World Domination

[OttoVonBismarck]

Of all mentioned I think only the British had even a glimmer of a hope so I voted for them, although up til now I'd say that realistically world domination has not been a real possibility.

The Romans and Alexander both conquered all of the "world that matters" so there is that.

The reason I think the British had the best shot is they were well established as colonial powers, their navy insulated them from any threat from other European powers, they had already acquired a lot of land, and they had a fairly manageable hands-off imperialist policy that meant it wasn't too hard for them to keep their flag flying over places they really didn't have to work very hard to control or keep in the Empire. Of course history showed that once those imperial subjects got the slightest desire to go their own way, all those things I just said contributed to how easy it was, and the British never had the stomach to wage major wars to keep countries subjugated.

[Phillip V]

That and Afghan women are ugly.

There's something under there...

[Queequeg]

The Song. The combination of technolgy, liberalism, reason, population, resources would be a winning combination had it not been for the squat ugric chaps on small horses.

Ugric?

[Queequeg]

Of all mentioned I think only the British had even a glimmer of a hope so I voted for them, although up til now I'd say that realistically world domination has not been a real possibility.

The Romans and Alexander both conquered all of the "world that matters" so there is that.

Romans never conquered Parthia, and had a pretty good idea that there was a lot of wealth even beyond that.  I think there's a real argument to be made that Alexander conquered most of the world that really mattered at that point-the Persian Empire had (IIRC) the highest concentration of GDP within a polity ever by a substantial margin, and during Alexander's time trade links with China were in their infancy.  I don't think Carthage, Rome or even Arabia mattered that much compared to what he had. 

[jimmy olsen]

I'm surprised this mentions The Third Reich (which lasted for 10 years after it started to annex neighbours) and not, eg., Alexander's empire.

Alexander's Empire also lasted only 10 years from the beginning of Alexander's campaigns and it disintegrated because of internal strife.

[Queequeg]

I think the Mongols probably came closest to something resembling "global domination"-the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa were obviously out of the question, but Egypt and Western Europe would probably not have been the most taxing Mongol campaign.

[Neil]

Of course history showed that once those imperial subjects got the slightest desire to go their own way, all those things I just said contributed to how easy it was, and the British never had the stomach to wage major wars to keep countries subjugated.

They did manage to keep the subcontinent for almost a hundred years after the Mutiny.

[jimmy olsen]

Who voted for Other and why?

[Ed Anger]

no.

[Josquius]

British.
No American revolution, integrate the Americas into the UK setting a prescedent for the future. Bam, solid long lasting empire built on liberty, democracy and mutual-prosperity.

They did manage to keep the subcontinent for almost a hundred years after the Mutiny.

That was when the British empire in India began. And it was hardly subjugation. The mutineers were a small minority with little public support and the history of British India is one of continued democratic reform towards the clear end goal of full self rule.

[jimmy olsen]

British.
No American revolution, integrate the Americas into the UK setting a prescedent for the future. Bam, solid long lasting empire built on liberty, democracy and mutual-prosperity.

They did manage to keep the subcontinent for almost a hundred years after the Mutiny.

That was when the British empire in India began. And it was hardly subjugation. The mutineers were a small minority with little public support and the history of British India is one of continued democratic reform towards the clear end goal of full self rule.

The East Indian Company was an extension of the British state.

[Neil]

British.
No American revolution, integrate the Americas into the UK setting a prescedent for the future. Bam, solid long lasting empire built on liberty, democracy and mutual-prosperity.

Until public opinion in Britain turns against slavery and the American colonies revolt.  And then there would be the problems with the Western frontier.

[jimmy olsen]

British.
No American revolution, integrate the Americas into the UK setting a prescedent for the future. Bam, solid long lasting empire built on liberty, democracy and mutual-prosperity.

Until public opinion in Britain turns against slavery and the American colonies revolt.  And then there would be the problems with the Western frontier.

So, what? The Northern colonies would support Britain and the South would be crushed.

What about the Western frontier. The next time they fight France and Spain the Americans will overrun Louisiana, Texas and California.

[CountDeMoney]

I feel a Timmaytard alt-hist map being created right at this very moment.

[Neil]

So, what? The Northern colonies would support Britain and the South would be crushed.

What about the Western frontier. The next time they fight France and Spain the Americans will overrun Louisiana, Texas and California.

Why would the North turn their back on slavery?  Americans loved slavery.  That was the whole point of your little rebellion.

The problem with the West is that Britain would be likely to treat with the local Indians, whereas the Americans would want to steal their land and murder them.