Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A bit OT but of the same vein. What would of happened if the West had followed a "prime directive" rule form the 1800's onwards. Would the rest of the world caught up? People slate the UK and other European countries for their empire building, but what would of happened if we'd left them alone?

Wolfstan wrote:A bit OT but of the same vein. What would of happened if the West had followed a "prime directive" rule form the 1800's onwards. Would the rest of the world caught up? People slate the UK and other European countries for their empire building, but what would of happened if we'd left them alone?

Interesting question. China has a long history of isolationism, but that was driven largely by the West, and concerns over "purity". I would guess that the Mughals and the Ottomans wlould be the big players, at least if Russia is considered part of the West.

Flashman wrote:I think the "Great" is becoming a bit of a joke these days.

Well to be fair there is no such nation as Great Britain, never was.

Great Britain means the greater as in larger land of the Britons, the 'lesser' realms of the 'Britons are Brittany and Ireland. And this only applies to old pre-Roman celts. The name still stands and keeps its original meaning as the major land of the Britons, though the term British has changed over the last two millenia.

Furthermore Great Britain continues to exist as the specific proper name for the very large island just north of France. Ireland, Anglesey Isel of Wight etc are not part of Great Britain, though parts may be components of the United Kingdom, which is something else entirely.

I heard on the radio that a significant proportion of the population of Jamaica now wish they had not left the comfy confines of the Empire, what with poverty and crime etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13952592

Anyone else wishing to jump on this bandwagon should form and orderly [British] queue.

USA to the back please, there’s the matter of backdated taxes to sort out.

Tea anyone?

notprop wrote:USA to the back please, there’s the matter of backdated taxes to sort out.

Tea anyone?

I'm confused, you want the UK to be the 51st state?

Nah, we want America to be our 87th county.

Fraz, you are thinking of the old Bush/Bliar trial period. You took us to ghastly places for luch and expected us to foot our share of the bill.

This is the new and improved special relationship.


"All your base are ones"

"Ours" notprop. Royal we. Poor show.

You clearly do not know to whom you address?

[Corgi assassins dispatched]

Great, eaten by Weiners and now eaten by Corgies. Why is it that Dakka keeps having me eaten by tiny dogs?

Unless you mean the toy cars. Not ruling it out.

Wolfstan wrote:A bit OT but of the same vein. What would of happened if the West had followed a "prime directive" rule form the 1800's onwards. Would the rest of the world caught up? People slate the UK and other European countries for their empire building, but what would of happened if we'd left them alone?

The US did pretty well for itself after the Revolutionary War, after all we had all of the cheap cotton the 19th century British textiles industry could ever dream of buying. We also did set up a thing called the Monroe doctrine relatively fast that said we wouldn't let European Nations colonize in our side of the hemisphere. All the while we were fighting pirates in the Barbary Coast, America became a pretty balls to the wall kind of country really quick in relations to other countries.

Monroe Doctrine was issued in 1823, shortly after the War of 1812 which ended in early 1815.

If we are going by modern standards, I would say USA, but I am a little biased in that category...
if we say all time...I might give it to the Romans, were just awesome in every category, held together an expansive empire comprised of MANY different types of peoples, furthered medicine and engineering and literature and warfare a great deal. Just overall, awesome.

dajobe wrote:If we are going by modern standards, I would say USA, but I am a little biased in that category...
if we say all time...I might give it to the Romans, were just awesome in every category, held together an expansive empire comprised of MANY different types of peoples, furthered medicine and engineering and literature and warfare a great deal. Just overall, awesome.

The same could be said of the British Empire, though, in spades.

I see the greatest across time periods as this; Egypt, Rome, Ottomans, China, Prussia, England, and America.

I am not saying the english empire did not accomplish anything, they spread literacy and engineering and medicine to many parts of the world that had NONE prior to their arrival, and the world would have been a VERY different place if sed empire had never existed, but I think the magnitude in which the romans changed and advanced society cannot be matched. Also, the romans were a colonial power 900+ years, how many years were the english colonizing overseas? Alot, but i dont think that many. Another thing is that the Romans had their empire alot earlier than the english in a time when communication, travel and almost everything was harder, and I believe that it would be harder to run an empire without good, communication, transport, etc...

Rome went through a lot of leadership changes though, Oligarchy, Republic, Monarchy, Empire...

that they did, but that was also over the course of a little more than a 1000 years, can you name a government that has not had one leadership change since the year 750 BC? maybe china? and they have been changing recently

The United States has always been a representative government.

halonachos wrote:The United States has always been a representative government.

So has Britain since 1651. Historically speaking, the US hasn't been around for that long.

htj wrote:

halonachos wrote:The United States has always been a representative government.

So has Britain since 1651.

Perhaps you misunderstand what the word always means.

in 1651 the king still had a great deal of power and to say that English government has not changed since 1651 would be wrong. However, US govt has only been around for nearly 250 years which is not that long, but i do think we are here to stay.

Ahtman wrote:

htj wrote:

halonachos wrote:The United States has always been a representative government.

So has Britain since 1651.

Perhaps you misunderstand what the word always means.

Just over 200 years? Alright, poorly worded on my part, admittedly. The point I was trying to make was that the US is a relatively young country. Rome lasted for well over the length of time the US has existed with no governmental restructures for several periods, so it's not an entirely fair comparison.

US has stuck with same balance of power between Executive, Judicial and Representative branch since its inception in 1787(when constitution was signed). Where as English parliament has had a great shift in power from the king, to the house of lords and now to the house of commons.

dajobe wrote:in 1651 the king still had a great deal of power and to say that English government has not changed since 1651 would be wrong. However, US govt has only been around for nearly 250 years which is not that long, but i do think we are here to stay.

So did Rome.

Oh, and it's probably not accurate to say that the king had a great deal of power in 1651, what with him being dead and all.

htj wrote:So did Rome.

Oh, and it's probably not accurate to say that the king had a great deal of power in 1651, what with him being dead and all.

Actually, the funny thing is is that you can be dead and have a whole boat load of power. Well....technically I am not dead. I just pretend to be dead and watch in amusement as humanity does all the work for me in conquering the galaxy while I then go and astral project myself through all of time and space to be all the powerful people that ever existed in human existance.

Edit: wrong quote

That is nice, but still doesn't recognize the problem of saying that a country that hasn't always been a representative democracy always has been. If they have been a rep dem since 1651 then before 1651 it wasn't a rep, thus showing that it hasn't always been a rep dem. So saying it has always been one from the beginning like the US is a bit of a silly thing to say.

The USA may be young, but we've been a country longer than Germany.

lol, the person in the kings position still held a great deal more power in 1651 than the person in the king(queen) position does today.

And if the US changes gives all of its power to an emporer and then has a bunch of really bad emperors in a row, then yes, the US would fall as well.

OK, seriously? Not ragging on the United States here. All faults aside, your country has been responsible for a positive trend towards individual liberty throughout the world and has been home to some great individuals. So please do not get defencive, I am not trying to take that from you. I am merely pointing out that claiming an unbroken political system for nearly 250 years, whilst accurate, is not that long a time, historically speaking. There are many countries that have kept the same political structure for the same length of time and considerably longer. The Roman Empire is one of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Edit: wrong quote

That is nice, but still doesn't recognize the problem of saying that a country that hasn't always been a representative democracy always has been. If they have been a rep dem since 1651 then before 1651 it wasn't a rep, thus showing that it hasn't always been a rep dem. So saying it has always been one from the beginning like the US is a bit of a silly thing to say.

The USA may be young, but we've been a country longer than Germany.

You're quite right, which is why I retracted it in my following post. You could argue that a country that alters it's political system is no longer the same country, though, merely one that shares the name of it's predecessor. It depends on what you consider makes a country a country. But that's semantics, not worth getting into.

The thread isn't about countries, it's about nations, which is a different concept.

i guess thats true, in whcih case, the English have been around for a while... Chinese have been around for a REALLY long time... there have been a ton of nations that have existed and done lots of things, but i'm not sure if nation is what he meant, i think he meant country because its hard to say that my nation (A large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.) is better. Thats like saying English is better than Spanish. or My culture is better than your culture. Its impossible to say which is the greatest.