NationStates Jolt Archive

There are so many "who's the world's greatest empire?" threads that it sickens me. They fail to realize that a.) not all great countries are empires, or b.) ancient or mideival empires had no impact on modern civilization. So I'll try to offer a balanced poll of some of the biggest empires, nations, kingdoms, and states that had an impact. Other suggestions are welcomed.
Edit: If I could, I'd make the poll longer. The Guptas, the Abbassids, the first French Empire, and the USSR all deserve a mention. However, I am allowed only a maximum of ten.

I'd have to say the Brits. No one in the history of the world liberated as many people as the Brits did. The introduced all sorts of liberties, made the world a wealthier place, and they prepared their nations for self rule. On the whole, fmr. British colonies are better off than former French or German colonies.
It was no accident why the British empire imploded. Illiberal forces from the outside and within caused the empire to become exhausted and crumble. Yet the Brits will never be surpassed in their glory or their benefit to mankind.

Bismarck's Prussia. They single-handedly set off the chain reaction that led to the world we know now.

Bismarck's Prussia. They single-handedly set off the chain reaction that led to the world we know now.
On the European continent, yes. But for the world, no. The Brits and, to a lesser extent, the Romans, Han, and Mongols did.

b.) ancient or mideival empires had no impact on modern civilization.
???
Of course they were highly influential, even today western Europe can be culturally divided into former lands of the Roman Empire and Germanic lands. The effects of ancient and medieval empires are felt to this day.

On the European continent, yes. But for the world, no. The Brits and, to a lesser extent, the Romans, Han, and Mongols did.

Because everybody knows that the term "World War" actually means "European War".

Bismarck's Prussia. They single-handedly set off the chain reaction that led to the world we know now.

But Kaiser II was much better then otto could ever hope to be. Besides he studied Cavour

???
Of course they were highly influential, even today western Europe can be culturally divided into former lands of the Roman Empire and Germanic lands. The effects of ancient and medieval empires are felt to this day.
I did not say I believed that. I was saying that most people on this forum seem to believe that.

And you raise another good point. History as told by NSers seems eurocentric. The rest of the world only comes into existence by the 20th century. Indeed, I am guilty of it, too. But it is no reason to discredit the great impact on humanity that other reagions had, particularly Asia. They were building civilizatiions while most Europeans still swung from trees.

Bismarck's Prussia. They single-handedly set off the chain reaction that led to the world we know now.

Remember how badly the glory of Prussia was destroyed in WWII? They got their asses handed to them.

On the European continent, yes. But for the world, no. The Brits and, to a lesser extent, the Romans, Han, and Mongols did.

NO The whole world. The bombs on nagasaki and hiroshima (how do you pronounce that any way, here o sheema or her o shima), the japanese occupation of china, vietnam war, korean war, league of nations, UN, Communist russia, stalin, Vengence 1 and 2, stealth bomber, chem gas, machine guns, bio, and other stuff i dont feel like remembering. Oh ja unterseeboots to ja

Because everybody knows that the term "World War" actually means "European War".


Not exactly. Were Asia, the Pacific, the Atlantic, and N. Africa just picnics?

Not exactly. Were Asia, the Pacific, the Atlantic, and N. Africa just picnics?
in WWI, yes.

Because everybody knows that the term "World War" actually means "European War".
Well, not really. The two world wars had great impacts, especially the first one. But the Germans were not the cause of it. The cause of that war goes way back to mideival times, when all of the states worked together to build the basic framework for their imperial governments. The system just imploded because of Germany, but it would have to come down at some point.

But Kaiser II was much better then otto could ever hope to be. Besides he studied Cavour

The Kaiser was an idiot. If he had any brains he wouldn't have led Germany to war against, oh, EVERYBODY.

But Kaiser II was much better then otto could ever hope to be. Besides he studied Cavour
... what the heck are you talking about

Well, not really. The two world wars had great impacts, especially the first one. But the Germans were not the cause of it. The cause of that war goes way back to mideival times, when all of the states worked together to build the basic framework for their imperial governments. The system just imploded because of Germany, but it would have to come down at some point.

But not in the same way. If Bismarck had lost the Franco-Prussian War, the world would be different.

NO The whole world. The bombs on nagasaki and hiroshima (how do you pronounce that any way, here o sheema or her o shima), the japanese occupation of china, vietnam war, korean war, league of nations, UN, Communist russia, stalin, Vengence 1 and 2, stealth bomber, chem gas, machine guns, bio, and other stuff i dont feel like remembering. Oh ja unterseeboots to ja
That's only specific events. What impact did the Second and Third Reichs have on systemic processes?

Remember how badly the glory of Prussia was destroyed in WWII? They got their asses handed to them.

Prussia in ww2 didnt exist. If you mean ww1 then you would notice how the prussians had a stalemate with Russia, france, GB, serbia, various other countries and defeated belgium until US saved them after the prussian victory at Jautland which restricted them to only one port (not a too good victory). Seeing how austria was defeated by prussia in a week about 10 years prior to ww1 and how the ottoman empire was basically useless then that is pretty amazing.

Not exactly. Were Asia, the Pacific, the Atlantic, and N. Africa just picnics?

I was being sarcastic.

But not in the same way. If Bismarck had lost the Franco-Prussian War, the world would be different.
All it would do is shift the political epicenter east. Russia would eventually crumble, and if the communists didn't seize power, some other wacko would. But don't discredit the fact that there were other tensions in the region. Everyone was jealous of Britain's wealth. And of course, the royal families made politics very interesting.

Prussia in ww2 didnt exist.
Yes it did, it was a state of Germany, and got wasted by Russia during final push to Berlin. 1 million German women raped by Russian soldiers on the eastern front.
If you mean ww1 then you would notice how the prussians had a stalemate with Russia,
Germany completely defeated Russia during WWI and won a huge chunk of land in Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia.
france, GB, serbia, various other countries and defeated belgium until US saved them after the prussian victory at Jautland which restricted them to only one port (not a too good victory). Seeing how austria was defeated by prussia in a week about 10 years prior to ww1 and how the ottoman empire was basically useless then that is pretty amazing.
The last time Prussia fought with Austria was in 1868.

... what the heck are you talking about

Kaiser Wilhelm 2 is much better the otto von bismark. Before bismark a guy by the name of Cavour organized the unification of italy and was the greatest tactician (i dont think thats the right word) before bismark. Bismark read and studied what Cavour did and that led to the unification of Germany i believe five or ten years after italy

And I ring in the sole vote for poor old Alexander and his Hellenistic empire which controlled a vast majority of the civilized Western world.

If Britain would have completely restructured all of Europe while they were at it, maybe I would have voted for them.

Now, for those who said the Roman Catholic Church, I am delighted. Their impact is probably the most underrated in history. The Church was Western Europe's heir to the Roman Empire. However, it was not strong enough to unify Europe on its own, and no one (except maybe Charlemagne) did it for them. Yet it weilded considerable influence. In that respect, its unique status among political entities may have made it the first bastion of liberty, though not exactly the liberty we recognize today.

Yes it did, it was a state of Germany, and got wasted by Russia during final push to Berlin. 1 million German women raped by Russian soldiers on the eastern front.

Jibea, hold me back.

YOU DIRTY BASTARD!

Yes it did, it was a state of Germany, and got wasted by Russia during final push to Berlin. 1 million German women raped by Russian soldiers on the eastern front.

Germany completely defeated Russia during WWI and won a huge chunk of land in Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia.

The last time Prussia fought with Austria was in 1868.

1868 i think you are right because 1870 they produced more steel then GB and that means i should study for the test tommorrow on this topic. Ja thats not good.

And I ring in the sole vote for poor old Alexander and his Hellenistic empire which controlled a vast majority of the civilized Western world.

He did have an impact, but as we can see, it did not last long. The Abbasid Empire seems to be the only empire east of Greece that carried out the Helenistic tradition. The others, such as Persia, Central Asia, and India, had only a temporary impact. However, the Mongols were far more successful at achieving the east/west unification ends.

Jibea, hold me back.

YOU DIRTY BASTARD!

Dont start insulting people. I have a puppet nation named The New Prussian Empire. If you start insulting people then eventually everyone would do so and eventually it would get racist or some one would refer to some one else, or their beliefs as the National Socialist German Workers Party of 1920 something to 1945.

The British Empire, because it shaped the modern world as we know it. Simple.

Kaiser Wilhelm 2 is much better the otto von bismark.
Bismarck was far greater statesman than Wilhelm. Wilhelm II ended German treaty with Russia, and did other suicidal actions such as engage in a arms race with Great Britain. Bismarck carefully played Germany's enemies against each other, while Wilhelm alienated Germany's neighbors and ruined his country in WWI.
Before bismark a guy by the name of Cavour organized the unification of italy and was the greatest tactician (i dont think thats the right word) before bismark. Bismark read and studied what Cavour did and that led to the unification of Germany i believe five or ten years after italy
Cavour and Bismarck were both great politicians, but Bismarck was definitely more influential, simply because Germany had more power than Italy. Cavour would never have been able to unify italy if Prussia did not help him out, directly and indirectly. For example, Italy could annex Venice from Austria because at the time Austria was distracted with a war with Prussia. The unification of Italy goes hand in hand with the unification of Germany, and both Cavour and Bismarck supported each other.

The British Empire, because it shaped the modern world as we know it. Simple.

No it didnt. All that happened in Britain happened because of the Irish or other countries. The Irish person whom i forgot the name defeated Napolean Bonapart I at waterloo. The liberal movement happened all through out europe during the 1800s. Nothing else that would seem to shape the world.

No it didnt. All that happened in Britain happened because of the Irish or other countries. The Irish person whom i forgot the name defeated Napolean Bonapart I at waterloo. The liberal movement happened all through out europe during the 1800s. Nothing else that would seem to shape the world.
The Duke of Wellington, an Englishman, defeated Napoleon. THe Irish were shut out from most tasks in the British empire because of discrimination. And the British Empire is far more than just defeating Napoleon... you seem to be forgetting the conquest of India, the defeat of China in the Opium Wars, the scientific revolution in Scotland, colonization of Africa, etc. etc.

has to be the romans, 500bc - 1500ad, that's pretty good going and without them christainity would have never come about (not saying thats a good or bad thing). just saying they've influenced the world the most.

Bismarck was far greater statesman than Wilhelm. Wilhelm II ended German treaty with Russia, and did other suicidal actions such as engage in a arms race with Great Britain. Bismarck carefully played Germany's enemies against each other, while Wilhelm alienated Germany's neighbors and ruined his country in WWI.

Cavour and Bismarck were both great politicians, but Bismarck was definitely more influential, simply because Germany had more power than Italy. Cavour would never have been able to unify italy if Prussia did not help him out, directly and indirectly. For example, Italy could annex Venice from Austria because at the time Austria was distracted with a war with Prussia. The unification of Italy goes hand in hand with the unification of Germany, and both Cavour and Bismarck supported each other.

Bismark caused France to be angry at Germany and the beginning of WW1 when it was just Austria-hungary and Prussia against Serbia and Russia, the french used that as a reason to get back at the germans. Kaiser's fatal mistakes where the Unrestricted U-boat warfare and invading belgium

Cavour started his reveloution starting at the crimean war so the would ask the italian question or something like that, used france to help against austria although france occupied Rome until the franco prussian war. Germany indirectly helped the French at two steps of Italian unification.

Now if kaiser Wilhelm II never dismissed Otto von Bismark then he would still not have listened to him as he was not as undescisive as his grandfather who always listened to bismark. Bismark also started Kulturkampf which led to the genocide of "subHumans" during ww2

The Duke of Wellington, an Englishman, defeated Napoleon. THe Irish were shut out from most tasks in the British empire because of discrimination. And the British Empire is far more than just defeating Napoleon... you seem to be forgetting the conquest of India, the defeat of China in the Opium Wars, the scientific revolution in Scotland, colonization of Africa, etc. etc.

WaterLoo it was the duke of wellington you're right there but check out this biography

Arthur Wellesley, the first Duke of Wellington, was born in Dublin in 1769. In 1809 he was sent to assume command in Portugal. Wellington gained military distinction in the Peninsular Campaigns during the French Wars, culminating in the victory at Waterloo. He was raised to the peerage as the Duke of Wellington in recognition of his achievements and he sat in the House of Lords for the rest of his life. It is said that he never admitted to his Irish birth.

No at waterloo it was an irishman although he hated the fact that he was irish.

He was not Irish by blood, so how is he an Irishman?

Being born in a stable does not make one a horse. ;)

He was not Irish by birth, so how does that make him Irish?

Being born in a stable does not make one a horse. ;)

Dublin is the capital of Ireland.

Dublin is the capital of Ireland.

That's an immaterial point. Wellesley's father was an Englishman, and his mother was descended from English people. Dublin may be the capital of Ireland, but being born somewhere doesn't mean you're not off that nationality. Otherwise there'd have been no such thing as a true American for a long time. ;)

That's an immaterial point. Wellesley's father was an Englishman, and his mother was descended from English people. Dublin may be the capital of Ireland, but being born somewhere doesn't mean you're not off that nationality. Otherwise there'd have been no such thing as a true American for a long time. ;)

Ah so you dont know the difference of nationality and ethnicallity.
The treaty that gave france corisca or whatever island Napolean was born on was signed two months before his birth. He is french for he was born in french territory although he was ethnically italtian, genevian if i am correct

Ah so you dont know the difference of nationality and ethnicallity.
The treaty that gave france corisca or whatever island Napolean was born on was signed two months before his birth. He is french for he was born in french territory although he was ethnically italtian, genevian if i am correct

I do know the difference between nationality and ethnicity. Wellesley had British Citizenship, that makes him British. He was also of English ethnicity.

Saying someone was an Irishman suggests you think it was an ethnic thing. Either way, you're wrong. I was born in Moscow, doesn't make me a Russian.

Ah so you dont know the difference of nationality and ethnicallity.
The treaty that gave france corisca or whatever island Napolean was born on was signed two months before his birth. He is french for he was born in french territory although he was ethnically italtian, genevian if i am correct

He was Corsican-Italian, originally his name was spelled Buonopart. This is also an immaterial point, because Napoleon was Emperor of France and a French-speaking Francophile. Ethnically he was Italian. I would conclude he's a French-Corsican.

I do know the difference between nationality and ethnicity. Wellesley had British Citizenship, that makes him British. He was also of English ethnicity.

Saying someone was an Irishman suggests you think it was an ethnic thing. Either way, you're wrong. I was born in Moscow, doesn't make me a Russian.

You are where you are born that is nationality. Ethnicality is where your relatives are from. So you are Russian. He was born in irish territory he was irish and on a site that is devoted to famous irish people

Bismark caused France to be angry at Germany and the beginning of WW1 when it was just Austria-hungary and Prussia against Serbia and Russia, the french used that as a reason to get back at the germans. Kaiser's fatal mistakes where the Unrestricted U-boat warfare and invading belgium
The annexation of Alsace Lorraine was probably Bismarck's only fatal mistake. But the Kaiser was far worse than Bismarck, because he did not renew the treaty with Russia, he fucked up relations with France even more in the Tangiers incident, and he completely alienated Britain by trying to build up a large German navy. Whereas Bismarck constantly improved relations with Germany's neighbors. If Kaiser had half of Bismarck's diplomatic skill, Germany would not be screwed over with a two front war in WWI. The Kaiser clearly ruined his own country with his incompetence and poor planning.

Cavour started his reveloution starting at the crimean war so the would ask the italian question or something like that, used france to help against austria although france occupied Rome until the franco prussian war. Germany indirectly helped the French at two steps of Italian unification.
what the...? clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Go study Colton Palmer.

Bismarck directly helped Italy take over Venice and Rome. The Austrian-Prussian war of 1866 distracted Austria so the Italians could annex Venice, which was then controlled by the Hapsburgs. In 1870 Italy was able to take Rome over from occupying French troops because France was distracted with the war in Alsace Lorraine.

Now if kaiser Wilhelm II never dismissed Otto von Bismark then he would still not have listened to him as he was not as undescisive as his grandfather who always listened to bismark. Bismark also started Kulturkampf which led to the genocide of "subHumans" during ww2
Wilhelm was decisive in a bad way. He never thought over his actions and he alienated Germany's neighbors. Whereas Bismarck was a cunning and decisive statesman who effectively manipulated his enemies. Kulturkampf had little to do with the Holocaust. It was a political campaign against the Centre Party. It's easier to argue that Kaiser Wilhelm's poor management of WWI led to the Holocaust, because Germany's loss created xenophobic and anti-Semitic feelings among the German people, such as Adolf Hitler.

You are where you are born that is nationality. Ethnicality is where your relatives are from. So you are Russian. He was born in irish territory he was irish and on a site that is devoted to famous irish people

Ethnicality isn't a real word. Ethnicity is one's ethnic background. I am not Russian, I am British. I have British Citizenship. You are making a very weak point, and your case is very weak. Besides at the time Ireland was owned by the British, so your Napoleon corsican point simply backs up my argument of Wellesley being British rather than yours that he was Irish.

Wellesley was ethnically english, politically British and regarded himself as a British person. He hated the Irish, and he was quick to anger if anyone ever suggested he was Irish simply because he was born there by accident.

The website point is very, very immaterial. He's listed amongst the Greatest Britons, the BBC's poll.

You are where you are born that is nationality. Ethnicality is where your relatives are from. So you are Russian. He was born in irish territory he was irish and on a site that is devoted to famous irish people
Doesn't matter, he fought for England and came from an English family, and just because he was by chance born in Ireland doesn't prove your ridiculous claim that everything that happened to the British Empire happened because of Ireland... you don't know what you are talking about.

The annexation of Alsace Lorraine was probably Bismarck's only fatal mistake. But the Kaiser was far worse than Bismarck, because he did not renew the treaty with Russia, he fucked up relations with France even more in the Tangiers incident, and he completely alienated Britain by trying to build up a large German navy. Whereas Bismarck constantly improved relations with Germany's neighbors. If Kaiser had half of Bismarck's diplomatic skill, Germany would not be screwed over with a two front war in WWI. The Kaiser clearly ruined his own country with his incompetence and poor planning.


what the...? clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Go study Colton Palmer.

Bismarck directly helped Italy take over Venice and Rome. The Austrian-Prussian war of 1866 distracted Austria so the Italians could annex Venice, which was then controlled by the Hapsburgs. In 1870 Italy was able to take Rome over from occupying French troops because France was distracted with the war in Alsace Lorraine.


Wilhelm was decisive in a bad way. He never thought over his actions and he alienated Germany's neighbors. Whereas Bismarck was a cunning and decisive statesman who effectively manipulated his enemies. Kulturkampf had little to do with the Holocaust. It was a political campaign against the Centre Party. It's easier to argue that Kaiser Wilhelm's poor management of WWI led to the Holocaust, because Germany's loss created xenophobic and anti-Semitic feelings among the German people, such as Adolf Hitler.
I have that book right in my room. The war between Prussia and Austria had nothing to do with directly helping the Italian unification, but it had to do with gaining support from the other german states by seeming like the one who is better able to protect them from foreign invasion. KulturKampf is about germanizing the nongermans. He was antisemitic like many other people.

Doesn't matter, he fought for England and came from an English family, and just because he was by chance born in Ireland doesn't prove your ridiculous claim that everything that happened to the British Empire happened because of Ireland... clearly you don't know what you are talking about.

If he hadnt defeated napolean then the fate of europe would be different and since the rest of the world was affected by europe during the 1800s the rest of the world would have been affected by the french not the irish since an irishman defeated him. The industrial revelution may have begun in Gb but it also occured in the rest of europe along with social and communist reveloutions.

Ah so you dont know the difference of nationality and ethnicallity.
The treaty that gave france corisca or whatever island Napolean was born on was signed two months before his birth. He is french for he was born in french territory although he was ethnically italtian, genevian if i am correct
Ireland was British territory.

Ireland was British territory.

Only by the act of union, the Irish clearly didnt consider themselves british and the british didnt consider them british either.

I have that book right in my room.
Read it, because you are highly confused.
The war between Prussia and Austria had nothing to do with directly helping the Italian unification, but it had to do with gaining support from the other german states by seeming like the one who is better able to protect them from foreign invasion.
One effect of the war was that Italy could take Venice from Austria. If the war hadn't happened, Italy would not have had such an easy time doing that. Clearly the Italian unification owed much to the happenings in Prussia.
KulturKampf is about germanizing the nongermans. He was antisemitic like many other people.
Otto von Bismarck was never very anti-SEmitic. Also, go learn about Kulturkampf. It was a dispute between the German government and the Catholic Church and the German Catholic political party, Center.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ku/Kulturka.html

Only by the act of union, the Irish clearly didnt consider themselves british
All that matters is the Duke of Wellington considered himself British, and his bloodline was entirely English.

and the british didnt consider them british either.So? The British considered the Duke of Wellington 100% Englishman.

Also, most Corsicans did not consider themselves French. The COrsican general, Pasquale Paoli tried to revolt against Napoleon and declare Corsican independence.

If he hadnt defeated napolean then the fate of europe would be different and since the rest of the world was affected by europe during the 1800s the rest of the world would have been affected by the french not the irish since an irishman defeated him. The industrial revelution may have begun in Gb but it also occured in the rest of europe along with social and communist reveloutions.

Oh God. Wellesley -wasn't- Irish. You clearly have a serious biased towards Irish people. Are you an Irish-American?

Only by the act of union, the Irish clearly didnt consider themselves british and the british didnt consider them british either.


'The British'. I am British, I consider myself English first, British second. That is true of everyone who lives within the Union bar a few seperatists. No one living in the UK is Irish, barely anyone in the UK wants to become part of Ireland. Great Britain isn't even the UK technically, it's just England, Wales and Scotland. That aside, Wellesley was not Irish and considered himself an Englishman. He hated that he was born in Dublin, and he hated the Irish even more.

Okay, people. As wonderful as Euro history is, it is debated to death on this forum. Let's move on to something else, like a question from Chinese history that has always vexed me.
The Han dynasty was the greatest thing that ever happened to China. It was the absolute peak of Chinese civilization IMO, and later, it sent that greatness westward. But what I wonder is if the Han's achievements were something new, or did it simply build atop of what Emperor Qin Shi Huangdai did?

Now I've also noticed that no one said the Han. That is sad. I guess we need a few more Asians on this forum, though I fear that may want to say the Tang, Song, or heaven forbid, the Ming.

ROME

I mean, nearly all European culture sprouted from the Roman Empire. Our languages, the Catholic Church, or at least Christianity in general (thanks to Constantine). Rome was number 1.

ROME

I mean, nearly all European culture sprouted from the Roman Empire. Our languages, the Catholic Church, or at least Christianity in general (thanks to Constantine). Rome was number 1.

I wouldn't thank Constantine for that ;)

Wellington did not defeat Napoleon at belle alliance.
It was the alliance of Great Britain (or the UK?) and several states of what is now Germany. And even if France had won there, they would have lost this war long term.
And in his autobiography, Napoleon stated that his defeat at belle alliance would erase the memories of his many victories but his code Napoleon (code civil) would have more impact on history than all his military campaigns.
And the occupation of the Alsace wasn't Bismarcks fault, Willhelm decided this against Bismarcks explicit objections.

I wouldn't thank Constantine for that ;)

Indeed... haha... but he did play a major role in bringing Christianity into the mainstream.

Indeed... haha... but he did play a major role in bringing Christianity into the mainstream.

Shame, isn't it.

Shame, isn't it.

No. No its not.

The Han was an extension of Qin dictatorship. Qin Shinhuang was influential in that he unified China for the first time but the Han merely perpetuated and institutionalized his legacy of massive state bureaucracies, tight central control, and statism. People tend to regard the Tang and Ming dynasties as great eras in Chinese history due to the military power, but both those dynasties had only one competent emperor apiece. Furthermore the Ming should be criticized for the brutality of its government and the unenterprising nature of its society. In my opinion the greatest Chinese dynasty was the Song. Although militarily it was always on the defensive due to aggressive Jurchen and Mongol attacks, China had a good chance to develop modern liberal government and economy during this time. This was one of the few times in imperial Chinese history where there was widespread freedom of speech, Chinese merchants were hgihly active, also the rising middle class began to consume luxury goods and stimulate the economy from Japan to central Asia. Thhe Song encouraged naval development, scientific exploration, cultural tolerance, and a general receptiveness to new ideas. Unfortunately this was ended by Mongol conquest and subsequent Ming totalitarianism.

Wellington did not defeat Napoleon at belle alliance.
It was the alliance of Great Britain (or the UK?) and several states of what is now Germany. And even if France had won there, they would have lost this war long term.
And in his autobiography, Napoleon stated that his defeat at belle alliance would erase the memories of his many victories but his code Napoleon (code civil) would have more impact on history than all his military campaigns.

I agree with all of that except the first sentence. The British army at Waterloo did contain a large number of foreign troops, but it was still the British army and commanded by Wellington. The Prussians turned up later on in the day, but the victory was still essentially Wellington's. He conducted a masterful and highly efficient defensive battle all day long.

The Code Napoleon is definitely one of the most infleuential things (for want of a better word that encompasses everything) in European history. It has oiled the running of almost all Western European states ever since, the main exceptions being the the UK and Ireland.

I agree with all of that except the first sentence. The British army at Waterloo did contain a large number of foreign troops, but it was still the British army and commanded by Wellington. The Prussians turned up later on in the day, but the victory was still essentially Wellington's. He conducted a masterful and highly efficient defensive battle all day long.



I cannot honestly object to this.
Let's call it a draw for the British-French engagement and the alliance be victorios. ;)

(played the battle with tabletop miniaturs once. Inconcieveable how Napoleon by any means could have lost. Guess it was really his personal fault.)

The Han was an extension of Qin dictatorship. Qin Shinhuang was influential in that he unified China for the first time but the Han merely perpetuated and institutionalized his legacy of massive state bureaucracies, tight central control, and statism. People tend to regard the Tang and Ming dynasties as great eras in Chinese history due to the military power, but both those dynasties had only one competent emperor apiece. Furthermore the Ming should be criticized for the brutality of its government and the unenterprising nature of its society. In my opinion the greatest Chinese dynasty was the Song. Although militarily it was always on the defensive due to aggressive Jurchen and Mongol attacks, China had a good chance to develop modern liberal government and economy during this time. This was one of the few times in imperial Chinese history where there was widespread freedom of speech, Chinese merchants were hgihly active, also the rising middle class began to consume luxury goods and stimulate the economy from Japan to central Asia. Thhe Song encouraged naval development, scientific exploration, cultural tolerance, and a general receptiveness to new ideas. Unfortunately this was ended by Mongol conquest and subsequent Ming totalitarianism.
I have to say that the Song were probably the closest to European greatness that China ever had. The Mongols, while good for many reasons, screwed it up.
As for the Han, there were many things that were distinctive about them from Emperor Qin. The Han instituted the civil service exams, giving the Chinese a comjpotent government. They opened the Silk Road, the first real East/west connection. And they left their mark on Central Asia, ensuring that anyone in the area had to deal with Chinese influence. They also were a golden age in the fact that women had more rights than the later Tang and Song, though there were probably less than under the "Zhou" dynasty.

bump

MM: In your opening post you complain about everyone discussing the best empires, and then you post a list that only has two entities that could be considered as not being empires. (Even then, there are strong arguments for imperialistic methods being employed by both the Roman Catholic Church and the USA.)

Where are the non empire based entities. Like the EU, or the UN? How about the Nobel organisation, or the hanseatic leagues. etc. etc.

As you may have realised. I voted other.

No. No its not.

Christianity was the most oppressive of all institutions. Constantine galvanised the Christian church, how is that a good thing?

MM: In your opening post you complain about everyone discussing the best empires, and then you post a list that only has two entities that could be considered as not being empires. (Even then, there are strong arguments for imperialistic methods being employed by both the Roman Catholic Church and the USA.)

Where are the non empire based entities. Like the EU, or the UN? How about the Nobel organisation, or the hanseatic leagues. etc. etc.

As you may have realised. I voted other.
A.) Most political entities that made an impact were empires, but certainly not all.
B.) I concluded that the only non-state entity to have an impact was (and still is) the Catholic Church. The UN is just a joke, and the EU is far too young to judge.
C.) What did you pick?

Christianity was the most oppressive of all institutions. Constantine galvanised the Christian church, how is that a good thing?
Two reasons. One, it became a formidable opposition to the European monarchs later in time, while never posing a grave threat to them. Thus, it preformed the role of a well developed opposition iiin a modern democracy. And two, it was a boon to the world when Constantine adopted Chrisitianity. Millions of souls were saved.

bump

bump

I see the majority is of the Classical school of thinking. Three cheers for ROMA!

Carthage!

They paved the way for a free economy, they were the first good sailors(the Phoenicians were O.K., but Carthage easily surpassed them), they made economy what it is today.

The perfect capitalists!

The Romans just bastardised everything the Greeks did. If you're going for a great classical civilisation then you have to go for the Greeks, though of course they were not a single state. The Romans themselves were just a big army. All their decent culture was Greek.

Furthermore, that influence was itself exaggerated. Western European values are, in my view, more directly derived from the laws and customs of the Germanic tribes that took over from the Romans. The Enlightenment did bring about a massive revival of classical culture, but the roots of modern Western civilisation had dug in long before that.

The Romans just bastardised everything the Greeks did. If you're going for a great classical civilisation then you have to go for the Greeks, though of course they were not a single state. The Romans themselves were just a big army. All their decent culture was Greek.

Furthermore, that influence was itself exaggerated. Western European values are, in my view, more directly derived from the laws and customs of the Germanic tribes that took over from the Romans. The Enlightenment did bring about a massive revival of classical culture, but the roots of modern Western civilisation had dug in long before that.
Nearly all the Roman engineering was theirs, even if their architecture was the same. Also, their political systems,recreation, and to a certain extent, religion, were unique. They also conquered all of the Meditteranean basin, and more importantly, spreaded their culture from Egypt to England, and from Spain to Armenia.

In a totally different direction...

OPEC, although not a nation state they can cripple world economies through price controls of oil. Because of the political climate in America, our reliance upon appeasing OPEC is paramount. The latest spike in oil prices is, according to OPEC, are caused by the staggering increase of oil in the rapidly industrializing China. America and China are the world's two superpowers now. Both rely heavily on OPEC. Oil prices in the EU are also controlled by OPEC. Embargos could be the death knell to the stumbling economies of central Europe.

The most influential institutions/political entities are Western universities. Indirectly this feeds back via the Jesuits and the Catholic Church to the Roman Empire. But I do not want to give the credit to the military or propoganda aspects of those entities.

It is through the questioning of the status quo, the encouragement of critical thinking etc. That our political world has become what it is today. If all learning hadf stayed in the hands of the clergy. If all engineering had been restricted to the military, our world would now be a very different place.

Whilst there is no official political entity that englobes all universities, there is a political identity that derives from the freedom of knowledge that they bring.