It probably happened over a long period of course but when did the ref know when to “call it”?
Ottomans is an easy one, it was dismantled by treaty after losing in WW1.
Generally there is no clear cut rule about when you draw the line if it’s not obvious, so you could make the argument that the British Empire still exists if you really wanted to. They do still have some overseas possessions after all, that would be a perfectly legit position someone could argue if they felt like it. And I’m sure some people even do.
I’d think if Scotland is successful in gaining independence, that would be the official end.
The funny thing is the groundwork for the current UK was actually formed by a Scottish king who managed to get the English throne. That’s how Scotland and England unified ultimately, the Scottish king peacefully took over both due to some inheritance thing. Like a century later someone else formalized the unification of the two, instead of it being one king who had both crowns.
Would WWI be a good end point for the British empire too, or would it be when they lost the American colonies?
WW2 is widely considered the deathblow to the British Empire. They were still fully intact after WW1, they still had India, a lot of Africa, etc and that all played an important role in how WW2 played out.
After WW2 is when they started slowly granting everyone independence, in major part because they didn’t have the resources anymore to keep control of everything after being economically drained by both the world wars.
You could make the argument that losing the American colonies was an early indicator of the beginning of their decline, but that’s really debatable. They did grow in land area in other regions (Africa mainly) after that point. Personally I would make the argument that the WW1-WW2 era was the high point of British power in comparison to the other global powers.
The British Empire didn’t reach its greatest extent until 1920, though the economic and industrial damage was ultimately fatal.
The loss of the 13 colonies wasn’t too bad in the long run, and afterward the British empire entered its most rapid expansion.
How did the Ottomans themselves view their fall or what indicia did they recognize in line with the rest of the world?
Interesting question, I’m not sure. Would need someone more knowledgeable on Turkish history specifically.
Its almost more interesting to me as a sidebar how the respective upper echelon-folk view these things or have inside information at some point on to liquidate and flee
For Rome there are too many of those moments. IMO the three most important ones are
- 17 January 395 — final division of the empire. Theodosius I dies, and his sons Honorius and Arcadius inherit the West and East respectively.
- 4 September 476 — fall of the Western Empire. Odoacer deposes the Western Roman emperor and proclaims himself “rex Italiae”.
- 29 May 1453 — fall of the Eastern Empire. The siege of Constantinople ends, with the victory of the Ottoman sultan Mehmet II.
In all three something essential to the empire was lost: first its unity, then its original homeland (and eventually culture; Latins were increasingly seen as foreigners instead of the main people of the Empire), then the succession of rulers.
Historically, the suez crisis 1956 was the final nail in the coffin for the British empire symbolically. The pound crashed and lost alot of influence in the middle east
It has a lot of parallels to this crisis war in iran right now.
when they no longer could get up.
Letting an idiot named Donald run for the highest seat in the land.
