What nation had the best chance to conquer the world? Is it America now? Germany? The Soviet Union?

Britain basically did it.

From Egypt to South Africa, and from Israel to Hong Kong, the sun never set on Britain. British culture exists everywhere, even in the most politically and economically backwards places on earth.

Let's look at the list...

USA-Now : Not a chance - the American public opinion would not support it, to put it bluntly. Oh, they might support operation against some countries. But would they stand for war against the rest of the world?

Not a chance.

USA-Cold War, USSR : The point being, they had each other to contend with. Attempting to conquer the world would mean a confrontation, and the probably end of mankind in a nuclear holocaust.

Thus, no conquest of the world.

Nazi Germany : History has proven how little of a chance they had. Period. Plus, Germany had heavy difficulties mounting an amphibious attack over the channel. How would they have mounted one over the entire atlantic ocean?

Colonial England : see RMsharpe comment. They probably couldn't have gone further, but they came very close.

All others : Basically, they did not have the means nor knowledge to conquer the world. Just try to conquer America or Australia when you don't even know it's there...

The British Empire came the closest to that goal. 25% of the population of the world was once under British Rule; Now that's close! Rome, and The Mongols practicaly conquered their known world but they didn't have the means to conquer many parts of the world. In today's world I just can't see any country coming close to it. The International Community would stand too strongly against it.

So I'd say The British Empire.

I think conquest is an obsolete term in the modern times because international law has all the borders set up and there's no way that a country could conquer others without violating legalities and bringing upon it the retribution of others.

In a major power sense, this would always result in a nuclear holocaust.

All these older choices listed (Germany, Britain) focused on territorial size, population, whatever and while Britain came factually close with little potential, Germany came potentially close with less evident territorial results.

The U.S. nowadays, rules the world. There has NEVER been a world power with this magnitude of influence. The U.S. doesn't use little flags to claim territory but it uses the dollar. Besides being economically gargantuan and evident in every country, it is militarily superior to anyone. These two factors combined exert an influence over all parts of the world which makes any sane country consider the U.S. when going about their business.

America has already conquered the world, economically. Look at McDonalds - every country in the world has at least one

Since the question is phrased in the perfect tense, we can't consider the USA of the now. In terms of political conquest, no state in world history has come close, but I would say, if forced, that the Mongols and the Soviet Union were best placed. The Soviet Union was the only modern Universal state...well, it wasn't in the end...but the early years made it out to be so. If things had gone differently, if the 2nd World War hadn't happened, if the attempted communist Revolution that happened in Glasgow soon after the '17 had been successful, the Soviet Union may have remained what it was at the start, an international, supra-national, worker's republic, instead of a 2nd world Russian Empire.

The Mongol Empire was another universal state. The Persian Empire, either under the Persian kings or under Alexander, posed no threat to even a majority of the Eurasian supercontinent. The Mongols did. They were Pagans, and therefore well-placed to bring Buddhists, Christians, Moslems etc under one rule. The Mongols were so superior in military terms to all other people's of their era, that it was merely their own lack of an advanced state system that prevented them from conquering the few remaining unconquered civilizations in the Old World.

Colonial Britain couldn't have done it, Britain alone could not defeat the rest of Europe, let alone the United States.

I say either Mongols or the US today had the best chance, provided the US dictator will be able to maintain control.

I dont think any civilization in history could conquer everyone but Britain came the closest. While they couldnt have defeated the whole of Europe and the US they could have taken their colonies.

Originally posted by Shady
I think conquest is an obsolete term in the modern times because international law has all the borders set up and there's no way that a country could conquer others without violating legalities and bringing upon it the retribution of others.
How do you explain the little party going on in Iraq then?

Ted

I have to the Brits! Rome while pagan had a chance, too bad they didnt have a real big draft like the states ahve had a few times, if Rome had done a draft a levle like that, well.....Hail Ceaser!,btw the mongles were nice, but i dont think they had the nubers to suppres a massive revolt, and i think mamluke egypt would have stooped them easilly.

Gods.....i have so many typeos......:sad:

No one can conquer the world in today's world, I voted Nazi Germany (I think they could've won WWI) though. British could've too

"No one can conquer the world in today's world, I voted Nazi Germany (I think they could've won WWI) though. British could've too"

Wow, and I though Hitler tried to conquer the world in World War 2. Silly me :) :D ;) :lol:

I reckon the Mongols were the best chance. The world can thank the stupidity of Kublai Khan (ironically) for them failing.

Has anyone ever come close? Britain had the best chance, I suppose, because they were the biggest at a time it was acceptable to conquer other nations. They could've signed alliances with a few others, and then turn on them, but as a I and others have said, the odds were very slim. The older ones mentioned, such as the Mongols, didn't even know about several landmasses, so they're ruled out.

This depends, as already said, on what conquering the world means.
If it means dominating all its affairs the United States (now) come closer to it than anybody ever did.

All the pre-Colonial empires were merely "local players", the British empire had no control over any other important power of their time, the Soviet Union (much like Britain earlier) controlled a certain part of the world but had no chance to get the (bigger) rest. Nazi Germany never fully established control over anything.

Hail Caesar!

Rome was ahead enough of its time, if it could cross oceans, there would have been no problem.

However, conquering an empire is one thing, holding on to it is a bit more difficult.

I would have to say either colonial england or nazi germany. England was certainly better managed so they had a better chance at it but Germany could have done it if they hadn't made somany mistakes. Fore the technology of the time the Mongols were ceratainly the best conquerers. Before the last couple centuries it would have been nearly impossible to hold a global empire together much less build it up. Besides, up until 500 years people didn't even KNOW about the entire world. Only in the last couple centuries has the technology been around to saftly transport troops between continent and comunicate between them with sufficant speed and reliablity to hold a global empire together

A conquest must allways be seen relative to the competition of the era it was done in. Brittain had Preussen and France as a counter to their little Imperialistic attempt.

Hitler was strong on the technical war. Too bad for him that a few saboteours stopped his fission bomb project, otherwise he could've drawn the nuclear joker before the US did and held the gun to the temple of the world. As soon as MAD was a fact nuclear weapons was effectively reduced to symbols of power, and not tools to wield in a conquest.

Today we have a conquest of money and military might that can only be stopped by a united oposition to the world order we have today. USA rules the financial scene, and has a conventional force ready to back it's words up on the international scene. The point of a previous poster that the public wouldn't allow it is true. But the potential to dominate any adversary is quite obvious in the military machine of USA today.

The balance of power was at a critical point during the development of the nuclear bomb, and is at a similar point now as we're left with a superpower with noone to balance it in either financial or military strength.

IMO Hitler was at a close second place, while USA of today is at first place. It's a bit hard to do the math if you have to take into account the will to back the power to conquest the world. Hitler had it, Truman didn't. But the means was reversed for a brief time. So for a little while Truman was the man who actually could tell the world to roll over with no contest whatsoever. Instead they conquered the world economically through the marshall plan.

I am surprised that no one has mentioned that other great world conquering force....
....RELIGION.

But then again, being of the same religion has never stopped Christians from killing other Christians, or Moslems from killing other Moslems (....funny that, considering that one of the ten commandments is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" :rolleyes: ).

So I suppose that religion doesn't really count as a 'world conquering force', as everyone ignores it when it is time to invade your neighbour....

Britain, obviously, it couldn't possibly be anyone else.

The USA could conquer the world, but we'd have to have US public support and that would require the entire world declaring war on us :p

Originally posted by SunTzu
The USA could conquer the world

Sure it could...

:rolleyes:

It seems there are many British here.

Come on, let's face it. Britain conquered Egipt, South Africa, India and many others, but not any single strong country (for example not any european). Conquering India or South Africa has the same merit than the spanish conquering America. The british had the best naval force, but that's all. Napoleon in his best moment had all european countries fighting against him, but when did all Europe united in war against Britain? Never because Britain was never a big menace.

The best chance was for Nazi Germany. They didn't get it, but they were the closest. Just count how many countries (strong countries) had to ally to fight them.

USA never had a chance, since after the nuclear bomb was invented it's completly imposible to conquer the World (it's only possible to destroy it)

Britain held the largest empire the world has ever seen.

Nazi Germany tried, but couldn't even conquer Europe.

The fact is, though some countries may have the better chance, no one country could ever achieve world conquest.

And Britain had far more than Germany.

Britain was a super power, and we're talking before the 20th century as well, long before Nazi Germany.

Originally posted by phoenix_night
Britain held the largest empire the world has ever seen.

Nazi Germany tried, but couldn't even conquer Europe.

The fact is, though some countries may have the better chance, no one country could ever achieve world conquest.

And Britain had far more than Germany.

Britain was a super power, and we're talking before the 20th century as well, long before Nazi Germany.

I thought mongol empire war the bigger ever.

However, I keep on saying that size doesn't matter. It was easier to conquer the whole America continent to the native americans than France, for example. So it is more important what you conquer and how strong it is than how big it is.

Of course size matters. That's the whole point, to conquer the world is to have the largest ever empire (which Britain had).

What you conquer doesn't matter, as you have to conquer it all.

The fact is, Britain had more land than anybody else had ever had, more people than anybody else ever had.

They had the potential to go on. They did get closer than anyone else ever has, they were the super power, if anybody was going to, it would be the British.

I think the Mongols had the largest land empire, were as the English one spanned across oceans.

The British empire was bigger than the Mongol empire.

I think it was the largest empire ever created under one man then. It was the largest empire of something.

The English empire is the largest the world has seen though.

Yeah.

And don't forget it's the British empire, not the English empire.

Originally posted by phoenix_night
Yeah.

And don't forget it's the British empire, not the English empire.

It was an English empire, Wales and Scotland were just the first steps of it.

It's not a personal matter or anything like that, but it was the British empire. Just like it was the USSR.

I think it's a bit harsh to say Scotland was just the first step.

I don't appreciate being part of Britain, but still, whether I like it or not - it's the British empire.

It's not a matter of personal opinion. It's not open for a debate, whether you're a fan or not, we're talking about the same thing and that's the British empire.

It's called the British empire, but it had its origins and center in England.

You can call it the British empire, but it was an English empire.

Originally posted by gael
It's called the British empire, but it had its origins and center in England.

You can call it the British empire, but it was an English empire.

No, it's not I can call it the British empire, I have no choice. That's what it was called. To call it by any other name would be simply wrong.

As for what it actually was (disregarding name) is up for debate. I suppose you would have to call the UK and 'English empire' as well. Anyway, rather than debate what it should be called and what the UK is today, I think it would be a lot simpler to simply split it up and create a few new republics. Easy as that. :)

The question isn't who came the closest to conquering the world, but who had the best chance.
OK, so the British came the closest, but that doesn't necessarily mean they had the best chance.

Realistically, the Mongols and Rome had the best chance, since their opposition was weakest.

@Irish Caesar,
You have to take into account the land they had. You have to take into account the land of the British empire, the fact that it had already conquered (/gained) so much land meant that it was in a very good position to push on and finish the job. When you ask who had the best opportunity you have to take into account the fact that Britain had a very good opportunity as they already owned so much of the world.

Ancient civilisations had the problem of the atlantic and other oceans, while Britain had the world's best navy.

It is no doubt, the British came closest, and in doing this presented themselves with the best ever opporunity to conquer the world anybody has ever had.

The British Empire could not expand in one direction without revolt in the other. Some places the British would have conquered they couldn't because the other European empires already had most of the world, and what was left was too difficult to control.

The Mongols were capable of reaching America and Australia (as they did discover how to make boats of considerable strength, size and quality from the Chinese), so try not to use that as an excuse as to why they couldn't conquer the world. The Mongols had a lot of bad luck from hurricanes (Japan and Java) and from Kublai Khan (who pretty much destroyed the empire through his ambition to conquer the unnecessary and unrewarding places - he would have been better off giving troops to the Il-Khans to finish of the Turks and Mamelukes but that is not the point of the thread) The Mongols would not have been stopped otherwise.

@Mongloid Cow,
I don't think you should use bad luck as an excuse either. The Mongols didn't reach America so the argument of oceans is entirely valid. The fact is they didn't reach America and so any potential they may have had of conquering the world is greatly diminished. And if they had reached America, to maintain an empire over such a vast ocean in those ages simply isn't realistic.

I think bad leadership is a better excuse personally. To maintain an empire across the ocean would have been somewhat possible, and they were certainly capable of reaching America with large armies. But I don't think they would have necessarily done so. Taking the Middle East and Europe (which would have been incredibly easy) would have been a better option, and that certainly would give them the largest empire ever without a doubt. Besides, if they did get a foothold anywhere in the Americas, I doubt there would be much anyone could do to stop them.

Bad luck is a reasonable excuse...

But seriously, the bad leadership possibility just about destroys the chance of total world domination.

Face it, one person could not realistically control millions or billions, especially if continents of citizens have never seen or heard the leader. If some Native American tribe was conquered by Romans or Mongols, wouldn't it be difficult to convince them to pledge allegiance to Caesar or Genghis?
It would be even more difficult to keep support from an inner circle, after all, can you tell me that the Vice President of the World is going to be content just one step away from everything?

Theoretically, the King controls the world. Wouldn't the "Vice King" want some of this power and decide to take in any way he could? All the loyal subjects of the King might revolt.

Total World Domination is not very realistic, so, taking public support into account, it is practically impossible to say who came the closest; a coup is always just a step away.

Colonial England came closest. The genetic result of militaristic history can be seen in those football hooligans :lol:

Everyone who said Great Britain is forgetting a few factors:

Though they enjoyed global influence they never had suzerainty in many of the places you consider to be "under British Rule" ie their colonies.

Secondly, Britain never enjoyed the hegemony needed for global domination. Britain was always kept in check by a system of balance of powers. ALWAYS:

Early Colonial Period: France, Spain and Portugal, checked England.

Before Napoleon: Opposition from France, Russia, the United States and others kept Britain in check.

After Napoleon: The Concert of Europe (the world worder that dominated after Napolean until the Franco-Prussian War and some would say until WWI) was based on an elaborate system of balance of powers. Within this system Britain and the other major powers were deadlocked into the status quo. Political revolutions in continental Europe also guaranteed resistance toward the politically conservative England.

Mid 19th century: Britain lost its leadership position in the world. Britain's lead in industrial production was surpassed by the newly consolidated German nation, which also surpassed Britain in population. During this era the value of colonies was severely depreciated. Simultaneously, with the end of the American Civil War, the United States, with newly consolidated political pwer, became a global power in the truest sense. Until World War I, these trends continued to diminish Britains international influence.

After WWI: Britain, and most of Europe, were devestated economically. From this point on the United States gained more and more power relative to Europe. Simultaneously, Britain's colonial infrastructure becan to corrode.

WWII: Britain was surpassed by the United States and the USSR in global power. Then more events added insult to injury: Britian lost its empire; France became a counterweight to British influence on the continent. China and Japan surpassed the UK in terms of global economic importance.

In none of these phases do I see Britain ever approaching global domination.

Then who did? I believe it was and will be a mission impossible, but we we're talking about coming closest. Britain has controlled most territory than any other nation so far or am I wrong here?

Britain was the world's super power throughout the 19th century leading into the 20th century. Their navy meant that no one could challenge them and werent a real threat. Thats the reason they stayed neutral for a century in Europe because they new no one could challenge their power.

While the other European coutries founded colonies they were prity much just for prestige they werent as useful as India or Australia or Canada. Britain was the only European power that didnt conscript meaning their power of their amry never came anywhere near its peak. While Britain had about 0.2% of their population in the military other nations had up to 2 or 3 %. If Britain had decided to militirise it would have taken all the European powers colonies. Then restricted their industrial and commercial power substantially.

Britain was eventually surpassed but thats because they didnt take the chance while they had it. They already controlled a 4th of the world, had the largest navy and potrntially could have had the largest army.

Currently the USA could never take over the world. It doesnt have the military power to take on everyone sure it can defeat third world dictators but against nuclear power houses it couldnt win. It may be econmically dominant but that doesnt correspond to ruling the world.

Nazi Germany never stood a real chance, it couldnt possibly take Britain and over extended itself turning on Russia. Taking on the whole world at once was never going to work and when you persecute the natives that would in some cases have helped it makes it even harder. Perhaps if the Nazis didnt have their ideologies they would have been a small chance.

we're the only super power in the world, currently i think we can take on china, russia, france, germany whoever.

Originally posted by SunTzu
we're the only super power in the world, currently i think we can take on china, russia, france, germany whoever.

One on one, perhaps, but beyond that...

Originally posted by Ukas
Then who did? I believe it was and will be a mission impossible, but we we're talking about coming closest. Britain has controlled most territory than any other nation so far or am I wrong here?

As I said before, territory is not all that counts. It was easier to conquer all Australia or America than to conquer France that is much smaller. Britain had never a chance against european powers because they based their power in the navy, so they dedicated to conquer undeveloped places. Even with all his empire Britain was very far from conquer all the world. However, if Germany had won WWII defeating England, Rusia and USA, it would had been very easy for them to conquer all Africa for example.

Originally posted by SunTzu
we're the only super power in the world, currently i think we can take on china, russia, france, germany whoever.

You must be joking. With nuclear weapons it's impossible to take those countries (it would led to destruction). And even without nuclear weapons I doubt USA can take China, that has more than 1 billion habitans (that's a lot of manpower and they are not disarmed like the iraqis).

Once more, it was Britain.

It isn't realistic at all to suggest any one country could conquer the world. But territory does matter, as that's the whole point of the question - who could conquer the most territory (or rather all of it)? At its peak, the British empire was massive and had a huge population - its power was unrivalled throughout the world. Britain was very powerful and had already conquered more of the world than anybody else. Not to mention the fact they controlled the seas.

As for the USA, if they tried to conquer the world now, they wouldn't stand a chance. Serioulsy, you might like to think of yourselves as some unstoppable war machine, but you could never conquer the world. Never. Conquering the world is a little different from conquering Iraq.

@Mongloid Cow,
I don't agree concerning the Mongols ability to maintain a trans-atlantic empire. But it really doesn't matter, because they never got to America. You say they could have, and that's the whole point of this thread, who could have conquered the world? because nobody actually did. But you have to take into account the actual situation the various civilisations/nations found themselves in. You have to look at these nations when their potential for conquering the world was its peak, and see exactly what is in their favour. The Mongols hadn't got to America. This is a serious argument against conquering the world. You can make suppositions and such but your just getting further away from the truth. You have to stay as close to the facts as possible, at their height they didn't know of America. The more 'might haves' and 'could haves' you use the less likely it becomes and you realise that maybe their chances weren't so good, when other nations were in reality in far better positions to achieve this goal. Other nations in far better positions to conquer the world and with far more potential, a far more realistic chance of conquering the world. Obviously the idea of one nation conquering the world isn't very realistic at all and every nation needs some 'what if's' and so on, but some need more than others, and so for this reason I don't believe the Mongols were best placed to achieve this goal.

The Mongol empire was carved out in warfare and tactics. It was Genghis Khans empire, and it started to die with his death.
They never had the political shrewdness that the English had.

Whats all this talk about the US taking over the world?:eek:

What we should remember is that there are two ways of creating an empire: -
* One man conquering a huge area in a single lifetime
* One nation slowly expanding and ‘assimilating’ their neighbours one-at-a-time over several centuries.

Some ‘one man’ empires were successful (Cyrus the Great of Persia, Genghis Khan of the Mongols, etc), but most fail because it is too fast, and the subjugated people can still remember the time before the conquest (Alexander’s empire fell apart as soon as he died, and Napoleon & Hitler were crushed by outside forces before their empires were established).

If you want a long-term empire, then a surer method is the slow expanding one.
Rome and Britain followed this course (two or three generations after the conquest, the young people listen to the old tales of their grandparents, but mostly accept that their current world is a different place).
Of course, ALL empires eventually decline and fall....but those that take longest to build also take longest to fall apart. ;)

What we are forgetting is that before the invention of modern communications and transport, it was IMPOSSIBLE to control a far flung empire.
Rome could not have grown much bigger, because it would have taken too long for news of a rebellion to reach the authorities....and too long to dispatch troops to quell it.
Britain couldn’t even hold on to the American colonies, and eventually had to give up control of India....but as I said, ALL empires eventually fall apart, NONE lasts for ever.
Only today in the 21st century is it possible to create a world empire, but it will only last if it grows slowly, spreading it’s influence gradually and assimilating other nations one-at-a-time over several centuries.

Will there one day be a world empire?
I think so.
History shows us that the evolution of societies is as follows:-
City-States -> City Leagues -> Kingdoms -> Nations -> Grand Alliances -> Superpowers -> (?World Empire?)
America, still a young volatile nation, is in the commanding position at the moment, and will either grow or decline....
....I cannot predict the future, but I DO know that things WILL change! Nothing remains static.
Perhaps one day in the far future there will be independent human colonies on Mars, Jupiter’s moons, in the asteroid belt, and maybe even on distant stars.
Then today’s nations on old Earth will be as relevant as the city-states of Athens, Sparta and Thebes...... :D

OK, ppl listen up, the only countries that came close were the Roman Empire, and they did have knowlege of australia and america, infact, it has been noted that rome had some indirect trading with australia.
The reason their empire came apart was because of the civil wars and the fact that after the augustan wars, almost half of the 60 legions were disbanded

And the only other viable countrie was bismarkian prussia, but bismark decided not to annex all of austria or france, and the fact that they had the best, repeat BEST army of the time (please take note that i said "best" not "larges") and they would hav popular suport because, as we all know, the germans love good war.
and u will see the great possibilty of them taking over the world in the fact that at one time the had the southern states of germany, france, austria and russia against them, and they still took more ground than they lost( by a ratio of about 1:3 i think)
And this could have ben done in his life time, oratleast the conquering of the countries on the eurasian and african continents

Originally posted by phoenix_night

But territory does matter, as that's the whole point of the question - who could conquer the most territory (or rather all of it)?

The question is who had the best chance, not who conquered the most territory.

As an analogy: if I ask you for the best football team in the world and you tell me some asiatic team (for example) because they have won all the games they have played in the last two years but they have not play against any powerful team, then I would say that you are wrong.

The same for Britain: what powerful country did they conquered? Not a single one.

Originally posted by Jorge


The question is who had the best chance, not who conquered the most territory.

As an analogy: if I ask you for the best football team in the world and you tell me some asiatic team (for example) because they have won all the games they have played in the last two years but they have not play against any powerful team, then I would say that you are wrong.

The same for Britain: what powerful country did they conquered? Not a single one.

But territory does matter! Look, you have to take into account the potential of each country to conquer the world, okay?

What do I mean by conquer the world? Conquer all the territory.

Britain already had a huge amount of territory, not to mention (and you constantly seem to forget this) they were the super power.

If you were in charge of Britain at the peak of the empire you obvioulsy had a damn better chance of conquering the world than you would have withouth the empire - mainly because a large portion of the world was already conquered!!!

It obviously makes a difference!!! Don't even think about making another post suggesting territory doesn't come into it because it's the most ridiclous thing I've ever heard and It's really annoying me now.

If you're trying to make a world empire, do you think being a small island just north of mainland Europe would have the best chance, or a small island just north of mainland Europe which just happened to own a quarter of the world's land?!

And don't forget, size does matter!! And don't forget Britain was comfortable as its position as the world's only super power so stop making accusations of weakness!!!


And there will never be a world empire achieved by anything other than conquest. And no country has the power to conquer the world today, and there will probably never be a country with such power.

Size matters, but it's not the only thing that counts. The power of one empire is not measured by territory. And it's the power, compared to the power of the others, not the territory, what gives the best chance to conquer all the world. You can have a big territory, but a small power. Obviously, the more territory you have, the better chance of being powerful, but is not a direct relationship. Rusia is the bigger country nowadays, but less powerful that USA. And Sudan is bigger than England. But power is not measured by size.

In the case of Britain, they had a huge territory, but only naval power. And this is very important to take into account.

I think the mongols....they could have swept down the europeans back den, but i think chaos swept when Temujin died, and they needed a new khan, so the mongols went back to central asia. they could have kept pressing!

Originally posted by JustDontBiteIt
OK, ppl listen up, the only countries that came close were the Roman Empire, and they did have knowlege of australia and america, infact, it has been noted that rome had some indirect trading with australia.


I very, Very, VERY much doubt that the Romans had any knowledge about America & Australia.
Would you like to post some references telling us where this information comes from?

I find it very improbable for three very good reasons:-
* There is no mention of it by any contemporary Ancient historian.
(The remarkable voyages of the Phoenicians around Britain and Africa are mentioned....so I’m sure that such an epic discovery would have been noted by someone!)
* Who on earth would they have traded with?
(The Aborigines, a pre Stone Age culture with no iron, no bronze, and no copper? What could they have possibly traded?)
* How would their ships have got there?
(Ancient Mediterranean ships were not designed to cross oceans....they were mostly coastal ships, who were very vulnerable to storms and rough seas)

Ah! Without knowing it, Jorge has shown us the answer to this question.

Originally posted by Jorge
The question is who had the best chance, not who conquered the most territory.


What is the most important thing you need to conquer the world?
Is it a large army....no.
Is it superior weapons?....no.
The answer is....A NAVY!

So you can forget about the Romans and Mongols….even if they had dominated all the land between Spain and China, the knowledge of how to build ocean going ships and navigate them was still many centuries away in the future.
Because without a large ocean going navy, you cannot even reach all the distant lands of the world....let alone conquer them!

So, the answer to the question “who had the best CHANCE to conquer the world” is....
....the people with the biggest and best navy.
The Netherlands, Portugal and Spain had a try, but they were eclipsed by the British.
And no, the British didn’t succeed....but they had the biggest and best navy, so they had the best CHANCE.

And if you want to nominate some other nation rather than Britain, well, you must first find a way of getting past the British navy.

Question: Why were the British so successful?
Were they better and smarter than the rest of the human race?....of course not!
All they had was a ‘geographical advantage’ over everyone else: they live on a large island.
Whereas all the other European nations had to spend lots of money maintaining large armies to guard against their neighbours, Britain didn’t. She spent her money on a large fleet instead. This gave them two advantages;-
First, none of the other large European armies could invade her.
Second, she could travel to any place in the world and use her small army to conquer less technically advanced peoples.
Just a lucky ‘geographical advantage’.

Question: Why is America a superpower today?
Are they better and smarter than the rest of the human race?….of course not!
All they have is a ‘geographical advantage’ over everyone else: they colonised a large continent.
If North America were just 100 meters lower than it actually is, then most of it would be under water, and it’s landmass would be about equal to that of Spain, or France, or Germany, so no superpower.
And if another virgin continent existed in the middle of the Pacific (such as if Antarctica had moved northwards several hundred million years ago, instead of staying at the south pole), then that continent would also be colonised and become a superpower today.
Just a lucky ‘geographical advantage’. ;)

Originally posted by Kryten
And if you want to nominate some other nation rather than Britain, well, you must first find a way of getting past the British navy.[/B]

Well, you don't really need to get past the British navy since all other options had their golden age when the british navy didn't dominate the high seas.

But beyond that, you are missing the larger point. Even if I grant you that the worlds #1 navy is prerequisite to conquering the world, that doesn't mean Britain is the closes because a navy is only one of several prerequisites. Bear with my analagy: I will agree that an engine is prerequisite for a car to have the capability to move (just as you say a strong navy is a prerequisite to having the ability to conquer), but an engine along is not enough for that car to move. There are literally hundreds of other parts needed for a working automobile (just as there are other prerequisites beyond a navy to conquering the world). Therefore the fact that Britain had the navy (the engine) doesn't mean it had the ability to conquer (move). See what I'm saying?

Secondly, I think you make a logic leap when you assume that a nation must have a dominant navy to conquer the world, just as a car does not require a hot-rod engine to move. Granted a dominant navy would help, but a strong navy would probably be sufficient.

But beyond that, I'm going to fight you on your own naval ground...er...water. Britains navy was never quite so dominant as you assume. Several countries succesfully challenged the British navy. Napoleon's navy stood its own against the British for quite some time, and suffered from as much bad luck as it did from British canons. Germany challenged Britains navy in the early stages of WWI, and its submarines plagued England througout the entire war, and that's when they had the weaker but still significant French navy to contend with, and later the respectable American fleet. Nazi Germany also challenged the British navy (which was in serious decline at this time), and her Majesty's navy probably wouldn't have made it were it not for materiel support from the United States.

The point of the above paragraph is simple: While Britain had the most powerful navy for quite some time, other nations were never too far behind, and it wouldn't have been inconceivable if the tables had turned any one of the above scenarios. Apply this global domination: If the British navy always had serious rivals, can you infer that it could have defeated a coalition of navies? No. At no point did the British navy ever enjoy hegemony on that scale.

If you define "world" as the known world, than that further depreciates the value of naval power for the ancient empires that were nominated. And you shouldn't forget that ALL of the nominees had powerful navies for their time.

Good points brandon749, and I do agree with you.

My turn for an analagy. :)

....take half a dozen tortoises, place them on a circular track, and see which one has the best CHANCE of winning the race.
It might be the fastest one....
It might be the one with the most stamina....
Or it might be the one on the inside track.....the one with the 'geographical advantage'. ;)

If a nation wants to conquer the world, then it must have several things.....and no matter how big and powerful it's army is, it must have a fleet in order to get to over-sea lands, in order to 'win the race'.

Soooo:-
(1) build a big navy.
(2) defeat the largest world navy.
(3) then use that navy to transport an army to lands that they can't march to.
(And keep control of the seas for resupply, reinforcement, and to move to the next distant land)

Britain was ahead in the race before it even started.....she already had a big navy, and it was up to the other nations to try catch up and defeat her on the high seas.
Did anyone succeed?.....no.
(America after WW2 cerainly exceeded Britain's navy, and has the largest most powerful fleet in the world today....but it is too late.
All the 'soft spots' and 'easy catches' in the world have gone, and it is far more difficult to use 'gunboat diplomacy' in a world with global communications, public opinion and the United Nations watching your every move)

Remember, the question is, "who had the best CHANCE to conquer the world".
Did Naopleonic France or Nazi Germany have a chance?.....no.
They couldn't even complete steps 1 and 2 that I outlined above.
And Ancient nations were not even in the race, as they didn't have ocean going ships.

If Britain's navy had not existed, then yes, the race to grab those distant lands would have been more even.
But as it is, it's as if Britain was the tortoise that was not only on the inside track, but also started a couple of feet in front! :lol:

I have to go so I'll be brief until I can follow up a little later.

To Summarize:

There are many requirements to conquer the world. (I can't beleive we're even talking about this.) While Britain had the navy it lacked other aspects.

Second, Britains navy was the most powerful, but for purposes of global domination, hegemony is required. England never had that.

Last, you overestimate the value of sea power and put an unfair burden on pre-Colombian civilizations.

I'll follow up on this (and warrant my claims) a little later.

Originally posted by brandon749
I have to go so I'll be brief until I can follow up a little later.

To Summarize:

There are many requirements to conquer the world. (I can't beleive we're even talking about this.) While Britain had the navy it lacked other aspects.

True. No-one has ever conquered the world.
But who came CLOSEST....Britain.

Second, Britains navy was the most powerful, but for purposes of global domination, hegemony is required. England never had that.

True again. Who DID have the hegemony? Nobody.
But who came CLOSEST....Britain.

Last, you overestimate the value of sea power and put an unfair burden on pre-Colombian civilizations.

Well, you can't claim to conquer the world if you can't even get to half of it! :lol:

I'll follow up on this (and warrant my claims) a little later.

Very well, I'll wait. :D

The British sucked totally when it came to land domination, not naval or coastal domination. Anywhere where there was no ocean or large enough waterway nearby, the British were destined to fail. Look at Afghanistan in the 19th Century. The British were hacked to pieces as they no had dominance or respect. Giving gold as bribes didn't accomplish anything either (look at Yar Mohammed in Herat) The British could never have conquered the world, or even gone close.

The Mongols on the other hand had the amazing ability of super-speed communications (It was a couple of days (I think 3) to reach the army laying siege to Vienna in Austria of news from Qaraqorum in Mongolia, and I do know the British also had fast communications) and brilliant, versatile armies with the ability to create a large fleet if required.

And I do agree with you Mongoloid Cow, :)

Britain couldn't defeat major European land powers on her own.
She used her navy to sail around the world and to pick on 'soft spots' and 'easy catches' by dominating weaker less technologically advanced people.

On the other hand, as big and powerful as the Mongols were, they couldn't reach across oceans, no matter HOW big their land army was.
Good grief....they couldn't even conquer Japan, let alone reach America, Australia, etc! :lol:

As I keep saying, the question is "who had the best CHANCE to conquer the world".
(A 'chance' implies that with another roll of the dice, things could have been different)

Did the Mongols have a chance?.......no.
No matter how powerful their army, no roll of the dice would allow them to cross oceans.

Did Britain have a chance?......yes.
With slightly more luck, they could have held on to the American colonies, or with a slightly different political policy, the American Revolutionary War may never have happend (after all, Canada and Australia never revolted. So it is possible that the American colonies may not have if the situation had been handled differently).
And imagine how powerful a combined Britain-America-Canada-Australia-New Zealand would be today! :eek:
Would this have conquered the world?......probably not.
But it would certainly have been the closest that anyone has ever come to 'world domination'.

So, Britain had a CHANCE....she almost had all the required elements needed (a large navy, a large army, a powerful industrial base, technological superiority, a stable government)....but she made mistakes and blew it.
Nobody else has come so close.

("Well, so far Kryten, so far. But the race is not yet over......." ;) )

Kryten, just because the Mongol fleet was destroyed in tropical cyclones doesn't mean they couldn't conquer Japan. They didn't, but easily could have if they landed (even the Japanese admit that)

Australia, Canada and New Zealand seceded peacefully from the British Empire, and the same would have happened anyway. If the British crushed the American revolt, they would have revolted again, and again, and again until they got what they wanted.

Good points my old mate Mongoloid Cow, :)

....but it is strange that Canada, Australia and New Zealand didn't revolt again, and again, and again until they got what they wanted.

As for the Mongols, why didn't they invade Japan again, and again, and again until they got what THEY wanted? ;)

Originally posted by brandon749
I have to go so I'll be brief until I can follow up a little later.

To Summarize:

There are many requirements to conquer the world. (I can't beleive we're even talking about this.) While Britain had the navy it lacked other aspects.

Second, Britains navy was the most powerful, but for purposes of global domination, hegemony is required. England never had that.

Last, you overestimate the value of sea power and put an unfair burden on pre-Colombian civilizations.

I'll follow up on this (and warrant my claims) a little later.

This post will follow up on the one above an address some recent concerns.

Although Britain had a powerful navy, they lacked other requirements for global domination. What are these requirements? They include, but are not limited to, the following:


Land power: The British never had an army that could defeat another major European power. Some might point out the French and Indian War (Seven Years War in Europe) and also might point out the Napoleanic wars. This analysis forgets one factor: Britain won those wars with the help of powerful land allies. The Prussians (a major land power) were on Britain's side in both those wars. In the Napoleanic wars, it was basically most of Europe versus France. England's army was never strong enough to stand alone in a global confict.

Naval hegemony: Their navy was the most powerful but is that powerful enough? Not if there are others close behind you. Britain always had powerful rivals. Thus, Britain's navy easily could have lost in a quest for global dominance.

You can think of a navy as a player on a sports team, even if it plays an important position. Just because you have the best Quarterback in the league doesn't mean you'll win the Superbowl; in fact the team, as a whole, might suck.


I'd also like to point out that you put an unfair advantage on the pre-Colombian civilizations. Is it really reasonable to expect ancient Rome to dominate all seven continents? Why can't we use "the known world" as a standard? If I must remind you, there were still blank spaces on the map in England's heyday!



A BETTER STANDARD (continued...)

A BETTER STANDARD


Many of you use land area as the standard for how close a country was to global domination. This is simply unreasonable. According to this criterion, Canada has come closer to global domination than the USA, and Denmark (which owns/owned Greenland) is closer to global domination than Germany, Japan, and Italy combined! An additional flaw, this criterion values a square mile in the Sahara desert equally to a square mile in New York City!

And even if you accept the land area criterion, most of you are mis-applying it. For example you point to Britain's colonies. What you fail to realize is that the level of suzerainty in a colony is often very limited. The British colonies, more than any others, enjoyed a high degree of autonomy. Can you really compare British authority in India to Roman authority in Gaul? No, you cannot.

Thus, your standard and your application of that standard are flawed.

You need to look at a standard of hegomony. How much power (conquering potential) did X country have. Only after that issue has been analyzed can you apply your land area criterion which ought to merely be a "tie-breaker" criterion.

That's why I stand with Rome or Greece. For a long time, they established total hegemony (in the known world). Remember Alexander the Great cried because he honestly beleived that he had no more world to conquer.

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
"No one can conquer the world in today's world, I voted Nazi Germany (I think they could've won WWI) though. British could've too"

Wow, and I though Hitler tried to conquer the world in World War 2. Silly me :) :D ;) :lol:

I reckon the Mongols were the best chance. The world can thank the stupidity of Kublai Khan (ironically) for them failing.

I was talking about Germany in WWI. I voted Nazi Germany on that list.

The British came the closest but I think the Spanish had the best chance of conquering the world. Think about it, before the destruction of the Spanish Armada they had control and influence throughout much of western Europe and had a good head start in colonizing the New World. Combine that with the fact that they had just taken control of Portugal with all her maps and all of her colonies or fortresses in Africa and Asia and it makes one wonder how they blew it.

So I say the closest was the British but the best chance belonged to the Spanish.

Originally posted by brandon749
Remember Alexander the Great cried because he honestly beleived that he had no more world to conquer.

Er....this is not true: it’s just a myth.
Alexander knew perfectly well about the existence of Carthage, Sicily, Italy, and all the other lands west of Greece, because the Greeks were trading with these lands and had even set up colonies there!
The best that we can say about Alexander is that he conquered HALF of the known world, as he knew it (he was planning a campaign against the west, but died at the age of 33 in Babylon before he could get started).

And yes, the Romans conquered almost all the known world, as they knew it (except for Scotland, Ireland, Germany and Sassanid Persia), just as the Incas conquered almost all of the known world, as they knew it (they had no knowledge of the Mayan & Aztec civilisations to the north), and the Egyptians of the Old kingdom conquered almost all of the known world, as they knew it (the lower & upper Nile river valley, 2850 to 2052BC, four hundred years before the invading Hyksos showed them what a chariot was).
By this reasoning we should also include the people of Easter Island in the middle of the Pacific....they DID conquer the whole of the known world....as they knew it!. :D

The question before us is, “who had the best chance of conquering the world”....which I assume means the entire land surface of a planet called earth, not just the small part of it known to ancient people.

So What Do You Need To Conquer The Whole World?
---------------------------------------------------
(1) A large ocean going navy (so that you can reach all the distant lands)
(2) A technological superiority (you’re not going to conquer these distant lands if their weapons are better than yours)
(3) A large land army (the world is a big place, and you need lots of troops to hold it all)
(4) A large industrial base (you’re going to have to manufacture lots of muskets & naval cannons, to name just a few)
(5) A stable strong government (or these distant lands will rebel and become independent)
(A strong economy is also required, in order to pay for it all, but that comes from importing riches from these distant lands with your large navy)

Britain came close. She had all the above except item number 3, and she made mistakes with item number 5.
So like a rocket in the early 1950’s, she rose as high as she could, but lacked that vital 3rd stage to reach orbit.

But RomanLegion has made an interesting observation....

Originally posted by RomanLegion
So I say the closest was the British but the best chance belonged to the Spanish.

Yes! With ‘another roll of the dice’, perhaps the Spanish Armada would have been victorious, and Spain may have annexed England, and so would have eliminated any future Royal Navy. Already a major land power in the 16th century, there would have been nothing to stop her from growing even larger....although whether she had item number 5 (a strong and stable enough government) is another matter.
So I agree, Spain DID have a chance to conquer the world. :)

However....by the same token....with ‘another roll of the dice’ maybe England could have won the Hundred Years War and annexed France (Henry V was made heir to Charles VI, and his son Henry VI was claimed by the English to be king of France, so they came close). With the manpower of France under their belt, and a large nation in Europe, then they WOULD have been able to fulfil requirement number 3; a large land army.
Alternatively, if she had managed her affairs better in the American colonies, then perhaps they would not have revolted (Canada and Australia never did). This would also have given her a large land army....all those G.I.’s landing on the Normandy beaches in 1944 would have been under the direct control of the government in London! :lol:

In effect, Britain had TWO chances to conquer the world.
She failed, but she came close.
With another roll of the dice, who knows. ;)

well, putting the past behind, Shady put it best in rounding up who rules the world. we might not have conquered it, but whats conquest besides direct rule, and more factors to govern?
America through its Military influence rules all the world (save a few rogue states) in their own desicions and foreign policies.
Its cultural influence has overswept Britains via its major foreign media outlets, propaganda programs (thats what they are) and of course, Hollywood. Britain established english as the Common tongue, but America is defining it. Color is color and not Colour.
Titantic once ruled Japans box office until some cartoon pic came out. :D and finally, the American economy is the heart of the World order as we know it today. The UN supposedly watches over this. The World Bank and other International institutions are the middle-men. Uncle Sam is the overseer. Our economic influence is a not only a deciding factor over foreign affairs, it is the stabalizer of our own country. and it is the governor of others. unlike Britains and other imperial age powers "colonial" empires, America has established its own colonial imperial power - not through the direct governing of regions, but by the governing of their resources through Multinational corporations and industries, that "invest" in them. and thus controls them, giving us influence, and indirect controll of the countries. domestic affairs of governments do not concern us as it would a World Empire as you guys suggest. let the people govern themselves, even if as a tyranical despotism, as long as we're allowed to control their resources. and thus our economic influence unites the world under us, if not amongst themselves.
its why we hate communisms, and rogue states like Iraq - for all the WMD it doesnt seem to have just yet, opening up the oil reserves for our oil corporations is all the more important.
we rule most, if not just about all of the world by the three infuences, and a self-serving capitalist empire is far more ideal than a direct imperial actual world order, the kind Nazi Germany sought, and Britain had.

(hey, this Influence thing might be workable into a new victory condition for Civ 4!!! far more realistic than say, trying to move tanks into every city on the map!!!!! i might be onto something.... ;) )

i'll quote Shady to give him credit:

I think conquest is an obsolete term in the modern times because international law has all the borders set up and there's no way that a country could conquer others without violating legalities and bringing upon it the retribution of others.

In a major power sense, this would always result in a nuclear holocaust.

All these older choices listed (Germany, Britain) focused on territorial size, population, whatever and while Britain came factually close with little potential, Germany came potentially close with less evident territorial results.

The U.S. nowadays, rules the world. There has NEVER been a world power with this magnitude of influence. The U.S. doesn't use little flags to claim territory but it uses the dollar. Besides being economically gargantuan and evident in every country, it is militarily superior to anyone. These two factors combined exert an influence over all parts of the world which makes any sane country consider the U.S. when going about their business.

True, the US have conquered the world in the modern sense of the word.
They don't prop up a flag on thier conquered territory, they build a Mc Donalds.;) :)

What JC Denton says is true: America does have the most powerful military in the world today, and almost nowhere is free from American influence, be it cultural or financial.

So begining in the late 20th century, America has built itself an ECONOMIC EMPIRE which dominates the world today.....but that is not quite the same as conquering it.
Still, it is something that no other nation in history....not even the British....has been able to achieve.

Originally posted by JC Denton
Color is color and not Colour.


....only in America, and only because they can't speak the Queen's English properly, like wot I does. :lol:

At the end of the day, when you think of conquering, you think of land and culture, not cash and hamburgers.
The Americian culture spread is impressive, but in the modern world of TV and radio, its not that hard to achieve.

Americians may spell a few words differently, but what langauge are they useing.

St.Paddys day is celibrated around the world, even in Russia believe it or not. Everyone becomes Irish for a day, but we never conquered anywere. (well..except Scotland, but that dos'nt really count.)

Originally posted by gael
St.Paddys day is celibrated around the world, even in Russia believe it or not. Everyone becomes Irish for a day, but we never conquered anywere. (well..except Scotland, but that dos'nt really count.)

It does if you're Scottish! :lol:

Originally posted by Kryten


It does if you're Scottish! :lol:

Well yeah, I did'nt mean it to sound bad, but you can see Scotland from parts of N.Ireland across the water. Hardly world domination.

:)

double post

OT: Whats St. Patty's Day? Edit: nevermind. I just realised wht it is. It isn't really celebrated down here... :crazyeye:

On topic: Yeah, I forgot about Spain. That was also a very good contender but they blew it when they screwed the Portuguese over royally and thus lost influence in the eastern hemisphere.

Kryten, i like that - Economic Empire! (though of course, its Economic Empire governs nearly all the worlds economy and resoucrces, profitting its own self - i don't see why anyone would want to conquer the world anyway else - directly governing all the countries would be a hassle :D so, though they didn't conquer the world, thier EE and massive influence ensures that they Rule it, for the most part)
but hey, i know its off topic, but do you think there's a way to incorporate such a Victory Condition in a Civ 4? Economic Domination? exactly how do you think it might be brought about?
the ideas neat....

Rome. It was the only empire with a flexible enough system of governance and citizenship to absorb everyone, and it predated any real global system of organized and state-fostered nationalism, so conquest was less intrusive psychologically.

Those who voted "US" or "Colonial England" are either mad, biased by current political views or using a very different definition of "conquest" than I could ever imagine...

mad or biased?
actually, though i'm not sure colonial england could ever conquer more than the 'third world' :D it did cover a wide part of that.
but a few other powers had their own colonial empires, and if anyone was to 'conquer' the world in the Imperial Age, there would have to have been a much earlier 'World War I'
And i doubt Britain had the manpower to win such a war or sustain control over their colonies, whilst capturing others and defeating the countries of Europe. World Conquest is impossible in that extent, and Rome could never expand over the borders it forged. Imagine them trying to rule the Chinese!
Now for the US of A, this surely is a different matter. Not even they could lauch invasions against every country in the world, occupying them and running their administrations. First, they'd lack the manpower for all their 'technological' advances, and secondly, nuclear war would erupt. and even still it would be impossible to govern each seperate disrict as a state of the U.S.
It could never happen. But as I said before, the US already 'indirectly' rules over most of the world. We have troops all around the world maintaining of 'influence' over other countries in practically all matters, and 'our' multinatonal corporations own a good amount of the resoucres of these countries, so we control the economics of them aswell.
It is our economic empire and military influence that gives the US its hold on the globe, and thats unlikely to shift hands.
Like i said, though the US cannot "conquer" the world as you would imagine, it already has conquered the running of the world on the economic scale. If a small country is degrading to poverty but we're benefiting from our corporation exporting their bananas instead of themselves - well, there's our indirect rule. We need not worry about domestic affairs or policy, as long as the market remains under the string of the American Enterprise.

To my good liege lord Richard III, :)
As I said before....

you can't claim to have conquered the world if you can't even get to half of it!
The technology to build large sturdy ocean going transport ships, and to navigate them successfully, took the human race many, many centuries to develop.
The Romans couldn’t across oceans; they just didn’t have that technology. None of the ancient peoples did.
Now IF the Romans (or the Mongols for that matter) had been able to take a giant scientific leap and acquired such ocean going ships....then yes, they would have had a chance to “conquer the world”. But you might as well dream of them having electricity & aircraft as well while you’re at it.
And IF their empire had lasted for another thousand years longer than it actually did, then yes, they would have still been around in the 15th century when this ocean going technology DID become available. But, like people, all empires grow, mature, age and die. Wishing for an empire to live for three times longer than it actually did is like wishing that human beings could live to be 200 years old, instead of the more usual ‘three-score-years-and-ten’.

However, I think I am beginning to understand what you, JC Denton, and others are saying.
All Britain did was to use this ocean going technology to capture and colonise all the 'soft spots' and 'easy catches'....the “third world areas” as JC Denton puts it.
They couldn’t crack the tough nuts like Europe, China, or even Japan....not once they let the massive potential of the American colonies slip between their fingers.

So if we ignore all these “third world areas” as being unimportant, then the domination of Europe become the deciding factor.
(I know that this sounds snobbishly self-centred, and I could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically, but you see what I mean)
Rome DID conquer, control, dominate, and subdue almost the whole of Europe....something that no other civilisation has ever been able to do before or since (Napoleon and Hitler tried to do it all in one lifetime, but by attacking every country in sight they ended up fighting too many enemies at once).

But I am coming round to JC Denton’s way of thinking.
The rules today have changed.
With instant world-wide communications, which allows the world-wide modern global economy, America IS an ECOMONIC EMPIRE....something that was not possible in the past because the technology just wasn’t available.
It’s a new way of “conquering the world”….not with armies, but with money! :lol:
(Then again, think of how much more powerful Britain would be today if they had kept control of the American colonies. Then it would be SHE who would control this ‘American economic empire’, along with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, almost all the African subcontinent, all of the Indian subcontinent, Egypt, most of the Middle East, etc.... ;) )



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off Topic:-

Originally posted by JC Denton
Kryten, i like that - Economic Empire! (though of course, its Economic Empire governs nearly all the worlds economy and resoucrces, profitting its own self - i don't see why anyone would want to conquer the world anyway else - directly governing all the countries would be a hassle :D so, though they didn't conquer the world, thier EE and massive influence ensures that they Rule it, for the most part)
but hey, i know its off topic, but do you think there's a way to incorporate such a Victory Condition in a Civ 4? Economic Domination? exactly how do you think it might be brought about?
the ideas neat....

Didn’t “Alpha Centauri” have an ‘economic victory’ condition within it? (along with many, many other useful things that never made it to Civ3).

As for Civ4....
* You could have victory if one civ accumulates say 50,000 gold (increased or decreased depending on the world size)….but that is just ‘hoarding’, like the Achaemenid Persians did.
* Or you could have a victory if one civ has a total income in one turn of say 5,000 gold from all sources (increased or decreased depending on the world size)….but that might be too easy, once half the world has been conquered.
* I think the best method would be to have a victory if one civ has TWO of every bonus, luxury, and strategic resource on the map (increased or decreased depending on the world size)....either directly through control or indirectly through trade....and this type of victory cannot happen in the Ancient & Middle Age periods, because half the resources have not yet appeared in the game.

Just a thought. :D

I reckon an ecominic victory could work if you made 75% of the worlds total revenue or controlled 75% of the worlds total gold supply (sorry for not knowing the unnecessary gobbly-dookular correct words for it) and you had at least twice as much of either condition over the nearest rival. It would make it a hard and arduous condition only possible in the industrial or modern ages.

Rome couldn't conquer the Parthians or the Germans.

Nobody can take over the world, it's too big. ;)

While Britain didnt have a large army it was partly that it didnt feel the need for a large army. While all the other European powers conscripted Britain didnt so in terms of potential if you conscripted from the largest nation on earth and then used the largest industrial base to arm them you could potentialy have the largest army. Of course Britain didnt do this but it about who had the best chance not who actually did conquer the world.

Germany's navy by the onset of WW1 was only about half the size of Britain's there was a reason Germany didnt venture out of the North Sea after Juttland even though they inflicted greater losses on the Brits. Submarines sinking merchant ships doesnt really constitute a great navy that could take over the world or even prevent your enemy taking over the world. Most of the royal navy wasnt concentrating on subs rather a possible conflict with the Germany fleet. Germany got the closest to threatening Britain's naval superiority for a small period of less than a decade but when faced with this threat they just built ships faster than the enemy. Before Germany started building a large navy Britain held a policy of keeping its navy bigger than its next 2 rivals combined. So they did have the navy to take on even a coalition of nations.

I voted *other* since *none of the above* was not an option. No country has ever even come close to conquering the whole world and I doubt any ever will.

Ya they will, EU WILL!

God help us all if they do.


And Kryten, I missed that comment paging through the thread; fair point; I voted Rome from the obvious sentiment of controlling the controllable world rather than controlling it all, and of being a society that would be capable of actually holding the world and governing it. Given the scale of territory and diversity, the Romans did pretty well with disadvantages the chinese, moguls and others never had to face.

Maybe I'm biased, though, by that theory that popped up in the '80s about the Romans being on the brink of an industrial revolution...

Originally posted by Kryten
* You could have victory if one civ accumulates say 50,000 gold (increased or decreased depending on the world size)….but that is just ‘hoarding’, like the Achaemenid Persians did.

50k reserves aren't really that impressive. I've gathered as much as 120k [standard map, monarch diff.] by the time I reach the modern age.

I bet if Hitler did not take personal control of the military, his generals could've won WWII

I agree with Kryten theory that someday someone could possible rule the world. It would have to happen with slow expansion(very slow), but I don't see it impossible for all of the people of earth to be under one flag and one government.

Take for example the Romans. They controlled almost all of the known world. If they could have held on to what they had for a few hundred years until technology was advaced enough, I see no reason why they couldn't have crossed the oceans and mountains and destroyed the habitants of the 'new worlds'


The success of a great empire depends on longevity. Rome had it, but no long enough. No empire has survived long enough to rule the world.

I voted for Colonial England. I don't think they could have gone much further than they did, but they definitely went the furthest in the arena of world conquest. "The sun never sets on the English Empire" was a popular phrase of that time, and rightly so. Not bad for a Civilization with a relatively poor starting position. ;)

No one nation will solitarily exist unless one of these happen

1. All the nations bisband their armies and unify into one nation
2. All the nations declare war obsolete and disband their armies, only to be subjugated by a warmonger a while after that
3. A war between superpowers occur but decide that subjugation is preferable to MAD, then the last standing power conquers the rest of the world
4. A scenario like 3 occurs but several powers survive and unite together and with the other nations form a world nation
5. The world is faced with a cataclysmic force, such as an asteroid or meteor. Assuming the world manages to prevent human annihilation, the world decides to merge peacefully

Mongols, since their empire was the largest of existed empires and joined the most civilized regions in one state.

Largest continuous land empire.

the largest empire, period, was the Colonial English one .

Originally posted by Richard III

Maybe I'm biased, though, by that theory that popped up in the '80s about the Romans being on the brink of an industrial revolution... [/B]

And what theory might that be. I'd be interseted to see it. Do you have book or web source?

Well, the world probably could have been conquered (brutally and wrongfully) by the United States at the very end of World War II. At that point in time, the U.S. was the only nuclear power. Yeah, Russia's spy may have known that we had it but it would've taken a while for them to replicate the bomb.

Having said that, all the U.S. had to do was make lots and lots of those good ol' atom bombs and begin to wipe out everyone else, probably beginning with the strongest opposition (who, by the way, were a far second). Am I right?

Heron of Alexandria developed the steam engine but it was never applied to anything.

http://www.smith.edu/hsc/museum/ancient_inventions/steamengine2.html

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Heron of Alexandria developed the steam engine but it was never applied to anything.

And your point is?

Originally posted by JC Denton
... i doubt Britain had the manpower to win such a war or sustain control over their colonies, whilst capturing others and defeating the countries of Europe.
I would say that although Britain was technologically advanced, it's leading edge was not sufficient to empower it to capturing rival western powers during in the 19th or 20th Centuries.

Britain's manpower was often conscripted from natives of newly acquired territory. Interstingly, art from the English Civil War shows black soldiers on horseback - demonstrating that British armies did not consist solely of peoples native to the British isles.

During WW2, India raised the largest army the world has ever seen. Again demonstrating how manpower wasn't a significant problem for colonial Britain.

The British Empire began to evolve into the Commonwealth of Nations way back at the start of the 19th Century. This evolution is intimately linked with democratic concepts, which Britain was a strong advocate of. To maintain a strict global government was a double standard that couldn't stand the test of time.

World Conquest is impossible in that extent, and Rome could never expand over the borders it forged.Technology was both Rome's strength and it's weakness. By acquiring technologies and redistributing them to it's constituent parts, Rome forged strong allegiance. Although Britannia was only Roman for a very short time, that conquest gave the native Celtic a massive technological leap and (I think) Constantine III demonstrated how well those Celts utilised that knowledge.

The same would have been seen from North Africa to Gaul.

The Roman Empire stopped expanding either because it couldn't communicate effectively over vast distances, or because it ran out of technologies to trade - my hypothesis which you are welcome to disrespect :)

If a small country is degrading to poverty but we're benefiting from our corporation exporting their bananas instead of themselves - well, there's our (US') indirect rule.I think you mean third world countries, and those in Africa who are under British influence via the Commonwealth have rejected Americas attempts to trade in that fasion.

Do you not recall the problem with trying to export genetically modified grain? The USA couldn't even give it away.

Despite that, I don't see how it is conquest as the economic climate will change and to think it won't is very dangerous - do you not remember the great depression? :(

With regards to weak economies, they will grow (within unions that promote mutual respect) and Americas influence will decline.

Originally posted by Kalashnikov33


And your point is?

Richard III had made point of a theory that the Romans may have been on the verge of an industrial revolution (note of course that Heron was Greek and before the supremacy of the Romans) - I was simply making point of a very interesting fact that if had been applied, would drastically have changed the course of human history.

That's a really amazing concept!

We should have a discussion dedicated to Roman technologies, and how close they were to an Industrial Revolution!

Personally I don't see it, but on the other hand they were very scientific and had invented such things as the odometre. Definately a topic worthy of investigation ;)

Originally posted by stormbind
We should have a discussion dedicated to Roman technologies, and how close they were to an Industrial Revolution!


You know, it has always amazed me that the Romans didn't invent such a simple thing as the printing press! :confused:
They read books & scrolls (lots of books & scrolls!), and I know that they had lots of slaves to copy them.
Still, it would have been much cheaper and quicker to use a few slaves printing them rather than have to feed dozens and dozens while they slowly wrote one page at a time.

I'm afraid that I have come to the conclusion that the human race is basically stupid, and only one person in a million actually has a good inspirational idea.
Take the stirrup for example....horseman were riding about for thousands of years before some bright spark on the Asia steppes thought of it in about 650AD, and then the Byzantines said "that's a good idea....we'll nick that!".

Maybe this is why the Incas, Aztecs and Native American Indians were so far behind the Europeans....having no contact with other cultures, they had to invent everything for themselves instead of being able to trade for it.
And with only a relatively small population, they only had one 'genius' every few hundred years.
Given another few thousand years, they would have progressed further, but they were cut short.

Perhaps this is why today technology is progressing faster and faster.....only one 'genius' in a million, but we have many, many millions, thus more and more new ideas. :)

Originally posted by Kryten
Take the stirrup for example....horseman were riding about for thousands of years before some bright spark on the Asia steppes thought of it in about 650AD, and then the Byzantines said "that's a good idea....we'll nick that!".The stirrup was invented by the Chinese, around Tang times, maybe earlier. The nomads copied them, naturally.

Guys, new threads shld be started on side discussions, rather than continued here. ;) Pls post on-topic.

I'd have to say our Empire. :p

As has been noted, British influence can be found in practically every country, white, black, brown or Oriental. Culture, political, monetary and legal systems, forms of government, financial structures, all were exported by us to so many areas of the world. Look at the historian Niall Ferguson's latest book for a good explanation. And you only need to look at a map of Empire at its height, and look at the statistics of the 19th C to see our pre-eminence at the time.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Richard III had made point of a theory that the Romans may have been on the verge of an industrial revolution (note of course that Heron was Greek and before the supremacy of the Romans) - I was simply making point of a very interesting fact that if had been applied, would drastically have changed the course of human history.

Okay, I understand now. Good point.

The closest anyone came was the British. The U.S. now couldn't get enough public support, and the Chinese have the manpower but not adequate training or tech. Could anyone do it???

:nuke: GENGHIS KHAN WITH NUKES!!!:nuke:

I voted for the United States in the present. While public support would be an issue, nearly every one of those options have their own glaring flaws. It has been proven that when the U.S. gets the public support on its side, nothing can stop it. Being a citizen, you just had to see it first hand when the United States was attacked in 2001. I've never seen such unity and patriotism like it. It made me realize just how powerful my country really is. Besides the point, we took down the Taliban and the entire country of Iraq quickly. If you look past the Vietnam War, where public support was nill, the U.S. is a smothering military power.

I'm no history major but I have my own opinions on this matter. As far as conquering all the continents, basically all civilizations before the discovery of Americas can be counted out. That leaves a shorter timeline for us to look at. Meanwhile, Europe and Asia have been two major limiting factors of world domination. The Chinese have always been a tough cookie to crack completely. They have been under new rule countless times and has survived as a cultural entity (kinda) until today. Meanwhile, with the exception of maybe Napoleon or WWI-WWII Germany, and hypothetically the Mongols I can't recall any examples where Europe was seriously on her knees.

America really gained political prominence after the World Wars. However, with the advent of multiple nations with nuclear weaponry and MAD, I can't see the US ever conquering the world. I'm going on a limb here but I'd agree with Kalashnikov33 that a frightning possibility is a militaristic US RIGHT after WWII. The US had a short monopoly on nuclear weaponry. It might not be "conquering" but nuking everyone... starting from the potential rivals (Europe, Soviets) and then taking the World eventually over billions of dead bodies counts for something. I don't mean trying to force surrender like with the Japanese... might not work on a global scale. I mean massive US mobilization taking out the government + capital with a bomb followed by genocide of all human population... scary thought.

On a different note...Technology and knowledge has always been greatest limiting factor to past civilizations. The Romans couldn't hold their Empire together with their limited means. The Mongols armies never really had a viable way to conquering the Americas. The Brits held a rather loose collection of colonies and no way to conquer Europe with their arms at the time. Maybe some day in the future one ruling "nation" could control the whole world simply because there will be means available to them. Human beings are simply monkeys that have evolved with bigger brains. Yesterday I saw a frog job from a top of a house onto a highway, hitting a car, and then causing a car accident. Stranger things could happen then one ruling group. 1,000 years ago people never even imagined what we could do now. The same could be said for 1,000 years for now... ahh the possibilities.

I voted "other" and mean none of the above. None of the nations/empires had or have the capabilities to actually conquer the entire planet! After the advent of the Bomb, MAD rules out any country doing it (even today, the U.S, China, and Russia, to say nothing of England, France and several others, have more than enough nukes to make the idea foolish). Of the pre nuke age, only the British Empire had the means to reach the entire surface of the planet, but even they did not have the manpower to actually take out the other major powers of their day!

The only way the world will be conquered now is economically and even that is a long shot. IMHO, what will happen eventually, is that as the means of communication reach more and more individuals, the entire world will become one organization, for lack of a better word. The more people get to know each other, the less likely they are to try to kill each other.

Just look at CFC for an example: amoung the members are citizens of almost all the nations on the planet.

Utilization of the Greek steam engine was sltalled and later denied due to the fact that slavery was seen as a cheaper alternative to advancement. It was not until more enlightened times that technological Advancement became worthwhile to the 'haves'.

I don't think any country could ever conquer the world, or at least hold it. History has shown that any single group that grows too big for its own good will be defeated eventually by smaller states with a common goal - to bring down the establishment that once found them too minor to take into consideration. The Romans, British, French, Spanish, Japanese, Mongols, Soviets, Macedonians, and K-Mart:) have all demonstrated this.

I agree with the trumpeteer person. Seriously, the whole world would get too difficult for one person or government to control. There would be rebellions and revolts and what not. But as to what I think about all the choices....

USA-NOW: Well if the Americans built up their forces some more and got better leadership :rolleyes: *cough*, then I guess they could certainly try. But to take on the whole world...No. Just no.

USA-COLD WAR: This was said earlier, but thanks to the USA's standoff with the Soviets, trying to take over the world would have led to too much nuclear conflict.

SOVIET UNION: I don't think so. The people would definietly not enjoy being ruled by Communists, and missing their democracies (if they had them before) they would rise against the Soviets. Too much pressure and worries about rebellions would lead to the Soviets' eventual collapse.

NAZI GERMANY: I think Nazi Germany is overrated in terms of how powerful they were. Sure they were strong, and sure, they almost took over Europe, but as was seen in WWII, the Americans and Brits would prove too much for the Germans.

COLONIAL ENGLAND: Well even though I go for Greece most of the time because of my Greek heritage, I have to hand it to the Brits here. They ruled the seas about half of the time over the last thousand years, and a good navy is vital. I admire the British for conquering India, which even the blessed King Alexander the Great failed to take.

ROMAN EMPIRE: This is where I get angry. I absolutely hate it when people say that the Romans were better than the Greeks, etc. As my grandmother always said, the Romans were the great doers, but the Greeks were the great thinkers. A lot of Roman technology came from Greece, and I don't think many people realize that. But I'm off-topic here. To make a long story short, no to the Romans.

GREECE: As much as I would love to vote for Greece, even I have to admit that the Greeks couldn't possibly have conquered the world. Alexander took over most of the known world, but as was seen, illnesses and revolts crushed him.

THE MONGOLS: Oh boy...Yeah, they were excellent fighters, but I don't think they were that technologically advanced, were they?:confused:

greece's_prince
as history shows, its my ancestors ingenuity, and the fact that they were doers who pushed them over the greeks in military terms, I'm not saying that Romans, or Italians are better then greeks, but you have to admit, Roma is in the top 5 of nations who had a real chance of conquring the world, greece could not however, as their greatest conquest relied to much on the genious of one man, Alexandros, eventually he would die, probablly after taking a good chunk of southern china, if hea hadnt dient when he had, also you under estimate your blessed king to much, he had VERY good success against india, but his troops got tired of the soidire life, and wanted to go home, and they did, with or without Alexander, I try to go over this in my macedonian army overveiw, which might be in a week or so

U.S.A. Now: As long as more than 1 nation has Nuclear Weapons, conquering the world would be impossible unless one nation had some sort of James Bond figure that would destabilize all of the other's nations nuclear weapons. Not possible. Plus, public opinion would never support it.

U.S.A. Cold War: It would lead to dirrect confrontation with the U.S.S.R. which could've led to the end of the world. How anybody thinks that the U.S.A. could've conquered the whole world while the U.S.S.R. sat and watched is beyond me.

U.S.S.R: See U.S.A. Cold War

Colonial England: I just don't understand how people keep saying that Colonial England could've conquered the world. There's a big difference between a few large colonies here and there, and actually controlling the whole world.

Do any of you actually think that if Britian had attempted to conquer the rest of Europe they would have won? Colonial Britian had it's hands full with France and Spain alone for a large part of it's history, how would they have possibly invaded the European mainland and gotten away with it? Maybe if you combined all their territories into one huge island right next to Europe they could've, but you must remember that their capital and center of their empire was London, a city merely dozens of miles away from all of the powerful European countries of the age. If British colonization ever got to a point where the other European countries felt threatened, a huge assault on England itself would pretty much cripple the whole empire and lead to it's demise.

Roman Empire: Now how the hell would you excpect a place where the fastest mode of transportation was the horse to conquer the whole world? By the time the Romans could've ever possibly gotten to China, for example, internal problems would've doomed them, just like they really did. Besides, they fell to the barbarians to the north anyways. How could they conquer the whole world if they failed to conquer their direct neighbors?

Greece: At first this idea seems preposterous, but considering that Alexander the great had set up a huge empire, maybe it's not as crazy as it sounds. Then again, the same problems the Roman empire would've faced would affect the Greeks too.

The Mongols: Like all ancient/middle ages civilizations, their goverment simply couldn't have handled the stress of such a large empire.

Other: I don't think anybody else had that good of a chance.



Hitler & Nazi Germany: Now you may have noticed that I left these guys out. This is because I believe they had the best chance to conquer the whole world.

Their biggest problem was that Hitler never listened to his generals. Let's assume he did.

He would've conquered Russia because he would've actually tried to win the support of the people he was conquering (many of which viewed Hitler as a liberator, untill after he actually got there). If he had achieved that, a Russian counter-attack simply wouldn't have worked as well. Or how about him trying to conquer Russia just a bit earlier. Boom. He get's Moscow before the snow drives him out. Russians would've resisted, obviously, but he was there and the U.S.S.R. would've been all but finished.

So now he has Russia and most of Europe. The battle of Britian could've been won. If he had won that, all major opposition in the old world would've been finished. Bam. He goes on to take over the rest of Europe. From there, conquering the Middle East would not have been much of a problem. Besides China and the Japanese empire, he could've gotten the rest of Asia soon enough, and Africa as well.

With that much of the world under his control, Hitler and his Nazi Germany could've gone on to conquer the United States, and later the Japanese.



P.S. Someone asked how Nazi Germany could've attacked the United States. Well, if they managed to take over the U.S.S.R., a battle for Alaska doesn't seem to improbable.

I've got news for you,aaminion00, as i consider myself fairlly knowledgable about Roman arms, and military capibilities (plaese read my threads on Roman warfare) Rome fell to Romans, never to barbarians, I can 100% garuantee that all those "babarians" who "sacked" Rome, all considerd themselves fully Roman- with the exception of Attilla, but then even he is greatlly influenced by Rome, as "Attilla" is a Roman name

Now, if a leader was able to reform the republic into a more stable form, gradually introducing representitives from concoured territories to ensure eqaulity under law (The law generally swayed to favor a real Roman, but was generally faire, and gaurteed to be more fair then courts any where elese on the planet, after all Rome is where being a lawyer became a real profession) Rome would have been far more stable, and in my opinion, able to have held its conquests much better, as people would have liked living under Roman rule much better, and thus have provided more support to the Roman state

also, if you read you histories, the Romans never attempted to directtly conqure germany, it wasnt economicle, but all of the offensives into the region were succeses during imperial times, but thoses were mostlly just to ensure that the germans wouldnt cause more trouble,we had no plans to stay in that cold, dreary, to heavilly forested,swamp infested area you call germany ;)

Sorry if this is spamining....

As far as Rome conqouring the world, Rome wasnt built in a day, ya know :D, and expansion would be slow, conquring one area at a time, a good expansion plan would be into the middle east, and an advance over to india, as the area would have made mega-bucks for Rome, then a nice expansion into Nubia to take those gold mines, and afterwards I would look to quell dissent on the British isle by compleating the conquest, and only then, even start to look north, to germany for conquest

Xen-I'm sorry if I offended you. But I do admit that the Roman army far exceeded that of the Greeks. You can't conquer a planet by relying on one man. I can count off a few great Roman generals and military geniuses off the top of my head, but really the only great leaders in Greece were Alexander and Constantine the Great, but Constantine was many years later...

And the only reason I called Alexander a blessed king was because he's a saint in the Greek Orthodox Church.

Originally posted by Xen
I've got news for you,aaminion00, as i consider myself fairlly knowledgable about Roman arms, and military capibilities (plaese read my threads on Roman warfare) Rome fell to Romans, never to barbarians, I can 100% garuantee that all those "babarians" who "sacked" Rome, all considerd themselves fully Roman- with the exception of Attilla, but then even he is greatlly influenced by Rome, as "Attilla" is a Roman name

Now, if a leader was able to reform the republic into a more stable form, gradually introducing representitives from concoured territories to ensure eqaulity under law (The law generally swayed to favor a real Roman, but was generally faire, and gaurteed to be more fair then courts any where elese on the planet, after all Rome is where being a lawyer became a real profession) Rome would have been far more stable, and in my opinion, able to have held its conquests much better, as people would have liked living under Roman rule much better, and thus have provided more support to the Roman state

also, if you read you histories, the Romans never attempted to directtly conqure germany, it wasnt economicle, but all of the offensives into the region were succeses during imperial times, but thoses were mostlly just to ensure that the germans wouldnt cause more trouble,we had no plans to stay in that cold, dreary, to heavilly forested,swamp infested area you call germany ;)


Good post but you adressed the main point I was making yourself. The goverment they had simply couldn't have lastead a world conquest (without key changes). I simply don't think the Romans could have conquered all 3 continents and maintained control of them without parts of the empire slowly falling off. Of course, you obviously know a lot more than me about Roman history and perhaps you'd disagree, but while I can see a lot of the old-world being controlled by Romans, I can't see the whole world being controlled by Romans. Sorry if you got angry at my post.

I didnt get angrey at either post actually, just saw that like most people, you had made some misassumption, that while based on real knowledge, were not exactlly acurate, that, and the fact that i have been waiting for a post where i could fit all that about germany in there :D( off topic sort off, but it seems to me that EVERY century germany just seems to prove that, no matter how hard it tries, its still lttle more then a barbianation, the Teutonic knights, and Nazis are prime examples of that that fact...of coarse all nation go through theire own dark ages)

Xen, you're being warned for German-bashing. Pls be reminded not to repeat this. Thanks - XIII


also, I figue that the meaning of this was who could Conquer the world, that dose not necessarily mean hold it;) I dont THINK (its possible, I suppose...) that Imperial Rome could have held most of a conquerd old world with out it A) having MASSIVE (by imperial times, if it was a republic still, then they would be minor...) politicle structure changes, including a revitalized senate -or-

B) becoming a common wealth, with administartive area being the classicle bpondries of the Roman empire, the boundries of the Partian empire, the Indian boundries, and so on, which might have the effect of keeping regional pride, which might lead to rebellion...

OR;)

Rome could colonize the new world... The United States of the Roman empire...imagine that...:goodjob: :love: :lol:

Good thread this is.
If just conquering, then the Mongols has a chance, the US in the Cold War would be certainty. The US now would suffer to much from internal opposition to the idea.
If conquering *and holding on* to it, perhaps Colonial England though this probably a wild dream.
So I voted the Romans. Seeing the possibility, they would need some luck, most of all with their leadership, and the willingness to devote a century or two to it, possibly decentralizing their government. Had they advanced their borders over the Rhine and rooted out the resistance, they could have built an economy capable of sending massive armies to the East. They certainly had the organizing talent. Then it would only be a matter of time before they discovered the West.

To be honest the reason it wasnt economicle to conqure germay was; that when the legions came marching in (this is during Imperial time, not the time of Ceaser) all them germans more, or less packed up and left, usually migrating, and forcing thier way east, maing that black seas based barbarian soon came a 'knockin on Romas' door, which just caused more trouble (and more money) on the Roman coffers, and after severale civil wars, and an insane emperor or two, the coffers useually didnt have enough money to throw around to justify such actions to be taken; and thats what it boils down to, not which troops are better,or who has more, but who has enough money to pay those troops, THEN comes the training and such

Originally posted by greece's_prince
THE MONGOLS: Oh boy...Yeah, they were excellent fighters, but I don't think they were that technologically advanced, were they?:confused:

Actually, I believe the Mongols were moderately advanced for their day, if not the most sophisticated, at least in military tactics. Gengis and Kublai Khan were undoubtedly barbaric, but they were the first to develop true mechanized warfare, with their warp-speed, mach 3 Million, arrow-in-your-back, get-outta-the-frickin'-way horse archers.

Edit: Didn't mean to make it sound like the Mongols were sophisticated.Oops!

BTW, greece's_prince, you can call me trumpeteer. "The trumpeteer person" sounds awfully cold and distant, don't you think?;)

Roman Empire: Now how the hell would you excpect a place where the fastest mode of transportation was the horse to conquer the whole world? By the time the Romans could've ever possibly gotten to China, for example, internal problems would've doomed them, just like they really did. Besides, they fell to the barbarians to the north anyways. How could they conquer the whole world if they failed to conquer their direct neighbors?

I think that you underestimate them. Yes, it would have taken time, several thousand years perhaps, but they could have very possibly conqured it all. Xen knows what he's talking about.

Originally posted by ivory
the US in the Cold War would be certainty. The US now would suffer to much from internal opposition to the idea.


The Soviet Union and its 6000-some nuclear weapons would not have let the Americans come close. Nuclear weapons add a whole new dimension to the quest for world conquest.

If anything, the United States has a better chance now. Russia, while still having enough to destroy the US several times over, has a rapidly rotting military. I would not be surprised if most of their missiles failed to launch properly at this point. However, they have enough to cause serious damage at even the worst rate of sucess. Then, we still have Great Britain and France: smaller arsenals, but far superior maintenance and accuracy (something the Soviet Union never had, but what does that matter if your warhead is huge).

Unless we somehow attain the ability to destroy those weapons, we won't be conquering anything consequential.

HOWEVER, the US has a few advantages now or due in the near future that could help it gain nuclear superiority. The Missile Defense Shield, for one. We also have faster, stealthier aircraft, superior guidance, forces deployed in Eastern Europe, etc. But to discuss these would be to encur the wrath of moderators.

I would have to place my bet on the USSR. they got in space before the US, and if they could have kept that quiet they could spy on us find decent targets to nuke and then nuclear blitz us. and since not many nations had nukes then they probably only fear the US forces retaliation. ussr would have air land nukes and sea coming right for us and we would be caught with our pants down and could only launch nukes. for those that don't know if you can't invade you can't take over a country no matter how many nukes you send. ussr would be cripled but we would be dead. then it's just a matter of using what they didn't use on us to attack anyone they felt like.

It's is estimated that at least back then even with a total nuclear war 40% or your country would still be alive

we had more nukes than the USSR until like the mid-1960s and i believe we had NORAD by the time they had more than we did. Meaning we could detect missle launches. We had B-52's in the air at all times flying over spain and around europe in case they were needed for a rapid deployment of nuclear weapons. My best guess would be the US after ww2, Soviets didn't have nukes till hmm 1948 right?
the whole world would be dead, including the US and the Soviet Union.

For example in 1966, we the US had 32,193 nuclear warheads and bombs.

this is the site http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/50.HTM very fun

my fav statistic is: "8. Number of nuclear warheads requested by the Army in 1956 and 1957: 151,000":lol:

So yeah, the USSR did have WAYYYYYYYYYY more nukes than we did.

I reckon England cames closest...if WW1 didn't happen there probably would have been a war between the British Empire and the USA with France and Germany in a "cold war" scenario. Remember ths USA didn't get involved until 1917 after much provocation.

THE MONGOLS: Oh boy...Yeah, they were excellent fighters, but I don't think they were that technologically advanced, were they?

trumpeteer already said it, but the people that the Mongols fought were as much at a disatvantage as the Polish lancers were against the German panzers (in fact, many say that the Mongols first invented the blitzkrieg ;)). The people that the Mongols fought were usually very brave, but couldn't match the Mongol tactics and weaponry.

Why are the Mongols considered pagan? From what I understand, Khan felt anyone not under his rule were pagans...he terrorized Europe quite well with this silly belief until, it seems, the Christian god moved to America.

Exactly what do you mean by 'the Christian god moved to America'? Pls PM me with a full explanation, while I'm weighing this... Thanks - XIII

Oh...

Nazi Germany : History has proven how little of a chance they had. Period. Plus, Germany had heavy difficulties mounting an amphibious attack over the channel. How would they have mounted one over the entire Atlantic ocean?


The Americans could have given tips on this............

Some of the Mongols were Christians, of the Nestorian variety. :eek: Particularly of the Naiman and Kerait tribes.

If the USA (now) were to try and take over the world, they would encounter mass casualties. Russia, while in a degraded military state, could still use nuclear weapons against a beligerant United States, also, the Russians could provide heavy technical assistance to any country that was being attacked by America. Just look at what the Russians do now, imagine how much more they could help out rogue nations when the US has openly declared their intention of conquering the world? They would not need any excuses. Secondly, if America went to war with the world, there would be no place for their corporations to find cheap labour which would practically kill their service based economy. Dont forget, Britain has a fleet of nuclear submarines, a decent airforce, and even a decent ground army. China would not be an easy target. The Americans would lose men fighting in the jungles of South America. The United States does not hold an extremely large techincal advantage over the rest of the worlds armies. Just look at the Joint Strike Fighter, in fact Russians who worked on the Yak-141 (a vertical take off and landing-VTOL) aircraft were asked to assist development on the JSF. Also, new Russian submarines such as the Akula class sub have closed the gap in post cold war submarine warfare. For people who have said that the Americans have conquered the world culturally by putting a McDonalds in every country, let me say that we Canadians have put hockey in most western countries :D Also, the Russians have put Vodka in every country, does this mean that the Russians have conquered the world culturally? I dont Think so.

Of course, this is assuming that the world makes a stand and fights against the Americans. I guess it is POSSIBLE that every country could sit back, and let the USA conquer each other nation one by one, but i doubt that would happen. Oh and as for the poll, I chose other, speciffically, an alien race that plants a mind control probe on the moon.

I think England has had the best chance of all, but for of what they knew of the world, I would have to say the Mongols cam closest. Their empire stretched from Korea to India to Eastern Europe at its height in the year 1200 A.D. I think that they truly came closest to conquering the world, of what they knew about it.

I believe that I would have to go with the Roman Empire overall based on what I've read and the such. The reason I don't say the others are as follows:
Britain: If America had never revolted, I think it could have almost certainly lead to war with Spain and/or France over colonial holdings in the Americas and in Europe itself. If the French and Spainiards had allied at this point, they could have possibly ended Britain's chance right there.
US: Now with the end of World War II, they had a great chance to exploit but I think that the American public would have not agreed with this because they were starting to look forward to our GIs returning home and the such, and with the Cold War and today, we could only do it in an economical sense seeing as any other method could possibly result in a Nuclear Holocaust.
Nazi Germany: They also could have been great condenders for the crown of World Domination, but there would have simply been too many reasons they wouldn't. Hitler for one, he would have needed to let his generals do the fighting and planning, not him! And the fact that I believe that the people conquered would have rebelled against him much like the French Maquis(Right name?) resistance. Just imagine the British resistance if they somehow conquered that! And to add on, Japan could have done quite a job in this scenario being a obstacle to Germany's expansion into the Asia-Pacific region of the globe with their Imperial Navy (In this idea, America could have been taken care of by Germany via Atlantic, however unlikely... resulting in a somewhat intact Imperial Navy) being quite powerful and able to fight German expansion.
USSR: They might also have been good contenders for it but I think their police state tactics would have caused their downfall if done on a global scale. God forbid Nuclear warfare with the Americans...

Thats about all I can think of at the time.

Mongols their empire was lager than the Brits

USA and USSR, both in the cold war and now never had a chance, thanks to nuclear weapons. Hitler had to fight both america and the soviet union, and though he could have succeeded in destroying the soviet union, that would've weakened his forces out so much he would make no chance against america. Though Britain was really powerful in the victorian age, they couldn't have conquered the world as there were too many other powerful countries. Alexander's empire was large, but it couldn't have maintained itself for long, even if Alex had lived on. The roman empire simply couldn't expand anymore at it's height.
If the Mongols would've had a regulated steform, they could perhaps have had a little chance at conquering the world. All that saved Europe from them was Oromoi's death, and all that saved arabia from them was Mongke's death.

Europeans already mostly control the world , and did so for the biggest time margin. Behind them there are the Asian tigers .

Pls do not resurrect ancient threads.

Closed.