3 ms·

> then why weren't other empires able/willing to grab up the same amount of underdeveloped lands? Except there were. There were dozens of conflicts and wars ov

> then why weren't other empires able/willing to grab up the same amount of underdeveloped lands? Except there were. There were dozens of conflicts and wars over the span of multiple centuries for control over territory.

throwaway894345 6y ago
I think you’re mistaken. The British empire was the largest empire that has ever existed. That other empires existed (and had centuries-long conflicts/wars) does not refute this fact.
- chmod775 6y ago
  I tried to interpret your sentence in the only way it would have addressed your quote of myself in a coherent manner. I tried to be charitable. Okay. So let's interpret it as it was written instead. > If they were just grabbing a lot of "land too underdeveloped to fight back" then why weren't other empires able/willing to grab up the same amount of underdeveloped lands? Whether or not there were other empires able or willing to grab up that same amount of land doesn't affect the statement in the slightest. The sentence is nonsense. If you strike "same amount of" the sentence actually does make some sense, which is why I chose to respond to that when I wrote my first response. Whatever X may be, you will always find countries that did/have the most X, which however doesn't change the nature of X. "You are mistaken. China has the highest mountains and also a lot of them. Therefore mountains can't be made of stone!" doesn't make much sense, does it. Neither does: "Britain grabbed more land than everyone else. Therefore the land that everyone was grabbing can't have been underdeveloped!" And let's face reality here for a second: Open up a map of the British Empire and tell me straight to my face that the vast majority of that land wasn't underdeveloped.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > I tried to interpret your sentence in the only way it would have addressed your quote of myself in a coherent manner. I tried to be charitable. Okay. So let's interpret it as it was written instead. Neither of those "interpretations" are "as written". I'm not speaking in subtext here, so I don't know why you're trying to decipher instead of addressing the actual content. In whichever case, hopefully this post clarifies. > And let's face reality here for a second: Open up a map of the British Empire and tell me straight to my face that the vast majority of that land wasn't underdeveloped. No one suggested the territory of the British Empire was fully developed pre-conquest. The OP suggested that military and logistic achievements of the British Empire were impressive, and you argued the contrary "[they merely grabbed] a lot of land too underdeveloped to fight back". Of course, the British Empire profited fantastically from those conquests so they were clearly worthwhile and other empires were equally willing to conquer weaker nations so it isn't a question of scruples either. And if it's not a question of worth or scruples then surely it must be a question of ability, contrary to your implication.

throwaway894345 6y ago

I think you’re mistaken. The British empire was the largest empire that has ever existed. That other empires existed (and had centuries-long conflicts/wars) does not refute this fact.

chmod775 6y ago
I tried to interpret your sentence in the only way it would have addressed your quote of myself in a coherent manner. I tried to be charitable. Okay. So let's interpret it as it was written instead. > If they were just grabbing a lot of "land too underdeveloped to fight back" then why weren't other empires able/willing to grab up the same amount of underdeveloped lands? Whether or not there were other empires able or willing to grab up that same amount of land doesn't affect the statement in the slightest. The sentence is nonsense. If you strike "same amount of" the sentence actually does make some sense, which is why I chose to respond to that when I wrote my first response. Whatever X may be, you will always find countries that did/have the most X, which however doesn't change the nature of X. "You are mistaken. China has the highest mountains and also a lot of them. Therefore mountains can't be made of stone!" doesn't make much sense, does it. Neither does: "Britain grabbed more land than everyone else. Therefore the land that everyone was grabbing can't have been underdeveloped!" And let's face reality here for a second: Open up a map of the British Empire and tell me straight to my face that the vast majority of that land wasn't underdeveloped.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > I tried to interpret your sentence in the only way it would have addressed your quote of myself in a coherent manner. I tried to be charitable. Okay. So let's interpret it as it was written instead. Neither of those "interpretations" are "as written". I'm not speaking in subtext here, so I don't know why you're trying to decipher instead of addressing the actual content. In whichever case, hopefully this post clarifies. > And let's face reality here for a second: Open up a map of the British Empire and tell me straight to my face that the vast majority of that land wasn't underdeveloped. No one suggested the territory of the British Empire was fully developed pre-conquest. The OP suggested that military and logistic achievements of the British Empire were impressive, and you argued the contrary "[they merely grabbed] a lot of land too underdeveloped to fight back". Of course, the British Empire profited fantastically from those conquests so they were clearly worthwhile and other empires were equally willing to conquer weaker nations so it isn't a question of scruples either. And if it's not a question of worth or scruples then surely it must be a question of ability, contrary to your implication.