When in history...

[Gazius]

When in history did the first real empires start appearing, in the Indo-european region. I think that's right. From Britain to North Africa and from Gades to the further reaches of eastern India. If one wanted a RTS modelling the rise from the city states to the fullest might of the Roman Empire, how far back could you go? 1200 BC? And I mean, potential for empire, not just, there's pharoahs in Egypt, a Egyptian empire, not in history, but in the furthest stretch of the imagination, could have waged war with another empire, perhaps the spartan empire, or Athenian, or a earlier greek empire? What about in Africa, Gaul, and Iberia? Was there enough people in these regions to really make an empire?

I guess, to really boil it down, if someone were to make a mod on a miniscale, say the Iberian peninsula, and the hypothetical rise of a single nation there, when could it happen? Or are there truly massive barriers in history that prevented this from happening?

[Bootsiuv]

Historical empires
Early empires
Elamite Empire (c. 2700 BC - 539 BC)
Akkadian Empire (c. 2350 BC - 2150 BC)
Ur III Empire (c. 2100 BC - 2000 BC)
Babylonian Empire (c. 1900 BC - 1600 BC)
Egyptian Empire (1550 BC - 1070 BC)
Hittite Empire (c. 1460 BC - 1180 BC)
Phoenicia Empire (1200BC-800BC)
Israelite Empire (1050 BC - 920 BC)
Assyrian Empire (c. 900 BC - 612 BC)
Carthaginian Empire (c. 814 BC - 146 BC)
Achaemenid Empire (Persian Empire, c. 550 BC - 330 BC)
Magadhan Empire (500 BC - 300/139 BC?)
Macedonian Empire (c. 338 BC - 309 BC)
Mauryan Empire (321 BC - 185 BC)
Seleucid Empire (323 BC - 60 BC)
Chinese Empire (221 BC - AD 1912) (Various inter-Imperial periods excluded)
Parthian Empire (c. 200 BC – AD 224)
Roman Empire (241 BC - AD 476)
First millennium AD
Sassanian Empire (224 - 651)
Palmyrene Empire (260 – 272)
Teotihuacano Empire (300 BC - 600/700)
Gupta Empire (320 - 550)
Tiahuanaco Empire (500-1000)
Aksumite Empire (ca. 200 - 1974; becomes Zagwe dynasty, then Solomonic dynasty of Ethiopia)
Byzantine Empire (323* - 1453) (*actual date disputed)
Frankish Empire (c. 509 – 843)
Srivijaya Empire (c. 300 - 1300s)
Tibetan Empire (c. 600s – 1000s)
Arab Empire (c. 630 - 1258)
Bulgarian Empire (681 - 1018; 1185 - 1396)
Chalukya Empire (c. 543 - c. 1189)
Rashtrakuta Empire (735 – 982)
Chola Empire (800s - 1200s)
Venetian Empire (800s - 1797)
Khmer Empire (802 - 1462)
Great Moravian Empire (833 - 900s)
Norman Empire (911 - 1100s)
Ghana Empire (c. 900 - 1240)
Tu'i Tonga Empire (950 – 1875?)
Ghaznavid Empire (963 - 1187)
Baekjae Empire
Goguryeo Empire (37 BCE - 668)
Balhae Empire (698 - 926)
Vietnamese Empire (938? - 1945)
Early second millennium AD
Hoysala Empire (1026 – 1343)
Seljuk Empire (c. 1037 - 1194)
Kongo Empire (c. 1100 - c. 1884)
Latin Empire (1204 – 1261)
Mongol Empire (1206 - 1502)
Majapahit Empire (1293 - c. 1500)
Mali Empire (1235 - 1645)
Serbian Empire (1345 - 1371)
Vijayanagara Empire (c. 1336 - 1650)
Siam Empire (1350 – c. 1909)
Aztec Empire (1375 - 1521)
Golden Horde (1378 - 1502)
Songhai Empire (1400s - 1500s)
Timurid Empire (1401 - 1505)
Incan Empire (1438 - 1533)
Early to middle second millennium AD
Danish colonial empire (1200s - 1953)
Hungarian Empire (1000 - 1918)
Ottoman Empire (1281 - 1923)
Portuguese Empire (1415 - 1999)
Spanish Empire (1492 - present) [8]
Late second millennium AD
British Empire (1607 - present)[9]
Safavid Empire (1502-1722)
Mughal Empire (1526 - 1857)
Swedish Empire (1561 - 1878)
French colonial empires (c. 1605 - present)[10]
French Empire (1804–1814 or 1815, 1852–1870)
Dutch Empire (1620 - present)[11]
Maratha Empire (1674 - 1761)
Russian Empire (1721 - 1917)
Zulu Empire (1837 - 1897)
Austrian Empire (1804 - 1867)
Mexican Empire (1822 - 1823, 1864 - 1867)
Brazilian Empire (1822 - 1889)
Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867 - 1918)
German Empire (1871 - 1918)
German colonial empire (1884 - 1918)
Japanese Empire (1871 - 1945)
Italian Empire (1885 - 1943)
Korean Empire (1897 - 1910)
20th century AD
Belgian Empire (1901 – 1962)
Soviet Union (1917/1922 – 1991)
Nazi Germany (1933 – 1945)
Central African Empire (1977 – 1979)
21st century empires
American empire (1898 – present) {Status disputed}[12]
Eurosphere (1995 – present)[13]
Source: Wikipedia, "Empires"

Does that help? You asked what the earliest empires were, that's every empire in history, courtesy of Wikipedia.

[Cash Staks]

Well done. That's quite a few empires.

I recall an early empire in India (I think it was India but I'm not quite certain), that one of my history professors discussed. Keep in mind I'm an Accountancy major. This one predated many empires apparently. I do remember the professor saying that archeologists found it astonishing that cities with this sort of structure were found so early in history. It suggested the use of irrigation. In any case, I can't remember the date of this empire nor the location so this is of no use I guess. I do know that it predated many of the typical empires that people know of and it was relatively short lived. Or I could just be completely wrong

[blitzkrieg80]

what about the Minoans and the Myceneans for that matter?

The Huns and Khazars formed something of an empire in the usual advanced notion of khan and khaganate along the steppe.

the Gothic title Reiks (borrowed from Celtic rix) very much implies an advanced concept of kingship and overlordship of multiple peoples and sub-rulers on par with empire, such as that under Ermanarik.

Come to think of it now... what exactly is the criterion for "empire" for this thread? It surely isn't the title Imperator or "General" and it also isn't the idea of Principate and status as "First Citizen." Many of those listed, such as the Normans probably shouldn't qualify. A successful kingship which stretchs far and encompasses different peoples is still a kingship... there is an important distinction between regules and rex... thus, concept of government and authority of the "emperor" over his sub-kings becomes an important determination. The language of the titles used by those empires become more important than our English translation... Austria (Osterreich) and France (Frankreich) are still called "Empires" in the Modern German names for those countries, while Russia is not, and if anything these days, Russia is still more of an empire than either of those. the Persian shāhanshāh "king of kings" might be the first true emperor in that the title actually meant more than the title of those before... it is not enough to simply have territory and power, language and perception must also recognize the uniqueness of that position in contrast of those under it

[Thaatu]

Empire is a pretty loose term. I guess it has something to do with subjucating other nations with force. Even the "trading empire" of the Canaanites must have used military power to clear a spot for their colonies, but sometimes not.

[artavazd]

I think empire would be the control of area territory outside of ones ethnic boundries. If its withing the ethnic boundries than I consider it a kingdom.

[Comemnus]

Not to re-ingnite an argument but the US is kind of being imperialish right now. Generally speaking the term empire just describes the most powerful country in existence, at any given time; which is why there is almost always an empire somewhere. The reason empire is considered a negative thing is because you usually have to be rather... violent... to get to the top of the pile.


just fyi
<---- American

[NeoSpartan]

Not to re-ingnite an argument but the US is kind of being imperialish right now. Generally speaking the term empire just describes the most powerful country in existence, at any given time; which is why there is almost always an empire somewhere. The reason empire is considered a negative thing is because you usually have to be rather... violent... to get to the top of the pile.


just fyi
<---- American

not to re-ignite??? u guys are funny.

[blitzkrieg80]

imperialism has nothing to do with the "empire" state, despite word origin. In fact, all of the so-called "empires" we've discussed except maybe 2 are in reality imperialistic and not actual "empire." so, maybe the thread creator can enlighten us as to which they were referring to? I see no reason to continue discussion if we're just going to rehash the same overdone drama bs concering imperialism... its the most overdone topic, idea, theme, thing EVER... ever see Star Wars?

if you guys don't want to have an actual discussion we can consider this thread closed and a bad idea to begin with

nobody should be mentioning the US, if a real discussion is to take place... we're talking about ANCIENT empires.

[bovi]

I was hoping it would be left at that. Oh well.

[Bootsiuv]

imperialism has nothing to do with the "empire" state, despite word origin. In fact, all of the so-called "empires" we've discussed except maybe 2 are in reality imperialistic and not actual "empire." so, maybe the thread creator can enlighten us as to which they were referring to? I see no reason to continue discussion if we're just going to rehash the same overdone drama bs concering imperialism... its the most overdone topic, idea, theme, thing EVER... ever see Star Wars?

if you guys don't want to have an actual discussion we can consider this thread closed and a bad idea to begin with

nobody should be mentioning the US, if a real discussion is to take place... we're talking about ANCIENT empires.

Maybe I'm a little defensive (months in the political mudpit at TWC will do that to an American), and I do apologize to Bovi and other europeans who were offended by my post, although I really didn't mean ALL europeans.

I"m just sick of the stereotypes that I ALWAYS here. It seems the world has already judged me, and it doesn't even know me.

Please, don't let my minor quibble ruin your discussions.

I'll try to be less defensive in the future, and remember this isn't the political mudpit.

Sorry guys.

Well, on with the discussion....

[blitzkrieg80]

i think you guys are on to something... a tax system is a key difference between petty kingship and more advanced "empires"- for instance, i believe the satrapy system in Persia was specifically set up for administrative purposes which is most often just a way to get resources and wealth rather than any altruistic purpose for the people or even merely peace in the area.. i am not so well learned on satraps, does anyone want to add on that?

i disregard the "law" and "army" elements not because they are not good ideas (they are) but because it is widely accepted that ANY state needs those elements to exist, and kingships / despots certainly have them as well as tribal organizations, even if to a lesser degree. they are also both very vague terms- i consider Trial by Combat to be very just law and the non-dark Dark Ages is characterized in much of Europe by Germanic and Celtic tribal laws, which were respected by each tribe and considered legitimate

ps- good quote, Antonius- i love that one... right up there with Franklin's "death and taxes"

[Conradus]

Come to think of it, where's the Holy Roman Empire? And that of Charlemagne?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

"The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."
-Voltaire

[Bovarius]

Come to think of it, where's the Holy Roman Empire? And that of Charlemagne?

To have a empire, you need 3 things: one or more Laws, an Army and the possibility to raise Taxes, The Holy Roman Empire had non of those 3

[Watchman]

"Empire" is pretty much a relationship anyway - one of power, to be more specific. The word only really has real meaning in the context of multiple actors; the ones with sufficient clout, influence, standing etc. are "empires". You could say that whoever is regarded as a big shot and someone to pay close attention to by a sufficient (rather arbitrary) portion of the communities and other political actors of its relevant time and place qualifies. Eg. the Genoan and Venetian mercantile empires (which actually kinda remind you of Carthage at its heyday), Sweden in its Great Power period (which incidentally ended at Poltava in 1712)... move to a point of time when they're not that powerful and influential, and they're just another bunch of tossers. Kinda like how Rome only starts counting as an empire when it first becomes a major player in its reference area, or Byzantium was an Empire in name only (literally enough) in the period just before the Ottomans mopped up the last vestiges.

This isn't the same thing as the existence of a civilization, community etc. as a distinct entity, except of course it's sort of hard to be an empire if you don't exist anymore - but per definition any such actor that disappears in such a fashion has to have lost the imperial status at somepoint beforehand, anyway. Unsurprisingly most such entities were in existence far longer than they could be counted as empires; eg. Babylon was an empire on at least two occasions, but the city itself existed for a far longer period without being powerful and influential enough to make the cut.

And of course calling yourself an Empire in some permutation doesn't make you an empire, anymore than calling your state People's Democratic Republic makes it a democracy. The HRE is a sort of good case in point. The Hansa merchant cities and the Teutonic Order's Ordensstaat were most of the time by far closer to that status (albeit only in the Baltic, obviously) than that nigh-unmanageable mess.

[Cyclops]

"The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."
-Voltaire

To have a empire, you need 3 things: one or more Laws, an Army and the possibility to raise Taxes, The Holy Roman Empire had non of those 3

Voltaire was reffering to the entity as it existed in the 18th century. Under Otto the Great, or Charlemagne, the organisation had a different character. Quite imperial you might say.

What, exactly, is my definition of empire? I've never said. My contribution to this discussion was to say that there's more to human history than empires. Or, to be precise, questioning the attitude of some here who seem to think so.

You're onto something. Self described empires look for images of themselves in the past, as nobles look for their ancestors (real or imagined), nationalists loom for their volk and democrats look for "freedom".

"Empire" is pretty much a relationship anyway - one of power, to be more specific...

Kudos.

Empire is related to the latin term Imperator, one who conquers. I'd say an Empire is that which is conquered, as opposed to that which is truly equal or otherwise associated.

I'd guess Empires share a set of traits from this pool: a ruling class or sept (eg Roman Senators, or an Imperial family, or a defined group like Athenian citizens), a metropolis or priveliged homeland and provinces who answered and sent tribute to the metropolis.

My guess is the Assyrians represent perhaps the first geniune empire in that they had a ruling class of Assyrian nobles with a monarch from a designated lineage who imposed rule on tributary regions in a very fierce and direct way. I believe they redefined international relations in Mesopotamia and beyond and opened the flloodgates on Empire building with tactics like massive population relocation and economic integration focussed ont the centre.

Perhaps Egypt was formed as an Empire from 2 kingdoms, but became an integrated state with a discrete homogenous territory. Their power relationships to their neighbours feel more like "sphere of influence" than "metroplolis-province" to the small extent of my knowledge.

By this definition Rome (and the USA) are Empire-states in transition, as conquered territorys become provionces but eventually participate in the metrolpolitan privileges (citizenship, sending representatives to the centre).

The USA acquired many states by conquest, but made them into states fairly quickly or shed them (aside from Puerto Rico...any others?).

The EU by definition is an anti-empire as it is neither formed nor held together by war, but rather the fear of war. The Athenian Empire began as a federation but was conquered from within by Athens.

China turned a Han Empire into a Han dominated state, but treated neighbours as provinces even when they were independent. Oh well, the walked like an Empire, and talked like an Empire...

[blitzkrieg80]

Wow. You guys are deep. Imperator comes from General? How insightful... I guess that's why Augustus was called General citizen and provinces are called Empiralities... oh wait, no they aren't. seems you guys should study language a little closer. The relationship between powerful and influencial states and smaller states is pathetically simple and hardly related to the overgeneralization involved on this thread... Why not ask ourselves, "which empire would you be"? Let's mention volk while we're at it and act high and mighty because we know the most reoccuring frame in all history, which is quite unrelated.

Know what's funny to me? You guys have NO IDEA about the difference between Regules and Rex, otherwise you wouldn't call every single kingdom that's ever existed an "empire" - Mesopotamian empire, my bullock.

[Tiberius Nero]

Empire is related to the latin term Imperator, one who conquers. I'd say an Empire is that which is conquered, as opposed to that which is truly equal or otherwise associated.

Just to nitpick here, Imperator is "one who commands" and is a honorary title for a general awarded almost spontaneously by his troops after a victory on the battlefield. It doesn't even mean "emperor" as we use the word today. The Roman emperor's official title was "president of the senate" (princeps senatus), which was a honorary rank already existent in the Republic.

Linguistics won't get you anywhere on this, nor will anything else because the term "empire" is ill defined; at best it describes a relation of power as Watchman said, but that leads to "empire" meaning nothing in absolute terms, it could just as well be called "hegemony" or anything. Putting the "Athenian Empire" next to the "Roman Empire" on the list, for example, shows that when one speaks of empire it doesn't describe a power in absolute terms (the disparity is obvious). In that way you can find an "empire" under any rock you lift, so I don't know what use the term is. Perhaps it is my Greek linguistic background, but when in Greek we refer to a state entity as "autokratoria (=empire)" we generally mean it's humongous (British empire, Roman empire, Ottoman empire e.g.) in terms of military power, expanse of land and multitude of nations it rules over; nobody would call in Greek the Athenian hegemony an "autokratoria" for example, and the modern cavalier use of "empire" in English leaves me somewhat perplexed.