Couldn't the present European Union be also called an Empire (of sorts) with a European Parliament and a President (Emperor!) elected by the Sovereign States who still retain their own Head of States and Governments.Much like the Holy Roman Empire (which has nothing to do with the Roman Empire of the Caesars era) was during an earlier time.
Conquering with Superior might is certainly a prerequisite. I like Donald's point about a set of laws put in place for the conquered. What about what a country can accomplish with the development of weaponry and technology? If they are on the leading edge I'd say it contributes. Or Architecture and art? Literature and philosophy? If we get beyond war and military, how do those things contribute?
I am going to have to disagree with some of this. A classic example to the contrary being the Holy Roman Empire. The Emperor was decided by a imperial diet of prominent Electors and could not actually call himself Emperor until he had travelled to Rome to be personnally crowned by the Pope. The HRE for much of its existance was therefore more a confederation of sovereign States and therefore the submission that an Empire must involve 'conqueror' and 'conquered' simply does not hold water.
Margaret, Maid of Norway. Queen of Scotland for just sixteen days. Margaret (died 1290) was en-route to Scotland to take her crown when she died.If she had lived then there would have been no Scottish War of Independence and the Kingdoms of England and Scotland would have been united four centuries before it actually happened.
I was rather surprised that you did not mention Constantiople (Istabal). A magnificient city during the Byzantine era, made even more beautiful by the Ottomans.
Like we've said many times, a foreign occupation force rarely succeeds in it's attempt to hold a people within their own country hostage for very long.
I like the word Rarely (LOL). In fact the Romans colonised the British mainland for five centuries, which is a pretty good record by anybody's standard.
? The shortest war there has ever been was between Britain and Zanzibar during 1896. It lasted for a pathetic 38 minutes. ?
The shortest battle in history was quite likely 'The Battle of Prestonpans' during the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745-1746. It is said to have lasted under fifteen minutes.
Well there wasn't much in the way of interesting facts about yesterday but today we really hit the jackpot.Without even bothering to look up the date I can report the following two items on the 22 August.
1485: Henry Tudor defeats Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field, thus establishing the Tudor dynasty of monarchs.1642: King Charles I raises his standard at Oxford, thus starting the First English Civil War.
What if the U.S. had not entered WW1? Would the results have been the same??
Yes.? The US Army only entered combat in April 1918 and this in only a small way. The bulk of the American expeditionary force not being commited until September 1918 (six weeks before the war ended).In any case it would not have altered the chance of a future war with Japan.
In fact there should have been two German Aircraft Carriers. The other was the Peter Strasser. Both hulls were laid down in 1936 but only the Graf Zeppelin was actually launched? (in 1938).
You'd think if they could put together an electric car in 1897, they would have built a practical electric vehicle for the modern age by now. It seems to be taking them a while.....
Well they did-The traditional Electric powered 'Milk Float' has been around all my life and is still in use today despite competition from the supermarkets.
19th August 1897The London Elecric Cab Co. began operating the first taxi-cab in London's West End and City. The black and yellow electric cars went at 9 mph. They had a range of just up to 30 miles, but proved uneconomical and were withdrawn in 1900.