I am sure most nations at some time have had a period where the borders where covering a larger area. How much land has your nation at some time in history ruled over and does your nation still have any political ambition to rule it again? For Denmark, at some period rules over Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Northern part of Poland and Germany, Parts of Nederland, Normandy France, England, Greenland, Iceland, Fore islands, Virgin Islands, Tranquebar (an colony in India) and a colony on the golden cost in Africa. Denmark don’t have aspirations on more territory, been there done that! (Mostly during the Viking age as we name it) As a tourist I do have in my mind to visit all of the above named areas.
My country (U.S.) is too darned big already. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, and Alaska, are considering severing ties with the SOS, and creating a new country.
That new country may be called HSEB (Happy States of Economic Bliss).
Greece might also like to make up some new nation without any debts
Hund - SOS ???? Please explain. You might be interested to read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princi... Many in the population of the vast state of Western Australia (WA) have long been wanting to break away from the Federation of Australia. There was even a vote in 1933 and almost 70% of the population wanted to break away, but it didn't happen. When visiting WA anything that is made there is pushed to the front of the counter with a prominent 'Made in WA.' I happened to spot a delivery vehicle in Perth that was taking eggs to various stores - slogan 'Laid in WA' - sadly I was not quick enough with the camera. Interesting topic - and BTW I am a volunteer at Cooks' Cottage in Melbourne and trace on a map of the world the voyages of discovery of James Cook. If Cook had not been so active in the 1770's there is a good chance the Australia would be speaking French - OUI!!
India is a sub continent. Never had any ambition to rule over neighbouring territories being the land of (Amen!) 'Ahimsa' or non-violence. Merely annexed them, eg., Sikkim in 1975 ;-) Or helped break up other countries, eg., East Pakistan became Bangladesh in 1971 after separating from Pakistan, hah! Or made sure Sri Lanka remained united by (not) helping the LTTE. Hah again! Or acknowledging the presence of Nepal, Bhutan and Male. Hah, yet again!
The boot is on the other foot for poor Scottieland. Part of the English Empire for a few centuries now. However, we have an independence referendum due in 2014. I'll be voting "yes" and will be campaigning for it too. If we vote against, I'll do my best to emigrate and vote with my feet. We have oil and gas. We have WMD (nuclear subs). I expect we'll be invaded if there's a "yes" vote.
Very interesting question Allan. I'm British so I suppose the answer is that at one time we probably "ruled over" what, a third of the world? I'm not sure of the figures but the British Empire was fairly extensive. I would suggest we have no ambitions to rule that grouping of countries again although the case of the Falkland Islands does spring to mind here and seems to have3 been in the news a bit lately. Iain, you talk about Scotland's WMD, I had been wondering about that. If Scotland does devolve fully, what happens to the armed forces? Do all Scottish regiments return to Scotland? What happens to the very many Scots serving in other units? I can vouch for the number of Scots in the British Forces and I am sure many of them would not relish being ordered into purely Scottish regiments. Will UK just "give" Scotland nuclear subs, aircraft, main battle tanks etc. etc.? I genuinely have never had all this explained to me. Oh, and what happend when the oil runs out?
>Oh, and what happend when the oil runs out? Do what the Government of Nauru (very small Pacific nation almost on the equator) did and that's to build very large buildings in other countries and then reap the benefit of rental income. As time went on those in charge of the government (and others) squandered the money and today the economy is a basket case. Sadly the British and Aussies who were in charge did not reach the locals how to manage things properly. For a while the Aussie govt 'bailed out' Nauru by building an off-shore detention facility for illegal boat people. Wonder if Scotland could make money by taking off the British many of those who are trying to get into UK at the moment - :)
Interesting concept. We already have prison ships in UK.
Hi Fugu …yes it seems like it was only for a brief period that Finland paid taxes to the Danish king (reindeer furs) but the text (Saxo`s tail of the Danes) is coherent with the occupation of the Baltic countries. Yes Fergy the English had the largest empire ever. My old history teacher think you did give away more then you ever gained economically, just making the railway system of India. Maybe that is the real reason, why the colonies the Europeans had have been abandoned over time.
Maybe that is why train fares in the UK are still so obscenely expensive.
I read many of your posts on this forum and, believe me, find some of them interesting. But in almost of all your postings there is a, albeit small, aversion to Greece, usually formulated not of an elegant manner. The later of your comment is not related to your initial proposal/question for discussion. Generally, your travel pages make reference, sorry to say, only to the negative points of interest of our country, which I do not deny that there are, and they are a lot of course, and I agree that each of us, I mean the locals, can observe without been regreted. What's the use to deride from?
How exactly do you work that out bakalapoe? I quote, "But in almost of all your postings there is a, albeit small, aversion to Greece, usually formulated not of an elegant manner". As far as I can see, certainly in this thread, there is one small reference to the Greek economy which by general informed and international consent is in very deep trouble. I took it to be a joking reference which it was undoubtedly intended as, given the tone of it. Where is the aversion, where is the inelegant manner? I really do not understand where you have imagined this supposed slight. My Greece page, unaltered and written some tme ago if you care to check states this. "Greece really seems to have everything you would want in a holiday, no matter what your interests. There is ample history and archaeology to satisfy even the most avid historian. There are monasteries and wonderful churches if that's your thing. The climate is wonderful, the people friendly and the food is out of this world. And, if you just fancy lying around a swimming pool or on a beach, well, I can't think of many nicer places to do it." How exactly is this an aversion to Greece can you tell me? Before you start getting on your high horse and throwing totally unfounded allegations at VT members who are, in my experience, the least confrontational of all the major travel websites can you please explain where you got your ideas? If we have accidentally given offence (which I see no evidence of), I have no doubt that everyone will apologise, it is certainly not the intent but you seem to have made something out of absolutely nothing here. I await your answer with interest.
Receiver of my comment was TheView! It was my fault not to write @TheView in from of my posting. Sorry for the misunderstanding...
No problem, although I do still think it was a humourusly intended post.
I thought the EU already ruled-over the UK? Or - does it just feel like it! Ooops - political - sorry! There are still a few contentious issues around - Gibralta, Falkland islands, for example. As for Scottish independence - well I will support what the majority vote-for. But - independence means just that. You're on yer own!
That's exactly what we want, John.
@Bakalapoe sorry if I did offend you, but it was just a joke and a little wondering in my mind to what would happen if the stat didn’t exist anymore and what would happen with the debt then? Now you are seeing younger people moving away from it if they have the chance to find work in other parts of the EU. As a footnote I have Greek friends and have been to the country a few times and love it for its history, philosophers and food and climate …and I think I might visit again this summer.
aaa...youre kidding, right allan? :D werent those the days when there were no danes, swedes and norwegians, but it was all one and the same? :=)) --------------- No No @Fugu ..I am thinking on days where the Danish king did rule. Just try to keep in mind that the density of the population was in the south of now a days Sweden (Skåne, Halland and Blekinge) that was a sure part of Denmark in that time and the Denmark we know today. So the Danish king had better opportunity to raise a lager army.
It seems like you don’t have the basic info. That Denmark has the oldest monarchy in the world so there are records telling who were kings and who they ruled
Japan has an Emperor not a king ;-) But sure I was talking about the area or some part of it, that we know as Finland today
Like most things in the world, I know nothing about this but I am finding it absolutely fascnating. As my mate says often, "Every day is a schoolday."
Hey you lot, don't forget that the Danes ruled at least parts of UK until 1066. For some great reading on early UK history, can I suggest looking at http://www.dot-domesday.me.uk/index.htm Damn Vikings - LOL A Danish friend here in Australia is quoted as saying that when the Vikings came ashore in various places (including the UK), the local men ran into the hills and hid, while their women folk 'mingled' - sadly he did not explain what he meant by 'mingled' - LOL
Forgot to mention that I've been writing our family history for a while (on and off - mostly off). Part of our family name has strong Viking connections - the suffix 'thorn.' In my writings I've said of the Vikings, "Perhaps in modern parlance, the Vikings had bad PR consultants!"
Well, David, interesting you talk about 1066 etc. Some years ago I read a book by the excellent Magnus Magnusson entitled simply "The Vikings" and I do thoroughly recommend it if it is still in print. As far as I can make out the Battle of Hastings, which wasn't in Hastings at all was basically the product of three "Viking" families fighting for land. I do apologise if I get my Harald's wrong here bit I believe Harald Godwinson, he of the alleged arrow in the eye was the "King" of Angleland at the time. William the Conqueror, who people believe was Norman was actually from a settled Viking family in Normandy who had basically bullied the locals into giving them land. Seeing his chance the ther Harald (Hardrader I believe) attacked the North of England which was why the "English" troops had to march North, defeat them and return depleted and exhauste3d to face the "Normans" at Senlac (now the village of Battle). So, basically the seminal moment, as taught, of British history actually had very little to do with Britons, it was all Vikings / danes / Norsemen or whatever you want to call it. Sorry if I have some of this wrong, it is a while since I read the book.
Interesting question because something is brewing over in the South China Sea right now. The People's Republic of China is claiming the whole of the South China Sea to themselves based on some old obscure maps even though it violates the UN's Exclusive Economic Zone law of the sea, ie a country has special rights over the exploration and use of marine resources, including production of energy from water and wind, within the state's territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei are being impacted by the Chinese claims and tension is brewing. Lets hope this does not lead to war and aggression because this disputed area covers the busiest sea lanes in the world and it is apparently rich in natural gas and oil.
Fergy you could almost be convicted of heracy to suggest that those 'noble' Britons were anything less than the hero's as portrayed in the British psyche - "Britons will never be slaves etc'
You are on to something Fergy …btw do you know the meaning of “England”? I can remember if I told you during the London meeting.
Wikipedia is not a good reference for most things …but Eng is simply the Danish word for Meadow England being a land of many meadows this makes perfect sense like the f…up on the naming of Iceland and Greenland. Lol.