Greatest Military Power In The Past Millennium - Great Britain

I think that no country has won more international wars over the past millennium than Great Britain. There was the loss of the US in the 1776 Independence War with France aiding the colonies. But that was only 13-state colonies, not the full-sized continental US now, whereas France had lost Quebec and and the entire Canada to Britain. After then there was the 1812 revenge of burning the White House to ashes. 1:1 and US and UK shaked hands become friends and allies therever after.

In Europe, after William from Normandy in 1066, nobody else successfully invaded and landed in Britain. I think that's the longest record held in the world for warding off foreign invasion. The once mighty Spanish Armada of King Philip and Emperor Napoleon of France and the Luftwaffe of Adolf Hitler were all roundly defeated at sea and on land and in air.

Outside Europe and America, their record was even more impressive. By war or by word, they amassed the biggest empire the world has ever seen. The defeat in the Battle of Malaya and Singapore at the hands of the Japanese was described as the greatest capitulation in British history by Winston Churchill. In objective context, that was just a small defeat. But to the British unaccustomed to defeats, it was embarrassing. China has lost much more lands and lives than that to the Japanese, but nothing was a great capitulation, unless Japan managed to conquer China whole.

How about the Mongols?

u sure china lost more land to the japs?

Not a very fair comparison.

Maximilian Chua-Heng said:

How about the Mongols?

Click to expand...

They became Chinese...

Today the UK is becoming more and more brown and black. It should be the 2nd nation after france to be islamalized in like 10-20 years.

Maximilian Chua-Heng said:

How about the Mongols?

Click to expand...

The Mongols knew nuts about sea and couldn't sail. They go on land only. Not bad though, reached middle east and eastern Europe. 2nd largest empire the world has ever seen, bigger than Roman empire but still smaller than British empire. These were what were under the British empire at its height:

Canada (2nd largest in the world)
Australia (6th largest in the world)
India (7th largest in the world)

Plus the Caribbean islands, African and Asian colonies, Pacific islands and New Zealand, the British empire controlled one quarter of planet earth.

so say " the sun never set on British soil "

Jah_rastafar_I said:

u sure china lost more land to the japs?

Not a very fair comparison.

Click to expand...

China lost the entire eastern seaboard from Manchuria through Shanghai through Nanjing down to HK to Japan at one stage. That's certainly more land than Malaya and Singapore combined. Anyway, like I've said, China was absorbing temporary losses to hold old on for ultimate victory (e.g. Liu Bang v. Xiang Yu). It could afford to and bluntly put, it was used to it anyway. UK accustomed to a tradition of winning was shocked by the loss of Malaya and Singapore to Japan, and worse their allies Holland were in no position or power to hold on to West Indies (Indonesia). What came next after Indonesia? Of course Australia and NZ. That's why Australian and NZ soldiers came here to fight and die. Not for fun or they love Singapore, Malaya or Britain. They knew the cost of total defeat would be even worse.

For context, note that the total land area of the Earth is just under 149 million km2.[1]

All empires at their greatest extent:
British Empire - 33.7 million km2 (1946)[2][3]
Mongol Empire - 33.0 million km2 (1270 or 1309)[4]

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

Dude go take a look at the wiki link...

Given the technology the Mongols had back then, I'd say they pawned the Brits deep deep.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

The accomplishment of Ghengis Khan outdoes anything the Brits did:oIo:

Maximilian Chua-Heng said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

Dude go take a look at the wiki link...

Given the technology the Mongols had back then, I'd say they pawned the Brits deep deep.

Click to expand...

At the height of empires, whether 33m.km2 or 33.7m.km2 in land area, the British exerted exponentially more power and influence over the world by control over the oceans, something which the landlocked Mongols couldn't figure out how to do. The Japs attempted to duplicate that with their inherent maritime expertise, to a certain extent of success but too bad, the sun is rising for the US, an offshoot of Britain, to rule over the waves.

Ramseth said:

the British empire controlled one quarter of planet earth.

Click to expand...

Chey...thot we comparing apple to apple.

Now you add in the ocean area and the "intangible" influence the British exerted.

Alas the influence (cultural, economic etc) the Mongols exerted back then were far-reaching also.

Anyway OK You win.

Maximilian Chua-Heng said:

Chey...thot we comparing apple to apple.

Now you add in the ocean area and the "intangible" influence the British exerted.

Alas the influence (cultural, economic etc) the Mongols exerted back then were far-reaching also.

Anyway OK You win.

Click to expand...

Don't worry about it. There's no win no lose. Just a discussion.

Think they had that edge in weaponary. It is always that edge that makes the difference. Also their ability to use the sea allowed them to drop in on a particular area and concentrate their firepower. It is a lot tougher having to fight through large land area. Even the Germans were stopped in their advance by the Russian due to the land mass and weather.

Spanish conquiscador conquered South America with 200 odd men. If you look at bang for bucks that is unbeatable.

Mongols - probably their use of horses. Maybe their ability to move fast and shoot their arrows while on the move. With speed and constantly changing flanking positions foot soldiers were no match and had no time to recoup.

Since the arrival of nuclear weapons and MAD there really is no longer any possibility of massive change in territory. That is why the nuclear powers are thinking of cutting down on number of warheads. Even China has no interest in building up their nuclear warheads.

Ramseth said:

China lost the entire eastern seaboard from Manchuria through Shanghai through Nanjing down to HK to Japan at one stage. That's certainly more land than Malaya and Singapore combined. Anyway, like I've said, China was absorbing temporary losses to hold old on for ultimate victory (e.g. Liu Bang v. Xiang Yu). It could afford to and bluntly put, it was used to it anyway. UK accustomed to a tradition of winning was shocked by the loss of Malaya and Singapore to Japan, and worse their allies Holland were in no position or power to hold on to West Indies (Indonesia). What came next after Indonesia? Of course Australia and NZ. That's why Australian and NZ soldiers came here to fight and die. Not for fun or they love Singapore, Malaya or Britain. They knew the cost of total defeat would be even worse.

Click to expand...

pls lah there's no land area around malaya and singapore.

It's the same thing as russian being the largest country in the world. If you look at the geography of the world there's more land located in the northern hemisphere and also the climate in the north is extremely cold that's why few humans settle over there. It's the same thing with malaysia and singapore. Look at the geography there. Malaysia is a long strip of land while sg is a dot. It really depends on the geography of the area and pls note that sg was considered something like the crown jewel of the colony despite its small size.

Maximilian Chua-Heng said:

Chey...thot we comparing apple to apple.

Now you add in the ocean area and the "intangible" influence the British exerted.

Alas the influence (cultural, economic etc) the Mongols exerted back then were far-reaching also.

Anyway OK You win.

Click to expand...

ramseth like that lah. Always change the size of the goalposts at will and then chide you for changing your own goal posts.

the brits and the dutch bullied the natives of south east asia into submissions with thier gunboats and their cannons. when the japs were able to get their hand onto the latest weapons, the tables were turned. that's why to this day, the japs think that they were the one who liberated asia from their colonial masters. to a certain extent , I had to agree ,as the japs show that the western angmos could be defeated. asians are equal to the westerners.

shelltox said:

the brits and the dutch bullied the natives of south east asia into submissions with thier gunboats and their cannons. when the japs were able to get their hand onto the latest weapons, the tables were turned. that's why to this day, the japs think that they were the one who liberated asia from their colonial masters. to a certain extent , I had to agree ,as the japs show that the western angmos could be defeated. asians are equal to the westerners.

Click to expand...

let's seperate east asians from south east asians okay.

I hate this grouping. When it comes to getting the glory south east asians are suddenly asians like the japs.

Yet when it comes to bad things like say penis size oh suddenly they are seperate from the japs.

it's the same with chinese and japs.

When it comes to success suddenly japs and chinese are totally different japs are superior.

Yet when it comes to penis size chinese are suddenly grouped in with the japs.

Is the jap a hybrid race of the chinese

Ramseth said:

The defeat in the Battle of Malaya and Singapore at the hands of the Japanese was described as the greatest capitulation in British history by Winston Churchill. In objective context, that was just a small defeat. But to the British unaccustomed to defeats, it was embarrassing.

Click to expand...

You call that 'small defeat'?

I always remind our dear drunk brits how their grandpa run like sisi when storm by cycling japs troop from the north. The best part is the canons are facing the wrong direction.