Login/Sign Up




The Worlds Greatest Empire Ever
History

lordhaines
May 18, 2009
10 votes
12 debaters
15
7
3
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

6
British Empire


lordhaines
May 18, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
This is a tough debate because of the so many factors that have to be included.

Economy,
Military,
Cultural Influence,
Size,
Time span,
World affairs.

For me, the British Empire wins. Their economy was ahead of it's time, being the first to adopt full handedly the Industrial Revolution which shaped today's world.

There military wasn't huge, but was ruthless and tactically solid. Their Navy was untouchable, even by today's standards. Such a small country produced such a powerful military, that says it all.

Cultural influence- well English is the worlds most widespread language. the British legal system set the foundations for modern legal systems. The economy set a trend which has yet to change even today. The system of government which made decisions (although a monarchy, the parliament was well established as a power) is used even today in most western states. Now on to technologies, no nation on earth has invented or developed as much as Britain did in the Victorian era, it was unheard of, and unmatched, even today. all the major technologies we use today were invented by the British.

Size of the empire- well no-one has, or ever will match the size of the British Empire.

Time span. This is where the empire falters. The bulk of the empire only lasted a couple of hundred years, ended in the 1960's. but that said, Britain still has control over many far flung states and islands, but hardly an empire.

World affairs, by this I mean rivals at the time. It is all very well having an empire if no one is around to challenge you. Does this apply for the British? No. When they started building their empire they had to compete against a far superior Spanish nation, then when the Spanish dropped away the French then challenged the world over. In fact, France had an empire of considerable size itself. Then Britain had the German Empire in Europe to contend with, accumulting into WWI. All of which were worlds dominant powers at their time. I believe it is the only Empire in the world that managed to grow so big with so many equal rivals.

Points to consider for the other Empires...

-The Roman Empire was advanced for it's time, and military superior to most of it's rivals. Also, Latin paved the way for most European languages. And had some major rivals to contend with. Size of their empire wasn't anything special, even by the standards of the day.

- The Mongol Empire. A massive empire stretching across Asia and deep into Europe. But who did they conquer along the way? Apart from a few Chinese kingdoms they were relatively unopposed. And then fell apart just as quickly as they expanded.

-Macedonian Empire. Now for me this is my runner up. A group of no more than 50,000 elite trained Macedonian soldiers acted as the backbone of an Empire that stretched from Europe to India. And never defeated in battle along the way either! They had some pretty tough and vastly bigger rivals to dispose of as well. Size of Empire was huge by the standards of the day. Influence? There were still towns in Afghanistan and such places that spoke Greek until the mid 1800's. Amazing feat, and an amazing society that built it. Runner up!

- Persian Empire. lasted forever, didn't really do much on world stage, but developed some ground breaking ways of doing things, medicines and what not. Was big, but didn't have any rivals until later on.

-The Mughal Empire. Islamic empire in the Asian sub-continent. Wasn't very big, didn't last long, and only thing it left behind was language and religion, same as most empires though.

- The Ottoman Empire. Europe's dodgy neighbour. Grew quickly and lasted a long time. Was advanced for it's time, adopted new medicines and mathematics with ease. But Didn't expand very well. And then grew old and weak for no reason except their inability to adopt the industrial revolution.

For me the winner is, hands down, The British Empire.

 
liberalthinker
May 19, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

I don't own a TV. I would answer the accusation, but I don't know how it links, nor do I know what it entails. Moving on.

Your reinterpretation of history is disappointing. I was excited to see that you had responded in depth, only to find that you where brainwashed. The fact that you have surrounded yourself with mendacious lies that are designed in an attempt to admonish the responsibility your "Royal Family" owns in these atrocities. I am well aware of the evils my country is responsible for; it may even surpass your country. The difference being that I don’t attempt to rewrite History to free myself of the culpability of my countries actions.

The fact that you operate on a double standard of anti-religion and pro-monarchy is strange. A monarchy gains all of its legitimacy from Divine Right of Kings rather than the will of the people.

I say that what I do because ANY government that controls its people through any means is evil. And that is the definition of an empire. The assumption that because there is no form of real democracy in the world that we cannot ascertain to manifest it is lethargic to an extreme and foolish. I don’t know how you came to that conclusion.

The Native American's fought predominantly for the British because they where the faction of white men that were screwing them the least. If the British had actually won dominion over the American’s it is inevitable that they would have persecuted them in America just as much as they persecuted the Indians in India.

I won’t spend long with this. I don’t want to lose you because this is important. This is actually history.

In 1778 the Queen commissioned the East India Trading Company. Trading posts were founded in India. As the influence of the East India Trading Company became larger, troops were sent to protect Britain’s economic interests in India. This is the same thing America has done since the 1980’s, garrisoning troops in countries to protect our monetary interests, like Saudi Arabia for example. Then the war of 1782 against the French begun. The British “fought this war for” the Indian people. By the end the war, The British Empire now conveniently controlled the most strategic points in India, forts, outposts, ports, and roads. The East India Trading Company now had grown to proportions that it held monopolies that stretched across India. The India people finally realized what was happening and they revolted in 1857. But it was too late. There was a single local ruler who wasn’t “financed” by the East India Trading Company, nor was there a port or railroad that wasn’t controlled by the British. The revolutionaries were slaughtered.

The rule of India was nowhere near peaceful. The Amritisar Massacre in 1920 was only one instance. A battalion of armed soldiers entered an enclosed courtyard, lined up, and shot and killed almost four hundred unarmed men, women and children with rifles and a machine gun mounted on a armored vehicle. The man responsible for ordering the attack, Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer, was demoted to colonel, and sent home to Britain.
Mahatma Gandhi was jailed multiple times. Thousands of Indian protestors were beaten, cut, slashed, run over, trampled, and shot throughout the 19th century. This is recorded, documented, even caught on film.

They kept these people controlled by keeping them happy? This is a strange assumption. Intoxicated people are happy when they are controlled. Oppressed people revolt…like India did…

COLONIALISM is the control of a country through creating a DEPENDECY on said empire. East India Trading Company held the monopoly of the Indian economy, the British Empire owned India. Colonialism is a attribute of IMPERIALLSIM, the art of forming empires, geopolitical areas that extend out of ancestral borders.

Where did you say the peaceful transition of power happened? I was under the impression that after the massive reversal of public and world opinion of the occupation in India and millions of protestors united peacefully against the British Empire was the catalyst.

Your justification of these atrocities is perfectly aligned with Hitler’s justification of the Holocaust, Bush’ justification of the Iraq war, the Roman Empire’s justification of the conquering of Gaul, and so forth. This is the legacy left by “Empires”. This is where you evoked the “Hollywood” accusation, the massacres and the blatant abuse of a people’s natural rights. These are things THAT ARE NOT UNIQUE TO THE BRITISH EMPIRE. They are intrinsic in ALL empires. I remain by what I said.

THERE ARE NO GREAT EMPIRES.


 
thevenerablerob
May 20, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: swtlilsoni Show

The British Empire rightfully gained land from the Indians by trade.

As a matter of fact, the Indians were extremely weakened by invaders from Afghanistan and Persia - Shah of afghanistan sacked Delhi repeatedly.

As the Mughal emperor grew weaker, he accepted the protection of the east india Company from invaders. the east India Company allowed the King of Delhi to stay on his throne until he died and rebels made this formality impossibel to enforce.

And it was so that the British Empire expanded into Mughal territory. Officially, the Mughals were too weakened to actually have anything stolen from them. the British did not steal their wealth, and it absurd tot hink that the trade that did come from india actually created a tremendous surplus of money for the Empire.

 
lordhaines
May 18, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: denverdannydee Show

Whatever pal, save you religious crap for the idiot asylum.

You have no proof for anything you say, so in terms of an argument, you don't have one.


 
vancam
May 18, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: denverdannydee Show

This must be one of those rare occassions when I get to agree with you DenverDanny. You are right, religions are like empires:

"Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control."

Essentially an empire is something that dominates and strips away freedom from people en masse.

 
thevenerablerob
May 18, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

Hey, there are those of us who believe in the Kingdom of God. - especially that it isn't 'religious crap'. However, this is not a religious debate and irrelevant, so I will not continue on a defensive rant.

Now, to agree with Lordhanes. The British Empire was simply the most powerful Empire in the entire world. It's empire expanded across the globe - it even controlled a small part of China previous to the Opium wars. Lets first take a look at the actual territory taken by the British:

Upper and Lower Canada (later to the West Coast)
Rupert's land
Nova Scotia
Newfoundland
PEI
Thirteen Colonies
Barbados , Port Royale and select spots in the Caribbean
Australia
Suriname
Falkland Islands
Egypt
Rhodesia
Southern Africa
India (for a time)
Hong Kong and parts of China (Shanghai)
Gibraltor
Military base in the mediterranean

~ This sums up the major territory. I'll have to add more later.


 
thevenerablerob
May 18, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thinkingthing Show

Couldn't edit, so I'll continue with this rebuttal.

So I've listed the territory possessed by the British Empire (and forgot to mention New Zealand among possession). This amount of territory is the most any empire has ever managed to control for a lengthy period of time.

Next, let's look at the conquest and victories, wars and achievements.

The British and British empire have destroyed all other rising powers that posed a threat, throughout time. Starting with Spain, the British thrashed the Spanish Armada is a heavily favoured (to Spain) naval battle. This saw the decline of much of the Spanish Empire. The Spanish Empire had never been strong because of strict immigrational policies and the colony hierarchy. There really is no contest. The British beat them as a power, which created Britain as a stronger power.

Next, the British and France were the dominant powers in the world (others, such as Prussia, Austria, Sweden and Spain were powerful, but nowhere near the extent of). The series of wars that followed during this time (War of Austrian Succession, War of Spanish Succession, Seven Years War) finalized British dominancy in North America and Europe for a lengthy period of time. France was forced to cede vast tracts of land and immeasurable wealth over to Britain.

The Colonies endured indian attacks in which British regulars were sometimes called to fight in, during the relatively peaceful pause.

Next came Napolean, who desired conquest of Europe and French supremacy. Britain's superior naval and military power allowed for an ultimate defeat of Napolean twice.

During thie time, the British were hampered by foolish American attempts to invade Canada in a war commonly known as the War of 1812. Even though there were less than 6,000 regulars garrisoned across Canada's border for much of the war, the British and Canadians held off against insurmountable odds until regulars could be freed up from the Napoleanic wars. This war, though much indecisive, could be ruled as British victory simply because the United States obtained none of Canada, as was an original intention.

The British honoured the Chinese in the alleged, 'Opium wars', but they did not lose any actual battle.

The British, were again victorious as part of an alliance against Russia in the Crimean War.

And then, The British stepped up and, as part of an alliance, destroyed the German regimes in WWI and II. It can be argued that the British played the most important part in both wars, with tremendous losses and effort.

The British always succeeded in maintaining a european balance of power. This is one reason why they were able to create such a humongous empire.

Truly, the only reason the British Empire was weakened was because it spearheaded two World wars. The French were devastated by them, Russia barely recovered from WWI, Germany never recovered from both wars, Austria Hungarty was broken up, the Ottoman Empire was broken up. You get the picture - tolls were high, yet the British empire stood, mostly, intact. America became a superpower at this time because it did not get hit as hard as Britain in either war, either economically or physically (skipping the first year in both wars probly helped). And the time for Imperialism to end had to arrive eventually as nations sought independance.

Since this is involved with conquest and stability, the British empire has the mightiest navy in the world. This is undesputible. This is also the reason for such a powerful empire. With the merchant marine protected, trade and wealth could flow - unlike that of the Spanish Empire. If the Spanish had taken the time to clear their lanes of pirates, they may have redeemed a lot more gold.

There are two great ideals that this empire instituted that could make it the best rather than any other.

First, this was the first empire to completely abolish slavery.

Secondly, this major empire had oen of the most stable Governments that could have been seen from 1682 through to 2009. It had its monarch, correct, as any other nation, but it also obtained a Parliament which received more power as time went on. It was a form of rock solid Democratic Government. During the 1700s, there were many occasions when parliament held power over even the King in political matters. Parliament's structure provided for no error (Like the Senate and House of Representatives/Commons they have the House of Lords and House of Commons).



 
thevenerablerob
May 18, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: liberalthinker Show

I protest. An empire is, by means of simple definition, a homeland which has expanded its influence upon new territories and regions. Thus, it cannot be disputed that there were hundreds of empires - even small-ish ones.

Those which affected other world powers and were prominant for certain things were the 'great' empires.

 
thevenerablerob
May 19, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: brivapor Show

Simply the fact that it led the Industrial Revolution as opposed to the other powers of the time (Prussia, France, Spain, Austria etc.) makes the British Empire the most powerful of its time. Compare the invention and innovation in a proportionate scale and Britain still comes out ahead.

As I portrayed below, a time for independance for all nations was to come, eventually. Britain was devastated in two World wars, as well. It simply could not keep Russia in check in the Mediterranean.

That said, most nations still proudly proclaim being members of the Commonwealth.

 
lordhaines
May 19, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thinkingthing Show

Britain controlled parts of South America too, the biggest part of North America (Canada), Australia, New Zealand, Most of Africa. South Africa doesn't compare. And the Spanish empire ended in the 1800's when the south American countries gain independence, So it does not compare with Britain

 
lordhaines
May 19, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thevenerablerob Show

The Russian Empire was Russia itself, only Peter the Great expanded, and that was Eastwards into nothing.

The Spanish controlled most of south America, but they lost it in the 1800's when the countries gained independence. And the size and population doesn't match Britain's

A religious empire, such as the Muslim one is NOT an empire, it is the spreading of Religion. We could just as easily say the Vatican has the world biggest empire now, but we don;t. or that Britain still wins because it spread Christianity across more of the world than the Muslims did.

The French Empire was big, and I thought about including it, but decided that because by 1805 they had resigned to keeping what they had and not expand much, and Britain lapped up the rest. Which is why I didn't include it. But it did pretty much the same thing as Britain did, spread religion, culture, understandings, language. BUT not as much as Britain did, so Britain still beats it.

As for the Chinese, for the size of there dynasties, and population AND technological advantages in the early middle ages, they didn't do much, even today China is just China. The Chinese Empire was filled with Chinese more than anything, more of a country than an empire.

 
lordhaines
May 19, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: swtlilsoni Show

But it is relevant, because the rest of Europe, and the European empires were at same stage as them, but they leap forward. The same way as the Romans were just another tribe in Italian peninsula, until they leap forward with their advancements.

It is not the 'Industrial Revolution' itself that makes the point, but the fact they were the first to do it.

 
lordhaines
May 19, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: brivapor Show

Britain gave independence to the last of it's major colonies in the 1960's.

The Greek city states had already developed the Macedonian way of live centuries before Macedonia expanded. So they weren't unique. HOWEVER, the fact they conquered so much from such a small place, with so little men and to be undefeated against bigger enemies is in itself unheard of until the British Empire.

 
lordhaines
May 19, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: liberalthinker Show

"they did what they were told or died". You watch far too much Hollywood. This isn't the propaganda anti-empire of Imperial times, this is a look back at the facts.

Most native American tribes joined Britain in the fight against both the French and The Americans because the British were the only ones who guaranteed their safety and normality of life. They worked alongside each other, not worked FOR the British. No state on earth has done more to abolish slavery than the British Empire, it nearly lost everything in fighting against slavery.

The Empire itself was founded on TRADE, not warfare, they set up towns to establish trade routes, and then mixed with the locals, in time it expanded. They didn't just invade and control what was there.

India, Britain had no more than 50,000 British men in India at any one time. How can they control a vast population such as India if the Indians were mistreated constantly? Again it was mainly trade. The British let the tribal Kings in India continue as they were, in fact giving them a share in the profits, as long as they aloud Britain to trade to make themselves welathy with the goods they had to offer.

Even in New Zealand the dominant race was, and still is the Mauri's, not the British, again it was an agreement, and trade based. Australia was populated with British citizens, this is a bad point. But it wasn't until Australia gained a say in it's own internal matters that the Aboriginal's began to become mistreated.

Of course Britain had to station troops in these places, to protect everyone there, British and otherwise. you have to be very naive to think Britain could control such a vast amount of territory and population worldwide if they didn't have the locals on their side.

I'm not saying they are perfect, but far less worse than the Americans expansion west into the American continent, their treatment of the natives, then the treatment of the Mexicans. Not to mention having a civil war stemming from the fact some of them still wanted slavery, long after the rest of the world said it was wrong.
America may think it has been the saviour of the world, and given liberty to the people, but I can guarantee you the original inhabitants of those lands are far worse off than they were under British control.

On occasions when the Empire has been violent and suppressed people, was against it's own people, same as any government might, not just an Empire. indeed the American War of Independence was fought against mainly British citizens and British descendants. It was their greediness to want to control the land, as well as their reluctance to be controlled by Britain that lead to the war. Britain refused to expand westwards into Louisiana, because it was French territory, yet an independent USA snapped it up. So USA just as Imperialistic as Britain ever was.

The dissolving of the Empire was peaceful, with Britain granting Independence with thanks to the former colonies, who the majority of which signed up for the Commonwealth afterwards, so if they were so badly mistreated, why do they accept the British Queen as head of state still (they asked for this by the way)? Why did they so willingly sign up to the Commonwealth, and still maintain it today?

Even in the two world wars, Britain could easily have called up million of Indians and other empire nations to do all the fighting, and save British lives. But instead they sacrificed British lives, and accepted colonial volunteers. They sacrificed nearly everything to make sure the empire countries were free from dictatorship, and kept their individual parliaments.

So instead of looking back at the Empire with disgust and thinking the world you live in today is so much better, because it is not, why don't you take a look at the facts. Britain controlled a large chunk of the world from a tiny island. How? By keeping the populations happy!

 
lordhaines
May 19, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: swtlilsoni Show

But it still does not compare with the riches and wealth of the British empire.

 
lordhaines
May 19, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Religion controls and brain washes the masses it controls. it always has done. Add in to that the fact these 'religions' change to suit the times they are in just shows how untrue they must really be. Surely they would stick to killing homosexuals if they thought it was really God's will? Obviously not.


 
lordhaines
May 19, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: liberalthinker Show

To add into that, no government on this planet offers any freedom to it's people. There isn't a single democracy in the world. Only democratically elected states. So is the world still unfair and un free? Are the people of the worlds fighting for the freedom from their governments? No, and why?

Because the world you imagine that involves people being restricted and controlled still exists, you you can't judge any empire, because nowhere in the world now is any better.

I for one, prefer my royal family to my government, because it does not control me and tell me what to do. it also does not make laws preventing me from doing things etc. So I'd rather go back to a government that were less in control of the people it works for.

 
liberalthinker
May 19, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

I think you are confused. A monarchy, being the polar opposite of a democracy, offers you NO rights. It is the definition of a system, a single, all-powerful, ruler, that would prevent you from doing anything. Like, for example, disagreeing with your government or raising in the social hierarchy.

The fact that most of the democratically elected governments (a synonym for the term...uh...Democracy) are imperfect is attributed to the fact that are influenced by attributes of governments that align with Empires and Monarchies. ie colonialism and imperialism.

You are what is called a "subject", a word that is related to being "under domination, or control"...meaning you have no control over the things you "want to do"...what are you trying to say? It seems counter-intuitive that you would prefer a system that is divinely sanctioned and offers you no control of your life while you adhere to a rhetoric of anti-religion and say that you desire control of your life...


 
dkturner
May 20, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: brivapor Show

Ok, this isn't really a rebuttal, but it's a rather amusing quote that I recall: "In a fit of absent-mindedness, Britain acquired and lost an Empire".

 
lordhaines
May 20, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: liberalthinker Show

There was no QUEEN in 1778, It was a King George. You obviously don't know your history. The East India Company was an early stock exchange, formed in the 1600's, nothing to do with the monarch. It was business men that founded it. Receiving a royal charter means you can use the country as you wish, that you can use the British waters and so forth. So it wasn't founded by the queen, where the hell did you hear that? One sided American history class in school perhaps?

I am not brainwashed. British kids do not get taught about the British empire, nor are they encouraged about it, in the same way German kids are discouraged from their Nazi past.

You know nothing about how our Royal Family works. You see a royal family and assume it is a line of dictators throughout history.

Our Queen, is a head of state, she makes no political decisions, in fact the royal family haven't had much political clout since the Civil War, and the brief Republic in the 1600's.

All the Royal Family has done for the last 400 years is head the state. Decisions have been down to the government. Britain is attached to the current Queen because she acts as a role model, dedicating her life to the people for a job she didn't want. She behaves well and treats people nicely when she comes across them. Her son, the Prince Of Wales is one of the worlds biggest charity organisers, and ecological campaigners.

Call that evil?! It is you that have not looked at the facts in implying that the Royal Family have controlled it's people throughout the Empire, because it wasn't, it was the government.

And Britain does not justify the Iraq War, we do not even justify our own Prime Minister, the people are disgraced and have called for an election for a couple of years now to no avail. If there ever was a dictatorship in this country this Labour government is as close as it comes.

No country in the world has done more to promote freedom and equality than the British- FACT. It was the fall of the Empire that caused all the problems, not the Empire being created. We all live under mini empires within our own country. Texas is not free from the state is it? So surely your government is an empire as such. Same way the people in Cornwall, England are not allowed to govern themselves. What the difference between your government controlling all races and states in that part of the continent, and the British controlling and races and states in most parts of the world? There is non, it is the same but on a smaller scale.

You disappoint me in your assumption that Britain would do the same to the Native Americans as the US did if they were still there. Canada proves otherwise. The British wanted wealth, not power. As long as it had a happy empire that could allow it to become wealthy then they didn't care for prosecuting minorities or races, this is proven. New Zealand- the Mauri tribe are the biggest race in New Zealand even today, wouldn't have been so if Britain were the type to wipe out races like America does.

And I said before that I know Britain has used violence and brute force before, every nation has. The force used in post WWII when countries were demanding freedom was to keep stability and order until it could be properly worked out. The masses of countries don't understand that you can't just walk out and leave, you have to sort things out first. And with the masses constantly attacking the troops, they are going to react to keep order (albeit in proportionately).

I admire your dream of how the world SHOULD be, and will stand by you if it ever comes to making it so. But it isn't like that, and won't be in my lifetime.

You stand by what you say in that no Empires are great, and I stand by what I say- Britain's Empire was truly great.

 
bookworm
May 20, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

I've lived in New Zealand for 8 years, and believe me, I know what I'm talking about when I say that Maori are not anywhere near the dominant race in New Zealand. It's even doubtful if there is any such thing as a real Maori left. That said, the British were remarkably nice to the Maori, (though not all of them of course), and they didn't do very much slaughtering.

 
lordhaines
May 21, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: liberalthinker Show

Seeing as there isn't a real democracy in the world, then I stand by what I say.

I vote someone into power then for 5 years I am basically their subject. Subject to their law changes, political views, understanding, beliefs, the lot. No different to a monarchy, except a monarchy is by birth, not vote.

Britain used to be a republic under Cromwell in the 1600s. It turned into a dictatorship and the government reinstated the rightful monarch in fear of a worse state than the monarchy offered. The monarchy itself is a form of government, no different to the government of today, except voting of course. The monarch was never all powerful and could dictate what happened in the country. The monarch was only powerful if they had the Earl's on their side, who were more powerful than the monarchs themselves. the Earls then relied on the Barons for their power. And then the Baron relied on the Lords and so forth. It has never been a "do as i say or die" situation. it was a "do as the country says or die". Lords provided men fit for battle, the Baron provided these lords who had those men, the Earls then provided the barons and so forth. Although a system of hierarchy as you say, it is no different from government offices today.

The King was merely a head of state that finalised decisions in return for loyalty. The UK was never people living in fear of their monarch, because everyone was answerable to someone else, even if the monarch believed they were only answerable to God, uprisings proved otherwise.


 
thevenerablerob
May 21, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

There is more to a Monarchy than the election of the prime Minister. A Prime Minister comes with a party and a particular platform, for one. S/he will then appoint ministers to do appointed deeds as part of the cabinet.

Okay, so we've established the fact that the Prime Minister is elected by majority vote and that a cabinet is then appointed by that Minister. Members of Parliament (Governors in the US) are directly elected by the people to represent them in Parliament (Congress). In caanda, there are roughly 314 ridings (MPs). every MP gets a seat in Parliament - these are all elected members.

Then we have Parliament, which is a clever division of power, including checks and balances. The Senate (House of Lords) is designed to be a 'calm second look', able to debate and veto anything the House of Representatives (Commons) tries to pass that is unreasonable.

The House of Commons (Representatives) is the section of Parliament (Congress) that can actually appoint bills. Then, the bills must be passed, revised and, finally, approved by both houses. Once this is done, the Prime Minister/President may verify the bill. In Canada, the Lieutenant Governor then places an official seal on the bill to make it legit.

The Prime Minister may not pass any bill without Parliament having approved of it. Basically all the prime Minister is there for is to be the ultimate representative of the country, to hold veto power and to head the party that is in and enforce its platforms as much to his ability as possible.

The Head of Opposition is perpetually in the Prime Minister's face, making him check every move and nitpicking over the tiniest act.

This is a Democracy to the fullest. A Republic merely has an 'elected' head (elected the first time - probly never again holds actual elections, Like Napolean). It may have parliament, but the Parliament holds little power.

A monarchy is by birth and a monarchy holds absolute power - the President or prime Minister can be impeached. The Monarchy rules for life. Our elected leader rules for 4 or 5 years with a rule subjected to criticism, questioning and caution. The Constitution overpowers the elected head of country, but a monarchy could just throw it away. There is a difference - a major difference.






 
lordhaines
May 26, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: swtlilsoni Show

I'm afraid not. The British never stole much except artefacts from Egypt. thevenereablerob blows your statement out of the water.

 
lordhaines
May 26, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: bookworm Show

I have family in New Zealand, and see plenty of people proud of their Maori heritage. But like you said, how many REAL ones that are left is a different matter.

The British were every nice all over the world, even in the US. Yes they controlled peoples countries, but not many people seemed to complain until Britain bankrupted itself and could no longer offer them protection.

 
thinkingthing
May 18, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: denverdannydee Show

your beliefs are irrelevant to this debate go away.

- in my opinion the greatest empire would have to be the spanish empire - remember it extended into pretty much the whole of south america!

 
brivapor
May 18, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

its kind of hard to compare because of the reach of modern influence with that of anchient empires

with the anchient empires they had durability, like 1500 year empires
with modern ones they conquered more of the earth

it seems that Macedonia was the most important one, the one that established the foundation for european thought and alsoconquered a lot of new land

Brits conquered a lot of the world though, plus English is the worlds common language

what happened in the 60's that Britain isnt an empire anymore?

 
thevenerablerob
May 18, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

I protest the way you set up all seven empires in this thread. You placed the Persian and Mughal empires instead of the French, Islamic, Russian, Spanish and Chinese? The Chinese alone maintained a region far bigger than Rome's for unknown dynasties of years. While they may not have been perpetually strong, they were able to repel invaders 9 tenths of the time. Not to mention the Moslems, who spread their empire all the way from the Holy Land, across Africa and to spain.

I know you've only got so many slots, but the Mughals, Persians and Ottomans didn't compare to the French in prime, much less Spanish in prime.

 
swtlilsoni
May 18, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

A lot of the things that place the British Empire above the others for you is merely a consequence of the time period they were powerful in.

being the first to adopt full handedly the Industrial Revolution which shaped today's world.
Cultural influence
Now on to technologies, no nation on earth has invented or developed as much as Britain did in the Victorian era

These things were only an advantage to the British because their empire was quite recent.

 
liberalthinker
May 19, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

I agree. Empires are empirically a a bad form of government, no matter the opulence that is harbored by it's citizens. We forget that every "great empire" had a caste system based on wealth, social hierarchy. The Romans literally called the lowest, and largest, groups of their hierarchy "slaves".

I think there should always be a side in all debates that doesn't denominate which side you take.

 
vancam
May 20, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: liberalthinker Show

Superb.

 
lordhaines
May 20, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

lol :)

 
swtlilsoni
May 20, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

thats because the british empire stole alot from the mughal empire.

 
lordhaines
May 21, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: liberalthinker Show

No, you are correct in everything you say. But even democratically elected government of today have hierarchies, which was my ill made point. The world of today is no better than it was then.

So if it is a choice between a corrupt politician who spent most of his life doing something else other than politics, who uses the power the people give to him to control them. or a monarch that does the same, but dedicates their life to it, acts respectably and knows the people can overthrow them at anytime, then I choose the monarchy. I am not saying Monarchy over any government. I am saying MY monarchy over MY government.

I believe the world should truly be democratic-the people vote on EVERY issue that affects the nation they live in. Not this half hearted you vote for the guy to make the decisions, which is bit like saying, you elect a new King to make decisions. Until that day I think Monarchy's are no worse than any other form of government.

Governments kills people that disagree with them- that is proven also. But we don't hear you saying that?

Even the government of the US and Britain will kill people that threaten it or disagrees with it. It is a sorry state of affairs.

 
lordhaines
May 26, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thevenerablerob Show

A monarch does not have the power to overthrow a constitution. Once the Magna Carta was signed in Britain in 1215 then EVERY monarch was subject to the law, same as any citizen, and was subject to it's subjects (lol).

Democracy at it's fullest is NOT what Canada, US or UK have at the moment. Only say we have is what idiot messes up the country. That is IT. One piece of paper on one day, that is not DEMOCRACY. In Switzerland the government have to hold ballots on most issues, even local governments do. From a new road being paved to the economic direction of the country. A democracy is where the people vote on EVERYTHING. That is how it should be.

 
lordhaines
May 26, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: swtlilsoni Show

Which makes it relevant.

We can not rule out the achievement of one empire just because previous empires had not done the same. The only way we can judge them is on the standards of the day they were around.

 
bookworm
May 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

There may be many Maori proud of their heritage, but not even only counting real Maori, the Maori people are a distinct minority.

 
thedeepmind
May 31, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Whilst the Roman Empire was a great and intelligent empire, I would have to say it was the British Empire thsat was the greatest,as they had more land then any other empire, even though they had a tiny country. They also invented and improved a many great things.
(P.S lordhaines please do not reply to this, no offence intended)

 
+ Add Argument

0
Mongol Empire




Use these tags to find similiar debates

martin luther king jr. races racism rights segregation skin color civil rights Empire government history hitler nazi power Rome war WWII