Most sucsesfull empire in world history

Originally posted by Penelope 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. 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

I would say the most successful empires were the ones who left an affect on the region today. Having said that the Portuguese, Spanish and British empires were the most successful. After that one I would say the Ottoman Empire. And after that I'd say Roman Empire, though I might even put Roman empire up there with the Portuguese, Spanish and British, just because that is where Europe really started and to a certain extent the roman catholic world of today could be seen as a successor to the Roman Empire, which still exists today. :P

    -Some more Achaemenid Persian maps

Originally posted by Penelope Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Originally posted by Penelope 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. 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   I do not agree with the "Black Sea nearly became a Persian "Lake" statement.         -Looks to me like the Black Sea's coast is only about 1/2 on Persian soil.   It nearly became a Persian "lake", only becuase Darius had envisioned it, but he ended up abandoning the supposed campaign. Also, i urge you to be carefull when dealing with most "historical" maps, since they tend to be very inaccurate.

Edited by Darius of Parsa - 07-Nov-2007 at 21:25

Originally posted by Sun Tzu The Roman army had discipline and could usually defeat if not have higher kill ratios thean enemies that outnumbered them.

Originally posted by Penelope Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Originally posted by Penelope Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Originally posted by Penelope 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. 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   I do not agree with the "Black Sea nearly became a Persian "Lake" statement.         -Looks to me like the Black Sea's coast is only about 1/2 on Persian soil.   It nearly became a Persian "lake", only becuase Darius had envisioned it, but he ended up abandoning the supposed campaign. Also, i urge you to be carefull when dealing with most "historical" maps, since they tend to be very inaccurate.     ...I guess YOUR statement was not off topic. Not that I have good memory but I think you protested against the Achaemenid Empire and the title of "Most succesfull empire in world history". But again, I might be incorrect.     That map was taken off Wikipedia.       You are incorrect, becuase i in fact, protested FOR the Achaemenid Empire when i stated that it was definately a successful empire. I suggest you read peoples statements thoroughly before you type something. And yes, "wicked" pedia, is known for having "wicked" maps.

I would say the most succesful empires were the ones that brought the most prosperity to the most people. For that, it would be a toss-up between the British Empire and the Roman Empire.

I'd venture a couple of other unusual contenders too. Soviet Union for one. It didn't last long, and it didn't by any means raise the standard of living among its people to parity with its peers. But ... one has to consider the nature of its territories and the level of wealth and advancement in some of those territories when it was founded. Vast swaths of its Western territories had not changed much since the Middle Ages. Portions of its most remote northern and eastern territories hadn't changed much since the Iron Age! The USSR brought the modern world to these places, airports, highways, telephones, schools, and so on. This was an incredible achievement considering the starting point.

My other unusual contender would be the PRC, during and since Deng Xiaoping. He took a country that had been through more than a century of unbelievable hardship and humiliation, and made it a contendor on the world scene - possibly even laid the foundation for a nation to rise from the bottom right to the top. Time will tell.

The poll is really meaningless as such. 'Successful' was never given any measures by the proposer against which any Empire can be measured.

Surprised more haven't mentioned China.  The empire is over 2000 years old and still expanding.

Yeap. It is the same case that saying that the Egypt of today exists since 7.000 years ago because there is continuity of people living in that land. Nonsense