>>Yes but these colonies, territories etc. ended up being relinquished, albeit changed and with maybe a different population. The USA has never given back the "territories" to the native Americans. True, there was no requirement by the vast majority of American citizens to do this, and given that the orig. popn. was probably only a few million (before the annihilations began) the native voice would have been very quiet. What we ended up with was a continent under the "Pax Americanum"
>
>No, we haven't gobbled up Canada yet. Only half a continent. ;)
>
>What you are saying, though, is that your definition of "empire" differs from those proposed in the links from my original post: that an "empire" is any country that has forcibly occupied any other. If that is not correct, let me know, as it is markedly different from my interpretation of the word.

Well maybe if you're going to go all Clinton on me and stick to a strict definition ... But by that token the British, French, German and Belgian empires didn't include parts of Africa, as there were no national boundaries before Europe poked its head in. Anyway, you cited those after I'd asserted that the USA was an empire, didn't you?

And maybe one could say that the continent was the country of the Native Americans, albeit they were split into disparate tribes (but then again not so diferent from those of Mongolia).

>
>>As to the defo of a continenet. It matters not - suffice to say it's a vast land mass, with all its riches and minerals that you now have. Then wasn't the inclusion of Hawaii achieved through some coercion and force. (BTW how come the British Union Flag is in the Hawaian state symbol?)
>
>I'm not that familiar with the history of Hawaii, but one could certainly argue that as it was an independant (and fairly organized) nation, the US occupation of it puts us in the "empire" category.
>
>>Not all the Brit Empire was acquired through brute strength.
>
>I'm curious what pieces you think were not. All of the major portions were.

Oh I think we crept up on India via the East India Company. Later the company had its own "private" army. Similarly with the Hudson Bay Company for Canada? Australia we didn't exactly have to fight a war of attrition with the Aborigines (NZ was a bit more tricky vs the Maories).

>
>>One time most of the known world was "Rome", cf one country, under one govt., from sea to sea, each city with its own equiv. of a drive-in (the ampitheatre). Nuff said? :-)
>
>Au contrair, mon frair. There was a difference between Rome the city/state and Rome the empire. The latter exerted control over its member states by force of arms. As soon as the center could no longer defend/suppress the whole, it fell apart.

I refer to "Rome" as the world, the empire. Many folks were doing quite nicely, thank you, with their Roman central-heated villas, civilised bath house, regular "games", good, fast roads, guarded by sentries and way stations, good trade, etc etc. Just cos the Visigoths and Vandals, et al collapsed the middle in, doesn't mean it was welcome by all the subjects.

Do yopu realise that often the Romans didn't have to lift a gladius to "conquer" a region. The locals took one look at the inginuity and industriousness of a typical Roman overnight encampment and decided it wasn't worth it.

>
>The US is a different matter. The country is held together by law, not by force of arms (some of my more radical Southern acquaintences may argue that point). In my view, that is one of the reasons that makes it a country, and not an empire.

Well there you go! Force of arms played a big part in nearly splitting your empire in two, then put it back together again.

ANyway, held togethr by law only cos all the citizens are there voluntarily. It's not as if you have to keep the natives in check - they're all salted away on reservations and are now toothless.