- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/26/24 at 10:41 pm to Ghost of Colby
quote:
The main difference between the Spanish and British empires is their navies.
Ive understood that it was their economic systems
Posted on 4/27/24 at 3:28 am to SaintlyTiger88
The Russians (Soviets) at one point they controlled half the world... more than the British ever did.
They had direct control though. If you consider indirect control (soft power) than it was the USA at some point in the 90s
They had direct control though. If you consider indirect control (soft power) than it was the USA at some point in the 90s
Posted on 4/27/24 at 4:07 am to SaintlyTiger88
The british and its not close.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 5:16 am to Ten Bears
quote:the soviet's controlled more
Britain controlled 26% of the planet
Posted on 4/27/24 at 7:21 am to SaintlyTiger88
quote:
Who Had the Greatest Colonial Power in History?
If you exclude the early civilization like the Persian and Roman empires (as they were more taxed / trade satellites) than true colonies (really just the English) as the French were more trappers and would live among the "natives", while the Spanish were about conquest, not colonies. The Portuguese were more shipping than settlement.
I would vote the Dutch.
The sent well over 1 million Europeans to settle foreign lands and their shipping tonnage dwarfed the rest of Europe (including England) 5 : 1 while dominating monopolistic in both spices and slaves. If valued toady the Dutch East India Company would be valued around (10) Ten Trillion US dollars, dwarfing our current largest US corporations.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:19 am to SaintlyTiger88
The Brits and it isn’t close.
Unless we go back further and say the Romans
Unless we go back further and say the Romans
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:27 am to SaintlyTiger88
History nut kid says the British. "At one time they controlled 1/10 of the Earth's surface."
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:28 am to OWLFAN86
quote:quote:
Were the Dutch a colonial power?
the Dutch were more businessmen /privateers.
The dutch were smart. They had a few key places that were rich in resources and low in problems (people) and a few key transit stations. It made them rich and gave them little administrattive and military problems.
Contrast that with the Brits, French, Spanish, that all wanted territory. They got some resources, and a lot of grief. They were always putting down rebellion somewhere and fighting each other for territory. The Spanish also had no idea how to govern so they appointed leaders that would steal, or were presumed to steal, and then they were recalled and hung usually. Not a recipe for long-term success and you can see how, culturally, it handicapped the latin american nations. None of them are economic superpowers nor ever will be, at least not in the next 250 years.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:09 am to Asharad
quote:
quote:
Britain controlled 26% of the planet
the soviet's controlled more
First of all, very interesting discussion, kudos to the OP for posting.
I think it would be interesting to look at the Soviet and British empires by economic metrics like GDP per capita. Certainly most of the territory once controlled by the Brits has fared better post-empire than the core countries of the USSR (ie, NOT the Eastern Bloc countries like Poland).
The Soviets left an environmental and economic mess, the Brits left a Super Power (the US), an emerging Super Power (India), and a bunch of other nation-states who are debatably better off today for their British influence.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:28 am to SaintlyTiger88
quote:
Empire Maximum land area
Million km2 Million sq mi % of world Year
British Empire[a] 35.5[9] 13.71 26.35% 1920[9]
Mongol Empire[b] 24.0[9][10] 9.27 17.81% 1270[10] or 1309[9]
Winner: British 26.35% to Mongols at 17.81%
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 9:31 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:40 am to SaintlyTiger88
It’s hard to argue against the Brits considering English is the international business language.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:47 am to Hayekian serf
quote:
The Brits and it isn’t close.
Unless we go back further and say the Romans
Bruh I hope this was a joke
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:53 am to thedisciple315
quote:
The Russians (Soviets) at one point they controlled half the world... more than the British ever did.
They had direct control though. If you consider indirect control (soft power) than it was the USA at some point in the 90s
The USSR never controlled half the world and certainly not direct control. As far as land mass under control it is the British and percent of world population the Qing
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:22 am to Tigris
The Mongols like Alexander had a vast territory but it's Rome's longevity and contributions to our current world that makes it almost the unanimous GOAT of empires.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:50 am to OWLFAN86
quote:
depends on how you measure ?
1 in 200 men can trace their DNA to Ghengis Khan. That's how I measure it.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:05 pm to SaintlyTiger88
Prince of this world
Posted on 4/27/24 at 2:43 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
The USSR never controlled half the world and certainly not direct control.
The Soviet answers are funny, because they lasted less than 80 years and never truly projected any naval power (certainly the combined fleet of NATO nations was far superior).
Ancient times, certainly Persia and Rome have an argument (and don't sleep on Egypt), and by the medieval period, the Mongols, but
at the Soviets.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 3:37 pm to Tigris
quote:
But I'll agree with the Mongols at #1, what they did was incredible. And it's amazing that they could have conceivably taken Japan without poor luck with the weather. The rifle ended their domination.
Rome at #2. That fall is what we need to learn from.
The Brits take the Bronze Medal for empire, and the Gold for best navy during the time of empires. The navy made all the difference.
This is the correct answer.
Posted on 4/28/24 at 9:36 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:West Florida was British controlled for a time. So Baton Rouge, St Francisville, and the areas that would become Bogalusa, Hammond, Franklinton, Ponchatoula, Covington, Madisonville, Mandeville, Covington, Slidell,etc were briefly a part of the British Empire.
map seems to include parts of Louisiana (meaning the greater Mississippi Basin) that the Brits never claimed
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News