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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Greatest Empires

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 18192021>
Author
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 646
  Quote Mughal e Azam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Greatest Empires
    Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 22:20
Originally posted by Constantine XI

Originally posted by Mughaal

I would have placed the Christian empire as the primary world empire, but there was never such a thing. Atleast not a Centralized Empire.
 
The Islamic Empire 625-1225 influenced from Spain to Indonesia, Russia to Zanzibar. People speak arabic without knowing its meaning. They live by dietary principles, the prayer, etc.
 
But for exactly the same reason you gave for not putting "Christian Empire" as number 1, the same reason applies to "Arab/Islamic Empire". By the time of the Abbasid Caliphate, the Empire was fractured into competing factions and could not be considered one state (just like Europe in the Imperial Age). So the cut off date for that particular "empire" as unified is 750 CE.
No. The empire was districted (and run independently) by 850, but the Abbasids still had central authority. The Samanids, Ghaznavids, Aghlabids, Dehlvi Sultanate, Ayyubid Sultanate all sought Abbasid recognition. Yes they operated independently but the Central Islamic Authority was imbedded in the people. In so far, the Mamlukes had to "create" an Abbasid successor post the Mongol Attack and destruction of Baghdad in 1260.
Mughal e Azam
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: 17-Oct-2007 at 00:15

Where is the Achaemenid Persian Empire, not only was it a military masterpeice but also in terms of human rights, religion, size, and power.



Edited by Darius of Parsa - 10-Nov-2007 at 14:49
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Oct-2007 at 20:34
I dont think the Ottomans should be there, if were talking about greatest empires. Where is China or the Mayans? They were incredibley influential, the Mayans were more advanced in mathematics then Greece or Rome.
 
I think Rome really is overated, infact I despise Rome, most of there "great" innovations were copied and borrowed from past civilizations namley Greece. The Romans used to pride them selves on slaughtering people. I dont know why people get so excited by Rome IMHO
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: 28-Oct-2007 at 22:27
Originally posted by KingBooker

I dont think the Ottomans should be there, if were talking about greatest empires. Where is China or the Mayans? They were incredibley influential, the Mayans were more advanced in mathematics then Greece or Rome.
 
I think Rome really is overated, infact I despise Rome, most of there "great" innovations were copied and borrowed from past civilizations namley Greece. The Romans used to pride them selves on slaughtering people. I dont know why people get so excited by Rome IMHO
 
Why shouldnt the Ottomans be included? Just curious.
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: 29-Oct-2007 at 19:58
there is simply no question that the british empire is greatest, land area, population, six continants, mother to many of todays leading nations, spreader of the only truely global language there is,
 
im british so can be accused of bias but as for longevity bits of the empire still remain albeit a few islands.
 
the only thing earlier empires have is the fact they came earlier,
 
plus unlike roman and many others the british empire was never conquered, most of it was split away quite amicably.
 
we may be third rate these days but the british empire ticks more boxes than any other
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 00:11
Originally posted by longshanks31

there is simply no question that the british empire is greatest, land area, population, six continants, mother to many of todays leading nations, spreader of the only truely global language there is,
 
im british so can be accused of bias but as for longevity bits of the empire still remain albeit a few islands.
 
 
Comparing to older empires, Spanish, French and British Empires were a different type of empire than the others, a colonial empire!
 
We, of course, can not set up exact criteria for the ranking, however when it comes to longevity, those empires were not really into the competition against the centralized non-colonial ones.
 
One more difference that can be mentioned is; while the colonial empires sought for the flow of wealth into their homelands, from their huge colonial network, the others usually, if not all, invested more or less to the every part of their empire and regarded development of each and every region.
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 01:22
Principality of Sealand. Period.
     
   
Join us.
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: 30-Oct-2007 at 06:50
but the british was much more constructive, look at the success of the countries left afterwards,
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 08:48
Originally posted by longshanks31

but the british was much more constructive, look at the success of the countries left afterwards,
 
Yes, Somalia, Sudan,Palestine and many others, huge stories of successDead
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
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: 30-Oct-2007 at 10:06
Originally posted by Kapikulu

Originally posted by longshanks31

but the british was much more constructive, look at the success of the countries left afterwards,
 
Yes, Somalia, Sudan,Palestine and many others, huge stories of successDead
 
 
now list me the good ones and see which list is longest, somalia was the italians doing,
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 11:26
Originally posted by longshanks31

Originally posted by Kapikulu

Originally posted by longshanks31

but the british was much more constructive, look at the success of the countries left afterwards,
 
Yes, Somalia, Sudan,Palestine and many others, huge stories of successDead
 
 
now list me the good ones and see which list is longest, somalia was the italians doing,
Somaliland was British, so they can share the blame on that mess.

I can add Zambia, Zimbabwe, Burma, Bangladesh, Iraq, Uganda, Nigeria and Malawi to that 'successful' list of Kapi's.


Edited by Leonidas - 30-Oct-2007 at 11:26
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: 30-Oct-2007 at 12:40
list the good ones aswell come now lets be fair,
 
all empires are paved with blood, misery and broken backs you know this.
empires are not built with hugs and kisses, why the childish responces?
 
the british empire did not put saddam in charge, did not turn bangladesh from a high country to one easily flooded, did not elect fanatics in iran, did not install mugabe.
somalia had as good a chance as kenya, the italians messed that up no question, the fact the british were there first bares no relation.
name an empire that left there occupied territories in better circumstances?
chop chop
 
 
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: 30-Oct-2007 at 12:46
is australia a total shambles
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: 30-Oct-2007 at 12:52
New Zealand, USA. india, canada, republic of ireland, jamaica, egypt, belize, samoa, tonga etc etc.
 
If somalia is the british empires fault because we were simply there then all the good things that came out of the above nations are to be thanked for because of the british empire, not that that is the case, the peoples of countries make either a success or a faliure of them.
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: 30-Oct-2007 at 12:53
rugby, soccer, cricket, snooker etc etc
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 13:31
Originally posted by longshanks31

list the good ones aswell come now lets be fair,
 
all empires are paved with blood, misery and broken backs you know this.
empires are not built with hugs and kisses, why the childish responces?
 
the british empire did not put saddam in charge, did not turn bangladesh from a high country to one easily flooded, did not elect fanatics in iran, did not install mugabe.
somalia had as good a chance as kenya, the italians messed that up no question, the fact the british were there first bares no relation.
name an empire that left there occupied territories in better circumstances?
chop chop
 
 
of course you cant be blamed entirely for the what the locals have done since, yet at the same time you cant take the credit when they made it work. That is fair.

Originally posted by longshanks31

is australia a total shambles
no, we have made this country work, with exception to our indigenous population. We gave over 60,000 our boys lives in WW1 alone, so I don't think we owe the British anything.



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: 30-Oct-2007 at 18:22
no you do not owe the british anything, i totally agree with you on that.
Its worth noteing however that in the second world war almost every former british colony was on the side of the allies.
With the russians and chinese every nation of the british empire stood against the tyrants.
 
but at the end of the day im just submitting my opinion that the british empire overall and taking the various factors into consideration was the greatest of all time.
 
its not even my favourite empire, my historica interests tend to be more fascinated with ancient times, parthia, phoenecian empire, han etc
but on balance i think the british empire wins the medal.
 
if not what beats it and why, i am for the converting if the converting is merited.
 
topics like these will alway herald a hundred camps
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 20:40
Your wrong Britain dosnt get the gold medal, and neither does any other empire.
 
There is know great empire, all empires in there own way have done good and bad.
 
How can you compare empires like the British to empires like the Romans or Alexanders? There is no competition. Britain is thousands of years ahead in technology etc which makes it much easier to gain more land. In those days you had to march or sail.
 
There is no comparison, simply because you cant compare. Its like getting a football team of adults and a football team of 7 year old kids and expect them to win. Confused
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 02:10
Originally posted by longshanks31

list the good ones aswell come now lets be fair,
 
Sorry if I got confused, but are you asking for a list of commonwealth nations or ex-British colonies that were successful AFTER the British left? Well, then you would have the difficulty determining how much of their success was BECAUSE the British left (aka due to their own efforts) as compared to WHAT the British left them.... So if you don't want the British Empire take the blame for the "failed" ex-colonies, then you shouldn't try to take credit for the successful ones either.
 
IOW, I think it makes more sense to determine how great the British Empire was based on what the British Empire WAS like, not what the Commonwealth Nations or ex-colonies is NOW like. Remember, the British Empire "let go" of the colonies because they could no longer to managed effectively or profitably within an empire-- so mentioning the fate of ex-colonies merely reflects the weakness and ultimate fate of the British Empire vs the more "enlightened stance" of the modern UK.


Edited by wang yun - 31-Oct-2007 at 02:11
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 03:03
Originally posted by Mughaal

Originally posted by Constantine XI

Originally posted by Mughaal

I would have placed the Christian empire as the primary world empire, but there was never such a thing. Atleast not a Centralized Empire.
 
The Islamic Empire 625-1225 influenced from Spain to Indonesia, Russia to Zanzibar. People speak arabic without knowing its meaning. They live by dietary principles, the prayer, etc.
 
But for exactly the same reason you gave for not putting "Christian Empire" as number 1, the same reason applies to "Arab/Islamic Empire". By the time of the Abbasid Caliphate, the Empire was fractured into competing factions and could not be considered one state (just like Europe in the Imperial Age). So the cut off date for that particular "empire" as unified is 750 CE.
No. The empire was districted (and run independently) by 850, but the Abbasids still had central authority. The Samanids, Ghaznavids, Aghlabids, Dehlvi Sultanate, Ayyubid Sultanate all sought Abbasid recognition. Yes they operated independently but the Central Islamic Authority was imbedded in the people. In so far, the Mamlukes had to "create" an Abbasid successor post the Mongol Attack and destruction of Baghdad in 1260.


Seeking recognition doesn't make it centralised. All European (except Orthodox) kings and Emperors sought Papal recognition in the Middle Ages too. That doesn't mean that Europe was one big Empire ruled by the Pope - and in the same way the various splintered Islamic states did not constitute a centralised empire. Did they have a common heritage? Certainly. Were they a united polity? No.

The comparison with European Christendom is almost perfect. They even had a rebel Caliphate on the periphery - the Umayyads (or Abbasids, depending on which you consider the rebel). Likewise, Christendom had a rebel head priesthood - the Byzantines (or the Roman Papacy, depending on which you consider the rebel).

Abbasid power in the Islamic world grew to become almost entirely titular after a couple of centuries in power, temporal power was restricted to a rather small bit of land around the head religious leader, the Caliph. This is also perfectly comparable with the Papacy, except the Papacy still extracted the 10% tithe from most of the rest of Europe - with a considerable amount being sent to Rome itself. And just like the Caliph, the Pope was also restricted to a geographically small area, the Papal States.

The comparison is virtually perfect.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 18192021>

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 0.090 seconds.