The Thread to End All Threads

 

...322 BC - 31 BC - that is more than 150 years. Even if you exclude the period of Roman influence, not direct political control. When Caesar landed in Alexandria, Egypt was still an independent empire, and although it was influenced by Rome, clearly was not a vasal in the way that you describe.

 

Notice how many nations were bigger than Rome. Both Persian Empires and multiple Chinese empires had more people under its belt than Rome did. tee hee hee.

 

I'd guess that it is relative - the reason why us "Roman centred freaks" regard Rome as one of the most powerful empires is because it is personally, to us as Europeans, North Africans, Middle Easterners or whatever, it has shaped our own personal heritage much more than, say, the Tang (apart from that battle in 751 with the Abbasids...). I see what you mean, but people will come with an emotive response to such matters. Also, one reason why people would probably regard Rome as an uber empire in preference to others is because - and I really don't want to go into sensitive or political areas here - the economically, culturally and politically dominant area of the world for so long - Europe and America - has been the product of this empire in many ways. ...I'm not a Eurocentrist, but all I'm saying is that the Westernisation that many nations have taken contains many aspects that originally derived from the Roman empire, and thus, people are deluded into thinking that Rome's influence was far more far reaching than it actually was.

 

And i stand by my criteria, that if a state cant hold itself for more than 150 years; it doesnt have the capability to hold new challenges.

 

Do you know why the Mongols fractured and broke up so fast? Because the Mongols were great fighters, but sorry administers. They hired Chinese, Turks, Persians to administer. Naturally these people took over the state as the Mongols womanized and drank.

 

Im not saying the Mongols werent a state for 120 years or so; im saying they dont make my criteria. My criteria is advanced and the mongols inferior.

The Mongol administration created a Yasa that guided all of her many citizens of many ethnicities. That is how, for instance, the Polo's had safe passage that covered from Anatolia to China.

 

But again, your criteria is advanced and blah blah blah..!

 

Their is a big difference between the Cholas and the Inkas as far as technology and influence goes. As well as life. The Cholas didnt collapse within 100 years due to a civil war and foreign invasions.

The Mongols are seperated like the Macedonians are seperated.

 

I already thought about the Golden Horde, Chagatai, Yuan and Ilkhanid - however they themselves (after fracture) also lasted less then 150 yrs (except for GH).

 

You dont like it; tough! But this is the TOP EMPIRES not a list of ALL EMPIRES.

 

The Chola and Vijayanagra have lasting influence today in Hindustan and Oceania. So do the Mughals for Pakistan, and India, Bangladesh and Central Asia.

 

Dont compare with the Inkas. They dont even have a culture that exists anymore. We need archeology to study them.

 

I must stress that I don't believe in that disgusting principle - I never have and I never will. All I'm saying is that because of western colonial legacy, many aspects of Roman culture that were carried on by the Westerners were thus transferred via proxy to many areas of the world. Also, I would consider Persians and Turks to be "White" in that sense...

 

I just have to stress that, as interesting as this thread is, it will never be resolved, and so perhaps the description of "the thread to end all threads" was really a little naieve. Many of these empire sare thousands of years appart, and the attributes needed to sustain empires change massively over time as culture, demographics, economics, concepts and techology changes. Trying to compare, say, the Fatimid Caliphate to the Incan Empire (just a hypothetical scenario, of course...) is ridiculous because it doesn't come to any real conclusions, doesn't have any real historical or historiographal value and is just...pointless. As I have said, you would need very different methods to analyse these two empires. If we are going to be successful in this debate and get some use out of it rather than just aimlessly debating over facts, I believe that we have to firstly, add more clauses to the definintion of a "good empire" in the first post  and secondly divide these clauses into Ancient World, Early Medieval, Middle-Late Medieval, Early Modern and Modern.

 

No, i do believe you; and be sure that no one from Asia heard of Inka. However, The Cholas, whether you like it or not, had a bigger and more lasting impact on Oceania and SouthAsia then the Inka. Their cultural legacy lives on today.

 

There is a reason why Indonesia and Thailand and Malaysia have indianized names of their cities, temples (Hinduism and Buddhism) and names of people. For example: Singapore: Singh-Pur (lion city).

 

Im sure there is also Machu Pichu, and even in America, the names: Florida, Michigan, Omaha, Manitoba, Alabama, etc are names of Amerindian tribes and leaders; however as an "Empire" there was no contribution.

 

You already mentioned that you consider Empires less important than human contributions from tribes and such overall and you have a valid point.

 

But we have certain restrictions on this list. The longevity of a nation is one determinig factor of its stability. Rome lasted for 1000+ years (although it began as an insignificant city-state for a good time). Persian empires lasted for 300 odd yrs. Determinig longevity is important.

 

Inkas werent backwards, but Chola had seafaring. Mongols were important, and so were Greeks; however where the Greeks were able to leave a strong and lasting nation (Seleucid) Mongols suffered from internal troubles.

 

Today "Khan" is a very popular last name in all of Asia due to Mongol influence. However as a Nation-State, they were instable. Only Kubilai was able to keep them together during his life.

 

And thats all for this topic.

 

They may be bigger.... but not better

 

Rome rules !