Best Empire in History? (Corrected)

[Tabuu]

Sorry about the last post.:oops:

[TinCow]

Define "best"

[Ibn-Khaldun]

There is/was American Empire? :inquisitive:

And like TC said: define best.

[al Roumi]

China's. My own definition of best: most enduring and best at turning into a homogenous (well kind of) nation type thing. But that is looking at China's empire in a "CIV" type way, 4000BC to 2000AD.

P.s. The USA's Empire could refer to its occupation of the Philipenes and domination of Cuba & other Caribean states. Or it could be its current hegemonic cultural, comercial and military empire...

[Pannonian]

What's the point of reopening this thread?

[Tabuu]

I messed up on the last one and forgot to put an actual poll in.

"Best" as in overall. Best empire with a balance of finance, military, diplomacy, etc.

[Tabuu]

I know there's a lot of other empires, but I had to stay with the more recognizable ones since the pol would get humongous.

[TinCow]

Best empire with a balance of finance, military, diplomacy, etc.

Hmm... balanced economy, military, and diplomacy is not the definition I expected, and it's changed my answer. I was originally going to say Rome, as I believe that empire has had the most influence on the world. However, under this definition I'm going to have to vote for the British Empire. There have been many great Empires throughout human history, but the British were adept at diplomacy in a manner that most other empires were not. Most of the empires listed above dominated by military or economy or both, not quite as much through diplomacy. The British, on the other hand, ruled through diplomacy and economy first, and through military second. While the Brits often gained territory through military power, they tended to keep it through shrewed diplomatic agreements with the peoples they conquered and always played other nations off against one another, usually with positive results. In fact, the British Empire's only real defeats were more the result of diplomatic failures than military or economic failures. We need only look to the continued existence of the Commonwealth to see the long-term success of Britain's preference for diplomacy over arms.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Sorry about the last post.:oops:No problem.


Welcome to the Monastery!


(Where you'll find that life is glorious. But nasty, brutish, and short. Akin to the life of a Roman gladiator, as I'd sometimes like to think, where the weak are quickly weeded out by the strong, and one's first mistake is one's last. Where boys are turned into men. All under the watchful eye of the mighty Emperor, this divinity-man, deciding with a casual gesture of his thumb over life and death of the mere mortals who battle each other for his amusement. :thumbsup: )


Which bridges this post nicely to the next point:
I voted 'Roman Empire', for no lenghty intellectual reason whatsoever. Simply out of sentiment, for its enduring fame and image as arch-empire. Still Rome rules us with an iron fist, by its laws, customs, religion, roads, cities, language, or even by setting the very iconography of Empire itself.

[gaelic cowboy]

America because they mainly stay at home

[A Nerd]

I voted for Rome. The conqured large tracks of land and as far as I know, assimilated the conqured well. Then reigned realitivaly peacefully until the Germanics came. Though I am no avid historian.

[Tabuu]

Luckily I am an avid historian and your reason is 99% correct. The 1%, however, was the peaceful reign. Yes, Rome did have it's "Pax Romana" but then Rome fell into civil wars, a seemingly endless struggle over the throne. This also happened before Rome became an empire, but with the struggle over the consul positions. Germanics came afterward. I could be wrong, but hey who isn't wrong? Very good reason for your vote!:yes:

[Tabuu]

Oh and that also goes for you, TinCow. Also very good and more elaborate.:thumbsup:

[Beskar]

Depends on definition of "Best" and "Empire", but the out those which called themselves a "Empire", the British Empire wins hands down and triumphs all.

[Tabuu]

I have to go with alh_p's definition of "best." I really couldn't come up with anything except "overall." :sad2:

[seireikhaan]

Well, given the parameters, its probably the British. However....

I'd say, if going for impact, it would be the Mongols. Reminding the east through force that there was, indeed, a west, and the west that there was, indeed, an east. That not only did they exist, but that they were very much in reach. I tend to view the Mongol Empire as the impetus for the creation of the new world, providing the temporary glimpse of stability across a continent that enabled merchant activities to flow unimpeded. When it was predictably shattered by logistics and inevitable decline into incompetence, merchants and the nobility wanted that flow to return. Hence, when technology finally caught up to the demand, we have the new world...

[Centurion1]

Its so hard but for the three "best" I. Would say british roman and mongolian. For the dheer change and innovation they brought to the world. People have said the same before me so no need to elaborate

[Megas Methuselah]

Ojibway Empire.

[Tabuu]

From what I know those were an indian peoples right?

[Megas Methuselah]

You can call us that if you want, but those people who like elephants and spicy food will be offended.

[Reenk Roink]

"Best" with regard to the criteria given would definitely have to be between the "Muslims" and "Alexander's Empire (Greece)" which I will respectively rename Ummayad and early Abbasid empires and the Macedonian/Hellenistic Kingdoms from Phillip (just as much if not more of a military genius than his kid) to the early successors of Alexander. The reason being is that these empires left a huge social and cultural footprint over large swatches of the world like that of Rome but did it much faster with much more explosive military success like the Mongols.

Not to say that the Romans didn't have fantastic military successes, but they would usually take a lot more time to consolidate their conquests and spread it out over a much longer period of time. Nor am I saying that the Mongols did not have any impact on the culture, because they were instrumental in joining the 'east' and 'west' as mentioned before, but they would quickly adopt the customs, language, and religion of the conquered.

Alexander's conquest of the old Persian empire absolutely made Hellenistic culture dominant in the Near East and it led to the primacy of the Greek language. In no way do I subscribe to the common thesis that the Hellenistic period was one of cultural stagnation compared to what came before, it outdid than the classic period of Greek city states! There's no doubt what influence Hellenistic culture had on the unconquered peoples of Rome and Carthage too.

The Arab conquests of the Near East and the Sassanid Empire is equally impressive, if not more, as they concurrently advanced on both fronts successfully. And then they went beyond into North Africa and Central Asia. The Battle of Talas River is probably the most underrated battle in terms of influence ever. Even Hellenization was not able to get rid of the Aramaic cognates, but after the Arab conquests, Syriac all but died out.

If I had to pick between one, I'd have to go with the Ummayad/early Abbasid empires as there is a lot more continuity between them, whereas immediately after Alexander's death, Egypt, the Near East and Persia, and Macedonia/Asia Minor would not be held by the same dynasty for any significant amount of time simultaneously. The Abbasids lost Spain immediately after removing the Ummayad dynasty, but would keep most everything else, and though they would see their empire fragment quickly in the next few hundred years, even then the newly independent Amirs would still recognize Baghdad for a bit longer, avoiding the interwarfare that plagued the successors.

[Azathoth]

Ojibway Empire.

Five Nations.

[Ibrahim]

it was tough, but I just decided to go with "Muslims" :clown:

[The Lurker Below]

went with Inca. in scope they were tiny: if we said the Romans dominated a sea and the British dominated an ocean then the Incas dominated a pond. However their domination of that pond was absolute and after a mere 20-30 years of brutal conquering saw total peace for 300+ (very prosperous) years.

[Megas Methuselah]

went with Inca. in scope they were tiny: if we said the Romans dominated a sea and the British dominated an ocean then the Incas dominated a pond. However their domination of that pond was absolute and after a mere 20-30 years of brutal conquering saw total peace for 300+ (very prosperous) years.

But in comparison with many of their contemporaries, the Inca were a great people, indeed.

[G. Septimus]

I'll Vote for British Empire (If there is one)

Channel 2 news, With Frank Vitchard

[Subotan]

But in comparison with many of their contemporaries, the Inca were a great people, indeed.

IIRC they built the first non-Arab welfare state :yes:

[tibilicus]

The British empire effectively shaped the modern world. Globalization existed way before our modern conception of it as it existed within the British Empire. The empire itself was a massive achievement for a small island nation which planted its citizens on one continent which latter forged an entirely new Superpower itself. The divide and conquer principles also saw the empire reach massive heights, the gradual take over of India saw the rise of so called British "Nabobs". Through an ingenious economic system and the sheer cunningness to prise idealistic opportunities again and again Britain truly was a global empire in which the world will never see again.

Funnily enough, the empire itself was formed out of a lust for gold. The whole reason of pursuing colonial projects in North America was in the pursuit of gold. Up until that point, Britain had managed to make most of her foreign wealth by raiding Spanish ships and cities for the valuable gold. Essentially the empire was founded upon the pirates who were given permission to plunder gold but the empire then expanded into one which would latter control a monopoly of trade which went far beyond the wealth of gold.

Of course the empire was a ruthless creation, driven out of the desire for economic greed, it was however a remarkable entity which we owe our modern world to.

[Jolt]

Portugal. The fact that a small, sparsely populated, unprosperous, unfertile, rough outland of Europe became so powerful and wealthy, becoming the center of the world for a brief period of time is a testament to how a small nation can grow.

[Skullheadhq]

America because they mainly stay at home

Haha, are you serious?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Holy Roman Empire. How they came themselves together is quite amazing.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Portugal. The fact that a small, sparsely populated, unprosperous, unfertile, rough outland of Europe became so powerful and wealthy, becoming the center of the world for a brief period of time is a testament to how a small nation can grow.Ah, but Portugal hasn't always been a peripheral, somewhat underdeveloped country.

At its peak, Portugal, indeed the whole of the Iberian peninsula, was a very forward, developed sub-civilisation. A central hub of the exchange of trade, commerce, science and arts. A network which was then expanded by the Iberians to encompass the entire world, for the very first time.

Certainly a worthy contender, but one should consider Iberia as a whole then.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

Mongols. The size and depth of the Mongol Empire reached many areas of the world, from Japan to Poland, all of Asia and Europe knew of the horde of Genghis Khan. Or more appropriately, Chingis Khan.

[Ibrahim]

Mongols. The size and depth of the Mongol Empire reached many areas of the world, from Japan to Poland, all of Asia and Europe knew of the horde of Genghis Khan. Or more appropriately, Chingis Khan.

leaving behind many heaps of skulls, and a river black with ink :clown:

[Azathoth]

Or more appropriately, Chingis Khan.

Temujin. He was good at rape.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

leaving behind many heaps of skulls, and a river black with ink :clown:

There's no doubt a lot of people died. But the Mongols were pretty unique in the aspect their rage was just that... pure rage. XD People weren't killed for ethnicity or religion by Genghis Khan. Just cause he was in a mood for killing people.... XD

He did employ people who were good at a certain skill in that skill. He knew the horde didn't really have many skilled administrators and such. (I doubt many of them were literate back in Genghis day.) So for your old leaders, the Mongols sacking your town is a bad thing. (And for x number of innocent townspeople.) But in the end, you might get a promotion! If you lived to get one that is.... The Mongols also let people join the horde too. Most of the Mongols who came into Europe and the Middle East were Muslim. As well as a few random Christian Mongol warlords.

They certainly won't the most advanced empire in history. But their spread was fast, their strength intense, and they were obviously one of the most diverse. (As much as Rome or Alexander's empire. Or more so.) I hesitated to vote for them due to these considerations, but their size at it's height was gigantic. And the Empires that followed his, like Yuan Dynasty China, the Mughals in India, and Tamerlame (Timur the Lame) all had considerable Empires made of the left overs from Genghis Khan's empire.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

Temujin. He was good at rape.

Temujin? His original name before he became Chingis?

Yeah he was. There's a lot of Mongol out there in the world due to him....

At least in Mongolia people might be proud of it lol.

[Reenk Roink]

Temujin. He was good at rape.

He was pretty good at other things to. Statecraft, military strategy and tactics, diplomacy, and propaganda. Plus I bet a lot of chicks banged him willingly.

I never understood the vilification the Mongols received for their conquests, where massacres were commonplace in all these empires, and by popularly known 'heroic' figures like Alexander and Caesar. I guess you could make a case that the Mongols were more brutal than their contemporaries, but let that be tempered with the fact that accounts of massacres are likely exaggerated on both sides, the Mongols for their psychological warfare and propaganda machine, and the losers to vilify their conquerors.

[Martok]

I never understood the vilification the Mongols received for their conquests
While I'm in no way qualified to delve into the details, I have a hunch that said vilification has its roots in medieval Europe's religious aristocracy. The Catholic Church's hierarchy almost certainly viewed the Mongols as a serious threat to Christianity; I have to imagine they'd have done their level-best to propagandize against them.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would say the vilification of the Mongols runs deep in every civilisation.

The band of civilisations, running from Europe, through the Middle East, to India and into China and Korea, has always feared the Eurasian hordes in their middle, always looked down on them, their different ways. Not until the 19th century were they ever put under control.

The nomad doesn't wage war for conquest and settlement - that would mean the end of his ways. He wars for plunder. But not even that all that much - the nomad can only posses what he can carry. In the end, the nomad wars for glory and status, to relieve population pressure - the plains can't carry a high density of people.


When they do ride out for conquest, they tend to do so with a bang. Many of us are their descendants. If you are Indo-European, whether in India, Iran or Europe, or Hungarian, or Turkish in Asia Minor or central Asia, or Mongol, or any of very many more peoples, then much of your ancestry would've once roamed the central Asian plains, mobile, outside of scared, settled civilisation.

[Pannonian]

I would say the vilification of the Mongols runs deep in every civilisation.

The band of civilisations, running from Europe, through the Middle East, to India and into China and Korea, has always feared the Eurasian hordes in their middle, always looked down on them, their different ways. Not until the 19th century were they ever put under control.

The nomad doesn't wage war for conquest and settlement - that would mean the end of his ways. He wars for plunder. But not even that all that much - the nomad can only posses what he can carry. In the end, the nomad wars for glory and status, to relieve population pressure - the plains can't carry a high density of people.


When they do ride out for conquest, they tend to do so with a bang. Many of us are their descendants. If you are Indo-European, whether in India, Iran or Europe, or Hungarian, or Turkish in Asia Minor or central Asia, or Mongol, or any of very many more peoples, then much of your ancestry would've once roamed the central Asian plains, mobile, outside of scared, settled civilisation.

Which makes it even more remarkable that Sorghaghtani Beki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghaghtani_Beki) trained her sons to be the rulers of s sedentary empire, and with such success that outsiders lusted for the wealth of the Mongol-protected trading network. The Mongols may not have made material contributions to what we'd call civilisation, but they were far better than anyone before at disseminating the civilisations they had conquered. Not until the industrial age and the Anglo-French hegemony were there such communications and trading networks again.

[Reenk Roink]

The tension between settled peoples and nomads or semi-nomadic peoples and the vilification of the latter by the former is pretty well documented from the Ancient Mesopotamian cities onward.

What I am instead getting at is the modern view of the Mongols by some. They tend to more than willingly accept the reports of brutality of the Mongols uncritically, without any concern that these were probably exaggerated by both conqueror and conquered, while also being blissfully unaware that the other more "Western" empires and heroes fail the modern standard they are holding the Mongols to in the same way. Besides, viewing the history of humanity through a modern moralistic lens is usually just retarded.

This brutality they see by the Mongols causes them to dismiss all that they have done, even militarily! Obviously, the Mongols were perceived to be a great threat to Western Europe, and they were destructive in the eastern Islamic world and this explains some of it. Then again, the potential conversion of the Mongols was a big deal to some Christian figures. The areas of Iraq and Iran probably have the best reason to vilify the Mongols, they got it the worst, due to the ridiculously inept Khwarizm Shah and his ideas on how to deal with the Mongols both diplomatically, and then militarily were some of the worst in history. I have read speculation that the Mongols did not even want to conquer Khwarizm just yet, and even wanted to form an alliance. :wall: However, I think that at least in China and India, the view of the Mongols is much more nuanced, and can be said to be even favorable.

What is forgotten is that the Mongols were great patrons of the civilizations they conquered, and were generally quite religiously tolerant (aside from some focused persecution of Muslims pursued for a political reason) in a time that badly needed it.

Then again you also have the Mongol fanboy who is the opposite extreme. :shrug:

[Tsar Alexsandr]

The Mongols certainly committed atrocities at first. But even some of these atrocities were committed with the attempt of honoring their enemy warrior. They built a huge platform to have a feast upon. And under the platform were the conquered Russian warriors. It was built in a way that it would give to the weight. Well the Mongols ended up crushing their enemy during their feast. A honorable way to be executed in Mongolian culture. As well as boiling their prisoners alive. Boiling was a good way to be killed in their religion, because if you shed blood or broke a bone, or bones, that would prevent the soul from ascending to the afterlife and doom it to eternal torment if it wasn't followed. (Another reason they preferred ranged warfare.)

It was a meeting of cultures that, like anytime cultures meet, had some tragic consequences. : / But the Mongols changed with the times.

[Cyclops]

I think stability and cultural contributions have to count positively. Green is great, Black is middling, Red is weak.

Mongols-Enormous area for a short time but weak culture, soon disintegrated, empire based on ponies is a little girly.


Romans-Made the Greeks call themselves Roman. That alone is a monstrous achievement.

Muslims -Like Alexander a rapid yet enduring cultural tidal wave.

Alexander's Empire (Greece) Huge cultural beacon, unstable but the language and cultural footprint doubled the area of Hellenism.

Aztec-Savages unworthy of ruling the marvelous MesoAmerican cultures who couldn't wait to be rid of them.

Inca-Amazing expansion but unstable entity quickly toppled: nothing like the Aztecs but a similar fate.

Maya-Did the hard yards building up a fine civilisation that shared with its neighbours.

China-Most enduring cultural entity ever. Succesful politically, culturally, technologically and sometimes militarily. Its worst is not as bad as most and its best is up there with the best.

Japan-Unable to emulate Chinese, Mongol or European Empires. Small fry in this company.

Russian-Vast entity, stability troubles but seems to be going the distance. Relatively insignificant culturally (imported french culture, then Communism from Germany, failed to re-export Communism).

Mali-Not registering at this scale

American-More Punic than Roman, heart not in conquest, rather make a buck than a slave.

English-Correct appellation, ruled from London. Unstable but enormous entity, may have a lasting cultural effect through India and the USA.

Holy Roman Empire-Voltaire wasn't being fair but by the end it was definitely "neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire".

French-French conquests have been more unstable than the English but they kept a few more colonies and their shining cultural acheivements outshine English to date.

Spanish-Of the "gunpowder empires" (incl Moghuls, Russia and Ottomans) the most successful by far. A massive entity, huge residual influence on three continents, had the best helmets. The bit where they said "hmm, there might be a country over the horizon, lets conquer it" counts for a lot, although Portugal deserves a mention in that context. Why did I put them number 1? Accidently I guess, China probably wins on aggregate points.

Ottoman-Greco/Muslim fusion entity, surprisingly stable but lacking the cultural clout of the first Islamic tide or the durability of Russia (which has retained a far larger slice of its old Imperial pie).

Persian-Very admirable and surprisingly tolerant from the little I know, and a massive blazing cultural torch akin to Chinese Greek or French. but typical of iron age ME empires (assyrian, Babylonian, Median, Macedonian) : short lived, beset with wars and swiftly toppled by a determined aggressor.

[Azathoth]

The tension between settled peoples and nomads or semi-nomadic peoples and the vilification of the latter by the former is pretty well documented from the Ancient Mesopotamian cities onward.

What I am instead getting at is the modern view of the Mongols by some. They tend to more than willingly accept the reports of brutality of the Mongols uncritically, without any concern that these were probably exaggerated by both conqueror and conquered, while also being blissfully unaware that the other more "Western" empires and heroes fail the modern standard they are holding the Mongols to in the same way. Besides, viewing the history of humanity through a modern moralistic lens is usually just retarded.

This brutality they see by the Mongols causes them to dismiss all that they have done, even militarily! Obviously, the Mongols were perceived to be a great threat to Western Europe, and they were destructive in the eastern Islamic world and this explains some of it. Then again, the potential conversion of the Mongols was a big deal to some Christian figures. The areas of Iraq and Iran probably have the best reason to vilify the Mongols, they got it the worst, due to the ridiculously inept Khwarizm Shah and his ideas on how to deal with the Mongols both diplomatically, and then militarily were some of the worst in history. I have read speculation that the Mongols did not even want to conquer Khwarizm just yet, and even wanted to form an alliance. However, I think that at least in China and India, the view of the Mongols is much more nuanced, and can be said to be even favorable.

What is forgotten is that the Mongols were great patrons of the civilizations they conquered, and were generally quite religiously tolerant (aside from some focused persecution of Muslims pursued for a political reason) in a time that badly needed it.

Then again you also have the Mongol fanboy who is the opposite extreme.

Far be it from me to make light of the positive aspects of Mongol rule, but their massacres were far bloodier and way more spectacular than anything a European could imagine.

Here, I won't even mention Nishapur or Baghdad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Badger_Mouth

[The Lurker Below]

I think stability and cultural contributions have to count positively. Green is great, Black is middling, Red is weak.

Mongols-Enormous area for a short time but weak culture, soon disintegrated, empire based on ponies is a little girly.


Romans-Made the Greeks call themselves Roman. That alone is a monstrous achievement.

Muslims -Like Alexander a rapid yet enduring cultural tidal wave.

Alexander's Empire (Greece) Huge cultural beacon, unstable but the language and cultural footprint doubled the area of Hellenism.

Aztec-Savages unworthy of ruling the marvelous MesoAmerican cultures who couldn't wait to be rid of them.

Inca-Amazing expansion but unstable entity quickly toppled: nothing like the Aztecs but a similar fate.

Maya-Did the hard yards building up a fine civilisation that shared with its neighbours.

China-Most enduring cultural entity ever. Succesful politically, culturally, technologically and sometimes militarily. Its worst is not as bad as most and its best is up there with the best.

Japan-Unable to emulate Chinese, Mongol or European Empires. Small fry in this company.

Russian-Vast entity, stability troubles but seems to be going the distance. Relatively insignificant culturally (imported french culture, then Communism from Germany, failed to re-export Communism).

Mali-Not registering at this scale

American-More Punic than Roman, heart not in conquest, rather make a buck than a slave.

English-Correct appellation, ruled from London. Unstable but enormous entity, may have a lasting cultural effect through India and the USA.

Holy Roman Empire-Voltaire wasn't being fair but by the end it was definitely "neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire".

French-French conquests have been more unstable than the English but they kept a few more colonies and their shining cultural acheivements outshine English to date.

Spanish-Of the "gunpowder empires" (incl Moghuls, Russia and Ottomans) the most successful by far. A massive entity, huge residual influence on three continents, had the best helmets. The bit where they said "hmm, there might be a country over the horizon, lets conquer it" counts for a lot, although Portugal deserves a mention in that context. Why did I put them number 1? Accidently I guess, China probably wins on aggregate points.

Ottoman-Greco/Muslim fusion entity, surprisingly stable but lacking the cultural clout of the first Islamic tide or the durability of Russia (which has retained a far larger slice of its old Imperial pie).

Persian-Very admirable and surprisingly tolerant from the little I know, and a massive blazing cultural torch akin to Chinese Greek or French. but typical of iron age ME empires (assyrian, Babylonian, Median, Macedonian) : short lived, beset with wars and swiftly toppled by a determined aggressor.

this is a neat idea. i like the color coding. a few notes

Spanish - first impression I can't picture them as a great empire as their contemporary competition saw them as a bunch of inept slackers. but in retrospect maybe that makes their great success that much more impressive.

French - not seeing it at all, sorry

Americans - subdued more nations that any empire ever has or ever will. granted those were weak stone age peoples completely unprepared for what was coming, but they were completely, and frequently brutally, dominated. Americans only failed when they attempted conquest against other people in the iron age. (http://matousmileys.free.fr/amour16.gif Canadians)

[Louis VI the Fat]

'Savages', 'inept slackers', a certain casualness when discussing mass rape and conquests, of peoples still around or tragically disappeared.


I must ask you fine gentlemen for a little more dignified choice of language.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Spanish - first impression I can't picture them as a great empire as their contemporary competition saw them as a bunch of inept slackers. but in retrospect maybe that makes their great success that much more impressive.ho-hum...

I am not sure the Spanish were seen as inept slackers. Although some vilification would not have been absent. Certainly the Spanish were not slackers in actual fact, so therefore Spain's Siglo de Oro, 'Golden Century', is not impressive for being the work of slackers.


The desperate strategic question in the 16th and 17th century, for the whole of Europe, was how to stop the Spanish (/Habsburgs). The Spanish, for their part, saw quite fit to simultaneously combat Protestantism, Islam, and subjugate the Americas plus vast holdings elsewhere. It was the Iberian slackers who organised the first global economy in this period, who started the period of European pre-eminence in the world.
For a hobby, they also patronised the arts (paintings, architecture, music), literature (if not invented it in this period with Cervantes), and religion, all three reaching peaks in Spain the rest of the civilised world could only admire in awe.


We speak English, so some some Anglocentricity is inherent. But the period of Anglo dominance is not much older than some two / two and a half centuries, Anlgo cultural pre-eminence not older than one. About as long as Spain's dominance lasted. Who knows, in a hundred years time Chinese culture and language may be dominant. And the period of Western dominance regarded a historical aberration.
(And some guy behind a computer insisting that the West, or Britain and America, really did have a Golden Age, of such cultural dominance that the rest of the world was left breathless, admiring or vilifying them in awe)




French - not seeing it at all, sorryYou can notice the legacy in your clothes, your manners, your tastes in the arts, your etiquette, your philosophy, your poetry and literature, your architecture, your political ideas. They are all 'soft', cultural legacies. Not immediately apparant. But they are every bit as present as more tangible legacies. French civilisation has been very influential in Europe, most notably so from the 17th to the 19th century.

In the same manner that I wear jeans, chew gum, have Han Solo for a hero, watched Disney as a kid, speak English. The impact of American culture on my life is enormous, as it is throughout the world. Even if the US were to dissappear overnight, the impact will have left a decisive and lasting legacy.

[Centurion1]

You should all read Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world. The impact that themongols had on all of us is astounding.

but i wrote my college admissions essay on genghis khan as a historical hero sowho am i to talk :tongue:


*seriously for you applicants in the coming years go for something different.

[Cyclops]

this is a neat idea. i like the color coding. a few notes

Thank you, just trying to shorthand my thinking.


...Spanish - first impression I can't picture them as a great empire as their contemporary competition saw them as a bunch of inept slackers. but in retrospect maybe that makes their great success that much more impressive...

English tend to run Catholic Spain down but they were The Empire for a century or two, the first massive world spanning empire that (like France under Louis 14th and Napoleon) attracted basically the whole of Europe in opposition. Left a liguisitic footprint as dominant as English in its own way, although culturally less shining they partook of the "western" civilisation springing from Italy and France.


...French - not seeing it at all, sorry...

English as a language is a small geman skeleton inside a fat french body. "The Common Law" and Parliament were transplanted from Normandy by Frenchified vikings. Elite culture from the crusades to the 20th century is dominated by France, aided by others at times (mostly Northern Italian states). Military, scientific and political thought was dominated from or answering to Paris for centuries. I'd say that like China their conquest-cultural contribution ratio is very low, and they still mananged a colonial Empire second only to Britain in the 19th century.


...Americans...

Look the 13 colonies certainly spread over a wide area so thats a kind of conquest but the mismatch of tech levels doesn't suggest a succesful military entity, just a cultural tragedy for the Native Americans. My feeling is the USA lacks a killer instinct for conquest in the sense of diominating provinces but they certainly have a successful material culture and its relatively democratic/popular: its not really a culture for elites like French or Persian or Chinese (although they also have popular elements, they are not a patch on Hollyood/Motown/Detroit).

My guess is the USA sill takes a hge wad of its elite culture from France and Italy via England (French style wines in California, trips to Europe, classical music a la Paris/Vienna, snooty visual arts culutre a la Paris, snooty haute couture a la Milan etc). This is the stuff we judge Egyopt/Rome/Greece on in our Museums.

USA does have a large "material/popular culture footprint" but its military conquest side is unimpressive (as I say because I doubt they are an aggressive militray culture at heart) and we'll see about the longevity: they really only came to the fore in 1945.

[Centurion1]

we are a more militaristic nation than many others. you go to the south you see some boys ready to die for their country, god bless em.

California wine is california wine thats why it is distinguished but yes brands follow french wine culture because there has never been any other culture even attempted.

english draws most of its roots from germanic tribes and bastardized latin.

the us doesnt need colonies like the english did we are large and have all the resources we needed.

elite culture in america is not derived upon european trends. we dominate music, literature, etc. where do your musicians come to be published some to the uk but most to the us, we have the most used publishing houses in the world. America simply is modern popular culture and has been since the 1950's.

as for your elitist cultures,

Persians- dead and gone
French- relegated to france and the surronding area for the most part (some former colonies)
Chinese- even the chinese are becoming more western and their neighbors were still decidely different cultures from china.

English/American culture dominates the world.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

'Savages', 'inept slackers', a certain casualness when discussing mass rape and conquests, of peoples still around or tragically disappeared.


I must ask you fine gentlemen for a little more dignified choice of language.

Agreed.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

as for your elitist cultures,

Persians- dead and gone
French- relegated to france and the surronding area for the most part (some former colonies)
Chinese- even the chinese are becoming more western and their neighbors were still decidely different cultures from china.
[/QUOTE]

Elitist? Well what about Rome? They're also long dead. Same with the Greek empire and the Egyptian Pharoahs. Civilization began wit 'elite' cultures like the Persians. The Persians had a mighty empire with lasting significance. Iranians still call themselves Persian.

The French had more land that England and mantained it's colonies for a long time. Power limited to France itself? What about Libya? French Angola? French Indo-China? The owned all that land in America before they gave it to us. They had control of Canada until the French and Indian war was over. They sent troops to the rebellious colonials to help them establish our country of Amercia. How is France undeserving of the title of Empire?

And China is a very ancient powerful civilization. They have invented many things we use everyday. The wheelbarrow came from China. And so did paper money!

You have a right to your opinion of course. But what right do you have to say that these nations weren't significant empires? It's fine to say this empire wasn't as much as one as this one, or etc, but to deny that the nation, was, is, or had ever been an empire is just nonsense. Don't make claims you can't defend. : /

[The Lurker Below]

English tend to run Catholic Spain down but they were The Empire for a century or two, the first massive world spanning empire that (like France under Louis 14th and Napoleon) attracted basically the whole of Europe in opposition. Left a liguisitic footprint as dominant as English in its own way, although culturally less shining they partook of the "western" civilisation springing from Italy and France.



English as a language is a small geman skeleton inside a fat french body. "The Common Law" and Parliament were transplanted from Normandy by Frenchified vikings. Elite culture from the crusades to the 20th century is dominated by France, aided by others at times (mostly Northern Italian states). Military, scientific and political thought was dominated from or answering to Paris for centuries. I'd say that like China their conquest-cultural contribution ratio is very low, and they still mananged a colonial Empire second only to Britain in the 19th century.



Look the 13 colonies certainly spread over a wide area so thats a kind of conquest but the mismatch of tech levels doesn't suggest a succesful military entity, just a cultural tragedy for the Native Americans. My feeling is the USA lacks a killer instinct for conquest in the sense of diominating provinces but they certainly have a successful material culture and its relatively democratic/popular: its not really a culture for elites like French or Persian or Chinese (although they also have popular elements, they are not a patch on Hollyood/Motown/Detroit).

My guess is the USA sill takes a hge wad of its elite culture from France and Italy via England (French style wines in California, trips to Europe, classical music a la Paris/Vienna, snooty visual arts culutre a la Paris, snooty haute couture a la Milan etc). This is the stuff we judge Egyopt/Rome/Greece on in our Museums.

USA does have a large "material/popular culture footprint" but its military conquest side is unimpressive (as I say because I doubt they are an aggressive militray culture at heart) and we'll see about the longevity: they really only came to the fore in 1945.

I was agreeing with you re: the Spanish, it's just that much of my knowledge of them is simply part of the background to a course on the Tudors. Tudor England was not kind to the Spanish people in general, even if they were more than a little envious of the Hapsburgs and all their wealth.

France: the biggest plum of all never really did control a significant empire, it was the empire every other monarch wanted to control. Heck, in a thread not that long ago there were people here describing how the nation itself didn't coalesce until the Republic. When the Norman Vikings invaded England, was their culture really all that different from the Saxons they invaded? It's said that English barrows a little bit from many languages. No, English took other languages out to the back alley and mugged them. There might be something to be said for French domination of elite western culture if you didn't end up where you did on the Americans.

Americans: they can't be a great empire because they don't have impressive military conquest? huh. When did the French armies convert 1/3 of a continent to becoming part of the French nation. For that matter, and I hesitate to bring in the Chinese because I also agree they are/were a great empire, when did the Chines armies EVER leave SE Asia to conquer nations?

No, the American nation hasn't had an impressive military conquest, mostly as a side effect for what you first said: their heart isn't in it. Despite the fact that the Americans used a combination of top notch diplomacy (Russia, Britian, France, Spain all had claims in North America), dirty politics along with brutal military tactics (aboriginal Americans), they did remove nations from great tracts of land. When half of Mexico was signed over to the U.S. it was a modern army that was soundly beaten to create that result.

While you may not see much "heart" in the Americans desire to conquer, the truth is the nations Congress has been in declared war more years than it has been in peace. For certain the Americans have not been as brutal in their conquests as the recently popularly discussed Mongols, but I sure don't know anybody living around these parts that are the least bit proud of what our predecessors did to the aboriginal Americans. The Americans history of conquest was very shortlived, started well after anybody else on the list, and thankfully long over.

America goes to Black, French turns Red, Spanish I was all for Green to start.

[Cyclops]

we are a more militaristic nation than many others.....

I see a strong isolationist tendency, and a really mature restraint post WW2 when sticking in massive control a la Soviets would've been a strong temptation.

I think the USA has an innate dislike of direct rule of others, so even if its desirable its hard to swing it (unlike say Napoleon who sort of had to conquer to stay in power)..

Is the "Empire of the 13 colonies" actually receding on the continental USA? I mean with the burgeoning latino culture?


...
as for your elitist cultures,

Persians- dead and gone
French- relegated to france and the surronding area for the most part (some former colonies)
Chinese- even the chinese are becoming more western and their neighbors were still decidely different cultures from china...

Persian: alive and well, probably a close second to English in India, dominant elite culture from central Asia through to Turkey. Omar Khayyam has even made it into English.

French: English culture is many ways merely an annexe to French. Is this even debated in the USA? Western culture is a generous way of saying the French with English/Spanish/Italian attached.

Chinese: definitely taken a blow from their encounter with "Western culture" and like the encounter with Buddhism they seem to have digested the lesson and are making it their own. Dominant culture from Korea to SE Asia (although Western, especially US, popular culture is ahead in Japan atm). Master Kung, Master Lao and Master Sun are household names in Australia, I guess the USA and Europe: are Jesus Aristotle or Plato even heard of in China? Maybe Jesus.


...

English/American culture dominates the world.

Yes they (we?) dominate the available cultural horizon the way Rome did in its day, albeit for a much shorter time so far. France did likewise and for longer (smaller world then) as did Islam and the Greeks. Will they (we) still be the dominant culture when our kids are old? I suspect in Australia English will be codiominant with Chinese but I can't guess what the USA will be like.

[Veho Nex]

America, 120 years and running, what happens to them happens to all. The power to destroy the world in a blink of an eye. The ability to bring all nations together in one united effort and willing to back it with its own military power. We are reaching an age of corruption though, and if we can find our way through it then we will maintain that power.

[CiviC]

this is a neat idea. i like the color coding. a few notes

Spanish - first impression I can't picture them as a great empire as their contemporary competition saw them as a bunch of inept slackers. but in retrospect maybe that makes their great success that much more impressive.



I think you are influenced by "The Black Legend" (La Leyenda Negra).



French - not seeing it at all, sorry


If you refer to the colonial Empire, indeed, the French weren't so great "colonisers", though they had the largest population, they were the most reluctant to leave home country. We could say though they had the second best colonial Empire in the last 200 years.
But if we refer to The First French Empire (Napoleon I), it was a great Empire, very short lived indeed, but one of the most influencial entities in positive terms for Europe in the last 200 years. It was one of the largest and most powerfull Empires Europe knew in modern ages, alongside with The Third Reich, but in terms of quality it was opposite to Nazi Germany, being a "good" Empire, very progressive and a turning point in Europe's history, forcing the break from the feudal and absolutist past and opening a new age for a set of whole new advanced ideas. The French First Empire can be compared with the Empire of Alexander the Great, also a very large, short lived Empire, but significant by his ulterior influence on world's history and civilisation.

P.S. I voted Romans as they are the very definition of civilisation.

[Audacia]

Concerning the United States of America, we, (and not trying to sound like an arrogant nationalist here) have the strongest military in the world, able to deploy at any given moment in time, mobilize and strike whenever and wherever we would like. The U.S. boasts the second largest military in the world (just behind China), and an enormous amount of reserves to back up those if necessary on active duty. American military technology exceeds almost every other nation, yet America does not simply conquer the known world just because our government feels like it.

I would go as far to say, and not to offend anyone here, that the United States “military” could defeat any of those in the modern world. But to suggest the U.S. conquering various parts of the world is simply an outrageous proposition, and in a world of instant communication and considering complex diplomatic agreements, most likely impossible in this day and age.

The U.S. goes to war to defend American interests, and in many ways, democracy as a whole. We are the Police of the World, and the United States military responds to more global conflicts and engagements that threaten global security than any other nation. We do not go to war in order to loot and pillage or whatever simply because it is not the right thing to do. I would argue we shall stand as a nation that fought for good, and although the US has made many mistakes and wrong decisions, treated people badly and oppressed others, this country fights for the freedom of others many more times than it fights for itself. I mean seriously, look at this last century, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and yes, even Iraq and Afghanistan, were fought in order to help those oppressed by the forces of Communism, Dictatorships, tyranny, oppression, and all together evil.

Now after all this, I still voted Roman Empire lol, because I do not really consider the US as an empire, but more as a nation that stands as a symbol for others to look up to, not to conquer the known world.

[CiviC]

American military technology exceeds almost every other nation, yet America does not simply conquer the known world just because our government feels like it.



US is strong because her allies, too. If US would start to act like an Empire and conquer and annex various territories, most allies (starting with Europe) would desert her. Despite her superior technology, U.S. can't conquer the world by herself because the power of the rest of the world would overwhelm her. U.S would have problems to defeat Russia+Europe+China+Japan in a conventional war, but also US would have big problems to mantain occupation and counter insurgencies and guerillas. Not to consider the effects on US economy of a global war. Americans can strike anywhere on the globe because friendly countries who offer support but US alone would have a hard time to mantain her supremacy. Already in the post Cold War multipolar world US is no longer regarded as the sole uncontested superpower, but many challangers emerge.

I will not comment on the rest of hyper patriotic discourse.:smartass:

[ReluctantSamurai]

My vote goes to an empire not on the list: the Ancient Egyptian Dynasties, in particular, the Old Kingdom or Kingdom of the Pyramids.

From them we get some of the world's earliest literature, advanced mathematics (which the Greeks borrowed heavily from), early forms of practical medicine, technology such as the ramp, the lever, rope trusses, paper, and of course.......the Pyramids and all they entail (mathematics, astronomy, and engineering).

[Tabuu]

My vote goes to an empire not on the list: the Ancient Egyptian Dynasties, in particular, the Old Kingdom or Kingdom of the Pyramids.

From them we get some of the world's earliest literature, advanced mathematics (which the Greeks borrowed heavily from), early forms of practical medicine, technology such as the ramp, the lever, rope trusses, paper, and of course.......the Pyramids and all they entail (mathematics, astronomy, and engineering).

Apologizes for the absence of Egypt, but i do feel this vote is coming to a close. If you want it to end, just sya the word. :clown:

[Megas Methuselah]

Now after all this, I still voted Roman Empire lol, because I do not really consider the US as an empire, but more as a nation that stands as a symbol for others to look up to, not to conquer the known world.

Hate to burst your nationalistic bubble, but:

1) The USA is not a nation
and
2) It's not exactly the best model to look up to, mane. Seriously, how could you even state such a thing? I don't mean to sound too insulting or personal, but wow.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

Hate to burst your nationalistic bubble, but:

1) The USA is not a nation
and
2) It's not exactly the best model to look up to, mane. Seriously, how could you even state such a thing? I don't mean to sound too insulting or personal, but wow.

Why wouldn't you call the USA a nation? Just curious.

Lol. He says some pretty ironic things. After all, didn't Rome see itself as a model for the world? A model to look up to and emulate? America is the modern Roman Empire. We just don't kill people in stadiums.

I'm from the USA. But I think were far from worthy of being anyone's role model. We're not perfect, we've made a lot of mistakes, and without aknowleging most of them or correcting them, but there are some things good about it. We had some noble ideas in it's founding. All men should be equal, and I hope we're still trying to honor that. I know I do.

[Skullheadhq]

The US is a rolemodel for who? Canada?

[Louis VI the Fat]

The US is a rolemodel for who?For me. :smitten:

[Vladimir]

For me. :smitten:

:unitedstates: /= :us-texas:

[Centurion1]

megas....... so bitter.

[Vladimir]

megas....... so bitter.

http://www.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hl=en&source=imghp&biw=1680&bih=843&q=emo+mohawk&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

He's in there; somewhere.

[ReluctantSamurai]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States


Legal immigration to the U.S. increased from 250,000 in the 1930s, 2.5 million in the 1950s, 4.5 million in the 1970s, and 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s.[51] Since 2000, legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 per year, of whom about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States now are at their highest level ever at over 37,000,000 legal immigrants. Illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year with a net of at least 700,000 illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already there.[52] (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates [53]) Immigration led to a 57.4% increase in foreign born population from 1990 to 2000.[54]

Seems quite a few folks don't share in the anti-American schpeel.................

[Louis VI the Fat]

Let's try to keep the thread on subject.


One can share one's opinion about America, or other currently existing 'Empires', for a comparion with Empires throughout history, to argue which one you think is 'the best'. For a full political exploration of current 'Empires', the Backroom is the designated arena.

[Meneldil]

Why wouldn't you call the USA a nation? Just curious.


From an european point of view, the US is more like a bunch of different people living in the same geographical area and trying to make profit. The same applies to Canada as well. Different communities living in different neighbourhoods and avoiding contact with eachothers as much as possible.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Apologizes for the absence of Egypt

No apologies necessary:bow: The Old Egyptian Dynasties are often overlooked for a lot of reasons, one of which, I believe, is that they are not touched upon much in history classes. I was fortunate enough to have a grade school teacher who did, and my imagination was always fired by trying to imagine what it was like during all those thousands of years (ca. 3100 BC to ca. 340 BC).

[Incongruous]

Does the "French Empire" option imply the Napoleonic Empire?

[Ibrahim]

Does the "French Empire" option imply the Napoleonic Empire?

they spoke French, didn't they? :clown: