Your Favorite Empire

[Strathy]

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.

Then what happens to national identity? Over time, it fades and we become one race, with no diversity, no difference. I would not like to live in a world like that.

[Tokyoni]

Persia.

Despite being imperialist, it still allowed for relative autonomy and national self-determination of its provinces.

[SD_Film Artists]

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.

Then what happens to national identity? Over time, it fades and we become one race, with no diversity, no difference. I would not like to live in a world like that.

That's already happening and has been happening for a long time. One day the only distinguishing feature of a country is what its politics are.

[Mediterreania]

Persia.

Despite being imperialist, it still allowed for relative autonomy and national self-determination of its provinces.

Possibly because truth was the greatest Persian virtue, and dishonesty was the greatest vice.

[Fistburgh]

I'm caught between ancient Greece, pre-Nazism Germany and 1800's Britain.

Did the Czars of Russia count as emperors? Eh, I still prefer Britain (outside of Ivan's reign, but he was too crazy for me not to be biased).

I do, however, like Germany more before the Industrial Era, during World War 1, and possibly modern-day.

... You know what? My favorite's Persia. Persia was an empire, right?

Yeah, Persia for me.

[Tekcirb]

Hate all empires

[SD_Film Artists]

Hate all empires

Because small nations are better?

[Old Tyrannia]

I'm caught between ancient Greece, pre-Nazism Germany and 1800's Britain.

Did the Czars of Russia count as emperors? Eh, I still prefer Britain (outside of Ivan's reign, but he was too crazy for me not to be biased).

I do, however, like Germany more before the Industrial Era, during World War 1, and possibly modern-day.

... You know what? My favorite's Persia. Persia was an empire, right?

Yeah, Persia for me.

Persia was actually several empires. Mind being more specific? E.g. Achaemenid, Parthian, Sassanid, Safavid, etc.
Also, Greece was never an imperial state, besides (arguably) during the Byzantine Empire (arguably because Constantinople is not located in Modern Greece and the Byzantines regarded themselves as Roman).

[Mediterreania]

I'm caught between ancient Greece, pre-Nazism Germany and 1800's Britain.

Did the Czars of Russia count as emperors? Eh, I still prefer Britain (outside of Ivan's reign, but he was too crazy for me not to be biased).

I do, however, like Germany more before the Industrial Era, during World War 1, and possibly modern-day.

... You know what? My favorite's Persia. Persia was an empire, right?

Yeah, Persia for me.

Persia was actually several empires. Mind being more specific? E.g. Achaemenid, Parthian, Sassanid, Safavid, etc.

Safavid Empire? Just because they called themselves that doesn't make them any less of a British proxy state.

[Chinese Regions]

[SD_Film Artists]

(Image)

Pffff


Aah...the 90's....

[Nazis in Space]

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.

While it's indeed true that the British Expeditionary corps was of not inconsiderable use in stopping the German advance, one shouldn't exactly ignore that Germany also re-routed considerable assets to deal with the Russians and was fighting the entire French army at the same time - outnumbered around 3:1, and it still managed to fight the entire war on OPFOR territory.

WW1 is notable for Britain, for the first time in history, not just sitting back and letting others do the fighting, but also seriously committing on the ground itself. Unfortunately, by and large, these forces were rather incompetent compared to their opponents (Something supported by the casualty figures on each side).

And it's curious that you'd mention the second world war, where the entire British expeditionary force turned heels before seeing a single German, and proceeded to flee the country while France kept on fighting for another month. In the meantime, British soldiers sat cozily at home.

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.

Said same force, while dramatically outnumbering a German 'Assisting' force of two 'Divisions' (Theoretically...), proceeded to get beaten for 1 1/2 years until Montgomery could ensure an even more ridiculous superiority to... Slowly push them back. And it's always worth noting that Africa was also Britain's only, and thus main land front... For Germany, it was a sideshow while the real war occured in Russia.

An acceptable showing would've been to win Africa by late '41 at the latest. A good showing would've had it in mid-41.

It was a similar situation in Burma, where the British were completely outnumbered by the Japanese.

And where the Japs didn't want to move any further, having reached their intended borders, otherwise concentrating on the war in the pacific. And the japs still managed to push for an offensive, and pinning down the British in mid-1944 - the Philippines were already being invaded. The British counterattack that retook Burma didn't occur until Japan was beginning to get carpetbombed and was utterly incapable of providing any supplies whatsoever to its forces in Burma or elsewhere - for all practical intends and purposes, that offensive was similar to beating on the guy that was already knocked out by your big brother.

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.

Britain had two land fronts - Africa (Later France and Italy, but at that point, together with America) and Burma. How the hell is that 'Overstretched', compared to the Japanese (China, plus the Pacific, plus Burma), or Germany (Russia, Africa, later Italy and Western Europe)? Always keeping in mind that Germany had 80 mio people, Japan had 80- 100 mio people, and the British Empire alone outnumbered both of them taken together by a considerable margin.

And then we do of course have pathetic showings like Singapore, where a British force sitting inside a freakin' fortress surrendered to a numerically inferior force that had just marched a few hundred kilometres through the fucking jungle.

Oh, incidentally, the Chinese managed to do the same thing Britain did - stall the japanese advance. Except they did it much earlier. Well, I suppose if your argument is that the British army during the 1940s was as good as the Chinese army during the 1940s, I wont disagree with you.

Btw, it doesn't count when you're outnumbered by spearthrusting Zulu or Mahdists. Who still beat British forces armed with repeating rifles on multiple occasions. Because hey. They're sharp spears and you only have rifles.

[Nazis in Space]

Persia.

Despite being imperialist, it still allowed for relative autonomy and national self-determination of its provinces.

To be entirely fair here, this was less because it wanted them to be, and more because Persia was thoroughly unable to keep its periphery under control - resulting in fun things like Satraps fighting small-scale wars between each other because hey, why the hell not? It also had fairly regular dynastic issues leading to an average of one civil war per generation. So, yeah... The persians are comparatively admirable, but some things arose out of problems, not good will.

[Mediterreania]

Persia.

Despite being imperialist, it still allowed for relative autonomy and national self-determination of its provinces.

To be entirely fair here, this was less because it wanted them to be, and more because Persia was thoroughly unable to keep its periphery under control - resulting in fun things like Satraps fighting small-scale wars between each other because hey, why the hell not? It also had fairly regular dynastic issues leading to an average of one civil war per generation. So, yeah... The persians are comparatively admirable, but some things arose out of problems, not good will.

And then there's the whole entrenched Magis problem.

[Kyraina]

i may be american but british empire is still my fave empire

[Itheus]

Obviously anyone who did not choose the Galactic Empire (or at least Darth Revan's Sith Empire) is completely ignorant. But I guess the British Empire was pretty cool too.

[Maxedon]

Alexander's Empire anyone?

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Alexander's Empire anyone?

Who got their asses owned by the Indians.

[Mediterreania]

Alexander's Empire anyone?

Who got their asses owned by the Indians.

And then disintegrated in less than a decade.

[Farnhamia]

Alexander's Empire anyone?

Who got their asses owned by the Indians.

Mmm, not really. The Macedonians were tired of stomping allover Western Asia and wanted to go home. If King Alexander hadn't died, he'd have been back and we'd see who owned whose asses.

[Mediterreania]

Who got their asses owned by the Indians.

Mmm, not really. The Macedonians were tired of stomping allover Western Asia and wanted to go home. If King Alexander hadn't died, he'd have been back and we'd see who owned whose asses.

If King Alexander hadn't died, the empire wouldn't have fallen apart and had their asses kicked by Persians and Romans...in less than 50 years.

[Farnhamia]

Mmm, not really. The Macedonians were tired of stomping allover Western Asia and wanted to go home. If King Alexander hadn't died, he'd have been back and we'd see who owned whose asses.

If King Alexander hadn't died, the empire wouldn't have fallen apart and had their asses kicked by Persians and Romans...in less than 50 years.

It took rather longer than that. Let's see ... Alexander died in 323 BCE. Rome didn't come into conflict with Macedonia until the reign of Philip V, in the First Macedonian War, which started in 211. The Parthians didn't move against the Seleucids until 238. So, no, considerably longer than 50 years.

[Mercator Terra]

The Dutch Empire

[Mediterreania]

If King Alexander hadn't died, the empire wouldn't have fallen apart and had their asses kicked by Persians and Romans...in less than 50 years.

It took rather longer than that. Let's see ... Alexander died in 323 BCE. Rome didn't come into conflict with Macedonia until the reign of Philip V, in the First Macedonian War, which started in 211. The Parthians didn't move against the Seleucids until 238. So, no, considerably longer than 50 years.

Bactria was independent in 250 BC, and Parthia rebelled in 247 BC. So fine, it took 70 years, not 50. But Macedonian rule did not exist intact for even one century.

[Farnhamia]

It took rather longer than that. Let's see ... Alexander died in 323 BCE. Rome didn't come into conflict with Macedonia until the reign of Philip V, in the First Macedonian War, which started in 211. The Parthians didn't move against the Seleucids until 238. So, no, considerably longer than 50 years.

Bactria was independent in 250 BC, and Parthia rebelled in 247 BC. So fine, it took 70 years, not 50. But Macedonian rule did not exist intact for even one century.

Technically, Alexander's empire died with him, so in a way you're right. But Antiochus III did retake both Bactria and Parthia and held them until his death, in 187. So, you know ... Anyway, the question was whether the Indians owned the Macedonians when led by Alexander (debatable, I think) or not. I say that had the King not died, he'd have regrouped and returned with a fresh army. Having already subdued the territory between Mesopotamia and the Indus, he could have landed with both feet on the Nandas.