How did Great Britian manage to lose the empire?
605061
by their racist attitude
901128
NO.\nChristianity and other factors break down the roman empire
282886
His name was Equilopidoankelepsius Jadoopclus.  He was the most fierce warrior of all in ancient Roman Empire in 700 B.C. his brother was Cladius, who was trying to steal the throne but unsuccessfully defeated by the Hkianzipolquioustis Dynasty!!\n\nStay curious, stay focus, stay sharp & determined are the best warrior's attributes and also the codes of samurai!!
494712
I couldn't find any specifics, but since Elba is an island, he obviously used a boat of some sort. It also seems more than likely that the British aided him in his escape, if not directly (by actually supplying the means) then at least indirectly by supplying him information on the whereabouts of British navy ships, and "turning a blind eye" to what he was planning.\n See the site below for more.
928246
The European people escaped the old country to the land of the great wilderness to become colonists in order to avoid endentured servitude, oppression, and persecution.  As the hand of mighty England reached across the waters into the new land of the colonies, they forced the same tyranny upon the people of the colonies that they had previously faced in the old country of England.  Then, as taxations and other tariffs were forced upon the colonists, the pressure built until it exploded.  With a militia force that was knowledged of the way of the land, they were able to conquer the mighty and arrogant English into submission.
284918
because the brits have a hard time letting go
984860
I would say the England because during that time it rose to become the ruler of an empire that the sun never set on).\n\nGood Luck!!!
29452
I would check out the first link for a time line of events during the 1920's.  Then maybe search http://www.wikipedia.com for information about each event.\n\nThe British Empire started a long time before 1920, so you might need to start at the beginning to find out why they started out to conquer the world.\n\nCheck out the second link too.  It might help.
643934
Levit, Britain couldnt hold The germans off at all???? three words for you my friend BATTLE OF BRITAIN, the british did just that they held the germans off thanx to THE FEW, the men and women of RAF fighter command many of whom were not much older than thier late teens and early twenty's, after defeat in the BATTLE of BRITAIN the germans turned thier attentions to Russia and got thier arses kicked, plz do some re-search on these things before you open your mouth and insert your foot in it.
425899
Okay but this answer is pretty long.\n\nNapoleon's determination to implement the Continental System had led him to embark on the Peninsular Campaign in a further extension of the French Wars.  Although the attempt to conquer Spain was failing, Napoleon set about a greater task: the conquest of Russia.  One reason for this was that Britain had become involved in a war with America and Napoleon was convinced that Britain was on the verge of collapse, provided that the blockade of trade with Britain was carried out.  However, the Czar was making a big hole in the plan. The interview at Erfurt had merely checked the process of disillusionment which had been going on in Alexander’s mind ever since Tilsit. There had always been a strong anti-Bonaparte party at his Court, headed by the Czar's mother; and its influence was strengthened during the next few years. For instance \n\nNapoleon would not give definite assurances that he would not turn the Grand Duchy of Warsaw into a Kingdom of Poland  \nwhen Napoleon annexed northern Germany in 1811 he had dethroned the Duke of Oldenburg, the Czar’s uncle, with insultingly offhand talk of compensations elsewhere \nthe Czar was angry to discover the depth of Napoleon's opposition to Russia acquiring Constantinople in the war which Alexander had just begun with Turkey. \nThe main trouble was over the Continental System. The stoppage of trade with England meant the ruin of Russian commerce, and therefore of the Czar’s revenues; also of the corn-growing on which the Russian nobles depended for their own incomes. Alexander grew slacker and slacker in the enforcement of the Decrees, and Napoleon’s protests grew more and more heated. In 1810 the Czar forbade the importation of a number of luxury articles, such as wines and lace, most of which came from France, in order to redress his trade-balance. A year later he openly admitted British shipping to his ports.\n\nNapoleon thought that he could not let this go on. Ruinous as the defection of Russia was in itself, even worse was the effect it would have on other countries groaning under the System. He believed that he must make an example of the Czar that would intimidate other rulers who were “willing to wound yet half afraid to strike": He intended to give a demonstration of his overwhelming strength and determination but he was no longer the man he had been. \n\nNapoleon was growing old at an age when others were just coming into their prime. He was becoming fatter, less energetic and more cautious.  He made more military mistakes and his run of success had robbed him of all sense of the attainable.  He had begun to shut his eyes to unpleasant facts, and to ignore the voice of common sense.\n\nWhen in the middle of 1811 the clash became inevitable, Czar and Emperor competed with each other in the search for alliances. Austria was now bound to Napoleon by family ties following his marriage to Princess Marie Louise; moreover, however much the Emperor Francis of Austria- Hungary chafed against his dependence, he was haunted by memories of Campo Formio, Lunéville, Pressburg and Schönbrunn. He therefore agreed to mobilise an army on his Galician frontier with an understanding that he was to recover his Illyrian provinces at the end of the campaign. However, his new Chancellor, Metternich, had seen enough while he was the Austrian ambassador at Paris to realise that the Napoleonic Empire would not last much longer, and he privately made a “gentleman’s agreement” with Alexander that his army should do nothing in particular. \n\nIn Prussia, patriotic fervour was strong, but the King’s nerve had been even more shaken than that of the Emperor Francis. He was forced to send an army to cover the Baltic flank of the coming invasion, and to feed the invading host as it passed through his dominions. The Poles, too, remained faithful to Napoleon; he had done much for them, and would, they hoped, do more when he had conquered
1027083
C. Great Britain\nThere's a reason that it was said that "the sun never set on the British Empire".
415162
Its territory covered approximately the northern part of modern Iraq. However they were a mighty military empire that ruled the known world for a time. The Assyrians were known for their excessive cruelty. They seemed indestructible. Fear gripped the nations around them. Kings committed suicide instead of falling into the Assyrians' cruel hands. Yet the Babylonians defeated them at Nineveh and so ended this indestructible empire. Then Babylon was supreme until the Medes and the Persians came along. One lesson here: All empires, and in modern times super powers, rise and fall in a consistent repeating pattern. Spain was big, France was big. Great Britain was big. No more. Now the U.S. is big, but a day is coming when we will be a super power no more. \nSomebody else will be big. China? A coalition of Muslim countries? United States of Europe? We'll see, and perhaps in our own life-time.
393408
There was no coalition.  Britain sent the most troops.  Poland a few, Spain a few, Italy a few.  Spain withdrew first after the train bombings in Madrid.  Poland is out.  Italy too. Only Britain is left and they are pulling out. \nThe whole thing was a scam
309226
He could keep on tearing through countries, gaining land, power, and popularity and Britain would just sit there. France wouldn't act without the British, even though they wanted to.
539129
The British Empire (along with Spain) had a very formidable navy. During the many generations when land ownership (and most other disputes) was being resolved through military means a powerful armada was yardstick of a countries success in acquiring and holding new territories.
1160611
After the fall of France, Hitler thought the British would be an easy mark.  What makes the Battle of Britain unique, is that it was fought solely in the air and at sea.  Hitler thought he could bomb the British into submission and that his submarine "Wolf Packs" could effectively cut off supplies from the "Arsenal of Democracy" which was the United States.  He was horribly wrong.  He underestimated the British resolve as well as new technologies such as radar which gave the British plenty of time to intercept the German bombers over the British channel.  He also underestimated Britain's "home field advantage" with fighting in the air on their turf; The British pilots were still fresh when they went into combat while their German counterparts were flying for hours before encountering combat.
591694
Let's get something straight danmoorex.England or the UK never threatened anyone. But understand this the UK has been threatened many times. By the likes of bigger bullies than the cowardly rabble that attempt to threaten the British way of life now.The Brits are a hardy lot. Mess with them at your peril.Organised German,French,Spanish armies tried to master them. All failed. So don't get the idea that the Brits will allow anyone to threaten them and get away with it.\nAs for Jesus Christ, if he existed at all He was probably English.