Your Favorite Empire

[The Archregimancy]

Which one are we talking about? Ptolemaic or one of the others?

<sigh>

Pedantry isn't what it used to be.

It's by no means incorrect to speak collectively of 'Ancient Egypt' in much the way that we talk collectively about a 'Chinese Empire'. Certainly there were multiple dynasties - some of them foreign (like the Qing and Ptolemys; curious coincidence that the final dynasties of both were interlopers) - periods when they were subsumed within larger Empires (Persian and Mongol), and certainly there were periods of disunity. But those periods of disunity were considered by the residents of both to be a regrettable temporary state that ran very much against the desired outcome of a united nation (recognising that I'm using the latter term imperfectly and anachronistically).

[-Imperial Japan]

During WW2 they had a great shot!!
If they got Australia then they would have ruled the world!!

Not really. They would've been overstretched in the Pacific and the losses at Midway meant that any occupying army in Australia (likely to take heavy casualties as Australian Paramilitary units attacked from the outback) would've been at risk from a counter attack launched from New Zealand.

Sorry, I explained it wrong, but they did have a really good shot if certain circumstances went their way, ie, Pearl Harbour, Midway & Coral Sea.

[North Suran]

Which one are we talking about? Ptolemaic or one of the others?

Pedantry isn't what it used to be.

I wouldn't say its pedantic to ask which ancient Egyptian empire he was specifically referring to - especially considering Ancient Egypt is a civilization, rather than an empire. It would be akin to someone asking me what my favourite empire was, only for me to respond, "China". China what, precisely? The Yuan dynasty? The Qing Empire? The People's Republic of China? Manchukuo?

Not really. They would've been overstretched in the Pacific and the losses at Midway meant that any occupying army in Australia (likely to take heavy casualties as Australian Paramilitary units attacked from the outback) would've been at risk from a counter attack launched from New Zealand.

Sorry, I explained it wrong, but they did have a really good shot if certain circumstances went their way, ie, Pearl Harbour, Midway & Coral Sea.

So essentially, if everything had gone well for the Japanese, they would have won - the same of which can be said for any participant in any war. The point is, world conquest is a complete impossibility. Even the most jingoistic of the Japanese had their eyes firmly set on the Pacific and its environs.

[Zanazbar]

Roman, Ottoman, American. In that order.

[-Imperial Japan]

Pedantry isn't what it used to be.

I wouldn't say its pedantic to ask which ancient Egyptian empire he was specifically referring to - especially considering Ancient Egypt is a civilization, rather than an empire. It would be akin to someone asking me what my favourite empire was, only for me to respond, "China". China what, precisely? The Yuan dynasty? The Qing Empire? The People's Republic of China? Manchukuo?

Sorry, I explained it wrong, but they did have a really good shot if certain circumstances went their way, ie, Pearl Harbour, Midway & Coral Sea.

So essentially, if everything had gone well for the Japanese, they would have won - the same of which can be said for any participant in any war. The point is, world conquest is a complete impossibility. Even the most jingoistic of the Japanese had their eyes firmly set on the Pacific and its environs.

I never said they would have succeeded, I only said they had the best shot. They required the least amount of events to go their way to win, and it was much more likely.

[Vragovia]

I'd have to go with the sumerians or "ùĝ saĝ gíg-ga" (black headed people) as they used to call themselves. Their level of scientific achievement in many areas is not yet reached and that also goes for the spiritual, or religious if you will, and institutional aspects of their empire. Although not impressive in terms of territory, their cultural influence has defined and made possible the existence of today's civilization as we know it. I wouldn't go as far as that Sitchin guy but there's a shitload of things we still don't know about them and we probably never will cause all the wars in the region blasted the material evidence to oblivion. They were the best of us (if you choose to see us and them as belonging to the same species).

[Dystopianus]

Romans, duh. They're awesome. In fact, in my nation, military divisions are called legions, scolars still speak latin, the official name of Dystopianus is IMPERIVM SANCTVM DEOS TOPIA, and the motto FIAT IVSTITIA ET RVAT CALVMN.

Oh, and they're followed by the Byzantine Empire. Which is also a very cool empire.

[Yohannes]

Em.. you don't have the option for the Empire of Brazil here..

[Laerod]

Lolwhut?

Which one are we talking about? Ptolemaic or one of the others?

During WW2 they had a great shot!!
If they got Australia then they would have ruled the world!!

Not really. Their supply lines ran over water and they had no clue how to fight submarines. They would have lost in a war of attrition eventually.

[Arumdaum]

Not really. They would've been overstretched in the Pacific and the losses at Midway meant that any occupying army in Australia (likely to take heavy casualties as Australian Paramilitary units attacked from the outback) would've been at risk from a counter attack launched from New Zealand.

Sorry, I explained it wrong, but they did have a really good shot if certain circumstances went their way, ie, Pearl Harbour, Midway & Coral Sea.

Actually, Japan would have done great if it instead attacked India. The British would go down really easily as they would have to choose either between the Suez Canal and Egypt (because of Germany) or India.

[-Imperial Japan]

Sorry, I explained it wrong, but they did have a really good shot if certain circumstances went their way, ie, Pearl Harbour, Midway & Coral Sea.

Actually, Japan would have done great if it instead attacked India. The British would go down really easily as they would have to choose either between the Suez Canal and Egypt (because of Germany) or India.

FINALLY SOMEONE UNDERSTAND MY LOGIC!!!
You are right, the Japanese were also too greedy and expanded quicker than they could regain troops and start building on their new colonies/territories. India would have stuffed up the Brittish, everyone knows they would explode without tea!!!

[Greto]

Well duh the Galactic Empire they knew how to kill crap with style. No but being serious the British Empire they were kind of like the Galactic Empire in that every thing they conquered those people viewed them as horrible evil people, besides without them America would never exist.

[Arumdaum]

Actually, Japan would have done great if it instead attacked India. The British would go down really easily as they would have to choose either between the Suez Canal and Egypt (because of Germany) or India.

FINALLY SOMEONE UNDERSTAND MY LOGIC!!!
You are right, the Japanese were also too greedy and expanded quicker than they could regain troops and start building on their new colonies/territories. India would have stuffed up the Brittish, everyone knows they would explode without tea!!!

[Strathy]

I am sorry, but it has to be the British Empire (much to my shame as a proud Scot). But the fact that it spanned ¹/₄ of the earth, had some of the best armies and navies along makes it great in my books. Also, the fact that it stood for centuries, and in a way is still in existence, thanks to the common wealth, is amazing. The history behind it is fascinating, as well as the histories and cultures of the vast number of civilisations that it encompassed. That is why I find it to be the single greatest empire in our world.

[Nazis in Space]

I am sorry, but it has to be the British Empire (much to my shame as a proud Scot). But the fact that it spanned ¹/₄ of the earth, had some of the best armies and navies along makes it great in my books. Also, the fact that it stood for centuries, and in a way is still in existence, thanks to the common wealth, is amazing. The history behind it is fascinating, as well as the histories and cultures of the vast number of civilisations that it encompassed. That is why I find it to be the single greatest empire in our world.

Bolded parts: lol'd.

[St George of England]

I am sorry, but it has to be the British Empire (much to my shame as a proud Scot). But the fact that it spanned ¹/₄ of the earth, had some of the best armies and navies along makes it great in my books. Also, the fact that it stood for centuries, and in a way is still in existence, thanks to the common wealth, is amazing. The history behind it is fascinating, as well as the histories and cultures of the vast number of civilisations that it encompassed. That is why I find it to be the single greatest empire in our world.

Bolded parts: lol'd.

[North Suran]

I am sorry, but it has to be the British Empire (much to my shame as a proud Scot). But the fact that it spanned ¹/₄ of the earth, had some of the best armies and navies along makes it great in my books. Also, the fact that it stood for centuries, and in a way is still in existence, thanks to the common wealth, is amazing. The history behind it is fascinating, as well as the histories and cultures of the vast number of civilisations that it encompassed. That is why I find it to be the single greatest empire in our world.

Bolded parts: lol'd.

Excepting the plantations of Ireland, the First British Empire began in the 16th century, and the Second British Empire began in the 18th century, so the latter claim is factually true. As for the best armies, that's obviously more subjective, but I don't think it is too radical to claim that the British Army was one of the best in the late-modern period.

[Nazis in Space]

Bolded parts: lol'd.

:eyebrow:

With some rare, and in terms of scale rather minor territories, the British Empire didn't hit the 200 year mark for any of its possessions - the most important parts of North America buggered off after a century, India got its independence less than a century after it was fully controlled (Although smaller areas lasted 200 years - taking india was a very slow deal, so there's regional disparities), Africa buggered off before a century was over, Canada and Australia became Dominions with factual independence rther quickly - and besides, they were so staggeringly empty, taking them was about as impressive as pointing at the moon and saying 'I own that! Now I'm an empire!'.

And the British army's showings tend to be similar to that of the Romans - defeated with remarkable regularity and consistency, but lucking out by way of fighting opponents that couldn't replace their cannonfodder as fast as Britain could (I.e. a shitton of indigenous tribes and indian microstates. Real countries, too, in instances where Britain was covered by a shitton of allies - Seven Years' and Napoleonic Wars, WW1 & 2).

So, yeah.

What one can give the British empire all kinds of credit for is the smooth transition from the triangle trade to becoming the largest drug cartel ever, though. That was one damn good show.

[SD_Film Artists]

I am sorry, but it has to be the British Empire (much to my shame as a proud Scot). But the fact that it spanned ¹/₄ of the earth, had some of the best armies and navies along makes it great in my books. Also, the fact that it stood for centuries, and in a way is still in existence, thanks to the common wealth, is amazing. The history behind it is fascinating, as well as the histories and cultures of the vast number of civilisations that it encompassed. That is why I find it to be the single greatest empire in our world.

Why would you be shamed as a Scot? It's the British Empire not the English Empire.

It still exists by the fact that it still has colonies, just so small that it can barely be considered as an empire anymore...kinda like the German Empire at its hight..

[North Suran]

And the British army's showings tend to be similar to that of the Romans - defeated with remarkable regularity and consistency, but lucking out by way of fighting opponents that couldn't replace their cannonfodder as fast as Britain could (I.e. a shitton of indigenous tribes and indian microstates. Real countries, too, in instances where Britain was covered by a shitton of allies - Seven Years' and Napoleonic Wars, WW1 & 2).

That's a remarkably ignorant statement to make.

At the beginning of the First World War, for example, the British Expeditionary Force - which consisted of only four infantry divisions and one cavalry division - played a major role in halting the German advance, saving Paris and thus preventing France from being knocked out of the war, which happened in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 and the Second World War.

And then there was the Second World War. In the North African theatre, British forces in Egypt were totally outnumbered by the Italians, with only 30,000 British troops stationed in Egypt, compared to the 150,000 Italian troops stationed in Libya. During Operation Compass, the British annihilated the Italian Tenth Army, took 130,000 prisoners, captured/destroyed 400 tanks and 1290 artillery pieces, advanced 800 km - and only suffered 494 deaths and 1,225 casualties. It was a similar situation in Burma, where the British were completely outnumbered by the Japanese. In fact, Britain was so overstretched in that conflict that claiming they relied on strength of number is just plain ridiculous. Even if you are simply referring to British colonial victories, your claim still doesn't hold up, since the British were again severely outnumbered in their colonial wars.

[Strathy]

I am sorry, but it has to be the British Empire (much to my shame as a proud Scot). But the fact that it spanned ¹/₄ of the earth, had some of the best armies and navies along makes it great in my books. Also, the fact that it stood for centuries, and in a way is still in existence, thanks to the common wealth, is amazing. The history behind it is fascinating, as well as the histories and cultures of the vast number of civilisations that it encompassed. That is why I find it to be the single greatest empire in our world.

Why would you be shamed as a Scot? It's the British Empire not the English Empire.

It still exists by the fact that it still has colonies, just so small that it can barely be considered as an empire anymore...kinda like the German Empire at its hight..

Yeah, but I am big nationalist and tend towards the dissolution of the Union

[Arumdaum]

Even if you are simply referring to British colonial victories, your claim still doesn't hold up, since the British were again severely outnumbered in their colonial wars.

Numbers are nothing compared to technology. It was machine guns against shields made out of animal skins and spears

That's all I want to say.

[North Suran]

Even if you are simply referring to British colonial victories, your claim still doesn't hold up, since the British were again severely outnumbered in their colonial wars.

Numbers are nothing compared to technology. It was machine guns against shields made out of animal skins and spears

Well, obviously, their superior technology gave them a big advantage - but I wasn't saying otherwise. My contention was with his claim that the British relied purely on cannon fodder and strength of number to prevail in all its conflicts, which is ludicrous, when one recalls how comparatively small the UK's population was.

[The Archregimancy]

Pedantry isn't what it used to be.

I wouldn't say its pedantic to ask which ancient Egyptian empire he was specifically referring to - especially considering Ancient Egypt is a civilization, rather than an empire. It would be akin to someone asking me what my favourite empire was, only for me to respond, "China". China what, precisely? The Yuan dynasty? The Qing Empire? The People's Republic of China? Manchukuo?

I think you'll find that I explicitly addressed that specific point as regards China in the post you're replying to. I think it's entirely fair to distinguish between dynasties and time periods, but by saying 'which one' (as opposed to, say, 'any particular dynasty or period?') St. George's post implied - perhaps unintentionally - that the different Egyptian dynasties were wholly lacking in any sense of continuity rather than forming part of a single developing ancient empire that went through multiple phases while nonetheless remaining a single recognisable entity throughout.

Or as I said in the part of the post that you chose not to quote:

It's by no means incorrect to speak collectively of 'Ancient Egypt' in much the way that we talk collectively about a 'Chinese Empire'. Certainly there were multiple dynasties - some of them foreign (like the Qing and Ptolemys; curious coincidence that the final dynasties of both were interlopers) - periods when they were subsumed within larger Empires (Persian and Mongol), and certainly there were periods of disunity. But those periods of disunity were considered by the residents of both to be a regrettable temporary state that ran very much against the desired outcome of a united nation (recognising that I'm using the latter term imperfectly and anachronistically).

I think you'll find that to be a nuanced argument (or as nuanced as I can get in a single paragraph) that specifically addresses all core points you raise in your reply.

Or if you require an academic citation:

But there was one aspect of Egyptian and Chinese religion which was similar, and is probably connected with the gross survivability of their languages in situ over many millenia. This is the attitude that each of the took to their emperor, and his relation to his land, his people, and their gods.

Both these empires achieved early unity under a single ruler, Egypt under the legendary Menes, China under the historical Shi Huang Di. Although afterwards there were often divisions, and competition among the different kingdoms, the two civilisations never found such disunity tolerable; their histories, as we have seen, distinguished firmly between prosperous periods, when a single royal house controlled the entire country, and interregna, which may have been perfectly peaceable, but which suffered from the cardinal flaw that the country was divided. These were very much centred countries, and the centre was not a place (each of them had many different imperial capitals ... ), but a royal court ...

Both Egypt and China, therefore, had the same simple but sustaining political doctrine, which based the country's identity on the rule of a single emperor, and based the emperor's sovereignty on righteousness. The national philosophy therefore contained a built-in theodicy: the proof of a ruler's righteousness was his success in maintaining a ruling dynasty ...

The doctrine was extremely fitting for a stable long-term culture, with the linguistic consequences that we have seen. But it could be maintained that it was the result, rather than the cause, of the culture's stability. (Ostler 2005: 151-2)

Ostler, Nicholas
2005 Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World. HarperCollins, London


And Manchukuo isn't 'China' in any sense of the term, and never claimed to be, as you well know; Aisin-Gioro Pu Yi notwithstanding.

[SD_Film Artists]

Why would you be shamed as a Scot? It's the British Empire not the English Empire.

It still exists by the fact that it still has colonies, just so small that it can barely be considered as an empire anymore...kinda like the German Empire at its hight..

Yeah, but I am big nationalist and tend towards the dissolution of the Union

I'm a big nationalist, the nation of Great Britain- united together instead of divided upon petty lines drawn by an anti-Semitic drunkard. Though ultimately I tire of nations as it just devolves to tribalism; I wish that there could be a world government though that's unlikely to happen this century.