Greatest empires of all time

[Sonic]

Heresson, that's why i supported Yugoslavia in Kosowo conflict.
BTW, in Vilnius only 52% of people are Lithuanian as recent census shown. So there are still some Polish there, but not a majority.

[Heresson]

What annoys me is that people know about German presence in western Poland but don't know about Polish presence in western Lithuania/Byelorussia/Ukraine.
There are some 20%Poles in Vilnius, but compared to before-the-war status that's a really small number.
I never claimed that Lithuanians are majority in Vilnius now,
but still they are majority in surrounding two regions, though some 60-70% only.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Europe's great strength actually lay in its fragmentation. With all those nations working against each other in a competitive but not destructive fashion, trade flourished and science progressed at a fast pace.

China, roughly double the land mass of Europe, was united under one bureaucracy, which had one single decision maker at its head for a long time. When that decision maker was good, then the country was in happy straits. When that decision maker turned out to be a poor ruler, then the country would suffer from his policies.

Fortunately today the Chinese political stage seems somewhat more detached (or should I say "aloof"?) than before. The most powerful force in Chinese society today is the burgeoning middle class and their purchasing power (for arguably the first time in recorded Chinese history...)

Acutally, if you think about it, this is a strong argument against the Chinese Empire. China too had a warring states periiod. During this period, progress was faster, etc. All this was brought to an end - both the wars and the progress - during the Empire. The China of 1900 looked and felt exactly like the China of 200 BC.

[Sonic]

Heresson, Lithuanians are also majority in Vilnius now. 52% is a majority.

[Heresson]

Oh sorry. I ment Poles not Lithuanians, sorry.
but Your sentence is incorrect too; This "also" is incorrect..

[OPD]

lol Britain by default/definition (which ever you like.)
Or should I say Great Britain after all thats how the word came to have its meaning.

No empire has ever ruled over as large a propoortion of the globe as Britain did at the turn of the centuary.

The US isn't so much a new empire as a new and revamped version of the British empire.

As for the future in 30 years or so the EU will be the dominant superpower or as soon as the UK gets its thumb out of its ass and gets more involved.

[Ned]

Yeah, but Britain, in its day, was largely a predominant seapower. Roma was both a land and a seapower. For nearly 1000 years, Roman arms were virtually unbeatable against any power, even those more advance: the Cartaginians and Macedonians, or more warlike, the Gauls.

Britain, on the other hand. lost to America and would have lost to Napolean but for the Prussians, and later to the Germans twice, but for the Americans.

But, as an American, I do admit that it planted it seed well.

[Kramerman]

I love rome. They were quite powerful, unfortunately their corruption and inefficiency led to their demise. They may or may not be the greatest empire ever, but they are my favorite and definately among the best ever.

As for the greatest civ (during its imperial time of the gilded age, it wasn't very powerful at all. ths is why i refer to it as a civ instead of a empire, though many argue they still practice imperialsim through globalization and such), all bias aside, i must say The United States of America has a great shot at becoming it. The US hasn't held the title the worlds only Superpower for nearly long enough to be considered it yet. But the US's accomplishments, from the great inventors of Thomas Edison, work of Einstein, powerful culture spread by mass media (hollywood, tv, internet), most powerful and advanced militray, fundamental economic strength (even when the markets are doing poorly), and with no end of all this insight, i say the US will become the greatest civ thus far. Even if the US came to an end tomarrow, its mark it has made in the world by spreading the ideas of freedom and democracy, and all of its accomplishments mentioned above, it would go down in history as one of the greatest, up there with China, Rome, Britain, etc.

Kman

EDIT: before anyone blows up - I AM NOT SAYING USA IS PERFECT. No civ has ever been perfect. But the US is still a work in progress, and is continuing to get stronger (though growing governmental inefficiencies are starting to worry me - to many billions are wasted by this each year) thatn it already is.

"The biggest tree always catches the most wind"

[Kramerman]

The China of 1900 looked and felt exactly like the China of 200 BC.

Its kinda the same thing for egypt. Thought they did indeed accomplished many things and had an amazing culture, their society made progress and change very slow. Ancient Egypt in its last days was little different than at the time of Kufu(SP?) and the construction of the great pyrimids- technilogically speaking, which to me is a major factor of a civs success.

[Verto]

Whats the definition of greatest empire? Size and power, or cultural and technological achievements?

France under Napoleon certainly meets the first part. On the other hand, it didn't last very long. The Soviet Union also had the square miles, as did the Third Reich, but were they great empires?

Well, anyway, I choose England, by which I mean Britain.

[GhengisFarb™]

1) The United States is not an empire, the ONLY time it could have been considered an empire is immediately after WW2 when it occupied several areas in Europe and Japan. And as usual, it got rid of those territories as quickly as possible.

2)The Mongol empire was much more that Genghis Khan, his son continued to expand the empire after his death, and Genghis' grandson, Kublai Khan(Spelling?), was considered to be the greatest of the Mongol Emperors.

3)Typically, I refrain from making positive comments about my nation, (as there are far too many Americans throwing their egos around already) but the US does not want to be an empire.

After WW2 they were in excellent position to build a truly global empire. Their industry was at productivity peaks (from 1939 to the end of WW2 the US built more ships than ALL civilizations in Earth's history combined), the rest of the world was in shambles, Europe had destroyed its industry and cities in the war, and Japan was occupied and being set up under an American economic/political system.

Yet, America chose not to do this. For some reason the rest of the world doesn't seem to grasp the idea that America doesn't want an empire. We are perfectly happy with what we have and just want to get along with everyone else. The only reason there are American military bases throughout the world is that America wants to make sure another WW2 never happens again.

If you notice, after WW2 America came to the realization that it couldn't just sit back and stay out of other nation's business. Other nations would attack it anyway. So, ever since then, once a war is over America builds military bases and stations troops to insure that if that nation ever rises against it again it'll be ready.

Germany has several American military bases, as does Japan, Korea, Central America, and the Middle East. But while America's military gets the most attention, the biggest expense the US has is its intelligence gathering operations.

It does everything it can to gather and analyze info and data on everything it can think of. More countries are worried about the America's intelligence operations that their military.

Oh, and the primary reason English has become the second language of choice is because of America, not England (one of the things that really annoys the British). After WW2 the US needed to ship its supplies and personnel from continent to continent and so all of the naval and air transport facilites spoke English to communicate with the Americans. Now, America has become such a dominating market that English is dominant because its the language spoken by the most consumers.

Technically, the United States is an empire of 50 separate nationstates, as a state in the US is comparable to a nation in the rest of the world.

Remember, the US is the third largest country in the world in population (behind China and India) AND the third largest country in the world in size (behind Russia and Canada).

Now, please let me get back to my leaderheads.....

[Kramerman]

1) The United States is not an empire, the ONLY time it could have been considered an empire is immediately after WW2 when it occupied several areas in Europe and Japan. And as usual, it got rid of those territories as quickly as possible.

Im sorry, but this is incorrect.
During the late 1800s, there was an era known as the Gilded Age. It was during this period the US aquired much of our overseas assets; America Samoa, hawaii, Midway, etc. We also forced trade with Japan and China. This time culminated in the Spanish-American war when the main motive behind the war was to aquire Cuba, if not as a state then as a colony for sugar, coffe, and tobacco products. We were not an Empire in the same sense as other like Britain becaue we allowed those we controled to chose their own fate to some degree. Cuba did not want to be apart of the US, and after some political struggle they were granted 'independence' (they had something written into their constitution that they had to do something for the US, but i dont recall. Of course this all went out the window with the revolution and Castro's reign).
The US was an Empire, and in my US History book there was a chapter titled, 'The American Empire'. This time period was pretty insignificant in world history for the US though; the US remained behind many other nations in industry and wealth until the end of this era, where America bumped off France as second in industry (after Britian).

Kman

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Verto
Whats the definition of greatest empire? Size and power, or cultural and technological achievements?

I interpreted it as a combonation of these. Which empire had the most of all these factors, and more? I say soon it will be the US.

Kman

[OPD]

Originally posted by Ned

Britain, on the other hand. lost to America and would have lost to Napolean but for the Prussians, and later to the Germans twice, but for the Americans.

wow "would have lost to the gremans twice"

IIRC the battle of Britain was over before the US joined the war.

This sort of thing pisses Brits off and is why we always kick up a fuss when hollywood makes historically inacurrate war films such as the one showing the US navy capturing an enigma code machine.

On the subject of US bases there are alot in the UK and are quite interesting places as everything at and surrounding these bases is americanised, even the local school systems ar based on the american school system.

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Kramerman


Im sorry, but this is incorrect.
During the late 1800s, there was an era known as the Gilded Age. It was during this period the US aquired much of our overseas assets; America Samoa, hawaii, Midway, etc. We also forced trade with Japan and China. This time culminated in the Spanish-American war when the main motive behind the war was to aquire Cuba, if not as a state then as a colony for sugar, coffe, and tobacco products. We were not an Empire in the same sense as other like Britain becaue we allowed those we controled to chose their own fate to some degree. Cuba did not want to be apart of the US, and after some political struggle they were granted 'independence' (they had something written into their constitution that they had to do something for the US, but i dont recall. Of course this all went out the window with the revolution and Castro's reign).
The US was an Empire, and in my US History book there was a chapter titled, 'The American Empire'. This time period was pretty insignificant in world history for the US though; the US remained behind many other nations in industry and wealth until the end of this era, where America bumped off France as second in industry (after Britian).

Kman

I thought the USA became 2nd or third in industry in the 1880's, before surpassing the Brits in 1900, or thereabouts? I also thought we bumped off the germans in tersms of production.

We didn't force trade with China. Japan we did, yes (Hi, these are our new gunships. Care to trade?). But China did. Especially as Americans were the only major power who didn't try to carve them up.

The Spanish-American war was the first interest in history of our politics controlled by corporations. Basically, according to some theories, the war began because newspaper companies needed headlines.

[Sonic]

Yes, USA was and is an empire. Now they wants to attack Iraq and put better government for example. Maybe USA doesn't directly controls nations it defeated, but it puts them under it's dominance. It was so with West Germany and Japan, it is now so with Afghanistan and it could be so with Iraq. I'd say USA might be considered to be indirectly controlling more than 50% of world. Nations which doesn't wants to go under such a control are considered "axis of evil" and attacked. Americans might hate me for what I said, I know, but this is truth.

[Ned]

Sonic, As Bush said, "You are either with us or against us."

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Sonic
Yes, USA was and is an empire. Now they wants to attack Iraq and put better government for example. Maybe USA doesn't directly controls nations it defeated, but it puts them under it's dominance. It was so with West Germany and Japan, it is now so with Afghanistan and it could be so with Iraq. I'd say USA might be considered to be indirectly controlling more than 50% of world. Nations which doesn't wants to go under such a control are considered "axis of evil" and attacked. Americans might hate me for what I said, I know, but this is truth.

I dont hate you, but feel very bad for you. You have been grossly misinformed.

WE DO NOT WANT TO ATTACK IRAQ SOELY BECAUSE THEIR GOVERNMENT IS DIFFERENT FROM OURS AND WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT. This is a horrible fallacy. Iraq, with its weapons of mass destruction and Saddams hatred for America (and most of the West, for that matter), makes him a direct threat towards the US. We need to remove him from power and dismantle his rersaerch in weapons of mass destruction be fore he can either use it to shield his actions (invade Kuate again, and hold colitin forces at bay with threats of unleashing weapons of mass destruction on US, Europe, or Israel or something like that), or give it to terrorists to use directly against the US.

hmmmmm, we put Germany and Japan under our dominance, and, um, look at them today. They are economic giants and most im sure are grateful for the US's help in creating their present prosperity. I mean, we were at war with them, and then used our own money to rebuild them. No other nation before has done this, instead they either subjugated those they conquered, or left them to rebuild for themselves.
I could only hope Afgfhanistan will be able to survive its tribal culture long enough to establish itself fully, and become a beacon of freedom and prosperity in its region of the opposite of this.

Kman

EDIT: We attack no one just because they are different from us. Nor do we try to covertly subjugate people, and punish those who refuse. This is paranoid talk that has no basis in fact, but only in propoganda of those who want their people to believe this.

[Sonic]

Did I said USA is bad? No. I said it could be considered an Empire. British Empire, Roman Empire, both did civilized places they annexed. If not British/French/Spanish/Dutch/German/Portugal/Italian Epires, all Africa now might would be totally uncivilizied, full of diseases and with tribes fighting each other like in middle ages. Yes, those Empires done much bad to Africa, like enslaving people, but what they done good is much more. Something like that is with USA. But that doesn't makes it country, it is an Empire. Lithuania doesn't declares war on Israel only because this country insults us, forces to give up our property to them because that property was owned by Jews before Soviets (I think it is right, but remember owners of that property are dead, there are many Lithuanians/Poles who also wants to get back property and they are alive, but Israel forces us firstly to give back property to Jews), forces us to sentence people who killed Jews in WW2 (most of those people are very old now, they are handicapped and some died in courts), ect. If some country would insult and hate USA like that (and Iraq does), USA would definitely plan to attack those countries. Maybe getting rid of those countries governments are good, but still, it is Imperialistic to put governments you like to foreign countries. USA is an empire, I would also claim the only empire remaining after Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. No other country would declare war for insulting and hatred, only USA (again, I am not saying Saddam is good as you might think). And yes, USA helped for Germany and Japan (although we could argue with that because Japan was quite stable before the war against USA. If not this war, Japan might still be superpower just not economic but military one), but they also put those countries under US influence. And USA also tries to force out most of totalytarian. For example, Yugoslavian one. They did not insulted/hated Americans, they killed Albanians, but USA still declared war on Yugoslavia. I am not saying Albanians should be killed obviously as you might think of, but this is just another prove USA is an empire.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ned
The China of 1900 looked and felt exactly like the China of 200 BC.

Really? You mean the Chinese had railroads, steamships, and rifles in 200 BC? Was China ruled by foreign powers (i.e. the Manchus, the Japanese, and Europeans) in 200 BC?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
1) The United States is not an empire, the ONLY time it could have been considered an empire is immediately after WW2 when it occupied several areas in Europe and Japan. And as usual, it got rid of those territories as quickly as possible.

The US is very much an empire, although it is a modern empire that relies more on commercial power than military might.

The US continues to occupy foreign land: Land taken from North American Indians, land taken from the Hawaiians, Pueto Rico, military bases throughout the world. The US created and maintained puppet governments in countries throughout the world, particularly Latin America. The US involvement in Vietnam was very much the act of an empire.

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
the US does not want to be an empire.

We are perfectly happy with what we have and just want to get along with everyone else.

Bullocks. The US government routinely interferes in other countries and has helped overthrow unfriendly governments. This is particularly true during the Cold War when the US and the USSR were fighting proxy wars throughout most of the world.

Governments that turn their back on the US are routinely isolated and described as rogue states.

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Oh, and the primary reason English has become the second language of choice is because of America, not England (one of the things that really annoys the British).

The rise of English as the primary language in the world isa combination of the effects of the British and American empires.

[Ned]

Tingkai, It is interesting you cite the NA Indians to an American, being from Canada.

As Roman influence grew in the Mediterranean, it began to run into other nations/empires with adverse interests. At first they got along, but then a war would break out. Rome fought two wars with Carthage, but left them independent only to find them rise again. During the third war, they wiped them out completely.

From this point on, Roman policy fundamentally changed. Once a nation became an ally or was conquered, it was part of the Roman Empire. Romans arms would not leave. As time went on, each of these became a province and their residents because Roman citizens.

Something similar is happening to the United States. We twice fought Germany in the 20th Century. The second time, like the Romans, we did not leave. We instead built Germany up like an American province. Our army is still there and Germany is a "loyal" ally.

What we haven't done is take over direct administration of any conquered people ala the Romans or Brits. However, they are no longer "entirely" free to pursue independent foreign policies.

So in a sense, the American "empire" does exist, but in an entirely new form.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ned
Tingkai, It is interesting you cite the NA Indians to an American, being from Canada.

Yes, Canada did the same thing, which is why Canada can claim Empire status. Let's hear it for the Great Northern Canadian Empire.

Originally posted by Ned
What we haven't done is take over direct administration of any conquered people ala the Romans or Brits. However, they are no longer "entirely" free to pursue independent foreign policies.

So in a sense, the American "empire" does exist, but in an entirely new form.

Yes, the American government is far smarter than previous empires. Why spend money occupying and managing a country when you can get people in that country to run a government that has policies in line with the interests of the US.

Most Canadians would recognize that there are limits on our self-determination. As Trudeau said, we're a mouse sleeping beside an elephant.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Ned


Acutally, if you think about it, this is a strong argument against the Chinese Empire. China too had a warring states periiod. During this period, progress was faster, etc. All this was brought to an end - both the wars and the progress - during the Empire. The China of 1900 looked and felt exactly like the China of 200 BC.

Right, no competition, no progress.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Really? You mean the Chinese had railroads, steamships, and rifles in 200 BC? Was China ruled by foreign powers (i.e. the Manchus, the Japanese, and Europeans) in 200 BC?

90% of Chinese lived no different in 1900 than 200BC.

Even if we back down a bit, the China of 1800AD was not much different than China of 200BC.

You have to admit that the empire actually killed much of the innovative and creative spirit of Chinese. The later empire, Ming and Qing dynasties, was excellent in performing literary inquisitions.

[Kramerman]

empire, Ming and Qing dynasties, was excellent in performing literary inquisitions.

Ming! Just the mention of that name strikes fear into my heart.

Did I said USA is bad? No. I said it could be considered an Empire. British Empire, Roman Empire, both did civilized places they annexed. If not British/French/Spanish/Dutch/German/Portugal/Italian Epires, all Africa now might would be totally uncivilizied, full of diseases and with tribes fighting each other like in middle ages. Yes, those Empires done much bad to Africa, like enslaving people, but what they done good is much more. Something like that is with USA. But that doesn't makes it country, it is an Empire. Lithuania doesn't declares war on Israel only because this country insults us, forces to give up our property to them because that property was owned by Jews before Soviets (I think it is right, but remember owners of that property are dead, there are many Lithuanians/Poles who also wants to get back property and they are alive, but Israel forces us firstly to give back property to Jews), forces us to sentence people who killed Jews in WW2 (most of those people are very old now, they are handicapped and some died in courts), ect. If some country would insult and hate USA like that (and Iraq does), USA would definitely plan to attack those countries. Maybe getting rid of those countries governments are good, but still, it is Imperialistic to put governments you like to foreign countries. USA is an empire, I would also claim the only empire remaining after Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. No other country would declare war for insulting and hatred, only USA (again, I am not saying Saddam is good as you might think). And yes, USA helped for Germany and Japan (although we could argue with that because Japan was quite stable before the war against USA. If not this war, Japan might still be superpower just not economic but military one), but they also put those countries under US influence. And USA also tries to force out most of totalytarian. For example, Yugoslavian one. They did not insulted/hated Americans, they killed Albanians, but USA still declared war on Yugoslavia. I am not saying Albanians should be killed obviously as you might think of, but this is just another prove USA is an empire.

No, you didnt say America is bad, and if you did, well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What you did say, though, and maybe I am misunderstanding you, is that we attack others just because they insult and hate us (IOW, bully everyone). If this were the case we would of attacked nearly the whole world by now. We attack only those who threaten us, and rarely in the past we have, i am not proud to say, attacked those for our own self-interest. But never have we attacked someone merely do to moral or political differences. That is just childish.

As for your Israel example of wanting property back, well, in the US we have Native Americans who want property back too, but you dont see the US attacking them (at least not militarily). Their are many other examples too.

I do agree with you that we are an empire though, and we do control much of the world through economics. But, like you said, this is by not neccessarily a bad thing (though it can be in certain situations)

Kman

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
90% of Chinese lived no different in 1900 than 200BC.

Even if we back down a bit, the China of 1800AD was not much different than China of 200BC.

You have to admit that the empire actually killed much of the innovative and creative spirit of Chinese. The later empire, Ming and Qing dynasties, was excellent in performing literary inquisitions.

Even China in 1800 was quite different than China in 200 BC.

Throughout the 2,000 years there were numerous technological developments. Improved agricultural techniques increased China's food supply leading to a larger population. Han settlers moved south. The education level continued to increase. In other words, the standard of living in China steadily increased.

The average Chinese person lived a far better life than their European counterparts until about 1800.

There is no doubt that the later Manchu rulers stiffled innovation. They also prevent China from developing at a faster pace once greater contact was made with Europeans. The fact that the Manchus were outsiders also explains the inability to fight off European invasions. If the Manchus armed the local Chinese then they risked creating an armed force that would overthrow them.

The Manchus were also tried to stop the creation of a merchant class because this would also threaten their power.

Finally, the existance of a unified country allowed China to develop and maintain to a much higher level than Europe between 500 and 1500 AD while the constant infighting among Europeans destroyed much of their civilization during that time.

[Heresson]

So EU is the start of the end of Europe

[Alinestra Covelia]

The problem with empires is that they tend to reflect the characteristics of the administration.

If the administration is good, it can usually force or coerce people to participate in activities that are culturally, scientifically, or economically beneficial. Later on, this becomes second nature to the populace.

If the administration is poor, it can stifle and suppress this same behavior in a populace that is already skilled at doing so.

Perhaps the greatest example is the imperial edict that dismantled the enormous Chinese navy under Admiral Zheng He. Admiral Zheng sailed across southeastern Asia, passing India and eventually bringing a live giraffe back from Africa. However, upon his return, the succeeding emperor feared attack by pirates, so he ordered all ships dismantled and decreed that anybody found within 50 miles of a shore be put to death.

Compare this to Qin Shi Huang Di, who unified the various kingdoms and instituted standards of measurement, including one standard size for wagon-axles (to aid with road construction).

It is a very western viewpoint that authoritarian rule can only produce negative effects. The Asian nations have their own histories of successful examples too.

[Krayzeenbk]

I'll definetely have to go with the Russian Empire/Soviet Union...

Refugees settling in the village of Moscow take over their devastated and backwards (thanks to the Mongols) neighbors, fight off Poles, Austrians, Turks, Persians, Swedes, and God knows who else, settle everything East of the Ural mountains, carve up China, take over Manchuria, invade the Caucus Mts. and Turkestan, making Britain piss in their pants over the Russian threat to India. Russians armies fought all over Europe in the 1800s, storming Paris... Go on to get wasted in WWI, but bounce right back.

By WW2, Russian influence is entrenched throughout the Soviet Union... following the war, it spreads west all the way to Germany, east to China and SE Asia, south to India and North Africa, and even to Cuba.

The Russian Revolution exported many notable Russians to Latin America, where they lead Latin American armies in wars against each other

So basically a huge chunk (on the order of 1/4-1/3 of the world's landmass) was somehow bound, allied to, controlled, or owned by Moscow, and peoples living on 1/6 of the territory of the world will tell you they're Russian unless you further inquire as to their nationality.

Pretty impressive for the little Duchy of Muscovy, coming to power in a land most historians agree was set back 200 years in culture and science by the Mongol invasion (Russian rockets in the 1700s? ouch )

As a side note, it's really not fair to compare the Soviet Union to America economically - of course America owns it, but who ever said Russia and America started the race from the same point? The 200-year gap was very real in 1917, but now it's more like a 20-year gap.