Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 3rd, 2018, 04:56 AM   #21

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,656

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Valentino View Post
For me, the British Empire. Totally overrated.

Love it when English people bring it up, and yet are against slavery, quite ironic.
So being against slavery in s bad thing?
Kevinmeath is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 3rd, 2018, 04:57 AM   #22

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,656

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl XII View Post
I don't know, maybe letting hundreds of thousands of irish die during the potato famine?
Feeding millions during the potato famines (its plural)
Kevinmeath is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 05:05 AM   #23
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,011

The Soviet Empire.
pikeshot1600 is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 07:51 AM   #24
Suspended until March 15th, 2018
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,368

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl XII View Post
I don't know, maybe letting hundreds of thousands of irish die during the potato famine?
The death of so many Irishmen was not the result of any "act" by the British empire.
Poly is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 08:01 AM   #25

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,242

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Valentino View Post
For me, the British Empire. Totally overrated.

Love it when English people bring it up, and yet are against slavery, quite ironic.
What language are you making this post in?
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 08:27 AM   #26

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,028

"This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."
Scaeva is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 05:16 PM   #27
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,060

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Overrated and underrated are some of the most ambigious words, they basically mean you think something deserves less or more respect/attention etc than you perceive it be getting(which also could be arbitrary, though I think it'd be easier to get people to agree on, seeing as popularity is easier to judge than how great the empires actually were). Thus based on the respect/attention the British Empire receives, I feel the empire is overrated because I think it deserves less. If someone says the British Empire controlled more territory than any other empire in history, I'd say you're overrating the British Empire. Different than a typical opinion because it has to be tied to the opinions of others otherwise you're just saying, good or bad. "Rated" indicates you're observing someone else's "rating", not the empire itself.

Now if someone put the British Empire below an empire I think is inferior to the British Empire, I'd call it underrated. Wasn't really putting much thought into just how many empires I think are better than the British Empire, I have a few off the top of my head I feel that are strongly better but there's also some where it could go either way. How about since I'm arguing the UK isn't THE greatest empire based on it's mileage, I just give you the empire I think is the greatest for comparison which is the Persians?

Again your arguments seem to be alleging I'm calling accomplishments bad rather than overrated. I'm not saying achievements are worthless(though with much of Canada and Australia, I know I'm coming close but that's because the land i was referencing is literally almost empty even today), I'm saying they are overrated compared to the achievements of others. If someone uses the fact that the British controls the most territory to say they are the most impressive empire and we let's say say the Brits territory was equally impressive to 25 million normal square miles(hypothetical, Brits controlled more empty lands as well, was using the most radical outliers to best prove the point), that still means the British were overrated beforehand.

In terms of "WHY is the British Empire overrated", I was replying to a stat you gave me and explained how I think the stat was less impressive than you were suggesting. Calling something overrated is saying someone else's opinion of a country is higher than you think it should be and I did that with your stat. I could say I think the British are generally overrated, but that's a generalization based on my experiences. So for me to give you an answer to why the British are overrated, someone rating the British higher than is consistent with my opinion is necessary. That being said, generally my examples would be the fact she was the largest empire in the world empire, "that the sun never sat on", is central to the arguments that overrate the British IMO as is the fact I am writing this in their language. The reasons I think the empire is overrated is because of colonization which I think is overrated compared to other conquest, the British empires numbers being misleading and the fact the British weren't really the most powerful country on earth all too long, nor were a particularly lasting empire, with their early history being quite inferior IMO to the other central regions in the European story.

Want to make it clear, I think the British were one of the greatest empires of all time as in probably like 6 or something like that but that's not what everyone IME tends to think, more like 1,3, so I think the British are overrated as a result.

Persia controlled almost half of the worlds population for quite a while when it controlled Egypt, Iran, the Indus Valley, Mesopotamia, Syria and Asia Minor. This area contained a very large concentration of the worlds developed areas and thus population at the time. It's in the 40's which is close to 50, regardless it's a substantially higher share than any other empire has managed to obtain, ever. The fact the UK and Mongolia are often cited as the top 2 empires due to size and have about half the population share says it all about how impressive that is.
OK which empires are 1-3?
mariusj is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 11:17 PM   #28
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Las Vegas, NV USA
Posts: 1,225

The Austro-Hungarian Empire 1867-1918.
stevev is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 11:21 PM   #29

Duke Valentino's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Middle-Earth
Posts: 865
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
So being against slavery in s bad thing?
Neither good nor bad.
Duke Valentino is offline  
Old January 4th, 2018, 02:59 AM   #30

nuclearguy165's Avatar
Snake's Eye
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,186

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Athens and other Greek city states like Sparta and Thebes certainly punched well higher than their size. Persia also funded and was responsible for the Spartan navy and I do not think Sparta could have won that war by themselves.

That being said calling Athens or any mere Greek city state an "empire" when they didn't even unify Greece, which was less than half the size of for example Carthage's empire which was about as small as empires got in that era, is a huge stretch of that term and them winning an "Empires competition" is a laughable notion.

Athens has been very overrated particularly in my country due to their contributions to democracy and the disproportionate amount of scholarly foundational culture that came from Democratic Athens, especially in academia . Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, Thucydides, Hippocrates all had a profound impact on academia which in turn means ancient Athens has an overweighted impact on education that heavily outweighs it's power relative to other historical entities. I'd be willing to bet a large percentage of people who'd say Athens was one of the greatest empires, feels that way largely in part because of how much they've learned about it compared to other powers. Thebes should get a similar amount of attention for it's attempts at Greek hegemony in the 4th century BC as Athens gets for it's attempt at Greek hegemony in the 5th century BC. Sparta is a unique middle ground that gets dragged up by Athens because educators love showing it as the "contrast" to make Athens look great. That being said I think most kids growing up in the US(and I really don't think this would be a local thing), would probably be more likely to know about Athens and a few historical Athenian historical figures than any other classical civilization and the actors relevant to it's story, maybe even with the Roman Empire.
Right. For the record, and for obvious reasons, the Roman and British Empires were not included in the poll. Still, most of the other candidates in that poll were more worthy as empires than Athens was and still lost when they ran up against it. In particular, Athens beating the Han dynasty really rankled with me. Heck, every single poll that Athens ran in in that competition should have been one where they lost, including when they ran against the Swedish Empire, even though I agree with Lord Oda that that empire is overrated as well.
nuclearguy165 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
empires, overrated



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
JFK overrated? OUmillenium American History 30 January 17th, 2017 07:20 PM
Is Sun Tzu The Art Of War overrated? Robert165 General History 32 May 15th, 2015 07:26 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.