Best Empire in History? (Corrected)

[Tabuu]

Sorry about the last post.

[TinCow]

Define "best"

[Ibn-Khaldun]

There is/was American Empire?

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.

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. )


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!

[Tabuu]

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

[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."

[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"

[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

[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?