Opinions on '*The* Country'

[Stewart]

Just thinking about this issue, semi-randomly, after reading up a lot of English and general world history recently. Just ignore me if I'm making no sense.

Basically, just wondering what people think is the single country, which, if it never had existed; if, say, where it is was just ocean, would change the current world, politically, socially, and in every other way, to the greatest extent. Which country would alter history the most if it never had been?

With me?

I'm going for England. Totally unbiased of me, huh?

My reasoning being that due to its role in the formation of modern North America, Australia, the English language (not the worlds most spoken language, but by far the most important), the empire (largest the world has ever known), contributions to politics, religion, exploration, invention, etc...

Long history of being a world player in major political happenings, role in the two world wars, historical leaders and other individuals (Shakespeare, etc), its previous mentioned role in other the formation of other nations, the industrial revolution, general interfering with everything it could interfere with, and many other things, too numerous to list.

I say that England would have the greatest effect on the world as we know it today, had it never existed in the first place.

So, what do you lot reckon? Has another country done more to shape the world we live in today, into its current state?

If you can understand what I'm going on about, could be an interesting discussion. If not, just ignore me.

[shiato storm]

i agree without the english leaving here and starting up 'over there', there wouldn't be much there now...and being where we are in the thick of things in the center of europe we made ourselves important. ceaser wanted it, william the conker got it and the armada went on a nice day trip round it but failed, napolion wanted to crush us but good old one eyed, one armed Nelson put him in his place as did wellington and all that bit of history I never learnt in school so don't rightly know about, then we build a tunnel who's rail link went straight to waterloo just to remind them of the fact we kicked their shiney a's...then hitler went a bit nuts but again he failed too. I seem to recall at one point we almost had france to ourselves but the king at the time ran home and lost it all. I'm not sure about anyone else but it seemed like either we are great trouble makers or something here people want!
there's also the scientific side of things. brunel, newton, crick. architects like wren created our world we live in. there's just so much native talent. its almost a pitty there isn't anyone quite like that at the moment.
but if this island hadn't been here where would we be in the world? still at/near the top?
I suspect we would be great but thing is we'd only end up beating up the nearest neighbours anyway so I think that wouldn't need to come into the arguement!

without england where it is the surfing in denmark would be some of the best inthe world, everyone would still be struggling to get past 'the wheel' invention and generally life would be far far far worse and boring...

[Stewart]

No mate, I'm saying no England, nothing actually there (as you clearly understand), but not with us somewhere else... I'm saying there are no English people, not where we are now, nor anywhere else. Nothing, nada, nowt.

So no 'what ifs' relating to what we did to the people who would be next to us, etc.

So William, Duke of Normandy never beat Harrold in the worlds first game of conkers and won the crown, etc. Not a displacement of the English (or the race you happen to think would make the biggest difference were they never to have existed) to somewhere else...

A complete void, where that country now stands, and no concept what so ever of anything ever said, done or thought, by an Englishman \ whoever man.

[IBM]

Well, depends upon how far back in time you go really. I mean the Romans are pretty much entirely responsible for turning the UK into a semi-civilised nation, so they're indirectly responsible for the creation of everything after they controlled the UK...

Go back further and find out who influenced the Romans, and they're suddenly the most influencial, and so on...

[Stewart]

Well, in that case, you take it as a whole. Is what the Romans did and achived during their time in England and everywhere else, a greater contribution to the world as we know it, than what has been achived since, by the Anglo-Saxon 'English'.

I see what you are saying, there were people in England before the English, as it were; there were people in England before there was an England, but judge each race as exactly that - a people who came, and in some cases, went. Romans, ancient Britions (Celts, Picts, etc), the English, etc.

For instance, the Romans, in this context, did not contribute to the colonization of North America, the English did not build Hadrians wall. You need to force some seperation of race, otherwise, taking it to its logical conclusion, we are all one race, and all can be traced back to Africa. Go back 50,000 years or so, and all humans were in Africa, but there's not much discussion if we don't seperate.

So, take the Romans contribution, then the English contribution, during the times these people were around and doing there thing, and weigh it up, see who you think gave the most. Just a bit of fun.

[IBM]

Stewart... I was going to take it back to it's logical conclusion, but the Rift Valley isn't a nation, although maybe back then it was by relative definitions

And it was the British Empire, not the English empire...So I'm going to put Great Britain forward as a nominee under 'nation' status rather than specifically country.

But you're right, you'd have to go by direct contribution rather than inheritable actions. At which point, I'd have to drop out, because I don't know enough about foreign or ancient history. What's more important, the creation of the wheeled vehicle (egyptian invaders, can't remeber the name) or the creation of the steam train (UK). The invention of the arabic numeric system (Persian?) or modern Economics (UK).

I'd still vote for the UK, but be a lot less sure about it.

[Stewart]

And it was the British Empire, not the English empire...So I'm going to put Great Britain forward as a nominee under 'nation' status rather than specifically country.

Indeed it was, but then, rather than use that single happening as a reason to nominate the UK , better to use that reason as a plus point for both Scotland, Wales, England, etc. In other words, use it as a plus point for Scotland if you are making a case for them being the nation that would change history the most were they never to have existed, but not as a reason to suddenly count Scotland and England as the same country, Longshanks as a Brit, William Wallace as a Brit.

I'm not claming the British empire was the English empire, I'm saying the English invovlement in the British empire is, obviously, relevant in the context of this thread, as it had a major effect on a massive area of the world, in many ways.

Makes what I'm trying to do here (and you seem intent on rule picking , just like me ) eaiser, as well as not getting in the Scottish bad books, as they tend to dislike being called British, prefering to be called Scots, Welsh, Irish, etc.

It was my intention, for this thread, that we would consider Issac Newton to be English, and Alexander Flemming to be Scottish, rather than both of them being British. Although feel free to do in that way, if you really want.

What's more important, the creation of the wheeled vehicle (egyptian invaders, can't remeber the name) or the creation of the steam train (UK). The invention of the arabic numeric system (Persian?) or modern Economics (UK).

Well, thats exactly what I'm asking. No-one can say, of course, but it might be interesting to try. As we have a good bunch of people here, with, I'd hope, an IQ greater than that of the average Yahoo chatroom user, I thought it a good place to throw it open to.

Your replies have proven that I was correct to. There's no right answer, no real definition of any of the things you'd need to define exactly to do this 'for real', but its still something to think about.

[Stewart]

England naturally, we ran roughshod over the world for far to long and left most countrys in a mess.

Something, history shows us, the Germans, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mongols, Russians, Romans, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, have never done.

We may have been in the Premier League of conquerers Pyle, but believe me, there were others playing the game.

[smtkr]

Rome

[TiG]

I'd definitely say rome outways our achievements. Aqueducts etc are decades ahead of their time, the social structure of bath houses etc, did immense things for the social structure of our time.

Roads generations ahead of our time, the fact that a military unit could be sent hundreds of miles to a new camp and instantly know the layout, (as they where all the same)

Democracy in later periods as the senate, yet a huge empire of conquered lands. As for religion, where do we rank there?, no-where. The catholic church is still a massive empire it itself, based where.... hehe you guessed it Within rome

TiG