Which country/culture in history has had the most influential/powerful empire?

[Hot Mega]

What about the Chinese empire?:yinyang:

What has been there influence beyond the wok, PF Chang's and Panda Express?

 

[Shindekudasai]

This part of your post is fraught with contradiction IMO. I can understand you attributing part of the promulgation of the English language's universality to the advancement of the US. However, the land that is called the US would likely not be what it is today without British colonization.

If I have a seed and I plant that seed far and wide then by chance in one of the places it not only grows but evolves into something brilliant or beautiful, who gets the credit for that? The seed or the planter?

I can see where you're going. But there is no contradiction. And there are two reasons for that. A concrete one as far as the English language as example goes, and an abstract one as far as the seed and the planter go.
First, the concrete one: We are talking about a country or a culture, that has been very or probably the most influential. If I go by your logic, it would mean, that the USA can't be attributed to be a culture or country with the entitlement to this, because there once were the 13 colonies (which by the way weren't even completely British, just under British government). Or the other way around: without the British, there would not have been the US as we know it and thus everything the US has done to greatly influence this planet is null and void. But the fact remains that the English language was made universal through actions, alliances, and develpoments (cultural, political, economic) that were initiated by the US. Without the US, who knows. Maybe the English language wouldn't be the universal one today, but the German or Russian.
Second, the abstract one: if we want to ask the question about the seed and the planter, then you have to take into consideration, that Great Britain would never have become Great Britain if it hadn't been for the Romans, the French and the Germans. Question is, are the ancient Romans or the Franks or the Alemanni and Germans now automatically the more influential cultures?
You can't attribute the growth of a plant solely to the planter when that growth takes place 100 years after the planter abandoned the field and the planter has perhaps already died.

I think it's safe to say, that we are talking about cultures and nations that stood and stand on their own over a certain period of time. And the US falls into that category for more than 200 years now.
So, there is no contradiction in what I said. It's just a question of proper definition and scope.

The British Empire reigned for nearly 300 [or more] years. And yet the Americans have been a super power for just over sixty years. Big difference if you ask me. And in those sixty years Americans have probably caused more harm and death than The British Empire ever did in their time. The Roman Empire is also a bigger and better one too. Actions speak louder than words. British and Romans have done more and achieved more in their time than the Americans have.

Well, I'm not out to bash the British here. Certainly not. But, once again, it is not that easy. I'd keep in mind, that the British were the first ones to build concentration camps and they killed thousands while opressing the people in the countries they ruled (for example during the Easter Rising in Ireland, the fight for independence in India or the Boxer Rebellion in China, where the British used machine guns for the first time in history to mow down hundreds of protesters and rebells, which is hushed up today). The Boer War in Africa a little over a hundred years ago is considered the first genocidal war in modern history. Also, many peoples in northern Africa, especially nomadic people, were glad when the Nazis occupied their territories during World War II because they couldn't take the French and the British any more. And, sorry, but you have to be pretty desperate to be glad that you're being conquered by the Nazis.

When has the US ever been been considered an "empire"??

The US is considered a modern empire by almost every scholar of history or political science.

"Empire" implies at minimum it be headed by an Emperor or Ruler. The US has never had one of those so the US has never been or had an "empire" in my book.

Not true. Read the definitions of "empire" for example by Münkler, Mann, Bender, Breuer, Welwei, Ferguson etc. The US is considered a "democratic empire". Americans only restrained from using the word "empire" or even refused to aknowledge the existence of modern empires, because "empire" was supposedly something "evil". Well, ironically, exactly this kind of ideological warfare about vocabulary, world view and "sense of mission" is part of most definitions of the word "empire". There is a nice saying regarding that in American English. "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...", you know, even if the duck claims to be a golden shiny lion.

What has been there influence beyond the wok, PF Chang's and Panda Express?

You mean perhaps the invention of a writing system that created or gravely influenced the languages written and spoken by almost 1.5 billion people in half of the east Asian countries today? Or the development of the first government/state bureaucracy and administration besides the Roman and Egyptian ones? Or that they developed a small religion from India into what is today the fourth biggest religion and probably the most peaceful one on this planet? Or that they were the first ones outside Egypt and Germany that wrote with ink on paper and later even invented printing technology? Or how about the cultivation of rice?

I can't say it enough: this is a question that can't be answered easily, at least not without giving proper definitions first.

 

[Wainkerr99]

The US is indeed an empire. It is one built on money and acquisition. Its influence is unlike any of the others, which were based on conquest.

I don't think Alexander or any of his ilk were great, except in strategy. I don't think it great to stomp around killing thousands or millions of innocents. In that case the fictional, (I hope), Borg could be considered great.

Romans brought us law. The British inherited it. In fact, without it they would not have so pompously considered themselves a civilised people conquering the bloddy savages what.

Incidentally, the British also turned their backs on the refugees of the Nazi concentration camps who were hoping for ships to transport them to Israel. Just another black mark that has been covered up.

Growing up in South Africa I constantly experienced the hatred the Afrikaner felt towards the British - who incidentally also first introduced apartheid. The older generation picked up the stories of the concentration camps from their parents. I was always an "Engelsman" who wasn't really welcome, just because I spoke English.

Anyway. This isn't a hate the British thread. Every nation has its guilt.

The Jews have had an enormous influence on history. Quite frankly that little nation ushered in the Messiah. Christianity then proselytised Rome, which brought on the Holy Roman Empire, or Catholicism as it is today. It was the beginning of the end for Rome.

You have Einstein, a myriad of Jewish doctors, Jews influencing US policy, heck, your landlord is probably Jewish.

Then there's gefilte fish. And oi vay.

I'd say ito money, political influence, science, motivation behind many conquests in history, ze Joos have had a hand in it all. Arab nations promised that any nation that turned its back on Israel would receive lower oil prices.

And no, this is NOT conspiracy theory.

 

[lovejoy]

What about the Chinese empire?:yinyang:

The Chinese is expanding so quickly in the last 30 years since 1978 and I believe the Chinese (Hans unlike the Mongols) is extremely dangerous and will one day conquer part of the world with brutal force.

Just look at Shanghai with upcoming World Expo and the past Olympic in Beijing.

The current strategy is so-called "peaceful rise" but no territorial expansion.


The strategy works well within China to control Tibet and the North-west Muslim provinces in which the Central Government moves tens of millions of Hans Chinese into Tibet and North-west Territorities and re-shapes the culture, the economy and build the infra-structure with a railway directly onto Tibet.

China has resolved all the border disputes with Russia and uses N. Korea as their puppy and completed the military use of satellites and nuclear-powered submarines and building 2 carriers.

China plans to land on the moon by 2016 and actively court all the African and Carribean and Central Asian countries.

Because China has very limited natural resources and has to expand to purchase iron from Australia, oil from OPEC, oil sand from Canada etc.

Despite many Australian predict there will be a major war between US and China, I hope not in my life time.

I have to admit British Empire did have the most influential effect in the last 400 years. But I doubt the British or the American will have that kind of influence in the next 400 years !

The next 400 years belongs to the Chinese !

 

[gunslingingbird]

The Aerican Empire

 

[Boobinator]

The British Empire was unlike most empires in the past, there never existed the military strength or even the will to assimilate vast areas through conquest.There was a military presence (and also a great Navy though this didn't have much effect inland!) but it was relatively tiny.

What made the Roman empire's expansion so easy and successful was their strive to integrate all the regions into their empire. It was more like a cultural invasion, and political/military colonization. They often assigned natives of the invaded lands to high-ranking posts within the provinces. Everyone was allowed to practice their religion within the empire (a very strategic decision since the Empire contained many different people.)

Back to the topic. There is in my eyes no doubt the most influential culture is the one of the Roman Empire. It laid the foundation of the entire Western culture we have today. Just look at the parliaments and senates, or the architecture of the Capitoleum.
All Western kings and rulers have in one way or another emulated the Roman empire or gained inspiration from it. It's simply stunning how ahead of its time the Romans were. They even had apartment buildings.

I could rant on forever on why it's so influential, but all you need to do is take a look at modern day engineering, architecture, legal code, political system, religion, language and culture like sports, art, litterature - they're everywhere.
In turn though, the Roman empire looked up to the Greeks, and would probably never have become as successful without that foundation. And the Greeks too has significant influence even today. Once again in arts, science, language and philosophy to name a few.

The US and British Empire are indeed great. But the British Empire was equally influenced by other nations in Europe - it just happened to prevail. I'm happy it did though, because IMO it would've been a catastrophy if catholicism had spread instead of secularized protestantism. But if French or Germany had successfully expanded the world would probably have looked just about the same except the language.

And the US is already now seeing a decline in influence compared to before, with the EU growing stronger. So it's very hard to already now say that nations in centuries to go will resemble the Americans. The US is simply too young. And even so, its culture is very close to the British, which is very close to any Western culture - so just because it's powerful doesn't mean you can credit it with being influential. The Mongolian and Soviet empire were powerful too, but you don't see us practizing Mongolian legal systems or political systems resembling that of the CCCP.

All in all, it's very hard to say. But my point is that the Greeks and Romans were so unlike the rest of the world of their time, that it's very easy to specifically credit them with their vast legacy. Whereas the British Empire (which is mentioned a lot here) and subsequently the US too, firstly is too young even now, and even so the only thing separating them from other Western European cultures is language (and measurement system.)

Maybe I should mention that this is from a Western point of view. I can't really speak for Asian cultures as I don't know enough about them.

 

[mrtrebus]

The only thing the so-called US Empire have given the world is Coca-Cola, McDonalds & denim jeans. Doesn't really compare to The British Empire's achievements really does it? :dunno:

 

[Hot Mega]

First, the concrete one: We are talking about a country or a culture, that has been very or probably the most influential.

Keep in mind, it's not merely county or culture most influential. This is in the context of empires of which I don't believe the US has ever had or been. The US has never had an emperor, ruler or an oligarchy and the US is mentioned nowhere in the history of empires. The lone exception is a theoretical one suggesting the US is a capitalistic empire.

If I go by your logic, it would mean, that the USA can't be attributed to be a culture or country with the entitlement to this, because there once were the 13 colonies (which by the way weren't even completely British, just under British government). Or the other way around: without the British, there would not have been the US as we know it and thus everything the US has done to greatly influence this planet is null and void.

Again, "empires".

But the fact remains that the English language was made universal through actions, alliances, and develpoments (cultural, political, economic) that were initiated by the US. Without the US, who knows. Maybe the English language wouldn't be the universal one today, but the German or Russian.

Maybe but it was the British and it is English.

Also, suggesting the British empire is to the US as the Roman Empire is to the British is in effect eliminating the concept of separate empires as many of them may be layered one on top of the other.

 

[lovejoy]

The only thing the so-called US Empire have given the world is Coca-Cola, McDonalds & denim jeans. Doesn't really compare to The British Empire's achievements really does it? :dunno:

The United States Empire dominated the world with great influence beyond the earth and into the universe.

With the invention of the wheels hundreds of thousands years ago, it was not until Henry Ford revolutionizeded the assembly of the cars. And we move forward 100 years later to the American revolution in information with the internet and computers.

United States advance in medicine, pharmaceutical products, technological advance in space exploration, cultural influence of Hollywood and pop culture flouished around the world.

United States dominated the world through influence of its economics by its commerce, but is now in decline so quickly I would not believe it !

NBA is one of the most influenced cultural product of America into China. Once again GM Buick dominated the sales in the last quarter in China. Hollywood movies are pirated and re-distributed throughout the world (compared with the stupid Bollywood kiddy stuff).

McDonald is everywhere and Wal-mart is where you shop in many countries. But it is the management skills and savvy business sense that we adapt to the culture of America.

The rise and fall of great empires are inevitable due to complacent, waste, corruption, abuse of power and dilution of the main dominant race.



P.S. Name one commerical product the British empire has left behind and is used world-wide.

Name one cultural product that dominated the world, don't tell me it is Manchester United soccer team or the British got Talent ?

 

[nightwanker]

Name one cultural product that dominated the world, don't tell me it is Manchester United soccer team or the British got Talent ?

Just some thoughts on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Parliamentarism
The origins of the modern concept of prime ministerial government go back to the Kingdom of Great Britain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
in Britain. The changes subsequently spread throughout Europe, North America, and eventually the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America
The nation was founded by thirteen colonies of Great Britain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
Although imperialist practices have existed for thousands of years, the term "Age of Imperialism" generally refers to the activities of nations such as Britain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism
As European colonisation of the Americas gained pace, including England, the European conquerors imposed their language and culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine
the atmospheric engine, invented by Thomas Newcomen, paved the way for the Industrial Revolution. The next major step occurred when James Watt developed an improved version ... This enabled factories to be sited away from rivers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport
1803, Jessop opened the Surrey Iron Railway in south London - arguably, the world's first public railway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive
The first successful locomotives were built by Cornish inventor Richard Trevithick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking
Modern Western economic and financial history is usually traced back to the coffee houses of London. The London Royal Exchange was established in 1565.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_line
The assembly line concept was not "invented" at one time by one person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_production
Although the Ford Motor Company brought mass production to new heights, it was a synthesizer and extrapolator of ideas rather than being the first creator of mass production.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles
The Beatles were one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed bands in the history of popular music.
According to the Recording Industry Association of America, The Beatles have sold more albums in the United States than any other band. Rolling Stone magazine ranked The Beatles number one in its list of 100 Greatest Artists of All Time. According to that same magazine, The Beatles' innovative music and cultural impact helped define the 1960s, and their influence on pop culture is still evident today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_in_America
it changed attitudes to popular music in the United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles'_influence_on_popular_culture
The Beatles' influence on rock music and popular culture was—and remains—immense.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football
The modern game was codified in England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Football_world_popularity.png
Map showing the popularity of football around the world.
(It's number one in most parts of the world and there are many players in most of the countries where it's not (including USA))

 

[Shindekudasai]

Keep in mind, it's not merely county or culture most influential. This is in the context of empires of which I don't believe the US has ever had or been. The US has never had an emperor, ruler or an oligarchy and the US is mentioned nowhere in the history of empires. The lone exception is a theoretical one suggesting the US is a capitalistic empire.

Why is the existence of an emperor, ruler or an oligarchy so crucial in your worldview of empires? It certainly is not that important according to different definitions of the word "empire". Most of the Greeks didn't have an emperor, ruler or an oligarchy. Same goes for Rome almost half the time. And why an oligarchy? Why not an aristocracy or a democracy?
I can tell you why. Because once again, you connect "empire" and "evil", which would make it very easy for me to state that you are an American (if I didn't know already). Because there are only two types of worldviews, that connect "empire" and "evil" in this faulty way: classical American and communist.
Read up on the definitions of "empire" and you will find out, that the United States is an empire. Whether you like it or not. You can't change the facts, just because you don't like them. You can choose to believe, that 2 plus 2 equals 5. That doesn't change the fact, that 2 plus 2 is and always has been 4.

Maybe but it was the British and it is English.

You can't go around and dismiss the facts presented. The British and the Americans both speak English, but the universal use of the English language cannot be attributed to the British alone. Half of Africa speaks French. I don't see anyone here attributing that to the French alone and claiming that France is at least as influential as Britain.
And you have to stop associating "empire" with "imperialism". Those may not be mutually exclusive, but the one is still not mandatory for the other one's existence. Even though it was in case of the British, that imperialism created an empire. In case of the Chinese, the Greeks or the Americans on the other hand, there was hardly any imperialism.

Also, suggesting the British empire is to the US as the Roman Empire is to the British is in effect eliminating the concept of separate empires as many of them may be layered one on top of the other.

I don't see, where you strengthen your point here. I was showing the fault in your allegory of the seed and the planter by reversing it and returning it to you. Why you'd misquote that and then think you made a point is beyond me.
I answered your posting, that the US of today wouldn't exist without Great Britain (which is an assumption that cannot be proven or disproven), with what can be outlined as "you can't eliminate "the concept of separate empires" that easily". And you take that point of mine and state, that I can't eliminate "the concept of separate empires" that easily because "many of them may be layered one on top of the other"?
I don't mean to win an argument here (in fact, I don't see this as an argument, but merely as an "exchange of thoughts" ), but if it were an argument, you wouldn't win it by quoting something, that I said to disprove your point, to support your point.

 

[marquis2]

W
I answered your posting, that the US of today wouldn't exist without Great Britain (which is an assumption that cannot be proven or disproven), with what can be outlined as "you can't eliminate "the concept of separate empires" that easily". And you take that point of mine and state, that I can't eliminate "the concept of separate empires" that easily because "many of them may be layered one on top of the other"?
I don't mean to win an argument here (in fact, I don't see this as an argument, but merely as an "exchange of thoughts" ), but if it were an argument, you wouldn't win it by quoting something, that I said to disprove your point, to support your point.

The US of today can be traced back to the early days of the British Empire , part of North America gained independence (whether they benefited from it is debatable) and became the embryonic United States.It took its laws lock stock and barrel from Britain,modelled the powers of the President on those of the King and embodied ideas of freedom which although assumed in Britain were never formalised there.Without its British foundation there would certainly be a peoples occupying the landmass , maybe even French speaking but it wouldn't be the USA as we know it.

 

[marquis2]

Well, I'm not out to bash the British here. Certainly not. But, once again, it is not that easy. I'd keep in mind, that the British were the first ones to build concentration camps and they killed thousands while opressing the people in the countries they ruled (for example during the Easter Rising in Ireland, the fight for independence in India or the Boxer Rebellion in China, where the British used machine guns for the first time in history to mow down hundreds of protesters and rebells, which is hushed up today). The Boer War in Africa a little over a hundred years ago is considered the first genocidal war in modern history. Also, many peoples in northern Africa, especially nomadic people, were glad when the Nazis occupied their territories during World War II because they couldn't take the French and the British any more. And, sorry, but you have to be pretty desperate to be glad that you're being conquered by the Nazis.





.

The impression here is that Britain maintained its empire by oppression! Certainly there were many examples of it but over 300 years and a quarter of the land mass of the globe that's hardly surprising.The fact is though that there were very few troops either stationed abroad or even available .Britain had the smallest army for its population in Europe and most of the troops were stationed at home.There was probably 1 soldier for every 10 000 subjects and every 500 square miles.Most of the time there wasn't much for them to do , I know people who served in India who spent much of their time playing cricket and when going in to town never carried sidearms.

 

[Boobinator]

Too much anglocentrism in this thread...

 

[nightwanker]

A little choice as a start:
America, Aztecs, Babylon, China, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Greece, India, Mongolia, Iroquois, Japan, Persia, Rome, Russia, Sumer, Zululand
(quiet eurocentric btw)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_(computer_game)#Civilizations_in_Civilization_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_III#Civilizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization#History

 

[Hot Mega]

Why is the existence of an emperor, ruler or an oligarchy so crucial in your worldview of empires? It certainly is not that important according to different definitions of the word "empire". Most of the Greeks didn't have an emperor, ruler or an oligarchy. Same goes for Rome almost half the time. And why an oligarchy? Why not an aristocracy or a democracy?
I can tell you why. Because once again, you connect "empire" and "evil", which would make it very easy for me to state that you are an American (if I didn't know already). Because there are only two types of worldviews, that connect "empire" and "evil" in this faulty way: classical American and communist.
Read up on the definitions of "empire" and you will find out, that the United States is an empire. Whether you like it or not. You can't change the facts, just because you don't like them. You can choose to believe, that 2 plus 2 equals 5. That doesn't change the fact, that 2 plus 2 is and always has been 4.



You can't go around and dismiss the facts presented. The British and the Americans both speak English, but the universal use of the English language cannot be attributed to the British alone. Half of Africa speaks French. I don't see anyone here attributing that to the French alone and claiming that France is at least as influential as Britain.
And you have to stop associating "empire" with "imperialism". Those may not be mutually exclusive, but the one is still not mandatory for the other one's existence. Even though it was in case of the British, that imperialism created an empire. In case of the Chinese, the Greeks or the Americans on the other hand, there was hardly any imperialism.


I don't see, where you strengthen your point here. I was showing the fault in your allegory of the seed and the planter by reversing it and returning it to you. Why you'd misquote that and then think you made a point is beyond me.
I answered your posting, that the US of today wouldn't exist without Great Britain (which is an assumption that cannot be proven or disproven), with what can be outlined as "you can't eliminate "the concept of separate empires" that easily". And you take that point of mine and state, that I can't eliminate "the concept of separate empires" that easily because "many of them may be layered one on top of the other"?
I don't mean to win an argument here (in fact, I don't see this as an argument, but merely as an "exchange of thoughts" ), but if it were an argument, you wouldn't win it by quoting something, that I said to disprove your point, to support your point.

Okay, so let's omit the requirement for an Emperor, Ruler or oligarchy (to which a monarchy is a form of an oligarchy). Nowhere in history is the US considered a proper or traditional empire. To me, that ADDED to the fact that the US hasn't had Emperors, Rulers or oligarchies seals the deal for me that the US has never been or had an empire. But that's my opinion.

I'm not sure how you've divined my belief that empires are "evil" as I have never even remotely suggested it. I suppose you're assuming that my sparing the US of empire designation suggests a bias toward some US exceptionalism or purity. Nothing could be further from the truth....history is just history to me.

Uh yeah, the British and the Americans both largely speak English but Americans speak English because of the British.

And I said the people of the land that is the US likely (not absolutely) wouldn't be what they are we can never know what would have been the case had the British not colonized the US.

You could make the case and think this is the case you're making that there is a US exceptionalism which makes the US's accomplishments separate from mere British colonialism. Of course, there is some truth to that as I acknowledge it in my seed/planter analogy. While many of the planter's seeds may not have resulted in the success he had by planting them in more fertile ground...and the fertile ground naturally has more to do with the evolution of the seed. But the seed planter is the one who caused the circumstance. Certainly other planters of the same seed could have come along and planted it but the fact of the matter is that planter did.

As far as separate empires go, how do you win that discussion when historians separate empires not me.

 

[ezteban]

The Most Powerful Empire is FreeOnes ! Of Course !
And The Queen is Petra !

Sorry for this funny post but it was so obvious ! :rofl:

 

[Shindekudasai]

Okay, so let's omit the requirement for an Emperor, Ruler or oligarchy (to which a monarchy is a form of an oligarchy).

We don't have to "omit" the requirement "for an Emperor, Ruler or oligarchy", because there is no such requirement. You made it a requirement by using a false definition.
And by the way, a monarchy is not necessarily a form of an oligarchy. An oligarchy is defined by being a degenerate/deformed aristocracy, often a rule of a noble group or the nobility as a whole in the form of a dictatorship. A monarchy is defined by being a rule of one person or dynasty in any possible form, not giving any inclination towards the kind and quality of the rule.

Nowhere in history is the US considered a proper or traditional empire. To me, that ADDED to the fact that the US hasn't had Emperors, Rulers or oligarchies seals the deal for me that the US has never been or had an empire. But that's my opinion.

Nobody was talking about "traditional empires". We were talking about "empires" per se. And the US is very well considered an empire. I don't know why you choose to repeatedly ignore what I said. I am a scholar of history and I studied empires in my research about the differences between Sparta and Athens and the differences between Rome and Carthage.
There are different definitions according to the subject matter. As there are for example different definitions of the term "war". There are "hot wars" like World War II and "cold wars" like the Cold War or there are the so called "big wars" like the third Gulf War (or second US-Iraqi war) and the so called "small wars" like what the US likes to call the "war on terror". But all of these terms have definitions and are bound to one superordinate definition of "war". It's the same thing with the term "empire". And the US, though not a "traditional empire" in the specific, narrow sense like Rome was for example, is very well a proper empire in the superordinate, broader sense like Russia was for example.

I'm not sure how you've divined my belief that empires are "evil" as I have never even remotely suggested it. I suppose you're assuming that my sparing the US of empire designation suggests a bias toward some US exceptionalism or purity. Nothing could be further from the truth....history is just history to me.

I assumed that you're biased because of the vocabulary you used. For example did you fail to acknowledge, that an empire can be ruled in the form of an aristocracy or a democracy. Instead you chose to stress the forms of rule that have mostly negative connotations in the US like "oligarchy". Also you refused to accept that per definition the US is an empire. You rather change the definition by making your opinion the definition over the scholarly stated definition.

Uh yeah, the British and the Americans both largely speak English but Americans speak English because of the British.

I never said otherwise. Doesn't change the fact that English is universal today (not "British", mind you, and not 250 years ago) and far more people speak American English than British English. Considering that, by making this point once again, you jump to the "there wouldn't be America without Britain" point. But to stay true to your argument you would have to acknowledge that there probably wouldn't have been a British empire without the Roman empire or the Spanish empire before that. But that conclusion from your own point you refuse to make, because then you would have to admit that your seed/planter analogy defeats your own point.

And I said the people of the land that is the US likely (not absolutely) wouldn't be what they are we can never know what would have been the case had the British not colonized the US.

While you are certainly right about the "we can never know", you are also wrong about the British colonizing the US. The North American continent was not colonized by the British. The British government snatched a large part of the area, that had already or was just being colonized, and put it under it's rule. There is a huge difference. That the British were the ones that started colonizing the area later known was the 13 states is a historical myth still propagated by many American school history textbooks today. There were British settlers, of course. But most of them settled there because they wanted to leave Britain. And there were settlers from many other countries and not to forget the Natives as well.

You could make the case and think this is the case you're making that there is a US exceptionalism which makes the US's accomplishments separate from mere British colonialism. Of course, there is some truth to that as I acknowledge it in my seed/planter analogy. While many of the planter's seeds may not have resulted in the success he had by planting them in more fertile ground...and the fertile ground naturally has more to do with the evolution of the seed. But the seed planter is the one who caused the circumstance. Certainly other planters of the same seed could have come along and planted it but the fact of the matter is that planter did.

As far as separate empires go, how do you win that discussion when historians separate empires not me.

Again, you are the one repeatedly attacking the "seperate empires" approach with your seed/planter analogy, which just doesn't hold water in case of the US. The only part of the analogy that fits is the part where the planter is the motherland and the seed is the colony. But, as I said, you have to seperate "empire" from "imperialism". The seed has long outlived the planter.

I don't see where I have to win this discussion. First of all, I am a historian and thus belong to the ones that say that you have to look at empires seperately, and second of all, I repeatedly said that you have to seperate empires. So I don't know where you think you are finding fault in my argument.

And of course there is an US exceptionalism. The US itself promulgated this idea through it's politics and it's early historical writing (for example by George Bancroft) and thus has become a prime example for the "sense of mission" or the belief in the own exceptionalism many scholars of history attribute to empires or at least aspiring empires.

The US of today can be traced back to the early days of the British Empire , part of North America gained independence (whether they benefited from it is debatable) and became the embryonic United States.It took its laws lock stock and barrel from Britain,modelled the powers of the President on those of the King and embodied ideas of freedom which although assumed in Britain were never formalised there.Without its British foundation there would certainly be a peoples occupying the landmass , maybe even French speaking but it wouldn't be the USA as we know it

I know the history of the US very well, thank you. And I know that while forming the nation and it's constitution, the early Americans threw out more of the British antetype or model as you will than they kept. The separation of powers for example is a crucial point in which the American presidency and the English monarchy could hardly have been more different. But there is nothing to discuss about your point.
I wouldn't be the man I am today if it hadn't been for my father and the many things about him I swore I'd never emulate. Same thing goes for the US and Great Britain from almost 250 years ago to today. The US is not so much the US of today because of it's emulation of the great accomplishments in Great Britain (and there certainly have been great accomplishments like the Bill of Rights for example), but because it tried not to emulate the perceived mistakes, faults and flaws of the British system.

 

[Mrs Jolly]

Man, I hope you guys keep going this is a fun post to read. Empire tennis.

 

[sproing99]

A little choice as a start:
America, Aztecs, Babylon, China, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Greece, India, Mongolia, Iroquois, Japan, Persia, Rome, Russia, Sumer, Zululand
(quiet eurocentric btw)

Some of those are very local with comparatively little ongoing impact globally ( Aztecs, Babylon, Iroquois, Japan, Zululand)

Some of those didn't last long enough to have an impact in the long term (Germany, Mongolia)

Some seem to have had an impact primarily in the negative (France - without them the Vietnam war and the mess in Algeria wouldn't have been possible; Persia - allowed Greece to hone their skills; Russia - they made the cold war possible)

Which leaves, IMO the following candidates:

- America
- Britain
- China
- Egypt
- Greece
- India
- Rome
- Sumer