What is the greatest empire ever existed?

What is the greatest empire that ever existed?

  • Ancient Rome

    Votes: 35 32.4%
  • Alexander the Great's Empire

    Votes: 14 13.0%
  • Byzantine Empire

    Votes: 4 3.7%
  • Ottoman Empire

    Votes: 3 2.8%
  • Safavid Empire

    Votes: 4 3.7%
  • Genghis Khan empire

    Votes: 3 2.8%
  • Mughal Empire

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Han China (202 BC to 220AD)

    Votes: 3 2.8%
  • Ming & Qing China (1368 to 1911)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Aztec Empire

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Inca Empire

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Holy Roman Empire

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Spanish Empire of 16th to 19th century

    Votes: 6 5.6%
  • Napoleon's empire

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • British empire of 17th to 20th century

    Votes: 24 22.2%
  • The Third Reich/Nazi Germany

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Imperialist Japan (1940's)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Other empire

    Votes: 10 9.3%

  • Total voters
    108
Welcome back, Reinaert. Hopefully we can all start getting along.

Judging from your previous posts, you *actually* think that the Mongol Empire was the greatest, though, am I right?

Yes. Just a rational opinion.
Many European rulers chased the countryside for gold and other means to pay their armies. That caused a lot of trouble in Europe. Hatred against the people who had money investments in European warfare.

The Mongols never had that problem.
 
but sybilla, vallicanus is right... all these things are basically derived from the greeks.

on the other hand, the aztec and the inca civilization had their own culture, literature, SCIENCE (astronomy, maths, medicine..). aztecs were great mathematics... the greatest civilization on mathematics.

It is very superficial to say that, becouse Romans had things that Greeks didn't have, for exemple in the architecture Romans had the arc and the acqueducts; Roman army cannot be compared with the Greek army and so does also the most part of their weapons. And what about the law?
Greeks were great, greater than Romans in philosophy, but only Romans were able to establish and keep and empire and to unificate the culture of half Europe.
 
The arch was first used in Mesopotamian architecture as early as the 2nd millenium BC, the idea was adopted by the Greeks and Etruscans and from them, later, adopted by the Romans. However, the Romans were first to fully understand the full potential of the arch and were the first to use it in a wider range of structures.

Some of what Romans derived from Greeks, Greeks in turn derived from others in the East. That Greeks and Romans developed these ideas further is without doubt but the origin of many ideas can be found in earlier Eastern civilisations.
 
Roman army cannot be compared with the Greek army and so does also the most part of their weapons. And what about the law?
.


A fair point, but we must remember that, until roughly the time of the incursions of the Gauls in the 5th century BCE, the Roman army was very close if not identical in style to that of contemporary Greek armies. It was essentially a hoplite force. They either learned this from the Etuscans, Greeks in Italy, or both.

The need to deal with fighting styles like that of the Gauls required that they break their units in to smaller and more manageable groups.
 
Well, the Romans learned to fight because they were beaten so many times.
Their strong point was.. Logistics and organization.

Their soldiers were craftsmen and fighters.
A legion had about 5000 soldiers, which was a formidable force in open terrain.
That's why they lost a lot of legions in woods and marshes.

The Gauls weren't centrally organized, so the Romans could use the divide and rule trick.

The Germanic tribes had the same problem.
 
Well, the Romans learned to fight because they were beaten so many times.
Their strong point was.. Logistics and organization.

Their soldiers were craftsmen and fighters.
A legion had about 5000 soldiers, which was a formidable force in open terrain.
That's why they lost a lot of legions in woods and marshes.

The Gauls weren't centrally organized, so the Romans could use the divide and rule trick.

The Germanic tribes had the same problem.

Sure, whatever; the reason that they learned to fight was that they were beaten so many times.
We know that in your heart you are still holding out in Alesia with Vercingetorix . Don't forget, many of us are descended from those and similar people. Two of my grandparents were Irish immigrants.


Actually, Roman soldiers were mostly farmers and cattle/sheep owners until the days of professional armies. Their true strongpoint was rigid discipline with organization rather than logistics - Logistics became a major factor in the days of expansion outside of central Italy.


As far as the divisions of the Gauls being a factor, yes, that is absolutely true. The Celts as a whole rarely united and even when they did it was only for brief periods. This was the same situation in Britain, Scotland, Ireland, etc. Their unyielding adherence to tribal independence turned out to work against them.


The advantage that helped the Germans was they they did indeed later on begin to merge many tribes into larger confederations like the Franks and Alemanni.
 
Last edited:
Apologies to my Iberian friends. My failure to mention the disunity of the Celts/Celtiberians there was unintentional. The same thing happened to them. When they did get together, they gave the Romans a run for their money, like at Numantia.
 
In my opinion the greatest empire that ever existed was the Ottoman Empire (my username!). Anyway, they had the strongest military for a century (1599-1699). It was a world "superpower" from 1644-1721 and lasted for over 600 years (1299-1922). At its peak (1683) it controlled Turkey, the Middle East's coastlines, Northern Africa, the Balkans, and Mesopotamia.
 
I would think the Roman Empire. Funny enough the options relating to the Roman Empire on the MCQ are fragmented into the better known appellations Ancient Rome, Byzantine Empire and Holy Roman Empire respectively. The division of the Roman Empire into East/West dates to the ecclesiastical 1054AD Schism between the papal authority in Rome, Italy and the centers of Christianity in the East, namely Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. I do not consider, contrary to the many religiously motivated textbooks, that the empire of ancient Rome and the Byzantine Empire were different simply because of a shift in capital city and religious affiliation to Christianity. They were one and the same empire as their ruling dynasties were the same.

The Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne was given legitimacy through marriage with imperial family members of the Byzantine Empire. This is also the case for the Mehmet II the conqueror who legitimized his reign over the previous Roman Empire in the East through marriage to the daughters of Byzantine princes, Helenā daughter of Demetrios Palaiologos and Anna the daughter of the Emperor of Trebizond and Alexia, a Byzantine princess. All roads seem to lead to the proverbial Rome, whether it be unified in one name or divided into three separate empires is irrelevant!

Note: All European Royal bloodlines descend from the bloodlines of ancient Rome through the Byzantine Empire.
 
Last edited:
Wellmy analysis gives that

Only 2 men may have the tittle of emperor

First and Bigger of all is Alexander the great,
The only one and true emperor,
he conquered 3 older empires and hundred of tribes

it really was the biggest empire of all,

2nd is Jenkish chan and moggols from Moggolia to Poland and Krakowy

the difference among them
Alexander although conquer, He also created a new empire by building new cities all over the world
while chan mainly looted,

the roman empire or mandarin or persian or ottoman were empires but created after time and many faces and never reached the area of the 2 above,
just look in map the Alexander state and then the Chan's State.

on the other hand for some who are blind the biggest empire ever done was the Brittania one,
just consider its colonial- activity
Canada australia India South AFrica Jamaica
I think it is not easy to estimate in maps the area that Great Britain ruled,

or the Russian from central europe to Alaska (russian colony once)

ROman empire and chinese are mainly proof to time rust, they lived long

so the question must be
Bigger empire in time?
Bigger empire in Km2?
bigger empire in population?
Bigger emperors?

I can not compare different things
 
Change my original post, the ottoman empire was a world superpower from 1544-1721 not, 1644. It became a "superpower" under Suleiman the magnificent.
 
All European Royal bloodlines descend from the bloodlines of ancient Rome through the Byzantine Empire.

This cannot be right.

There is no direct blood link to the patricians or aristocracy of Republican Rome nor to the Julio-Claudian or Flavian emperors.
 
The Roman Empire, by far.
 
I choose, Ancient Egypt, the multi-thousand year empire that flourished along the Nile. The Great pyramid of Khufu at
Gizeh was constructed four thousand years ago and remained the world's tallest building until the 1880's when Paris'
Eiffel Tower was erected. Rome, surely mighty and all conquering, only lasted 500 years.
 
"And now ... I would like to challenge whoever launched the poll ....!

I feel that there is an "Empire" missing from his poll!

What happened to ... the Vikings ....?

Here we have folks who, for at least a couple of hundred years, explored, settled, "conquered" and influenced ... Scandinavia, Northern Europe, Finland, Russia, The Middle East, Ireland, Scotland, England, Greenland ... and North America! They influenced language, culture and art.

They achieved a damned sight more than Fascist Italy! .... and that's in the poll...!

I agree that they never created a "unified" entity that could be called (in political terms) an "Empire" ... but could not the same be said of some of the other "candidates"?"

Actually you could take that thought a little further and add the fact that Rollo the Walker and his Viking Hoard sweep into France and became what was to become the Normans. We all know that it was the Norman French who fought the English at the Battle of Hastings and Won the entire land of Britian, these same Normans a few hudred years later then invaded Ireland under the leadership of Strongbow and Prendergast took Ireland for the French/Norman King of England. These same Normans built the first Castles in England. But hey, I think I will still go with the Romans with my vote :)
 
I agree that they never created a "unified" entity that could be called (in political terms) an "Empire" ... but could not the same be said of some of the other "candidates"?"

All of the others seem basically united to me, at least at one point. Maybe for the Vikings, you could use the North Sea Empire? Or for something Scandinavian but post-Viking, the Kalmar Union? Not that either really compete with some of the other choices.
 
We all know that it was the Norman French who fought the English at the Battle of Hastings and won the entire land of Britain, these same Normans a few hundred years later then invaded Ireland under the leadership of Strongbow and Prendergast took Ireland for the French/Norman King of England. These same Normans built the first Castles in England. But hey, I think I will still go with the Romans with my vote :)

You mean the Normans won "the entire land of England".

Scotland was never theirs.
 
You mean the Normans won "the entire land of England".

Scotland was never theirs.[/QUOT

Yes but they did found some good noble families that gave us "The Bruce". :)
Compared to England I don`t think their impact on Ireland was so much..they ended up more Irish than most Irish! But that`s what the Normans did isn`t it, assimilation and adaptation.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 121498 times.

Back
Top