Who Had the Best Chance to Conquer the World?

[Irish Caesar]

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.

 

[Ukas]

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

 

[brandon749]

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.

 

[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?

 

[gecko1234]

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.

 

[SunTzu]

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

 

[Toasty]

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...

 

[Jorge]

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.

 

[Jorge]

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).

 

[phoenix_night]

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.

 

[phoenix_night]

@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.

 

[gael]

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?

 

[Kryten]

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......

 

[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.
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

 

[Jorge]

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.

 

[phoenix_night]

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.

 

[Jorge]

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.

 

[PritomD]

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!

 

[Kryten]

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)

 

[Kryten]

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’.