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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Is there even a point to this argument?

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.

Assyrians, for instance, dominated lands of two continents. They weren't as large as Persian empire but they are comparable, in the sense they were as powerful or more as any other empire before. One can't ignore the great empires that preceded that of the Achaemenids, nor their influence.

The Turks taking Constantinople in 1453 is quite less of an achievement, compared to the Crusaders taking it in the 4th Crusade in 1204. By 1453, the Byzantine Empire was much weaker than in 1204. Vladivostok was never conquered by the Russians but rather founded by them.

If you want to talk about achievements, how about the fact that the Russians consistently defeated the Ottomans once they came into contact?

But this discussion is not about achievements, really, it's about power. And here's where I agree with Ikki: it was the British who were the most powerful in history, in their heyday: later half of the 19th century up until the first World War.

I don't see why: the British didn't have big trouble conquering their empire either (Spanish and French errors mad most of their job) and India, the pearl of British Empire was conquered almost without effort, in an enterprise of graft and with no serious rival.

By influence, the Spanish empire, is one of the most influential in history:

• "discovered" America
• fought or hegemony in Europe and the Mediterranean for at least a full century, competing with great powers such as Ottoman Empire, France and Britain
• extended Spanish language, Christian religion and European culture to most of America

Only Rome, China (in general) the Caliphate and the British Empire (including its Nordamerican offshot) can compare to this inmense influence.

Portugal was also influential, specially by opening the High Seas to Europe, though, due to the smallness of the homeland and lack of hegeonic ambitions can't be placed among 1st rank empires. But it can well compare with some others very respectable "seconds", like Netherlands, France, and many others.

I think Egypt counts as more regional.  There were no world powers before Achaemenid with worldwide hegemony seen from the borders of China to Thracia and Libya, from Bactria/Soghdiana to Yemen.

That is not to say they weren't influential or important but only regionally.

I don't see why: the British didn't have big trouble conquering their empire either (Spanish and French errors mad most of their job) and India, the pearl of British Empire was conquered almost without effort, in an enterprise of graft and with no serious rival.

By influence, the Spanish empire, is one of the most influential in history:

• "discovered" America
• fought or hegemony in Europe and the Mediterranean for at least a full century, competing with great powers such as Ottoman Empire, France and Britain
• extended Spanish language, Christian religion and European culture to most of America

Only Rome, China (in general) the Caliphate and the British Empire (including its Nordamerican offshot) can compare to this inmense influence.

Portugal was also influential, specially by opening the High Seas to Europe, though, due to the smallness of the homeland and lack of hegeonic ambitions can't be placed among 1st rank empires. But it can well compare with some others very respectable "seconds", like Netherlands, France, and many others.

ok, why every time if a turkish guy will say something u ganna forget everything and just discuss his oppinions???

I can answer why i thought that Ottomans were stronger than tang and mongol together, but first i will sorry for Arab friend and for those that brought Russian tsar empire becouse they were really one of the greatest empires of the world, without doubt (though Russian empires population was not tooooo big)

Mongol armies against Ottoman-Off cource Mongol would win (the same arms or early ottoman) but look, how long did Mongols live???? Why I cant say that Ottoman government was stronger even 10 times which could hold its empire more than 600 years in his hands???

Why I could not say That Tang is not stronger that Ottoman-While during Tang empire Gokturks 4 times atacked and captured Beijing, but not any foreign army couldnt get even 100 km close to Istanbul never ever untill 19th century????

That is the reason: Not any mediaval age army could stand against Ottomans, i am not nationalist or racist, but i base on facts, In fact I like and accept Roman empire and even may be Acheamanids and Parthians stronger than Ottomans in its time

And also, Kosove was not an accident, my friend, there is 2nd Kosovo too

All those colonist empires did not have battles or loses in those battles together as Ottomans did in surrounding Viana

They could be empires during the time when Ottoman were weeker, and I accept English empire as one of the big and strongest. Only taking 1/4 part of the worlds land area gives me chance to say that

Just i wanna u to accept Ottomans also as a normal, one of the strongest ones

I wander what would u say if Ottomans were not turkish basicly (In fact, they were not )

what did crusades did with constantinole and what did turks did???

Fatih Mehmet lost close to 60 000 men, taking it, Rome Pope was defending it with 20 000 knights

Mehmet even did not enter Aya Sofia with his Horse becouse it would be unrespectfullness

I am not saying that Ottomans were the bes, what I am saying, They also had right to share the world with Englishmen, while those were fighting with Indian archers, and Babur infantry with huge numbers of cannons and muskets, Ottomans fought against French, Italian, German, Englishmen, Austria, Russia, Spain even with weaker weapons

Originally posted by sedamoun I don't see why: the British didn't have big trouble conquering their empire either (Spanish and French errors mad most of their job) and India, the pearl of British Empire was conquered almost without effort, in an enterprise of graft and with no serious rival. By influence, the Spanish empire, is one of the most influential in history: "discovered" America fought or hegemony in Europe and the Mediterranean for at least a full century, competing with great powers such as Ottoman Empire, France and Britain extended Spanish language, Christian religion and European culture to most of America Only Rome, China (in general) the Caliphate and the British Empire (including its Nordamerican offshot) can compare to this inmense influence. Portugal was also influential, specially by opening the High Seas to Europe, though, due to the smallness of the homeland and lack of hegeonic ambitions can't be placed among 1st rank empires. But it can well compare with some others very respectable "seconds", like Netherlands, France, and many others. I agree with Portugal. For the size of the country - great achievement. However, for Spain, Columbus did in fact "discover" as you said America (by mistake). The railroads in India, that still are used today, were build by the British. That is impressive. What did Spain do to LA except build churches and cathedrals? (this is not a retorical question my friend Maju, i am asking you). I am not saying that spreading a religion is a bad thing (at the time) but it is not what i understand to be "good governance". "Dutch, English and French sponsored piracy and capers, overextension of its territories, corruption, the inability to establish a productive economy in the Peninsula, and constant warring with its enemies, often simultaneously for long periods, and often religiously based, contributed to the slow decline of Spanish power." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_empire The hardest part of conquering a place/land/region is not the conquest itself but the management of it. Mehmet II did a good job when he conquered the city that we now call Istanbul (respecting the orthodox religion) in order to keep it from revolting/rioting... "His reign, mostly known for his capture of Constantinople, is also well known for the unusual tolerance with which he treated his subjects, especially among the conquered Byzantines. Within the vanquished city he established a millet or an autonomous religious community, and he appointed the former Patriarch as essentially governor of the city. However, his authority extended only unto the Orthodox Christians of the city, and this excluded the Genoese and Venetian settlements in the suburbs, and excluded the coming Muslim and Jewish settlers entirely." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_II Cheers guys.

I don't say they did any good thing, all that I say is that they were very influential. Maybe Colombus found America "by accident" but he was equipped to explore it, and so were other explorers/conquerors after him. Obviously you can't expect anyone to look for America when its very existence wasn't know, would you?

About governance, I don't find the British empire any model of governance: they just went there (wherever) to make bussiness, without any further ambition or project. That's not any "imperial" attitude but rather a "Venetian" mercantilist thing.

The Spanish had the idea to stay and to assimilate the new lands and their natives in their "nation", much as Romans did. That's an imperial attitude. Instead the British had more a bussinessmen attitude... Spanish were definitively worst at making bussiness... and they couldn't build railroads when they didn't even had them at home (LOL!). But the cities, provincial administration, economical system stabilished by Spain in America was the bases for the independent nations of today. They also built roads and harbours and stabilished routes that are even today important. They were the first to circunnavigate the world, stabilishing the first trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific routes... concepts over which British would build their own empire some time later. If nothing else, Iberians in general were at least pioneering both in exploration and colonization. Without their model, it's doubtful that British and Dutch could ever have build any empire at all.

The British instead never tried to Europeized their colonies, except those that they settled in person. They treated conquered countries as foreign dependencies useful only for making bussiness. They even promoted feudalism in some places (India, Uganda), just because it was useful for their economic and political interests.

While the British influence is obvious, the Spanish influence isn't less obvious. The fact that Spanish is still the third most important language of the World by number of speakers, 4 centuries after the apogee of their empire, makes it very clear. Few countries have had such influence globally in such a short time. Basically Modern history can be divided in two periods: Spanish (16th century) and English (19th century, continued with a USA dominated 20th century), with two transition centuries in which France and other powers played some non-comparable role.

Because many turks have a nationalist vision of history that is very different from the rest of the world.

The Mongols held most of their possesions for hundreds of years too. It is not so much a case of external powers conquering the Mongols, but rather of the Mongol state splitting into successor states, due to its massive size. Some successor states, such as the khanate of Crimea, or Astrakhan, survived for 500 years after the inital conquests.

The figure of 600 years is often thrown around for the Ottomans, but we should remember that for the first 70 years or so, the Otooman state was just another petty Anatolian state. Also, during the 19th century, the Ottoman empire was very weak ('the sick man of Europe") but kept alive by the rivalry of the Great Powers, which prevented the Russians from their plans of conquest. Just look at the Crimean war: what would have happened had the English and French not allied themselves with the Ottomans?

Beijing was a marginal city during Tang times. The capitals were at Chang'An and Luoyang, 1500 km to the south of Beijing.

What about the army of Tamerlane who anihilated the Ottomans at Ankara in 1402? The failed siege of Vienna in 1526? The lost battle of Lepanto in 1571? What about the dozens of losses to Moldavia during the reign of Stephen the Great (1457-1504)? Or the loss to the Wallachian prince Micrea cel Batran at Rovine in 1398? Or the defeat at Belgrade at the hands of Janos Hunyadi? And what about the fluctuating border with Persia? If no medieval army could stand against the Ottomans, then surely they should have conquered Persia in all those wars.

And in more recent times, the losses to the Habsburgs, especially after 1683. And the losses to the Russians...

I suppose that the Turkish tend to gloss over those.

The Empire of Charles V of Spain and the Habsburgs was just as powerful as the Ottomans at their height in the 16th century (with its empire in the Americas and almost half of Europe). The Ming were more powerful than the Ottomans in the 15th century.

As for the colonial empires, they had some very difficult battles to fight. Just look at the British and the Sikh wars, for example.

I accept the Ottomans as having one of the strongest empires in the world between the 15th and the 19th centuries, but not the strongest. And certainly not more powerful than the Tang and the Mongols put together.

So how were the Ottomans not turkish?

I think This arguement is a little pointless, there are so many aspects that make an empire and empire you simply cannot say "this one is the best" You are dealing with, Economics, MIlitary might, Influnence, Territory, Population, among others. IF you look back through history you see many great empires no doubt, but to judge an empire like the romans, agianst an Empire like United Kingdom is totally crazy. The romans conquered lands that were really not to well inahbited and wildly unorganized(except carthage). their is no question that Rome had a glourious empire, but then you try and compare it to The britsih empire? so many different varibles. England has fought eniems orangized and Some just barbarians, But when few empires reamin in this world their is till one still stadning and has constanly apadted to the changing times: Untied Kingdom.

In my opinion England has the most glourious empire. They have Stood the test of time and most certinly apadted to the changes. USSR as great as an empire they were, fell due to the changes. In a ever increasing capitalist world, we yell FREEDOM! CHOICES! EQUALITY! and England has most certinly given this to their people, while never the less continuing their empire. Great Britian MAy not have been the Most militerized, and they may not have been the most economical, but they know how to govern a people..and keep them, for that matter(with some exceptions of course

You have to also give historical context to these empires, you can;t just say the UK empire was better than the Roman Empire because it controlled more territory. Let's put it into perspective, there were no steam engines 2000 years ago.  How long did it take to get from one end of the British Empire to the other in the 1800s and how long did it take to get from one end to the other of the Roman Empire 100 CE?

To lose battles it does not means that Ottomas were weak than others, do u wanna me to give the names of battles that Ottomans fougfgt????

U will have not enough time to read, friend

All empires lost battles, even Rome, but that doesnot guarante that they're weak!

Hanos Hunyandi lost 2 battles against Murad and at least, after dying in Kosovo 2nd, his soldier came under the name of Peace and killed Murad with knife -did u meant that battle????

In 1402 Timur gave all its power to defeat Ottomans in Ankara, He had 40 elephants, 60 000 chavalry and 100 000 infantry while Bayazid had 70 000 chavalry only

He left ove 200 000 men in surrounding Constantinople and building Anadolusihar Kale (or castle)

Ming empire had not had enemies as strong as even 1% of Ottomans

Do u think Ottomans were not able to defeat Manchurian?

I am saying again, I am not nationalist, i love my country, nation, i am patriot, but i have not any hate to others and i dont care about other turks nationalism, In fact, i like Rome better even Ottomans, i am in college on a Etruscan influanse project for semester while I had a chance to take Ottoman influance on Balkans and Europe, but i did not

That is true that when Englishmen atacked to India, Babur empire could stand against it close to with 500 cannons, 3-4 000 gunpowder men, and strong cavalry, but later, englishmen took peninsula not really with military war, but with polotical and economical war, so calm down

Ottomans couldnt sack Viena in 2 reasons:

1) Polish hussars were atacking ottoman camps day and night without stopping and sacked many camps individually

2) Saffavid rulers made Sultan Suleyman the Magnicefent to return from Viena front and he did and he took Tabriz, and later he atacked 4 times to Saffavid empire, but did not destroyed many things, just becouse population was turkish

I have not anything wrong with nationalism, I am just trying to protect "Ottomans" from your "atacks", that is it, i hope turkish guys from anatolia would continue this discussion better than me, cose i am not so good in ottoman history as u think, i just know timeleine a little bit and military system a lot, nothing else

sorry, i was in hurry, so some words i could not type right

well YES!

 To suggest, as some have, that indian kingdoms were populated by loin-clothed natives fighting with primitive methods against the British is ridiculous, bordering on  stupid.

Moghul India had just been and  gone, in its time arguably amongst the richest and most powerful land empires in the world.

Contemporary armaments and tactics were being used by the Indians in then time of  British entry to India.

Ranjit Singh of the Punjab Kingdom Reformed the Punjab Khalsa army along the most modern European lines, with ample artillary, cavallary, etc.  employing European generals to do so. Among them were the French General Ventura, (who faught at Waterloo), and General Allard, among others.

The Punjab Khalsa army at the time of the Anglo-Sikh wars was 90,000 strong and arguably among the most powerful in asia( though weakened due to british diplomatic efforts in the command structure). And that was just one kingdom among maybe thirty. Three or four combined Rajput kingdoms probably would have been unconqerable.

The fact that the British Prevailed, is an indicator of their genius in diplomacy (divide and conquer) and strategy , not an indicator of their opponents weakness.

This is true for Trafalger and waterloo, Chillianwalla and gujerat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chillianwala - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chillianwala

In an ever progressive world, the last great empire( the British) was also the greatest.

??Hector,  can you use quotes please,

its not so clear what u are refering to.

O I am SOrry, It has been referred to multiple times let me choose one......

[QOUTE]1500 CE - 2000 CE
7. British Empire
8. United States
9. USSR
10. Spanish Empire[/QUOTE]

I see where you are coming from but i just can't picture Ths USA as an empire.....

Yeah,should've said "Some of the nations in this world".However you forget,the conquering of small villages,local empires and such.I can safely say that most of these nations began as cities,and gradually,through some cooperation and some conquering,got together.

I believe that the roman empire is the most powerful empire seen on earth, partly because they, not only, created the cities and foundations from which other empires were created(London, Cologne, Rome, Paris, Madrid, Istanbul, and many more) from those empires were created modern powerhouses, but the effect of bringing in the modern world beginning in the renaissance (without which there would have been no industrial revolution).    Afterwards i would agree with the persian empires then UK and possibly USA.

maybe late reply

i am new from turkey as you might guess

here are the results of turkish vote

1.roman empire

2.ottoman empire

3.british empire

4.USA * though not an empire

5.third reich

6.mongol empire

7.macedonia of alexander the great

8.spanish colonial empire

9.france of NB

10.brezilian football empire

there is no doubt that roman empire is the empire of all empires!!

all successor empires were created upon its roots and base to create such an organized military, economics, governmental network.

the romans, i donno what drove them so successful, were amazingly talented in ruling people, from most part of known world. as you all know it's called PAX ROMANA. Their political, social, religious, military, governmental and historic influences are still there if you really know how to look.

and the Romans based the structure of their Empire off of the Persians. The Persians were even more influential than Rome considering Rome based their whole foundation on these Persian ideas and teachings. Not to mention that Darius I was the greatest ruler in history. Cyrus created the Empire and Darius made it.

 1- Economic capitalist emperium of  big companies.Their reigning over countries  without  soldiers .We all obey  them  without  any  questions.Big firms  of  the  21. century they  are  the strongest emperium the  world.

  2-The holy  catholic Church-Vatican.They have  assets all over  the world without limits  their  reigning  the  faith of millions  of people.Since more  then  1000  years.they  have  lost  their  power  with  years but  their  still  very very strong.

 3-Switzerland.They have  not been  defeated  for  years

i totally agree that roman empire and eastern empires (except for the ottomans-if you call them an eastern power) find their roots in two very distinct and seperate civilizations- namely the european civilization which originates from or dates back to ancient greece, which descenced from egyptian civilization (a paradox); and the eastern civilization which was formed by chinese, persian, indian, arabic, and turkic along with mongolian influences.

here ottomans form the great dilemma so as their reign is a continium of roman empire after the conquer of constinopolis (we'd rather call it ISTANBUL) as well as a governmental design which was byzantian indeed whereas a muslim and oriental population for the most of the part of the empire/ i think the real strength of the ottomans originates from their geographical location, that is so close to the west you are stronger you are

 In terms of geography I don't think a large empire is necessary powerful, I mean you could rule thousands of miles of featureless desert and it doesnt make your empire great or powerful in real terms.

 Look at the Roman empire and possible directions of expansion, the north, Germany, Scotland and eastern europe above the Danube, Germany was dense woodland Scotland was sparsely populated with harsh mountainous terrain and in terms of the north east you have the seemingly endless plains of the steppes. All of which are inhabitated by hostile tribes.

 Was it really worth the expense to keep expanding northwards when there wasnt really that much to gain except more war?

 The south you have pretty much the Sahara desert, so the east is the only possible worthwhile direction for expansion, but Persia is there and more so when the Sassanids were in power are far from a push over. The size of the Roman empire may not be particularly amazing, but it had a population of perhaps 60/80 million, was fabulously rich and had many good natural and artificial frontiers, the Rhine, Danube, Euphrates, the Sahara desert and Hadrians wall.

 All of which could provide a firm barrier to invaders or atleast impede them if they were adequately defended, when you look at it like that there was little reason to expand. 

 Its funny though how Romes biggest and most sustained flurry of military success occurred during the days of the republic, during the time of the Emperors the only major gains or conquests are really Mauretania, Dacia, Britain and Trajans largely temporary eastern conquests. Even then Dacia was surrendered in the 3rd century and Britain was effectively lost for much of the last century of the western empire due to invasions or rebellions.

well, since it is not a very serious and academy-oriented topic,  i d like to put my bet on China empire ( 2600 BC~ present).

1 the size: 

 the modern china's territory mostly was laid foundation in Han dynasty, which is 2000 years up to now. Could any empire magistrate its one of the world's largest lands for 2000 years?

2 civlization length:

China's first dynasty Xia emerged in 4600~5100 years ago,  China still exists.  The modern Chinese read the same classics  their ancestors read thousands years ago, write the same characters  their ancestors write thousands years ago, speak the same language their ancestors speak thousands years ago,Could modern europeans do the same thing the Roman once did?

3 empire existence:

China feudal empire existed for 2132 years (221 BC~ 1911) if we do not count the slavery period and republic period. 

4 culture influence:

Chinese culture as i said above is extremely old and still alive this day, it is a total unique culture extinquished from those others'. The confucianism is still held esteem today and influences billions of people's behavior in East Asia. Could any culture influence last for such a long time and upon such a large population?

5 population:

The average number of standing force in China's history is around 100million, think about that. Today's PRC could mobilize 0.2 billion men in 60 days.

6 contribution:

As a world leading civilization in most time of its history, China's contributions to the world are countless and still makes contributions .  I m not stupid enough to list them since it is impossible to exhaust.

7 race:

Han race is the major but not only body of Chinese civilization. It keeps and envolves all its ancient features till today over numorous existence-challenges. That is what makes difference from those with same old age but already extinct races like ancient Egypitian , Indias and Babylonias

I didnot take much preciseness to these reasons above, I dont mean to be offensive, i just felt jaded about the overstated legends of Turks, and i want to tell them if there is one reason for any turks' based empire to be counted, there must be a thousand reasons for any Chinese dynasties.