Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
BMC21113
Consul
Joined: 17-Dec-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 357
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Most powerful empire in history Posted: 17-Dec-2005 at 21:25 |
Who are the ten most powerful empires in world history? I am looking for land mass, wealth, military, world influence, and effectiveness of government.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2005 at 21:39 |
To 500 BCE
1. Achaemenid Empire
500 BCE - 500 CE
2. Han Empire
3. Roman Empire
500 CE - 1500 CE
4. Mongol Empire
5. Caliphate
6. Tang Empire
1500 CE - 2000 CE
7. British Empire
8. United States
9. USSR
10. Spanish Empire
I think that's a fair distribution to all the time periods. Of course,
if you're measuring total influence, modern states will dominate
ancient ones.
Edited by Imperator Invictus
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 07:04 |
It seems you cannot count... why does three follow two II.. THe admin has lost his mathematic sense will be in tomorrow newspapers.
I would replace 9 (since it is not an empire by the name) with German Empire.
|
|
Exarchus
General
Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 08:34 |
I think all the European colonial empires deserve to be in the list. They were all large and powerful as hell and overlooked the Portuguese and Spanish empires seems to be an heresy for me.
|
Vae victis!
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 08:45 |
I agree with Exarchus: the Spanish Empire of the 16th century was as
powerful as the British of the 19th century or the Nordamerican one of
the 20th. Portugal instead was never comparably powerful.
I also think that the Arab Caliphate and the Turkish Caliphate are two
diferent states that shouldn't be mixed. Both were very important but,
if I have to decide, Ottoman Empire was more powerful.
Finally, before the Achaemenid Empire existed, other empires were major
ones, controlling most of the civilized world: Akkadian, Babilonian and
Assyrian empires were extermely powerful and globally hegemonic for the
standards of their time.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 09:27 |
I begin with Achaemenid, but as say Maju before there are others; my
problem is that i should generaliza the centuries, for example the
Caliphate, strong by 815 but weak at 890:
VI-IV BC, Achaemenids
III-II, not very clear (greeks, chinese, indians...)
II-I, Han China-Rome (two worlds, the first most strong)
I-II AC, Roman Empire-Han China (the first more powerful)
III-VI, Roman Empire-Sassanian Persia
VII-VIII, Tang China-Caliphate
IX, not very clear (franks, byzantines, arabs)
X, Byzantine Empire
XI, not very clear (Song, Byzancium, Fatimids...)
XII, not very clear
XIII, Mongol Empire
XIV, not very clear
XV, Ming China-Ottoman Empire
XVI, Ming China-Spanish Empire-Ottoman Empire
XVII, France-Qing China-Ottoman Empire
XVIII, England-France-Qing China
XIX, British Empire (i think, the most powerful and influential of history)
XX, USA-USSR-Germany
XXI, USA (-China?)
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 09:56 |
Before the Achaemenids there were no intercontinental empires really. They were more regional.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 10:08 |
It seems you cannot count... why does three follow two II.. THe admin
has lost his mathematic sense will be in tomorrow newspapers. |
Thanks for pointing that out. Then I think the extra spot should go to the Spanish Empire.
Edited by Imperator Invictus
|
|
Spartakus
Tsar
terörist
Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2005 at 08:12 |
Powerfull from which point of view,the militar ,the cultural,the economical one?
I think in 500 CE-1500 CE it's the Byzantine Empire from all the 3 aspects,with the military one loosing ground after 1.000 CE.
|
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2005 at 09:16 |
Us is not an empire
Ottomans power was more that both mongols and Tang together
Acheamanids main power is after 500 b.c.
Romans main power is after 300 b.c.
5-7 cent. Centuries Gokturks were pretty good (in mongol type)
the word "empire" was appeared first in Romans
I think, if we ganne make them meet, USSR would win
|
|
sedamoun
Baron
Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2005 at 09:22 |
in Imperator invictus' list i don't see the Ottoman Empire (which was one of the most long lasting empires through history aprox. 1300-1900):
In my opinion, it deserves a place in the list of the top 10.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2005 at 09:45 |
Originally posted by Kafkazli
Ottomans power was more that both mongols and Tang together
|
Wow, I never cease to be amazed at the nationalism of the Turks. Certainly, the Ottoman Empire was a large and powerful empire. But from there to go and say that it was more powerful than the Mongol and the Tang empires put together, that's a huge stretch of imagination. Of course, for one thing you're comparing apples and oranges, as the Ottoman empire came later and had firearms. But in terms of relative power and influence, Tang China in the 8th century was comparable with the Ottomans in the 16th century, and the Mongols in the 13th-early 14th century far superior. You really should study more history, my nationalist friend.
Edited by Decebal
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
Richard XIII
Colonel
Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 651
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2005 at 10:00 |
For very short time but very large in dimensions (from Europe to India) and influences (from Europe to China) for his time the empire of Alexander the Great.
|
"I want to know God's thoughts...
...the rest are details."
Albert Einstein
|
|
azimuth
Caliph
SlaYer'S SlaYer
Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2005 at 10:22 |
Originally posted by Kafkazli
Us is not an empire
Ottomans power was more that both mongols and Tang together
Acheamanids main power is after 500 b.c.
Romans main power is after 300 b.c.
5-7 cent. Centuries Gokturks were pretty good (in mongol type)
the word "empire" was appeared first in Romans
I think, if we ganne make them meet, USSR would win
|
300 AD for the romans not BC.
also the Umayyads and the early years of the Abbasides were the strongest in the world at their time.
|
|
|
Exarchus
General
Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2005 at 10:35 |
The Ottoman Empire, despite being quite powerful, shouldn't be in a list of the most powerful empires.
Just pick a map, look at what were the Russian Empire, the British one, the French (colonial one), Spanish one, Roman one, or the Tang and Persian ones.
The Ottoman should be in the list of the powerful ones but not the most powerful ones.
|
Vae victis!
|
|
Alkiviades
Baron
Joined: 01-Sep-2005
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 469
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2005 at 10:56 |
Is there even a point to this argument?
|
|
cg rommel
Shogun
Joined: 12-Dec-2005
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 244
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2005 at 11:16 |
Originally posted by Decebal
Originally posted by Kafkazli
Ottomans power was more that both mongols and Tang together
|
Wow, I never cease to be amazed at the nationalism of the Turks.
Certainly, the Ottoman Empire was a large and powerful empire. But from
there to go and say that it was more powerful than the Mongol and the
Tang empires put together, that's a huge stretch of imagination. Of
course, for one thing you're comparing apples and oranges, as the
Ottoman empire came later and had firearms. But in terms of relative
power and influence, Tang China in the 8th century was comparable
with the Ottomans in the 16th century, and the Mongols in the
13th-early 14th century far superior. You really should study more
history, my nationalist friend. |
i tottally agree... i mean they think they were the heroes at kosovo and they saved us by conquering us.... WOW.....
|
|
sedamoun
Baron
Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2005 at 11:17 |
Well Exarchus,
The Russian Empire is quite impressive by its size but most of the territory is just non-inhabited land (on the map where there are no cities) - which makes it easier to conquer.
I mean, taking Constantinople is quite the achievement, followed by Damascus, Jerusalem, Cairo, Mecca, Athens and Belgrade... That is not comparable - I think - to Bukhoro, Warsaw and Vladivostok... i am trying to compare the strenght of the opposition(s) during there time they were conquered.
The Spanish did not have to much trouble conquering Central and Latin America (diseases from Europe doing a great job for them).
If i m not mistaking, BMC21113 also mentionned effectiveness of government - which makes Spain the counter example : repatriating all the gold from LA and keeping its feodal system - not enhancing their production means and buying from its neighbour countries (repumping the gold into the European economy ). One of my french Economic History teachers told us it was one of the most counter-productive enterprises in history.
Spanish and Portugese (Brasil, Angloa, Mozamique...) empires - in my opinion - do not deserve a place in the most powerfull empires throughout history.
I agree with the colonial empires (English and French), Rome - of course -, Persian and Tang... but not Russian and Spanish.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Spartakus
Tsar
terörist
Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2005 at 14:27 |
Just for the record,Athens wasn't a so difficult target to capture in 1400's.
|
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2005 at 15:24 |
I think that the most powerful and influential empire of the history is the British empire.
There are two main revolutions in the human evolution: the neolithic
revolution, and the industrial revolution. All the empires previous to
1800 are empires based in agriculture, but, the british empire is the
first industrial empire; this new culture was diffused by the english
to all the world. After the british empire, all the empires are
variants of this empire.
And, was the most vasted empire. And all the world, and this is the
first time that we can say this, all countries, need must dealed with
the british.
|
|