cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
What nation had the best chance to conquer the world? Is it America now? Germany? The Soviet Union?
Who Had the Best Chance to Conquer the World?
- Thread starter cgannon64
- Start date
- Status
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
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.
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.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
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...
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...
andrewgprv
Second Class Citizen
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.
So I'd say The British Empire.
Shady
Why are you reading this?
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.
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.
Jimjam Jones
Generalissimo
America has already conquered the world, economically. Look at McDonalds - every country in the world has at least one
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
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.
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.
Silverflame
OBJECTION!
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 say either Mongols or the US today had the best chance, provided the US dictator will be able to maintain control.
TedJackson
Cunning old Celt
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.
Sayounara
King
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
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
"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
I reckon the Mongols were the best chance. The world can thank the stupidity of Kublai Khan (ironically) for them failing.
Wow, and I though Hitler tried to conquer the world in World War 2. Silly me
I reckon the Mongols were the best chance. The world can thank the stupidity of Kublai Khan (ironically) for them failing.
MajorGeneral2
Just happy to be here
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.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
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.
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.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
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.
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
Singularity
Infinite Density
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.
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.
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
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"
).
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....
....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"
).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....
- Status
Similar threads
