# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  What is the greatest empire ever existed?

## Zauriel

Please enlighten me with your opinions why the empire you voted for is great. 

I would probably vote on Khan empire (founded by Genghis Khan) because it encompasses most of Asia and had a lasting impct on the civilization. However, it didn't live long. 

But I was thinking about Spanish empire or British empire. Spanish empire covers most of the New World. Britain had its share of territory in Asia, Africa and Americas. Britain also became a naval superpower from 1692 to 1940, but Britain's power had waned in the 20th century and Spain's power declined in late 19th century due to the revolutions and independence declarations from their colonies. So England's glory lasted for two or three centuries since 17th century and Spain's glory lasted for three centuries since 16th century. 

Ancient Rome is also a great empire which had influenced the Western civilization. 

Mughal empire had significant influence on Indian history as well.

Ottoman empire lasted for more than 600 years from 1299 to 1908 and had quite many achievements but Ottoman power waned in 1683 after the Battle of Vienna. It continued to live even after its decline but grew weaker.

Byzantine Empire and Alexander The Great's Empires were pretty great empires. 

I would hardly consider Holy Roman Empire, Louis XIV's empire and Napoleon Empire since they were either weak, decadent or lasted shorter than a dog's life.

----------


## Duo

I would say the Roman Empire..... it spread european civilization in our continent and is the foundation of evropa.

----------


## Maciamo

In matter of size, population, administration, durability, cultural tolerance and long-term effects, the British Empire was the greatest. The Roman Empire comes second. How comes the Chinese Empire (at least Han to Tang period, or Ming to Qing) is not in the list ?

----------


## Duo

True the british empire was greater however one ponders about the positive effects it had upon human civilization. We need only to look at the middle east conflicts, kashmir, Africa and what not to get a feel about the british legacy in the world they conquered ;)

----------


## Kinsao

I'm torn between the Ancient Roman empire and the British empire, for different reasons; however, I'm not going to vote for anything because I simply don't know enough about the other empires mentioned to make a reasoned decision. *contemplates how long it would take to read enough history books to get a balanced knowledge*  :Embarrassment:

----------


## Index

What about Pax Americana?  :Uzi:

----------


## isayhello

The Romans THE ROMANS! They really had it all: Fine arts, culture, war tactics, knowledge and science. Besides, they had such an interesting religion...

----------


## 4321go

Empire HIt must have emperor! And who is the emperor now! I think no empire existe nowI

----------


## Maciamo

> Empire HIt must have emperor! And who is the emperor now! I think no empire existe nowI


Japan has an emperor, but interestingly it's not an empire anymore. Anyway, the topic is about historical empires, which have all disappeared.

----------


## Kinsao

> Empire ？It must have emperor! And who is the emperor now! I think no empire existe now！


I have an empire!  :Poh: 

Nuff said.  :Hihi:

----------


## Zauriel

> How comes the Chinese Empire (at least Han to Tang period, or Ming to Qing) is not in the list ?


My knowledge of world history sill leaves a lot to be desired.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

How about Ancient Egypt? They were responsible for innovations in writing, art, engineering (including architecture and irrigation), mathematics, agriculture, medicine and international relations.

----------


## Lovlyperson

> Please enlighten me with your opinions why the empire you voted for is great. 
> 
> I would probably vote on Khan empire (founded by Genghis Khan) because it encompasses most of Asia and had a lasting impct on the civilization. However, it didn't live long. 
> 
> But I was thinking about Spanish empire or British empire. Spanish empire covers most of the New World. Britain had its share of territory in Asia, Africa and Americas. Britain also became a naval superpower from 1692 to 1940, but Britain's power had waned in the 20th century and Spain's power declined in late 19th century due to the revolutions and independence declarations from their colonies. So England's glory lasted for two or three centuries since 17th century and Spain's glory lasted for three centuries since 16th century. 
> 
> Ancient Rome is also a great empire which had influenced the Western civilization. 
> 
> Mughal empire had significant influence on Indian history as well.
> ...


  :Smiling:  
The greatest Empire for me is my future,as it is mine  :Blush:

----------


## Maciamo

> How about Ancient Egypt? They were responsible for innovations in writing, art, engineering (including architecture and irrigation), mathematics, agriculture, medicine and international relations.


Egypt was a kingdom. It's best compared to England or France before having their colonial empire. Empires are usually kingdoms that extend by taking over many other countries/kingdoms and create a vast, multicultural political entity. A great empire would be one that manage to keep this multicultural entity long enough and manage it well. The British Empire wins in that sense, as it has so to say survived to this day with the Commonwealth of Nations, and played an important role in asserting English as the world's lingua franca.

----------


## Mamoru-kun

Does the Civilization games' empires count?  :Wink:

----------


## 4321go

How about Arabian Empire! It was an important intermediator of east and west @^_^
` to "British empire of 17th to 20th century " It is reason to why we use English here , too large colony it been have! so English become universal language now!

----------


## 4321go

> Does the Civilization games' empires count?



"Civilization games' empires H" you make a joke ! ^_^@D  :Blush:  

I think the "Civilization" is a difficult game for play ,It needs patient. However,It is very popular!

----------


## Maciamo

> How about Arabian Empire! It was an important intermediator of east and west @^_^
> ` to "British empire of 17th to 20th century " It is reason to why we use English here , too large colony it been have! so English become universal language now!


Maybe you mean the Ottoman Empire that ruled the Middle-East from the 15th century to 1918. The Arabs took over a lot of land in their jihad, creating a Muslim world from Spain to Central Asia, but it was not politically unified, and thus was not an empire.

----------


## Mycernius

> Egypt was a kingdom. It's best compared to England or France before having their colonial empire. Empires are usually kingdoms that extend by taking over many other countries/kingdoms and create a vast, multicultural political entity. A great empire would be one that manage to keep this multicultural entity long enough and manage it well. The British Empire wins in that sense, as it has so to say survived to this day with the Commonwealth of Nations, and played an important role in asserting English as the world's lingua franca.


Egypt did have an empire. During the reign of Ramases II it stretched almost all the way to the Hittite empire, which is modern day Turkey, and covered where Israel and Lebanon are now. Over 3000 years of the ancient Egyptian civilisation, this was when it was almost at it's maximun size. Ancient Egypt was also a very multicultural society. Like most empires/knigdoms it will wax and wane.

----------


## Maciamo

> Egypt did have an empire. During the reign of Ramases II it stretched almost all the way to the Hittite empire, which is modern day Turkey, and covered where Israel and Lebanon are now. Over 3000 years of the ancient Egyptian civilisation, this was when it was almost at it's maximun size. Ancient Egypt was also a very multicultural society. Like most empires/knigdoms it will wax and wane.


Yes, but that was an Empire hardly bigger than Egypt itself. Then, I don't see how it could be greater than Alexander's Empire or the Roman Empire, which were both bigger, more developed and more muticultural. Among the two best remembered structures in Egypt (the Pyramids and the Pharos/Lighthouse of Alexandria), one was built under Greek rule, which did not last a tenth of the length of the Egyptian rule (300 year against over 3000 years).

----------


## Maciamo

> I think the "Civilization" is a difficult game for play ,It needs patient. However,It is very popular!


I played Civilization since the first version, and especially at the time of Civilization II (only a bit Civ III). It's the only game I have played seriously in the last 10 years ! I would rank it as the best game ever made.  :Cool:

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Egypt did have an empire. During the reign of Ramases II it stretched almost all the way to the Hittite empire, which is modern day Turkey, and covered where Israel and Lebanon are now. Over 3000 years of the ancient Egyptian civilisation, this was when it was almost at it's maximun size. Ancient Egypt was also a very multicultural society. Like most empires/knigdoms it will wax and wane.





> Yes, but that was an Empire hardly bigger than Egypt itself. Then, I don't see how it could be greater than Alexander's Empire or the Roman Empire, which were both bigger, more developed and more muticultural. Among the two best remembered structures in Egypt (the Pyramids and the Pharos/Lighthouse of Alexandria), one was built under Greek rule, which did not last a tenth of the length of the Egyptian rule (300 year against over 3000 years).


I suppose it depends how you define 'greatest'. If by 'greatest' you mean most widespread, then Maciamo is right. But if you define 'greatest' some other way, then Egypt is definitely a contender. It is my favourite ancient civilization, probably because I know more about it than any of the others. But if you want more objective reasons, how about these:
- the world's first known peace treaty was between the Egyptians and the Hittites
-the world's earliest historical document tells of the unification of upper and lower Egypt
-international trade; Egypt was exporting wine to Israel over 5000 years ago.
-there is some evidence that the Egyptians traded with South Americans; cocaine, which is indigenous to the Andes, has been found in Egyptian mummies.
-Pharoah Sahure is a good example of Egypt's international interests

I've just mentioned stuff about Egypt as an empire, although it was great for many other reasons.  :Cool:

----------


## 4321go

> Maybe you mean the Ottoman Empire that ruled the Middle-East from the 15th century to 1918. The Arabs took over a lot of land in their jihad, creating a Muslim world from Spain to Central Asia, but it was not politically unified, and thus was not an empire.


Not Ottoman Empire. It is more early! Which i632—1258jat the same time of Tang dynasty of China.

"Arabian nights" tell the story of that time!

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%98%...B8%9D%E5%9B%BD

----------


## Maciamo

> Not Ottoman Empire. It is more early! Which i632\1258jat the same time of Tang dynasty of China.
> 
> "Arabian nights" tell the story of that time!
> 
> http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%98%...B8%9D%E5%9B%BD


There was no Arab Empire. There were just many Caliphates (Damascus, Baghdad, Cordoba...). They were all Arabic-speaking and Muslim, but it was not politically unified.

----------


## 4321go

Em~ I see ~ only unified in culture and religion.

One question to ask: Does the Arab people speak and use the same language or letter
till now? If it does, I think the Arab country will have the chance to became one country.

----------


## Maciamo

> Em~ I see ~ only unified in culture and religion.


Yes, like Ancient Greece, or China during the Warring States period. 




> One question to ask: Does the Arab people speak and use the same language or letter
> till now? If it does, I think the Arab country will have the chance to became one country.


Officially, they all speak Arabic, but there are different dialects in each region (e.g. Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia is one region), and they can't always understand each others. Educated people use Classical Arabic to communicate from one Arabic country to another.

By the way, they already have an Arab League, with some Muslim Black African countries in it too.

----------


## 4321go

Thank you for shareing your insight!! ^_^

----------


## Dutch Baka

Ancient Rome for me, as there is still a mayor interrest in it nowadays!

and i just love Asterix, and obelix!!!

----------


## Sensuikan San

I confess to having been torn between the Roman and British Empires, too.

But I gave it to Rome.

Mainly for _longevity_ and lasting influence.

The British Empire, influential though it was, didn't actually last that long ... and was to a large degree due to the efforts of a single private enterprise if the truth be told. Had it not been for the East India/Hudson Bay Company and its trading successes - the British Empire may not have existed at all. (Somewhat like Exxon, Shell, Imperial and other oil companies influence American and other interests today ... not to mention Ford, GM, Mitsubishi, Hyundai ........ ) Essentially, the British Empire as we think of it really only lasted from .... say .... 1750 - 1950 ...?

The Romans lasted _much_ longer than that!

... and whilst Latin didn't actually become a world "second" language (which English has ...) it did _ influence_ and give birth to a substantial number of key Southern and Western European languages, and contributed generously toward the creation of Western European culture. (All the German and Scandinavian folks are allowed to laugh at this point!  :Clap:  )

As for the_ motives_ of the British or the Romans ... or anybody ... in _creating_ an Empire - or their means of doing so and maintaining it - I don't want to go there ! (But I think it may have had something to do with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..............)

W

----------


## Sensuikan San

And now ... I would like to challenge whoever launched the poll ....!

I feel that there is an "Empire" missing from his poll!

What happened to ... _the Vikings_ ....?

Here we have folks who, for at least a couple of hundred years, explored, settled, "conquered" and influenced ... Scandinavia, Northern Europe, Finland, Russia, The Middle East, Ireland, Scotland, England, Greenland ... and North America! They influenced language, culture and art. 

They achieved a damned sight more than Fascist Italy! .... and _that's_ in the poll...!

I agree that they never created a "unified" entity that could be called (in political terms) an "Empire" ... but could not the same be said of some of the other "candidates"?

W

----------


## Maciamo

> Essentially, the British Empire as we think of it really only lasted from .... say .... 1750 - 1950 ...?
> 
> The Romans lasted _much_ longer than that!


Technically, the Roman Empire only lasted from 31 BC to 476 AD. It wasn't an empire before 31 BC (but a Republic, and before that Monarchy), and it only was truly Roman as long as it was based in Rome, i.e. until 476. After that was left the Eastern Roman Empire based in Constantinople, or Byzantine Empire. So the Roman Empire only lasted twice as long as the British Empire, but ruled over only a fraction of the land, and especially population of the British Empire. Yet, Latin remained the lingua franca of Europe from the beginning of the empire through the middles ages, and we could say until the early 20th century, as many people still learnt it at school, listened to the mass in Latin, and sometimes used it to communicate (maybe more in Eastern Europe).

----------


## Maciamo

> I feel that there is an "Empire" missing from his poll!
> 
> What happened to ... _the Vikings_ ....?
> ...
> I agree that they never created a "unified" entity that could be called (in political terms) an "Empire" ... but could not the same be said of some of the other "candidates"?


You answered you question. Maybe for a poll about the greatest or most influential civilisation ?

----------


## Sensuikan San

True, Maciamo, True...!

And your suggestion on the second poll - excellent idea! 

Not quite the same as an "Empire" is it ? It would be nice to compare the results....!

Go for it!

(Of course ... I do feel that "America" will win .... 'hands down' !)


W

----------


## nurizeko

MY CARTHAGINIAN "REPUBLIC"  :Evil:  


(the white on the minimap in the bottom left is the carthaginian domains, red is rome :P )

I voted alexander because he's arguably the greatest historical figure, and he built a vast empire in a very short period of time with a bog stanard macedonian army, i dont remember hearing of any other hellanistic country building such an empire.
If he hadnt died so young, who knows what he would have acheived.

The british empire was cool, since it was made from a nation that originally consisted of a small set of islands barely unified, and having to resort to piracy against the spanish, but we built ourselves an empire, nobody's saying it was always fair, it was an empire of its day, and definately more progressive then the roman model, and we can all feel thankful that the break-up of the empire wasnt a overly bloody war-torn affair like so many others in history, bar india and some places, most countries got their independence with the blessing of britain.


Looks like china could possibly be the next empire of the world, and with its land area, its already arguably got the size for it.

----------


## gohan93

i say that by far rome was the most powerful empire ever, even though Gengis Khan's empire was bigger.

----------


## bluubear

In terms of "Greatest" achievement (what my vote was based on):

I was torn between Roman Empire and one of the Chinese ones... but I suppose too many voted for Romans I'd go with the latter. But then I was torn again... my favourite Tang and Song dynasty were not on the list >.< 
And the only reason I chose Ming/Qing over Han is because two dynastys combined would probably win over Han in terms of achievements. Though I am not fully supporting my choice since I'm well aware of the dark periods towards the end of Ming and Qing times. But I must say that the achievements of the three Qing dynasty emperors from Kang Xi to Qian Long earned my final vote... you don't usually see 130 years of continuous prosperity (minus a few bad aspects) in Feudal Society usually~~

In terms of "greatest" territory:

I would've chosen Ghengis Khan probably... didn't his territory go from East Asia all the way to Europe?

----------


## cursore

I have no doubt.. the Ancient Romans.. maybe because they are my anchestorsc well I am a moder Romanc

Basically the influenced all aspect of modern western world:

Language: Italian, French, Spanish, Portughese, Romanian are direct successors of Latin.
German and English are havily influenced by latin.

Roman Law: has influence in many European law system.

Christmas and Carnival : it is after all are Roman festivities

The standard christian calendar

And so onc

----------


## bossel

If I would vote (I don't, for I can't really see anything great in an empire), I'd go for the Inca. Their empire was for the largest part a mountainous enterprise. That & the lack of horses or car(t)s made it quite an achievement. But, well, empire is empire. It was built on conquest & oppression, therefore no vote.

I noticed quite a big mistake in the poll, BTW. The Maya never had something that you could call an empire. There always was a number of city states, with or without a few vasal cities, but nothing like an empire, AFAIK.

----------


## Maciamo

> If I would vote (I don't, for I can't really see anything great in an empire), I'd go for the Inca. Their empire was for the largest part a mountainous enterprise. That & the lack of horses or car(t)s made it quite an achievement. But, well, empire is empire. It was built on conquest & oppression, therefore no vote.
> 
> I noticed quite a big mistake in the poll, BTW. The Maya never had something that you could call an empire. There always was a number of city states, with or without a few vasal cities, but nothing like an empire, AFAIK.


I agree about the Maya not having an empire. But I would say the same for the Inca. For me, what differentiate kingdom from empire is that the latter has expanded to take over several kingdoms or regions inhabited by different ethnic or cultural groups, and that everything is politically controlled from the homeland or capital (Rome for the Romans, Constantinpole/Istanbul for the Byzantines then Ottoman, London for the Brits, Toledo/Madrid for the Spaniards, or Paris for Napoleon). I don't think that the Inca conquered any other state or organised societies to make their own state. In that sense it was more a kingdom. 

I also think that Egypt was just a kingdom, as it didn't keep or integrate enough other land (more than its own size and population) outside its cultural borders to be called an empire.

EDIT : I have just removed a few entries from the poll that were clearly not empires (Louis XIV's, Fascist Italy, Maya...). I kept the Inca Empire, although I don't agree. I have also reorganised the listing in a slightly more coherent manner.

----------


## nurizeko

Bossel, i just thought ide help you come to terms with empire by the fact, most of the worls empires were from history, and, frankly, this conquest probably did more for the overall advancement of the human species then lone little isolated and fragile tribes ever could.

In history people had much different values then our own and, maybe instead of seeing it as a shameful past, we can see our present as a pretty spectacular advance in society, and appriciate our history in that context, as history, as another time in another world with other beliefs and knowledge and social norms.

In history you dont need a large empire for the type of behaviour you attribute to them, small kingdoms could be just as opressive, just as unfair as any large empire.


Back on the main topic i still think alexanders pwned, as short lived as it was.  :Cool:  

I also like the carthaginian empire, even though it was actually a senatorial republic and was built more on trade and the rich merchants who ran the city and colonies rather then by a large proffessional army.

----------


## bossel

> I don't think that the Inca conquered any other state or organised societies to make their own state. In that sense it was more a kingdom.


Actually, it was pretty much what you would call an empire. They conquered or integrated via blackmail (Oh, look, we are so powerful & rich. Wouldn't it be nice to join our great, big nation? As local leaders, you & your family could get even richer than you are now with your own little kingdom. We will give your children very good education in our best schools in Cuzco. ... Oh, besides: Have I mentioned that our army has 50 times more men than yours?) quite a number of smaller societies (states, nations, kingdoms, whatever). On the height of Inca power several hundred languages were spoken in the empire. Power always lay in the hands of the Inca, although they divided their territory into four provinces. 

Only, the empire didn't last for very long (though much longer than Hitler's Millennial Reich).




> I also think that Egypt was just a kingdom, as it didn't keep or integrate enough other land (more than its own size and population) outside its cultural borders to be called an empire.


Since the rulers for most of the time were called (the Egyptian equivalent of) kings, you're right. Whether they conquered enough land or peoples to qualify, depends on the definition & the time you look at. Eg. Egypt at the time of Tuthmosis III may very well qualify as an empire even by your terms.





> most of the worls empires were from history, and, frankly, this conquest probably did more for the overall advancement of the human species then lone little isolated and fragile tribes ever could.


I doubt that. Sure, a lot of technological advancements were done by people who had enough leisure time, because they or their ancestors chopped off others heads & stole their property, but there are enough inventions which were done by people who did not rely on "empirical data."




> In history people had much different values then our own and, maybe instead of seeing it as a shameful past,


Sorry, if you misunderstood that. I don't see it as a shameful past. There is nothing to be ashamed about, I (& most other living humans) never participated in empire building.




> In history you dont need a large empire for the type of behaviour you attribute to them, small kingdoms could be just as opressive, just as unfair as any large empire.


Totally agree. There is absolutely nothing great about small kingdoms as well. You could add quite a number of other types of government here.

----------


## Zauriel

Imperial Russia is the term used to cover the period of history from the expansion of Russia under Peter the Great, through the expansion of the Russian Empire from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean, to the deposal of Nicholas II of Russia, the last tsar, at the start of the Russian Revolution of 1917.

The Russian state was officially named the Russian Empire (Russian: Qyz{p I}uy - transliterated "Rossyiskaya Imperia") from 1721 to 1917.


The Russian Empire in 1913The capital city of the Russian Empire was Saint-Petersburg (after 1914 re-named Petrograd). At the end of the 19th century the size of the Empire was about 22,400,000 square kilometers (almost 1/6 of the Earth's landmass); its only rival in size was the British Empire at the time. According to the 1897 census its population was about 128,200,000 people, however, a majority of them (93.4 million) lived in European Russia. More than a 100 different ethnic groups lived in the Russian Empire (ethnic Russians were about 45% of the population). In addition to today's Russia prior to 1917 Russian Empire included territories of Finland (Grand Duchy of Finland), Estonia and Latvia (Baltic provinces), most of Lithuania, Belarus, most of Ukraine (Dnieper Ukraine and Crimea), a significant part of Poland (Kingdom of Poland), Moldova (Bessarabia), Caucasus, and most of Central Asia (Russian Turkestan).

In 1914 the Russian Empire consisted of 81 provinces (guberniyas) and 20 regions (oblasts). Vassals and protectorates of the Russian Empire included the Emirate of Bukhara, the Khanate of Khiva and, after 1914, Tuva (Uriankhai).

The Russian Empire was a hereditary monarchy headed by an autocratic Emperor (Czar) from a Romanov dynasty. Orthodox Christianity was the official faith of the Empire and was controlled by the monarch through the Holy Synod. Subjects of the Russian Empire were segregated into sosloviyes, or social estates (classes) such as "dvoryanstvo" (nobility), clergy, merchants, cossacks and peasants. Native people of Siberia and Central Asia were officially registered as a category called "inorodtsy" (non-Russians, literally: "people of alien kind").

In addition to Russia proper, the empire consisted of the constitutional monarchies of the Kingdom of Poland (1815-1831) and the Grand Duchy of Finland (1809-1917)

The coat of arms of the Russian Empire was a two-headed eagle; the national anthem - God Save the Tsar (Bozhe, Tsarya khrani); the official language - Russian.

After the overthrow of monarchy during the February Revolution of 1917 Russia was declared to be a republic by the Provisional Government.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Russia

----------


## Secret

I take it none of you have ever seen 'Star Wars'. -_^ 
(Sorry, felt like having some fun. =D)

----------


## Dutch Baka

My own empire!!! You guys have to wait around 20 years for that, But remember my name!!!

----------


## Blututh

One must keep in mind that although Ancient Rome topped the list, they achieved their greatness almost ENTIRELY through the use of slave labor.

----------


## Sensuikan San

> One must keep in mind that although Ancient Rome topped the list, they achieved their greatness almost ENTIRELY through the use of slave labor.


Yes ... to a great degree, absolutely true.

But, given the period in which Rome was active ... this would be quite normal. Most other civilisations also practised slavery too.

Remember that Nazi Germany is also in the poll (Thankfully, not at the top!). To its disgrace it, too, was reliant on slave labor - in the twentieth century!

As a Brit, I must confess ...the British Empire may also have a few issues in this regard - should they ever come up in court! Admittedly, you would have to ask the right questions though. :Biggrin:  

But it could be done!

W

----------


## Mycernius

> As a Brit, I must confess ...the British Empire may also have a few issues in this regard - should they ever come up in court! Admittedly, you would have to ask the right questions though. 
> But it could be done!
> ジョン


Yes. I seem to remember concentration camps were a British idea used during the Boer war. The idea of scalping was a idea that the native americans 'pinched' from British soldiers. Opium wars, oppression in India, but you'll find these types of abuses in any type of Empire or world leader. The only time when they become answerable to them is when they fall from grace. After all we currently have Gitmo and abuses covered up in Iraq by the US and then their are questionable things done in Vietnam. China and its own abuses to its own people, but who is going to slap their wrists at the moment. The one thing that we learn from history is that all powers fall and then history judges them on their deeds.

----------


## Sensuikan San

Sssshhhhhh .... !

Don't tell everybody .... !

Traitor!

W

----------


## Philip

The Roman Empire for sure! They were brilliant. Their military forces and tactics. The architecture of their buildings. They were far more sophisticated.

----------


## heliobacter

i wouldn't say 'great' (i'm with bossel, empires always mean opression, occupation, murder etc.) but i think genghis khan's mongol empire must have been darn impressive. 
35 million km&#178; (according to wikipedia), i think administrating such a large area isn't easy, especially in the 13th / 14th century.

----------


## Zauriel

Genghis Khan's empire is considered the world's second largest one. 

Anyway, it's true that British empire, Roman empire and Nazi Germany are oppressive but so are Spanish colonial empire, Dutch colonial empire, French colonial Empire, Imperialist WWII Japan, etc. What empire does not oppress its overseas subjects? 

Every empire is oppressive and tyrannical because of the empire leaders' arrogance and superiority complex which cost them the loyalty of their subjects, who were treated as third-class citizens in their own lands.

Why did you think Mexicans, Indians, Filipinos, Cubans, Indonesians, Africans, Vietnamese, Bolivians, and many others have revolted against their colonial masters of Britain, Spain, France, Netherlands, and other empires? Why did you think that the "barbarians" have sacked Rome?

If the colonial leaders had a more benevolent attitude towards their subjects, they would be able to preserve their subjects' loyalty. 

But even after Spain lost its most of the Latin American colonies, ever-arrogant Spaniards still continued to oppress Filipinos and Cubans who were, along with Puerto Ricans, the last Spanish possessions to declare independence. Spain also lost Puerto Rico and Guam to U.S. who became the next imperialist power for betraying the Filipinos by taking their hard-won independence from them.

Even after the British colonials lost America, they continued to mistreat Indians, Africans and other subjects, etc. 

It seems the colonial empire leaders and citizens still have not learned from their lessons of colonial abuse. They never realized that it was their own fault that drove their victims to seek independence. They never thought that their dogs would bite them after they maltreated them.

----------


## heliobacter

> Genghis Khan's empire is considered the world's second largest one.


wasn't it the largest? we've got an exhibition about genghis khan here ATM, where they told us so.

edit:




> The Mongol Empire (Cyrillic: Их Монгол Улс) (1206–1368) was the largest contiguous (the land streched uninterrupted by borders or stretches of water) land empire in world history.


ok, the largest CONTIGUOUS empire.

----------


## Silverbackman

I meant to vote for the Mongol Empire but it was under "Ghengis Khan Empire" so I missed it. I think that option should be changed to "Mongol Empire" to avoid confusion.

Also, where is Tang Dynasty and Song Dynasty China? Those were one of the golden years of the Chinese Empire.

Same with Maurya Empire and Gupta dynasty of India. Thos should be in the poll as well.

----------


## Jagger

> There was no Arab Empire. There were just many Caliphates (Damascus, Baghdad, Cordoba...). They were all Arabic-speaking and Muslim, but it was not politically unified.


There was an Arab Empire, and it was unified under a single government from 632 to 750, when it was first ruled by the Rashidun Caliphate, followed by the Umayyad Caliphate. It was only from 750 that 
the Arab Empire split between the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties, both of which lasted for several centuries more.

The Arab Empire should be included on the list for two main reasons:

1. It was the largest empire the world had yet seen (13.2 million square km at its peak), and its size was not surpassed until the Mongol Empire centuries later.
2. It had numerous achievements in the arts, sciences literature, philosophy, engineering, technology, etc. that could quite easily rival the achievements of the other empires on the list.

----------


## DavidCoutts

Has to be The Empire on Which The Sun Never Set; at it's height, the British Empire controlled a third of the Earth.

As to the "What have the Romans ever done for us?" questions, I'm always amused by people who seem to expect a moral obligation from ANY Empire. The British Empire, like the Romans before them, were out to take whatever they could get. We raped, pillaged and burned on a scale that would have made Vikings drop to their knees and shout "We're not worthy!".

Like all Empires, the British put their own interests first. If they "civilised" a country, that was a happy coincidence, not the main objective.

----------


## galychanyn

The Roman Empire of course!

----------


## ^ lynx ^

> *Has to be The Empire on Which The Sun Never Set*; at it's height, the British Empire controlled a third of the Earth.


Ermm, that quote was used by the spaniards to refer to the spanish empire.

----------


## Hus

It would have to be *Ghengis Khan's* in terms of expanse/size, it was twice that of the *Roman Empire* (which would get my durability Empire vote) and four times that of *Alexander the Great's*.

----------


## NewEngland

The United States Empire is the "greatest" to date but will probably be the shortest lived.

----------


## Imperium Romanorum

Byzantine Empire

Ῥωμανία
Rhōmanía
Romania
Imperium Romanum
Eastern Roman Empire
Byzantine Empire

----------


## Canek

the inca empire... all the incas did was for the well-being of their people, not just for greedy like other empires.

----------


## Riccardo

I was indecided among the Ancient Roma and China, they gave a lot of things to the world...But then I voted for Roma, since I'm from there....

----------


## Melusine

From Google search: Incas human sacrifice Softpedia Feb 20,2008

" The ancient Inca chose children as young as 6, but also as old as 15 "fattened them up", for a year and et them on a sacrifice pilgrimage.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Inca-...es-79148.shtml 

So much for the well-being of the Inca people.

Melusine

----------


## Canek

it was their culture, their religion, they didn't do it as an act of war or punishment... unlike the romans with crucifictions for example. read more about the incas.

----------


## Brady

> There was an Arab Empire, and it was unified under a single government from 632 to 750, when it was first ruled by the Rashidun Caliphate, followed by the Umayyad Caliphate. It was only from 750 that 
> the Arab Empire split between the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties, both of which lasted for several centuries more.
> 
> The Arab Empire should be included on the list for two main reasons:
> 
> 1. It was the largest empire the world had yet seen (13.2 million square km at its peak), and its size was not surpassed until the Mongol Empire centuries later.
> 2. It had numerous achievements in the arts, sciences literature, philosophy, engineering, technology, etc. that could quite easily rival the achievements of the other empires on the list.


 I agree that arab empire must de included in this list most of all by arts, sciences, etc.

----------


## sparkey

Let's get some numbers in! Top 20 empires in terms of size, rounded roughly to the nearest million square kilometers:

Mongol Empire 34,000,000
British Empire 34,000,000
Russian Empire 24,000,000
Spanish Empire 20,000,000
Qing Empire 15,000,000
Yuan Dynasty 14,000,000
Ummayad Caliphate 13,000,000
French Empire 13,000,000
Abbasid Caliphate 11,000,000
Portugese Empire 10,000,000
Rashidun Caliphate 9,000,000
Brazilian Empire 8,000,000
Achaeminid Empire 8,000,000
Japanese Empire 7,000,000
Han Empire 6,000,000
Ming Empire 6,000,000
Roman Empire 6,000,000
Nazi Germany 6,000,000
Turkic Khaganate 6,000,000

Some other notables:
Ottoman Empire 5,200,000
Mughal Empire 4,600,000
Safavid Empire 3,500,000
Byzantine Empire 3,500,000
Inca Empire 2,000,000
Holy Roman Empire 1,000,000
Aztec Empire 200,000

(I'm sure everybody realized that the Roman Empire is different than the Holy Roman Empire?)

----------


## Canek

> The United States Empire is the "greatest" to date but will probably be the shortest lived.


i agree with the last part of your sentence.

----------


## sparkey

Well, if we're counting the US as an empire now...

United States 10,000,000

----------


## LeBrok

Canadian empire is a bit bigger than US empire.  :Laughing:

----------


## Melusine

LeBrok

Please do cite your sources. Saying something without references doe not make it so!

Melusine

----------


## LeBrok

How about this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_total_area

Melusine, we know from the past that your knowledge of geography is not the strongest. Why don't you check your sources before opening your mouth? Maybe even twice and different ones.

Besides, it was a jock, as we all know Canada is not an empire.
Or is it? I guess for this one you have to check your sources again.

Peace out.

----------


## Canek

besides, canada didn't steal lands cowardly to his southern neighbor.

----------


## Regulus

> LeBrok
> 
> Please do cite your sources. Saying something without references doe not make it so!
> 
> Melusine


 
You seem to have a penchant for going after LeBrok's posts.

----------


## Melusine

Asking for references or sources is not going after someone. 

If one re-reads LeBrok' s last post relating to me specifically, he said some very insulting things aimed at me. I've never used that kind of disrespectful vocabulary against anyone on this forum.

BTW LEBROK: You really did make a "Freudian slip: when you wrote JOCK instead of JOKE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip

It's obvious that this forum is dominated by MEN, and when a female (like myself) has something to say that makes sense, some MEN can't handle it and try to "diminish " that female by their words as LeBrok has done toward me.

MELUSINE

----------


## sparkey

> Asking for references or sources is not going after someone. 
> 
> If one re-reads LeBrok' s last post relating to me specifically, he said some very insulting things aimed at me. I've never used that kind of disrespectful vocabulary against anyone on this forum.
> 
> BTW LEBROK: You really did make a "Freudian slip: when you wrote JOCK instead of JOKE.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip
> 
> It's obvious that this forum is dominated by MEN, and when a female (like myself) has something to say that makes sense, some MEN can't handle it and try to "diminish " that female by their words as LeBrok has done toward me.
> ...


Sorry, asking for a source that Canada is larger than the US is silly.

You're right, though, that the gender dichotomy here is curious. Probably a topic for "Site Feedback" rather than "History & Civilisations," though.

----------


## Melusine

As I understand this THREAD, it is : What is the Greatest Empire. 

I know that CANADA has a greater LAND MASS than the USA, but that is not what I was questioning IN "Le Brok's JOCK/JOKE that Canada Empire is a bit bigger than US Empire. I was seeing it as a post pertaining to the "Greatest Empire" . Mixing his idea of a JOCK/JOKE with the thread was NOT FUNNY.

I never asked for a source that Canada is LARGER than the US. And I'm not SILLY.

Et Tu Brutus? 


Perhaps everyone should re-read the dialog.
Melusine

----------


## Antigone

LeBrok's comment about Canada was so obviously a joke, I'm lost as to why it needed a rebuke in the first place.

I think it was more Melusine's tone in her (unecessary) demand that is the problem, not because it came from a female. This forum is dominated by men simply because there are a greater number of male than female members posting. Being female, I've found that female posters are treated no differently than male, a silly comment will be deal with in the same way. To infer something else, rather than admitting a mistake is just, well plain silly.

----------


## Melusine

OK Antigone,

IT WAS A JOKE. I get it!!!

Sore head on my part, however that does not excuse Le Broks later reply insulting me. What say you Antigone? Or what he had to say doe not count?

----------


## Antigone

> OK Antigone,
> 
> IT WAS A JOKE. I get it!!!
> 
> Sore head on my part, however that does not excuse Le Broks later reply insulting me. What say you Antigone? Or what he had to say doe not count?


I thought the reply was in keeping with the tone of your post Melusine. You were abrupt and you received an abrupt reply, it can only be expected. 

English is not LeBrok's first language, to ridicule his spelling mistake was fairly low. Perhaps you need to apologise also?

----------


## Canek

i think you're making a drama out of nothing, and ruining the thread... c'mon people, calm down.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

> this forum is dominated by MEN

----------


## Elias2



----------


## LeBrok

You can see my strong anti feminism here. This is part of my post from Libya thread:

"Here is a very uplifting program form BBC, the Doha Debates about Egypt.
http://www.thedohadebates.com/#
So many young educated smart people, especially women. I hope they will get upper hand as elite in Egypt."


Melusine, if you think we started on a wrong foot, we can try again. :) Maybe someone had a headache that day. I'm mister migraine.

The rest of posters made my day. I'm sitting with a big smile on my face knowing that I made few friends. :)

----------


## LeBrok

Great humor guys!
Elias, try finding picture of our submarines. I think the only functioning are from West Edmonton Mall, lol.

Thanks to US for protecting our Free Land of Canadian Empire from Japan Empire, Soviet Union Empire, and what's not.

We have sent all our forces to Afghanistan and Libya, leaving our country defenceless, so take it easy on us now. :) I hope Denmark won't attack us from Greenland at the moment, or we will be gone.

----------


## Spion Stirlitz

The British Empire.

----------


## Spion Stirlitz

I think it is the greatest, both in extension and population than any other Empire in history.

----------


## Antigone

> 


Ha, thanks for that, it put a smile on my face for the day. It is very good!
And you are all correct of course, silly mountains out of molehills etc etc.

We now need a photo of hysterical women on the rampage, but don't have time to look for one right now.

----------


## Wilhelm

The Spanish Empire. The Aragonese Empire was also great, dominating half the mediterranean.

----------


## Melusine

Yes LeBrok,

I agree that we got started on a wrong foot. It was my "sore head (bad attitude)".

Melusine

----------


## sparkey

> The Spanish Empire. The Aragonese Empire was also great, dominating half the mediterranean.


Aragonese Empire 230,000

Not really on the same scale as, say, the Roman Empire. In size, the only one it beats that we have been talking about is the Aztec Empire.

----------


## Canek

arab empire should have been included in the poll

----------


## sparkey

> arab empire should have been included in the poll


You're probably thinking of the Umayyad Caliphate, which was certainly impressive and gets #7 in my list of empires by area, beating the Roman Empire by quite a bit.

----------


## Vallicanus

> The Romans THE ROMANS! They really had it all: Fine arts, culture, war tactics, knowledge and science. Besides, they had such an interesting religion...


Most of the above were derived from the Greeks. :Confused:

----------


## Antigone

> You're probably thinking of the Umayyad Caliphate, which was certainly impressive and gets #7 in my list of empires by area, beating the Roman Empire by quite a bit.


Mmm, an impressive amount of land but how much of that area was populated? As opposed to the area and population the Romans dominated and controlled?

----------


## Carlitos

El Imperio espaol.

----------


## sparkey

> Mmm, an impressive amount of land but how much of that area was populated? As opposed to the area and population the Romans dominated and controlled?


Quite a lot of the Umayyad Caliphate was populated, and a lot of them converted to the relatively new official religion, Islam. Although, they collected the jizyah on non-Muslims, so they didn't want too many conversions... Either way, the religious influence had a very profound impact on the Middle East. The Umayyads controlled the Levant, Arabia, North Africa, Persia, etc. Lots of populated places.

I'm not sure on what current estimates are for the peak population of the Umayyad Caliphate vs. the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire may have had more, although their populations would have been on the same scale.

----------


## Antigone

Thanks sparkey, in that case they probably should have been included in the poll. But I don't suppose everyone could have been thought of or listed and there is a button to tick for any others left out.

----------


## Sybilla

The ROMAN EMPIRE. 1/4 of world people during the Roman Empire were Roman citizens, Rome had the greatest culture, literature, army, etc.etc of its epoque, ROME was THE Empire. And if you are not persuaded yet, this video may persuade you.

The way Rome looks now and how it looked during the Emperial Age.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-yUaLqsbuw

----------


## Canek

but sybilla, vallicanus is right... all these things are basically derived from the greeks.

on the other hand, the aztec and the inca civilization had their own culture, literature, SCIENCE (astronomy, maths, medicine..). aztecs were great mathematics... the greatest civilization on mathematics.

----------


## Vallicanus

> but sybilla, vallicanus is right... all these things are basically derived from the greeks.
> 
> on the other hand, the aztec and the inca civilization had their own culture, literature, SCIENCE (astronomy, maths, medicine..). aztecs were great mathematics... the greatest civilization on mathematics.


All true.

In the Roman Empire the rich got richer and the poor got poorer till many Roman citizens preferred rule by barbarians as at least they did not tax the people into the ground.

In the words of G.E.M.de Sainte Croix: 
"If I were in search of a metaphor to describe the great and growing concentration of wealth in the hands of the (Roman) upper classes, I would not incline to anything so innocent and so automatic as drainage: *I should want to think in terms of something much more purposive and deliberate-perhaps the vampire bat".*

----------


## Brady

> I think it is the greatest, both in extension and population than any other Empire in history.


 Hi! Spion, that's absolutelly right: Here is the first empires of whole history 1. British empire 33,6 millions km2 and 458 millions of people under its dominion. 2. Mongol empire 3 millions km2. 3. And finally Russian empire 22,8 millions km2. Best regards.

----------


## Carlitos

The Spanish Empire where the sun never set, mainly to include the Americas issue that would change the fate of the civilized world and adapt well to native American Indians to the Western lifestyle which after all is what is prevailing in Currently, ultimately for his great humanitarian work well with indigenous civilization, the contributions in the old continent new products that contributed to European countries they had a happier fate.

----------


## Vallicanus

> Hi! Spion, that's absolutelly right: Here is the first empires of whole history 1. British empire 33,6 millions km2 and 458 millions of people under its dominion. 2. Mongol empire 3 millions km2. 3. And finally Russian empire 22,8 millions km2. Best regards.


 
You may be right about the greatness in geographical extent of the British Empire.

However you should read this book:

*The Evil Empire by Steven A. Grasse*
*101 Ways that England Ruined The World*

----------


## Brady

> The Spanish Empire where the sun never set, mainly to include the Americas issue that would change the fate of the civilized world and adapt well to native American Indians to the Western lifestyle which after all is what is prevailing in Currently, ultimately for his great humanitarian work well with indigenous civilization, the contributions in the old continent new products that contributed to European countries they had a happier fate.


 Nope. I wrote the data. When you can change history then we can talk. Sorry.

----------


## Brady

> You may be right about the greatness in geographical extent of the British Empire.
> 
> However you should read this book:
> 
> *The Evil Empire by Steven A. Grasse*
> *101 Ways that England Ruined The World*


 I agree just I'm talkin' about geographical extent. I believe the most important empire in whole history was roman empire just because its contributions. Best regards.

----------


## Canek

roman contributions were actually "greek contributions". the greatest empire was the inca. they teach europeans how to cultivate potatoes, this saved europe from hungry in the middle age.

----------


## sparkey

> roman contributions were actually "greek contributions". the greatest empire was the inca. they teach europeans how to cultivate potatoes, this saved europe from hungry in the middle age.


The Inca Empire was certainly the greatest pre-contact empire in the Americas, it was quite a bit larger than the Aztec Empire at both of their peaks. And both of those beat anything farther north.

The potato thing was also a great worldwide contribution, although not without its problems.

I still can't make up my mind as to what the greatest empire was. I think that greatness should be defined by wideness and persistence of cultural impact, rather than number of people ruled or amount of land amassed. So, although the Mongol Empire was probably the best military operation of all time, I don't think it was the greatest empire. The British and Spanish empires were greater, to begin with. I would also consider the Roman Empire and the Umayyads. I don't think I would include the Incas myself, because although they were locally great, they were small on a worldwide scale, and their cultural impact was largely displaced by the Spanish.

----------


## Carlitos

Of course Camilla is in Spain, that woman so interesting.



Do not forget Imbencible Navy, which had not been defeated by the elements had again, Spain changed the world once again. 

Too bad, if we had had today's weather service the world would be a different, hence the importance of the Spanish Empire because it managed to sum ​​over what might have been.

----------


## Canek

> The Inca Empire was certainly the greatest pre-contact empire in the Americas, it was quite a bit larger than the Aztec Empire at both of their peaks. And both of those beat anything farther north.
> 
> The potato thing was also a great worldwide contribution, although not without its problems.


the american potato save millions of lifes in europe. amerindian teach spaniards how to cultivate it.




> I still can't make up my mind as to what the greatest empire was. I think that greatness should be defined by wideness and persistence of cultural impact, rather than number of people ruled or amount of land amassed. So, although the Mongol Empire was probably the best military operation of all time, I don't think it was the greatest empire. The British and Spanish empires were greater, to begin with. I would also consider the Roman Empire and the Umayyads. I don't think I would include the Incas myself, because although they were locally great, they were small on a worldwide scale, and their cultural impact was largely displaced by the Spanish.


a lot of people in peru and other neighbour lands still conservate their inca costumes.

----------


## Carlitos

> the american potato save millions of lifes in europe. amerindian teach spaniards how to cultivate it.


If you want to see well. Anyway who has invented the term Spaniards, Americans have you been?, we are Spanish.

----------


## Canek

what your name is, it doesn't matter. what is important in the debate is that incas invented how to cultivate the potatoe.

----------


## Carlitos

> what your name is, it doesn't matter. what is important in the debate is that incas invented how to cultivate the potatoe.


The important thing is that the potatoes are edible and rightly realized the Incas after the Spanish to bring the potato to the Old World and then the rest of the world.

----------


## Canek

yes, the spanishes only introduced the potatoe in europe before that nobody eated potatoes in europe. 

but all this was thanks to the incas, who invented how to cultivate the potateo.

----------


## Carlitos

> yes, the spanishes only introduced the potatoe in europe before that nobody eated potatoes in europe. 
> 
> but all this was thanks to the incas, who invented how to cultivate the potateo.


It was fortunate that the Incas realized they were surrounded by potatoes were edible.

----------


## Canek

peniciline was also a fortunate invention. luck is part of the life.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

> peniciline was also a fortunate invention. luck is part of the life.


Well then...
Up to today antibiotics may have saved as many Amerindian lifes as potatoes have saved European lifes. So maybe we should say the USA (due to fortunate Alexander Fleming) and the Incas were the greatest empires?  :Confused:

----------


## Canek

potatoes are not the only thing that makes the inca empire the greatest. so no, me reply is no. the usa has made too damage and pain to the world. bye.

----------


## sparkey

I found a computer game you might like, Canek. Expanded Americas, a mod for the computer game Medieval II: Total War that lets you be Amerind empires and expand your empire across the Americas and Europe as well.

Incas in Crete.  :Laughing:

----------


## Reinaert

I guess the Greatest Empire that ever existed was and still is the T.R.O.L.L. Empire.

I don't belong to that, I don't have multiple accounts.
I was just pissed because of the many unfriendly reactions on this forum when I started.

I was just discussing things, and I felt a lot of animosity about that from some members.

I reacted against that, and was punished for it.
Totally ridiculous!

----------


## sparkey

> I guess the Greatest Empire that ever existed was and still is the T.R.O.L.L. Empire.
> 
> I don't belong to that, I don't have multiple accounts.
> I was just pissed because of the many unfriendly reactions on this forum when I started.
> 
> I was just discussing things, and I felt a lot of animosity about that from some members.
> 
> I reacted against that, and was punished for it.
> Totally ridiculous!


Welcome back, Reinaert. Hopefully we can all start getting along.

Judging from your previous posts, you *actually* think that the Mongol Empire was the greatest, though, am I right?

----------


## Reinaert

> Welcome back, Reinaert. Hopefully we can all start getting along.
> 
> Judging from your previous posts, you *actually* think that the Mongol Empire was the greatest, though, am I right?


Yes. Just a rational opinion. 
Many European rulers chased the countryside for gold and other means to pay their armies. That caused a lot of trouble in Europe. Hatred against the people who had money investments in European warfare.

The Mongols never had that problem.

----------


## Sybilla

> but sybilla, vallicanus is right... all these things are basically derived from the greeks.
> 
> on the other hand, the aztec and the inca civilization had their own culture, literature, SCIENCE (astronomy, maths, medicine..). aztecs were great mathematics... the greatest civilization on mathematics.


It is very superficial to say that, becouse Romans had things that Greeks didn't have, for exemple in the architecture Romans had the arc and the acqueducts; Roman army cannot be compared with the Greek army and so does also the most part of their weapons. And what about the law?
Greeks were great, greater than Romans in philosophy, but only Romans were able to establish and keep and empire and to unificate the culture of half Europe.

----------


## Antigone

The arch was first used in Mesopotamian architecture as early as the 2nd millenium BC, the idea was adopted by the Greeks and Etruscans and from them, later, adopted by the Romans. However, the Romans were first to fully understand the full potential of the arch and were the first to use it in a wider range of structures. 

Some of what Romans derived from Greeks, Greeks in turn derived from others in the East. That Greeks and Romans developed these ideas further is without doubt but the origin of many ideas can be found in earlier Eastern civilisations.

----------


## Regulus

> Roman army cannot be compared with the Greek army and so does also the most part of their weapons. And what about the law?
> .


 
A fair point, but we must remember that, until roughly the time of the incursions of the Gauls in the 5th century BCE, the Roman army was very close if not identical in style to that of contemporary Greek armies. It was essentially a hoplite force. They either learned this from the Etuscans, Greeks in Italy, or both.

The need to deal with fighting styles like that of the Gauls required that they break their units in to smaller and more manageable groups.

----------


## Reinaert

Well, the Romans learned to fight because they were beaten so many times.
Their strong point was.. Logistics and organization.

Their soldiers were craftsmen and fighters.
A legion had about 5000 soldiers, which was a formidable force in open terrain.
That's why they lost a lot of legions in woods and marshes.

The Gauls weren't centrally organized, so the Romans could use the divide and rule trick.

The Germanic tribes had the same problem.

----------


## Regulus

> Well, the Romans learned to fight because they were beaten so many times.
> Their strong point was.. Logistics and organization.
> 
> Their soldiers were craftsmen and fighters.
> A legion had about 5000 soldiers, which was a formidable force in open terrain.
> That's why they lost a lot of legions in woods and marshes.
> 
> The Gauls weren't centrally organized, so the Romans could use the divide and rule trick.
> 
> The Germanic tribes had the same problem.


Sure, whatever; the reason that they learned to fight was that they were beaten so many times. 
We know that in your heart you are still holding out in Alesia with Vercingetorix . Don't forget, many of us are descended from those and similar people. Two of my grandparents were Irish immigrants.


Actually, Roman soldiers were mostly farmers and cattle/sheep owners until the days of professional armies. Their true strongpoint was rigid discipline with organization rather than logistics - Logistics became a major factor in the days of expansion outside of central Italy.


As far as the divisions of the Gauls being a factor, yes, that is absolutely true. The Celts as a whole rarely united and even when they did it was only for brief periods. This was the same situation in Britain, Scotland, Ireland, etc. Their unyielding adherence to tribal independence turned out to work against them.


The advantage that helped the Germans was they they did indeed later on begin to merge many tribes into larger confederations like the Franks and Alemanni.

----------


## Regulus

Apologies to my Iberian friends. My failure to mention the disunity of the Celts/Celtiberians there was unintentional. The same thing happened to them. When they did get together, they gave the Romans a run for their money, like at Numantia.

----------


## ottomanempire

In my opinion the greatest empire that ever existed was the Ottoman Empire (my username!). Anyway, they had the strongest military for a century (1599-1699). It was a world "superpower" from 1644-1721 and lasted for over 600 years (1299-1922). At its peak (1683) it controlled Turkey, the Middle East's coastlines, Northern Africa, the Balkans, and Mesopotamia.

----------


## Dorianfinder

I would think the Roman Empire. Funny enough the options relating to the Roman Empire on the MCQ are fragmented into the better known appellations Ancient Rome, Byzantine Empire and Holy Roman Empire respectively. The division of the Roman Empire into East/West dates to the ecclesiastical 1054AD Schism between the papal authority in Rome, Italy and the centers of Christianity in the East, namely Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. I do not consider, contrary to the many religiously motivated textbooks, that the empire of ancient Rome and the Byzantine Empire were different simply because of a shift in capital city and religious affiliation to Christianity. They were one and the same empire as their ruling dynasties were the same. 

The Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne was given legitimacy through marriage with imperial family members of the Byzantine Empire. This is also the case for the Mehmet II the conqueror who legitimized his reign over the previous Roman Empire in the East through marriage to the daughters of Byzantine princes, Helenā daughter of Demetrios Palaiologos and Anna the daughter of the Emperor of Trebizond and Alexia, a Byzantine princess. All roads seem to lead to the proverbial Rome, whether it be unified in one name or divided into three separate empires is irrelevant!

Note: All European Royal bloodlines descend from the bloodlines of ancient Rome through the Byzantine Empire.

----------


## Yetos

Wellmy analysis gives that 

Only 2 men may have the tittle of emperor 

First and Bigger of all is Alexander the great, 
The only one and true emperor, 
he conquered 3 older empires and hundred of tribes 

it really was the biggest empire of all, 

2nd is Jenkish chan and moggols from Moggolia to Poland and Krakowy 

the difference among them 
Alexander although conquer, He also created a new empire by building new cities all over the world 
while chan mainly looted, 

the roman empire or mandarin or persian or ottoman were empires but created after time and many faces and never reached the area of the 2 above, 
just look in map the Alexander state and then the Chan's State. 

on the other hand for some who are blind the biggest empire ever done was the Brittania one, 
just consider its colonial- activity 
Canada australia India South AFrica Jamaica 
I think it is not easy to estimate in maps the area that Great Britain ruled,

or the Russian from central europe to Alaska (russian colony once)

ROman empire and chinese are mainly proof to time rust, they lived long

so the question must be 
Bigger empire in time?
Bigger empire in Km2?
bigger empire in population?
Bigger emperors?

I can not compare different things

----------


## ottomanempire

Change my original post, the ottoman empire was a world superpower from 1544-1721 not, 1644. It became a "superpower" under Suleiman the magnificent.

----------


## Yetos

well some maps might help

British maximum

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Empire1919.png


Spanish Maximum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sp...chronous_0.PNG


Russian maximum 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Empire-en.png


Umayyad Chaliphate

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...of-caliphs.png


Roman empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Empire_117.svg


Achaemenids empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...%2C_490_BC.png


Makedonian empire
(1 man's creation!!!!)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...edonEmpire.jpg


Mongol empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Empire_map.gif


Qing empire 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ng-Empire1.jpg



no matter who was the bigger, 
the Biggest empire ever created by 1 man was the Makedonian of Alexander

----------


## LeBrok

What about Soviet Empire, USSR with protectorates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Communist_block.svg

----------


## Vallicanus

> All European Royal bloodlines descend from the bloodlines of ancient Rome through the Byzantine Empire.


This cannot be right.

There is no direct blood link to the patricians or aristocracy of Republican Rome nor to the Julio-Claudian or Flavian emperors.

----------


## Knovas

The Roman Empire, by far.

----------


## himagain

I choose, Ancient Egypt, the multi-thousand year empire that flourished along the Nile. The Great pyramid of Khufu at
Gizeh was constructed four thousand years ago and remained the world's tallest building until the 1880's when Paris' 
Eiffel Tower was erected. Rome, surely mighty and all conquering, only lasted 500 years.

----------


## kjg

"And now ... I would like to challenge whoever launched the poll ....!

I feel that there is an "Empire" missing from his poll!

What happened to ... _the Vikings_ ....?

Here we have folks who, for at least a couple of hundred years, explored, settled, "conquered" and influenced ... Scandinavia, Northern Europe, Finland, Russia, The Middle East, Ireland, Scotland, England, Greenland ... and North America! They influenced language, culture and art. 

They achieved a damned sight more than Fascist Italy! .... and _that's_ in the poll...!

I agree that they never created a "unified" entity that could be called (in political terms) an "Empire" ... but could not the same be said of some of the other "candidates"?"

Actually you could take that thought a little further and add the fact that Rollo the Walker and his Viking Hoard sweep into France and became what was to become the Normans. We all know that it was the Norman French who fought the English at the Battle of Hastings and Won the entire land of Britian, these same Normans a few hudred years later then invaded Ireland under the leadership of Strongbow and Prendergast took Ireland for the French/Norman King of England. These same Normans built the first Castles in England. But hey, I think I will still go with the Romans with my vote :)

----------


## sparkey

> I agree that they never created a "unified" entity that could be called (in political terms) an "Empire" ... but could not the same be said of some of the other "candidates"?"


All of the others seem basically united to me, at least at one point. Maybe for the Vikings, you could use the North Sea Empire? Or for something Scandinavian but post-Viking, the Kalmar Union? Not that either really compete with some of the other choices.

----------


## Vallicanus

> We all know that it was the Norman French who fought the English at the Battle of Hastings and* won the entire land of Britain*, these same Normans a few hundred years later then invaded Ireland under the leadership of Strongbow and Prendergast took Ireland for the French/Norman King of England. These same Normans built the first Castles in England. But hey, I think I will still go with the Romans with my vote :)


You mean the Normans won "the entire land of England".

Scotland was never theirs.

----------


## hope

[QUOTE=Vallicanus;393239]You mean the Normans won "the entire land of England".

Scotland was never theirs.[/QUOT

Yes but they did found some good noble families that gave us "The Bruce". :)
Compared to England I don`t think their impact on Ireland was so much..they ended up more Irish than most Irish! But that`s what the Normans did isn`t it, assimilation and adaptation.

----------


## L.D.Brousse

The Romans were the Borg of their day snuffing out cultures, languages and assimilating them when able. Their impact is still felt to this day on a good portion of the Globe. They also gave rise to the Christian west

----------


## DavidCoutts

> The Romans were the Borg of their day snuffing out cultures, languages and assimilating them when able. Their impact is still felt to this day on a good portion of the Globe. They also gave rise to the Christian west



Didn't do that well up here, old boy. A hundred years attempting to completely pacify and conquer Scotland cost them up to 50,000 Romans killed. Including an entire Legion slaughtered to the last man, if you believe the legends. To say nothing of the expense of building two huge walls.

The Roman's attitude to Scotland was summed up by George MacDonald Fraiser, "Too hot to handle and not worth the trouble anyway."

The Romans do not impress me. Cowards, hypocrites and sadists. They were great at fighting in large groups and their battlefield discipline was second to none. But without a shield wall to hide behind, they were nothing special. One on one against a Pict, Celt or German, the Roman was going to come second.

PS: love the Knight Templar avatar. :Grin:

----------


## L.D.Brousse

Yea Hadrian's wall If they can't beat them wall them in .I have a big chunk of Scot running in my veins as well. What was the main export from England the Roman's wanted?

----------


## DavidCoutts

Gold, tin etc, I would imagine. The land was also more fertile in the South. That's why the Danes were so determined to conquer the Wessex; it was the richest of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.

----------


## Taranis

> The Romans were the Borg of their day snuffing out cultures, languages and assimilating them when able. Their impact is still felt to this day on a good portion of the Globe. They also gave rise to the Christian west


The Romans didn't give rise to the Christian West. It was the 'barbarian' tribes (from the Roman perspective) who brought down the (Western) Roman Empire and picked it's pieces while adopting Christianity. 

It also depends on _what type_ of Christianity we're talking about. The Goths and the Vandals practiced Arianism, a denomination that was considered heretical by the Romans. What made the Franks / Clovis peculiar is that directly converted from Germanic polytheism to Roman Catholicism. Without this step, things could have developed into a complete different direction. If you take a look at the eastern Slavic people, they adopted a brand of Christianity that was modeled after the Byzantine Empire (who for all purposes, saw themselves as their heirs of the Roman Empire, and for most of their time, called themselves "Romans").

----------


## Alan

How comes Egypt, Parthia, Scythia, Media, Persia, Ayyubid Dynasty, Huns are not on that list?

----------


## adamo

Of course the Roman Empire which lasted a millennia was the greatest empire there ever was; the influence of the latins left it's mark linguistically in Spain,Portugal,France and Romania.

----------


## American Idiot

I said Alexander the Great's empire, but not for any obvious reason. IMHO, it had many of the same luxuries as Rome, but one thing I liked about Alexander's was his attitude toward the people he conquered. He didnt impose his own religion or even culture among his subjects, from what I understand. Maybe I am wrong about that, but if true, it seems he had some degree of respect for those he meant to rule over where as with Rome, it always looked down on the people it subjugated even if it did adopt some of their gods and romanize them.

of course Alexander's empire was around the Mediterranean. Dont know how he would have felt if he had conquered parts of "barbarian" Europe to north of him. (although to him, just about any non-Greek speaker was probably a barbarian)

----------


## EastAnglian

I'm biased but for me: 1) British Empire, 2) Roman, 3) Greek. The British Empire gave us: Democracy reborn(originally Greek), The industrialised world, Lots of Modernisation of Medicine, a unified language around the world and crumpets!

----------


## toyomotor

> I meant to vote for the Mongol Empire but it was under "Ghengis Khan Empire" so I missed it. I think that option should be changed to "Mongol Empire" to avoid confusion.
> 
> Also, where is Tang Dynasty and Song Dynasty China? Those were one of the golden years of the Chinese Empire.
> 
> Same with Maurya Empire and Gupta dynasty of India. Thos should be in the poll as well.


The Mongol Empire was the largest contiguous empire in the world ever. Undisputable fact! But the greatest? How do you want to define greatest? By its military might? By its wealth? By its contribution to Science, Arts and Education? The question is far too broad and needs clear definition before it can be answered with any authority.

----------


## halfalp

Well, Greateast like ( Large ) or greateast like ( Prestige ). Empire is a false word for a lot of political institution, ( Japan, an empire ? ...) technically Mongols had a very large territory on control, but they were nomadics at the same time and when Gengis Khan died, they go back in central asia and create different and semi-indepedant Khaganat. They were very decentralisated so i dont think we can really call Empire, with peoples with an imperium of all lands that the mongols influence had on control. I think the british commonwealth is a bad exemple too for the same reason, of the decentralisation of european colonialisme, very difficult to control all the territory that are vassals ? of the crown at this time. I think Roman empire were the only institution we can clearly appeal Empire. But in our modern day their is a lot of thing that we can call empire... United states have a great cultural imperialism and maybe a lot of economic deal with all the world and if TAFTA is apply one day, it's gonna become worst for us. China also have a lot of economic deal with others countries for agriculture or use of local resources

----------


## Salento

United States of America (World Wide Influence) - Roman Empire

----------


## XipeTotek

British Empire > Rome Empire > Mongol Empire (this is wrong term because mongol empire army %70 turk) > Ottoman Empire > Huns

----------


## Alcuin

> True the british empire was greater however one ponders about the positive effects it had upon human civilization. We need only to look at the middle east conflicts, kashmir, Africa and what not to get a feel about the british legacy in the world they conquered


That's an absurd argument that can be applied to every Empire, Kingdom, etc in history. One may as well blame all Anglo-Scottish political issues on the Romans for having built Hadrian's Wall across Northern England, forever dividing Britain in two and allowing an artificial wound across the heart of the country to fester for four centuries...




> You may be right about the greatness in geographical extent of the British Empire.
> 
> However you should read this book:
> 
> *The Evil Empire by Steven A. Grasse*
> *101 Ways that England Ruined The World*


Blaming England for the actions of post-Union Britain and supporting your opinions by referencing the most obviously-partisan book ever written on the Empire? How wonderfully Scottish.

You are Member of Parliament for Argyll & Bute and I claim my £5!




> There is no direct blood link to the patricians or aristocracy of Republican Rome nor to the Julio-Claudian or Flavian emperors


I concur, though it's probably not unreasonable to say that every person in the former Roman Empire could probably trace a lineage back to some upper-class family or ruling dynasty of Rome. Of course, saying it and proving it are two very different things...




> The Great pyramid of Khufu at Gizeh was constructed four thousand years ago and remained the world's tallest building until the 1880's when Paris' Eiffel Tower was erected


You're forgetting about Lincoln Cathedral!




> You mean the Normans won "the entire land of England"
> 
> Scotland was never theirs


It may as well have been, if you consider the number of Anglo-Normans invited to settle there in the days of David I and the influence they had on the court and culture of the Kingdom of Scotland.




> Yea Hadrian's wall If they can't beat them wall them in .I have a big chunk of Scot running in my veins as well. What was the main export from England the Roman's wanted?


Wheat, timber and dogs, apparently.

----------


## Cynthia14

I would say the Roman Empire was the greatest because it stretched so far around the globe, and had an influence on the people it touched, although it was greedy and also destructive. The Ottoman empire also went far but did not convert all the countries to Islam. Eventually the West threw it out through warfare. However the culture had an influence and is still revered for it's beauty in Spain. Alexander the Great went a conquering and is still remembered in Afghanistan and India. He repeated as he had done in Persia the marriages of Persian women to his Greek soldiers, in India, but destroyed beautiful buildings of the Persian Empire, some of which still stand. All the European Colonialists went back to their original countries except the American, (both North and South), Australians and New Zealanders, so Africa was the only large continent to get all of it's countries back again. Cynthia14

----------


## Maleth

> The Ottoman empire also went far but did not convert all the countries to Islam. Eventually the West threw it out through warfare. However the culture had an influence and is still revered for it's beauty in Spain. Cynthia14


This is a mistake so many people make. Turks and Arabs both spread Islam but they are two different peoples (empires) and not much love between them. The buildings that are still revealed for their beauty in Spain were by 'Arabs' (who probably were more Berbers) with a Moroccan influence. Turks dominated mostly the Balkans at the height of their empire, besides Arab countries.

----------


## Cihan

Positive effects of British empire?
US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. All prosperous societies founded by British Empire.

----------


## Cyrus

By considering the known civilized world, the greatest empire was certainly the Persian empire.

----------


## Anfänger

> By considering the known civilized world, the greatest empire was certainly the Persian empire.


What a shame it is not even included in the list. The Persian Empire ruled over 50% of humanity at that time. No empire after it came above 50%.

----------


## Carlos

*The Spanish Empire where the sun never hid*

----------


## G2ian

You forgot Empire of Trebizond!!

Greatest, I would think British, Roman and Han in that order. 

although most of my knowledge about china comes from this channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMm...Jjkj0fw/videos which I think is a must watch for history lovers. 
______________

I don't consider Mongol and Alexanders empires particularly great. 

For Alexander, is it really an empire if it dies with it's founder ? ehh I guess technically but it's more of a conquered ground than anything.

Mongol Empire was never well managed or maintained it was also just a conquered ground which had to be broken apart into smaller kingdoms soon after.

----------


## G2ian

> By considering the known civilized world, the greatest empire was certainly the Persian empire.


Whoever drew that map would be stoned to death in Georgia for combining all our lands into Armenia  :Laughing:

----------


## citlec

British Empire, of course. but Portuguese and Spanish empires were not so far from the British.

----------


## appleEYE

> In matter of size, population, administration, durability, cultural tolerance and long-term effects, the British Empire was the greatest. The Roman Empire comes second. How comes the Chinese Empire (at least Han to Tang period, or Ming to Qing) is not in the list ?


I was thinking the same, so voted for the Roman Empire.

----------


## Dianatomia

Someone made a good point. The Persian empire is not on the list. Definitely one of the greatest empires ever. 

I would argue that the greates empire had nothing to do with extent, but the heritage it left behind for humanity. So I would narrow the list of the greatest empires to the Roman Empire, Alexanders empire, the Persian empire, the Brittish empire and the Chinese empires. 

Egypt is not really an empire, rather a civilization. But if it comes to that the Greco-Roman civilization and the modern Western civilization are hard to beat.

----------


## bnuizqueb

This is a very independent and multifaceted question, but there are many factors here, and in order to understand this, it would be desirable to delve into each of their periods of time, the situation of the formation of these empires, the years of prosperity, the decline of the empire, etc. Naturally, it is difficult to give an equivalent answer here, since the question is almost too wide for discussion!

----------

