Who Had the Best Chance to Conquer the World?

[phoenix_night]

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

 

[SunTzu]

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

 

[phoenix_night]

Originally posted by SunTzu
The USA could conquer the world

Sure it could...

 

[Jorge]

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)

 

[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.

 

[Jorge]

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.

 

[phoenix_night]

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.

 

[gael]

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

 

[phoenix_night]

The British empire was bigger than the Mongol empire.

 

[gael]

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.

 

[phoenix_night]

Yeah.

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

 

[gael]

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.

 

[phoenix_night]

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.

 

[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.

 

[phoenix_night]

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.

 

[Irish Caesar]

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.

 

[phoenix_night]

@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.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

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.

 

[phoenix_night]

@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.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

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.