Greatest Empires

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

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

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.

but the british was much more constructive, look at the success of the countries left afterwards,

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 success

list the good ones aswell come now lets be fair,

New Zealand, USA. india, canada, republic of ireland, jamaica, egypt, belize, samoa, tonga etc etc.

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.

Your wrong Britain dosnt get the gold medal, and neither does any other empire.

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.