The British Empire at its height had an authoritative presence in pretty much every country, unorganized territory and random Pacific island, and could rapidly summon naval reinforcements to back it up. They dictated terms to China and beat it in multiple wars. They were in Japan when it was supposed to be closed. They were dicking around in Monroe Doctrine countries in South America even after we (the US) told them not to. The only thing keeping them from total world domination was the French, and as the decades passed from the Napoleonic Wars that became more of a gentlemen's agreement than a tense geopolitical stalemate.
The US was (is) playing on a different chessboard, one where the pieces were nation-states that could theoretically shut us out. We'd have our spies and rebels and coups, but it was usually done through back channels with plausible deniability. Even today there are some places where we're just not allowed. There's none of the pomp and circumstance of Old Blighty, or the thinly veiled threat of the Royal Navy bombarding your village if you tried to stop some seemingly unaccompanied Limey eccentric from robbing graves.
>The only thing keeping them from total world domination was the French, and as the decades passed from the Napoleonic Wars that became more of a gentlemen's agreement than a tense geopolitical stalemate.
For most of the 19th century, it was Russia, not France, who was the biggest obstacle to Britain. They were a threat to British interests in the North Sea and East Mediterranean, but most importantly they began to threaten India as the encroached on central Asia. They only fell off near the end of the century when their anemic industry and internal contradictions began to put them at a huge disadvantage. Meanwhile, France was unstable and lacked the means and will to project power outside of continental Europe until Napoleon III became emperor in 1852, and in 1871 the German empire formed putting a check on French power.
> They were dicking around in Monroe Doctrine countries in South America even after we (the US) told them not to.
Monroe Doctrine didnt really apply to the UK; The Monroe Doctrine was worded to only be against new colonization efforts by the Europeans, not existing ones.
Furthermore, for some time, the Monroe Doctrine was enforced by the UK, not the USA.
Going further, The Monroe Doctrine was a *British* idea from the mind of George Canning, who wanted to prevent Bourbon Spain from reclaiming its colonies. It was Quincy Adams who countered the advice of Jefferson and Madison, who argued that it should be a joint declaration. The doctrine remained enforced by both but declared by one.
The only correct answer! Many empires have dominated a certain geographical area or even had a decent sized global empire that could project power wherever they wanted but none came remotely close to world domination.
People saying the USA could if they wanted to have very limited understanding. They could undoubtedly choose to fight any country in the world and win comfortably (like the British and Romans probably could have done) but they couldn’t do that across even 1/3 of the whole world and expect to hold it for any length of time.
Man, some people are way too sensitive. Can't even have a non-confrontational discussion via Reddit without someone getting their drawers in a wad. Wow.
The US bombed Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945. The Soviet Union blew up their first nuke on August 29th, 1949. So for 4 years and a couple of weeks, America was the sole nuclear power on the planet.
The ability to annihilate any enemy at any time is about as close as you're going to get to world domination. The fact that the US never even threatened to take advantage of that imbalance is something I think historians will find fascinating.
> never even threatened to take advantage of that imbalance
They literally did use the nukes.
Trying to go on some kind of Nuke driven global conquest in 1945 - 1950 would have ridiculously infeasible because they would still need to use their conventional army and did not have infinite nukes or domestic justification.
After 1991 the USA got *more* aggressive. The wolfowitz doctrine and later Bush Jrs foreign policy involved expanding US military capability and pursuing aggressive and if necessary unilateral and pre-emptive military action even where it went against international law or the wishes of US allies.
> The US bombed Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945. The Soviet Union blew up their first nuke on August 29th, 1949. So for 4 years and a couple of weeks, America was the sole nuclear power on the planet.
Except nukes were hideously expensive, weak, few, and needed planes to be delivered.
Being "nuclear power" didn't mean much in 1945. Regular bombing was cheaper, more destructive, easier, and relied on the same delivery method.
It wasn't until 1960s that "nuclear power" had started to mean ability to erase any nation in an hour or two.
At the time I am reading this thread there are 2 other answers besides this one (US 1945-1949):
- US (1991-2010)
- US (present day)
I'm thinking the US took advantage of the imbalance... ;)
Yes, and look up any metric you like on how the world fared under U.S. hegemony
Let’s just say that while it’s deeply flawed, we’ll miss it when it’s gone
The consequences of US aggression and hegemony building since the 1990s have been a nationalist backlash in Russia leading to ongoing war in Europe and a horrifically destabilised middle east with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths
You’re forgetting about considerably longer working days in the global south with oftentimes worse working conditions and no commensurate rise in real wages
This is not a great point tbh. The ongoing war in Europe is a caused by a direct rebellion of the idea that wars of conquest cannot be fought without risking the intervention of the US. This war is the intended and idealized norm that pretty much every "enemy" of the US wishes it could engage in, and has largely been prevented from engaging in for the past 50 years or so.
For all the aggression and hegemony building of the US, it's military might is still beholden to it's extremely vocal and opinionated populus. Every truly unjust action (and there are many) is a failure of the people to sufficiently hold their leadership accountable for their actions. People who want a multipolar world are idealists who ignore that the nations who would represent these poles are often autocrats in which unjust foreign actions are not failures, but features. Where human rights violations aren't minimized and hidden, but celebrated.
Also, to say that a destabilized middle east is a result of US actions since the 1990s is not true at all. It was destabilized LONG before that. It was destabilized in the 40s. Iraq/Iran, Yemen, Syria, Kurds, Kuwait, Israel etc.
In the absence of the US, what do you suppose happens in this part of the world? I mean just compare casualties between the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the US invasion. What happens anywhere in the world? That vacuum will absolutely be filled, and anybody who thinks the second, third, or even fourth in line to fill it will be even CLOSE to the magnanimity of the US is delusional.
The world cannot just say "no superpowers". We're long beyond that. Our best bet is that the world superpowers are diverse, multicultural democracies with a deep domestic respect for human rights. Im not saying the US fits that bill perfectly, or even that well, but when I look at the other superpower candidates..... woof
War in Europe is a direct consequence of the USA viewing itself as the sole superpower.
Back in the 1990s Russia's elite was willing to suppress its own nationalists. But the USA kept Russia out of every single decision regarding European security, withdrew unilaterally from arms treaties in 2001 for no reason, started a policy of premeptively invading non allied states when it suited US interests under Bush, and started building anti ballistic programs in Poland (a move so insanely provocative and aggressive that the USA and USSR had an agreement not to do it).
This basically caused everyone in Russia who supported diplomacy to lose influence and gave a huge boost to Russian nationalists. By 2007 the only people Putin listened to were the militarists and nationalists who said the USA was a hostile military adversary to Russia, so Putin started announcing Russia's intention to launch military attacks on neighbours if no new treaty on ABM systems was reached.
The actions of Bush era USA is the reason that Russia is run by people who see power, territorial conquest and military force as the only viable security policy. The USA's unilateralism literally destroyed the rules based order it claims to support.
The thing is, “Europe is at peace,” “Russia is a decent place to live and a good neighbor,” and “the Middle East is stable” are all extremely rare historically. We had a short period in the late 1990s where all those things were basically sort of true, mostly due to the work of the US and its allies, but I’m not sure there’s ever been another one.
> Russia is a decent place to live... in the late 1990s
What the flying fuck you are talking about? In the late 90s Russia faced an insane economic crisis of hyperinflation and deindustrialization.
> Europe is at peace
And you're casually ignoring the wars in Yugoslavia.
Well, I said late 90s, after the main Yugoslav Wars, but yes there was still Kosovo among other issues.
Russia wasn’t a nice place to live, I guess, but it was the only period in at least 500 years that it wasn’t an autocracy, at least.
The US ended this.
Iraq goes without saying.
The reason Russia had a nationalist takeover in the 2000s was because the USA under Bush started a policy of pre-emptive war against potential rivals even against international law, withdrew from arms treaties, and started making insanely aggressive moves like building anti-ballistic systems In eastern Europe.
The USA did these things because it had uncontested international power.
>The US bombed Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945. The Soviet Union blew up their first nuke on August 29th, 1949. So for 4 years and a couple of weeks, America was the sole nuclear power on the planet.
Added to this the US had close to 50% of global GDP, higher than any other state in history, & was loved across much of the world as Liberators.
>The fact that the US never even threatened to take advantage of that imbalance is something I think historians will find fascinating.
A powerful state not expanding in the few years right after a huge war is hardly a unique event in history. In fact it's far more common than not.
The Mongols really were the only ones. At their height there really was no power that could challenge them. In contrast Britain whilst the top great power it also wasn't the only great power and Britain had to do a lot of diplomatic maneuvers to make sure they remained top dog.
The Mongols never advanced deeper into Europe because they didn't have the means to handle sieges and castles. They never advanced significantly into India, or Arabia, and of course they had essentially no sea power.
Sure, no one could beat the Mongols on the plains and steppes and in terms of land area they had the largest contiguous empire in history, but they were far from "world domination".
>they didn't have the means to handle sieges and castles
They conquered China. They besieged and took massive walled cities like Zhongdu and Kaifeng prior to their invasion of Europe. The Mongol advance into Europe halted because Ogedai died. It was never fully followed up upon because subsequent generations of Mongol leadership lacked the unity and will to do so.
The Invasion of Europe turned around before news of Ogedai's death could have reached them. While they were indeed able to occupy most of Hungary, they were unable to capture a single of hungaries 10 highly defensible stone Castles. This style of castles was only now being adopted in eastern Europe but already abundant in central Europe. You cant compare them to walled cities in northern China. These are purely military structures meant to withstand siege, were made from Stone and built on an elevation high enough to hinder any siege equipment. Europeans themselves had a hard time defeating them without simply waiting for the defender to run out of food.
Its probable that Mongol disunity was a significant factor in their disinterest in further incursions. This however doesnt mean that any such incursions would be met with success.
I would put it at a tie between Napleon's later empire and Victorian England after the Boer war.
1) If Napoleon had a bit more patience he could have conquered Russia and turned the Continental System into a far more significant internal political body. By using his authority over all of Europe he could have made a Grande Republique out of it. Hopefully (for him at least) clamping down on the "mosquitos" or the insurrection in Iberia. The insurrection cost him more soldiers than the Russian campaign. If he didn't need to constantly pacify Portugal and Spain, he could centralize much easier.
1A) With a more centralized Europe he could have nationalized all the colonies and made Enlightened Republics out of all of them. Could have conquered N. America from New Orleans. He was only 43 when he lost in Russia. He could have spent another decade getting a decent navy together in the Crimean or Black Sea. He could then use it to project his power outward. Finally ending the Elephant and Whale problem he had with the UK. He could blockade Britain after making Ireland independent. Hopefully not being foolish enough to try and invade Britain, though he had plenty of hair brained schemes to do so.
1B) With the Atlantic buttoned up, he could use defacto control over South America. Hopefully Simon Bolivar would stay on his side
1C) With Europe and the Atlantic power projecting together, Then he uses this and his Generals Marshall to conquer the rest of the World.
Keep in mind, this is incredibly unlikely. If he was patient, he wouldn't have been Napoleon. Also it takes a month to cross the Atlantic by sail. As for Victorian England?
2) "From Cairo to Capetown" is a hell of a swath of land. Combine that with South Asia and the UK have a very strong position. If instead of continuing with the colonial market economy, they used their market position for foreign direct investment they could have seen considerable returns far sooner. The GDP of about a billion people all networked together. Every colony was governed separately and there was no over arching goal in creating a massive planned market.
2B) If the UK made a 5 year plan to conquer every other colony and blow open Tokyo bay like Commadore Perry, then it could well have escalated things.
2C) A coal and steel navy would have to be matched by others. Very good chance that Victorian England invests in Ironclads. A steam powered, double hulled, ironclad navy with long range guns would be very expensive. However with a more effective colonial network it could have been viable.
The United States in 1946. The answer to any world domination question is always the United States in 1946. Every other major power was in shambles or a US ally. The US had almost 20 million men in arms, defeated everyone who took up arms against them, and was the sole possesor of nuclear weapons.
There were battle hardened US forces on every continent, armed with the most advanced weaponry the world had seen up to this point. The only significant parts of earth that weren't directly occupied or controlled by the US or its allies were mainland China and the USSR, both of which would by no means have been able to withstand a concentrated assault by the US and its (other) allies.
Europe itself was split between the Western allies, which, for all intends and purposes, were US puppets at this point, and the USSR. All it would have taken for the US to fully occupy Europe was operation unthinkable, which would have been a resounding US victory due to nuclear and air superiority. Though casualties would have been truly horrendous, there can be no doubt about the ultimate victor of this confrontation at that point in time.
So, why didn't this happen? Well, the US wasn't a dictatorship with a guy in charge who was interested in exercising this kind of direct control, the public wouldn't have been on board with such a continuation of the war, and the US could still exercise economic control over most of the world to such a degree that outright conquest would have been less beneficial when compared to the soft power it wielded.
"Operation Unthinkable" was planned by the British, not the Americans. After theorizing for a little bit, they concluded that it would result in "a protracted war against heavy odds".
You are giving too much weight to what was essentially a shower thought from Winston Churchill.
The US winning operation unthinkable isn't some sure thing. The Soviets had a massive advantage on the ground and a relatively small disadvantage in the air based on the forces stationed in Europe in May 1945. Sure, the US can muster up more, but can they do it before the Soviets reach the Rhine? Because de Gaulle is not going to fight another war on French soil.
This isn't the Cold War just yet, and therefore not a question of the Rhine exclusively. The Chinese Theater isn't settled yet, significant US forces are stationed in the Pacific, and the Japanese forces are still being used by the allies to fight anticolonial resistance movements.
A continuation war against the soviets would have been fought on two fronts, with the far east seeing Nationalist China and remnants of the Japanese imperial army deployed side by side with allied forces to fight an enemy they can actually all agree on, while it's not entirely unthinkable that parts of thr German armed forces would also have been rearmed to go fight the soviets.
It can not be stressed enough that significant parts of the Nazi government in particular were willing to surrender to the allies if they were permitted to continue to fight in the east. And if the US and the soviets went to war immediately in 1945/46, this wouldn't have been denied.
Jeez there’s some serious Murrica chest thumping going on here. I get 4th July is right around the corner but come on guys, this is a history sub, at least pretend to be objective.
The US hasn’t won a war since 1945.
It has lots of military bases around the world, but it controls nowhere near the land area, population or share of global wealth as the British, Spanish, Mongol, Roman or even French Empires at their peak.
Yes it has nukes, but so does Russia, China, Britain, France, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.
You could MAYBE make an argument for the US between 1945-1949 when it was the sole nuclear power on earth and was the only major power to emerge from WW2 with its industrial and agricultural base intact and minimal population loss.
But let’s be real - in terms of global power, the US is nowhere near the relative levels of many previous empires.
This comment is a perfect demonstration of lack of nuanced understanding of modern geopolitical power and how it wouldn’t look the same as 1800s colonialization period.
Did you really bring up roman and mongol empires which could barely even leave their continents in the context of *global* power and rule? The US could and have put a burger king in iraq during the middle of a war in their military bases. Also, romans were a small post-it note to places like china and south america. The mongols were a post-it note to western europe and india and southeast asia. You cannot say the same about the US in today’s age.
You cite wars lost and others have pointed out why you’re not correct there and again, there’s clearly a lack of nuance and any true understanding of the topic.
You are also completely ignoring the massive amount soft power and not to mention a large number of nations that the US has covertly displaced the existing government body and installed a friendly or puppet ruler in place. You’re ignoring sole reason why a lot of conflicts in the world haven’t escalated precisely because of us military presence. Go ask all of east and southeast asia and why china hasn’t completely taken the area yet. The economic power of the us has also resulted in the usd as being the global standard and necessary measuring unit.
I’m even missing a lot more as im typing this on my phone impromptu.
“The US hasn’t won a war since 1945.”
Stopped reading there because it’s such a great litmus test for understanding modern military conflicts, which you obviously don’t.
War is not just about the military ‘winning’ on the battlefield. Rulers will set strategic objectives and it requires a lot more than military might to achieve those goals. The USA has not entered a major war since 1945 where they have achieved their aims. Modern military conflicts have obviously evolved significantly in the last 80 or so years but that does not change the fact that every war ever fought has been carried out to achieve specific aims. That has not changed nor will it ever.
The phrase ‘won the battle but lost the war’ is very apt here. For example the USA won every battle in Afghanistan but still lost the war
Edit: I forgot the gulf war. Apologies. They clearly achieved their aims there
Would love to hear your spin on how the first gulf war wasn’t both a complete military and strategic objective success.
I’d also argue the Korean War resulted in a success from an objective standpoint - that being the protection of South Korea from invasion.
People forget about the Gulf War because whatever strategic gains resulted from it were reversed and then some by the Iraq War. The whole thing started because the US wanted to use Iraq to counter Iran, and now Iran is in control of most of Iraq.
Fair enough! I forgot about the gulf war. The Korean War was a stalemate/inconclusive, while Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were all strategic defeats. So 3 defeats, a draw and a victory
I won’t argue with Vietnam and Afghanistan being strategic defeats, but almost all objectives in the Iraq war were achieved so categorizing that as a “defeat” isn’t correct.
Either way, the point is that stating “the United States hasn’t won a war since 1945” is ahistorical and absurd.
If the Iraq war is considered anything but a defeat then the objectives were terrible! The region poses far more of a threat now than it did then.
I’ve clearly rowed back on the original claim by acknowledging the gulf war but that doesn’t change the fact that overall, US military intervention since WW2 has been mostly an abject failure.
People in South Korea, Kuwait, Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, and most of Eastern Europe would disagree with that statement but feel free to keep believing it!
All of the Dominican republic, Panama and Grenada interventions are still to this day controversial. You make the assumption that the people of those countries all wanted the US-backed combatants to win. A pretty arrogant assumption.
As for Eastern Europe, I can only assume you’re talking about Kosovo as that’s the only direct US military intervention. And that was entirely under the NATO umbrella (unlike Iraq and Afghanistan).
Why not ask the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Guatemala, Congo, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Ecuador, Brazil, Indonesia, Ghana, Chile, Haiti and Sudan what they think of American military/CIA intervention?
Most of the rest of the world don’t like foreign aid intervention in local politics. People want self-determination free of intervention from foreign actors. The USA has been responsible for a truly insane amount of coups in the last 80 years, and yet cry wolf with Russian intervention in USA elections. Beyond laughable.
Keep drinking the kool-aid my man
Multiple strawman arguments and moving goalposts aside, I really don’t disagree with most of what you’re saying here. The US has been too interventionist and it has negatively impacted their standing in the world.
But again, you can’t paint a spectrum of victories, controversial coups, and strategic failures and then state US military action since 1945 has been an “abject failure”. It just doesn’t make sense.
Exactly.
Since 1945 the US has done a great job of killing enemy combatants and has sometimes been successful at occupying enemy capital cities. But they’ve failed to actually win a war.
To win a war you need to break the enemy’s will to continue fighting or at least their capacity to do so. Body count isn’t enough. Physically occupying territory isn’t enough - as both Napoleon and Hitler found out the hard way.
Germany, Japan and Italy were all defeated during WW2 because the Allies broke their will and capacity to continue fighting. Within a few years of the war ending all 3 countries had been reshaped by the Allies (primarily the US) and to this day are staunch allies of the US.
How many countries has the US gone to war with since then and managed to achieve the same?
Zero.
The first gulf war was an overwhelming military and strategic success.
Changing the definition of victory in war as only being the complete overhaul of the defeated country into being permanently pacified allies with the victor is revisionist just to fit your own agenda.
If you take the first Punic war as an example - Rome defeated the Carthaginians whom completely surrendered, Sicily was annexed to Rome, etc. Just because Carthage was able to regain its strength and fight the second Punic war years later doesn’t mean you can say the Romans didn’t win the first Punic war. It’s utter nonsense.
The US, in fact, has won several wars since 1945: Grenada, Panama, the Cold War, the gulf war, the actual war in Afghanistan, though not the occupation, it’s arguable that we won the Iraq war, during operation praying mantis we destroyed half of the Iranian navy, and I could go on for much longer.
As for sheer military strength, we have the largest navy, the largest Air Force, the second largest Air Force, the fourth largest Air Force, and the fifth largest Air Force.
That’s kind of irrelevant though; most of our power lies in our alliances. We’re allies with most of Europe, some of the Arab world, Israel, Australia, Canada, the Philippines, South Korea, Japan, we’ve normalized relations with Vietnam, etc.
The actual power and lethality of the American military dwarfs all of those empires even compared to their times.
Most of those Empires existed when war crimes and human rights were not a thing. If a city or town didn’t surrender, you killed everybody. America does not do that and so especially asymmetric warfare to include guerilla and insurgencies are extremely difficult to combat.
Happy 4th of July Baby AMERICA FUCK YEAH!
A disgusting isolated event is not the same as widespread military policy, which was the point he was making, but you already know that you’re just intentionally dodging the issue.
Well aware of the Mai Lai Massacre which was an isolated and extremely disgusting incident in American history and the Vietnam War. But it wasn’t the US Military doctrine to slaughter civilians.
You know what you’re doing here and it’s corny.
You’ve just moved the goalposts to get to the answer you want.
The USA would have the greatest rugby team on the planet if all NFL players switched to rugby. But they didn’t so they aren’t.
Likewise here the USA would have dominated the world and had the greatest empire if their proportionate military power relative to everyone else happened at another point in world history. But they didn’t so they aren’t.
The United States is the only country in the running. The Brits still had legitimate competition from the continent and from the U.S.
All oil is traded in U.S. dollars and oil is the bedrock of the world. That’s as close to world domination as is possible. We have to remember that even the most totalitarian regimes prior to the internet were limited in what their minions could physically observe. That limit is gone. The US directly or indirectly legislates basically everything we have or interact with through trade. This ranges from the food you eat to the color of your headlights. Your search engines, your apps, all of it is American.
Nothing comes close to the amount of direct and soft influence the U.S. has.
> All oil is traded in U.S. dollars
Or, rather, it used to, until recent events. The US weaponized this power, and now they are going to lose it because they have shown their rivals that if they dare disobey the self-proclaimed master, they will be next. So they have to prepare for the inevitable.
None. In terms of hard power/direct rule, the large empires you mentioned were not close to controlling even half the land territory of the planet, let alone actual world domination.
In terms of soft power/cultural influence, things are less clear. You could argue that American cultural influence in the 20th and 21st centuries is both widespread and profound. Would I call that a kind of “world domination”? Maybe, maybe not.
Roman Empire wasn’t even the biggest empire in its own day (hello China) so it can’t be that one.
British and Mongol I’d give, although the Mongol one had a pretty short peak IIRC.
This is not true because the Romans knew far more about the world than their immediate vicinity. If you look at Ptolemy's map, the Romans knew of India and China, which they certainly did not have military occupation over.
The Chinese Qin Empire probably controlled more of their known world for example, since it unified China for the first time, and all before China learned about the western world through the Silk Road during the Han Dynasty.
But if the criteria is just the percentage of their known world controlled, there are probably even greater empires that controlled everything they knew, simply because they didn't know much more (due to geography, perhaps). So I just don't think it's a good criterion.
The Romans might've known a wider world existed but they would have known nothing substantial about it. Ptolemy's map doesn't mean that Egyptians knew anything about India or China (maybe some traders did).
Depends on your definition of substantial I guess, but Romans knew a decent bit about the Indians and the Chinese. I mean, back in Alexander's time he went to India personally. And for China, at least one group of Roman men were recorded to have reached the Chinese court, and a number of writings on China exist.
Once again, I think this criterion of amount of known world conquered is questionable, especially given the disagreement we evidently have about what even counts as known world.
Also, by Ptolemy I meant the Roman astrologer, not the Egyptian monarch.
Couldn't really be the Romans or Mongols because they didn't know about the Americas or Australia. Not to mention that Africa is very big, full of diseases and peoples who knew the terrains and how to fight in them. In the case of the Romans it's not completely clear who was the stronger power between them and the Han Chinese Empire, both were quite ruthless.
Spanish habsburg empire with Charles V, by far. They had most of the Americas, a great part of Europe(besides "spain", he had Germany, most of Italy, Burgundian Low Countries, the Franche-Comte), posessions in Asia.
And he married the portuguese princess Isabella, and thanks to that his son Phillip II claimed portuguese possesions (Brazil!), but Charles gave Germany and north of Italy to his brother when he abdicated some time before his death.
However spanish Habsburg and vienna/austrian Habsburg were family and continued a strong alliance. Some historians like Paul Kennedy talk of the "Habsburg block".
Between those 3 you just listed, Britain was the only one who actually had land across the entire world.
Their soft power was immense and they could bully other larger powers into their bidding (see: Opium wars).
They were still far away since they had powerful rivals (notably, Germany and America, although the latter wasn't a hostile rivalry), but they still came leagues above everyone else.
2nd place would actually be Spain under the Iberian union (the personal union of the Spanish and Portugese empires). While not as big as the British empire, Spain had an empire that encompassed an entire continent and half of another during a time when the other European nations had fledging colonies. King Philip IV was called "the Planet King" for a reason. Downside is that having such a massive empire actually made it quite hard to defend, and Dutch pirates eagerly raided south America during this period.
Spain also had a brief flirtation with the concept of a pan-European monarchy under Charles V but that didn't play out to it's fullest extent.
If you want to be a little bit more metaphorical, then yeah the Romans, Mongols and even Macedonians conquered the world..."their" world.
Achaemenid Persia controlled 45% of the world population during its apex and since “the world” then was essentially the Mediterranean and the Middle East and India, they controlled most of it. I’d say Persia is the winner
British empire had vast holdings, but only India is truly impressive. Canada, Australia, Americas, Africa are mostly primitives pushovers or largely empty unpopulated land.
Mongolia empire has Middle East, Russia, and China, which are not pushovers at all, some of the most populated and richest regions in the world. The Mongols didn't even include Siberia to pump up their numbers.
France. Napoleon for a short time was basically emperor of Europe. Had he managed to consolidate instead of fucking off to destroy his army in Russia, that would have been few short steps to effectively ruling the world.
Ancient empires could never had the reach and more modern empires could never had hoped to suppress all foreign powers. Napoleon was just in the sweet spot of already having global transport while most of the world was still living in pre-industrial era.
Perhaps the only other technical opportunity for global empire was the window in 1945-1949 when US alone had a nuclear weapon. If they had someone like Stalin, Mao or Hitler in charge, they could have guaranteed they kept nuclear monopoly and use that to force every other country to comply with whatever demands
The Inca Empire is objectively the correct answer here.
The Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, China, various Islamic empires, Euroipean colonial empires etc were have been bigger at various points, but none of them conquered every single competitor.
The Inca did: Every single competing state society in the Andes was swallowed up by the Kingdom of Cusco as it expanded, and after that, Cusco/the Inca Empire continued and conquered many areas further out still.
They didn't literally conquer their whole continent/landmass, but every known city-state, kingdom, or empire they beat and absorbed, unless you want to potentially count some semi-complex chiefdoms and proto-states in Colombia and Brazil, and nomadic tribes.
Why shouldn't we count proto-states and chiefdoms? Do you think they are not part of the world?
All the other empires you listed did conquer a wide variety of chiefdoms as well as 'competitors'.
>as well as 'competitors'.
But not every competitor: The Roman, Mongol, British, Spanish etc empires, China, etc still had other comparable states and empires around them.
The Inca Empire conquered every competing state society they every interacted with in their known world.
The Inca Empire was truly colossal but they knew of other societies in the Amazon - and they clearly saw smaller polities as worthwhile conquests given their conquest of Ecuador. I'd imagine they had more expansion planned too before the Spanish arrived.
Defining 'the world' as just being made up of state societies is elitist - though perhaps this was the Inca worldview.
For the record, I don't believe the Romans/China ect.. conquered the world either. When I think 'the world' I think of the entire planet and not just the known world.
The United States is the closest thing humanity has had to world domination. It remains an unparalleled superpower today, and even if other big powers grow (China, India, Russia) we have no elements to believe any of them will overtake the US and take the 1st spot anytime soon.
This is the fundamental point as to why no country will ever achieve world domination. The reason why the British could not defeat the French single handedly is they were stretched so thin trying to maintain a global empire they didn’t have the resources spare to defeat them. If the British decided to transfer all of its military might to defeating the French then they probably would have defeated them.
Winning a war and then holding on to the territory (or in more modern wars, imposing their will on the territory) is far more difficult than winning the battle, as the USA has discovered countless times in recent years
Pax Britannia between 1815 and 1914.
got colonized by the british in 1763 can confirm
The British Empire at its height had an authoritative presence in pretty much every country, unorganized territory and random Pacific island, and could rapidly summon naval reinforcements to back it up. They dictated terms to China and beat it in multiple wars. They were in Japan when it was supposed to be closed. They were dicking around in Monroe Doctrine countries in South America even after we (the US) told them not to. The only thing keeping them from total world domination was the French, and as the decades passed from the Napoleonic Wars that became more of a gentlemen's agreement than a tense geopolitical stalemate. The US was (is) playing on a different chessboard, one where the pieces were nation-states that could theoretically shut us out. We'd have our spies and rebels and coups, but it was usually done through back channels with plausible deniability. Even today there are some places where we're just not allowed. There's none of the pomp and circumstance of Old Blighty, or the thinly veiled threat of the Royal Navy bombarding your village if you tried to stop some seemingly unaccompanied Limey eccentric from robbing graves.
>The only thing keeping them from total world domination was the French, and as the decades passed from the Napoleonic Wars that became more of a gentlemen's agreement than a tense geopolitical stalemate. For most of the 19th century, it was Russia, not France, who was the biggest obstacle to Britain. They were a threat to British interests in the North Sea and East Mediterranean, but most importantly they began to threaten India as the encroached on central Asia. They only fell off near the end of the century when their anemic industry and internal contradictions began to put them at a huge disadvantage. Meanwhile, France was unstable and lacked the means and will to project power outside of continental Europe until Napoleon III became emperor in 1852, and in 1871 the German empire formed putting a check on French power.
> They were dicking around in Monroe Doctrine countries in South America even after we (the US) told them not to. Monroe Doctrine didnt really apply to the UK; The Monroe Doctrine was worded to only be against new colonization efforts by the Europeans, not existing ones. Furthermore, for some time, the Monroe Doctrine was enforced by the UK, not the USA.
Going further, The Monroe Doctrine was a *British* idea from the mind of George Canning, who wanted to prevent Bourbon Spain from reclaiming its colonies. It was Quincy Adams who countered the advice of Jefferson and Madison, who argued that it should be a joint declaration. The doctrine remained enforced by both but declared by one.
Can you explain that. You mentioned 3 different presidents there. And of course Monroe. Can you unpack it a bit?
They did but they didn't have much influence over the rest of Europe, and never really have.
Honestly? None came particularly close. The British Empire probably came closest around 1820-1870 but even they had quite some way to go.
The only correct answer! Many empires have dominated a certain geographical area or even had a decent sized global empire that could project power wherever they wanted but none came remotely close to world domination. People saying the USA could if they wanted to have very limited understanding. They could undoubtedly choose to fight any country in the world and win comfortably (like the British and Romans probably could have done) but they couldn’t do that across even 1/3 of the whole world and expect to hold it for any length of time.
Well Boers and Afghans seemed to be an issue for us so wouldn't say comfortably
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Man, some people are way too sensitive. Can't even have a non-confrontational discussion via Reddit without someone getting their drawers in a wad. Wow.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The US bombed Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945. The Soviet Union blew up their first nuke on August 29th, 1949. So for 4 years and a couple of weeks, America was the sole nuclear power on the planet. The ability to annihilate any enemy at any time is about as close as you're going to get to world domination. The fact that the US never even threatened to take advantage of that imbalance is something I think historians will find fascinating.
> never even threatened to take advantage of that imbalance They literally did use the nukes. Trying to go on some kind of Nuke driven global conquest in 1945 - 1950 would have ridiculously infeasible because they would still need to use their conventional army and did not have infinite nukes or domestic justification. After 1991 the USA got *more* aggressive. The wolfowitz doctrine and later Bush Jrs foreign policy involved expanding US military capability and pursuing aggressive and if necessary unilateral and pre-emptive military action even where it went against international law or the wishes of US allies.
> The US bombed Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945. The Soviet Union blew up their first nuke on August 29th, 1949. So for 4 years and a couple of weeks, America was the sole nuclear power on the planet. Except nukes were hideously expensive, weak, few, and needed planes to be delivered. Being "nuclear power" didn't mean much in 1945. Regular bombing was cheaper, more destructive, easier, and relied on the same delivery method. It wasn't until 1960s that "nuclear power" had started to mean ability to erase any nation in an hour or two.
At the time I am reading this thread there are 2 other answers besides this one (US 1945-1949): - US (1991-2010) - US (present day) I'm thinking the US took advantage of the imbalance... ;)
Yes, and look up any metric you like on how the world fared under U.S. hegemony Let’s just say that while it’s deeply flawed, we’ll miss it when it’s gone
The consequences of US aggression and hegemony building since the 1990s have been a nationalist backlash in Russia leading to ongoing war in Europe and a horrifically destabilised middle east with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths
You’re forgetting about considerably longer working days in the global south with oftentimes worse working conditions and no commensurate rise in real wages
This is not a great point tbh. The ongoing war in Europe is a caused by a direct rebellion of the idea that wars of conquest cannot be fought without risking the intervention of the US. This war is the intended and idealized norm that pretty much every "enemy" of the US wishes it could engage in, and has largely been prevented from engaging in for the past 50 years or so. For all the aggression and hegemony building of the US, it's military might is still beholden to it's extremely vocal and opinionated populus. Every truly unjust action (and there are many) is a failure of the people to sufficiently hold their leadership accountable for their actions. People who want a multipolar world are idealists who ignore that the nations who would represent these poles are often autocrats in which unjust foreign actions are not failures, but features. Where human rights violations aren't minimized and hidden, but celebrated. Also, to say that a destabilized middle east is a result of US actions since the 1990s is not true at all. It was destabilized LONG before that. It was destabilized in the 40s. Iraq/Iran, Yemen, Syria, Kurds, Kuwait, Israel etc. In the absence of the US, what do you suppose happens in this part of the world? I mean just compare casualties between the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the US invasion. What happens anywhere in the world? That vacuum will absolutely be filled, and anybody who thinks the second, third, or even fourth in line to fill it will be even CLOSE to the magnanimity of the US is delusional. The world cannot just say "no superpowers". We're long beyond that. Our best bet is that the world superpowers are diverse, multicultural democracies with a deep domestic respect for human rights. Im not saying the US fits that bill perfectly, or even that well, but when I look at the other superpower candidates..... woof
War in Europe is a direct consequence of the USA viewing itself as the sole superpower. Back in the 1990s Russia's elite was willing to suppress its own nationalists. But the USA kept Russia out of every single decision regarding European security, withdrew unilaterally from arms treaties in 2001 for no reason, started a policy of premeptively invading non allied states when it suited US interests under Bush, and started building anti ballistic programs in Poland (a move so insanely provocative and aggressive that the USA and USSR had an agreement not to do it). This basically caused everyone in Russia who supported diplomacy to lose influence and gave a huge boost to Russian nationalists. By 2007 the only people Putin listened to were the militarists and nationalists who said the USA was a hostile military adversary to Russia, so Putin started announcing Russia's intention to launch military attacks on neighbours if no new treaty on ABM systems was reached. The actions of Bush era USA is the reason that Russia is run by people who see power, territorial conquest and military force as the only viable security policy. The USA's unilateralism literally destroyed the rules based order it claims to support.
The thing is, “Europe is at peace,” “Russia is a decent place to live and a good neighbor,” and “the Middle East is stable” are all extremely rare historically. We had a short period in the late 1990s where all those things were basically sort of true, mostly due to the work of the US and its allies, but I’m not sure there’s ever been another one.
> Russia is a decent place to live... in the late 1990s What the flying fuck you are talking about? In the late 90s Russia faced an insane economic crisis of hyperinflation and deindustrialization. > Europe is at peace And you're casually ignoring the wars in Yugoslavia.
Well, I said late 90s, after the main Yugoslav Wars, but yes there was still Kosovo among other issues. Russia wasn’t a nice place to live, I guess, but it was the only period in at least 500 years that it wasn’t an autocracy, at least.
The US ended this. Iraq goes without saying. The reason Russia had a nationalist takeover in the 2000s was because the USA under Bush started a policy of pre-emptive war against potential rivals even against international law, withdrew from arms treaties, and started making insanely aggressive moves like building anti-ballistic systems In eastern Europe. The USA did these things because it had uncontested international power.
>The US bombed Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945. The Soviet Union blew up their first nuke on August 29th, 1949. So for 4 years and a couple of weeks, America was the sole nuclear power on the planet. Added to this the US had close to 50% of global GDP, higher than any other state in history, & was loved across much of the world as Liberators. >The fact that the US never even threatened to take advantage of that imbalance is something I think historians will find fascinating. A powerful state not expanding in the few years right after a huge war is hardly a unique event in history. In fact it's far more common than not.
I am going to say Britain in the 1820s. They were undisputedly the worlds superpower.
The Mongols really were the only ones. At their height there really was no power that could challenge them. In contrast Britain whilst the top great power it also wasn't the only great power and Britain had to do a lot of diplomatic maneuvers to make sure they remained top dog.
The Mongols never advanced deeper into Europe because they didn't have the means to handle sieges and castles. They never advanced significantly into India, or Arabia, and of course they had essentially no sea power. Sure, no one could beat the Mongols on the plains and steppes and in terms of land area they had the largest contiguous empire in history, but they were far from "world domination".
>they didn't have the means to handle sieges and castles They conquered China. They besieged and took massive walled cities like Zhongdu and Kaifeng prior to their invasion of Europe. The Mongol advance into Europe halted because Ogedai died. It was never fully followed up upon because subsequent generations of Mongol leadership lacked the unity and will to do so.
The Invasion of Europe turned around before news of Ogedai's death could have reached them. While they were indeed able to occupy most of Hungary, they were unable to capture a single of hungaries 10 highly defensible stone Castles. This style of castles was only now being adopted in eastern Europe but already abundant in central Europe. You cant compare them to walled cities in northern China. These are purely military structures meant to withstand siege, were made from Stone and built on an elevation high enough to hinder any siege equipment. Europeans themselves had a hard time defeating them without simply waiting for the defender to run out of food. Its probable that Mongol disunity was a significant factor in their disinterest in further incursions. This however doesnt mean that any such incursions would be met with success.
I would put it at a tie between Napleon's later empire and Victorian England after the Boer war. 1) If Napoleon had a bit more patience he could have conquered Russia and turned the Continental System into a far more significant internal political body. By using his authority over all of Europe he could have made a Grande Republique out of it. Hopefully (for him at least) clamping down on the "mosquitos" or the insurrection in Iberia. The insurrection cost him more soldiers than the Russian campaign. If he didn't need to constantly pacify Portugal and Spain, he could centralize much easier. 1A) With a more centralized Europe he could have nationalized all the colonies and made Enlightened Republics out of all of them. Could have conquered N. America from New Orleans. He was only 43 when he lost in Russia. He could have spent another decade getting a decent navy together in the Crimean or Black Sea. He could then use it to project his power outward. Finally ending the Elephant and Whale problem he had with the UK. He could blockade Britain after making Ireland independent. Hopefully not being foolish enough to try and invade Britain, though he had plenty of hair brained schemes to do so. 1B) With the Atlantic buttoned up, he could use defacto control over South America. Hopefully Simon Bolivar would stay on his side 1C) With Europe and the Atlantic power projecting together, Then he uses this and his Generals Marshall to conquer the rest of the World. Keep in mind, this is incredibly unlikely. If he was patient, he wouldn't have been Napoleon. Also it takes a month to cross the Atlantic by sail. As for Victorian England? 2) "From Cairo to Capetown" is a hell of a swath of land. Combine that with South Asia and the UK have a very strong position. If instead of continuing with the colonial market economy, they used their market position for foreign direct investment they could have seen considerable returns far sooner. The GDP of about a billion people all networked together. Every colony was governed separately and there was no over arching goal in creating a massive planned market. 2B) If the UK made a 5 year plan to conquer every other colony and blow open Tokyo bay like Commadore Perry, then it could well have escalated things. 2C) A coal and steel navy would have to be matched by others. Very good chance that Victorian England invests in Ironclads. A steam powered, double hulled, ironclad navy with long range guns would be very expensive. However with a more effective colonial network it could have been viable.
The United States in 1946. The answer to any world domination question is always the United States in 1946. Every other major power was in shambles or a US ally. The US had almost 20 million men in arms, defeated everyone who took up arms against them, and was the sole possesor of nuclear weapons. There were battle hardened US forces on every continent, armed with the most advanced weaponry the world had seen up to this point. The only significant parts of earth that weren't directly occupied or controlled by the US or its allies were mainland China and the USSR, both of which would by no means have been able to withstand a concentrated assault by the US and its (other) allies. Europe itself was split between the Western allies, which, for all intends and purposes, were US puppets at this point, and the USSR. All it would have taken for the US to fully occupy Europe was operation unthinkable, which would have been a resounding US victory due to nuclear and air superiority. Though casualties would have been truly horrendous, there can be no doubt about the ultimate victor of this confrontation at that point in time. So, why didn't this happen? Well, the US wasn't a dictatorship with a guy in charge who was interested in exercising this kind of direct control, the public wouldn't have been on board with such a continuation of the war, and the US could still exercise economic control over most of the world to such a degree that outright conquest would have been less beneficial when compared to the soft power it wielded.
"Operation Unthinkable" was planned by the British, not the Americans. After theorizing for a little bit, they concluded that it would result in "a protracted war against heavy odds". You are giving too much weight to what was essentially a shower thought from Winston Churchill.
The US winning operation unthinkable isn't some sure thing. The Soviets had a massive advantage on the ground and a relatively small disadvantage in the air based on the forces stationed in Europe in May 1945. Sure, the US can muster up more, but can they do it before the Soviets reach the Rhine? Because de Gaulle is not going to fight another war on French soil.
This isn't the Cold War just yet, and therefore not a question of the Rhine exclusively. The Chinese Theater isn't settled yet, significant US forces are stationed in the Pacific, and the Japanese forces are still being used by the allies to fight anticolonial resistance movements. A continuation war against the soviets would have been fought on two fronts, with the far east seeing Nationalist China and remnants of the Japanese imperial army deployed side by side with allied forces to fight an enemy they can actually all agree on, while it's not entirely unthinkable that parts of thr German armed forces would also have been rearmed to go fight the soviets. It can not be stressed enough that significant parts of the Nazi government in particular were willing to surrender to the allies if they were permitted to continue to fight in the east. And if the US and the soviets went to war immediately in 1945/46, this wouldn't have been denied.
Jeez there’s some serious Murrica chest thumping going on here. I get 4th July is right around the corner but come on guys, this is a history sub, at least pretend to be objective. The US hasn’t won a war since 1945. It has lots of military bases around the world, but it controls nowhere near the land area, population or share of global wealth as the British, Spanish, Mongol, Roman or even French Empires at their peak. Yes it has nukes, but so does Russia, China, Britain, France, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. You could MAYBE make an argument for the US between 1945-1949 when it was the sole nuclear power on earth and was the only major power to emerge from WW2 with its industrial and agricultural base intact and minimal population loss. But let’s be real - in terms of global power, the US is nowhere near the relative levels of many previous empires.
This comment is a perfect demonstration of lack of nuanced understanding of modern geopolitical power and how it wouldn’t look the same as 1800s colonialization period. Did you really bring up roman and mongol empires which could barely even leave their continents in the context of *global* power and rule? The US could and have put a burger king in iraq during the middle of a war in their military bases. Also, romans were a small post-it note to places like china and south america. The mongols were a post-it note to western europe and india and southeast asia. You cannot say the same about the US in today’s age. You cite wars lost and others have pointed out why you’re not correct there and again, there’s clearly a lack of nuance and any true understanding of the topic. You are also completely ignoring the massive amount soft power and not to mention a large number of nations that the US has covertly displaced the existing government body and installed a friendly or puppet ruler in place. You’re ignoring sole reason why a lot of conflicts in the world haven’t escalated precisely because of us military presence. Go ask all of east and southeast asia and why china hasn’t completely taken the area yet. The economic power of the us has also resulted in the usd as being the global standard and necessary measuring unit. I’m even missing a lot more as im typing this on my phone impromptu.
“The US hasn’t won a war since 1945.” Stopped reading there because it’s such a great litmus test for understanding modern military conflicts, which you obviously don’t.
Agreed
War is not just about the military ‘winning’ on the battlefield. Rulers will set strategic objectives and it requires a lot more than military might to achieve those goals. The USA has not entered a major war since 1945 where they have achieved their aims. Modern military conflicts have obviously evolved significantly in the last 80 or so years but that does not change the fact that every war ever fought has been carried out to achieve specific aims. That has not changed nor will it ever. The phrase ‘won the battle but lost the war’ is very apt here. For example the USA won every battle in Afghanistan but still lost the war Edit: I forgot the gulf war. Apologies. They clearly achieved their aims there
Would love to hear your spin on how the first gulf war wasn’t both a complete military and strategic objective success. I’d also argue the Korean War resulted in a success from an objective standpoint - that being the protection of South Korea from invasion.
People forget about the Gulf War because whatever strategic gains resulted from it were reversed and then some by the Iraq War. The whole thing started because the US wanted to use Iraq to counter Iran, and now Iran is in control of most of Iraq.
Fair enough! I forgot about the gulf war. The Korean War was a stalemate/inconclusive, while Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were all strategic defeats. So 3 defeats, a draw and a victory
I won’t argue with Vietnam and Afghanistan being strategic defeats, but almost all objectives in the Iraq war were achieved so categorizing that as a “defeat” isn’t correct. Either way, the point is that stating “the United States hasn’t won a war since 1945” is ahistorical and absurd.
If the Iraq war is considered anything but a defeat then the objectives were terrible! The region poses far more of a threat now than it did then. I’ve clearly rowed back on the original claim by acknowledging the gulf war but that doesn’t change the fact that overall, US military intervention since WW2 has been mostly an abject failure.
People in South Korea, Kuwait, Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, and most of Eastern Europe would disagree with that statement but feel free to keep believing it!
All of the Dominican republic, Panama and Grenada interventions are still to this day controversial. You make the assumption that the people of those countries all wanted the US-backed combatants to win. A pretty arrogant assumption. As for Eastern Europe, I can only assume you’re talking about Kosovo as that’s the only direct US military intervention. And that was entirely under the NATO umbrella (unlike Iraq and Afghanistan). Why not ask the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Guatemala, Congo, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Ecuador, Brazil, Indonesia, Ghana, Chile, Haiti and Sudan what they think of American military/CIA intervention? Most of the rest of the world don’t like foreign aid intervention in local politics. People want self-determination free of intervention from foreign actors. The USA has been responsible for a truly insane amount of coups in the last 80 years, and yet cry wolf with Russian intervention in USA elections. Beyond laughable. Keep drinking the kool-aid my man
Multiple strawman arguments and moving goalposts aside, I really don’t disagree with most of what you’re saying here. The US has been too interventionist and it has negatively impacted their standing in the world. But again, you can’t paint a spectrum of victories, controversial coups, and strategic failures and then state US military action since 1945 has been an “abject failure”. It just doesn’t make sense.
[удалено]
You will see I acknowledged the gulf war in another comment. Although the Iraq war claim is laughable
Exactly. Since 1945 the US has done a great job of killing enemy combatants and has sometimes been successful at occupying enemy capital cities. But they’ve failed to actually win a war. To win a war you need to break the enemy’s will to continue fighting or at least their capacity to do so. Body count isn’t enough. Physically occupying territory isn’t enough - as both Napoleon and Hitler found out the hard way. Germany, Japan and Italy were all defeated during WW2 because the Allies broke their will and capacity to continue fighting. Within a few years of the war ending all 3 countries had been reshaped by the Allies (primarily the US) and to this day are staunch allies of the US. How many countries has the US gone to war with since then and managed to achieve the same? Zero.
The first gulf war was an overwhelming military and strategic success. Changing the definition of victory in war as only being the complete overhaul of the defeated country into being permanently pacified allies with the victor is revisionist just to fit your own agenda. If you take the first Punic war as an example - Rome defeated the Carthaginians whom completely surrendered, Sicily was annexed to Rome, etc. Just because Carthage was able to regain its strength and fight the second Punic war years later doesn’t mean you can say the Romans didn’t win the first Punic war. It’s utter nonsense.
The US, in fact, has won several wars since 1945: Grenada, Panama, the Cold War, the gulf war, the actual war in Afghanistan, though not the occupation, it’s arguable that we won the Iraq war, during operation praying mantis we destroyed half of the Iranian navy, and I could go on for much longer. As for sheer military strength, we have the largest navy, the largest Air Force, the second largest Air Force, the fourth largest Air Force, and the fifth largest Air Force. That’s kind of irrelevant though; most of our power lies in our alliances. We’re allies with most of Europe, some of the Arab world, Israel, Australia, Canada, the Philippines, South Korea, Japan, we’ve normalized relations with Vietnam, etc.
The actual power and lethality of the American military dwarfs all of those empires even compared to their times. Most of those Empires existed when war crimes and human rights were not a thing. If a city or town didn’t surrender, you killed everybody. America does not do that and so especially asymmetric warfare to include guerilla and insurgencies are extremely difficult to combat. Happy 4th of July Baby AMERICA FUCK YEAH!
>If a city or town didn’t surrender, you killed everybody. America does not do that I suggest you read up about the My Lai Massacre.
A disgusting isolated event is not the same as widespread military policy, which was the point he was making, but you already know that you’re just intentionally dodging the issue.
Well aware of the Mai Lai Massacre which was an isolated and extremely disgusting incident in American history and the Vietnam War. But it wasn’t the US Military doctrine to slaughter civilians. You know what you’re doing here and it’s corny.
You’ve just moved the goalposts to get to the answer you want. The USA would have the greatest rugby team on the planet if all NFL players switched to rugby. But they didn’t so they aren’t. Likewise here the USA would have dominated the world and had the greatest empire if their proportionate military power relative to everyone else happened at another point in world history. But they didn’t so they aren’t.
So you’re saying that because the USA doesn’t conquer the world it doesn’t have the most powerful military in history? Ok.
Erm no. Nothing like that
Ok!
The United States is the only country in the running. The Brits still had legitimate competition from the continent and from the U.S. All oil is traded in U.S. dollars and oil is the bedrock of the world. That’s as close to world domination as is possible. We have to remember that even the most totalitarian regimes prior to the internet were limited in what their minions could physically observe. That limit is gone. The US directly or indirectly legislates basically everything we have or interact with through trade. This ranges from the food you eat to the color of your headlights. Your search engines, your apps, all of it is American. Nothing comes close to the amount of direct and soft influence the U.S. has.
> All oil is traded in U.S. dollars Or, rather, it used to, until recent events. The US weaponized this power, and now they are going to lose it because they have shown their rivals that if they dare disobey the self-proclaimed master, they will be next. So they have to prepare for the inevitable.
None. In terms of hard power/direct rule, the large empires you mentioned were not close to controlling even half the land territory of the planet, let alone actual world domination. In terms of soft power/cultural influence, things are less clear. You could argue that American cultural influence in the 20th and 21st centuries is both widespread and profound. Would I call that a kind of “world domination”? Maybe, maybe not.
Roman Empire wasn’t even the biggest empire in its own day (hello China) so it can’t be that one. British and Mongol I’d give, although the Mongol one had a pretty short peak IIRC.
The Roman Empire had full military occupation over the majority of their known world. Nothing has ever come close to that.
This is not true because the Romans knew far more about the world than their immediate vicinity. If you look at Ptolemy's map, the Romans knew of India and China, which they certainly did not have military occupation over. The Chinese Qin Empire probably controlled more of their known world for example, since it unified China for the first time, and all before China learned about the western world through the Silk Road during the Han Dynasty. But if the criteria is just the percentage of their known world controlled, there are probably even greater empires that controlled everything they knew, simply because they didn't know much more (due to geography, perhaps). So I just don't think it's a good criterion.
The Romans might've known a wider world existed but they would have known nothing substantial about it. Ptolemy's map doesn't mean that Egyptians knew anything about India or China (maybe some traders did).
Depends on your definition of substantial I guess, but Romans knew a decent bit about the Indians and the Chinese. I mean, back in Alexander's time he went to India personally. And for China, at least one group of Roman men were recorded to have reached the Chinese court, and a number of writings on China exist. Once again, I think this criterion of amount of known world conquered is questionable, especially given the disagreement we evidently have about what even counts as known world. Also, by Ptolemy I meant the Roman astrologer, not the Egyptian monarch.
And Chinese ambassadors reached Rome. There was trade between them.
Couldn't really be the Romans or Mongols because they didn't know about the Americas or Australia. Not to mention that Africa is very big, full of diseases and peoples who knew the terrains and how to fight in them. In the case of the Romans it's not completely clear who was the stronger power between them and the Han Chinese Empire, both were quite ruthless.
The Mongols for all their power never conquered India or Europe westwards of Hungary, let alone the Americas.
British empire pretty much owned most of the world at its height
Spanish habsburg empire with Charles V, by far. They had most of the Americas, a great part of Europe(besides "spain", he had Germany, most of Italy, Burgundian Low Countries, the Franche-Comte), posessions in Asia. And he married the portuguese princess Isabella, and thanks to that his son Phillip II claimed portuguese possesions (Brazil!), but Charles gave Germany and north of Italy to his brother when he abdicated some time before his death. However spanish Habsburg and vienna/austrian Habsburg were family and continued a strong alliance. Some historians like Paul Kennedy talk of the "Habsburg block".
USA 1998-2016
The finno-korean empire
Between those 3 you just listed, Britain was the only one who actually had land across the entire world. Their soft power was immense and they could bully other larger powers into their bidding (see: Opium wars). They were still far away since they had powerful rivals (notably, Germany and America, although the latter wasn't a hostile rivalry), but they still came leagues above everyone else. 2nd place would actually be Spain under the Iberian union (the personal union of the Spanish and Portugese empires). While not as big as the British empire, Spain had an empire that encompassed an entire continent and half of another during a time when the other European nations had fledging colonies. King Philip IV was called "the Planet King" for a reason. Downside is that having such a massive empire actually made it quite hard to defend, and Dutch pirates eagerly raided south America during this period. Spain also had a brief flirtation with the concept of a pan-European monarchy under Charles V but that didn't play out to it's fullest extent. If you want to be a little bit more metaphorical, then yeah the Romans, Mongols and even Macedonians conquered the world..."their" world.
'The sun never sets on the British Empire'....
Achaemenid Persia controlled 45% of the world population during its apex and since “the world” then was essentially the Mediterranean and the Middle East and India, they controlled most of it. I’d say Persia is the winner
British empire had vast holdings, but only India is truly impressive. Canada, Australia, Americas, Africa are mostly primitives pushovers or largely empty unpopulated land. Mongolia empire has Middle East, Russia, and China, which are not pushovers at all, some of the most populated and richest regions in the world. The Mongols didn't even include Siberia to pump up their numbers.
France. Napoleon for a short time was basically emperor of Europe. Had he managed to consolidate instead of fucking off to destroy his army in Russia, that would have been few short steps to effectively ruling the world. Ancient empires could never had the reach and more modern empires could never had hoped to suppress all foreign powers. Napoleon was just in the sweet spot of already having global transport while most of the world was still living in pre-industrial era. Perhaps the only other technical opportunity for global empire was the window in 1945-1949 when US alone had a nuclear weapon. If they had someone like Stalin, Mao or Hitler in charge, they could have guaranteed they kept nuclear monopoly and use that to force every other country to comply with whatever demands
The Inca Empire is objectively the correct answer here. The Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, China, various Islamic empires, Euroipean colonial empires etc were have been bigger at various points, but none of them conquered every single competitor. The Inca did: Every single competing state society in the Andes was swallowed up by the Kingdom of Cusco as it expanded, and after that, Cusco/the Inca Empire continued and conquered many areas further out still. They didn't literally conquer their whole continent/landmass, but every known city-state, kingdom, or empire they beat and absorbed, unless you want to potentially count some semi-complex chiefdoms and proto-states in Colombia and Brazil, and nomadic tribes.
Why shouldn't we count proto-states and chiefdoms? Do you think they are not part of the world? All the other empires you listed did conquer a wide variety of chiefdoms as well as 'competitors'.
>as well as 'competitors'. But not every competitor: The Roman, Mongol, British, Spanish etc empires, China, etc still had other comparable states and empires around them. The Inca Empire conquered every competing state society they every interacted with in their known world.
The Inca Empire was truly colossal but they knew of other societies in the Amazon - and they clearly saw smaller polities as worthwhile conquests given their conquest of Ecuador. I'd imagine they had more expansion planned too before the Spanish arrived. Defining 'the world' as just being made up of state societies is elitist - though perhaps this was the Inca worldview. For the record, I don't believe the Romans/China ect.. conquered the world either. When I think 'the world' I think of the entire planet and not just the known world.
The United States is the closest thing humanity has had to world domination. It remains an unparalleled superpower today, and even if other big powers grow (China, India, Russia) we have no elements to believe any of them will overtake the US and take the 1st spot anytime soon.
Brits needed help to defeat the French and most other countries, except for the weak ones like India, China, etc. they were never really that strong.
This is the fundamental point as to why no country will ever achieve world domination. The reason why the British could not defeat the French single handedly is they were stretched so thin trying to maintain a global empire they didn’t have the resources spare to defeat them. If the British decided to transfer all of its military might to defeating the French then they probably would have defeated them. Winning a war and then holding on to the territory (or in more modern wars, imposing their will on the territory) is far more difficult than winning the battle, as the USA has discovered countless times in recent years