lwarmonger

Indirectly, yes. Directly, Britain controlled a lot more land and a much larger proportion of the world's population. I agree that it should be on the list though.

Anon

Britian never had 10,000 nuclear devices and the means to deliver them effectively like the US does.

If you take the power available to the US at it's height(say 1991), and compare it to the British at their height of power, the US is many thousands of times the more powerful of the two empires.

Also, the United States economic might is unprecendented. If the US economy tanks, the whole world economy will tank. That was not the case had the British economy tanked during it's heyday(though a widespread reccession may have ensued, it's nothing compared to the world wide depression that would occur should the US economy go in the tank now).

Officer of Engineers

I don't know if you can really compare the two. Most certainly, the British Empire would not have had to come to the world's economic rescue (Central-South American debt crisis and the SE Asian currency re-evaluation), they never would have tolerated such idiotic policies. In this regard, the British were powerful in dictating the economic holdings of the Empire.

The other side of the coin is that the British Empire was never able to do what the US did in those economic rescues.

__________________
Chimo

Jay

I voted for Mongols...by far the biggest empire the world could ever see from humble origins.

__________________
A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

lwarmonger

Yeah, but power is relative. If you take modern Poland and put it next to 1860's Britain, it is superior economically and militarily. That hardly makes it a great power, now or ever. Relative to it's competitors, which was more powerful? Also, I would point out that by your reasoning, Russia would be the second greatest empire in the history of the world (right now).

The US reached it's height relative to other nations in 1945-1950. Britain was dominant in the 1860's. At those two times, which was more powerful relative to their competitors? In my opinion the United States was, but Britain had a greater impact on proportionately more people, so once again it's debateable.

Ambiorix

The Roman empire, because of all empires listed above, none survived as long as the Roman empire. (be it not as a whole for half its history, but still)

Parihaka

Britain had a clearer technological advantage over most of the world than the US has now, could America now take Bejing?

Anon

"
Britain had a clearer technological advantage over most of the world than the US has now, could America now take Bejing?"

Easily.

In 26 minutes the US could result any and EVERY enemy to a glowing crater.

Anon

"Yeah, but power is relative. If you take modern Poland and put it next to 1860's Britain, it is superior economically and militarily. That hardly makes it a great power, now or ever. Relative to it's competitors, which was more powerful? Also, I would point out that by your reasoning, Russia would be the second greatest empire in the history of the world (right now)."

I was speaking relatively.

And no, the Soviet Union is not comparable because it lacked the economic might that so many other great empires enjoyed.

I'd put the Soviet Union about 5th or 6th.

"The US reached it's height relative to other nations in 1945-1950."

1991 was the height of US Power, both absolutely and comparatively.

lwarmonger

Militarily, I agree. Economically, we had half the worlds manufacturing capability at the end of WWII. In 1991 I think we had around 18-19% (been a while since I looked at those numbers). In some ways we were stronger in 1991 than we were in 1945, and in other ways we were weaker.

In my opinion, the economic strength of a nation is a greater indicator of it's long term power than it's immediate military strength, and so using that reasoning the US was stronger in 1945. I can see where you're coming from however.

lwarmonger

Lots of nukes, and occupy the rubble. I doubt Russia would object too much.

Anon

"In my opinion, the economic strength of a nation is a greater indicator of it's long term power than it's immediate military strength, and so using that reasoning the US was stronger in 1945. I can see where you're coming from however."

Well in one way the US was definitely more powerful right after the end of WWII because we'd not yet begun the drawndown of our massive military might, and we alone had possession of a deliverable nuclear device. But that window was very short, probably no more than six months.

However, to be fair, in 1947 the Soviets did have a very limited nuclear capability, but the USAF had the all new intercontinental B-36, and was deploying them in very large numbers. Until the Soviets deployed their first ICBM in limited numbers in 1958.

Therefore from 1945-1958 one could rightly say the US was at the height of it's comparative military might, and the US economy was absolutely booming from WWII right on through the 50s.

The peak of the US actual military might is still 1991 IMO though. The force that was unleashed on Saddam is by far the most powerful military force that has ever roamed on, above, and below the battlespace. The most amazing part is that the US only deployed about 50% of it's might to the campaign. And the US had a mighty powerful economy in 1991 as well. There was a recession coming, but it didn't hit until several years into the Clinton admin, and by then, the US military was already a mere shadow of it's former self, though still easily the most poweful in the world.

Anon

"Britain had a clearer technological advantage over most of the world than the US has now, could America now take Bejing?"

Are you serious?

Britian had a clearer technological advantadge?

I'm sorry, but the US holds a prohibitive combat advantadge in so many key areas that to even consider provoking America into a conventional war is absolute madness.

If China makes a grab for Taiwan the entire expeditionary force and all assets tasked to support it will be wiped from the face of the earth by the USN and USAF in a matter of weeks.

As soon as the F-22 is operational in numbers(which is soon, 58 have already been delivered) and joins the US fleet of almost 2,000 moden air supremacy fighters the US will have the greatest multi-theater advantadge in air supremacy that any nation has enjoyed at any time in the history of military flight. The USAFs tanker fleet alone puts the US in it's own class. ONLY the USAF has true global reach.

The US militarys deep strike capability with both state of the art stealth aircraft and state of the art surface and air launched cruise missiles and precision weapons is completely unmatched in the world. Unmatched in sortie generation rate, sheer numbers, freedom of operations, and reach.

The USAF's heavy bomber fleet of B-2, B-1, and B-52s can operate with absolute impunity against any opponent in the world, flying direct from the US and standing off up to 800 or more miles from their targets. Every day. Unstoppable. Uncounterable.

The USN is absolutely unparralelled in power, no one even comes close, and frankly, if you combine the rest of the top 10 navies in the world you'd still be a serious underdog if facing the combined might of the USN.

Do i even need to mention the USNs fleet of Trident armed DL-5 SSBNs or the USAFs fleet of Minuteman III ICBMs?

The US is the world's sole 'hyper-power', no nation has ever enjoyed so lopsided a global or theater capability than the United States has at various points of the 20th century since 1945.

Even now the US alone can take the fight to any realistic entry point on earth in real numbers and dominate a conventional battlefield.

Bluesman

And what we don't want to fight, we can buy.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

troung

Hard to find an empire bigger or stronger then the USA...

I don't just mean because we could nuke Rome but because of the influence politically and militarly we have...