(July 12, 2013 at 4:14 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Canada still speaks French as well. But considering a massive population of the world does NOT speak English, I suggest you pick another indicator.

Some of Canada speaks French.

My point is/was, English is the world's lingua franca (and I love the irony of that statement). When 2 foreigners need a common tongue, that tongue is English.

For Britain, it was rather remarkable, for the small island nation where that language was born. And it isn't a polyglot language so much as it is an evolved language from several sources: Angles, Normans (who were Vikings, rather than true French) with Latin & Greek for more technical words. The last successful invasion was in 1066, so the polyglot claim is a lost one.

If you think that the British influence in North America was a marginal one, then you're not very well informed with your history... and you'd be wise to compare North America with South America, to see how Spanish/Portugese colonists did when creating their colonies, with their coup-ridden banana republics.

Frankly, the whole idea of comparing empires is a nonsense one. They were born at very different times in very different consequences.

And Rome wasn't a vast unchallenged empire. West of Athens, the northern Europeans (Germanic and Scots) were never under their full control. East of Athens, they largely had Alexander to thank while they took control of the Hellenic East Mediterranean.

The British Empire was stopped in its tracks by a thin little man in a loincloth... compare Gandhi's treatment with that of Vercingetorix. If you still think that Rome was a greater empire, then I'd suggest that blood-count is a poor measure of such comparisons... and of the people who value such things.

(July 12, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Red Celt Wrote: Some of Canada speaks French.

My point is/was, English is the world's lingua franca (and I love the irony of that statement). When 2 foreigners need a common tongue, that tongue is English.

A better indicator than "these countries speak it".

(July 12, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Red Celt Wrote: If you think that the British influence in North America was a marginal one,

Never once said anything to that effect. You must have misinterpreted my "holding on" quote, merely meaning we left their empire.

(July 12, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Red Celt Wrote: Frankly, the whole idea of comparing empires is a nonsense one. They were born at very different times in very different consequences.

I agree. I also think technology is a bit shady except in specific circumstances as a judgment call. Desert dwellers aren't going to dream up submarines anywhere near as fast as people reasonably bordered by oceans.

(July 12, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Red Celt Wrote: The British Empire was stopped in its tracks by a thin little man in a loincloth... compare Gandhi's treatment with that of Vercingetorix. If you still think that Rome was a greater empire, then I'd suggest that blood-count is a poor measure of such comparisons... and of the people who value such things.

Rome would have just crucified Gandhi's ass. Then we'd have a billion people today praying to him for salvation.

(July 10, 2013 at 7:58 pm)Koolay Wrote: Lighter Skin = Better?

Looks like the Irish will begin their world domination soon, then.

Submarines? Kudos (figuratively, not literally) for that. Usually the comparison is with territory unfriendly to level land and the non-invention of the wheel.

English is lingua franca much more because of the United States than because of Britain.

Rome was never unchallenged, but for 450 years her core was independently secure from being threatened by any remaining challenger. If you think Alexander's conquest made later Roman conquest easier rather than harder, think again. Without Alexander, Rome would have been confronted by a collection of small city states and a declining Persian Empire that would have decayed for another 200 years.

Hardly is "stopped in its tracks by a thin little man" a credit to an empire, and is a downright insult to those whom it mangled on its way to imperial hegemony. Fortunately for British reputation she wasn't stopped by Gandhi. The real reason for British departure from India was her declining strength compared to other powers has made India more a liability to security and prosperity of Britian herself than an asset. If Britain wasn't tacitly looking for a way out of India anyway, Gandhi would have disappeared down the dungeons of some British satraps in India.

Rome's treatment of Vercingetorix was rather kinder than par for the course for the era. Persians, and the potentates of the Hellenistic kingdoms, would have devised some ingeniously grusome way to showcase how one could suffer for opposing them. Romans simply garroted him in a standardized way without particular malice or maltreatment.

(July 12, 2013 at 5:54 pm)Chuck Wrote: English is lingua franca much more because of the United States than because of Britain.

Britain is the birth mother of the United States. You're like a teenager trying to credit everything to their own work, ignoring the resources afforded to them by their parents.

(July 12, 2013 at 5:54 pm)Chuck Wrote: Rome was never unchallenged, but for 450 years her core was independently secure from being threatened by any remaining challenger. If you think Alexander's conquest made later Roman conquest easier rather than harder, think again. Without Alexander, Rome would have been confronted by a collection of small city states and a declining Persian Empire that would have decayed for another 200 years.

Hardly is "stopped in its tracks by a thin little man" a credit to an empire. Fortunately for British reputation she wasn't stopped by Gandhi. The real reason for British departure from India was her declining strength compared to other powers has made India a liability to security and prosperity of Britian herself than an asset. If Britain wasn't tacitly looking for a way out of India anyway, Gandhi would have made no difference.

Rome's treatment of Vercingetorix was rather kinder than par for the course for the era. Persians, and the potentates of the Hellenistic kingdoms, would have devised some ingeniously grusome way to showcase how one could suffer for opposing them. Romans simply garroted him in a standardized way without particular malice.

You seem to be ignoring the long imprisonment of Vercingetorix prior to his execution. It wasn't in a palace.

As for your other comments, I will refer you to my earlier statement regarding your mental abilities.

---

Yeah, the United States is exactly why English is the lingua franca. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Britain. My bad.

Well we know that English became the de facto language of Diplomacy after WWII because of America. Before WWI it was only French. Afterwards both English and French because of the US.

Is that where the disconnect is coming from? I think maybe people on this thread are talking about different things.

Quote:French was widely used in international diplomacy for two main reasons: first, because France used to be a huge political power. It was commonly used in the whole of Europe from the 18th century, with the reign of Louis XIV. Later, Napoleon "helped" the language spread even further. The use of French in international treaties started declining with the emergence of the USA after the First World War; in fact, the Treaty of Versailles was written both in English and in French.

http://www.nakedtranslations.com/en/2004...-diplomacy

But of course America, and Australia, and New Zealand, and most all of Canada speak English as their native tongue because of England.

(July 12, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Red Celt Wrote: Britain is the birth mother of the United States. You're like a teenager trying to credit everything to their own work, ignoring the resources afforded to them by their parents.

Much like Rome or France is the birth mother of Britain.

So shut up about wanting credit for briefly being the largest land empire of the period, mostly by subjugating people who shoot arrows back at your guns.

---

(July 12, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Red Celt Wrote: As for your other comments, I will refer you to my earlier statement regarding your mental abilities.

Of course you would. Self-reference would have to be the method of choice if you were to support your claims.

(July 12, 2013 at 5:54 pm)Red Celt Wrote: Submarines? Kudos (figuratively, not literally) for that. Usually the comparison is with territory unfriendly to level land and the non-invention of the wheel.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Land that isn't fantastically level can still benefit from a wheel. Land that has no water has no need for submarines.