Hannibal and Alexander the Great), but the biggest statesman: Augustus. Their system of government of such empire which was effective (with many bugs, but it stood alive over 500 yrs, like no other empire) for so long time.

They probably were the biggest empire ever. The only possible concurent may be China. Poor British empire. What did they give to their colonies? they built thre very few palaces for their governors, but local people stayed poor in the same conditions. In roman Europe living conditions of provincials increased unimaginably, and I mean provincials, not roman colonists!
And the duration of British empire? pah
Yes, the world had changed a lot and what was possible to last ages now survives few years... but they had much poorer technology than we have...

Yes, they copied many things. But what the British "gave to their provinces"? what British? The rail, romans built roads. Schools? what was taught there? English philosophy, law? no. French literature, roman law...
every british impact is comparable in time with roman and finally you'll see who was greater.
Every culture copies, maybe only Chinese never did. Never until now.

[Ben Nevis]

1) There was no such empire lasting 1000 years (you can divide it into some eras, of course, but at least, since conquest of Greece, Italy, Iberian peninsula and most of northern Africa - until 150 BC - untill the fall of Rome it was over 600 yrs, then byzantine empire, as ancestor, another 1000. Rome from the beggining to 476 ove 1000 yrs.

Can we say that the German "Empire" has lasted 1000 years then? From the Holy Roman Empire untill the Second world war. Of course not, and obviously this analogy is not entirely correct, but it is true that there hasn't been a constant Roman Empire for over 100 (or maybe even 50) years. Thus it's doubtful to say that the sheir length of the empire's duration makes it the greatest.

2) cultural impact in Europe. Yes, Romans were not the highest culturally, but they "broughto culture to: nowadays Germany, France, Spain, Danubian area, Illyria...

Obviously we wouldn't have needed the Roman Empire to spread their culture if they hadn't oppressed the Greeks. The Greeks had ambitions to spread their culture, thus I have no doubt that they would have reached Northern Europe. And again Roman culture is mainly Greek (amongst others), thus whatever they spread, they are only the messenger's and not the source.


3) last but not least: government and law. Untill today Roman law is the core of every law-sturies! Romans had neither the best warriors and commanders (it was Hannibal and Alexander the Great), but the biggest statesman: Augustus. Their system of government of such empire which was effective (with many bugs, but it stood alive over 500 yrs, like no other empire) for so long time.

Too a large extend based on Greek's Political system and laws. The trias politica were not invented by the Romans.

[Hector]

Egypt lasted longer then 1000 years

romans were the first one to have mp ( senators ).

[Elewyn]

Originally posted by Ben Nevis
Can we say that the German "Empire" has lasted 1000 years then? From the Holy Roman Empire untill the Second world war. Of course not, and obviously this analogy is not entirely correct, but it is true that there hasn't been a constant Roman Empire for over 100 (or maybe even 50) years. Thus it's doubtful to say that the sheir length of the empire's duration makes it the greatest. HRE lasted very long. thet'S true. I didn't mean it that only duration makes it the greatest, but all those aspects.
Obviously we wouldn't have needed the Roman Empire to spread their culture if they hadn't oppressed the Greeks. The Greeks had ambitions to spread their culture, thus I have no doubt that they would have reached Northern Europe. And again Roman culture is mainly Greek (amongst others), thus whatever they spread, they are only the messenger's and not the source. Greeks might have ambitions, but they had no power to do so. They were to splited into smaller states, also after Alexandre's time... they were culturally high, but politically weak (how then yweak Rome was able to make powerfull Egypt it's vassal?)
And don't forget Romans invented many things. They were not only the messanger (English were not more). They coppied religions, but they transformed many things. F.e. christianity would be local Palestinian secte of judaism if there was no Roman empire. they copied. I'm not saing they didn't. But show me culture which invented everything by itself. British empire? German empire? no. Only China.

Too a large extend based on Greek's Political system and laws. The trias politica were not invented by the Romans. I ddin't say policy. I said government. In provinces. They also extended and developed greek system, but they made it possible to wwork for much larger empire. See institutions of nowadays states. Senate, parliaments, courts.

Btw, every culture copies those which were before. Greeks copied epos from mesopitamians, romans copied whole greek culture. Shakespeare, what a famous dramatic. It was only developed greek drama. French and russian novells, developed older literature. Building styles? Greeks coppied from Egyptians many things, they didn't invented even a half of that famous greek architecture, copied by romans. and then by renaissance... clasicism...

[Ledhead]

Originally posted by Ben Nevis
The roman empire is the single empire that copied literally everything. Buildings, art, the Gods, the myths. Trust me, all (or almost all) that you consider "Roman culture" is copied. Again, the RE was big in size but nothing compared to the BE. On the other hand, the Greek were much "bigger" in culture. Thus no matter what way you consider the Roman empire "the greatest empire" I don't agree with you.

The Romans invented the building technique of the arch.
They perfected the art of war.

Seriously, I agree with you.
but look at it this way:
The Greeks "invented" their culture, and the Romans spread it to the rest of Europe.
Without the Romans ability to conquer the Greek (which they got from the Middle East anyway!) wouldn't have made such an inpact over Europe today. It was thanks to the Romans, and the Byzantines who preserved it, and the Arabs who evolved it.
But the Romans deserve the most gratitude!!!

[Ledhead]

Not a real Empire maybe, but I think that Sweden in the 17th century was the country that made the most of it resources and revolutionized military tactics (Gustav II Adolf, also known as Gustavous the Great on the continent!).
Sweden was very large, very poor and had a small population but almost all Europe was afraid of Sweden and France and England had high respect for the Swedish army.
A great achievement for a poor country in that time!

[Hector]

Originally posted by Ledhead
Not a real Empire maybe, but I think that Sweden in the 17th century was the country that made the most of it resources and revolutionized military tactics (Gustav II Adolf, also known as Gustavous the Great on the continent!).
Sweden was very large, very poor and had a small population but almost all Europe was afraid of Sweden and France and England had high respect for the Swedish army.
A great achievement for a poor country in that time!

keke you are Swedish:bday: am i right?

[Ledhead]

Originally posted by Hector
Greenland or Scandinavian?

Ehh...like I said in my post: Sweden!
That's Scandinavia.
Iceland has the hot springs.

[Hector]

Originally posted by Ledhead
Ehh...like I said in my post: Sweden!
That's Scandinavia.
Iceland has the hot springs.


:blush: didnt see it:p

[Sir Turylon]

<--- geuss.

1000 year old empires?

How about.. Persia. India. China. mmmm... I'd say Egypt too.. (upper, lower, combined.... well over 1000 years old).

Empires shouldn't be defined by their rulers... If you included monocratic. IE, father begats son, son takes over... you could include ^^^ above mentioned ones. :)

[Ben Nevis]

Not a real Empire maybe, but I think that Sweden in the 17th century was the country that made the most of it resources and revolutionized military tactics (Gustav II Adolf, also known as Gustavous the Great on the continent!).
To my knowledge the 17th century was the golden century for the Dutch, to my knowledge the Vikings had their share a long time before that

[Kuno of Gersenau]

This tread comes back from the death, because a new one was opened in the Q&S...

[Hector]

the army of dead :p

[Arjenvs]

Nice nice nice to see my thread still used....;)

[Kyivan Power]

Chernevtsy - Ukraine. the little city below Lviv lol

I dont care wat all u say ... Greeks are ****, Romans are garbage, Egypt is blah, Persia is a *****, Mongolia is junk too. HAha was Mongolia even mentioned ? Newayz, nothing even compairs to The Macedonians or atleast Phillips II and Alexander the Great's Macedonia. If Alexander didnt die, and was some how able to live untill Rome rose up he would have defeated them too. ALL THE WORLD would be his :)

Again i dont care wat u say ... so dont waist u;er time writing a noval, just agree or disagree.

[Finellach]

:rofl: Please don't drink so much coffee in the future.... :D