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

[Member2019]

Whoa!

Really? The House of Commons became the House of Representatives , the House of Lords became the Senate and the King became the President.

Whoa! That is an over-simplification!

Yes, the House is the "lower house" like Commons and the Senate is the "upper house" like Lords, and the Foreign State aspect of the Presidency is like the King, but there are major differences as well. The House-Senate was created for reasons very, very different than the Common-Lords, and the evolution of the latter over time is very, very different than the continuing representation and purposes of the former.

Furthermore, the Domestic State aspect of the Presidency is like the Prime Minister, but the Presidency has not be selected by the Legislative for a long time. In fact, it was not uncommon for the Executive to be selected by the Electoral College in a way that was not majority party, even before the Electoral College started listening directly to the states based on party representation. Today the Presidency is quite different than Prime Minister in that he (or she) can often be from a different party than the Legislative.

And, frankly, was it not the British who laughed at the plain frontier Colonel turned General turned Executor that wanted to only be called "Mr. President," a man of no allegedly worthy title who was both Domestic and Foreign Head of State and Commander-in-Chief?

Lastly, although US law is based on the Judeo-Christian foundation and Common Law of the UK, the US Supreme Law and Judicial power is wholly unlike the UK. The US system was founded on ensuring that Legislators and Executors would never compromise individual rights ever again. In this regard, even some of the largest critics of the US revolution, were amazed by which the US solidified its protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with the all powerful Court.

Balancing out a legislative that had the power to enact laws, but no power to enforce them with the people, appointed for life, no power to make laws the ultimate authority in reviewing them with their ruling as Supreme. That set a real standard that had not been attempted much prior. The US was a combinational refinement of several things, most of all, the return to the supreme of the individual.

Virtually all of the Bill of Rights is a major slap to the common British law at the time.
- Right to Assembly
- Right to Bear Arms
- Right to No Forced Housing
- Right to No Seizure
- Right to Not Incriminate Oneself
- etc...

The Magna Carta, although an important document in the creation of the United States (and displayed as such even in the US), did not move to protect these, nor enact a judicial infrastructure charged with their protection as the supreme. Influence? Yes. Same purpose? Hardly.

The settlers in America were British or descendants of them.

Oh that is so untrue! That had not only not been the supermajority case before the US Revolutionary War, but with in the next 100 years, totally removed! German, Irish and other, although heavily European, immigrants well outside the Commonwealth were a major influx into the US over the next century.

Many still considered themselves as Btitish living away from home (this feeling was commonly found in Australia and Canada until 1914)

Um, no, sorry, not the US. Please do not confuse US history and attitudes with those nations still in the British Commonwealth. The Revolutionary War drastically changed those.

In fact, you had two major types of people early on in the US:
- Those who didn't want to have anything to do with European affairs
- Those who wanted to reward the French with more loyalty

Maintaining British ties, other than for purposes on seeming neutral, were non-existent. The British and French and other European power found themselves with equal opportunity for American goods, to a point. Contentions would arise out of more European issues, not American favortism.

and kept the ideas of being free people with free speech.

Oh, I do not disagree there. The foundation of the "American experiment" was extremely and heavily based on the British stewartship of the colonies. The British are heavily to praise for what the US became. I don't deny that.

In fact, it was only a change in British policy that quickly caused the US to revolt. Had that not happened, I don't disagree. The US might have stayed subjects to the Crown and Commonwealth. But once it happened, don't think it wasn't a major change.

So after independence the thinking was always going to be on the British pattern based on freedom.

Er, it wasn't solely British, no offense. Yes, as I said, the British cultivated it. It was the British that helped make the American Experiment flourish. But it was hardly only British in foundation.

Though unlike in Britain where slavery was already illegal freedom wasn't quite universal.

A great stain on the US for various socio-economic reasons that had long left the UK.

America's influence was gradual but many changes had already come about (industrialisation, mechanisation,insurance,mass transport) , the changes brought by the US are cultural (Hollywood , fast food etc) and advances in such things as computing (where much of the groundwork and the first electronic computers came from Britain anyway)

The British were responsible for most technology advances through the 1960s that the US would enjoy. No disagreements there. Computing machinery was also a great, British invention carried forward.

There were some great American discovers in flight and rocketry, but they were wholly undervalued in general, and given no support, unlike in the UK. The US would end up taking up after the UK as a result.

and in particular in communications though Alexander Graham Bell was Scottish.The question is-has America CHANGED the world in any significant way like the British did?

There were many Americans who came from other nations (not just the UK) that were responsible for such.

I think you're missing the point that while the UK cultivated the "American Experiment," the people that made up the "American Experiment" were hardly only "British or British Descendents" -- especially after 1783! The US is the product of a hands-off British policy until 1770 and a post-revolution influx of even more Europeans (that were already a significant make-up).

 

[Shindekudasai]

With all due respect I don't need any additional information about "empires", "oligarchies", monarchies, plutocracies nor any other "...ocracies". I have more than enough learned information myself to sensibly and reasonably offer an opinion on the question asked and support it with what I believe reasonably makes my case.

I don't need to refer to dictionaries to understand the meaning and traditional uses of fairly common words like "empire". You believed my use was inconsistent with the definition. I posted the definition of what I already knew to be true to refute your assertion and so that others may judge. You're apparently a lexicographer too with your own dictionary as you derive meanings from words not consistent with their traditional meanings and uses. I owe all I know from practical and professional life experience, formal education, an outgoing, adventurous lifestyle based on constant challenge, attaining knowledge and common sense. With all that, I confess to not being good enough to assign meanings to words different from the way lexicographers have them defined.

There are many different ways the word "empire" is used from referring to an individual's personal wealth and assets to a persons status in an industry. In the context of the OP's question, I don't believe the US qualifies as one (yet). There is no evidence or consideration of the US ever having been one aside from a the Empire State building and a few goofy neocons trying to promulgate an agenda.

That said, I stand by my assertion, rationale and opinion that the British Empire was the most influential in human history.

Well, according to your posting, stubbornly holding on to common sense can replace science anytime. Well, good luck with that. If that had been the case in the 1960s, America wouldn't have been on the moon by now.
The English language doesn't even know the difference between "Kaiserreich" and "Imperium". It's all "empire". So, why don't you take it from someone, who knows the difference. On top of that, lexicographers of online dictionaries are not gods. We're not talking about a Cambridge dictionary or encyclopedia here. I got one particular dictionary here on my bookshelf, that I received as a present when I went to elementary school. The lexicographer, who made it, probably thought himself smart. The truth is, I take this dictionary from the shelf on occasion to make guests laugh, because the definitions and descriptions in it are sometimes so biased, crooked or superficial, that they become dangerously wrong.
I don't believe your usage of the word was inconsistent with it's full meaning and it's scientifically and scholarly accepted definition, I know. I don't know why you refuse to accept that. I don't run around telling my fiancée how to do her job or what she has really learned and studied, just because I watched Grey's Anatomy every once in a while.
I am a little bit surprised that someone, whom I took for a rational and educated person until now, refuses so blatantly to learn and to accept the explanations given by someone who is professionally far ahead of him. I don't know, what your job is, but I'm probably not in a position professionally to question what you'd say to me about your work.

That being said, I'll take my bag and leave this thread. With all due respect...

 

[Hot Mega]

Well, according to your posting, stubbornly holding on to common sense can replace science anytime. Well, good luck with that. If that had been the case in the 1960s, America wouldn't have been on the moon by now.
The English language doesn't even know the difference between "Kaiserreich" and "Imperium". It's all "empire". So, why don't you take it from someone, who knows the difference. On top of that, lexicographers of online dictionaries are not gods. We're not talking about a Cambridge dictionary or encyclopedia here. I got one particular dictionary here on my bookshelf, that I received as a present when I went to elementary school. The lexicographer, who made it, probably thought himself smart. The truth is, I take this dictionary from the shelf on occasion to make guests laugh, because the definitions and descriptions in it are sometimes so biased, crooked or superficial, that they become dangerously wrong.
I don't believe your usage of the word was inconsistent with it's full meaning and it's scientifically and scholarly accepted definition, I know. I don't know why you refuse to accept that. I don't run around telling my fiancée how to do her job or what she has really learned and studied, just because I watched Grey's Anatomy every once in a while.
I am a little bit surprised that someone, whom I took for a rational and educated person until now, refuses so blatantly to learn and to accept the explanations given by someone who is professionally far ahead of him. I don't know, what your job is, but I'm probably not in a position professionally to question what you'd say to me about your work.

That being said, I'll take my bag and leave this thread. With all due respect...

While I know maybe enough about the German language to get myself into trouble, I'll gladly defer to you on that subject.

So if you could answer just one question before you pack up and leave, it would be much appreciated. What is the direct translation of "Kaiserreich" from German to English?

Also, I don't know where you gather that I challenged your professional integrity...I merely offered what I affirmatively believed.

 

[lovejoy]

Really? The House of Commons became the House of Representatives , the House of Lords became the Senate and the King became the President.A similar set up with a lawmaking assembly , a revising chamber and a Head of State.The difference is in the detail.

The House of Commons is absolutely different than the House of Representatives. The House of Commons whether it is in U.K., Australia or Canada or other Commonwealth countries are nothing but shouting at each others and yelling. The majority of the parties leader becomes the Prime Minister and there is no fixed Election day. All the Ministers have to be Member of the House of Commons.

The US system is totally different. Secretaries of different Government Department are not chosen from the House of Representatives. And they can not just have a VOTE OF NON-CONFIDENCE and overthrow the government. Another Election??? How stupid is the British system !

The House of Lords is a joke. While the US Senate truly yields the great power of legislation.

I do not want to say the British system is inferior but it is out-of-date. Do you know you don't even need to live in the district to be a MP (Member of Paliament, but as a Congressman/woman, you are required to live in the District you represent.

Also Bell is claimed by many countries. So I would recommend you to "wiki" Bell because three different countries or more all claim Bell as its citizen. :fight:

 

[lovejoy]

Alexander Graham Bell was Scottish but all three countries UK, US and Canada claim Alexander Graham Bell as its citizen.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

With all due respect I don't need any additional information about "empires", "oligarchies", monarchies, plutocracies nor any other "...ocracies". I have more than enough learned information myself to sensibly and reasonably offer an opinion on the question asked and support it with what I believe reasonably makes my case.

I don't need to refer to dictionaries to understand the meaning and traditional uses of fairly common words like "empire". You believed my use was inconsistent with the definition. I posted the definition of what I already knew to be true to refute your assertion and so that others may judge. You're apparently a lexicographer too with your own dictionary as you derive meanings from words not consistent with their traditional meanings and uses. I owe all I know from practical and professional life experience, formal education, an outgoing, adventurous lifestyle based on constant challenge, attaining knowledge and common sense. With all that, I confess to not being good enough to assign meanings to words different from the way lexicographers have them defined.

There are many different ways the word "empire" is used from referring to an individual's personal wealth and assets to a persons status in an industry. In the context of the OP's question, I don't believe the US qualifies as one (yet). There is no evidence or consideration of the US ever having been one aside from a the Empire State building and a few goofy neocons trying to promulgate an agenda.

That said, I stand by my assertion, rationale and opinion that the British Empire was the most influential in human history.

Spot on.

 

[sproing99]

I do not want to say the British system is inferior but it is out-of-date. Do you know you don't even need to live in the district to be a MP (Member of Paliament, but as a Congressman/woman, you are required to live in the District you represent.

Almost all MP's do live in their constituency though.

And it's not unknown for U.S. candidates to be "parachuted" into a district.

 

[marquis2]

The sad thing about the House of Lords was that it was doing its best work when it WAS just a collection of unelected hereditary peers.Anachronistic yes, but these were well educated and well informed people who took each issue on its own merits without regard to Party lines.And they sent back a lot of Bills for revision regardless of which party was in power.We won't get a House of the same quality with elected Members, we'll just get the same thing as in the Commons.
Ministers do not have to be MPs .Look at Lord Mandelson (on second thoughts don't bother, not a pretty sight)

And to Prof-slavery has never been legal in Britain , it wasn't abolished as it never existed.Judge Mansfield said this in 1772 ;
The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged

 

[marquis2]

The House of Commons is absolutely different than the House of Representatives. The House of Commons whether it is in U.K., Australia or Canada or other Commonwealth countries are nothing but shouting at each others and yelling. :

You get this impression if you watch "Prime Minister's Question Time" which is a free for all lasting an hour each week. The vast majority of the time issues are debated with a lot of old fashioned courtesy where an MP is allowed his say;if anyone wishes to speak he raises his order paper and is generally allowed to take the floor.First words are "I am grateful to the Honourable Member for giving way"
Much of the work is also done in committee under quite civilised conditions.

 

[lovejoy]

And to Prof-slavery has never been legal in Britain , it wasn't abolished as it never existed.Judge Mansfield said this in 1772 ;
The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged

In reality, is the British system of using the Indians and Chinese as "economic slaves" in South America and the Carribean colonies better than the slaves from west Africa in the America ?

True, it is better and the difference is British has a way "how to manage people" without using excessive forces than the Southerners in America to use slave-hunters to hunt slaves in west Africa.


British "encouraged" poor Indians to migrate to Africa, to Guyana, to Jamaica to the rest of British Commonwealth to do "slavery work". But most are allowed to bring their families and most of the Asian Indians do settled down and couple hundred years later, those Indian descendents become Prime Ministers (but in rare occasions do clashed with the local black natives in the Pacific Islands British colonies).

It is that "special touch" the British can do when dealing with slavery issues.

However, the American back in 1800's did not have the "pool" of Asian workers in India or Southern China to draw from and the territories were controlled by the British Empire. So the Southerners had to get the slaves from the western Africa.

With this as the background, I do not faultered the American back in the 1800's using slavery to do the cotton work.

The American are still using the Chinese to do most of the work and paid them less than 10 cents an hours back in the early 1982 !

So it is still "economic slaves" but the Chinese are willing and capable of making shoes, clothings and now become the "world factories" for the developed world.

 

[Gordar]

http://my.raex.com/~obsidian/earthrul.html

A nice list of empires & their sizes.

& here's a map of the British Empire (although I personally wouldn't count the mandates (Iraq, Palestine/Isreal, Angola, Tanzania, Papua New Guinea, Jordan, Southern & Northern Cameroons) as being part of the British empire (except class C mandates, but I'm not mentioning those), so if we take that off the 14,157,000 sq. miles (36,666,630 sq. km.) we come to 12,876,569 sq. miles (33,378,693 sq. km.):

Iraq = 169,234 sq. miles (438,317 sq. km.)
Israel = 8,019 sq. miles (20,770 sq. km.)
Angola = 481,354 sq. miles (1,246,700 sq. km.)
Tanzania = 364,898 sq. miles (945,203 sq. km.)
P. N. Guinea = 178,703 sq. miles (462,840 sq. km.)
Jordan = 45,495 sq. miles (89,341 sq. km.)
Northern C. = 16,364 sq. miles (42,383 sq. km.) (couldn't find the exact number (it's now part of Nigeria) but it's approx. the same size as the southern Cameroons)
Southern C. = 16,364 sq. miles (42,383 sq. km.) +
1,280,421 sq. miles (3,287,937 sq. km.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/BritishEmpire1919.png

One could also argue if the dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland & Ireland) shouldn't be counted as being part of the British empire either, since even though they're loyal to the British monarch, this monarch is bound by the magna carta and has little real power. All of these dominions have & had independent governments by the time the English conquered Africa...

 

[Shindekudasai]

So if you could answer just one question before you pack up and leave, it would be much appreciated. What is the direct translation of "Kaiserreich" from German to English?

Honestly, I don't know whether there's a direct translation or not. I always read "empire", when there's talk about a "Kaiserreich" in English books/articles/etc.
A "Kaiserreich" is a certain type of monarchy. As a kingdom ("Königreich") for example is governed by a king ("König"), a "Kaiserreich" is governed by a "Kaiser". "Kaiser" are higher in rank than kings. They are the rulers of the highest rank.
"Kaiser" is often translated with "emperor", but "emperor" can also mean "Imperator". "Imperator" is the highest (often honorary) title for military or political leaders of great success. Gaius Julius Caesar for example was a "Caesar" and an "Imperator", but never king or "Kaiser", because Rome was a republic at that time. Thus he was emperor in one sense of the English word "emperor", but not in the other. Augustus on the other hand was "Imperator" and "Kaiser", because he was also sole ruler of Rome and Rome was no longer a republic, thus he was emperor in the full sense of the English word.
It's the same with "empire", which can mean "Kaiserreich" and can mean "Imperium". Both are considered more powerful and influential than normal nations or countries.
I'll give one example of the making of a Kaiserreich. When Germany became "Kaiserreich" again in 1871, it did so by

• winning the "Zweite Schleswig-Holsteinsche Krieg" (second war for Schleswig-Holstein) against the King of Denmark, finally claiming Schleswig-Holstein for Germany ("Up ewig ungedeelt")
• making friends with Russia and thus having them accept Germanys grasp for power in Europe, effectively pushing the Russian empire out of Europe
• winning the so called "German War" against Austria, which was Kaiserreich until then because of the Austrian-Hungarian double crown (what historians call the "Danube Monarchy"), and thus becoming more powerful than Austria and Hungary (which ultimately led to the dissolution of the Danube Monarchy)
• solving the "Deutsche Frage" by unifying the "Deutsche Bund", Prussia, Bavaria etc. as one German nation again under one crown (only a few parts like Austria or parts of Bohemia or the Sudeten Germans were missing),
• defeating France as the (arguably) leading military power in Europa within only ten months in the Franco-Prussian/German War and abolishing the French Kaiserreich.

And all of this happened within just seven years. Britain had no say in all of it because it was spread too thin all over the globe (and didn't want to say too much because they didn't like the French and the Russians very much at that time) and Spain, Portugal and Italy had long lost their influence and power. That's one example of the making of a Kaiserreich. This German Kaiserreich had only three Kaiser though, before it was abolished again by the Germans themselves in 1918.

The Romans and the Germans had many "Kaiser" throughout their history. France had two, Austria four, Russia fourteen (if I'm not mistaken), China more than a hundred. The only Kaiser still living today is the Japanese Tennô (which means Japan is a monarchy, but the quality of government is democracy, same as England).
A "Kaiserreich" is ruled by a "Kaiser", as I previously explained. Which means, it is a monarchy (not a republic!). The quality of government can vary (absolutism, authoritarian, totalitarian,...). An "Imperium" on the other hand is not necessarily ruled by a "Kaiser", it can also be ruled by an elite or by the people, thus it can be a monarchy, but it can also be a republic. While the US certainly are not a "Kaiserreich" (not even a monarchy), scholars of history and political science widely agree that the US are an "Imperium".

 

[Jagger69]

I think that if you examine history from a "right now" standpoint, the Roman empire is the most lasting and influential civilization that ever existed. It has remnants everywhere you look. Ultimately, or perhaps only in passing, I believe that the United States will approximate similar influence....may already have as most would argue that the USA has peaked and is now in decline.

 

[Hot Mega]

Honestly, I don't know whether there's a direct translation or not. I always read "empire", when there's talk about a "Kaiserreich" in English books/articles/etc.
A "Kaiserreich" is a certain type of monarchy. As a kingdom ("Königreich") for example is governed by a king ("König"), a "Kaiserreich" is governed by a "Kaiser". "Kaiser" are higher in rank than kings. They are the rulers of the highest rank.
"Kaiser" is often translated with "emperor", but "emperor" can also mean "Imperator". "Imperator" is the highest (often honorary) title for military or political leaders of great success. Gaius Julius Caesar for example was a "Caesar" and an "Imperator", but never king or "Kaiser", because Rome was a republic at that time. Thus he was emperor in one sense of the English word "emperor", but not in the other. Augustus on the other hand was "Imperator" and "Kaiser", because he was also sole ruler of Rome and Rome was no longer a republic, thus he was emperor in the full sense of the English word.
It's the same with "empire", which can mean "Kaiserreich" and can mean "Imperium". Both are considered more powerful and influential than normal nations or countries.
I'll give one example of the making of a Kaiserreich. When Germany became "Kaiserreich" again in 1871, it did so by

• winning the "Zweite Schleswig-Holsteinsche Krieg" (second war for Schleswig-Holstein) against the King of Denmark, finally claiming Schleswig-Holstein for Germany ("Up ewig ungedeelt")
• making friends with Russia and thus having them accept Germanys grasp for power in Europe, effectively pushing the Russian empire out of Europe
• winning the so called "German War" against Austria, which was Kaiserreich until then because of the Austrian-Hungarian double crown (what historians call the "Danube Monarchy"), and thus becoming more powerful than Austria and Hungary (which ultimately led to the dissolution of the Danube Monarchy)
• solving the "Deutsche Frage" by unifying the "Deutsche Bund", Prussia, Bavaria etc. as one German nation again under one crown (only a few parts like Austria or parts of Bohemia or the Sudeten Germans were missing),
• defeating France as the (arguably) leading military power in Europa within only ten months in the Franco-Prussian/German War and abolishing the French Kaiserreich.

And all of this happened within just seven years. Britain had no say in all of it because it was spread too thin all over the globe (and didn't want to say too much because they didn't like the French and the Russians very much at that time) and Spain, Portugal and Italy had long lost their influence and power. That's one example of the making of a Kaiserreich. This German Kaiserreich had only three Kaiser though, before it was abolished again by the Germans themselves in 1918.

The Romans and the Germans had many "Kaiser" throughout their history. France had two, Austria four, Russia fourteen (if I'm not mistaken), China more than a hundred. The only Kaiser still living today is the Japanese Tennô (which means Japan is a monarchy, but the quality of government is democracy, same as England).
A "Kaiserreich" is ruled by a "Kaiser", as I previously explained. Which means, it is a monarchy (not a republic!). The quality of government can vary (absolutism, authoritarian, totalitarian,...). An "Imperium" on the other hand is not necessarily ruled by a "Kaiser", it can also be ruled by an elite or by the people, thus it can be a monarchy, but it can also be a republic. While the US certainly are not a "Kaiserreich" (not even a monarchy), scholars of history and political science widely agree that the US are an "Imperium".

So from what I gather English word "Emperor" is to German word "Kaiser" what English word "King" is to Russian word "Czar"...one and the same?

I've not heard nor seen where it's been widely held that the US was an Imperium as it is broadly the same as an Empire. And if so, why not refer to her as being an empire?

 

[Shindekudasai]

So from what I gather English word "Emperor" is to German word "Kaiser" what English word "King" is to Russian word "Czar"...one and the same?

It's not always exactly the same, but you're getting the "drift".
English "emperor" is German "Kaiser" or "Imperator", depending on whether you speak of a monarch (which is always a "Kaiser") or for example a military ruler or a dictatorship-like sovereign (which can also be an "Imperator", doesn't have to be a "Kaiser", doesn't need a crown).
English "king" is German "König".
But English "King" is not exactly the same as Russian "Czar". It's almost the same, but a "Czar" is a "Czar". It was originally a title for a Caesar within Russian nobility and military and became titel to the Russian kings during the middle ages. It was replaced as the highest title for Russian nobility by the title "Imperator" (meaning in this case "emperor" = "Kaiser + Imperator") somewhen during the 18th century under Peter The Great, I believe. There could always be two Czars, but there could only be one Kaiser. So in this respect, it's the same as a king.

I've not heard nor seen where it's been widely held that the US was an Imperium as it is broadly the same as an Empire. And if so, why not refer to her as being an empire?

Well, the US are (or perhaps soon were) an empire, because they fit the scholarly and scientific definition. An empire doesn't have to have an "emperor" in form of a Kaiser or king. That's why the US are called the "Democratic Empire" by some scholars. But the US are the hegemonial power of the last twenty years. Just to name a view points: as of 2005

• the US had troops stationed in more than 50 countries of the world (including more than 105,000 in Europe, more than 70,000 in Japan and South Korea and more than 200,000 in the Middle East)
• more than half of the international trade since 1945 was managed in US currency
• the US were the biggest nation-builder of the 20. and 21. century
• the US were the fastest nation in changing from soft power to hard power
• the US had the biggest chunk of the world's GDP
• US companies and culture had spread the US lifestyle over more than half of the world (from rock music to Coca-Cola and McDonalds to Hollywood movies)

But also, which is very important to the definition of an empire, do the US know, that the core or the centre is at least as important as the periphery. That's why the US didn't continue the Vietnam War for example. An obsessed imperialistic power (like perhaps a failing Kaiserreich) probably would have forgotten the goal (strengthening the own position) and would have fought on. The US withdrew before the own position got damaged too badly and thus carried on being the most influential power on the globe, regardless of a small black eye.

And the US are referred to as an empire in scholarly circles outside the US. Just not that much within the US, because there for some the word "empire" still has a negative connotation. There are even those who still associate "empire" with Russians or with Japanese fascism, which is mostly stereotypical or flat out wrong.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Good question! Who knows...Rome, the Ming Dynasty, maybe the British Empire?

 

[Hot Mega]

It's not always exactly the same, but you're getting the "drift".
English "emperor" is German "Kaiser" or "Imperator", depending on whether you speak of a monarch (which is always a "Kaiser") or for example a military ruler or a dictatorship-like sovereign (which can also be an "Imperator", doesn't have to be a "Kaiser", doesn't need a crown).
English "king" is German "König".
But English "King" is not exactly the same as Russian "Czar". It's almost the same, but a "Czar" is a "Czar". It was originally a title for a Caesar within Russian nobility and military and became titel to the Russian kings during the middle ages. It was replaced as the highest title for Russian nobility by the title "Imperator" (meaning in this case "emperor" = "Kaiser + Imperator") somewhen during the 18th century under Peter The Great, I believe. There could always be two Czars, but there could only be one Kaiser. So in this respect, it's the same as a king.



Well, the US are (or perhaps soon were) an empire, because they fit the scholarly and scientific definition. An empire doesn't have to have an "emperor" in form of a Kaiser or king. That's why the US are called the "Democratic Empire" by some scholars. But the US are the hegemonial power of the last twenty years. Just to name a view points: as of 2005

• the US had troops stationed in more than 50 countries of the world (including more than 105,000 in Europe, more than 70,000 in Japan and South Korea and more than 200,000 in the Middle East)
• more than half of the international trade since 1945 was managed in US currency
• the US were the biggest nation-builder of the 20. and 21. century
• the US were the fastest nation in changing from soft power to hard power
• the US had the biggest chunk of the world's GDP
• US companies and culture had spread the US lifestyle over more than half of the world (from rock music to Coca-Cola and McDonalds to Hollywood movies)

But also, which is very important to the definition of an empire, do the US know, that the core or the centre is at least as important as the periphery. That's why the US didn't continue the Vietnam War for example. An obsessed imperialistic power (like perhaps a failing Kaiserreich) probably would have forgotten the goal (strengthening the own position) and would have fought on. The US withdrew before the own position got damaged too badly and thus carried on being the most influential power on the globe, regardless of a small black eye.

And the US are referred to as an empire in scholarly circles outside the US. Just not that much within the US, because the word "empire" still has a negative connotation. There are even those who still associate "empire" with Russians or with Japanese fascism, which is mostly stereotypical or flat out wrong.

Fair enough. I will say that all of the countries the US is in militarily and diplomatically, we are there at the largess and permission of those governments. And in no case are we there to consume the operations of those countries by design.

As I said, many attribute the word "empire" loosely to many entities...I would have to disagree with a literal suggestion that the US is a "Democratic Empire" because the US controls the economic, military and industrial resources of only one, her own. There is no league or band of democracies we exercise dominion over.

But again, fair enough...I think I've added about as much to the discussion as I can...Good debating.:thumbsup:

 

[Funkwerkz]

In terms of size, The Macedonian Empire built by Alexander The Great is the greatest, ever : From Greece to India, including Egypt.

Greece, Turkey, Syria, Lebannon, Jordany, Egypt, Irak, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan conquered in 10 years with only one army :bowdown:

90% of known world at that time.:thumbsup:

 

[TITS KING]

90% of known world at that time.:thumbsup:

Absolutely right.........:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Wainkerr99]

Marching sandals trudging through large tracts of land because men are following a leader even though they have a wife and children at home do not greatness make.

It simply means that the men were promised rape, pillaging, killing and slaughter for payment. A role that suits even so called 'modern' man perfectly. One just needs to spend five minutes on a forum to see how much a bombardment of violence is embraced and how much hatred is regarded as entertainment.

The only thing that stops men from degenerating into a pack of rabid wolves is common law.

This law is inherited from Rome, which adapted some of it from Greece. The Roman nobility did hire Greeks after all to educate their brats.

These same Romans enforced their rule wherever they conquered. The period after the fall of Rome is not called the 'Dark Ages' for nothing.

In fact, as I recall, Britons were running around naked, painted blue when the Italians arrived to enslave them.

As for the States. Well, I have only been back a year and a half, but I already can see a strong German influence here. Lets see, hmmm, the use of streetcars. Americans very polite, punctual to a fault, orderly, not the most humorous bunch I have ever met, neatly laid out streets, good city design, most everything running like clockwork.

The only thing missing here is the Opel motorcar. Pity about that. The Saturn is not a very good copy imo.

Sure America has spread McDonalds. South Africa used to be called the country of sunnyskies, braaivleis and Chevrolet. (Check what happens when you type sunny skies).

However, it it the law that influences every decision we make.

For that we can thank the Romans. Unless of course you is a gangsta.