Don't you mean Roman.

Hear me out.

I love this country. I just don't love practices our officials use to get their way. This is not intended to be a anti-american thread.

Now with that being said, how is the u.s. throwing their weight around allthewhile looking down on countries that do the same any different than the old British empire? Why is it fair that our country can bomb, pillage, and rape any third world or less advanced country, but looked down upon when those countries defend themselves from that tyranny? We all know that our fine politicians all have their agendas, but could those agendas be the sole reason for this double standard?

Just some food for thought.

Strangely Britain didn't militarily "Invade" countrys to build it's empire. It started trading with there leaders. Then if that trade was threatened by the natives, soldiers were drafted in to protect their buisnesses. It wasn't like Britains army vs another army at least not at first. Most of Britains empire was built peacefully by standards of the time. You see we had technology that nobody else had and the leaders of countrys wanted some it. Don't forget the world was at the horse and cart level before Britain invented the modern world. We were the only people making Trains, engines, etc.....

Richard Eldritch  Wrote:

Strangely Britain didn't militarily "Invade" countrys to build it's empire. It started trading with there leaders. Then if that trade was threatened by the natives, soldiers were drafted in to protect their buisnesses. It wasn't like Britains army vs another army at least not at first. Most of Britains empire was built peacefully by standards of the time. You see we had technology that nobody else had and the leaders of countrys wanted some it. Don't forget the world was at the horse and cart level before Britain invented the modern world. We were the only people making Trains, engines, etc.....

I dont doubt thats what the book said but Rome's empire led by Britain precludes such meekness.

Britain seems to get all the flak for all the 'evils' of colonialism but they at least brought some civilization to the places they went as well. They didn't simply extract resources and move on to the same degree.

The Spaniards, Dutch, Belgians, French and Portuguese were all easily as bad.

Of course, we still have our western biases as well. Ask the Thais what they think of the Burmese or the Vietnamese about some of their neighbors for example...

There was also the Ottoman Empire, the Mongols, etc....

You're bang on, though the Spaniards, Dutch, Belgians, French and Portuguesewere far far worse. They really did invade and kill the locals. For the Brits it was always buisnesse not invasion. We tooled up because these other powers tried to march in and f*ck up our and the locals buisness

LoP Guest  Wrote:

Richard Eldritch  Wrote:

Strangely Britain didn't militarily "Invade" countrys to build it's empire. It started trading with there leaders. Then if that trade was threatened by the natives, soldiers were drafted in to protect their buisnesses. It wasn't like Britains army vs another army at least not at first. Most of Britains empire was built peacefully by standards of the time. You see we had technology that nobody else had and the leaders of countrys wanted some it. Don't forget the world was at the horse and cart level before Britain invented the modern world. We were the only people making Trains, engines, etc.....

I dont doubt thats what the book said but Rome's empire led by Britain precludes such meekness.

Don't be absurd. Britain booted Rome out in the 15th century. No Roman can be King or Queen here. If you go back further Britain was the first place they left as we kept killing them.