Largest empire

The Regnal Chronology calculates the Mongol Empire at 1268, as it says. I think if you count the Mongols at 1290, it was could've been larger than the British Empire.

But in land terms they aren't so great.. i believe.

All-known that the biggest one was the Mongol Empire.

It depends on what you consider a sovereign state. Effectively I believe that Australia was still a part of the British Empire. It was an Imperial Dominion which made it self-governing. Australia still had at its head of state the British monarch, still regarded themselves as loyal Anglo-Celtic members of the Empire, and owed such allegiance to Britain that whenever the Empire was at war Australia was too. In my eyes Australia continued to be a part of the British Empire effectively up until the Fall of Singapore, when cultural and military alignment shifted to the USA.

Originally posted by Maju If you start considering subjective sympathies and simple alliances, then the largest empire is no doubt that of the USA: they just own the world (maybe with the exception of China, Iran and a few Latin American countries).

You have this the wrong way round. Much of the USA is owned by foreign countries, notably Britain, Japan and Germany. That wasn't true of any other major empires.

 

Originally posted by Constantine XI Even immigration policy until the end of WWII was discriminatory to ensure the vast bulk of migrants were Anglo-Celtic. I really don't see this intimate link between Australia and the British Empire breaking until the practical and symbolic linkages were removed during WWII.

 

Up until the end of WWII the Australian government would only take British and Irish immigrants. At the end of the war Australia faced a problem, there was such a labour shortage in the UK immigrants dried up.

The Australian government decided to combat this by letting selected northern Europeans in. They restricted this to Poles, Germans, Scandenavians and Dutch. One boat load made it to Sidney harbour from Poland when the authorities discovered they were Jews and sent the boat straight back to Europe.

By the end of the forties Australia reverted to a primarily British and Irish only policy again. Throughout the fifites and sixties with TV advertising they attracted about six million migrants about half what they wanted.

One phenomena Australia had noticed was the fact that not all British were as white as they seemed and had India or native ancestors, this often skipped a generation and a white migrant could have positively dark skinned children. To stamp this out during this 1950's/60's migration the Australian government made every British migrant attend a medical at the Australian embassy in London. The test was to guage their skin pigmentation, to check there ancestry back several generationns and run a series of similar test. Effectively a virtually similar test in both reason, methodology and crackpot science to the one the Germans had to trace Aryan purity before being allowed to join the SS.

So who said Nazism died in 45. Finanly in the 70's British immigration dried up again and Australia allowed immigrants at first from any European country and later any country.

Prime Minister William Hughes' attempts to introduce conscription during WWI failed, despite the fact that was a policy in line with British demands. The population obviously wasn't THAT loyal to Britain.

And the fact that the British monarch was Australia's head-of-state remains true to today... but few Australians would consider themselves anything other than Australians. That said, the 1998 referendum on the formation of an Australian republic was voted down, although I warrant the incumbent prime minister at the time had a slight bias towards the monarchy and that was partially responsible for the result.

Anyway, I take your point, though. Culturally Australia was effectively part of the British Empire till 1942 when the British finally met with a superior imperial power in the form of Japan. Technically, however, the British Empire ceased to exist in 1931 with the establishment of equality between dominions and the UK in the Statute of Westminster. Australia, however, didn't ratify the Statute until 1942 (the year of Singapore's fall).

Well when Billy Hughes was attempting to introduce conscription roughly 10% of the total Australian population was serving in the war, purely through volunterring. Conscription was voted down but Australian loyalty to the British Empire was such that the measure was hardly needed, not because Australians considered themselves independent of the Empire.

Also it is important to consider that Australia was no longer colonial in status, but a dominion. Dominion states operated with a more independent relationship towards Britain than the colonies. Until Queen Elizabeth, Britain still retained effective sovereignty, military occupation, economic leverage etc over dozens of today's nations. When they ceased to have that direct control and influence they ceased to be an Imperial power.

And yes, Britain was still far more powerful than Japan. Aside from being preoccupied with the Nazis, Britain's early losses also occured thanks to lightning Japanese surprise attacks. In the longer run the British possessed a far greater economic and military basis and could have defeated Japan by herself.

Well Heraclius, I will answer as best I can. And don't worry about the change in topic, it's been changed plenty of times since the thread began .

Australians are conservative generally, but only slightly so. They are also adaptable at a level which surprises me at times. But adaptation only occurs when there is a need for it. In 1998 we did have the referendum for a Republic, a form of voting where a majority of citizens and a majority of states must vote in favour of the proposal for it to carry. This is the most direct form of democracy we have in a political system where only representative parliamentary democracy is truly feasible. Only one state out of six had a majority of citizens vote in favour of a republic, and a majority of citizens overall voted against it. The slogan of the Constitutional Monarchist side was "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" which I think worked quite well.

The other thing which turned Australians away was that the way the Republicans were putting forward the notion was in such a way to resemble Americans in their drive for a republic, and to propose legislation for vain-glorious, self indulgent purposes is never something which strikes a chord with Aussies (sorry if I sound overly full of my country but Australians can be very suspicious and cynical about things they see no hard, practical value in). America needed its revolution, but all the referendum would have changed is the official head of state and a few minor positions in the bureaucracy so it was basically a fairly hollow set of proposals. Australians remained a Constitutional Monarchy more because the system worked well for them and they saw no good reason to change it, rather than loyalty to Britain and the Crown (though with some people that was a good reason to vote NO to the referendum). Though I am certain that one day Australia will be a republic, it's just a matter of the Republican lobby producing a catchy advertising campaign or the Governor-General (Queen's representative in Australia) making a major stuff up.

My opinion of Britain is not that of a typical Australian, because I am a lover of history. Your average Aussie knows a bit of our history, but doesn't think too much about the UK except where family (and alot have British relatives) and sport is concerned. Australia is overwhelmingly a product of the British though, according to the 2001 census 93% of our population are Caucasian, with 70% of the total ethnic origins of our people being traced back to either Britain or Ireland, making us a hugely Anglo-Celtic people. I have a good opinion of Britain, because I realize the massively beneficial long-term impact their colonization had and if any other European nation had settled here this place would probably be a developing world nation. Personally I have alot of admiration that that one small island has managed to give birth to the most powerful civilization in the world today, has given a huge amount (inspite of the bad points all Empires have) to the world, and learnt the lessons of the American Revolution to create the vibrant state I live in.

Your average Aussie likes to poke fun at the Brits, but harbours no real animosity. It is all the football-team like rivalry that we develop with any nation with whom we have prominent relations. People here were still deeply shocked by the London bombings, so we have a genuine concern for the British as a related people. To be honest your average Aussie doesn't concern himself with much more than trivial domestic politics when it comes to thinking about politics, but I suspect historians will grudgingly acknowledge the British left a fairly benevolent legacy here and gave us a solid foundation.

I agree that Britain gets an unfair press and Hollywood slanders her more than it should. Out of all the Empires Britain was both the most successful and the most beneficial for the long term interests of her subject nations. The nations which have kept the British legacies of parliamentary democracy, the legal system and other facets of British civilization seem far more progressive than the other beleaguered former colonies of other Empires. That's a generalization with exceptions, but I believe it to be true.

And no, you Brits do not lack a sense of humour. I love the British sense of humour, it is so rich and the Brits have the ability to laugh at themselves which is great. Why should nations like Australia and Canada sever ties with such a vibrant nation which still has so much to offer! I have also found Canadians some of the most enjoyable and pleasant company.

Oh and as for those Ashes, keep them, mate. The "gentleman's game" bores me on mind numbing levels. Have you ever heard of/watched a game of Australian Rules Football? Plenty of action, alot of agility and speed in that.