- This topic has 7 voices and 46 replies.
-
Posts
-
1588 when the Brits defeated the Spanish Armada.
--de facto
Ah yes, I see. 1578 then when Humphrey Gilbert was given a patent to discover new lands in the New World. Of course Gilbert failed, but his half-brother Walter Raleigh made good. And yes I got this from Wikipedia. 🙂
Not sure, but I'll say October 14, 1066, with the presumption that depending on the way things are defined, mine will be the right answer. ;D
Not sure, but I'll say October 14, 1066, with the presumption that depending on the way things are defined, mine will be the right answer. ;D
I can see this.
Try this definition: A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.Now in a de jure sense would I be correct in saying that Great Britain was never an Empire until Victoria became Empress of India. She was always called Queen Victoria at home. It seems reasonable to me that the be an Empire you needed an Emperor--like Japan, Germany, Austria-Hungry, France (under Napoleon), or even Brazil under Don Pedro. Is this argument acceptable or I am playing word games with de facto and de jure--what say you?
willy, I agree with you're first part, but I don't think there has to be an “emperor” or just one ruler to make it an empire. I think an empire is when one nation rules or is dominant over many.
I do believe that you are correct. However–consider this. A person arrives at the border of an Empireand asks to see the Emperor. The Homeland Security guard might be nonplussed as would the personasking the question. What answer would you give the person?Is America a de facto Empire?
... guard might be nonplussed as would the personasking the question. What answer would you give the person?....
No one sees the great Oz! [unless they have a small dog and are with a lion, scarecrow, and tin woodsman ;D]
