Who Had the Best Chance to Conquer the World?

[amadeus]

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

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

 

[Kalashnikov33]

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

And your point is?

 

[stormbind]

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.

 

[amadeus]

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.

 

[stormbind]

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

 

[Kryten]

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!
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.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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.

 

[Pillager]

I'd have to say our Empire.

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.

 

[Kalashnikov33]

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.

 

[trumpeteer]

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???

GENGHIS KHAN WITH NUKES!!!

 

[manofpeace20]

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.

 

[newbiebad]

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.

 

[Ace]

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.

 

[SKILORD]

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'.

 

[trumpeteer]

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.

 

[greece's_prince]

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 *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?

 

[Xen]

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

 

[aaminion00]

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.

 

[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

 

[Xen]

Sorry if this is spamining....

As far as Rome conqouring the world, Rome wasnt built in a day, ya know , 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