Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay: For the record, User: Conservative's 12 major predictions

2012-10-30T05:37:27Z

DGalore:

== Whats the point of linking and referencing this on the mainpage ==
I really don't also you don't need to reference links to conservapedia [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:33, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

== I, User: Conservative ==

Are you sure you don't mean "I/We"? [[User:Dgalore|Dgalore]]

Talk:Essay: Evolutionist nerds, say goodbye to Mars exploration

2012-03-01T14:28:34Z

DGalore:

My Goodness. Projection much? --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:51, 29 February 2012 (EST)
:I think this is a great addition to User:Conservative's other [[Essay:Comedy_and_satires_concerning_atheism_and_evolution|Essay:Comedy & satires concerning atheism and evolution]] works. At first I thought this essay was to be taken seriously, but after reading lines like "''Yes, evolutionist nerds. Grand men explore the Grand Canyon and don't waste taxpayer money exploring dead and lifeless planets''". That's when I realized that Conservative was giving a subtle wink and nod that this was a bit of over-the-top parody/satire on his part. The article's over-hyping on the main page, extravagant use of nonsensical pictures, and campy wordplay completes the comedy. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:28, 29 February 2012 (EST)
:::JoshuaB, the use of wikis is expanding and there are a number of specialized and corporate/commercial wikis out there. I have been asked to write for a few of them as a paid writer. I may take them up on their offer. Do let me know if some Atheism and evolution satire wikis launch and are seeking some paid writers. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:40, 29 February 2012 (EST)
::::It would seem that congratulations are in order. Though I am not a particular fan of paid wiki editing as it typically amounts to shilling for some corporation, special interest, or political candidate that has no real grassroots following. That said, I'll keep my eye out for wikis hosting atheism and evolution satires... but I'm fairly certain Conservapedia has the market cornered in that regard. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 22:35, 29 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::There is going to be more paid wiki editing as far as specialized/corporate/commercial wikis grow in number and size. It's no big thing. A few people heard I did some wiki editing and asked me if I would edit their wiki as a paid writer. Despite difficult economic times in many parts of the world, there are still a lot of good opportunities if you talk to people and have some initiative. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:14, 1 March 2012 (EST)
::::::::::Your Mother paying you five dollars to edit her book club's wiki doesn't count.

Talk:Essay: Darwin fish meet the Question evolution! campaign

2011-12-06T20:55:22Z

DGalore:

This animation is really really bad. Can't you find a better one? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:13, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:::Don't worry, it appears given the [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-volunteers-are-joining-our.html expanding volunteer base] of a certain group, soon there will be animations/essays using [[piranha]] or schools of sharks. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:23, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::OK, but in the meantime this animation is terrible. It looks bad and moves even worse. Not a good image. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:29, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::::Why don't you ask [[Shockofgod]] if he likes it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:32, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::is it physically painful for you to respond like a normal human being? The animation is embarrassing and very amateur which makes your campaign look the same. Do you know anything about marketing? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:34, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Max, the evolutionist goal is poorly defended in the biology class stadiums and this is yet another case where biblical Christians are going to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvW5PuAVbmY slam goal after goal] in the atheist/naturalism net. It is going to be glorious! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:44, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::That's great. Now about this animation - it looks terribly amateur, is there another one you could use that looks more professional? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)
In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most United States high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. Just imagine how timid teachers will be when students are armed with the 15 questions plus any follow up questions that are developed!

"To be certain to take what you attack, attack where the enemy cannot defend." - Sun Tzu [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:57, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::So this is the best animation you have? You know, if this campaign is to work you need to have a certain amount of polish to it. It needs to be professional, slick and credible. The animation is none of this and, actually, looks stupid. So what image to you want to portray - one of professionalism or one that is amateur? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:00, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::Max, if it is such a pressing concern for you, develop a better animation and I may consider using it. I am moving on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:03, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::: @ Conservative: The present animation is indeed not that well made. I don't know it is just my browser, but the animation gives a recurring black screen for me. I actually don't care that much but since this article is featured on MPL there will be a lot of people coming to this article and might be disappointed and/or confused by the animation. Maybe you could use an animation from [http://netanimations.net/dolphins.htm THIS] site? À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 10:24, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::::::It's not your browser; I'm getting exactly the same effect. I agree that he should change it, because right now it looks sloppy. One of the animations you suggested would do fine. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:46, 5 December 2011 (EST)

The Question Evolution! Campaign is a shark mindlessly chasing its own tail? [[DGalore]]
:You obviously did not understand it. The shark is Darwin fish, not question evolution campaign.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:35, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::No, the essay clearly refers to QE! as the clumsy shark metaphor. [[DGalore]]

== Attention atheists, prepare to have your pseudoscience ripped to shreds and devoured ==
[[File:Carcharodon carcharias.jpg|thumbnail|400px|right|The [http://creation.com/question-evolution 15 razor sharp teeth] of the [[Question evolution! campaign]], are going to publicly rip your [[evolution]]ary [[pseudoscience]] to shreds. Evolutionists have a long track record of getting devoured in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWBRpZhk_vA open water] conditions. See: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]. ]]
Attention atheists, prepare to have your pseudoscience [http://conservapedia.com/Essay:_Darwin_fish_meet_the_Question_evolution!_campaign#Attention_atheists:_Prepare_to_have_your_pseudoscience_ripped_to_shreds_and_devoured ripped to shreds and devoured.]

Talk:Essay: Darwin fish meet the Question evolution! campaign

2011-12-05T18:55:41Z

DGalore:

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-10-17T18:53:05Z

DGalore: /* Enthusiastic Student Response */

[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2|Archive 2]]

This article seems like it is trying to endorse Youtube user ShockofGod more than explain anything or offer any useful information. USer:Gelatin
:You are not being very specific when it comes to supporting your contention. It seems like you are just spoiling for a pointless internet argument. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:00, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well in six of the sections on the article it makes a direct reference to the youtube user ShockofGod which makes it seem like more of an endorsement to him than to the actual campaign, in addition it puts too much priority on him as opposed to other evangelicals with the same message. [[Gelatin]]

== Enthusiastic Student Response ==

Why does this section exist? The only examples included are two youtube comments, and a photograph of a model wearing a QE t-shirt. This is not remotely illustrative of an "Enthusiastic" student response, or any kind of response at all. In point of fact, youtube is so well-known for the poor quality of its comment threads that citing it may be actively harmful to the credibility of the article. I've looked for more substantive examples of students reacting to the QE campaign, but have found none. Calling students' response "Enthusiastic" is, frankly, misleading when there's no actual evidence that it has been anything of the sort... furthermore, there's no reason whatsoever to have a separate article for "Enthusiastic Student Response" when it has no more information than is included in the section on the main QE page. If nobody provides additional evidence, I will take the liberty of editing out the "Enthusiastic" part of the title, and strongly urge that the section be deleted in general. [[DGalore]]
:::If YouTube is so well known for the poor quality of its comment threads, then why didn't you cite supporting articles mentioning this from reputable sources? Consider working on your research skills. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:24, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::By the way, you just gave me an idea for another article on the Question evolution! campaign. Thanks. 11:35, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Like I said, sir, I tried to find more reputable sources, and was unable to do so. Since I can't find anything, I can't in good faith claim the response has been "enthusiastic." As far as my research is concerned: I have searched Google, Yahoo et. al with variations on the searchstring "College Student response to Question Evolution!", and have checked through the archives of my own college newspaper and various other major college publications, and found no significant references. The article cannot stand as-is - we either need to find better sources, or change it to reflect the lack of them. Citing nothing but youtube comments is, frankly, embarrassing and discredits the article. [[DGalore]]
:::::::::At the very ''least'', it should not read "Enthusiastic" in any case. The section should be titled just "Student Response to the QE! Campaign." Given the liberal bias on college campuses, it is inconceivable that student response will be universally enthusiastic. Pretending that the only response has been rapturous enthusiasm is neither encyclopedic nor informative. [[DGalore]]
::::::::::::DGalore, setting aside the fact that no true skeptic claims to know my gender, you haven't shown you have done your due diligence. I suggest not giving up you day job and if you have any life long dream of becoming a reporter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:59, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Sorry - I was only trying to be respectful, since you're a senior member of the site and I'm very new! I don't use wikis much, so I'm not well-versed in internet etiquette... Anyway, to the point: Do ''you'' have any evidence for the Student Response page? Because if ''I'' don't, and ''you'' don't... who does? [[DGalore]]
:::::::::::::::I suggest getting a book on investigative reporting. I am sure your local library can help you. Thanks once again. I just created [[Enthusiastic responses to the Question evolution! campaign]]. You input was very helpful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:04, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::I'm glad to see my suggestion proved helpful, at least. You did a great job, I think it looks a lot better now! If I run across anything to add to the new page, I'll be sure to do so.[[DGalore]]

Robert Heinlein

2011-10-17T17:23:37Z

DGalore:

'''Robert Anson Heinlein'''; numerous pseudonyms, notably Anson Macdonald) (1907-1988) was one of the most popular and influential [[science fiction]] writers of the twentieth century, often viewed as one of the "Big Three" authors with [[Arthur C. Clarke]] and [[Isaac Asimov]]. His work helped define the genre; Asimov referred to his work as "the third nova" of science fiction, an entry into the field that changed it substantially from that which came before.

His many novels included ''The Puppet Masters,'' ''[[Starship Troopers]],'' ''The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,'' and ''Stranger in a Strange Land.'' He also wrote numerous novels for young people, often referred to as "Heinlein juveniles", including ''Double Star'', ''Citizen of the Galaxy'' and ''Star Beast''. (The fact they are written for young people does not mean that they only appeal to the young -- like many of the best works written for teenagers, they can be read, and are read, by adults.) Heinlein also authored many short stories, including "And He Built a Crooked House" and "All You Zombies."

His politics defied categorization. They were broadly libertarian. He was a strong supporter of the military, as shown in ''Starship Troopers'' and other works, and was an ardent opponent of [[Communism]], demonstrated in an essay about his vacation in Soviet Russia, but also espoused the sexual revolution of the 1960s, as strongly shown in many of his later works, and alluded to in earlier ones, and was very skeptical of organized religion, especially [[fundamentalism]], demonstrated in works like ''Job: A Comedy of Justice'' and the novella ''Revolt in 2100''. His novel ''The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'', the story of a Moon colony rebelling against a United Nations-run command economy in order to establish their own free market state, is a strong work of pro-capitalist, anti-UN science fiction.

==See also==
*[[Grok]]

[[Category:Authors|Heinlein, Robert A]][[Category:Science fiction]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-10-17T16:10:01Z

DGalore: /* Enthusiastic Student Response */

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-10-17T16:09:31Z

DGalore: /* Enthusiastic Student Response */

[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2|Archive 2]]

This article seems like it is trying to endorse Youtube user ShockofGod more than explain anything or offer any useful information. USer:Gelatin
:You are not being very specific when it comes to supporting your contention. It seems like you are just spoiling for a pointless internet argument. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:00, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well in six of the sections on the article it makes a direct reference to the youtube user ShockofGod which makes it seem like more of an endorsement to him than to the actual campaign, in addition it puts too much priority on him as opposed to other evangelicals with the same message. [[Gelatin]]

== Enthusiastic Student Response ==

Why does this section exist? The only examples included are two youtube comments, and a photograph of a model wearing a QE t-shirt. This is not remotely illustrative of an "Enthusiastic" student response, or any kind of response at all. In point of fact, youtube is so well-known for the poor quality of its comment threads that citing it may be actively harmful to the credibility of the article. I've looked for more substantive examples of students reacting to the QE campaign, but have found none. Calling students' response "Enthusiastic" is, frankly, misleading when there's no actual evidence that it has been anything of the sort... furthermore, there's no reason whatsoever to have a separate article for "Enthusiastic Student Response" when it has no more information than is included in the section on the main QE page. If nobody provides additional evidence, I will take the liberty of editing out the "Enthusiastic" part of the title, and strongly urge that the section be deleted in general. [[DGalore]]
:::If YouTube is so well known for the poor quality of its comment threads, then why didn't you cite supporting articles mentioning this from reputable sources? Consider working on your research skills. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:24, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::By the way, you just gave me an idea for another article on the Question evolution! campaign. Thanks. 11:35, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Like I said, sir, I tried to find more reputable sources, and was unable to do so. Since I can't find anything, I can't in good faith claim the response has been "enthusiastic." As far as my research is concerned: I have searched Google, Yahoo et. al with variations on the searchstring "College Student response to Question Evolution!", and have checked through the archives of my own college newspaper and various other major college publications, and found no significant references. The article cannot stand as-is - we either need to find better sources, or change it to reflect the lack of them. Citing nothing but youtube comments is, frankly, embarrassing and discredits the article. [[DGalore]]
:::::::::At the very ''least'', it should not read "Enthusiastic" in any case. The section should be titled just "Student Response to the QE! Campaign." Given the liberal bias on college campuses, it is inconceivable that student response will be universally enthusiastic. Pretending that the only response has been rapturous enthusiasm is neither encyclopedic nor informative. [[DGalore]]
::::::::::::DGalore, setting aside the fact that no true skeptic claims to know my gender, you haven't shown you have done your due diligence. I suggest not giving up you day job and if you have any life long dream of becoming a reporter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:59, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::Sorry - I was only trying to be respectful, since you're a senior member of the site and I'm very new! I don't use wikis much, so I'm not well-versed in internet etiquette... Anyway, to the point: Do ''you'' have any evidence for the Student Response page? Because if ''I'' don't, and ''you'' don't... who does?

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-10-17T15:57:43Z

DGalore: /* Enthusiastic Student Response */

[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2|Archive 2]]

This article seems like it is trying to endorse Youtube user ShockofGod more than explain anything or offer any useful information. USer:Gelatin
:You are not being very specific when it comes to supporting your contention. It seems like you are just spoiling for a pointless internet argument. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:00, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well in six of the sections on the article it makes a direct reference to the youtube user ShockofGod which makes it seem like more of an endorsement to him than to the actual campaign, in addition it puts too much priority on him as opposed to other evangelicals with the same message. [[Gelatin]]

== Enthusiastic Student Response ==

Why does this section exist? The only examples included are two youtube comments, and a photograph of a model wearing a QE t-shirt. This is not remotely illustrative of an "Enthusiastic" student response, or any kind of response at all. In point of fact, youtube is so well-known for the poor quality of its comment threads that citing it may be actively harmful to the credibility of the article. I've looked for more substantive examples of students reacting to the QE campaign, but have found none. Calling students' response "Enthusiastic" is, frankly, misleading when there's no actual evidence that it has been anything of the sort... furthermore, there's no reason whatsoever to have a separate article for "Enthusiastic Student Response" when it has no more information than is included in the section on the main QE page. If nobody provides additional evidence, I will take the liberty of editing out the "Enthusiastic" part of the title, and strongly urge that the section be deleted in general. [[DGalore]]
:::If YouTube is so well known for the poor quality of its comment threads, then why didn't you cite supporting articles mentioning this from reputable sources? Consider working on your research skills. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:24, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::By the way, you just gave me an idea for another article on the Question evolution! campaign. Thanks. 11:35, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Like I said, sir, I tried to find more reputable sources, and was unable to do so. Since I can't find anything, I can't in good faith claim the response has been "enthusiastic." As far as my research is concerned: I have searched Google, Yahoo et. al with variations on the searchstring "College Student response to Question Evolution!", and have checked through the archives of my own college newspaper and various other major college publications, and found no significant references. The article cannot stand as-is - we either need to find better sources, or change it to reflect the lack of them. Citing nothing but youtube comments is, frankly, embarrassing and discredits the article. [[DGalore]]
:::::::::At the very ''least'', it should not read "Enthusiastic" in any case. The section should be titled just "Student Response to the QE! Campaign." Given the liberal bias on college campuses, it is inconceivable that student response will be universally enthusiastic. Pretending that the only response has been rapturous enthusiasm is neither encyclopedic nor informative. [[DGalore]]

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-10-17T15:57:21Z

DGalore: /* Enthusiastic Student Response */

[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2|Archive 2]]

This article seems like it is trying to endorse Youtube user ShockofGod more than explain anything or offer any useful information. USer:Gelatin
:You are not being very specific when it comes to supporting your contention. It seems like you are just spoiling for a pointless internet argument. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:00, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well in six of the sections on the article it makes a direct reference to the youtube user ShockofGod which makes it seem like more of an endorsement to him than to the actual campaign, in addition it puts too much priority on him as opposed to other evangelicals with the same message. [[Gelatin]]

== Enthusiastic Student Response ==

Why does this section exist? The only examples included are two youtube comments, and a photograph of a model wearing a QE t-shirt. This is not remotely illustrative of an "Enthusiastic" student response, or any kind of response at all. In point of fact, youtube is so well-known for the poor quality of its comment threads that citing it may be actively harmful to the credibility of the article. I've looked for more substantive examples of students reacting to the QE campaign, but have found none. Calling students' response "Enthusiastic" is, frankly, misleading when there's no actual evidence that it has been anything of the sort... furthermore, there's no reason whatsoever to have a separate article for "Enthusiastic Student Response" when it has no more information than is included in the section on the main QE page. If nobody provides additional evidence, I will take the liberty of editing out the "Enthusiastic" part of the title, and strongly urge that the section be deleted in general. [[DGalore]]
:::If YouTube is so well known for the poor quality of its comment threads, then why didn't you cite supporting articles mentioning this from reputable sources? Consider working on your research skills. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:24, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::By the way, you just gave me an idea for another article on the Question evolution! campaign. Thanks. 11:35, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Like I said, sir, I tried to find more reputable sources, and was unable to do so. Since I can't find anything, I can't in good faith claim the response has been "enthusiastic." As far as my research is concerned: I have searched Google, Yahoo et. al with variations on the searchstring "College Student response to Question Evolution!", and have checked through the archives of my own college newspaper and various other major college publications, and found no significant references. The article cannot stand as-is - we either need to find better sources, or change it to reflect the lack of them. Citing nothing but youtube comments is, frankly, embarrassing and discredits the article. [[DGalore]]
:::::::::At the very ''least'', it should not read "Enthusiastic" in any case. The section should be titled just "Student Response to the QE! Campaign." Given the liberal bias on college campuses, it is inconceivable that student response will be universally enthusiastic. Pretending that the only response has been rapturous enthusiasm is neither encyclopedic nor informative. [DGalore]

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-10-17T15:52:34Z

DGalore: /* Enthusiastic Student Response */

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-10-17T15:48:45Z

DGalore: /* Enthusiastic Student Response */

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-10-17T15:48:18Z

DGalore: /* Enthusiastic Student Response */

Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson

2011-10-17T15:41:01Z

DGalore:

== Expanding and cleaning up this page ==

This page is far too short considering how popular a figure Tyson is in the liberal-atheist community (he has often been cited as the successor to noted Atheist Carl Sagan). At present it is also very vague, lacking any citations for what are at best quite controversial viewpoints. I intend to make a small project out of improving this over the next couple of days. So far all I've done is delete the unsourced claim that "Liberals mainly like him because of his skin color" (I'll add it back in later, if I can find a source) and changed the first sentence to specify exactly what his job title is. In the future, I intend to:

1. Add citations (his official CV and bio are my main sources right now for purely biographic info, I will add third-party sources as I move into criticism/opinion sections)

2. Add distinct sections for: His Education, his Work (both scientific and as a media figure), his Politics/Views, and Criticism/Controversy

3. Add a photograph

If anyone has any objections, please voice them here. I think Tyson is a very important figure in modern-day atheism - in the field of astronomy, he's as important as Richard Dawkins is in biology. He's certainly very outspoken and I believe he will only become more visible as a face of atheistic science, so it is crucial that Conservapedia have an in-depth and accurate article on him. Suggestions are welcome. [[DGalore]]

Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson

2011-10-17T15:40:02Z

DGalore: Created page with "== Expanding and cleaning up this page == This page is far too short considering how popular a figure Tyson is in the liberal-atheist community (he has often been cited as the s..."

== Expanding and cleaning up this page ==

This page is far too short considering how popular a figure Tyson is in the liberal-atheist community (he has often been cited as the successor to noted Atheist Carl Sagan). At present it is also very vague, lacking any citations for what are at best quite controversial viewpoints. I intend to make a small project out of improving this over the next couple of days. So far all I've done is delete the unsourced claim that "Liberals mainly like him because of his skin color" (I'll add it back in later, if I can find a source) and changed the first sentence to specify exactly what his job title is. In the future, I intend to:

1. Add citations (his official CV and bio are my main sources right now for purely biographic info, I will add third-party sources as I move into criticism/opinion sections)

2. Add distinct sections for: His Education, his Work (both scientific and as a media figure), his Politics/Views, and Criticism/Controversy

3. Add a photograph

If anyone has any objections, please voice them here. I think Tyson is a very important figure in modern-day atheism - in the field of astronomy, he's popular as important as Richard Dawkins is in biology. He's certainly very outspoken and I believe he will only become more visible as a face of atheistic science, so it is crucial that Conservapedia have an in-depth and accurate article on him. Suggestions are welcome. [[DGalore]]

Neil deGrasse Tyson

2011-10-17T15:31:06Z

DGalore:

'''Neil deGrasse Tyson''' is an astrophyicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium. Like "Professor" [[Richard Dawkins]], he is a very public figure, having featured on various mainstream media programs such as the History Channel in order to promote his agenda. Like Dawkins, he is a museum employee rather than a professor.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tyson, Neil deGrasse}}
[[Category:Atheists]]

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-10-17T15:12:55Z

DGalore:

Talk:Enthusiastic student responses to the Question evolution! campaign

2011-10-15T19:21:51Z

DGalore: Created page with "I've only recently started editing here, but I have to ask if this page is really necessary as-is. The only examples of "Enthusiastic Student Response" are two quotes from youtub..."

I've only recently started editing here, but I have to ask if this page is really necessary as-is. The only examples of "Enthusiastic Student Response" are two quotes from youtube, which is hardly significant evidence of anything whatsoever. I've done a cursory search for more examples, but there don't appear to be all that many - at least not reported by the mainstream media on the internet.

British Empire

2011-10-09T05:25:20Z

DGalore: /* India */

[[Image:BritishEmpire1921.png|thumb|right|350px|The world in 1921, with British Empire shown in pink]]

The '''British Empire''' was a global empire acquired and ruled by the [[Kingdom of Great Britain]] (or, from 1801 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, called "Great Britain" or "Britain" in historical studies). After 1945 the Empire collapsed and most former colonies joined the loosely organized "British Commonwealth," and many--including Canada and Australia--kept the monarch as their nominal head of state.

At its peak in 1921, the Empire contained a quarter of the world's land area (with emphasis on Australia and Canada) and more than a fourth of the world's population (with emphasis on India). Imperialists often boasted, "The sun never set on the British Empire," for it included parts of every continent. The Empire was held together by a highly professional bureaucracy based in London, and by the world's most powerful navy, the Royal Navy, which enlarged its power by creating naval bases and coaling stations in many of the colonies. It was the largest seaborne empire in history, and the largest in terms of land area (though the Mongol Empire was the largest in terms of contiguous - unbroken by sea - land area). <ref>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_largest_empire_in_history</ref>
==History==
Its origins can be dated to the English discovery of [[Newfoundland]] in 1493, and its voluntary end began in 1947 (when [[India]] was granted independence), and peaked in the 1960s (when Britain withdrew from most of its remaining colonies). The last stages came as recently as 1997 (when [[Hong Kong]], the last major colony, was returned to [[China|Chinese]] rule).

The European powers after 1500 had national governments with centralized military and navy power, financial resources, religious impulses and military technology. Some of them--Portugal, Spain, England, France, and the Netherlands especially, wanted overseas colonies to bolster their economic, religious and political ambitions, and provide an outlet for the energies of ambitious young men. England (Britain after 1703) was the most successful because it resisted the ambitions of Spain and, in a series of wars in the 18th century, defeated France in North America and India.

In the long-run, the success of the British Empire depended on an economic system that had stable money and encouraged trade and entrepreneurship, a strong navy that guaranteed protection for all the colonies (none was ever captured by an enemy), and a legal system that was stable, fair and lacking in petty corruption or bribery.

==Settlement==
Millions of Britons migrated and settled some of the Empire--especially the [[Colonial America|13 American colonies]], Canada (and Newfoundland), Australia, New Zealand and (in part), South Africa. Some settlers came as prisoners, especially to Australia. Others came as slaves, especially to the West Indies and the 13 American colonies.
[[Image:B-Emp-1763.jpg|thumb|375px]]

In the rest of the Empire Britain sent in soldiers, administrators, businessmen and missionaries on temporary duty, as in India and Africa, along with a relatively small number of permanent settlers.
===First efforts, 1497-1640===
Portugal and Spain built the first empires, based on the wealth of Brazil and Mexico and Peru. England was allied with Portugal, but was a foe of Spain, a much larger country with a stronger navy in the century after Columbus. The English responded as predators, raiding and seizing Spanish ships, under the cover of "privateering" authorized by the government. Spain in 1588 sent a major fleet (the Armada) to conquer England, but it was destroyed by storms, and Spain lost her superiority at sea. England set out small expeditions to claim land (such as [[Newfoundland]], settled in 1610) and set up bases to raid the Spanish main. Most of the early efforts were of small scale, and failed, such as the "Lost Colony of Roanoke" (1585-87), where a hundred settlers in North Carolina simply vanished. The Scots (independently of England), attempted a vast colony in Darien, the Panama region of Central America; it was a total failure.
===13 American colonies===
The small settlement at [[Jamestown]] miraculously survived and once the value of native tobacco was appreciated it became the nucleus for the highly successful colony of [[Virginia]]. In 1619 the Virginians set up an elected legislative assembly, the house of burgesses, which is now the state legislature. It was the first distinctively American local government and became the model for other colonies. Religion motivated some 30,000 [[Puritans]], a community-oriented, modernizing group that settled Massachusetts and Connecticut in the 1630s, and created the [[Yankee]] model of being American.

The main colonies were created by the English, but one was captured. The English captured the Dutch colony of [[New Amsterdam]] in 1664 and renamed it New York; the Dutch settlers remained and the rich poltroons had huge estates along the Hudson River.

Each of the 13 American colonies was different, but typically a colony was ruled by a governor appointed from London who controlled the executive administration and relied upon a locally elected legislature to vote taxes and make laws. By the 18th century, the American colonies were growing very rapidly because of ample supplies of land and food, and low death rates. They were richer than most parts of Britain, and attracted a steady flow of immigrants, especially teenagers who came as indentured servants. The tobacco and rice plantations imported black slaves from the British colonies in the West Indies, and by the 1770s they comprised a fifth of the American population. The question of independence from Britain did not arise as long as the colonies needed British military support against French and Spanish power, for a series of major wars made welcome the protection afforded by the Royal Navy. London regarded the American colonies as existing merely for the benefit of the mother country. The Americans developed their own legal and political traditions, focused on self government with elected legislatures and in new England, elected town officials). They developed a political philosophy of [[Republicanism]] to justify their system, which had no aristocrats. The British threat to American self-government was the cause of the [[American Revolution]], where fighting lasted 1775-1781.

==Second British Empire==
[[File:Empire1815.jpg|thumb|350px|Start of the Second british Empire, 1815]]
After the loss of the American colonies in 1776, the British painstakingly rebuilt a new "Second British Empire." They kept their small but valuable slave-islands in the Caribbean (which produced sugar), grew Canada, and conquered the major part of India and nearby areas. [[Egypt]] was taken over in the 1880s, although nominally it was still part of the [[Ottoman Empire]]. Australia and New Zealand were settled, and the new cities of [[Hong Kong]] and [[Sinagpore]] were created. By the late 19th century they added much of Africa. After World War I, former German colonies were added, as well as parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, such as Palestine and Iraq.
==Economics==
After 1689 England created the world's first modern financial and banking system. The City of London, where finance was and is still based, became the financier to the world, providing short-term credit for trade and long-term credit for investment. By 1810 Britain also had its [[Industrial Revolution]], which produced a flow of high-quality low-cost, textiles, machines and other products that could be sold worldwide. As the leading force in finance and manufacturing, and as the world's dominant naval power, Britain could easily expand across the globe, and did so. In general, in Latin America and China the expansion did not involve colonies.<ref> The British set up a new colony in Hong Kong that became its base for expansion into the China market. Otherwise China remained independent. There were two small colonies on the mainland of Latin America, but they were not very important.</ref> In Africa and Asia new or enlarged colonies were the method used.

Britain's greatest exports were modernization of the economy, and fostering a cosmopolitan attitude toward government, business, law and civic duty, as opposed to local support for traditional rulers and customs. The Empire brought each colony a modern infrastructure, with new roads, railways, ports, banks, post offices and telegraph systems that any modern person could use. Cain and Hopkins (2001) argue that British imperialism was not a form of plunder that hurt the economies they took over; rather, it primarily modernized the territories it controlled.<ref> See Cain and Hopkins, ''British Imperialism'' (2001)</ref>

Imperial policy was set by London-based financial and mercantile interests. Gentlemanly capitalism was the nexus of landed, financial, and service elites that dominated politics and the economy in Britain and were the driving force behind imperial expansion. That is, "gentlemanly capitalists" in Britain set policy, while the dominions were run by a dependent and collaborating elite.<ref>Cain and Hopkins (2001); Dumett, 1999</ref>

==Culture of the Empire==
The Victorians saw themselves as the vanguard of western civilization, as pioneers of industry and progress. They were confident in their ability to improve the human condition everywhere, and of their capacity to turn potential wealth into reality. Their formula was liberalism, that is the release private enterprise from the dead hand of the state. They believed that unending social energy would flow from the interplay of free minds, free markets and Christian morality. The Victorian outlook, furthermore, was suffused with a vivid sense of moral superiority, religious mission and self-righteousness. Across the globe the Canningites and Palmerstonians worked endlessly to bring about conditions favouring commercial advance and liberal awakening. Since the 1970s, historians more attuned to the sensitivities of the colonized people have challenged the effectiveness of the imperialists.<ref> Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher with Alice Denny, ''Africa and the Victorians: The Climax of Imperialism'' (1968), pp 1-4</ref>

==1914==
In its heyday, the British Empire was the largest empire in history: by 1914, the eve of the [[First World War]], it spanned a quarter of the world's total land mass (though much of this consisted of vast, uninhabited areas of northern Canada and Australia). Its constituent parts included [[India]], [[Canada]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], Malaya (now [[Malaysia]] and [[Singapore]]), [[South Africa]], [[Egypt]], [[Nigeria]], [[Kenya]], [[Uganda]] and [[Hong Kong]], inspiring the saying "the sun never sets on the British Empire."

==Dissolution==
The various parts of the Empire were granted independence by London (peacefully usually, sometimes otherwise) at different times. The thirteen American colonies that formed the original [[United States of America]] declared their freedom in 1776 and, with France, defeated the British in a major war. Most of [[Ireland]] went its separate way in 1922. The remaining "settler colonies" that were inhabited mainly by white people of British descent were formally granted self-government in 1931, though they had been self-governing for some years prior to that date. The remaining colonies were granted independence in the decades following the [[Second World War]], and the last remaining colony of importance, Hong Kong, left British rule in 1997 after a long lease with China expired.

Most former colonies are members of the [[Commonwealth of Nations]] and many of them, such as Canada and Australia, still have the the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch.

Fourteen small territories that formed part of the Empire, such as the [[Cayman Islands]], [[Bermuda]], [[Anguilla]], the [[Falkland Islands]] and [[St. Helena]], remain under British rule today. They are legally known as the "British Overseas Territories".
==Historic regions==
===United States===
Although American historians have always paid attention to the negative causes of the revolt by which the 13 colonies broke away from the Empire, in the early 20th century the "Imperial School," including [[Herbert L. Osgood]], [[George Louis Beer]], [[Charles M. Andrews]] and [[Lawrence Gipson]] took a highly favorable view of the benefits achieved by the economic integration of the Empire.<ref>Ian Tyrrell, "Making Nations/Making States: American Historians in the Context of Empire," ''Journal of American History,'' Vol. 86, No. 3, (Dec., 1999), pp. 1015-1044 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2568604 in JSTOR]</ref> For a good sample of the school see George Louis Beer, ''The Old Colonial System, 1660-1754'' (1913) [http://books.google.com/books?id=2KkJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:george+inauthor:beer&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0 full text online].
===India===
A raging debate continues regarding the economic impact of British imperialism on India. The issue was raised by conservative leader [[Edmund Burke]] who in the 1780s vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray (1998) continues this attack, saying the new economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of "plunder" and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of Mughal India. Ray accuses the British of depleting the food and money stocks and imposing high taxes that helped cause the terrible famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of Bengal.<ref>Rajat Kanta Ray, "Indian Society and the Establishment of British Supremacy, 1765-1818," in ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp 508-29</ref>

On the other hand, P. J. Marshall shows that recent scholarship has reinterpreted the received view that the prosperity of the formerly benign Mughal rule gave way to poverty, and anarchy. Marshall argues the British takeover did not make any sharp break with the past. British control was delegated largely through regional Mughal rulers and was sustained by a generally prosperous economy for the rest of the 18th century. Marshall notes the British went into partnership with Indian bankers and raised revenue through local tax administrators, and kept the old Mughal rates of taxation.<ref>Professor Ray agrees that the East India Company inherited an onerous taxation system that took one-third of the produce of Indian cultivators.</ref> Instead of the Indian nationalist account of the British as alien aggressors, seizing power by brute force and impoverishing all of India, Marshall presents the interpretation, supported by many scholars in both India and the West, in which the British were not in full control but instead were players in what was primarily an Indian play and in which their rise to power depended upon excellent cooperation with Indian elites. Marshall admits that much of his interpretation is still rejected by many historians working in India today, who prefer to bash the British.<ref>P.J. Marshall, "The British in Asia: Trade to Dominion, 1700-1765," in ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp 487-507</ref>

==Slavery==
One of the most controversial aspects of the Empire is its role in first promoting and then ending slavery. In the 18th century British merchant ships were the largest element in the "Middle Passage" which transported millions of slaves to the Western Hemisphere. Most wound up in the Caribbean, where the Empire had highly profitable sugar colonies, and the living conditions were bad. (The plantation owners lived in Britain.) Parliament ended the the international transportation of slaves in 1807, and used the Royal Navy to enforce that ban. In 1833 it bought out the plantation owners for cash and officially banned slavery. Historians before the 1940s argued that moralistic reformers such as [[William Wilberforce]] and the Evangelical Protestants (especially Methodists) were primarily responsible.

Historical revisionism arrived when West Indian historian [[Eric Williams]] in ''Capitalism and Slavery'' (1944), rejected this moral explanation and substituted a [[Marxist]] interpretation. He argued that abolition was now more profitable, for a century of sugar cane raising had exhausted the soil of the islands, and the plantations had become unprofitable. It was more profitable to sell the slaves to the government than to keep up operations. The 1807 prohibition of the international trade, Williams argued, prevented French expansion on other islands. Meanwhile British investors turned to Asia, where labor was so plentiful that slavery was unnecessary. Williams went on to argue that slavery played a major role in making Britain prosperous. The high profits from the slave trade, he said, helped finance the [[Industrial Revolution]]. By implication, Britain enjoyed prosperity because of the capital extracted from the unpaid work of slaves.

More recently historians have challenged Williams. They have shown that slavery remained profitable in the 1830s because of innovations in agriculture, so the profit motive was not central to abolition.<ref> J.R. Ward, "The British West Indies in the Age of Abolition," in P.J. Marshall, ed. ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century'' (1998) pp 415-39.</ref> Richardson (1998) finds Williams's claims regarding the Industrial Revolution are greatly exaggerated, for profits from the slave trade amounted to less than 1% of total domestic investment in Britain. Richardson further challenges claims (by African scholars) that the slave trade caused widespread depopulation and economic distress in Africa--indeed that it caused the "underdevelopment" of Africa. Admitting the horrible suffering of the slaves themselves, he notes that many Africans benefited directly, because the first stage of the trade was always firmly in the hands of Africans. European slave ships waited at ports to purchase cargoes of people who were captured in the hinterland by African dealers and tribal leaders. Richardson finds that the "terms of trade" (how much the ship owners paid for the slave cargo) moved heavily in favor of the Africans after about 1750. That is, indigenous elites inside West and Central Africa made large and growing profits from slavery, thus increasing their wealth and power.<ref> David Richardson, "The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1660-1807," in P.J. Marshall, ed. ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century'' (1998) pp 440-64.</ref>
==Name==
The term "British Empire" was used by historians as early as 1708.<ref> John Oldmixon, ''The British Empire in America, Containing the History of the Discovery, Settlement, Progress and Present State of All the British Colonies, on the Continent and Islands of America'' (London, 1708))</ref> before that the usual term was "English Empire."<ref>As in Nathaniel Crouch, ''The English Empire in America: Or a Prospect of His Majesties Dominions in the West-Indies'' (London, 1685).'' Armitage pp 174-5</ref>

==Further reading==
[[File:James-brit-empire.jpg|thumb|280px]]
* Bayly, C. A. ed. ''Atlas of the British Empire'' (1989). survey by scholars; heavily illustrated
* Beinart, William, and Lotte Hughes. ''Environment and Empire'' (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion) (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Environment-Empire-History-British-Companion/dp/0199260311/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224385647&sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]
* Black, Jeremy. ''The British Seaborne Empire'' (2004)
* Brendon, Piers. "A Moral Audit of the British Empire." ''History Today'', (Oct 2007), Vol. 57 Issue 10, pp 44-47, online at [[EBSCO]]
* Brendon, Piers. ''The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781-1997'' (2008), very well written popular survey [http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-British-Empire-1781-1997/dp/0307268292/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253004822&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Bryant, Arthur. ''The History of Britain and the British Peoples'', 3 vols. (1984–90), popular.
* Cain, P. J. and A.G. Hopkins. ''British Imperialism, 1688-2000'' (2nd ed. 2001), 739pp, detailed economic history that presents the new "gentlemanly capitalists" thesis [http://www.amazon.com/British-Imperialism-Crisis-Deconstruction-1914-1990/dp/058220965X/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]; [http://www.questia.com/read/24219275?title=British%20Imperialism%3a%20Innovation%20and%20Expansion%2c%201688-1914 full text online]
* Colley, Linda. ''Captives: Britain, Empire, and the World, 1600-1850'' (2004), 464pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385721463/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]
* Dalziel, Nigel. ''The Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire'' (2006), 144 pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0141018445/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpts and online search from amazon.com]
* Etherington, Norman. ''Missions and Empire'' (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Missions-Empire-History-British-Companion/dp/019925348X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224385647&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search], on Protestant missions
* Ferguson, Niall. ''Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power'' (2002), [http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Demise-British-Lessons-Global/dp/0465023290/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196061626&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by a conservative scholar
* Hyam, Ronald. ''Britain's Imperial Century, 1815-1914: A Study of Empire and Expansion'' (1993). [http://www.amazon.com/Britains-Imperial-Century-1815-1914-Expansion/dp/033399311X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196061553&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* James, Lawrence. ''The Rise and Fall of the British Empire'' (1997), the best scholarly overview [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-British-Empire/dp/031216985X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252982523&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
** James, Lawrence. ''The Illustrated Rise and Fall of the British Empire'' (1997), abridged edition with many superb illustrations
* Johnson, Robert. ''British Imperialism.'' (2003) 284pp; good, short introduction to the major issues
* Judd, Denis. ''Empire: The British Imperial Experience, From 1765 to the Present'' (1996). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=6969240 online edition]
* Lloyd; T. O. ''The British Empire, 1558-1995'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=27709944 online edition]
* Louis, William Roger (general editor), ''The Oxford History of the British Empire'', 5 vols. (1998–99).
** vol 1 "The Origins of Empire" ed. by Nicholas Canny
** vol 2 "The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Eighteenth/dp/0199246777/ref=sr_1_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
** vol 3 ''The Nineteenth Century'' edited by William Roger Louis, Alaine M. Low, Andrew Porter; (1998). 780 pp.. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98650583 online edition], also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Nineteenth/dp/0199246785/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]
** vol 4 ''The Twentieth Century'' edited by Judith M. Brown, (1998). 773 pp. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104728347 online edition] also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Twentieth/dp/0199246793/ref=sr_1_13/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-13 excerpt and text search]
** vol 5 "Historiography" ed, by Robin W. Winks (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Historiography/dp/0199246807/ref=sr_1_25/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842573&sr=8-25 excerpt and text search]
* Marshall, P. J. (ed.), ''The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire'' (1996). [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Illustrated-History-British-Empire/dp/0521002540/ref=sr_1_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]
* Olson, James S. and Robert S. Shadle; ''Historical Dictionary of the British Empire'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58315322 online edition]
* Porter, A. N. ''Atlas of British Overseas Expansion'' (1994)
* Robinson, Howard . ''The Development of the British Empire'' (1922), 465pp [http://books.google.com/books?id=woRdQlGbL_oC&dq=intitle:british+intitle:empire+date:1900-1924&num=30 online edition]
* Rose, J. Holland, ed. ''Cambridge History of the British Empire: vol 1: The Old Empire from the Beginnings to 1783'' (1929) [http://www.questia.com/read/99039834?title=The%20Cambridge%20History%20of%20the%20British%20Empire online edition]
* Smith, Simon C. ''British Imperialism 1750-1970'' (1998). brief

====Notes====
<references/>

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:British History]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:Economic History]]
[[Category:Africa]]
[[Category:Asia]]
[[Category:British Empire]]

British Empire

2011-10-09T05:24:10Z

DGalore: /* 1914 */

[[Image:BritishEmpire1921.png|thumb|right|350px|The world in 1921, with British Empire shown in pink]]

The '''British Empire''' was a global empire acquired and ruled by the [[Kingdom of Great Britain]] (or, from 1801 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, called "Great Britain" or "Britain" in historical studies). After 1945 the Empire collapsed and most former colonies joined the loosely organized "British Commonwealth," and many--including Canada and Australia--kept the monarch as their nominal head of state.

At its peak in 1921, the Empire contained a quarter of the world's land area (with emphasis on Australia and Canada) and more than a fourth of the world's population (with emphasis on India). Imperialists often boasted, "The sun never set on the British Empire," for it included parts of every continent. The Empire was held together by a highly professional bureaucracy based in London, and by the world's most powerful navy, the Royal Navy, which enlarged its power by creating naval bases and coaling stations in many of the colonies. It was the largest seaborne empire in history, and the largest in terms of land area (though the Mongol Empire was the largest in terms of contiguous - unbroken by sea - land area). <ref>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_largest_empire_in_history</ref>
==History==
Its origins can be dated to the English discovery of [[Newfoundland]] in 1493, and its voluntary end began in 1947 (when [[India]] was granted independence), and peaked in the 1960s (when Britain withdrew from most of its remaining colonies). The last stages came as recently as 1997 (when [[Hong Kong]], the last major colony, was returned to [[China|Chinese]] rule).

The European powers after 1500 had national governments with centralized military and navy power, financial resources, religious impulses and military technology. Some of them--Portugal, Spain, England, France, and the Netherlands especially, wanted overseas colonies to bolster their economic, religious and political ambitions, and provide an outlet for the energies of ambitious young men. England (Britain after 1703) was the most successful because it resisted the ambitions of Spain and, in a series of wars in the 18th century, defeated France in North America and India.

In the long-run, the success of the British Empire depended on an economic system that had stable money and encouraged trade and entrepreneurship, a strong navy that guaranteed protection for all the colonies (none was ever captured by an enemy), and a legal system that was stable, fair and lacking in petty corruption or bribery.

==Settlement==
Millions of Britons migrated and settled some of the Empire--especially the [[Colonial America|13 American colonies]], Canada (and Newfoundland), Australia, New Zealand and (in part), South Africa. Some settlers came as prisoners, especially to Australia. Others came as slaves, especially to the West Indies and the 13 American colonies.
[[Image:B-Emp-1763.jpg|thumb|375px]]

In the rest of the Empire Britain sent in soldiers, administrators, businessmen and missionaries on temporary duty, as in India and Africa, along with a relatively small number of permanent settlers.
===First efforts, 1497-1640===
Portugal and Spain built the first empires, based on the wealth of Brazil and Mexico and Peru. England was allied with Portugal, but was a foe of Spain, a much larger country with a stronger navy in the century after Columbus. The English responded as predators, raiding and seizing Spanish ships, under the cover of "privateering" authorized by the government. Spain in 1588 sent a major fleet (the Armada) to conquer England, but it was destroyed by storms, and Spain lost her superiority at sea. England set out small expeditions to claim land (such as [[Newfoundland]], settled in 1610) and set up bases to raid the Spanish main. Most of the early efforts were of small scale, and failed, such as the "Lost Colony of Roanoke" (1585-87), where a hundred settlers in North Carolina simply vanished. The Scots (independently of England), attempted a vast colony in Darien, the Panama region of Central America; it was a total failure.
===13 American colonies===
The small settlement at [[Jamestown]] miraculously survived and once the value of native tobacco was appreciated it became the nucleus for the highly successful colony of [[Virginia]]. In 1619 the Virginians set up an elected legislative assembly, the house of burgesses, which is now the state legislature. It was the first distinctively American local government and became the model for other colonies. Religion motivated some 30,000 [[Puritans]], a community-oriented, modernizing group that settled Massachusetts and Connecticut in the 1630s, and created the [[Yankee]] model of being American.

The main colonies were created by the English, but one was captured. The English captured the Dutch colony of [[New Amsterdam]] in 1664 and renamed it New York; the Dutch settlers remained and the rich poltroons had huge estates along the Hudson River.

Each of the 13 American colonies was different, but typically a colony was ruled by a governor appointed from London who controlled the executive administration and relied upon a locally elected legislature to vote taxes and make laws. By the 18th century, the American colonies were growing very rapidly because of ample supplies of land and food, and low death rates. They were richer than most parts of Britain, and attracted a steady flow of immigrants, especially teenagers who came as indentured servants. The tobacco and rice plantations imported black slaves from the British colonies in the West Indies, and by the 1770s they comprised a fifth of the American population. The question of independence from Britain did not arise as long as the colonies needed British military support against French and Spanish power, for a series of major wars made welcome the protection afforded by the Royal Navy. London regarded the American colonies as existing merely for the benefit of the mother country. The Americans developed their own legal and political traditions, focused on self government with elected legislatures and in new England, elected town officials). They developed a political philosophy of [[Republicanism]] to justify their system, which had no aristocrats. The British threat to American self-government was the cause of the [[American Revolution]], where fighting lasted 1775-1781.

==Second British Empire==
[[File:Empire1815.jpg|thumb|350px|Start of the Second british Empire, 1815]]
After the loss of the American colonies in 1776, the British painstakingly rebuilt a new "Second British Empire." They kept their small but valuable slave-islands in the Caribbean (which produced sugar), grew Canada, and conquered the major part of India and nearby areas. [[Egypt]] was taken over in the 1880s, although nominally it was still part of the [[Ottoman Empire]]. Australia and New Zealand were settled, and the new cities of [[Hong Kong]] and [[Sinagpore]] were created. By the late 19th century they added much of Africa. After World War I, former German colonies were added, as well as parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, such as Palestine and Iraq.
==Economics==
After 1689 England created the world's first modern financial and banking system. The City of London, where finance was and is still based, became the financier to the world, providing short-term credit for trade and long-term credit for investment. By 1810 Britain also had its [[Industrial Revolution]], which produced a flow of high-quality low-cost, textiles, machines and other products that could be sold worldwide. As the leading force in finance and manufacturing, and as the world's dominant naval power, Britain could easily expand across the globe, and did so. In general, in Latin America and China the expansion did not involve colonies.<ref> The British set up a new colony in Hong Kong that became its base for expansion into the China market. Otherwise China remained independent. There were two small colonies on the mainland of Latin America, but they were not very important.</ref> In Africa and Asia new or enlarged colonies were the method used.

Britain's greatest exports were modernization of the economy, and fostering a cosmopolitan attitude toward government, business, law and civic duty, as opposed to local support for traditional rulers and customs. The Empire brought each colony a modern infrastructure, with new roads, railways, ports, banks, post offices and telegraph systems that any modern person could use. Cain and Hopkins (2001) argue that British imperialism was not a form of plunder that hurt the economies they took over; rather, it primarily modernized the territories it controlled.<ref> See Cain and Hopkins, ''British Imperialism'' (2001)</ref>

Imperial policy was set by London-based financial and mercantile interests. Gentlemanly capitalism was the nexus of landed, financial, and service elites that dominated politics and the economy in Britain and were the driving force behind imperial expansion. That is, "gentlemanly capitalists" in Britain set policy, while the dominions were run by a dependent and collaborating elite.<ref>Cain and Hopkins (2001); Dumett, 1999</ref>

==Culture of the Empire==
The Victorians saw themselves as the vanguard of western civilization, as pioneers of industry and progress. They were confident in their ability to improve the human condition everywhere, and of their capacity to turn potential wealth into reality. Their formula was liberalism, that is the release private enterprise from the dead hand of the state. They believed that unending social energy would flow from the interplay of free minds, free markets and Christian morality. The Victorian outlook, furthermore, was suffused with a vivid sense of moral superiority, religious mission and self-righteousness. Across the globe the Canningites and Palmerstonians worked endlessly to bring about conditions favouring commercial advance and liberal awakening. Since the 1970s, historians more attuned to the sensitivities of the colonized people have challenged the effectiveness of the imperialists.<ref> Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher with Alice Denny, ''Africa and the Victorians: The Climax of Imperialism'' (1968), pp 1-4</ref>

==1914==
In its heyday, the British Empire was the largest empire in history: by 1914, the eve of the [[First World War]], it spanned a quarter of the world's total land mass (though much of this consisted of vast, uninhabited areas of northern Canada and Australia). Its constituent parts included [[India]], [[Canada]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], Malaya (now [[Malaysia]] and [[Singapore]]), [[South Africa]], [[Egypt]], [[Nigeria]], [[Kenya]], [[Uganda]] and [[Hong Kong]], inspiring the saying "the sun never sets on the British Empire."

==Dissolution==
The various parts of the Empire were granted independence by London (peacefully usually, sometimes otherwise) at different times. The thirteen American colonies that formed the original [[United States of America]] declared their freedom in 1776 and, with France, defeated the British in a major war. Most of [[Ireland]] went its separate way in 1922. The remaining "settler colonies" that were inhabited mainly by white people of British descent were formally granted self-government in 1931, though they had been self-governing for some years prior to that date. The remaining colonies were granted independence in the decades following the [[Second World War]], and the last remaining colony of importance, Hong Kong, left British rule in 1997 after a long lease with China expired.

Most former colonies are members of the [[Commonwealth of Nations]] and many of them, such as Canada and Australia, still have the the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch.

Fourteen small territories that formed part of the Empire, such as the [[Cayman Islands]], [[Bermuda]], [[Anguilla]], the [[Falkland Islands]] and [[St. Helena]], remain under British rule today. They are legally known as the "British Overseas Territories".
==Historic regions==
===United States===
Although American historians have always paid attention to the negative causes of the revolt by which the 13 colonies broke away from the Empire, in the early 20th century the "Imperial School," including [[Herbert L. Osgood]], [[George Louis Beer]], [[Charles M. Andrews]] and [[Lawrence Gipson]] took a highly favorable view of the benefits achieved by the economic integration of the Empire.<ref>Ian Tyrrell, "Making Nations/Making States: American Historians in the Context of Empire," ''Journal of American History,'' Vol. 86, No. 3, (Dec., 1999), pp. 1015-1044 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2568604 in JSTOR]</ref> For a good sample of the school see George Louis Beer, ''The Old Colonial System, 1660-1754'' (1913) [http://books.google.com/books?id=2KkJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:george+inauthor:beer&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0 full text online].
===India===
A raging debate continues regarding the good-or-bad economic impact of British imperialism on India. The issue was raised by conservative leader [[Edmund Burke]] who in the 1780s vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray (1998) continues this attack, saying the new economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of "plunder" and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of Mughal India. Ray accuses the British of depleting the food and money stocks and imposing high taxes that helped cause the terrible famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of Bengal.<ref>Rajat Kanta Ray, "Indian Society and the Establishment of British Supremacy, 1765-1818," in ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp 508-29</ref>

On the other hand, P. J. Marshall shows that recent scholarship has reinterpreted the received view that the prosperity of the formerly benign Mughal rule gave way to poverty, and anarchy. Marshall argues the British takeover did not make any sharp break with the past. British control was delegated largely through regional Mughal rulers and was sustained by a generally prosperous economy for the rest of the 18th century. Marshall notes the British went into partnership with Indian bankers and raised revenue through local tax administrators, and kept the old Mughal rates of taxation.<ref>Professor Ray agrees that the East India Company inherited an onerous taxation system that took one-third of the produce of Indian cultivators.</ref> Instead of the Indian nationalist account of the British as alien aggressors, seizing power by brute force and impoverishing all of India, Marshall presents the interpretation, supported by many scholars in both India and the West, in which the British were not in full control but instead were players in what was primarily an Indian play and in which their rise to power depended upon excellent cooperation with Indian elites. Marshall admits that much of his interpretation is still rejected by many historians working in India today, who prefer to bash the British.<ref>P.J. Marshall, "The British in Asia: Trade to Dominion, 1700-1765," in ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp 487-507</ref>
==Slavery==
One of the most controversial aspects of the Empire is its role in first promoting and then ending slavery. In the 18th century British merchant ships were the largest element in the "Middle Passage" which transported millions of slaves to the Western Hemisphere. Most wound up in the Caribbean, where the Empire had highly profitable sugar colonies, and the living conditions were bad. (The plantation owners lived in Britain.) Parliament ended the the international transportation of slaves in 1807, and used the Royal Navy to enforce that ban. In 1833 it bought out the plantation owners for cash and officially banned slavery. Historians before the 1940s argued that moralistic reformers such as [[William Wilberforce]] and the Evangelical Protestants (especially Methodists) were primarily responsible.

Historical revisionism arrived when West Indian historian [[Eric Williams]] in ''Capitalism and Slavery'' (1944), rejected this moral explanation and substituted a [[Marxist]] interpretation. He argued that abolition was now more profitable, for a century of sugar cane raising had exhausted the soil of the islands, and the plantations had become unprofitable. It was more profitable to sell the slaves to the government than to keep up operations. The 1807 prohibition of the international trade, Williams argued, prevented French expansion on other islands. Meanwhile British investors turned to Asia, where labor was so plentiful that slavery was unnecessary. Williams went on to argue that slavery played a major role in making Britain prosperous. The high profits from the slave trade, he said, helped finance the [[Industrial Revolution]]. By implication, Britain enjoyed prosperity because of the capital extracted from the unpaid work of slaves.

More recently historians have challenged Williams. They have shown that slavery remained profitable in the 1830s because of innovations in agriculture, so the profit motive was not central to abolition.<ref> J.R. Ward, "The British West Indies in the Age of Abolition," in P.J. Marshall, ed. ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century'' (1998) pp 415-39.</ref> Richardson (1998) finds Williams's claims regarding the Industrial Revolution are greatly exaggerated, for profits from the slave trade amounted to less than 1% of total domestic investment in Britain. Richardson further challenges claims (by African scholars) that the slave trade caused widespread depopulation and economic distress in Africa--indeed that it caused the "underdevelopment" of Africa. Admitting the horrible suffering of the slaves themselves, he notes that many Africans benefited directly, because the first stage of the trade was always firmly in the hands of Africans. European slave ships waited at ports to purchase cargoes of people who were captured in the hinterland by African dealers and tribal leaders. Richardson finds that the "terms of trade" (how much the ship owners paid for the slave cargo) moved heavily in favor of the Africans after about 1750. That is, indigenous elites inside West and Central Africa made large and growing profits from slavery, thus increasing their wealth and power.<ref> David Richardson, "The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1660-1807," in P.J. Marshall, ed. ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century'' (1998) pp 440-64.</ref>
==Name==
The term "British Empire" was used by historians as early as 1708.<ref> John Oldmixon, ''The British Empire in America, Containing the History of the Discovery, Settlement, Progress and Present State of All the British Colonies, on the Continent and Islands of America'' (London, 1708))</ref> before that the usual term was "English Empire."<ref>As in Nathaniel Crouch, ''The English Empire in America: Or a Prospect of His Majesties Dominions in the West-Indies'' (London, 1685).'' Armitage pp 174-5</ref>

==Further reading==
[[File:James-brit-empire.jpg|thumb|280px]]
* Bayly, C. A. ed. ''Atlas of the British Empire'' (1989). survey by scholars; heavily illustrated
* Beinart, William, and Lotte Hughes. ''Environment and Empire'' (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion) (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Environment-Empire-History-British-Companion/dp/0199260311/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224385647&sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]
* Black, Jeremy. ''The British Seaborne Empire'' (2004)
* Brendon, Piers. "A Moral Audit of the British Empire." ''History Today'', (Oct 2007), Vol. 57 Issue 10, pp 44-47, online at [[EBSCO]]
* Brendon, Piers. ''The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781-1997'' (2008), very well written popular survey [http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-British-Empire-1781-1997/dp/0307268292/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253004822&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Bryant, Arthur. ''The History of Britain and the British Peoples'', 3 vols. (1984–90), popular.
* Cain, P. J. and A.G. Hopkins. ''British Imperialism, 1688-2000'' (2nd ed. 2001), 739pp, detailed economic history that presents the new "gentlemanly capitalists" thesis [http://www.amazon.com/British-Imperialism-Crisis-Deconstruction-1914-1990/dp/058220965X/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]; [http://www.questia.com/read/24219275?title=British%20Imperialism%3a%20Innovation%20and%20Expansion%2c%201688-1914 full text online]
* Colley, Linda. ''Captives: Britain, Empire, and the World, 1600-1850'' (2004), 464pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385721463/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]
* Dalziel, Nigel. ''The Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire'' (2006), 144 pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0141018445/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpts and online search from amazon.com]
* Etherington, Norman. ''Missions and Empire'' (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Missions-Empire-History-British-Companion/dp/019925348X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224385647&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search], on Protestant missions
* Ferguson, Niall. ''Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power'' (2002), [http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Demise-British-Lessons-Global/dp/0465023290/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196061626&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by a conservative scholar
* Hyam, Ronald. ''Britain's Imperial Century, 1815-1914: A Study of Empire and Expansion'' (1993). [http://www.amazon.com/Britains-Imperial-Century-1815-1914-Expansion/dp/033399311X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196061553&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* James, Lawrence. ''The Rise and Fall of the British Empire'' (1997), the best scholarly overview [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-British-Empire/dp/031216985X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252982523&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
** James, Lawrence. ''The Illustrated Rise and Fall of the British Empire'' (1997), abridged edition with many superb illustrations
* Johnson, Robert. ''British Imperialism.'' (2003) 284pp; good, short introduction to the major issues
* Judd, Denis. ''Empire: The British Imperial Experience, From 1765 to the Present'' (1996). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=6969240 online edition]
* Lloyd; T. O. ''The British Empire, 1558-1995'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=27709944 online edition]
* Louis, William Roger (general editor), ''The Oxford History of the British Empire'', 5 vols. (1998–99).
** vol 1 "The Origins of Empire" ed. by Nicholas Canny
** vol 2 "The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Eighteenth/dp/0199246777/ref=sr_1_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
** vol 3 ''The Nineteenth Century'' edited by William Roger Louis, Alaine M. Low, Andrew Porter; (1998). 780 pp.. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98650583 online edition], also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Nineteenth/dp/0199246785/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]
** vol 4 ''The Twentieth Century'' edited by Judith M. Brown, (1998). 773 pp. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104728347 online edition] also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Twentieth/dp/0199246793/ref=sr_1_13/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-13 excerpt and text search]
** vol 5 "Historiography" ed, by Robin W. Winks (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Historiography/dp/0199246807/ref=sr_1_25/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842573&sr=8-25 excerpt and text search]
* Marshall, P. J. (ed.), ''The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire'' (1996). [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Illustrated-History-British-Empire/dp/0521002540/ref=sr_1_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]
* Olson, James S. and Robert S. Shadle; ''Historical Dictionary of the British Empire'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58315322 online edition]
* Porter, A. N. ''Atlas of British Overseas Expansion'' (1994)
* Robinson, Howard . ''The Development of the British Empire'' (1922), 465pp [http://books.google.com/books?id=woRdQlGbL_oC&dq=intitle:british+intitle:empire+date:1900-1924&num=30 online edition]
* Rose, J. Holland, ed. ''Cambridge History of the British Empire: vol 1: The Old Empire from the Beginnings to 1783'' (1929) [http://www.questia.com/read/99039834?title=The%20Cambridge%20History%20of%20the%20British%20Empire online edition]
* Smith, Simon C. ''British Imperialism 1750-1970'' (1998). brief

====Notes====
<references/>

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:British History]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:Economic History]]
[[Category:Africa]]
[[Category:Asia]]
[[Category:British Empire]]

Byzantine Empire

2011-10-09T05:15:41Z

DGalore: /* Collapse */

The '''Byzantine Empire''' is the great Greek-language Christian empire that emerged after 395AD from the eastern part of the [[Roman Empire]], Thanks to efficient government and clever diplomacy that divided its many enemies, the empire survived. Much diminished after 1204 AD when it was sacked by Christian Crusaders from the west en route to liberate Jerusalem, it finally fell to the Turks in 1453--indeed its fall is often used to date the end of the [[Middle Ages]]. Its capital was Constantinople, built on the site of the Greek colony of [[Byzantium]] and which is now known as [[Istanbul]]). The center of Orthodox Christianity, it is famous as well for its art and culture. The inhabitants of the empire referred to themselves as 'Romans' and considered themselves as such, the term 'Byzantine' not being used to describe the empire and its peoples until the seventeenth century, but after the seventh century the language of empire changed from Latin to Greek.
[[File:Byz-army.jpg|thumb|250px]]

==Origins==
By the mid third century, the Roman Empire was beginning to become unmanagable because of its size and the slow speed of communication from one end to another. In an attempt to ovewrcome these difficulties,the Emperor Diocletian split the Roman Empire into two in 293 AD; each half having an 'Augustus' and a 'Caesar', his second in command and intended successor. This experiment didn't last long and Constantine re united the empire, moving its capital from Rome to the city of Byzantium which, in due course, he renamed 'Constantinople'.
==Culture==
The empire was multi-ethnic and officially Orthodox Christian; after c 750 AD, predominantly Greek-speaking. The empire's heritage consisted of the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]], ancient Greek culture, Byzantine art and architecture and [[Roman law]]. Of the 55,000 ancient Greek texts in existence today, some 40,000 were transmitted by Byzantine scribes. And it was the Byzantine Empire that shielded Western Europe from invasion until it was ready to take its own place at the center of the world stage.
[[File:Byz-600.jpg|thumb|600px|left]]
{{Clear}}
==Survival==
It survived the fall of the Western Empire in 476 because of much greater financial resources. That is, it bribed away attacking armies whereas the west could not. The Empire actually reached its height in the 500s under Justinian as it reincorporated many elements of the Western Roman Empire, but shrunk back down to its Eastern roots as it lost these. After surviving the initial rush of Islamic expansion, the Empire settled into boundaries that were relatively stable for several hundred years. While western Europe struggled through the [[Dark Ages]], the Byzantine Empire kept up an aura of refinement and defensive strength that sheltered Europe from the attacks of first the Persian Empire, then [[Islam]].

==Iconoclasm==
[[File:Byzantine art.jpg|thumb|300px|Byzantine mosaic depiction of Christ at the Church of Chora in Istanbul, Turkey.]]
The Empire had difficulties with the "Iconoclast" controversy - a dispute lasting nealy 100 years and centering around arguments over whether or not to allow "holow images" or icons to be displayed in the churches. The position of the Emperors was often at odds with many of the subjects but since the Emperors considered that they were appointed by God, this didn't matter since their opponents were automatically heretics.
{{Clear}}
==Wars==
The Empire was often at war with at least one foreign power, but their strong defensive strategy was usually able to weather attacks. Other than the period 1204 to 1261, the Empire was always centred in [[Constantinople]].

While taking on offensive position to "reunite" with the west under Justinian in the 500's, for the most part the position of the Empire was defensive in nature, having little desire to increase its borders. For years the cultured Byzantine Empire was the protector of Dark Age Europe, repelling Islamic armies that would stretch to control lands from Morocco to India via Hungary. The secure and lasting nature of the Empire was changed forever when treachery led their defeat to Islamic armies at the [[Battle of Manzikert]] in 1071. They lost all of Anatolia to the invaders. Even when they retook the land, much of the population had perished with many of the survivors having fled. Areas that once allowed armies of 120,000 men to be raised for the defense of the Empire had now become barren. The Empire was forced to rely on mercenaries for the bulk of their army from that point forward.<ref>Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy & Dupuy, 1979</ref>

==Crusades==
*see [[Crusades]]

The Empire was dealt another blow in 1204 when forces from Western Europe in the [[Fourth Crusade]] sacked Constantinople in 1204, the first time that had ever happened, instead of going to the [[Holy Land]]. They set up their own "Latin" Empire, so called because of their attempts to make Latin the official language of the Empire rather than Greek, which lasted until the Byzantine reinstatement in 1261. On their arrival in Constantinople, the Latins, mostly Franks and Venetians, were astonished at the power and positions held by Eunuchs - men who, as children, had been castigated so that they would have no children and hence be no threat to the ruling Imperial dynasty.
==Collapse==
[[File:Byz-1450.jpg|thumb|250px]] The Byzantine Empire never truly recovered from the blow dealt to it by the Crusaders. Following the fall of the city to the Latins in 1204, the Empire was reduced to a mere shell of its former self. On May 29 1453, Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, fell to the [[Ottoman Turks]] after a long cannon bombardment. The last relatives of the Byzantine Emperor continued to rule Morea for a few years before being absorbed by the Ottoman Empire in 1460, finally ending the Palaiologos dynasty.

The Ottoman conquerors, whose original capital had been located in Sofa, now in [[Bulgaria]], renamed the city [[Istanbul]] and turned Agia Sophia, the great church of that city into a mosque and later into a museum.

==Further reading==
* Browning, Robert. ''The Byzantine Empire'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Empire-Robert-Browning/dp/0813207541/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256812130&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]
* Brownworth, Lars. ''Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization'' (2009) 352 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-Byzantine-Civilization/dp/0307407950/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256811926&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hussey, J. M. '' The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire'' (1990) [http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Church-Byzantine-History-Christian/dp/0198264569/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256811926&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]
* Luttwak, Edward N. ''The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire'' (2009), military and diplomacy
* Shepard, Jonathan, ed. ''The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c.500-1492'' (2009), advanced scholarship [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Byzantine-Empire-c-500-1492/dp/0521832314/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256811926&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
*Theophanes. The Chronicle of Theophanes. Anni Mundi 6095-6305 (A.D.602-813) Ed. and trans. Turtledove H.(1982) University of Pennsylvania Press.[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chronicle-Theophanes-6095-6305-D-602-813-Middle/dp/0812211286/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267632533&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Roman Empire]]
[[Category:Medieval History]]
[[Category:Ottoman Empire]]
[[category:Byzantine Empire]]