What was History's Greatest Empire?

[Oaledonia]

They certainly came along way to humiliating the "best navy on earth" by having infinitely better preforming ships.
Had the Japanese not incurred the wrath of America, Britain stood little chance to reclaim it's Asian holdings from the clutches of the IJN.

I think you responded to the wrong post.

I'm not.
They've come a long way from being at odds with both mongol invasions to over-matching the Royal Navy in every aspect.

[Conscentia]

I think you responded to the wrong post.

I'm not.
They've come a long way from being at odds with both mongol invasions to over-matching the Royal Navy in every aspect.

Your response seems to have nothing to do with discussion my post was a part of.

[United Totalitarian States of America]

The Nazi Empire, which lasted from 1933-1945. Sieg heil!

Just kidding.

[Themiclesia]

Well then, terminology may be different where I am from. My teachers in Canada characterize the USA as a confederacy, from the states' point of view, because cum + foederatus = "to federate with" i.e. the state is entering into a federation with other states, and thus "federates with", leading to cum + foederatus.

Doesn't that mean virtually every federation is a confederacy, since in every federation the states are "federating with" other states?

I suppose it just depends on your point of view. It looks different depending on where you look at.

We were taught that on the model of the Confederation of Canada (brought by the BNA Act, 1867, which postdates the US constitution), the USA is alike and is a confederation.

[The New Lowlands]

Doesn't that mean virtually every federation is a confederacy, since in every federation the states are "federating with" other states?

I suppose it just depends on your point of view. It looks different depending on where you look at.

We were taught that on the model of the Confederation of Canada (brought by the BNA Act, 1867, which postdates the US constitution), the USA is alike and is a confederation.

You were taught wrong, but only in the use of one word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation

"A federation (from Latin: foedus, gen.: foederis, "covenant"), also known as a federal state, is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions under a central (federal) government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, are typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of either party, the states or the federal political body."

[Themiclesia]

I will admit my error when I err, thank you. The use of the English language has evolved far from its state in the 1700s. The form of government of the USA represents a typical confederacy with regard to the relationship between states and the federal government.

No it doesn't. The EU is a typical confederacy. The USA has been a model federation since the ratification of the constitution. It's the world oldest continuous federation. The CIA world factbook describes the USA thusly: "Government type: Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition ".

The CIA can say what it likes, and so can I. To the rest of the inflammatory remark I shall not respond.

[Conscentia]

No it doesn't. The EU is a typical confederacy. The USA has been a model federation since the ratification of the constitution. It's the world oldest continuous federation. The CIA world factbook describes the USA thusly: "Government type: Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition ".

The CIA can say what it likes, and so can I. To the rest of the inflammatory remark I shall not respond.

Inflammatory remark?

[Oaledonia]

I'm not.
They've come a long way from being at odds with both mongol invasions to over-matching the Royal Navy in every aspect.

Your response seems to have nothing to do with discussion my post was a part of.

It seems like I have to pull teeth with you for some reason:
You mentioned that the Mongols would've won an invasion, I've said they've come a long way since then. I can't comprehend why you can't grasp something so simple.

[Themiclesia]

I suppose it just depends on your point of view. It looks different depending on where you look at.

We were taught that on the model of the Confederation of Canada (brought by the BNA Act, 1867, which postdates the US constitution), the USA is alike and is a confederation.

You were taught wrong, but only in the use of one word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation

"A federation (from Latin: foedus, gen.: foederis, "covenant"), also known as a federal state, is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions under a central (federal) government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, are typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of either party, the states or the federal political body."

Really? I stand corrected, if only to accept the popular sense of the word.

[Themiclesia]

Your response seems to have nothing to do with discussion my post was a part of.

It seems like I have to pull teeth with you for some reason:
You mentioned that the Mongols would've won an invasion, I've said they've come a long way since then. I can't comprehend why you can't grasp something so simple.

Oale, he never agrees with another position.

[Conscentia]

Your response seems to have nothing to do with discussion my post was a part of.

It seems like I have to pull teeth with you for some reason:
You mentioned that the Mongols would've won an invasion, I've said they've come a long way since then. I can't comprehend why you can't grasp something so simple.

I did grasp what you said. But what you said was completely irrelevant to the discussion my post was a part of.

[Conscentia]

It seems like I have to pull teeth with you for some reason:
You mentioned that the Mongols would've won an invasion, I've said they've come a long way since then. I can't comprehend why you can't grasp something so simple.

Oale, he never agrees with another position.

You don't even know me.

[Themiclesia]

Oale, he never agrees with another position.

You don't even know me.

Perhaps.

[Oaledonia]

It seems like I have to pull teeth with you for some reason:
You mentioned that the Mongols would've won an invasion, I've said they've come a long way since then. I can't comprehend why you can't grasp something so simple.

I did grasp what you said. But what you said was completely irrelevant to the discussion my post was a part of.

I was responding directly to something you said.

[Arumdaum]

It seems like I have to pull teeth with you for some reason:
You mentioned that the Mongols would've won an invasion, I've said they've come a long way since then. I can't comprehend why you can't grasp something so simple.

Oale, he never agrees with another position.

Says the one complaining about inflammatory remarks. ;(

[The New Lowlands]

I did grasp what you said. But what you said was completely irrelevant to the discussion my post was a part of.

I was responding directly to something you said.

TBH Oale your response was tangential at best, going from "A storm wrecked the mongol navy" to "IJN was stronk tho."

[Themiclesia]

Oale, he never agrees with another position.

Says the one complaining about inflammatory remarks. ;(

Yes, I do.

[Conscentia]

I did grasp what you said. But what you said was completely irrelevant to the discussion my post was a part of.

I was responding directly to something you said.

Except you didn't respond. You just quoted.
You neither said that you agreed with me, nor contradicted me. You just added some uncalled for information about how Japan later got itself a strong navy centuries later.
Your post was irrelevant to both the context and content of my post, and would have made more sense as a standalone post.

[Arumdaum]

I was responding directly to something you said.

Except you didn't respond. You just quoted.
You neither said that you agreed with me, nor contradicted me. You just added some uncalled for information about how Japan later got itself a strong navy centuries later.
Your post was irrelevant to both the context and content of my post, and would have made more sense as a standalone post.

this is a useless argument let's just stop

???

[Alyakia]

in my completely unbiased opinion: it was us

[Arumdaum]

in my completely unbiased opinion: it was us

scottish empire

???

[Oaledonia]

Except you didn't respond. You just quoted.
You neither said that you agreed with me, nor contradicted me. You just added some uncalled for information about how Japan later got itself a strong navy centuries later.
Your post was irrelevant to both the context and content of my post, and would have made more sense as a standalone post.

this is a useless argument let's just stop

???

This is an argument?

I was responding directly to something you said.

TBH Oale your response was tangential at best, going from "A storm wrecked the mongol navy" to "IJN was stronk tho."

omg help im being oppressed.

[Arumdaum]

this is a useless argument let's just stop

???

This is an argument?

yes, it is ;o

[Conscentia]

TBH Oale your response was tangential at best, going from "A storm wrecked the mongol navy" to "IJN was stronk tho."

omg help im being oppressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKIWjnEPNY

[Monkeykind]

in my completely unbiased opinion: it was us

scottish empire

???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Empire