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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Thread to End All Threads

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
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: The Thread to End All Threads
    Posted: 22-Nov-2007 at 13:59
Which was the most succesful empires in world history?
 
Empires: 1 to 40 by amount of land under its control; amount of people under its control
 
1. Empire (noun): a state that extends its dominons over other nations, cultures, ethnicites different, foreign, and seperate from itself/its center of power; an Empire must have an age of atleast 150 years between its rise and fall
 
2. For example, neither the Mongols nor the Greeks under Chingis Khan/Alexander are considered empires because they broke off within a few years of their leaders death. A seperate list must be made for the likes of Chinngis Khan, Asoka, Chandragupta Maurya, Kubilai Khan, Harsha, Alexander, Qin Shi Huang, and the Atilla who were all fantastic Conquerors, but their soverignty had not survived for 150 years prior to their deaths.
 
3. Modern day Empires like the American Empire and Indian Empire are not counted because the extent of their history is not known (what will happen in the future?)
 
Greatest Empires of History
 
1. British Empire
2. Russian Empire
3. Spanish Empire
4. French Empire
5. Qing Empire
6. Portugese Empire
7. Hackhaminid Persian Empire
8. Sassanid Empire
9. Japanese Empire
10. Ming Empire
11. Han Empire
12. Roman Empire
13. Ottoman Empire
14. Tang Empire
15. Mughal Empire
16. Byzantine Empire
17. Seljuq Empire
18. Seleucid Empire
19. Dutch Empire
20. Swedish Empire
21. Gupta Empire
22. Ghaznavid Empire
23. Fatimid Empire
24. Pala Empire
25. Chola Empire
26. Dehlvi Empire
27. Khazar Empire
28. Safavid Empire
29. Parthian Empire
30. Median Empire
31. Mamluke Empire
32. Assyrian Empire
33. Axumite Empire
34. Srivijaya Empire
35. Mali Empire
36. Egyptian Empire
37. Khmer Empire
38. Polish-Lithuanian Empire
39. Lithuanian Empire
40. Vijayanagra Empire


Edited by Mughaal - 22-Nov-2007 at 14:08
Mughal e Azam
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Nov-2007 at 14:30
I don't know about this passion for collecting empires. Personally, I preffer the weaker peoples rather that the large infrastructure of military and political power. I will always be at the side of Iberians and Jews fighting Romans and on the side of Mapuches and Amazonians fighting Spaniards. Always with the little guy.
 
Because most of the great achievements of humankind weren't made by empires, but by small city states like sumer, the greek cities, the renacence Italian cities, etc., and small groups of people like the natives of Easter Island and polynesians in general, the Inuits and norse explorations, the Jewish people, the Gypsies of Spain, or the Mapuches that defeated the Spanish military machinery, and many others. Just my thoughts. 
 
If forced to select empires, the ones that has afected me directly the most are the Inca, the Roman, the Spanish and the British empire. The later because of the cientific and industrial revolutions and the cultural and economical influences along the last two centuries.
 
Curiously, the Inca Empire, and the Aztec too, were forgotten above...
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 22-Nov-2007 at 14:36
Back to Top
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 Posted: 22-Nov-2007 at 15:41
Not forgotten; they were taken into account but the Inca lasted less than 100 years (if you seperate from Kingdom of Cusco).
 
The Aztec were not that big (smaller than modern day Mexico). They would be on the list, only if the list was expanded to say 70.
Mughal e Azam
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Nov-2007 at 15:46

Oh. I see. The Inca was not Empire then.

 

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: 24-Nov-2007 at 15:44
cool we came top
long live the king of bhutan
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 15:50
I don't understand the rationalse behind the positionings of the Russian empire, the French empire or the Portuguese empire and I think the Romans far out classed these.  If you're going to have a French empire then I think at least Afsharid should appear in the rankings. 
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: 24-Nov-2007 at 16:23
zagros i dont understand either, im working under the assumption that he is much smarter than i am, im not entirely sure it will end all such threads though, infact if it does i will eat a pound of hair.
long live the king of bhutan
Back to Top
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 Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 03:45
I understand the traditional "French Empire" is under Napoleon but i enlarged it to include at all times when the French ruled territory outside of France. So it extends to pre-Bastille all the way to the independence of the African Nations.
 
Nadir Shah was a one man show like Alexander, Shi Huang and Harsha. His dynasty collapsed as fast as he gave birth to it.
Mughal e Azam
Back to Top
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 Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 03:47
BTW - its based on amount of land and people conquered
Mughal e Azam
Back to Top
Kamikaze 738 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463
  Quote Kamikaze 738 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 05:32
I would disagree about putting the Russian Empire at #2 because even though they did have alot of land, how much of it is actually influenced by the government? I mean nearly 40% of all Russia is just... well nature itself. I just dont think that it is justified to say that Russia is definitely one of the largest empire in the world or even successful because they have all this land they claim... and yet it has produce almost nothing for the country.

Edited by Kamikaze 738 - 25-Nov-2007 at 05:32
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 09:59

3. Modern day Empires like the American Empire and Indian Empire are not counted because the extent of their history is not known (what will happen in the future?)

...Yes, also because this would lead to an issue with ancient and medieval empires - modern imperialism is fundamentally of a purely economic nature. Globalisation and centralised finanical power can build an "empire". From this perspective, America has many countries in its "empire". Naturally you can't use this to compare with ancient empires.

I would disagree about putting the Russian Empire at #2 because even though they did have alot of land, how much of it is actually influenced by the government? I mean nearly 40% of all Russia is just... well nature itself. I just dont think that it is justified to say that Russia is definitely one of the largest empire in the world or even successful because they have all this land they claim... and yet it has produce almost nothing for the country.

I would certainly agree - but Russia is one of the only nations to produce a lasting colonial heritage that still exits today. Because so many of the lands that it conquered had no concept of the nation-state or organised government, it's not like others recognised their soveriegnty and these vast tracts of land are now just considered "Russia". I would say that there are really very few areas that Russia conquered with a hard-fought war. Areas of Turkmenistan, perhaps, and some areas in Eastern Siberia and Eastern Europe, but the vast chunks of land? Not really.

I would also have to say some of the Diodochi - the Selecuid empire, lasting from around 322 BC to 60 BC - around 226 years. At it's apex, in the revival of Antiochus III "the great", it managed to get to Alexander's territories in India, and pretty much controlled everywhere where the archenemid persian empire did except for areas of Iran, northern Asia minor, Egypt and Greece. It wasn't much to start with - Antigonus the one-eyed and his fierce son demetrius were the first to gain Asia minor at the diodochi divisions, but it was to collaboration of the selecuids and ptolemies that finally drove him out and instated selecuid authority over the south. Sadly, this empire and many of it's diodochi brothers have been sadly - an unjustly forgotten - but it was a great empire in its day. Organising cities in a grid, concise manner, being a great patron of the arts and science - and providing a civilised alternative to Roman rule in mesopotamia for hundreds of years.
 
I've also got to say the Ptolemaic dynasty which lasted even longer, from around 322 BC - 31 BC - 291 years. Just like it's decendents in Egypt, it was almost completely locked out of invasion (the attempts of Perriander to invade against Ptolemy I Kauronos in the successor wars were completely shattered, as were repeated Selecuid attempts) and was, again, a great patron of the arts and one of the intellectual capitals of the world. They showed a great talent for adminstrative institutions, keeping meticolous records of local and state transactions (some of which can still be read and seen today) and produced a highly odd and highly interesting fusion of Egyptian and Greek cultures.
 
Egyptian Empire
 
...What do you mean "Egyptian empire"? Just because Egypt was one particuarly safe and fertile area which managed to near fossilise one culture, that doesn't make it an empire. Perhaps under the Rammesid period/Amarna period against the Hittites, but I really don't think that you would seriously consider the first couple of dnyasties and/or the last few dynasties in it...
Back to Top
Kamikaze 738 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463
  Quote Kamikaze 738 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 10:50
Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator

I would certainly agree - but Russia is one of the only nations to produce a lasting colonial heritage that still exits today.


I guess so. I also question the legitimacy of the Japanese Empire... I dont think they even have an empire, atleast not for 150 years long... Confused
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 11:00
And I question the reason to take out the famous Tawantinsuyo, also known as the Inca Empire. The only real and major local Empire the Americas ever had.

Edited by pinguin - 25-Nov-2007 at 11:00
Back to Top
Illirac View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Jun-2007
Location: Ma vlast
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 526
  Quote Illirac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 13:43
and where is the mongolian empire?

Edited by Illirac - 25-Nov-2007 at 13:43
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.
Back to Top
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 Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 16:14
The Mongols Empire collapsed within less than a certain time.
 
Tahuantinsuyu didnt make it because they lasted less than 100 years.
 
This list is based on size; geographic spread; power; and influence. As far as Russia goes; they did conquer alot of land - but you have to give them the fact that they administer all of it. Trust me, administering Siberia is something in and of itself.
 
Also, Russia is and was very influential (no matter how stupid their economic policies) in world politics today. The Berlin Wall fell, but the Russian Bear is still there.
 
The Seleucids have been taken into account (#18). The Ptolemys became vassals of Rome within 100 years.


Edited by Mughaal - 08-Dec-2007 at 05:18
Mughal e Azam
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: 25-Nov-2007 at 16:17
illirac, i think it has something to do with the 150 year rule stated above, mongol empire is one of my faves though, i sometimes think the world would be a simpler place if they had managed to defeat and conquer both the middle east and western europe.
long live the king of bhutan
Back to Top
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 Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 16:24
Japan is an interesting nation. According to them the current emperor is something like 120th in a list of emperors. What do you call a nation like that?
 
If you have an emperor; are you an empire? Or should I class the "Empire of Japan" under the same category as the "Mongol Empire"?


Edited by Mughaal - 08-Dec-2007 at 05:18
Mughal e Azam
Back to Top
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 Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 16:26
In regards to the Egyptian Empire.
 
I was considering the Middle Dynasties that extend over 300 years. They conquered, outside of their own lands, most of the fertile crescent, clashed with Kush, and with the tribes to their West.
 
Very influential but also very imperial.
 
Did you guys read any of Kenneth Kitchner's works?


Edited by Mughaal - 25-Nov-2007 at 16:27
Mughal e Azam
Back to Top
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 Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 16:33
For all you "Roman" centered freaks. Tongue
 
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.
 
Mughal e Azam
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: 25-Nov-2007 at 17:08
Its a good list mughaal, you will not please 100 percent of everyone, if you had i would have added you to my pantheon of gods lol.
 
Theres a couple of empires on the list im not familiar with, which i thank you for, i love having new things to look up and research.
long live the king of bhutan
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

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 0.203 seconds.