Greatest Empire Poll

[vcczar 1,226]

new poll

[Patine 512]

16 minutes ago, vcczar said:

new poll

Interesting that you missed both the Chinese and Japanese Empires, and the Pre-Soviet Czarist (@vcczar!) Russian one...

[Actinguy 862]

I mean, the American Empire is the only one to conquer the moon...

 

;c)

[Patine 512]

49 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I mean, the American Empire is the only one to conquer the moon...

 

;c)

Well, they put a flag up there, yes. But there's no settlement or colonization, sign of military presence, resource exploitation, or other tell-tale signs of "conquest." And, the American Government's current stance on ownership of the Moon is, officially, the same as all other sovereign nations and the UN - neutral and undemarcated territory under no sovereign rule or jurisdiction. I'm just saying...

[vcczar 1,226]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Interesting that you missed both the Chinese and Japanese Empires, and the Pre-Soviet Czarist (@vcczar!) Russian one...

I ran out of space. I didn't include China because I wasn't sure which one to include. For Russia, I decided to go with the Soviet rather than the Czarist one. Japanese one did slip my mind. 

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

Was a close pick between Roman and British but the Roman's edged out barely. British had more land but the Roman's had longevity and influence on culture and society.

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

2 hours ago, Patine said:

Interesting that you missed both the Chinese and Japanese Empires, and the Pre-Soviet Czarist (@vcczar!) Russian one...

Would you honestly choose either of those as #1?

[Patine 512]

3 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Was a close pick between Roman and British but the Roman's edged out barely. British had more land but the Roman's had longevity and influence on culture and society.

The British had massive influence two, especially on the United States. The English Language, Common Law, a bicameral legislative body structure, FPTP elections, freehold land and copyright laws, county and town government structure, the American military organizational basis (including rank names and concepts), the WORD 'President' as an important title of office, etc., etc., etc.

[Jayavarman 130]

The United States can win the next hundred+ years because of geography.

[Anthony_270 947]

For 2. in the near future (10-50 years, say),

Eliminate the U.N. (not a country).

Eliminate Japan (demographics are terrible, fertility rate of 1.4, very little immigration, so doesn't have the population to grow a larger economy).

Eliminate Russia (bad demographics, although they have gotten better recently (1.2 -> 1.7), but still not that good, economy not that good).

Eliminate Brazil (economy has a long way to go, demographics also don't look that good, 1.7 although significant population 'inertia' from previously higher fertility rate).

That leaves the E.U., India, and China.

The E.U. is comparable in terms of its economy. It might be about to lose the U.K. It doesn't have a strong common language. It doesn't have anything like a strong military. It is aging (fertility rate of 1.6), although it has significant immigration which could boost its population. This one is most comparable to the U.S., but I have a hard time seeing it surpass the U.S. in the near future.

China is the most obvious one. Although its demographics are not that great (1.6), unlike the other ones listed it already has a population 4x the states. My guess is within a few decades it will surpass the U.S. economically.

India is further behind in terms of its economy, but its demographics are better than China's (2.3), and will probably surpass it in terms of population soon.

I am guessing in a 50 year time frame any of the last 3 could become superpowers in that they could rival the U.S. for combined economic, military, and diplomatic power.

The big question mark then becomes the U.S. itself. Could it boost its fertility rate? Boost immigration? Bring countries like Canada, the U.K., or Australia more closely into its orbit?

[Patine 512]

41 minutes ago, Jayavarman said:

The United States can win the next hundred+ years because of geography.

How is it's geography inherently superior to China and Russia? And, given the current vicious state of it's sharp socio-political divide, blatantly obvious today, will the United States keep the political unity needed to maintain it's geographic advantages (and, ultimately, most of it's other advantages).

[Sunnymentoaddict 39]

4 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Was a close pick between Roman and British but the Roman's edged out barely. British had more land but the Roman's had longevity and influence on culture and society.

I'll make an argument that the UK had a bigger impact than Rome. English is the most widely spoken language, in part cause of colonialism. Soccer, invented in the UK, is the global sport. Various rock bands such as The Who, and The Beatles influenced popular music across the globe. The Westminster style of government is common across the globe. Philosophers and intellectuals such as Adam Smith and Jonathan Stuart Mill changed how we look at the world.  I see why you picked Rome, but the later edged out for me.

[Kingthero 8]

I'm surprised neither the Macedonian nor the Carthaginian empires made it, when they have accomplishments far greater than many of the choices. Chose the Roman, however.

[vcczar 1,226]

29 minutes ago, Kingthero said:

I'm surprised neither the Macedonian nor the Carthaginian empires made it, when they have accomplishments far greater than many of the choices. Chose the Roman, however.

I should have included Macedonian. I overlooked them. I opted to include others over the Carthaginians. I only wanted to include 20 and wanted most of them to not be ancient. 

[Anthony_270 947]

Iroquois count as an empire?

[Anthony_270 947]

(Trying to get some north of Mexico empires here.)

[vcczar 1,226]

19 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Iroquois count as an empire?

Sure. Relative to other tribes one could make an argument for that. If the Holy Roman Empire classifies than Iroquois could. 

[Anthony_270 947]

I'm not really into empires, although I'm sympathetic to arguments that certain empires can be beneficial in certain ways.

I'm more interested in smaller forms of government that seem to get really good results for their citizens.

Perhaps for similar reasons, I'm more interested in towns than big cities.

[vcczar 1,226]

1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

I'm not really into empires, although I'm sympathetic to arguments that certain empires can be beneficial in certain ways.

I'm more interested in smaller forms of government that seem to get really good results for their citizens.

Perhaps for similar reasons, I'm more interested in towns than big cities.

I'm less interesting in governments of any size than I am in environments that allow and do not restrict individual human potential, human life, human happiness in general. For these reasons, I'm reasonably tolerant of fiscal differences, but I'm intolerant of social conservatism. I'd be a Libertarian if I trusted rural towns, small towns, and some entire states more than I did the federal government. However, so long as the federal government, when run by Democrats, is more socially liberal than at least one state then I'm inclined to favor large government. I would be okay with the federal government decentralization in states like Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, California, and some other states that are arguably more socially liberal than the Fed Government. In fact, if all 50 states were basically Massachusetts, I'd be okay with the Libertarian ideal of the federal government. 

Ideally, I'd like to see a world that resembled the United Federation on Star Trek: TNG. Poverty has been eliminated. Seems like there's no real corruption. No real forced labor. Everyone seems to just live according to their interests and talents. Humanitarianism, knowledge, and science are the chief interests of government. 

[Anthony_270 947]

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

For these reasons, I'm reasonably tolerant of fiscal differences, but I'm tolerant of social conservatism.

Did you mean 'intolerant of social conservatism' here?

[SilentLiberty 224]

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm less interesting in governments of any size than I am in environments that allow and do not restrict individual human potential, human life, human happiness in general. For these reasons, I'm reasonably tolerant of fiscal differences, but I'm tolerant of social conservatism. I'd be a Libertarian if I trusted rural towns, small towns, and some entire states more than I did the federal government. However, so long as the federal government, when run by Democrats, is more socially liberal than at least one state then I'm inclined to favor large government. I would be okay with the federal government decentralization in states like Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, California, and some other states that are arguably more socially liberal than the Fed Government. In fact, if all 50 states were basically Massachusetts, I'd be okay with the Libertarian ideal of the federal government. 

Ideally, I'd like to see a world that resembled the United Federation on Star Trek: TNG. Poverty has been eliminated. Seems like there's no real corruption. No real forced labor. Everyone seems to just live according to their interests and talents. Humanitarianism, knowledge, and science are the chief interests of government. 

This is sad to me. Rather than defend the individual and their rights, you want to force them to one ideology. Also Massachusetts is not nearly as great as you always make it out to be...

[Edouard 121]

Everybody is biased in this poll ^^

[SilentLiberty 224]

1 minute ago, Edouard said:

Everybody is biased in this poll ^^

Every poll ever lol

[vcczar 1,226]

19 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Did you mean 'intolerant of social conservatism' here?

Yeah. Let me fix that. 

[Anthony_270 947]

23 minutes ago, vcczar said:

do not restrict individual human potential, human life, human happiness in general. For these reasons, I'm reasonably tolerant of fiscal differences, but I'm tolerant of social conservatism

I think you're just saying you don't agree with social conservatism here.