im sure if Britian was a person he'd be very proud of his son ;)

LOL @ British that is true we are just Cousins of the British empire

It’s a game of opinions and that’s fair enough. Although I have to disagree, the power which was projected by firstly the Romans over a number of centuries, left not only an impressive imprint on history due to their well ordered legions and the lethal Gladius, but a cultural imprint which was only lost because of the Dark ages. Although if you examine Norman architecture for instance (why you would I don’t know) you will notice many similarities with the Classical Roman design. (Other interesting Roman inventions were; the fast food restaurant equipped with the hamburger and fire engines to name but a few) However I don’t think any other nation has left such a physical imprint on the world as Britain. Look at your justice systems, parliamentary systems etc, etc. “The UK, as powerful as they were in the 19th century, never matched that position. Even today the US probably accounts for something like a full third of the world's industrial military capacity.” Well I’m sorry Mike but this is a foolish statement. Its like comparing an F1 car from the 50’s with one from the present day. You can’t as its impossible to. If Britain had had the technology that the US has now etc, etc then of course you can compare, but as the technology, production methods were not around you can only speculate. “Actually, the US controls a quarter of the world if we consider it economically” Yes the US has a very powerful economy, but a world wide, total global economic slowdown would greatly affect America. It helps the US to have allies who have strong economies, regardless of the peaks and troths of a capitalist set up. “Even further, during Great Britain's heyday there were other countries capable of projecting force worldwide that were closer to being on par with the UK.” Maybe on the continent, nations could field armies that were larger. Yet lets look at history. Blenhiem 1704 when Britain took the modern day adage of becoming the “superpower”. Britain was out numbered yet won. Napoleonic Wars, Peninsular war, 100-Day campaign. Same result. (There is no need to break down the British armies achievements). Yet, the British army wasn’t structured to fight wars all like this all the while, it could, but what it was designed to do was to provide a strong enough force into colonial hotspots, making use of greater British training, discipline and equipment. Nobody could come anywhere near the Royal Navy in terms of projection. It was twice the size of the US and French navy, combined. Insuring total naval dominance where ever it was needed. (even up the Hudson if it was needed!). To suggest that the French could project on the scale that Britain could is just incorrect. I’m not doubting that the US is strong today, that’s not my point. But what you can’t argue is that America has any form of legitimate control over anybody, unlike Britain did, Rome did, the French did, the Mongols did etc. My point being that America isn’t untouchable, much like Rome and Britain were. From 1948 to the late 80’s early 90’s, the US had a rival which could have burned the name UNITED STATES of the map. I don’t see the unassailable power there. I don’t see it now, when other nations have a nuclear deterrent which would possibly not destroy the US completely in the physical sense (I.e. every square mm being blown up) but a nuclear arsenal of the size of France for instance, would totally destroy the US (I.e. hit major cities, infrastructure etc, etc). So as for saying; “at no time in the world has a nation been as powerful as the US as DragonReborn said, is falling into the same trap as mike. I’m under no illusions that a US naval carrier group would have routed the Royal Navy of the 19th and twentieth century. But that’s not the point. At the time, there was no other nation which could compete on the scale of Britain, industrially or economically, so if you transferred that from then to today with the modernization in between (very subjective but I think you get the gist) then Britain would be able to field a Navy. Twice the size of USN and twice the size of the Russian. Although towards the start of the First World War the US and Germany were very close to Britain. And it was the unparalleled dominance in respect to the 19th century in terms of the industry and economy, that if it was transferred to today, as I said previously up graded, then it would indeed be light years ahead as it was then. Although as I also said this is very subjective, as up until I last checked, I lacked the means to cross the space-time continuum and bring back 19th century Britain for a closer comparison. (Ah, hang on what’s that in the corner… oh never mind it’s just a chair) If you want to compare colonial projection then the only major comparison I could or would suggest would be to compare the Vietnam war with the Zulu annexation. Similar disparity in numbers, technology and distance. “One of the key reasons for this fall of Empires w

Ambiguity over Ireland, what I meant is that in 1921 southern Ireland was granted Dominion status (independence followed in 1948). However there would be no such thing as partition or the Free Irish state. The IRB would have been crushed as they were almost on the brink of being and would have been banished to the same annuals of time as, the Tone Rising, the Young Ireland and Fenians.

Ad you are right except that France was even more dominant under Louis XIV in the World in a long period than Napoleon.And don't forgot Chinese after they united two hundred century before Christ. So : Alexander the Great for a short period. Roman and antic Chinese as they conquered almost all the world at their disposal. Attila for a short period (until lost battle of Chalon (Cataulonic fields)in France against French gauls/german tribes and Romans (the greatest battle of western antic with more than 300 000 warriors) Mongols, Spain (Charles Quint), France , UK, USA in historical order

1:A power which can fight alone against any power, 2:Which has not been conquered, 3:Can be limited in its expansion only by a coalition of force. 4:Which had sustain that on a period with peace periods between wars. About France: France had achieved this status from Richelieu (who defeated Spain-Austrian Hasbourg empire)to Napoleon so the longuest period of modern history (300 years)then English from Victoria to WW2.Read Henry Kissinger "Diplomacy". In this period France had only enlarged its territory, can be fought only by coalitions (with English often at the head), and challenged England on sea(see US independance) and colonial expansion until Napoleon (Louisiana, Canada, India, Africa, ) Under Louis XIV, Thailand kingdom or Ottoman empire representatives went to Versailles to ask France protection.

Stratege. Britain defeated France in the War of the Spanish succession, and it was the treaty which followed, Utrecht, which gave Britain its maritime dominance. The Mongolian, Napoleonic and Chinese empires, were continental and not maritime powers like Britain and to a lesser extent Rome (I maybe being slightly harsh on the Romans, as the Mediterranean was a Roman lake), so they are really to different beasts. Yet when we needed to sort you cheeky Europeans out, a Corsican Artillery general for one, we did. America doesn’t have an empire as such. You can’t say that a continental power is more powerful than a maritime one, as a maritime power can project forces on mass any where in the world. Britain fought two major powers in France and the US at the same time for example, with out number 11 even feeling the strain. I don’t think you could call it that. But to totally contradict my self and suggest for just a moment that we did, it again would be a totally different animal, which relies on Britain as an example to maintain a level of normality in Europe, or Japan in Asia. You can’t but a maritime empire in front of Britain. You can’t put any empire for length, breadth, depth, as it was with out doubt the biggest. This is why I put Britain first, as we are talking about power and the Romans second. For the largest continental and coming in at three I would say the Mongols. Napoleonic France pushed hard, but where they failed, the Mongols succeeded.

Your more or less spot on with the Historical order though. But may I place Holland in between Spain and France??

Nuts, sorry that should have “. You can’t say that a continental power is more powerful than a maritime one, as a maritime power can project forces on mass any where in the world. Britain fought two major powers in France and the US at the same time for example, with out number 11 even feeling the strain. AMERICA DOESN‘T HAVE AN EMPIRE AS SUCH I don’t think you could call it that. But to totally contradict my self and suggest for just a moment that we did, it again would be a totally different animal, which relies on Britain as an example to maintain a level of normality in Europe, or Japan.

In Utrecht treaty is the start point for England to start global dominance and achieved it in the end of nineteenth century.In this treaty England enjoyed the most benefit among its coalition.France was blocked in its expansion but not invaded and acquiered small parts of land (Barcelonette valley and Orange county south of France).Also grand son of Louis XIV obtained to rule spain (but not to join its Kingdom to France).It was a great British sucess in France containement but not a domination on France.The English lost USA after being beaten on sea by the French fifty year later. Britain sea dominance started at Tragalgar and France earth dominance ended at Waterloo.So as I said Britain was the dominant nation after.But really dominant (thanks to industrial revolution and rise of Germany to counter France on ground)after 1840 to WW2.