We Hold A Vaster Empire Than Has Been -- History Question

[Disclaimer: not my stamp; just a great scan I lifted from the Internet]

Here's an appropriate stamp for the weeks leading up to Christmas. We know the line from the Morris poem, "We Hold A Vaster Empire Than Has Been."

But I have a question for you history buffs. Actually more than one...

Did Queen Victoria indeed hold a vaster empire than had been?
The Roman Empire was pretty large; although, the inclusion of Australia and Canada might give QV the edge over the Caesars. Genghis Khan? Alexander the Great controlled a fair-sized chunk of land too, as I recall.

How about the years after QV?
Did the empire expand during the reigns of Edward VII and George V? I assume it began to contract during the reign of George VI.

Who knows their world history?

(not me),
Kirk

actually, Victoria's grandson, George V, held a larger empire. Britain acquired large territories after WWI, including the Middle-East regions (Palestine, Transjordan and Mesopotamia/Iraq) from the Ottomans and several African (Togo, Cameroon, South-West Africa and Tanganyika) and Indian Ocean territories (New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru) from Germany.

land/area wise, British Empire #1 at 33.7m square km.
people wise, British Empire #1 with 531.3m citizens.



I know my wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...gest_empires

I think the statement is a reflective statement. In other words I think the stamp is saying "We Hold a Vaster (British) Empire than has ever been". That would make it a true statement.

About Mongol Empire:



So it's close to the British Empire that cover almost 25% of the Earth's total land area at his max.

But the Mongols had the largest contiguous empire ever.

The Polynesian Tongans claim to hold the longest empire, from 1200-1500 in the South Pacific. They say it included Wallis and Futuna, Tokelau, Tuvalu, Tikopia, Niue, Rotuma, Nauru, and parts of the following: Fiji, the Marquesas, Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Cook Islands, and Samoa.

However, the amount of real influence Tonga had on most of the islands has been seriously challenged and generally discounted by some modern archaeologists.

This is complicated, as there was a gradual transition from British Empire to British Commonwealth - so in the early 1900s Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa were granted "dominion" status, i.e. able to govern themselves, with power held by the local colonials (eg in the case of South Africa there were only token concessions to the majority population).

So these countries couldn't really be regarded as part of an "empire", which requires central rule by the metropolis - eg South Africa nearly voted to stay out of the second world war.

And I guess that the loss of the "dominion" countries from empire rule more than counterbalanced the gain in territories after the first world war, as both the areas and the populations of the dominions were relatively high.

The first territory where real control was given to the indigenous inhabitants was India / Pakistan, granted independence within the Commonwealth in 1947, ie the same "dominion" status held by Canada etc.

At first these effectively independent countries became members of the British Commonwealth - which is now called the "Commonwealth of Nations." It has no role in government, being a voluntary group of countries (and including several countries that were never part of the British Empire).

As good old Wikipedia says:

"The Commonwealth of Nations — formerly the "British Commonwealth" — is a voluntary association of 54 independent sovereign states, most of which are former British colonies, or dependencies of these colonies with three exceptions, Mozambique (which was a Portuguese possession), Rwanda (which was a Belgian mandate) and Cameroon (which was partly a German territory and partly French and British colony) plus the United Kingdom itself. The Commonwealth's membership includes both republics and monarchies. The head of the Commonwealth of Nations is Queen Elizabeth II. She also reigns as monarch directly in a number of states, known as Commonwealth realms, notably the United Kingdom, Australia, Barbados, Canada, Jamaica, and New Zealand. The Commonwealth of Nations is sometimes referred to as the New Commonwealth in a British context."

So when the British Empire was greatest is a very tricky issue, probably impossible to establish - the most "red on the map" just after the 1st world war, the largest area directly controlled from Britain probably the late 1800's. Just how complicated is illustrated by another extract from Wikipedia about Canada:

"In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada was formed as a federal dominion of four provinces. This began an accretion of provinces and territories and a process of increasing autonomy from the United Kingdom. This widening autonomy was highlighted by the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and culminated in the Canada Act of 1982, which severed the vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament."

So when did Canada stop being part of the British Empire? I dunno!

Help - I thought I was going to get those nice "quote" boxes. What did I do wrong?

Aha, I've got it right second time. And managed to post two images on the UN thread!

Interesting interpretation, smauggie. Also, there's nothing in the quote that explicitly says we're talking about land mass. Vastness could apply to less-tangible things.

After all, "The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire" was more about political power than it was about astronomy

Timbres667 - interesting comparaison! Thanks

Good info David. You've got an extra right bracket ] right after your second quote -- it could be causing a problem. You should be able to go back and edit to check all your [ ] are matching

KirkS

[edit to fix brackets]

It occurs to me that another way to calculate "vastness" is to count the number of colonies held by Great Britain. Granted, this would be an anachronistic measurement when made of more ancient empires which did not think in terms of colonies and colonialization.

Thank you, KirkS! Surplus bracket removed (first time round I didn't put the quote in the right place!)

The British Mandate over Iraq ended in 1932, so - leaving aside the question of Canada, Australia etc - that might qualify as the first return of control to the indigenes.

The Thirteen Colonies of America were the first to gain control of themselves.

Well, if I remember my history correctly (no time to check on the internet) the British left Iraq in 1932 because of internal squabbling and continual attacks on British troops (sounds familiar?).

So I got to thinking about other cases where the British had to cede ground by giving back control to local people. I'm sure there were various times in India where this happened from the 18th century on. Transvaal in the 1870s doesn't really count, as power went back to the White minority. Heligoland in the late 1800s?

They never really had control in Afghanistan so the various defeats in the "North west frontier" wars probably don't count either. The places in China won after the Opium Wars that they relinquished in the early 20th century?

I guess a lot depends on what we choose to mean by "Empire" . . .

You're quite right about Iraq, David, the historical echoes are quite eerie. And then there's Afghanistan as well ... (I really can't recommend highly enough Forty-One Years in India by Field Marshal Lord Roberts of Kandahar VC, KP, GCB, GCSI, GCIE. He won his VC in the Second Afghan War, and he's very illuminating on the subject of a technologically superior Western army fighting in Afghanistan.)

And India is the perfect example of just how tricky it is to define 'Empire' and 'control'. The arrangements with the individual Indian States were enormously complex and varied, although Britain usually maintained suzerainty at least over them. Then there's the position of Nepal pre-1947. Not quite British suzerainty, but not quite independence either. It's instructive that Gibbons used to list Nepal among the Indian States.

And, come to think of it, how would one classify Sarawak under the White Rajas, and North Borneo, under the British North Borneo Company?

One must keep in mind the phrase was coined by a poet,
and borrowed for the stamp,
There may be licence in his (the poet's) interpretation.


BTW: the best image I have seen for that stamp,
but I must confess, I prefer the "blue" seas, to the violet.

..and the rope in the bottom LH corner continues
around the stamp, I have some where the rope stops,
or has a chink.