Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Most sucsesfull empire in world history

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Poll Question: What do you think is the most sucsessfull empire in history?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
3 [6.38%]
6 [12.77%]
1 [2.13%]
15 [31.91%]
6 [12.77%]
4 [8.51%]
2 [4.26%]
2 [4.26%]
6 [12.77%]
0 [0.00%]
2 [4.26%]
0 [0.00%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
TheARRGH View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Over-Lord of the Marching Men

Joined: 29-Jun-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 744
  Quote TheARRGH Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Most sucsesfull empire in world history
    Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 18:14
Another relatively small nation that could be seen as very influential--

The amazonian people who created Terra Preta. Its' an extraordinarily dark earth made from pottery bits, organic waste such as bones and garbage, charcoal, and probably some particular bacterial balance that it aquired. It's incredibly fertile--a rough duplicate, made just to get an idea of what the real stuff might be like, increased the productivity of a scientist's garden by about 880%. It's also immensely long-lasting. Some plots have been farmed for hundreds of years without needing crops to be rotated off.

...While whoever started making it isn't really that influential, one could argue that if it becomes possible to truly duplicate such a useful agricultural tool, they will end up having (posthumously) become EXTREMELY influential.
Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche

Back to Top
Sun Tzu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 362
  Quote Sun Tzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 13:26
I would say Roman Empire, in terms of longevity, if u wanna do the math from the founding to the fall of the Western Roman empire, it would be 1229 years, and if you wanna get technical, it lasted for 2,206 years! If Rome didn't have its corrupt aristocracy and its petty war with the Persians, Latin would prolly still be a major language in Europe, if not the world.
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
Sun Tzu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 362
  Quote Sun Tzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 13:28
Another empire I would think being great would be the Mongol empire, though it didn't last very long, it was prolly the most powerful, the Mongols were natural horsemen who could cover 100 miles a day, while Roman legions usually covered about 20 miles a day.
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
Illirac View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Jun-2007
Location: Ma vlast
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 526
  Quote Illirac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 14:12
Originally posted by Sun Tzu

I would say Roman Empire, in terms of longevity, if u wanna do the math from the founding to the fall of the Western Roman empire, it would be 1229 years, and if you wanna get technical, it lasted for 2,206 years! If Rome didn't have its corrupt aristocracy and its petty war with the Persians, Latin would prolly still be a major language in Europe, if not the world.
 
 
no latin would never survive, first of all because commoners did not understend them, not even kings...second there were to many barbarians after the fall of rome that spoke an own language and they had no interest in learning latin(except the clerics)
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.
Back to Top
SuN. View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 26-Sep-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 156
  Quote SuN. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 15:47
I fail to understand as to how empires which hav disappeared can count as the most successful. The moment these empires died out, they stopped being successful, i.e. they failed.

The Chinese empire should still count as the most successful.  
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 16:12
Originally posted by SuN.

I fail to understand as to how empires which hav disappeared can count as the most successful. The moment these empires died out, they stopped being successful, i.e. they failed.

The Chinese empire should still count as the most successful.  
 
Just count how many times the Chinese empire has dissapeared LOL
The same happens with Rome, in a sense it never dissapear, but the political continuity changed several times. With China, it is not the same the Empire of the Han than the Empire of the Manchues.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 19:42
Ah yes, the good old "where are you from"-thread. I'm European so I guess I should say the Roman empire, or maybe the British one. Were I to rise above the general level of these discussions I might even consider the Chinese empire.
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846
  Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 20:45
Regarding the "duration" of an empire, it is a complex question.
 
Chinese civilization has existed for 4000 years, during which more than a dozen dynasties rose and fell. Some of them extended the borders into foreign lands and could be considered as "empires", while other dynasties were more introvert and could be considered as nothing more than a kingdom.
The concept of a "Chinese Empire" as continuous concept does not exist becasue each dynasty reinvented the state when the previous dynasty collasped.
 
The Roman "state" had officially been founded in 753 B.C., but back then it was only a city state, that was to stay that way for much of the next 2 centuries despite steady expansion. I would call Rome an "empire" probably after it defeated Carthage in the 2nd Punic War (2nd Century B.C.), after which it expanded to include large parts of the Mediterranean.
 
"Imperial Rome", like China, also had several dynasties; but different to the Chinese, each Roman "dynasty" conserved the institution, law, infrastructure, and continuity of the previous dynasty, thus making it more of a continuous entity. Officially, the "Roman State" ended in 1453 at the fall of Constantinople, but during much of the 14th and 15th centuries it could hardly be described as an "empire" as it was in reality nothing more than an Ottoman vassal.
 
The Spanish Empire also had 2 dynasties (Hapsburg and Bourbon). Despite a brief period of reformation and prosperity in the early Bourbon period, they continued in more or less the same political system and (mis-)management of the overseas provinces.  
 
The Ottoman Empire was perhaps one of the longest empires ruled by a single dynasty.
The Romanovs in Russia also ruled for a long time.
 
Back to Top
Deano View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
  Quote Deano Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 22:05
As for a small but great nation I have to say belgium.They had 250,000 soliders in ww1 and were never fully conquered by germany till ww11 but during w11 evry one was conquered (in our hearts)
I AM FARTAKUS!
Back to Top
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 494
  Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 22:37
Chinese civilization has existed for 4000 years, during which more than a dozen dynasties rose and fell. Some of them extended the borders into foreign lands and could be considered as "empires", while other dynasties were more introvert and could be considered as nothing more than a kingdom.
The concept of a "Chinese Empire" as continuous concept does not exist becasue each dynasty reinvented the state when the previous dynasty collasped.
 
Actually, each Chinese dynasty was ruled by a bureaucracy that's very similar to each other, though they gradually changed over time. Any sudden major change usually wouldn't be caused by dynastic changes but rather by internal reforms. The only break would probably be the Republic from the Qing. Nor would the description of "foreign" be accurate, the Chinese didn't have a solid idea of "foeigner" back then, but only "subjects" and "non-subjects".


Edited by Omnipotence - 06-Nov-2007 at 04:58
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599
  Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 00:21

I would put my bet on the Persian Empire. From 744 to 500 B.C the empire was not an empire at all, but a vassal state to the Median Empire. An Achaemenid king, Cyrus the Great conquered the Median, Lydian, and Neo Babylonian powers, as well as many other tribes and peoples, creating the largest empire up to that time.

 
------At the height of its power, the Empire spanned three continents. It also eventually incorporated the following territories: in the east, modern Afghanistan and beyond into central Asia, and Pakistan; in the north and west, all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey), the upper Balkans peninsula (Thrace), and most of the Black Sea coastal regions; in the west and southwest the territories of modern Iraq, northern Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, all significant population centers of ancient Egypt and as far west as portions of Libya. Encompassing approximately 7.5 million square kilometers, the Achaemenid Empire was territorially the largest empire of classical antiquity.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Darius of Parsa - 06-Nov-2007 at 00:21
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 06:48
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

I would put my bet on the Persian Empire. From 744 to 500 B.C the empire was not an empire at all, but a vassal state to the Median Empire. An Achaemenid king, Cyrus the Great conquered the Median, Lydian, and Neo Babylonian powers, as well as many other tribes and peoples, creating the largest empire up to that time.

 
------At the height of its power, the Empire spanned three continents. It also eventually incorporated the following territories: in the east, modern Afghanistan and beyond into central Asia, and Pakistan; in the north and west, all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey), the upper Balkans peninsula (Thrace), and most of the Black Sea coastal regions; in the west and southwest the territories of modern Iraq, northern Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, all significant population centers of ancient Egypt and as far west as portions of Libya. Encompassing approximately 7.5 million square kilometers, the Achaemenid Empire was territorially the largest empire of classical antiquity.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
That is correct. However, the size of an empire does not make it successful.SmileFor example, Alexander's empire was larger than Cyrus', but could not survive without him. I do agree that the Achaemenid Empire was a successful empire, its legacy alone is proof of that.


Edited by Penelope - 06-Nov-2007 at 07:14
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 07:13
Exactly, though it can be a sign of success, sheer size is not all that culminates to make a "successful empire". There are many, many other aspects we need to examine to determine successful empires. Regardless, the Achaemenid Empire's size is a testament to the initial success of its leaders, paving the way for a prosperous and powerful dynasty.

EDIT: Penelope, Alexander's empire wasn't larger than the Achaemenid one under Darius I. But you mentioned it being larger than when under Cyrus - is this the case? I'm always on the look out for a map showing the extent of Cyrus's empire. Smile Thanks.


Edited by Knights - 06-Nov-2007 at 07:16
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 10:03
Originally posted by Knights

Exactly, though it can be a sign of success, sheer size is not all that culminates to make a "successful empire". There are many, many other aspects we need to examine to determine successful empires. Regardless, the Achaemenid Empire's size is a testament to the initial success of its leaders, paving the way for a prosperous and powerful dynasty.

EDIT: Penelope, Alexander's empire wasn't larger than the Achaemenid one under Darius I. But you mentioned it being larger than when under Cyrus - is this the case? I'm always on the look out for a map showing the extent of Cyrus's empire. Smile Thanks.
 
Yes, the empire under Darius The Great was much larger, expanding northward into the Caucasus mountains, encompassing both Thrace and Macedon, Armenia, Egypt, and northern Libya. The Black Sea nearly became a Persian "lake" under his reign as well. Now as for Cyrus and Alexander..Cyrus' empire lacked Thrace, Macedon, Greece, Egypt, and Pakistan, yet it encompassed Armenia. Where as Alexander's empire encompassed Macedon, Greece, Thrace, Egypt, as well as Pakistan, but lacked Armenia. I think that we should start a new thread on the matter, so as to not ruin this one by going off topic. lol
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 10:37
Fair enough - if you want to start a topic, go right ahead Smile Thanks for the info too.
Back to Top
longshanks31 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572
  Quote longshanks31 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 18:41
i think cultural impact is a better test of an empires success rather than size,
long live the king of bhutan
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 19:09
co-sign. In that respect, the Roman Empire was a lot more sucessful that many others.
Back to Top
TheARRGH View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Over-Lord of the Marching Men

Joined: 29-Jun-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 744
  Quote TheARRGH Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Nov-2007 at 01:38
Perhaps the Greeks more so-the romans largely served as a vessel by which Greek ideas spread across a large area.
Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche

Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599
  Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Nov-2007 at 03:46
Originally posted by Penelope

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

I would put my bet on the Persian Empire. From 744 to 500 B.C the empire was not an empire at all, but a vassal state to the Median Empire. An Achaemenid king, Cyrus the Great conquered the Median, Lydian, and Neo Babylonian powers, as well as many other tribes and peoples, creating the largest empire up to that time.

 
 
 
Before the Achaemenid Persian Empire there were four main powers in the ancient world, Media, Lydia, Neo-Babylonian Empire, and Egypt. They all vied for power over portions of the Middle East, and never gained much territory. Then imagine if you were a leader of one of those countries and you witnessed an army of rebels, take over Media in a matter of a few years. And you saw them march toward Lydia, take it over, and you watched the army march into Mesopotamia, and the subjagation of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. You saw the rebel leader march eastward into Bactria, and lands far beyond what you could comprehend. This was all done in in less than 30 years. Previous empires strived for the same thing, a strong world power for thousands of years, and Cyrus the Great, a rebel leader had achieved just that in less than 30 years.
------At the height of its power, the Empire spanned three continents. It also eventually incorporated the following territories: in the east, modern Afghanistan and beyond into central Asia, and Pakistan; in the north and west, all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey), the upper Balkans peninsula (Thrace), and most of the Black Sea coastal regions; in the west and southwest the territories of modern Iraq, northern Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, all significant population centers of ancient Egypt and as far west as portions of Libya. Encompassing approximately 7.5 million square kilometers, the Achaemenid Empire was territorially the largest empire of classical antiquity.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
That is correct. However, the size of an empire does not make it successful.SmileFor example, Alexander's empire was larger than Cyrus', but could not survive without him. I do agree that the Achaemenid Empire was a successful empire, its legacy alone is proof of that.
 
 
Very true Penelope, but I was not writing about the size of the empire, but rather how it became to be of that wealth and maturity. The thought of one empire governing so many nations and peoples was unheard of at the time. EDIT: The Achaemenid Empire under Xerxes was larger than that of Alexander.
 
 
Now I would like you to imagine you are a leader of an empire or tribe watching Cyrus' conquests. The rebel leader emerges, with little military experience, gathers a group of Persian men, also having little or no military experience, and orders the attack on Media. Media then falls a few years later, then you witness the rebels attack Lydia, which at the time was a major leading power, and subjagates it. Then you see the Persian men march into Mesopotamia, and take over the Neo-Babylonian Empire. You see Cyrus and his men go to distant lands in the east, and take over lands such as Bactria, modern day Afganistan, and Pakistan. All of Cyrus' campaigns were done in less than 30 years. Empires vied for just the same thing, a world power, and went back to their camps fruitless. Such wars between ancient powers went on for thousands of years, and the Persians ( a people of little importance at the time ) conquered most of the known world in less than 30 years.


Edited by Darius of Parsa - 07-Nov-2007 at 04:19
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599
  Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Nov-2007 at 03:51
Originally posted by Knights

Exactly, though it can be a sign of success, sheer size is not all that culminates to make a "successful empire". There are many, many other aspects we need to examine to determine successful empires. Regardless, the Achaemenid Empire's size is a testament to the initial success of its leaders, paving the way for a prosperous and powerful dynasty.

EDIT: Penelope, Alexander's empire wasn't larger than the Achaemenid one under Darius I. But you mentioned it being larger than when under Cyrus - is this the case? I'm always on the look out for a map showing the extent of Cyrus's empire. Smile Thanks.
 
 
Superimposed%20on%20modern%20borders,%20the%20Achaemenid%20Empire%20under%20Cyrus%20rule%20extended%20approximately%20from%20Turkey,%20Israel,%20and%20Armenia%20in%20the%20west%20to%20Kazakhstan,%20Kyrgyzstan,%20and%20to%20the%20Indus%20River%20in%20the%20east.%20Persia%20became%20the%20largest%20empire%20the%20world%20had%20ever%20seen.
 
Achaemenid Empire under Cyrus
 
-Hope that answers your inquiry Wink
 
 
 
 
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.105 seconds.