5 Most Powerful Empires

[Nadkor]

I meant in todays time, day, and age, year 2009, the USA is the most powerful.

Except you said, "has ever seen".

In fact, here's the quote:

United States of America: Not an empire, but is the most powerful nation the world has ever seen.

Nice try, though.

[Ishema]

I meant in todays time, day, and age, year 2009, the USA is the most powerful.

Except you said, "has ever seen".

In fact, here's the quote:

United States of America: Not an empire, but is the most powerful nation the world has ever seen.

Nice try, though.

Christ almighty, have a great life on the internet!

[Maurepas]

By today's standards controlling 1/4 of the world's land surface (as well as having a navy bigger than everyone else put together (IIRC), just in case) and 1/4 of the population would make the British Empire much more powerful than the USA.

Im not disagreeing, I do believe Britain is probably the most powerful in history, but, did they really control 1/4th of the world's population?

[Cameroi]

maritime archaic
mohenjo daro
la tene
gundistrop
de danian
akwasassni
ohioan
anasazi
an tir
west
aetinveld
pensic
minoen
atlantian

[Nadkor]

By today's standards controlling 1/4 of the world's land surface (as well as having a navy bigger than everyone else put together (IIRC), just in case) and 1/4 of the population would make the British Empire much more powerful than the USA.

Im not disagreeing, I do believe Britain is probably the most powerful in history, but, did they really control 1/4th of the world's population?

Yeah. Roughly.

In 1922, apparently, although I thought it was earlier than that.

[Nadkor]

I meant in todays time, day, and age, year 2009, the USA is the most powerful.

Except you said, "has ever seen".

In fact, here's the quote:

United States of America: Not an empire, but is the most powerful nation the world has ever seen.

Nice try, though.

Christ almighty, have a great life on the internet!

Nah, I might just go and have sex with my boyfriend. He's just woken up beside me.

But you enjoy the internet, I wouldn't want to spoil it for you.

[Haven Fotress]

1. Sweden. (if you ever read about them you will know what im talking about. for 400 years they kicked the crap out of russia and all other countrys around them.
But the royal line of kings died and the empire went into dust.)
2.England (The World speaks their language!...and they where a huge empire.)
3.France.(same as england.....France foreign Legion FTW!)
3. The Vikings. (Hardly an empire but they brought fear into the hearts of the whole world. and they also found America.)
4.America (after world war 2)
5. Soviet (Thank the gods they died.)

(Ps Read history if you wont to know why sweden is N1!)

[Maurepas]

By today's standards controlling 1/4 of the world's land surface (as well as having a navy bigger than everyone else put together (IIRC), just in case) and 1/4 of the population would make the British Empire much more powerful than the USA.

Im not disagreeing, I do believe Britain is probably the most powerful in history, but, did they really control 1/4th of the world's population?

Yeah. Roughly.

In 1922, apparently, although I thought it was earlier than that.

Yeah, it hit me that I was only thinking the Commonwealth Realms, but, India had/has alot of people in it...

[Nadkor]

1. Sweden. (if you ever read about them you will know what im talking about. for 400 years they kicked the crap out of russia and all other countrys around them.
But the royal line of kings died and the empire went into dust.)
2.England (The World speaks their language!...and they where a huge empire.)
3.France.(same as england.....France foreign Legion FTW!)
3. The Vikings. (Hardly an empire but they brought fear into the hearts of the whole world. and they also found America.)
4.America (after world war 2)
5. Soviet (Thank the gods they died.)

(Ps Read history if you wont to know why sweden is N1!)

With regards to Sweden and the vikings, controlling / terrorising (in the case of the vikings, and not in the modern terrorist sense of the word) bits of northern Europe does not a most powerful empire make.

And I "read" history, thanks, for a degree. That's how I know neither of those are even close to being qualified for any list of the five most powerful empires.

[Thuristian]

With regards to Sweden and the vikings, controlling / terrorising (in the case of the vikings, and not in the modern terrorist sense of the word) bits of northern Europe does not a most powerful empire make.

You could argue the same thing with the Huns or the Mongols. Ethical or not, that's how things were done back then.

[Nadkor]

With regards to Sweden and the vikings, controlling / terrorising (in the case of the vikings, and not in the modern terrorist sense of the word) bits of northern Europe does not a most powerful empire make.

You could argue the same thing with the Huns or the Mongols. Ethical or not, that's how things were done back then.

I have literally no idea of what relevance this is to my post.

[Thuristian]

I have literally no idea of what relevance this is to my post.

And I do not have the patience to explain it to you.

If you do not get the reference to the other barbarian empires of the world at the time, then I don't know what you're doing saying anything about the Vikings.

[Nadkor]

I have literally no idea of what relevance this is to my post.

And I do not have the patience to explain it to you.

If you do not get the reference to the other barbarian empires of the world at the time, then I don't know what you're doing saying anything about the Vikings.

No, I mean, I don't understand the "Ethical or not, that's how things were done back then" bit. It doesn't follow on from anything I said. Or anything you said.

It's like a dolphin giving birth to a fish. It would just float about for a bit, with the mother sort of looking at it and going "huh? Where'd that come from?" and everyone getting terribly confused by the whole situation.

[Thuristian]

No, I mean, I don't understand the "Ethical or not, that's how things were done back then" bit. It doesn't follow on from anything I said. Or anything you said.

It's like a dolphin giving birth to a fish. It would just float about for a bit, with the mother sort of looking at it and going "huh? Where'd that come from?" and everyone getting terribly confused by the whole situation.

Don't give a shite. Going to bed. Goodnight NS.

[Linker Niederrhein]

maritime archaic
mohenjo daro
la tene
gundistrop
de danian
akwasassni
ohioan
anasazi
an tir
west
aetinveld
pensic
minoen
atlantian

Last I checked, an empire requires political cohesion, not a bunch of permanently warring villages or citystates wth more-or-less related cultural traits.

[Coffin-Breathe]

I am sorry. You are a real atheist most likely is you are that old.

Thoug it is disturbing that you are that old...

...but has a big advantage - `cause of taking part in, some hasn´t to learn much about the last few decades in school...

[Dyelli Beybi]

And how about the Dutch of the 17th and 18th centuries?

The Dutch were no were near as great as the British.

Completely wrong. During the 17th century the Dutch Republic far outstripped England in terms of fiscal organisation and military strength. They were strong enough to invade England and put the Staatholder of Holland on the throne (although one would probably argue this was not the initial goal of the invasion). That being said the Dutch Republic was never really an Empire. It sought to monopolise trade goods but had relatively little interest in acquiring land.

Now as for greatest Empires of all time... Greatest is a rather subjective word (and I would argue that no Empire has ever really been 'great' for the people it has subjugated) although I will rank according to land controlled and relative stability.

1. English Empire of the 19th-20th century. Nothing has ever rivalled it for size although it was relatively short lived.
2. Chinese Empire. Nothing has ever rivalled it for long term stability.
3. Islamic Empire. Not exactly stable or unified (frequently featured competing Caliphs), but at its peak stretched from India to Spain.
4. Hapsburg Empire of Charles V. Dynastic, relatively stable. Controlled the lions share of the Americas as well as huge tracts of Europe.
5. Inca Empire. Far more stable than its Aztec cousins and put up a much stiffer resistance to Spanish attack mostly due to the lack of angry Tlaxcalan neighbours.

Honourable mentions to Russia, Rome and the Aztecs.


I have left off America because they aren't an Empire. They do not go out and annex countries. They are a superpower. Something new and different.

I have left off Napoleon because you can't really call it an Empire if it begins and ends within the lifetime of one person. Just like the Third Reich doesn't really qualifies.

[Nadkor]

They were strong enough to invade England and put the Staatholder of Holland on the throne (although one would probably argue this was not the initial goal of the invasion).

Except, as we all know, that's not what actually happened, is it?

[Conserative Morality]

They were strong enough to invade England and put the Staatholder of Holland on the throne (although one would probably argue this was not the initial goal of the invasion).

Except, as we all know, that's not what actually happened, is it?

I'm no expert on English history, but...

William III of Orange?

[Nadkor]

They were strong enough to invade England and put the Staatholder of Holland on the throne (although one would probably argue this was not the initial goal of the invasion).

Except, as we all know, that's not what actually happened, is it?

I'm no expert on English history, but...

William III of Orange?

Yes, I imagine that's who he's referring to, but the events (what the British call the "Glorious Revolution") did not take place as described by him.

[Ishema]

I have left off America because they aren't an Empire. They do not go out and annex countries. They are a superpower. Something new and different.

This person deserves a medal.

[Dyelli Beybi]

They were strong enough to invade England and put the Staatholder of Holland on the throne (although one would probably argue this was not the initial goal of the invasion).

Except, as we all know, that's not what actually happened, is it?

Actually you will find most historians these days, or at least the good ones like Israel and Scott agree that the 'Glorious Revolution' was a Dutch invasion, NOT a revolution from the people of England.

It was an invasion with the goal of forcing the James to call a Parliament which was known to be rabidly anti-Catholic and as such rabidly anti-French at a time when it was seen to be certain that a Dutch-French war was inevitable (the French had recently reimposed the 1667 anti-Dutch tariff regime). It was feared that James' Alliance with Louis would bring England into the war on the French side. William's fleet was larger than the Spanish Armada and contrary to whig propaganda, carried enough soldiers that he outnumbered James' army in the field (many of James' troops were in dispersed garrisons). Following the landing English troops were forbidden from nearing the city of London which was placed under Dutch occupation for the period of around a year while Jmaes was placed under Dutch guard and inprisoned in Rochester. After his escape and William's coronation it must also be noted that many of the English military high command were replaced with more loyal Dutch commanders. Equally though this might have something to do with the fact that the Dutch were looking for an ally with a competent military (something England had not had since the Commonwealth). Any story of this being anything other than an invasion is whig and Dutch propaganda filtered through a lense of English patriotism.

Remember the Dutch Republic was a Republic. It was not interested in funding the dynastic interests of William of Orange who had a long standing political feud with the city of Amsterdam. The fact that he ended up on the throne is more of a reflection of James' sudden nervous breakdown than any plan for a 'Glorious Revolution', which to quote Scott, was neither a Revolution nor glorious.

[Nadkor]

Any story of this being anything other than an invasion is whig and Dutch propaganda filtered through a lense of English patriotism.

Except my view of it not being an invasion is the view of an Irish person, who studied this at a university in Ireland, taught by this guy, this guy, this guy, and this guy, none of whom (at the time I was studying under them) subscribed to the view that it could be taken as any form of invasion, other than an invasion by invitation, supported by the majority of the ruling class in England. And I don't believe for a second that any of them would have been blinded by "whig and Dutch propaganda", or saw history filtered through a lense of English patriotism.

In fact, one of them (and I think it might have been David Hayton, but it was several years ago now so I can't be certain) described it as a putsch by the ruling class, not an invasion.

[St George of England]

Anything after WW2 isn't really an Empire so:
1. British Empire
2. Mongol Empire under Kublai Khan
3. Roman Empire before Domition
4. Ottoman Empire until around the failed siege of Vienna
5. Spanish Empire until the death of Phillip II