Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Kapikulu
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Greatest Empires Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 10:47 |
Originally posted by pinguin
Now, for the British to be considered "great", I doubt it.
|
Great in terms of exploitation, in every way possible.
Edited by Kapikulu - 24-Mar-2007 at 10:49
|
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;
A Strange Orhan Veli
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 11:20 |
Originally posted by Praetor
... the legacy of the "short lived" british empire is enormous and you would do well to recognise it Pinguin as it is probably all around you.
|
Don't forget English people were the former enemies of my ancestors .
And don't forget English spread the Black legend of Spain, and made a cartoon of Catholic culture, so we learn that tactic too
Now, seeing in perspective I would say the British Empire was important and short lived. I would not say "great".
The Empire is death, long life to the current Empire
Pinguin
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 14:11 |
Originally posted by Frederick Roger
Also, what I was aiming to say is that there was no concept of a "Portuguese Empire" in Portugal before the 19th century*, like there was for other countries - there was only the Kingdom of Portugal and overseas possessions. The sovereigns of Portugal never styled themselves "Emperor".
|
Actually that is also true of the British 'Empire', which never legally existed. The King(Queen) of England, etc. also became Emperor/Empress of India after 1876, but that, technically, was a continuation of the existing indian (Moghul) Empire with simply a change of dynasty.
The rest were simply the King's (Queen's) dominions.
Incidentally, didn't the kings of Portugal similarly style themselves Emperors of Brazil? (I may be wrong there, you'll know better than me.)
Edited by gcle2003 - 24-Mar-2007 at 14:14
|
|
red clay
Administrator
Tomato Master Emeritus
Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 14:23 |
Originally posted by Crusader3943
I think that the greatest was the Holy Roman Empire. |
Why? None of the three words apply.
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
|
|
Frederick Roger
Colonel
Joined: 09-Jan-2005
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 658
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 14:32 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by Frederick Roger
Also, what I was aiming to say is that there was no concept of a "Portuguese Empire" in Portugal before the 19th century*, like there was for other countries - there was only the Kingdom of Portugal and overseas possessions. The sovereigns of Portugal never styled themselves "Emperor".
|
Actually that is also true of the British 'Empire', which never legally existed. The King(Queen) of England, etc. also became Emperor/Empress of India after 1876, but that, technically, was a continuation of the existing indian (Moghul) Empire with simply a change of dynasty.
The rest were simply the King's (Queen's) dominions.
Incidentally, didn't the kings of Portugal similarly style themselves Emperors of Brazil? (I may be wrong there, you'll know better than me.)
|
Not quite. Brasil was a colony with several regional divisions (capitanias) whose governors responded directly to the King.
Brasil was elevated to the category of Kingdom jointly with Portugal (the short-lived United Kingdom of Portugal, Brasil and Algarve) when the royal family, nobility and government officials "moved" Lisbon to Rio at the time of the Napoleonic wars and invasion of Portugal. When the capital was to be transfered again to Lisbon, prince-heir Pedro decreted the independence of Brasil and proclaimed himself emperor, in a manouvre aimed at keeping Brasil, which was close to rebelion after loosing its status, under Bragana hands.
When Pedro took the throne of Portugal as Pedro IV, he was compeled against his will to abdicate his imperial title to his son (Emperor Pedro II). That was the closest thing to a portuguese monarch styling himself King of Portugal and Emperor of Brasil.
Edited by Frederick Roger - 24-Mar-2007 at 14:36
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 01:03 |
Originally posted by red clay
Originally posted by Crusader3943
I think that the greatest was the Holy Roman Empire. |
Why? None of the three words apply. |
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 15:22 |
Originally posted by Frederick Roger
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by Frederick Roger
Also, what I was aiming to say is that there was no concept of a "Portuguese Empire" in Portugal before the 19th century*, like there was for other countries - there was only the Kingdom of Portugal and overseas possessions. The sovereigns of Portugal never styled themselves "Emperor".
|
Actually that is also true of the British 'Empire', which never legally existed. The King(Queen) of England, etc. also became Emperor/Empress of India after 1876, but that, technically, was a continuation of the existing indian (Moghul) Empire with simply a change of dynasty.
The rest were simply the King's (Queen's) dominions.
Incidentally, didn't the kings of Portugal similarly style themselves Emperors of Brazil? (I may be wrong there, you'll know better than me.)
|
Not quite. Brasil was a colony with several regional divisions (capitanias) whose governors responded directly to the King.
Brasil was elevated to the category of Kingdom jointly with Portugal (the short-lived United Kingdom of Portugal, Brasil and Algarve) when the royal family, nobility and government officials "moved" Lisbon to Rio at the time of the Napoleonic wars and invasion of Portugal. When the capital was to be transfered again to Lisbon, prince-heir Pedro decreted the independence of Brasil and proclaimed himself emperor, in a manouvre aimed at keeping Brasil, which was close to rebelion after loosing its status, under Bragana hands.
When Pedro took the throne of Portugal as Pedro IV, he was compeled against his will to abdicate his imperial title to his son (Emperor Pedro II). That was the closest thing to a portuguese monarch styling himself King of Portugal and Emperor of Brasil. |
Many thanks for the clarification. I hope you have less trouble with all our Georges than I do with all those Pedros
|
|
Praetor
Consul
Suspended
Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 04:09 |
Originally posted by pinguin
Don't forget English people were the former enemies of my ancestors .
And don't forget English spread the Black legend of Spain, and made a cartoon of Catholic culture, so we learn that tactic too
Now, seeing in perspective I would say the British Empire was important and short lived. I would not say "great".
The Empire is death, long life to the current Empire
Pinguin
|
Pinguin, I fail to see how the English being 'enemies of your
ancestors' has anything to do with their influence or greatness.
Furthermore, all empires have enemies. As for the black legend and the
cartoon you mentioned, all empires also endevour to spread propaganda
against their enemies/rivals - Spain included!
So I can assure you, you did not learn that from the British.
In terms of power at its hieght and influence on history ("the current
Empire" is but a splinter kingdom of the British empire (mind you its
grown since then)) the British empire can easily be considered great,
whether that influence has been predominantly positive or
negative is really the only debate in regards to its "greatness".
Edited by Praetor - 26-Mar-2007 at 04:10
|
|
Maharbbal
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 05:37 |
however they were also
the first to outlaw slavery Technically speaking it is wrong as the French banned it first (but re-installed it rapidly) and the Danes did outlaw it in the early 19th century. Not mentionning that slavery (under this name) was still practiced and reported as such with a positive note in 1907 in Ghana (cf Gareth Austin articles).
they also started the Industrial revolution it also can be discussed. Actually, it is more likely that the real IR started in the US aroud 1850 (see Greg Clark's book: Farwell to Alms part 1 and 2).
the legacy of the "short lived" british empire is enormous that is unfortunately undenyable
you
would do well to recognise it Pinguin as it is probably all around you.
Or they'll come back to invade Chile!
|
I am a free donkey!
|
|
Praetor
Consul
Suspended
Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Mar-2007 at 08:33 |
Originally posted by Maharbbal
however they were also
the first to outlaw slavery Technically
speaking it is wrong as the French banned it first (but re-installed it
rapidly) and the Danes did outlaw it in the early 19th century. Not
mentionning that slavery (under this name) was still practiced and
reported as such with a positive note in 1907 in Ghana (cf Gareth
Austin articles). |
I am not well versed in this period and you are right they were not the
first but one of the first and the most important as France's ban on
slavery is of little significance because they quickly reinstalled it as
you said. It also took quite a long time for slavery to be abolished in
practice and not just in theory across the whole vast empire.
Originally posted by Maharbbal
they also started the Industrial revolution it
also can be discussed. Actually, it is more likely that the real IR
started in the US aroud 1850 (see Greg Clark's book: Farwell to Alms
part 1 and 2). |
to be blunt 1850 is when the so called "second industrial revolution"
started (approximately) which grew out of the prior Industrial
revolution which began in Britain.
Originally posted by Maharbbal
the legacy of the "short lived" british empire is enormous that is unfortunately undenyable
you
would do well to recognise it Pinguin as it is probably all around you.
Or they'll come back to invade Chile!
|
Finaly I would like to clarify that the British empire is niether my
favourite empire nor in my opinion the greatest empire in history, I
merely found Pinguins argument weak to say the least and I find it odd
that the british empire is judged by different standards to the others
empires mentioned.
Regards, Praetor
Edited by Praetor - 27-Mar-2007 at 08:35
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Mar-2007 at 17:19 |
1.British Empire 2.Chinese Empire 3.Ottoman Empire 4.Eastern Roman Empire 5.Mongol Empire
|
|
Hulegu Han
Janissary
Joined: 10-Apr-2007
Location: Mongolia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 04:12 |
I partially agree with you. British had influence on all over the world until beginning of 20th cetury like today's USA. Below is my list,
1. British Empire
2. Greek or Macedonian Empire
3. Roman Empire
4. Mongol Empire
5. Chinese Empire
6. Ottoman Empire
7. Islamic Empire
8. Russian Empire
9. French Empire (since 1600s)
10. Spanish Empire
Edited by Hulegu Han - 10-Apr-2007 at 04:14
|
|
karajoz
Janissary
Suspended
Joined: 29-Mar-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Apr-2007 at 08:04 |
iam agree with this list.
about the ottoman empire, isn it that they were famous for beeing the biggest destroyers in history?
if you have a look in the past. nothing from the old greek, byzantineplaces are still remaning in the modern turkey.
and the turks were not really really ruling over the conquerd lands, they had a minority power and left most places without any signs of there presence.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-May-2007 at 01:38 |
Why not Great Han Dynasty and Great Tang Dynasty were listed
|
|
Penelope
Chieftain
Alia Atreides
Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-May-2007 at 01:46 |
Is it true that the site that held the tombs of Roman Emperor Justinian The Great, and later, the Tomb of Sultan Mehmed ll, destroyed by the Ottomans?
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-May-2007 at 02:02 |
If world history had no the part of chinese history, it would be not itself.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-May-2007 at 19:09 |
Originally posted by the Bulgarian
Originally posted by OguzK
Ottoman Empire is best
Gokturk Empire
Hun Empire(Asia, Europe)
Khazar Empire
|
|
why thumb down< Ottomans were the longest 623 years yea!!!!!!!!
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-May-2007 at 19:21 |
Originally posted by Crusader3943
I think that the greatest was the Holy Roman Empire. |
LOL
|
|
kurt
Consul
Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-May-2007 at 09:22 |
Originally posted by Penelope
Is it true that the site that held the tombs of Roman Emperor Justinian The Great, and later, the Tomb of Sultan Mehmed ll, destroyed by the Ottomans? |
im not sure if i understand what your question is, but if the second half of your question is asking if the tomb of mehmed II was destroyed by the ottomans then i can tell you that last december i visited mehmeds II tomb, and its just fine. i must have misunderstood your question because its highly unlikely the ottomans would destroy the tomb of their most revered leader.
although in the 19th century, it was destroyed by an earthquake, but subsequently rebuilt.
i dono about justin the great's tomb, but the ottomans held the romans and byzantines in great esteem, and they did everything they could to preserve what they had left behind, so i doubt they would have destroyed his tomb. just look at the hagia sophia.
|
|
kurt
Consul
Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-May-2007 at 09:31 |
Originally posted by karajoz
iam agree with this list.
about the ottoman empire, isn it that they were famous for beeing the biggest destroyers in history?
if you have a look in the past. nothing from the old greek, byzantineplaces are still remaning in the modern turkey.
and the turks were not really really ruling over the conquerd lands, they had a minority power and left most places without any signs of there presence.
|
yes that is true. i applaud you on your factual and unbias knowledge of history.
that building is called the hagia sophia, and i think the fact that it exists proves your point. nothing left from the byzantine empire exists in turkey indeed.
this bridge is called the stari most, in bosnia. its another example of how "the turks didnt leave any signs of there presence in any places".
|
|