Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
That was a close call.
However the sheer scale of the british empire - the biggest ever - edges it for me. Also the global impact of English and industry, springing therefrom
A slightly better exit from Empire too, although the jury might still be out on that.
Is 50 years not enough for you?? Most was gone by 1972....
Brunei and Belize endured till the '80s. And Hong Kong went in 1997.
Wasn’t our very first true colony Bermuda? It is mentioned by Shakespeare. And we still have it
500 years….
You’d think they’d have earned full incorporation into the UK by now, as France has done with some of its overseas regions.
The UK. England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland…and BERMUDA.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
That was a close call.
However the sheer scale of the british empire - the biggest ever - edges it for me. Also the global impact of English and industry, springing therefrom
A slightly better exit from Empire too, although the jury might still be out on that.
Is 50 years not enough for you?? Most was gone by 1972....
Brunei and Belize endured till the '80s. And Hong Kong went in 1997.
That counts as an Empire? lol..... And Hong Kong was only ever borrowed from China.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
I think you need to look at the extent of the French Empire in the early nineteenth century. From Indonesia to the Americas, it was truly global and possibly a touch earlier than Britain's?
That's a good point; although wasn't it *very* short-lived? Also, what long-term effects did it have?
HYUFD is always going on about Canadian data whenever we discuss indyref and he gets off the subject of generations.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
The Nazi Empire was very temporary.
The Inca were rolled over by a few Spaniards. However they were a locally fantastic cultural and societal peak, whereas the Mongols clearly weren't.
Your list, your choices.
Yeah I wouldn’t go MAD and put the Nazis in the top five or anything. That would be morally wrong. They were repulsively evil. The Holocaust ALONE rules out a top 3 position
But number 7 or 8? Arguable
If I was to define 'empire', then I would not include areas that were ruled for a handful of years as part of what turned out to be temporary occupations.
Here's another one; the Soviet empire? (I see you didn't have the Russian empire on your list.)
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
Nazis as the best dressed evil empire?
I don't know. There's a lot to be said for a toga and a military muscle cuirass.
Looking forward to attending the next pb fancy dress gathering...?
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
That was a close call.
However the sheer scale of the british empire - the biggest ever - edges it for me. Also the global impact of English and industry, springing therefrom
A slightly better exit from Empire too, although the jury might still be out on that.
Is 50 years not enough for you?? Most was gone by 1972....
Enough for me - yes. Enough for all - not so sure.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
I think you need to look at the extent of the French Empire in the early nineteenth century. From Indonesia to the Americas, it was truly global and possibly a touch earlier than Britain's?
The Portuguse were world wide before the French. Brazil, West Africa, Angola, Mozambique, India, Indonesia, China and a trading port in Japan.
Thanks, yes, I briefly mentioned them just now but I'm not quite sure on the Spanish and Portuguese influence in the east, how profound it was. I have half an idea that some Indians have Portuguese names to this day, but I'm really not sure.
The Portuguese empire was crazily violent. That’s how a small poor country on the windy edge of Iberia seized a quarter of the world
Total aggression and limitless brutality. The Portuguese were the ISIS of their day
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
I think you need to look at the extent of the French Empire in the early nineteenth century. From Indonesia to the Americas, it was truly global and possibly a touch earlier than Britain's?
If it was that good we’d all be speaking French. We don’t. Even where it colonised they’ve abandoned much of the culture - see Indochina
I’d have it in the top 20. Above the Aztec behind the Assyrian
I was only saying it was global in scale. Clearly globality (yeah, that's a word now) was a possibility unlocked by technology because it happened all at once with several different empires of European origin.
I know you're mostly trying to provoke in this whole thread, but it doe seem you're a bit confused. You emphasis scale here, but minimise it there. You're mainly trying to objectify your subjective feelings.
The sinking of the Moskva is to be welcomed, but I do wonder if we are entering the dangerous phase of the “operation” where Russia starts lashing out wildly to create salvage its humiliation and create chaos.
Against that, they should take Mariupol soon.
Although once they have taken it, the Ukrainians can visit fiery death on them.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
I think you need to look at the extent of the French Empire in the early nineteenth century. From Indonesia to the Americas, it was truly global and possibly a touch earlier than Britain's?
The Portuguse were world wide before the French. Brazil, West Africa, Angola, Mozambique, India, Indonesia, China and a trading port in Japan.
Thanks, yes, I briefly mentioned them just now but I'm not quite sure on the Spanish and Portuguese influence in the east, how profound it was. I have half an idea that some Indians have Portuguese names to this day, but I'm really not sure.
The Portuguese empire was crazily violent. That’s how a small poor country on the windy edge of Iberia seized a quarter of the world
Total aggression and limitless brutality. The Portuguese were the ISIS of their day
Which is how I fear Russia will 'rule' over countries they invade or take over. Before anyone accuses me of hyperbole, just look at Chechnya, or the 'independent' areas of the Donbass.
Disgracefully, nobody has mentioned the NZ Empire which commenced formally in 1901 with control of Niue and the Cook Islands and, with various comings and goings, continues to this day.
The island of Tokelau (population 1500) is currently administrated by Ross Ardern, who happens to be Jacinda’s father.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
I think you need to look at the extent of the French Empire in the early nineteenth century. From Indonesia to the Americas, it was truly global and possibly a touch earlier than Britain's?
If it was that good we’d all be speaking French. We don’t. Even where it colonised they’ve abandoned much of the culture - see Indochina
I’d have it in the top 20. Above the Aztec behind the Assyrian
I was only saying it was global in scale. Clearly globality (yeah, that's a word now) was a possibility unlocked by technology because it happened all at once with several different empires of European origin.
I know you're mostly trying to provoke in this whole thread, but it doe seem you're a bit confused. You emphasis scale here, but minimise it there. You're mainly trying to objectify your subjective feelings.
I was just trying to stop you all being dull. You in particular. Because you can be quite engaging
That said, my list actually took some thought. Scale is absolutely vital for judging empire, empires are all about conquest. I’d put cultural impact next and nearly as important
The british empire was the biggest ever and the global hegemony of the English language gives it - to my mind - the most cultural impact (with Rome either equal or a close second)
So britain’s primacy is justified. The French empire had scale but so did Spain Portugal China etc etc, and France had much less cultural impact (outside Africa)
Anyway now I must continue my hike over the unfairly maligned Chilterns. I am drowning in the song of skylarks. Wonderful
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
The Nazi Empire was very temporary.
The Inca were rolled over by a few Spaniards. However they were a locally fantastic cultural and societal peak, whereas the Mongols clearly weren't.
Your list, your choices.
Yeah I wouldn’t go MAD and put the Nazis in the top five or anything. That would be morally wrong.
But number 7 or 8? Arguable
Not unless you want to include the French too - and they'd have to be much higher up. Napoleon really did have an Empire.
I wonder too about America in the list. They are I think second in terms of global power projection ever, but they're far from imperialist - although much more so than they claim - for example the Phillipines War.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
Just more evil, really. Empires are inherently bad.
Cept ours. Ours was complex in its moral underpinnings, its motivations, its prosecution, its legacy. An undertaking of light and shade, with consequences too nuanced to be condemned out of hand.
Summary of the last year of local election results.
That's fascinating, thanks. Labour not doing as well as I expected, and the Lib Dems better.
Would be interesting to see whether there's a break in the shape of that graph before the autumn and since. Labour were doing really rather poorly in the summer and a lot better by the winter.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
Just more evil, really. Empires are inherently bad.
Cept ours. Ours was complex in its moral underpinnings, its motivations, its prosecution, its legacy. An undertaking of light and shade, with consequences too nuanced to be condemned out of hand.
Yes, obviously apart from ours. Others relentlessly exploited divided or technologically underdeveloped people. We brought the candle of civilisation into the darkness.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
I think you need to look at the extent of the French Empire in the early nineteenth century. From Indonesia to the Americas, it was truly global and possibly a touch earlier than Britain's?
If it was that good we’d all be speaking French. We don’t. Even where it colonised they’ve abandoned much of the culture - see Indochina
I’d have it in the top 20. Above the Aztec behind the Assyrian
I was only saying it was global in scale. Clearly globality (yeah, that's a word now) was a possibility unlocked by technology because it happened all at once with several different empires of European origin.
I know you're mostly trying to provoke in this whole thread, but it doe seem you're a bit confused. You emphasis scale here, but minimise it there. You're mainly trying to objectify your subjective feelings.
I was just trying to stop you all being dull. You in particular. Because you can be quite engaging
That said, my list actually took some thought. Scale is absolutely vital for judging empire, empires are all about conquest. I’d put cultural impact next and nearly as important
The british empire was the biggest ever and the global hegemony of the English language gives it - to my mind - the most cultural impact (with Rome either equal or a close second)
So britain’s primacy is justified. The French empire had scale but so did Spain Portugal China etc etc, and France had much less cultural impact (outside Africa)
Anyway now I must continue my hike over the unfairly maligned Chilterns. I am drowning in the song of skylarks. Wonderful
It's nice of you to try to cure my chronic dullness, but better men and women than you have tried and failed and run screaming from the arena.
"Tories set to lose 800 council seats – and Sir Keir Starmer on course to be PM in 2024 Pollsters Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now forecast five per cent swing from Tories to Labour at local elections"
Isn't there a chance that the PM could lose his seat in an GE on figures like that? Have there been any whispers about him moving to a safer one?
It's another reason for Boris to depart next year. Losing an 80 seat majority to dreadfully dreary Starmer would be bad enough. Losing his seat too, in a Portillo moment of national rejoicing, would haunt him for decades....
No British Prime Minister has ever lost his seat at a General Election. Not one. The closest anyone has come are Balfour in 1906 and Macdonald in 1935, who had both been PM a few months before (one for Balfour, six for MacDonald).
For Johnson to lose his seat a la John Howard would be an epochal humiliation that would far dwarf any Portillo moment.
That is more a factor of how safe their seat is. Major's Huntingdon had a massive majority in 1992 for example but he won a smaller majority than Boris did in 2019 but with Boris' Uxbridge seat having a smaller majority.
As for John Howard he also won 4 general elections before he lost his seat and the election in 2007 and is still the second longest serving Australian PM since WW2
I didn't know Major stood in Huntingdon in 2019.
To an extent you're right about the safeness of the seats, and that's partly because promising politicians in marginal seats are usually transferred to safer ones so they don't get booted from the House of Commons, which until Johnson made his name as London mayor was the only way of gaining executive power. And, of course, around half of British Prime Ministers have been peers, which skews the figures.
But it would still be a calamitous result for Johnson, especially as he claims to be the man who wins every vote he contests.
Didn't Johnson lose one of his Oxford student contest. And the first time he stood for Parliament, in N Wales.
Johnson won the Presidency of the Oxford Union as the SDP backed candidate in the Thatcher years
I thought that was the second time that he tried. Does anyone know; I confess I can't be bothered to wade through his Wikipedia entry.
2 accounts here one from Toby Young.
Boris lost on his first attempt when he was the High Tory candidate to a state educated candidate who went on to be an adviser to Nick Clegg.
However he won on his second attempt, this time with the backing of the largely SDP Limehouse group against the Australian son of a multi millionaire
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
Just more evil, really. Empires are inherently bad.
Cept ours. Ours was complex in its moral underpinnings, its motivations, its prosecution, its legacy. An undertaking of light and shade, with consequences too nuanced to be condemned out of hand.
Yes, obviously apart from ours. Others relentlessly exploited divided or technologically underdeveloped people. We brought the candle of civilisation into the darkness.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
Just more evil, really. Empires are inherently bad.
Cept ours. Ours was complex in its moral underpinnings, its motivations, its prosecution, its legacy. An undertaking of light and shade, with consequences too nuanced to be condemned out of hand.
Caroline Elkins, who is a Harvard history professor, has just published a book which describes the British Empire has thoroughly steeped in violence. It is mildly controversial.
Her previous book described Britain’s war against against the Mau Mau as a “gulag”, and was her testimony was used in the case that saw Britain pay £20m in compensation to Kenyan victims of colonial atrocities.
Disgracefully, nobody has mentioned the NZ Empire which commenced formally in 1901 with control of Niue and the Cook Islands and, with various comings and goings, continues to this day.
The island of Tokelau (population 1500) is currently administrated by Ross Ardern, who happens to be Jacinda’s father.
I've recently read Captain Cook's diaries. Unimaginable that you could sail for months in floating crate and then with just some tens of you take on a whole country. Similar of course to the Spanish in America.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
The Nazi Empire was very temporary.
The Inca were rolled over by a few Spaniards. However they were a locally fantastic cultural and societal peak, whereas the Mongols clearly weren't.
Your list, your choices.
Yeah I wouldn’t go MAD and put the Nazis in the top five or anything. That would be morally wrong.
But number 7 or 8? Arguable
Not unless you want to include the French too - and they'd have to be much higher up. Napoleon really did have an Empire.
I wonder too about America in the list. They are I think second in terms of global power projection ever, but they're far from imperialist - although much more so than they claim - for example the Phillipines War.
America is an empire.
What do you think happened to all those indigenous Indians? Who controls the global trading system?
Summary of the last year of local election results.
That's fascinating, thanks. Labour not doing as well as I expected, and the Lib Dems better.
It must be possible to do similar historic summaries and see if there's any correlation with more important elections.
What we know from past experience is that local by-elections in the run-up to the main May local elections can give a reasonably good indicator about what might happen
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
The Nazi Empire was very temporary.
The Inca were rolled over by a few Spaniards. However they were a locally fantastic cultural and societal peak, whereas the Mongols clearly weren't.
Your list, your choices.
Yeah I wouldn’t go MAD and put the Nazis in the top five or anything. That would be morally wrong.
But number 7 or 8? Arguable
Not unless you want to include the French too - and they'd have to be much higher up. Napoleon really did have an Empire.
I wonder too about America in the list. They are I think second in terms of global power projection ever, but they're far from imperialist - although much more so than they claim - for example the Phillipines War.
America is an empire.
What do you think happened to all those indigenous Indians? Who controls the global trading system?
America is absolutely an empire
It just happened to expand overland rather than overseas. As the Russian empire did (and they at least admitted theirs was an empire and called the leader a Caesar - or a tsar)
Beyond the USA America has had formal and informal possessions from the Philippines to Puerto Rico to Guam to Samoa to the Caribbean
And with the dollar it has exercised the same trading hegemony the british did
And now as the American empire fades we can begin to see that it had its virtues. Is a world run by China going to be superior? Hmmm
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
Who do Britons want to win the French presidential election?
All Britons: Macron 37% / Le Pen 19%
Con voters: Macron 24% / Le Pen 37% Lab voters: Macron 53% / Le Pen 8%
There they are again, that 20%, same people - Trump, Hard Brexit, now LePen. Will also, if asked, be very keen on the idea of decanting refugees to Rwanda. What a horror show. Should be packed off to Rwanda themselves imo.
Looking at those figures confirms for me why I left the Conservative Party. People who can endorse Le Pen have nothing in common with me. Shows the unfortunate distance and direction the Conservative Party has travelled in its desire to appease and please those who voted for Farage.
I agree with you completely (you can share the smelling salts).
Macron is an abject, awful, inappropriate, disaster of a quasi-effective President.
He's also the only option on the ballot and needs to win. Anyone backing Le Pen is either ignorant or has very unpleasant politics, or both.
I’m not really supposed to comment on domestic politics, but the best potential president is not in the second round
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
I think you need to look at the extent of the French Empire in the early nineteenth century. From Indonesia to the Americas, it was truly global and possibly a touch earlier than Britain's?
If it was that good we’d all be speaking French. We don’t. Even where it colonised they’ve abandoned much of the culture - see Indochina
I’d have it in the top 20. Above the Aztec behind the Assyrian
I was only saying it was global in scale. Clearly globality (yeah, that's a word now) was a possibility unlocked by technology because it happened all at once with several different empires of European origin.
I know you're mostly trying to provoke in this whole thread, but it doe seem you're a bit confused. You emphasis scale here, but minimise it there. You're mainly trying to objectify your subjective feelings.
I was just trying to stop you all being dull. You in particular. Because you can be quite engaging
That said, my list actually took some thought. Scale is absolutely vital for judging empire, empires are all about conquest. I’d put cultural impact next and nearly as important
The british empire was the biggest ever and the global hegemony of the English language gives it - to my mind - the most cultural impact (with Rome either equal or a close second)
So britain’s primacy is justified. The French empire had scale but so did Spain Portugal China etc etc, and France had much less cultural impact (outside Africa)
Anyway now I must continue my hike over the unfairly maligned Chilterns. I am drowning in the song of skylarks. Wonderful
It's nice of you to try to cure my chronic dullness, but better men and women than you have tried and failed and run screaming from the arena.
You flatter yourself. They just agree in the car home from your dinner parties "Remind me never to do that again...."
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
It is all purely subjective. But wasn't the British empire the first to span the entire globe (the second being the American economic empire, and the third may be the Chinese economic empire)? In addition, the British empire was a vast area ruled by a tiny country, and when the empire ended, it did so mostly through agreements rather than conquests. And the effects of the British Empire are still felt around the world, culturally and politically.
Against that, the British empire lasted only about two centuries (a few decades at peak), whilst the Roman empire lasted ?over double? the length. And the Roman Empire was long enough ago that we can think of it as being 'cool' without being too bothered about the hideousness at its heart.
I'd also probably put the Ottoman Empire above the Roman, for the area ruled, its effects, and how long it lasted.
But as I say, it's all subjective.
I think you need to look at the extent of the French Empire in the early nineteenth century. From Indonesia to the Americas, it was truly global and possibly a touch earlier than Britain's?
If it was that good we’d all be speaking French. We don’t. Even where it colonised they’ve abandoned much of the culture - see Indochina
I’d have it in the top 20. Above the Aztec behind the Assyrian
I was only saying it was global in scale. Clearly globality (yeah, that's a word now) was a possibility unlocked by technology because it happened all at once with several different empires of European origin.
I know you're mostly trying to provoke in this whole thread, but it doe seem you're a bit confused. You emphasis scale here, but minimise it there. You're mainly trying to objectify your subjective feelings.
I was just trying to stop you all being dull. You in particular. Because you can be quite engaging
That said, my list actually took some thought. Scale is absolutely vital for judging empire, empires are all about conquest. I’d put cultural impact next and nearly as important
The british empire was the biggest ever and the global hegemony of the English language gives it - to my mind - the most cultural impact (with Rome either equal or a close second)
So britain’s primacy is justified. The French empire had scale but so did Spain Portugal China etc etc, and France had much less cultural impact (outside Africa)
Anyway now I must continue my hike over the unfairly maligned Chilterns. I am drowning in the song of skylarks. Wonderful
It's nice of you to try to cure my chronic dullness, but better men and women than you have tried and failed and run screaming from the arena.
You flatter yourself. They just agree in the car home from your dinner parties "Remind me never to do that again...."
Some of them don't even make it that far. Sometimes there's just a wet thud as they die face down in their soup.
Nick Boles @NickBoles · 4h Before I head off for Easter, and switch off Twitter, some Good Friday thoughts about Keir Starmer.
First, the bleeding obvious, he’s not exactly charismatic or exciting 1/
Nick Boles @NickBoles · 4h I’d call that a pretty impressive scorecard. He’s not a political wizard. Not an Obama, a Clinton or a Blair. But I reckon he’ll be Prime Minister after the next election and deserve to be. END
Nick Boles @NickBoles · 4h Before I head off for Easter, and switch off Twitter, some Good Friday thoughts about Keir Starmer.
First, the bleeding obvious, he’s not exactly charismatic or exciting 1/
Nick Boles @NickBoles · 4h I’d call that a pretty impressive scorecard. He’s not a political wizard. Not an Obama, a Clinton or a Blair. But I reckon he’ll be Prime Minister after the next election and deserve to be. END
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
Perhaps I should write a header.
We should do that and move the joint capital and seat of Government to Toronto (just to annoy everyone). What's left of the Monarchy can be moved to their new official residence complex in Winnipeg and we can get on with things.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
To add: my justification is that they are responsible for the development of writing which we have to admit has been fairly influential.
Nick Boles @NickBoles · 4h Before I head off for Easter, and switch off Twitter, some Good Friday thoughts about Keir Starmer.
First, the bleeding obvious, he’s not exactly charismatic or exciting 1/
Nick Boles @NickBoles · 4h I’d call that a pretty impressive scorecard. He’s not a political wizard. Not an Obama, a Clinton or a Blair. But I reckon he’ll be Prime Minister after the next election and deserve to be. END
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
To add: my justification is that they are responsible for the development of writing which we have to admit has been fairly influential.
TBF the Incans and Chinese might differ on what "writing" was.
Nick Boles @NickBoles · 4h Before I head off for Easter, and switch off Twitter, some Good Friday thoughts about Keir Starmer.
First, the bleeding obvious, he’s not exactly charismatic or exciting 1/
Nick Boles @NickBoles · 4h I’d call that a pretty impressive scorecard. He’s not a political wizard. Not an Obama, a Clinton or a Blair. But I reckon he’ll be Prime Minister after the next election and deserve to be. END
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
Have to include the Zulu empire - not only for martial prowess but it lead to one of the best bank holiday weekend films ever - Zulu - and the cultural impact of their music across the world with the Lion Sleeps Tonight……
Nick Boles @NickBoles · 4h Before I head off for Easter, and switch off Twitter, some Good Friday thoughts about Keir Starmer.
First, the bleeding obvious, he’s not exactly charismatic or exciting 1/
Nick Boles @NickBoles · 4h I’d call that a pretty impressive scorecard. He’s not a political wizard. Not an Obama, a Clinton or a Blair. But I reckon he’ll be Prime Minister after the next election and deserve to be. END
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
To add: my justification is that they are responsible for the development of writing which we have to admit has been fairly influential.
TBF the Incans and Chinese might differ on what "writing" was.
There is/was a very good documentary series on iPlayer about the history of writing.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
To add: my justification is that they are responsible for the development of writing which we have to admit has been fairly influential.
TBF the Incans and Chinese might differ on what "writing" was.
There is/was a very good documentary series on iPlayer about the history of writing.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
To add: my justification is that they are responsible for the development of writing which we have to admit has been fairly influential.
TBF the Incans and Chinese might differ on what "writing" was.
There is/was a very good documentary series on iPlayer about the history of writing.
Do you recall any further details? Please.
It was very interesting how it showed the way in which Egyptian hieroglyphics and Chinese writing developed the same way amongst other things. So symbols directly representing something such as wheat or water could be combined with another symbol to make another word because if you added the sounds together of the two symbol words they were the same as the on other word.
It should still be there in the documentaries: history section.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
Have to include the Zulu empire - not only for martial prowess but it lead to one of the best bank holiday weekend films ever - Zulu - and the cultural impact of their music across the world with the Lion Sleeps Tonight……
Has anyone mentioned the Hunnic? Short duration but immense impact on Roman and Byzantine Europe.
Re the Rwandan thing, has this been discussed? Pics of the tourist hostel HMG have presumably leased in a tearing hurry.
I'm not entirely sure it will satisfy some, who will see it as pampering the illegals and refugees. And I'm not entirely sure that it can handle 30K people a year.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
To add: my justification is that they are responsible for the development of writing which we have to admit has been fairly influential.
TBF the Incans and Chinese might differ on what "writing" was.
There is/was a very good documentary series on iPlayer about the history of writing.
Do you recall any further details? Please.
It was very interesting how it showed the way in which Egyptian hieroglyphics and Chinese writing developed the same way amongst other things. So symbols directly representing something such as wheat or water could be combined with another symbol to make another word because if you added the sounds together of the two symbol words they were the same as the on other word.
It should still be there in the documentaries: history section.
One of my more interesting forays in Lebanon was to the museum at Biblos.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
To add: my justification is that they are responsible for the development of writing which we have to admit has been fairly influential.
TBF the Incans and Chinese might differ on what "writing" was.
True. There was certainly parallel development. But the earliest writing in Mesopotamia is about 2k years earlier than the earliest Chinese writing found (so far).
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
To add: my justification is that they are responsible for the development of writing which we have to admit has been fairly influential.
TBF the Incans and Chinese might differ on what "writing" was.
There is/was a very good documentary series on iPlayer about the history of writing.
Do you recall any further details? Please.
It was very interesting how it showed the way in which Egyptian hieroglyphics and Chinese writing developed the same way amongst other things. So symbols directly representing something such as wheat or water could be combined with another symbol to make another word because if you added the sounds together of the two symbol words they were the same as the on other word.
It should still be there in the documentaries: history section.
Likewise, cuneiform starts with pictograms and becomes logographic over ~1000 years.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
Nazis as the best dressed evil empire?
I don't know. There's a lot to be said for a toga and a military muscle cuirass.
On togas, has anyone tried ironing a real toga (as opposed to a bedsheet over a teeshirt).
Very roughly a 5m diameter semi-circle of cloth.
Sort of thing you'd wrap BJ up in to stop him yammering.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Roman before British, surely.
That was a close call.
However the sheer scale of the british empire - the biggest ever - edges it for me. Also the global impact of English and industry, springing therefrom
A slightly better exit from Empire too, although the jury might still be out on that.
Is 50 years not enough for you?? Most was gone by 1972....
Brunei and Belize endured till the '80s. And Hong Kong went in 1997.
Wasn’t our very first true colony Bermuda? It is mentioned by Shakespeare. And we still have it
500 years….
You’d think they’d have earned full incorporation into the UK by now, as France has done with some of its overseas regions.
The UK. England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland…and BERMUDA.
I think there's a lot to be said for that, but on a wider basis. Representation in the Commons for Falkands, Ascension, Bermuda. Perhaps even IOM and the others. And Eel Pie Island.
There are some quite serious reasons to do it - protection of marine environments etc.
I wonder whether France has a 6th Republic coming down the track in the next 20 years.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
To add: my justification is that they are responsible for the development of writing which we have to admit has been fairly influential.
TBF the Incans and Chinese might differ on what "writing" was.
There is/was a very good documentary series on iPlayer about the history of writing.
Do you recall any further details? Please.
It was very interesting how it showed the way in which Egyptian hieroglyphics and Chinese writing developed the same way amongst other things. So symbols directly representing something such as wheat or water could be combined with another symbol to make another word because if you added the sounds together of the two symbol words they were the same as the on other word.
It should still be there in the documentaries: history section.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
To add: my justification is that they are responsible for the development of writing which we have to admit has been fairly influential.
TBF the Incans and Chinese might differ on what "writing" was.
There is/was a very good documentary series on iPlayer about the history of writing.
Do you recall any further details? Please.
It was very interesting how it showed the way in which Egyptian hieroglyphics and Chinese writing developed the same way amongst other things. So symbols directly representing something such as wheat or water could be combined with another symbol to make another word because if you added the sounds together of the two symbol words they were the same as the on other word.
It should still be there in the documentaries: history section.
Found the page but the documentary itself is no longer available. One of the reasons, I suspect, that we downgrade African history is that it was rarely, if ever, written down. It's also interesting, and one of these days I'll find out a bit more, I hope, to compare the scripts used in SE Asia. Especially given the strong Chinese influence there.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
Mongol empire above the Spanish.... hmm I disagree. What did the Mongols really achieve?
2nd biggest ever - behind only the British - and transformed China. Is my thinking
The Macedonions and the Egyptians definitely are above the Incas. I'd suggest above the Portugese and the Mongols too.
I was feeling a bit “Woke” - so I put the Incas in. Take them out again?
There is an argument for the Nazi empire being in the top ten in terms of the satanic and hypnotic grip it has had on us, ever since - and also its politico-cultural impact - see Ukraine now
An absolutely evil empire, of course, but evil empires can still impress
Nazis as the best dressed evil empire?
I don't know. There's a lot to be said for a toga and a military muscle cuirass.
On togas, has anyone tried ironing a real toga (as opposed to a bedsheet over a teeshirt).
Very roughly a 5m diameter semi-circle of cloth.
Sort of thing you'd wrap BJ up in to stop him yammering. [snip]
One just leaves it to one's slaves. As one does the actual putting it on. Instructional film:
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
To add: my justification is that they are responsible for the development of writing which we have to admit has been fairly influential.
TBF the Incans and Chinese might differ on what "writing" was.
There is/was a very good documentary series on iPlayer about the history of writing.
Do you recall any further details? Please.
It was very interesting how it showed the way in which Egyptian hieroglyphics and Chinese writing developed the same way amongst other things. So symbols directly representing something such as wheat or water could be combined with another symbol to make another word because if you added the sounds together of the two symbol words they were the same as the on other word.
It should still be there in the documentaries: history section.
Found the page but the documentary itself is no longer available. One of the reasons, I suspect, that we downgrade African history is that it was rarely, if ever, written down. It's also interesting, and one of thee days I'll find out a bit more, I hope, to compare the scripts used in SE Asia. Especially given the strong Chinese influence there.
Again there is/was a great BBC4 doc on iPlayer called Africa’s great civilisations. Very balanced about Africa’s own role in the slave trade but incredibly interesting on Ethiopia, Great Zimbabwe, Benin etc. I never knew that Swahili was a composite language of Arabic and local East African languages that developed through trading.
Re the Rwandan thing, has this been discussed? Pics of the tourist hostel HMG have presumably leased in a tearing hurry.
I'm not entirely sure it will satisfy some, who will see it as pampering the illegals and refugees. And I'm not entirely sure that it can handle 30K people a year.
What I’ve only just twigged about the UK plan is that it’s using inadmissibility powers, not the offshoring powers in the bill. They will judge that someone could & should have claimed asylum elsewhere. Then they deem that claim inadmissible - not the responsibility of the UK.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
To add: my justification is that they are responsible for the development of writing which we have to admit has been fairly influential.
TBF the Incans and Chinese might differ on what "writing" was.
There is/was a very good documentary series on iPlayer about the history of writing.
Do you recall any further details? Please.
It was very interesting how it showed the way in which Egyptian hieroglyphics and Chinese writing developed the same way amongst other things. So symbols directly representing something such as wheat or water could be combined with another symbol to make another word because if you added the sounds together of the two symbol words they were the same as the on other word.
It should still be there in the documentaries: history section.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
Perhaps I should write a header.
We should do that and move the joint capital and seat of Government to Toronto (just to annoy everyone). What's left of the Monarchy can be moved to their new official residence complex in Winnipeg and we can get on with things.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
CANZUK lacks an overriding strategic rationale and is geographically problematic.
Anglo-Canada alone would be the third largest country in the world (after Russia and China), and would be 3rd on military spending and could probably close in on 3rd for GDP too.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
Perhaps I should write a header.
We should do that and move the joint capital and seat of Government to Toronto (just to annoy everyone). What's left of the Monarchy can be moved to their new official residence complex in Winnipeg and we can get on with things.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
CANZUK lacks an overriding strategic rationale and is geographically problematic.
Anglo-Canada alone would be the third largest country in the world (after Russia and China), and would be 3rd on military spending and could probably close in on 3rd for GDP too.
We’d have stop the blighters with the French language nonsense though!
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
Perhaps I should write a header.
We should do that and move the joint capital and seat of Government to Toronto (just to annoy everyone). What's left of the Monarchy can be moved to their new official residence complex in Winnipeg and we can get on with things.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
CANZUK lacks an overriding strategic rationale and is geographically problematic.
Anglo-Canada alone would be the third largest country in the world (after Russia and China), and would be 3rd on military spending and could probably close in on 3rd for GDP too.
We’d have stop the blighters with the French language nonsense though!
Part of the “deal” would be that Britain becomes more Canadian. We’d probably want to brush up on our French.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
I think CAUK is better, as the Kiwis have sold their country to China to the extent that the Americans don't share much intelligence with them any more.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
To add: my justification is that they are responsible for the development of writing which we have to admit has been fairly influential.
TBF the Incans and Chinese might differ on what "writing" was.
There is/was a very good documentary series on iPlayer about the history of writing.
Do you recall any further details? Please.
It was very interesting how it showed the way in which Egyptian hieroglyphics and Chinese writing developed the same way amongst other things. So symbols directly representing something such as wheat or water could be combined with another symbol to make another word because if you added the sounds together of the two symbol words they were the same as the on other word.
It should still be there in the documentaries: history section.
Found the page but the documentary itself is no longer available. One of the reasons, I suspect, that we downgrade African history is that it was rarely, if ever, written down. It's also interesting, and one of thee days I'll find out a bit more, I hope, to compare the scripts used in SE Asia. Especially given the strong Chinese influence there.
Again there is/was a great BBC4 doc on iPlayer called Africa’s great civilisations. Very balanced about Africa’s own role in the slave trade but incredibly interesting on Ethiopia, Great Zimbabwe, Benin etc. I never knew that Swahili was a composite language of Arabic and local East African languages that developed through trading.
There were, a while ago, a couple of WEA Zoom courses on the subject. Can't recommend one of them, but there was a lot about the Arab/East African 'interaction'. We hear a lot about slavery from West Africa, mainly because it was 'us' but very little about the East Africa trade.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
Perhaps I should write a header.
We should do that and move the joint capital and seat of Government to Toronto (just to annoy everyone). What's left of the Monarchy can be moved to their new official residence complex in Winnipeg and we can get on with things.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
CANZUK lacks an overriding strategic rationale and is geographically problematic.
Anglo-Canada alone would be the third largest country in the world (after Russia and China), and would be 3rd on military spending and could probably close in on 3rd for GDP too.
How about a confederation consisting of all the countries that drive on the left?
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
Perhaps I should write a header.
We should do that and move the joint capital and seat of Government to Toronto (just to annoy everyone). What's left of the Monarchy can be moved to their new official residence complex in Winnipeg and we can get on with things.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
CANZUK lacks an overriding strategic rationale and is geographically problematic.
Anglo-Canada alone would be the third largest country in the world (after Russia and China), and would be 3rd on military spending and could probably close in on 3rd for GDP too.
We’d have stop the blighters with the French language nonsense though!
Part of the “deal” would be that Britain becomes more Canadian. We’d probably want to brush up on our French.
At least we would do better in the Winter Olympics.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
Perhaps I should write a header.
We should do that and move the joint capital and seat of Government to Toronto (just to annoy everyone). What's left of the Monarchy can be moved to their new official residence complex in Winnipeg and we can get on with things.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
CANZUK lacks an overriding strategic rationale and is geographically problematic.
Anglo-Canada alone would be the third largest country in the world (after Russia and China), and would be 3rd on military spending and could probably close in on 3rd for GDP too.
We’d have stop the blighters with the French language nonsense though!
Part of the “deal” would be that Britain becomes more Canadian. We’d probably want to brush up on our French.
And Gaelic. Still very much part of Canadian culture on the eastern side.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
Perhaps I should write a header.
We should do that and move the joint capital and seat of Government to Toronto (just to annoy everyone). What's left of the Monarchy can be moved to their new official residence complex in Winnipeg and we can get on with things.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
CANZUK lacks an overriding strategic rationale and is geographically problematic.
Anglo-Canada alone would be the third largest country in the world (after Russia and China), and would be 3rd on military spending and could probably close in on 3rd for GDP too.
We’d have stop the blighters with the French language nonsense though!
Part of the “deal” would be that Britain becomes more Canadian. We’d probably want to brush up on our French.
At least we would do better in the Winter Olympics.
Who do Britons want to win the French presidential election?
All Britons: Macron 37% / Le Pen 19%
Con voters: Macron 24% / Le Pen 37% Lab voters: Macron 53% / Le Pen 8%
There they are again, that 20%, same people - Trump, Hard Brexit, now LePen. Will also, if asked, be very keen on the idea of decanting refugees to Rwanda. What a horror show. Should be packed off to Rwanda themselves imo.
Looking at those figures confirms for me why I left the Conservative Party. People who can endorse Le Pen have nothing in common with me. Shows the unfortunate distance and direction the Conservative Party has travelled in its desire to appease and please those who voted for Farage.
I agree with you completely (you can share the smelling salts).
Macron is an abject, awful, inappropriate, disaster of a quasi-effective President.
He's also the only option on the ballot and needs to win. Anyone backing Le Pen is either ignorant or has very unpleasant politics, or both.
Although I believe you once also voted for Farage, in some respects Le Pen is now more the French Farage than the French Nick Griffin, with economic policies closer to Labour than the Tories
For the umpteenth time I never voted for Farage.
I cast a protest vote to get rid of a failed Prime Minister and to expel Farage from the European Parliament.
I have never and would never cast a vote to get Farage into Parliament, I voted to get him out of it.
Smelling salts no longer needed. You voted for Farage. Your excuses are no doubt similar to those people in France who will use similar excuses for reasons to vote Le Pen. There are no excuses that excuse voting for fascists IMO.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
Perhaps I should write a header.
We should do that and move the joint capital and seat of Government to Toronto (just to annoy everyone). What's left of the Monarchy can be moved to their new official residence complex in Winnipeg and we can get on with things.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
CANZUK lacks an overriding strategic rationale and is geographically problematic.
Anglo-Canada alone would be the third largest country in the world (after Russia and China), and would be 3rd on military spending and could probably close in on 3rd for GDP too.
We’d have stop the blighters with the French language nonsense though!
Part of the “deal” would be that Britain becomes more Canadian. We’d probably want to brush up on our French.
This is not one of your best & brightest, @Gardenwalker
The West of Canada resents the dominance of Ontario & Quebec, who almost always supply the Prime Minister.
Quebec resents Anglophone Canada.
Anglophone Canada resents the special privileges of Quebec. The Francophones in New Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick are terrified that Quebec will leave.
Prince Edward Island resents being forgotten about. Newfoundland resents losing its status as an independent country and joining the Confederation in the 1949 referendum.
The tiny Maritimes resent Quebec and Ontario and the West of Canada.
And the First Nations resent the Canadian genocide.
And everyone in Canada resents their wealthy Braggadocio of a neighbour to the South ... until they leave Canada and settle in greater LA or NYC or Chicago.
Canada is more likely to fall to pieces than the YooKay.
Top ten empires judged by might, scale, impact, romance, prowess, victories, astonishingness, pivotality
1. British 2. Roman 3. Ottoman 4. Mongol 5. American 6. Chinese 7. Portuguese 8. Spanish 9. Inca 10. Persian
I would like to have seen the Akkadian Empire in there, not because it was really that big but because it was the first.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
If we have to stick to 10, I'd relegate the Incas interesting and locally violent though they were, and vote you Akkadians in at 9, with the Johnnie-come-lately Persians staying at 10.
To add: my justification is that they are responsible for the development of writing which we have to admit has been fairly influential.
TBF the Incans and Chinese might differ on what "writing" was.
There is/was a very good documentary series on iPlayer about the history of writing.
Do you recall any further details? Please.
It was very interesting how it showed the way in which Egyptian hieroglyphics and Chinese writing developed the same way amongst other things. So symbols directly representing something such as wheat or water could be combined with another symbol to make another word because if you added the sounds together of the two symbol words they were the same as the on other word.
It should still be there in the documentaries: history section.
Who do Britons want to win the French presidential election?
All Britons: Macron 37% / Le Pen 19%
Con voters: Macron 24% / Le Pen 37% Lab voters: Macron 53% / Le Pen 8%
There they are again, that 20%, same people - Trump, Hard Brexit, now LePen. Will also, if asked, be very keen on the idea of decanting refugees to Rwanda. What a horror show. Should be packed off to Rwanda themselves imo.
Looking at those figures confirms for me why I left the Conservative Party. People who can endorse Le Pen have nothing in common with me. Shows the unfortunate distance and direction the Conservative Party has travelled in its desire to appease and please those who voted for Farage.
I agree with you completely (you can share the smelling salts).
Macron is an abject, awful, inappropriate, disaster of a quasi-effective President.
He's also the only option on the ballot and needs to win. Anyone backing Le Pen is either ignorant or has very unpleasant politics, or both.
Although I believe you once also voted for Farage, in some respects Le Pen is now more the French Farage than the French Nick Griffin, with economic policies closer to Labour than the Tories
For the umpteenth time I never voted for Farage.
I cast a protest vote to get rid of a failed Prime Minister and to expel Farage from the European Parliament.
I have never and would never cast a vote to get Farage into Parliament, I voted to get him out of it.
Smelling salts no longer needed. You voted for Farage. Your excuses are no doubt similar to those people in France who will use similar excuses for reasons to vote Le Pen. There are no excuses that excuse voting for fascists IMO.
By accusing Farage of being a fascist you degrade your whole argument. But then when it comes to the EU you never had much of an argument anyway.
Re the Rwandan thing, has this been discussed? Pics of the tourist hostel HMG have presumably leased in a tearing hurry.
I'm not entirely sure it will satisfy some, who will see it as pampering the illegals and refugees. And I'm not entirely sure that it can handle 30K people a year.
What I’ve only just twigged about the UK plan is that it’s using inadmissibility powers, not the offshoring powers in the bill. They will judge that someone could & should have claimed asylum elsewhere. Then they deem that claim inadmissible - not the responsibility of the UK.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
Perhaps I should write a header.
We should do that and move the joint capital and seat of Government to Toronto (just to annoy everyone). What's left of the Monarchy can be moved to their new official residence complex in Winnipeg and we can get on with things.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
CANZUK lacks an overriding strategic rationale and is geographically problematic.
Anglo-Canada alone would be the third largest country in the world (after Russia and China), and would be 3rd on military spending and could probably close in on 3rd for GDP too.
We’d have stop the blighters with the French language nonsense though!
Part of the “deal” would be that Britain becomes more Canadian. We’d probably want to brush up on our French.
I've been hankering after getting a free-standing fire pit. In a local garden centre today they had an offer where if you bought one you got a free case of a dozen bottles of beer*. So it had to be done.
Now I need to get wood. (Stop sniggering at the back.)
Re the Rwandan thing, has this been discussed? Pics of the tourist hostel HMG have presumably leased in a tearing hurry.
I'm not entirely sure it will satisfy some, who will see it as pampering the illegals and refugees. And I'm not entirely sure that it can handle 30K people a year.
What I’ve only just twigged about the UK plan is that it’s using inadmissibility powers, not the offshoring powers in the bill. They will judge that someone could & should have claimed asylum elsewhere. Then they deem that claim inadmissible - not the responsibility of the UK.
Re the Rwandan thing, has this been discussed? Pics of the tourist hostel HMG have presumably leased in a tearing hurry.
I'm not entirely sure it will satisfy some, who will see it as pampering the illegals and refugees. And I'm not entirely sure that it can handle 30K people a year.
What I’ve only just twigged about the UK plan is that it’s using inadmissibility powers, not the offshoring powers in the bill. They will judge that someone could & should have claimed asylum elsewhere. Then they deem that claim inadmissible - not the responsibility of the UK.
Most, let me repeat, most, of America's current territory was purchased.
Louisiana purchase (roughly the middle third of the contiguous United States): from France. Florida: from Spain Mexican Secession (Texas, most of the southwest, California): from Mexico (The United States paid Mexico after defeating Mexico in the Mexican-American War.) Gadsden purchase (southern Arizona and a bit of New Mexico): from Mexico Alaska: from imperial Russia
It is also true that some of those purchases were made with the threat of force, implicitly or explicitly, as well as a money offer.
Re the Rwandan thing, has this been discussed? Pics of the tourist hostel HMG have presumably leased in a tearing hurry.
I'm not entirely sure it will satisfy some, who will see it as pampering the illegals and refugees. And I'm not entirely sure that it can handle 30K people a year.
What I’ve only just twigged about the UK plan is that it’s using inadmissibility powers, not the offshoring powers in the bill. They will judge that someone could & should have claimed asylum elsewhere. Then they deem that claim inadmissible - not the responsibility of the UK.
Re the Rwandan thing, has this been discussed? Pics of the tourist hostel HMG have presumably leased in a tearing hurry.
I'm not entirely sure it will satisfy some, who will see it as pampering the illegals and refugees. And I'm not entirely sure that it can handle 30K people a year.
What I’ve only just twigged about the UK plan is that it’s using inadmissibility powers, not the offshoring powers in the bill. They will judge that someone could & should have claimed asylum elsewhere. Then they deem that claim inadmissible - not the responsibility of the UK.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
Perhaps I should write a header.
We should do that and move the joint capital and seat of Government to Toronto (just to annoy everyone). What's left of the Monarchy can be moved to their new official residence complex in Winnipeg and we can get on with things.
Speaking of empires, or perhaps imperial nostalgia, I was asked about a year ago by a senior Labour figure what it would take for Britain to “recover some of the power and prestige we had when we were an Empire”.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
CANZUK lacks an overriding strategic rationale and is geographically problematic.
Anglo-Canada alone would be the third largest country in the world (after Russia and China), and would be 3rd on military spending and could probably close in on 3rd for GDP too.
We’d have stop the blighters with the French language nonsense though!
Part of the “deal” would be that Britain becomes more Canadian. We’d probably want to brush up on our French.
This is not one of your best & brightest, @Gardenwalker
The West of Canada resents the dominance of Ontario & Quebec, who almost always supply the Prime Minister.
Quebec resents Anglophone Canada.
Anglophone Canada resents the special privileges of Quebec. The Francophones in New Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick are terrified that Quebec will leave.
Prince Edward Island resents being forgotten about. Newfoundland resents losing its status as an independent country and joining the Confederation in the 1949 referendum.
The tiny Maritimes resent Quebec and Ontario and the West of Canada.
And the First Nations resent the Canadian genocide.
And everyone in Canada resents their wealthy Braggadocio of a neighbour to the South ... until they leave Canada and settle in greater LA or NYC or Chicago.
Canada is more likely to fall to pieces than the YooKay.
Excellent dental health though. It's usual for a Canadian child to be fitted with braces and this pays dividends with straight teeth in later life. And that's not all. Daily flossing is not the exception in Canada, it's the rule.
Comments
The UK.
England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland…and BERMUDA.
How many will claim political asylum?
Here's another one; the Soviet empire? (I see you didn't have the Russian empire on your list.)
Total aggression and limitless brutality. The Portuguese were the ISIS of their day
Clearly globality (yeah, that's a word now) was a possibility unlocked by technology because it happened all at once with several different empires of European origin.
I know you're mostly trying to provoke in this whole thread, but it doe seem you're a bit confused. You emphasis scale here, but minimise it there. You're mainly trying to objectify your subjective feelings.
Summary of the last year of local election results.
(In some ways this conversation feels a little dirty; like comparing your favourite dictators...)
The island of Tokelau (population 1500) is currently administrated by Ross Ardern, who happens to be Jacinda’s father.
2. ...
That said, my list actually took some thought. Scale is absolutely vital for judging empire, empires are all about conquest. I’d put cultural impact next and nearly as important
The british empire was the biggest ever and the global hegemony of the English language gives it - to my mind - the most cultural impact (with Rome either equal or a close second)
So britain’s primacy is justified. The French empire had scale but so did Spain Portugal China etc etc, and France had much less cultural impact (outside Africa)
Anyway now I must continue my hike over the unfairly maligned Chilterns. I am drowning in the song of skylarks. Wonderful
I wonder too about America in the list. They are I think second in terms of global power projection ever, but they're far from imperialist - although much more so than they claim - for example the Phillipines War.
Others relentlessly exploited divided or technologically underdeveloped people. We brought the candle of civilisation into the darkness.
Her previous book described Britain’s war against against the Mau Mau as a “gulag”, and was her testimony was used in the case that saw Britain pay £20m in compensation to Kenyan victims of colonial atrocities.
What do you think happened to all those indigenous Indians? Who controls the global trading system?
What we know from past experience is that local by-elections in the run-up to the main May local elections can give a reasonably good indicator about what might happen
is doing a fair bit of heavy lifting.
It just happened to expand overland rather than overseas. As the Russian empire did (and they at least admitted theirs was an empire and called the leader a Caesar - or a tsar)
Beyond the USA America has had formal and informal possessions from the Philippines to Puerto Rico to Guam to Samoa to the Caribbean
And with the dollar it has exercised the same trading hegemony the british did
And now as the American empire fades we can begin to see that it had its virtues. Is a world run by China going to be superior? Hmmm
1.Blair
isn't it?
I know many would have Atlee there, but the closer you look at the Atlee government the worse it looks.
I did give him an answer, which largely involves confederating with Canada.
Perhaps I should write a header.
Sounds an interesting concept.
Nick Boles
@NickBoles
·
4h
Before I head off for Easter, and switch off Twitter, some Good Friday thoughts about Keir Starmer.
First, the bleeding obvious, he’s not exactly charismatic or exciting 1/
Nick Boles
@NickBoles
·
4h
I’d call that a pretty impressive scorecard. He’s not a political wizard. Not an Obama, a Clinton or a Blair. But I reckon he’ll be Prime Minister after the next election and deserve to be. END
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1514900359902285825
I'll be rooting for him at the next election, though probably not actually voting for his party.
I would also suggest perhaps the Alexandrian Macedonian Empire for its scale (From Libya to India and the River Oxus in central Asia), the fact it beat the Empire you have at Number 10 and just general coolness.
But of course it didn't outlast its founder.
But otherwise I think the list is pretty good.
And soon.
Still feels like the Lab lead is very soft.
(Or perhaps 3.0 or 4.0 depending on the tech stack).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANZUK
It should still be there in the documentaries: history section.
I'm not entirely sure it will satisfy some, who will see it as pampering the illegals and refugees. And I'm not entirely sure that it can handle 30K people a year.
https://twitter.com/theipaper/status/1514569538024751113
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/inside-rwanda-centre-asylum-seekers-uk-channel-migrants-1575640?ito=social_itw_theipaper&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1649936491
The Incans are way later, AIUI.
On togas, has anyone tried ironing a real toga (as opposed to a bedsheet over a teeshirt).
Very roughly a 5m diameter semi-circle of cloth.
Sort of thing you'd wrap BJ up in to stop him yammering. I think there's a lot to be said for that, but on a wider basis. Representation in the Commons for Falkands, Ascension, Bermuda. Perhaps even IOM and the others. And Eel Pie Island.
There are some quite serious reasons to do it - protection of marine environments etc.
I wonder whether France has a 6th Republic coming down the track in the next 20 years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000mtml
Not on iplayer but try this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tguoS1nQ4Kw
First like a temporal paradox.
It's also interesting, and one of these days I'll find out a bit more, I hope, to compare the scripts used in SE Asia. Especially given the strong Chinese influence there.
Very roughly a 5m diameter semi-circle of cloth.
Sort of thing you'd wrap BJ up in to stop him yammering.
[snip]
One just leaves it to one's slaves. As one does the actual putting it on. Instructional film:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=how+to+wear+a+toga#kpvalbx=_SYhZYtfGAquDhbIPobi7wA422
Jon Featonby
@jonfeatonby
Replying to
@sundersays
What I’ve only just twigged about the UK plan is that it’s using inadmissibility powers, not the offshoring powers in the bill. They will judge that someone could & should have claimed asylum elsewhere. Then they deem that claim inadmissible - not the responsibility of the UK.
https://twitter.com/jonfeatonby/status/1514682901081821195
===
So, if I have understood then what happens to them after they touch down in Rwanda is Kegame's issue not UK's.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/tories-facing-election-wipeout-with-devastating-800-seat-loss-that-leads-starmer-to-no10/ar-AAWfEvh?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=c4f07da05b4a4fb9844c11a03cc94289
Anglo-Canada alone would be the third largest country in the world (after Russia and China), and would be 3rd on military spending and could probably close in on 3rd for GDP too.
We hear a lot about slavery from West Africa, mainly because it was 'us' but very little about the East Africa trade.
The West of Canada resents the dominance of Ontario & Quebec, who almost always supply the Prime Minister.
Quebec resents Anglophone Canada.
Anglophone Canada resents the special privileges of Quebec. The Francophones in New Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick are terrified that Quebec will leave.
Prince Edward Island resents being forgotten about. Newfoundland resents losing its status as an independent country and joining the Confederation in the 1949 referendum.
The tiny Maritimes resent Quebec and Ontario and the West of Canada.
And the First Nations resent the Canadian genocide.
And everyone in Canada resents their wealthy Braggadocio of a neighbour to the South ... until they leave Canada and settle in greater LA or NYC or Chicago.
Canada is more likely to fall to pieces than the YooKay.
http://www.jbail-byblos.gov.lb/baldati/project?la=en&id=19
I've been hankering after getting a free-standing fire pit. In a local garden centre today they had an offer where if you bought one you got a free case of a dozen bottles of beer*. So it had to be done.
Now I need to get wood. (Stop sniggering at the back.)
*Sam Smith's Organic Lager
Louisiana purchase (roughly the middle third of the contiguous United States): from France.
Florida: from Spain
Mexican Secession (Texas, most of the southwest, California): from Mexico (The United States paid Mexico after defeating Mexico in the Mexican-American War.)
Gadsden purchase (southern Arizona and a bit of New Mexico): from Mexico
Alaska: from imperial Russia
It is also true that some of those purchases were made with the threat of force, implicitly or explicitly, as well as a money offer.
https://twitter.com/jonfeatonby/status/1514682901081821195