Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
ViolentPanda said:
....at which point, it was an empire.
Britain, the worlds most historically evil regime ?
- Thread starter tenbellies
- Start date
....at which point, it was an empire.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
ViolentPanda said:
That's a good point, but the same assimilation happened in the western reaches, including Turkey, etc.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
ViolentPanda said:
But this point also presupposes that nothing that the british empire encountered, was 'better' than the british way...
Well, ViolentPanda is only talking about 'better' in terms of strict functionality. And the British were pretty frighteningly efficient at getting things done, not just war but in terms of industry, bureaucracy, Machiavellian politics etc. So it's possible that this was true, certainly relative to the Mongols.Johnny Canuck2 said:
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
slaar said:
I don't think he was. I know I wasn't.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
phildwyer said:
*agrees with phil*
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
anyway, it's nice to ahve something to be proud of.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
phildwyer said:
..and because this 'first capitalist nation' happened to create an empire that included much of the world's land mass, and many of its people, it ensured that capitalism was spread to the far corners of the globe.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
and what happened before wasn't pretty. capitalism just applied monetary value to the ugliness.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
bluestreak said:
Depends which part of the world you're talking about. There were many traditional societies that were getting along just fine, prior to Empire contact.
chainsaw cat
Tea. Biccies. Happy now?
untethered said:
What's that then?
ETA sorry, gooooogled it now.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Johnny Canuck2 said:
of course, of course. but the british empire, for all that i'm critical of it and its motives, did not invent invasion, cultural destruction, genocide, racism, exploitation, etc.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
It doesn't do anything of the sort. You may be assuming that it does so, but that's hardly the same thing.
You seem to be missing the point that the Mongols didn't expand for the primary purpose of trade (always the raison d'etre of British colonialism, and the reason why few cultural practices were originally assimilated), although trade did follow conquest, they did it for conquest, loot, and because movement was natural to them as a semi-nomadic culture, and expansion necessary to them as their population boomed.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
bluestreak said:
No, but it sort of 'owned' those things, for about a 300 years span around the globe.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
ViolentPanda said:
They did it for reasons of economic imperative. For a landlocked nation, population pressure etc caused the expansion.
Seems to me that in the early days, say those of Sir Francis Drake, your seafaring nation was little better than a pirate kingdom, out for booty. The earliest days of exploration weren't done for reasons of trade, in the most part, they were done seeking treasure and riches that would be easy to take.
As well, a lot of early exploration/colonization, took place to get away fromt he repressive regimes back home.
f
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
LIke what?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's my usurping fact whenever someone trys thsat game on me gone.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Along with Spain, Portugal, France, various Italian city-states and The Netherlands. It'd be churlish to forget their imperial legacies.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
ViolentPanda said:
But after the Armada, Trafalgar etc, you guys were sort of the big dogs on the block.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What guys?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
yield said:
Britain was present in India in the 18th century, and by 1776, had been in NA long enough for some of the colonies to revolt.
I don't think that the Dutch can be compared to the extent of British power during the 18th century, before Napoleon.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
From the early 17th century England and later Great Britain established colonies in continental North America and the islands of the Caribbean such as Jamaica and Barbados. During the Seven Years War the British defeated the French at the Plains of Abraham and captured all of New France in 1760, giving Britain control over almost all of North America. However, the most populous American colonies were lost in the American War of Independence (1775-83).
The period is sometimes referred to as the end of the "first British Empire", indicating the shift of British expansion from the Americas in the 17th and 18th centuries to the "second British Empire" in Asia and later also Africa from the 18th century.
http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency/en/wikipedia/b/br/british_empire.html#The first British Empire
You people should know all this.
The period is sometimes referred to as the end of the "first British Empire", indicating the shift of British expansion from the Americas in the 17th and 18th centuries to the "second British Empire" in Asia and later also Africa from the 18th century.
http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency/en/wikipedia/b/br/british_empire.html#The first British Empire
You people should know all this.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Why the 10-12 year old lessons?
torres said:
Yes, sorry.
To Johnny - The New World was just on the periphery then. I'm sure you're already aware of the Anglo-Dutch Wars.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
yield said:
Your article indicates that the dutch empire at that time mostly consisted of the Spice Islands, taken from the Portuguese, while at that same time, the British Empire included the 13 colonies, as well as Upper and Lower Canada, in NA alone.
It appears that the last Dutch war occured after the US declaration of independence, so the new world was far from being 'on the periphery' at that time, except, maybe, in the minds of parochial british headmasters.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
You do know that the Armada and Trafalgar were more than two centuries apart, don't you...?
And the former had nowt to do with empire, 'cos Britain - or England, more correctly - didn't have one. The Spanish did, though, and if we're going to get intoa bidding war about whose was the most evil empire the Spanish would have quite a good claim...
likesfish
You can't park here sir
belguim congo small but perfectly evil even other colonisers thought they were over the top
BUT ROMAN EMPIRE WIN HANDS DOWN
INVASION MAYHEM CHECK PUT DRUIDS TO THE SWORD check (though that might actually be a plus point )
slave trading on a massive scale
gladiatorial games
started all the trouble in the middle east
cruifixations etc
BUT ROMAN EMPIRE WIN HANDS DOWN
INVASION MAYHEM CHECK PUT DRUIDS TO THE SWORD check (though that might actually be a plus point
)slave trading on a massive scale
gladiatorial games
started all the trouble in the middle east
cruifixations etc
Similar threads
- Poll
