The Greatest Empire/Superpower

[Shofercia]

Thing is, it's not real power if you can't even hold it for a century. Losing that kind of power in just under two decades - that just shows that the power was superficial at best, and a scam at worst.

Power is slippery, to hold power at all is lucky. And the kind of power America has had since the end of the cold war is immense, unimaginable for essentially any nation prior to the 1900s. Even if America goes into a long decline, she will remain in the top slot for probably our lifetimes and our children's lifetimes, barring some global cataclysm. Power takes a long time to dissipate.

I predict the US being dominant for the next century with other superpowers catching up during that timespan.

The World's already multi-polar. The US can either learn how to get along in a multi-polar World, or decline as a World Power.

[Vousielle]

Power is slippery, to hold power at all is lucky. And the kind of power America has had since the end of the cold war is immense, unimaginable for essentially any nation prior to the 1900s. Even if America goes into a long decline, she will remain in the top slot for probably our lifetimes and our children's lifetimes, barring some global cataclysm. Power takes a long time to dissipate.

I predict the US being dominant for the next century with other superpowers catching up during that timespan.

The World's already multi-polar. The US can either learn how to get along in a multi-polar World, or decline as a World Power.

No other powers come particularly close at this point in time even with the economic downturn. When a country's military might could only conceivably challenged by the next three runners up combined, that country is pretty secure in it's power. Just because there are other superpowers doesn't mean they can at this time challenge the US militarily or economically.

Essentially my point is that if this was an olympic race the US is Usain Bolt, sure there are people in second and third place, but they are nowhere near Usain.

[Augarundus]

Thing is, it's not real power if you can't even hold it for a century. Losing that kind of power in just under two decades - that just shows that the power was superficial at best, and a scam at worst.

Power is slippery, to hold power at all is lucky. And the kind of power America has had since the end of the cold war is immense, unimaginable for essentially any nation prior to the 1900s. Even if America goes into a long decline, she will remain in the top slot for probably our lifetimes and our children's lifetimes, barring some global cataclysm. Power takes a long time to dissipate.

I predict the US being dominant for the next century with other superpowers catching up during that timespan.

Point is, it doesn't really matter for how brief the American Empire's hegemony was. There was a period when the United States exercised true hegemony (was able to act completely unilaterally in international affairs, unchallenged). That's power in international affairs that has never before existed on a global scale.

[Corporate Councils]

The World's already multi-polar. The US can either learn how to get along in a multi-polar World, or decline as a World Power.

Yes, but many of those poles are shaky. Europe is imploding and China might be hiding corrupt banking activities that would make Goldman-Sachs blush.
Given that the current US drought is set to raise food and fuel prices in much of the world, we can expect a lot more unexpected things in the next few years.

[Augarundus]

The World's already multi-polar. The US can either learn how to get along in a multi-polar World, or decline as a World Power.

Most international realists agree that the US is still reigning hegemon, however the US' primacy is in decline. It is widely accepted that the world is moving towards multipolarity, but we are currently in a unipolar world.

[Shofercia]

The World's already multi-polar. The US can either learn how to get along in a multi-polar World, or decline as a World Power.

No other powers come particularly close at this point in time even with the economic downturn. When a country's military might could only conceivably challenged by the next three runners up combined, that country is pretty secure in it's power. Just because there are other superpowers doesn't mean they can at this time challenge the US militarily or economically.

Essentially my point is that if this was an olympic race the US is Usain Bolt, sure there are people in second and third place, but they are nowhere near Usain.

To me, in order to be considered the Greatest Empire, you'd have to have a majority of power in the World for at least a century, or, barring that, hold a sizable powerstake for a few centuries. The US has a plurality of power. Not a majority. The US arguably held a majority for only a few decades, if any. If you have a plurality of power, you can still be outvoted by the rest of the voters, or in this case, the rest of the countries.

The US is indeed like Usain Bolt; but Bolt can't win every athletic event, he can only win one or two events. Similarly, US is a regional hegemon, and holds quite a bit of sway globally, but the US can easily by challenged: by Russia and China in Central Asia, by Russia in the Caucasus, by Brazil and Argentina in South America, and successfully challenged at that.

The World's already multi-polar. The US can either learn how to get along in a multi-polar World, or decline as a World Power.

Most international realists agree that the US is still reigning hegemon, however the US' primacy is in decline. It is widely accepted that the world is moving towards multipolarity, but we are currently in a unipolar world.

Really? Is that why Russia totally, completely, and utterly humiliated Bush's boy, Saakashvili? Is that why China is confronting the US in Africa and Middle East with partial success? Is that why Iran's Regime is still alive? Is that why Karzai is going against the American agenda with impunity?

And you can make some excuses. Those who start shit with Russia are, eventually fucked, and US can't look out for every village idiot. China's a rising power, etc. But if the US is as powerful as you say, what's the excuse for Karzai? When someone fucked with a Roman Emperor, or a Russian Prince, he was removed from power. The US isn't even able to do that in Afghanistan. What kind of global hegemony are you talking about?

[Maurepas]

It's gotta be the British Empire, it conquered the most territory and held the title for the longest period of time.

[Magmia]

I would say the Mongol Empire, but that collapsed soon after Genghis Khan's death.

So, I would say Rome or the British Empire (probably the latter).

[Forsher]

What, in your opinion, was the greatest superpower? Now, I admit on face value that the USA would demolish all of it's competitors, but let's try and think of this in relative terms. Which empire was the economically powerful of it's time? Militarily? Culturally (a bit opinion based, this one)?

My own opinion is that Britain was most powerful economically, controlling most of the world's trade at it's peak, America was/is the most powerful militarily, having around 40% of the world's military budget. Culturally? I'm not too sure about a clear leader.

Overall for me, it's a draw between the USA and the British Empire.

What's your opinion? Which empire/superpower was the greatest?

The US's nominal GDP was ranked over $15 trillion in 2011, I'd say that's a bigger economic force than the former British Empire could ever hope to accomplish.

(http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo ... 9&pr1.y=17)

Nominal GDP is useless. You need to use Real GDP which takes into account inflation. That said, it would also be better to talk in relative terms... percentage of world GDP.

Rome culturally, I mean think about it. The language of a small farming village founded around the Tiber eventually went on to be the basis of dozens of languages of which there are about 1 billion speakers today, most scientific names are in Latin, a lot of famous literature has been written in Latin, about Latin speaking people, etc. Adding in all the loan works Latin has given languages outside the Romance family

Agreed. Rome is the template for great empires of men.

Perhaps not the template for formation of empires. Not all empires went out with the intention of invading places. The British Empire, for example, was often quite reluctant to establish formal control.

Just think for a moment. Would farmers with guns be able to stand up to one of the greatest military powers of the time?

What does Vietnam have to do with...

Ah, but you see the North Vietnamese had a highly professional military.

Not so, it's fairly apparent that the Revolutionary Army was at breaking point before the french arrived.
All the British needed to do was ship immigrants there, loyal to the crown, and kill off the enemy as they attacked.
Failing that, devolution would have taken away the teeth of their argument.

Without French intervention we would have had no problem getting our troops across the Atlantic (you know, it's easier to transport troops when you don't have the French navy trying to stop you), and we could also afford to send more due to the fact we would not be constantly fighting in Europe. The revolutionaries would have lost without French and Spanish support.

The thing about guerrilla wars is that the guerrillas don't actually have to defeat the army by force of arms, just as with Vietnam. America basically wiped out the Vietcong following Tet, but it didn't matter that America had essentially won every single battle of the war, because the people back home didn't want to fight any longer. That's what all guerrilla wars are aimed at, not the troops, the people back home and the wallet of the country that has to keep building ships, sending troops, sending ships, sending supplies, all to fight an enemy that, due to its inherently decentralized nature, is incredibly difficult to permanently kill. Eventually, the people dislike the war spending, and seeing bodies come home in bags and just plain hearing about a war they are increasingly uninterested in, and the government faces resentment and unrest at home, which tends to disrupt war efforts.

And, on another tack, it's noteworthy that it was an American strategy to employ a system to yank in foreign allies. So even giving France its due credit for its part in the war, you must also give credit to those American soldiers and politicians who fought to get France involved in the first place, since France wouldn't have intervened without them.

Interestingly, soldiers weren't brought back home until Vietnam and certainly not prior to 1945.

The difference is, the USA couldn't up and decide to send over thousands of Americans to build their own towns, and slowly murder all the vietnamese.

No, they had South Vietnam do that for them, and went and started building bastions out of (ostensibly) loyal natives after (ostensibly) purging guerrillas within said bastions.
And to suggest that the British Empire had the stomach to kill every Colonial? Just...what?

The Vietnam War was essentially a civil war with foreign combatants. Many in South Vietnam weren't fans of the US.

Not EVERY colonial was in rebellion. That's the difference. Agreed, nor were all the vietnamese. But all you need to do is put a bunch of people in place to replace lost revenue, and now you have a very real incentive to defend the land from bandits/brigands who just so happen to be a rather large chunk of the population.

Yeah, not all the Vietnamese were either, so I was confused as to why you said "every", and thus my question.
And not every Brit at home was a die-hard loyalist willing to fight and die for some chunk of land across an ocean. Uprooting people like you propose tends to...upset people if they're not doing it entirely voluntarily, and from your description, they aren't. Let's not forget that the Revolutionaries included many people whose family originated in England. On the flip-side, those new people are going to expect land, land that other people already probably own. Moving all those new people in could easily upset Colonials who were otherwise impartial to the war.

As it stood, England had a very real incentive to hold onto America, the Colonies were down-right valuable financially speaking. That doesn't necessarily mean that the British wallet and populace can suffer such a war forever.

You have to remember that Britain took colonialism seriously. It scared NZ's Government when they realised that we could no longer rely on importing Brits any more. People travelled of their own accord, the willingness to travel was siezed by the likes of Edward Gibbon Wakefield.

Third largest


the British Empire and Mongol Empire where bigger than the Russian EMpire

Another reason why the Mongol Empire was the best, with almost no transporation technology they managed to control so much land.

On the other hand the Mongols had contiguous empires. That is, it was all on land and all connected. Basically it's what happens when one has an army that just wins and wins and wins but a rubbish navy. The British Empire is what happens when you have a reasonably rubbish army but an excellent navy.

But the US has not been the dominant power for those hundreds of years now, has it? It only really picked up as a superpower during WWII.

Never said it was.

The British Empire was the dominant force on the Earth since its inception

When is this 'inception'? They certainly got beat in The war for American Independence, so it wasn't an empire before 1789?

all the way until after WWI when the empire started to fall into decline. Also pretty sure the USA never covered 1/4 of the Earth's land .

1/4 of the earth's land in1900 is worth little compared to the USA in 2012.

Also it overwhelms anything the UK put together? Jeez, ever heard of the Industrial Revolution? Yeah, that was British.

In terms of power, either economic or military.

The Industrial Revolution as good as made the modern world.

Now, you must realise that one has to compare things with contemporaries. You must also realise that dominant force does not equate to wins stuff every time. The US certainly doesn't fall into that category either.

I would say the Mongol Empire, but that collapsed soon after Genghis Khan's death.

So, I would say Rome or the British Empire (probably the latter).

Bits lived on. I would say Tamerlane was better than Genghis Khan. I say better, I mean more efficient.

Personally, I'd say that Rome and Britain are easily culturally the most influential. This is purely because of Rome's influence on teh European states that then went out and made the world as we know it. On more local scales there are those that are more influential.

[The Most Serene Republic of Alex Morgan]

The British Empire.

[Thenions Immaculate Kin]

What does Vietnam have to do with...

Ah, but you see the North Vietnamese had a highly professional military.

The VC wasn't, and that was rather the point, especially considering how much of a role the VC played. "Farmers with guns" stood up to the greatest military power of the time for quite some time by using guerrilla tactics. And it was the largely VC Tet that effectively ended American intervention in Vietnam.

The thing about guerrilla wars is that the guerrillas don't actually have to defeat the army by force of arms, just as with Vietnam. America basically wiped out the Vietcong following Tet, but it didn't matter that America had essentially won every single battle of the war, because the people back home didn't want to fight any longer. That's what all guerrilla wars are aimed at, not the troops, the people back home and the wallet of the country that has to keep building ships, sending troops, sending ships, sending supplies, all to fight an enemy that, due to its inherently decentralized nature, is incredibly difficult to permanently kill. Eventually, the people dislike the war spending, and seeing bodies come home in bags and just plain hearing about a war they are increasingly uninterested in, and the government faces resentment and unrest at home, which tends to disrupt war efforts.

And, on another tack, it's noteworthy that it was an American strategy to employ a system to yank in foreign allies. So even giving France its due credit for its part in the war, you must also give credit to those American soldiers and politicians who fought to get France involved in the first place, since France wouldn't have intervened without them.

Interestingly, soldiers weren't brought back home until Vietnam and certainly not prior to 1945.

Hm?

No, they had South Vietnam do that for them, and went and started building bastions out of (ostensibly) loyal natives after (ostensibly) purging guerrillas within said bastions.
And to suggest that the British Empire had the stomach to kill every Colonial? Just...what?

The Vietnam War was essentially a civil war with foreign combatants. Many in South Vietnam weren't fans of the US.

Or the South Vietnamese government, which was hardly tasteful. But, I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.

Yeah, not all the Vietnamese were either, so I was confused as to why you said "every", and thus my question.
And not every Brit at home was a die-hard loyalist willing to fight and die for some chunk of land across an ocean. Uprooting people like you propose tends to...upset people if they're not doing it entirely voluntarily, and from your description, they aren't. Let's not forget that the Revolutionaries included many people whose family originated in England. On the flip-side, those new people are going to expect land, land that other people already probably own. Moving all those new people in could easily upset Colonials who were otherwise impartial to the war.

As it stood, England had a very real incentive to hold onto America, the Colonies were down-right valuable financially speaking. That doesn't necessarily mean that the British wallet and populace can suffer such a war forever.

You have to remember that Britain took colonialism seriously. It scared NZ's Government when they realised that we could no longer rely on importing Brits any more. People travelled of their own accord, the willingness to travel was siezed by the likes of Edward Gibbon Wakefield.

I'm not saying people didn't move voluntarily, but the way he made it sound, it seemed his suggestion was that Britain forcibly mass import people. Forced migrations do not sit well with the migrated.

[Soviet New Romania]

Rome.

While just about everyone besides the Chinese ( they conquered the greeks ) were living primitively, they were having massive orgies.

They automatically win.

A hundred times this.

[Hoyteca]

Historically:
culturally: Rome
militarily: British/Mongols.
economically: british
Science/inventions: british, I guess. Mostly for the industrial revolution and the successful application of steam power.

current:
culturally: USA. Was the first in a long series of colonies to successfully secede from a European empire and provided a template (partially or entirely) for today's democratically-elected republics. Plus, look at all the blue jeans worldwide. Look at all the McDonald's and Taco Bells. America's cultural influence has been so thorough, it could almost be called the world's primary culture.
militarily: USA. It can easily go toe to toe against just about any professional force and win. It's only having problems in the Middle East because it has to abide by rules the enemy breaks on a regular basis. It CAN easily defeat its current enemies. It would just need to lose the mandatory handicaps.
economically: USA. The two largest economies that do business with almost every nation. In fact, when America's economy went south a few years ago, so did much of the world's. I almost added China, but China's model of quick economic growth is unstable and unsustainable. Plus, China owns too much American debt. If America's economy goes belly up, China's screwed. It's like the Cold War's MAD, only economic instead of nuclear.
science/inventions: USA. Americans invented the air plane. Americans invented the electric light and both AC and DC generators. Americans invented the nuclear bomb, which changed foreign policies around the world and ironically enforced an uneasy peace between two superpowers that could have easily gone to war with one-another otherwise. They invented the nuclear submarine and landed the man on the moon. Americans also invented the machine gun (gatling), and the first truly-modern modern warship (metal-armored sides AND a turret that allows it to shoot in any direction with fewer guns). Also played the largest part in inventing the internet and recorded sound.

[Jazarostia]

Great Britain as the largest world bully ("colonialist"). But I'll also vote to Islamic Empire for culture, science and military.
Now? Of course myself United States of America, althoughI dislike their interventionist policy.

[Ostroeuropa]

Great Britain as the largest world bully ("colonialist"). But I'll also vote to Islamic Empire for culture, science and military.
Now? Of course myself United States of America, althoughI dislike their interventionist policy.

Because the arabs were TOTALLY in all those lands before the empire, and it wasn't colonialist in any way.
Nope. not at all.
And i'm SURE that the inhabitants are still living in those lands, side by side with the arabs without persecution in the modern day.

Note: managing to beat a crippled and corrupt empire using religious fanatacism and regional disunity to your advantage, does not out-military straight up controlling the oceans of the entire planet for 200 years.

Additional Note: This hypocrisy from the caliphate-lovers is one of the reasons I mock it's achievements, which were pifling. Due to the internal instability and constant factional infighting, it immediately collapsed and the shockwaves of the inherent inability for it's denizens to get on due to it's ideology is still felt today over the shiite/sunni crap.
Unless we conquered Arabia (Sure, bits of it.) the arabs have no right to call out britain for it's colonialism. You can point to yemen/oman and say we should apologise for those bits. Otherwise, it's just hypocrisy.

[Forsher]

Ah, but you see the North Vietnamese had a highly professional military.

The VC wasn't, and that was rather the point, especially considering how much of a role the VC played. "Farmers with guns" stood up to the greatest military power of the time for quite some time by using guerrilla tactics. And it was the largely VC Tet that effectively ended American intervention in Vietnam.

It was public opinion that did that. And the VC were helped by the NVA the entire war.

Interestingly, soldiers weren't brought back home until Vietnam and certainly not prior to 1945.

Hm?

Bodies weren't coming home during the American Revolution to Britain...

The Vietnam War was essentially a civil war with foreign combatants. Many in South Vietnam weren't fans of the US.

Or the South Vietnamese government, which was hardly tasteful. But, I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.

Remember "they had South Vietnam do that for them"?

You have to remember that Britain took colonialism seriously. It scared NZ's Government when they realised that we could no longer rely on importing Brits any more. People travelled of their own accord, the willingness to travel was siezed by the likes of Edward Gibbon Wakefield.

I'm not saying people didn't move voluntarily, but the way he made it sound, it seemed his suggestion was that Britain forcibly mass import people. Forced migrations do not sit well with the migrated.

I can't be bothered finding that post at the moment, it's late.

[Varijnland]

Great Britain as the largest world bully ("colonialist"). But I'll also vote to Islamic Empire for culture, science and military.
Now? Of course myself United States of America, althoughI dislike their interventionist policy.

Because the arabs were TOTALLY in all those lands before the empire, and it wasn't colonialist in any way.
Nope. not at all.
And i'm SURE that the inhabitants are still living in those lands, side by side with the arabs without persecution in the modern day.

Note: managing to beat a crippled and corrupt empire using religious fanatacism and regional disunity to your advantage, does not out-military straight up controlling the oceans of the entire planet for 200 years.

Additional Note: This hypocrisy from the caliphate-lovers is one of the reasons I mock it's achievements, which were pifling. Due to the internal instability and constant factional infighting, it immediately collapsed and the shockwaves of the inherent inability for it's denizens to get on due to it's ideology is still felt today over the shiite/sunni crap.
Unless we conquered Arabia (Sure, bits of it.) the arabs have no right to call out britain for it's colonialism. You can point to yemen/oman and say we should apologise for those bits. Otherwise, it's just hypocrisy.

Oh snap

[Ostroeuropa]

Because the arabs were TOTALLY in all those lands before the empire, and it wasn't colonialist in any way.
Nope. not at all.
And i'm SURE that the inhabitants are still living in those lands, side by side with the arabs without persecution in the modern day.

Note: managing to beat a crippled and corrupt empire using religious fanatacism and regional disunity to your advantage, does not out-military straight up controlling the oceans of the entire planet for 200 years.

Additional Note: This hypocrisy from the caliphate-lovers is one of the reasons I mock it's achievements, which were pifling. Due to the internal instability and constant factional infighting, it immediately collapsed and the shockwaves of the inherent inability for it's denizens to get on due to it's ideology is still felt today over the shiite/sunni crap.
Unless we conquered Arabia (Sure, bits of it.) the arabs have no right to call out britain for it's colonialism. You can point to yemen/oman and say we should apologise for those bits. Otherwise, it's just hypocrisy.

Oh snap

Nubia called, they want egypt back. Ugh. It's just a pet peeve of mine to see certain cultures whine about colonialism one minute, then uphold the caliphate the next

[Jazarostia]

Meh. Do the Islamic Empire use 'religious fanatism'? Andalusia is the most tolerant area in Medieval Age. And the difference of Muslim with European conquest is when Muslim bring prosperity and tolerance in the area they conquered, colonialism just bring the poorer people.

[Ostroeuropa]

Meh. Do the Islamic Empire use 'religious fanatism'? Andalusia is the most tolerant area in Medieval Age. And the difference of Muslim with European conquest is when Muslim bring prosperity and tolerance in the area they conquered, colonialism just bring the poorer people.

The troops were fanatics. Convincing a bunch of poor, illiterate farmers to fight for you in exchange for paradise doesn't a moral victory make.
And the medieval age? Weren't you talking about the empire just now? When exactly do you think it fell apart. Also, conquering vast swathes of people who straight up follow a different religion practically necessitates tolerance.
And poverty?
Point me to a single building of signifcance built by the caliphate other than mosques and barracks.
Maybe a university here or there.

Compared to say, public bath houses.
Stock exchanges.
Railway stations.

[Federal Republic of Blac]

The Sumerians for culture. Their cuneiform writing system is the basis for written expression.

You see how easy it is to claim older civilizations when it comes to culture.

On a more serious note, I'd say the US is probably the cultural superpower of the present day. Though we get plenty of flak for our seeming lack of culture, it's usually coming from people in countries in which American music, movies, books, TV, and fashion are present. If you don't believe me, check out how many people are wearing blue jeans or using Apple products around you (only applies to those of you in other countries).

I'm wit you on this one......

[Thenions Immaculate Kin]

The VC wasn't, and that was rather the point, especially considering how much of a role the VC played. "Farmers with guns" stood up to the greatest military power of the time for quite some time by using guerrilla tactics. And it was the largely VC Tet that effectively ended American intervention in Vietnam.

It was public opinion that did that. And the VC were helped by the NVA the entire war.

Yes. Public opinion. Which reached its critical point following Tet. Which is largely VC. And which was worsened by continued VC operations throughout the war. Like I said in other paragraphs you responded to, pointing out just how guerrilla wars work.
NVA support was, IIRC, largely logistical in nature, providing the guns the farmers needed to fight.

Hm?

Bodies weren't coming home during the American Revolution to Britain...

Oh, that. Well, I was speaking generally in that paragraph, but people don't like hearing about losses overseas in general, regardless of whether or not the literal body is coming back.

Or the South Vietnamese government, which was hardly tasteful. But, I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.

Remember "they had South Vietnam do that for them"?

Yes. We were talking about moving people around, setting up inhabited areas that were intended to be clear of hostile elements. South Vietnam did that in America's place in the Vietnamese War, at least in terms of the people inside the enclaves. The enclaves were then infiltrated anyway, from within and without. It isn't easy to move all those people around like that.