# Which was the greatest ancient empire?



## Eradius Lore

which in your opinion was the greatest empire (real empire not the preditor empire) and why you thought so.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

no doubt there will be many to champion the cause of Rome, etc but my personal 'favourite' empire has to be the first Han dynasty of China - circa 200 B.C. Main achievements, creation of a writing system, discovery of porcelain and a credible system of government with a set code of laws. I have a soft spot for the British Empire too obviously. Guilty of 'taking over' half the world and exploiting them as people will no doubt point out, it was also briefly, a centre for innovation which led to many of the discoveries in medicine etc which we still have today.

btw I'm assuming the term empire is just a generic term for a conglomerate of 2 or more different kingdoms, not merely those run by a Emperor.


----------



## Eradius Lore

I love the fact that we the British with this now dingy little country at one point controlled a large part of the world when in those days America was just a colony and Canada too and we also had an unbeatable army of disciplined and drilled soldiers


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

hardly 'unbeatable" but yes, the mighty have fallen and landed hard - America, take note! 
You reap what you sow

plus, we're far from alone in this. Egypt, Mongolia, Macedonia and, much more recently, Germany prior to World War 1 had a much larger size than currently.


----------



## Tsujigiri

I will second the Han Dynasty.


----------



## Eradius Lore

Don’t get me wrong I love the British Empire but I have to say that the Chinese and Japanese empires where indeed the most advanced of there time.    (200b.c-1700a.d) Or something around that period of history.


----------



## Leto

I have to stay true to my ancestors and state the Roman Empire, although most empires around the ancient world (that's BC for you) had their pros and cons.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Roman Empire, without fail - but that's simply because as a certified Romanophile I'm biased. 

Ghenghis Khan seems under-rated, though - shame I missed the progran on TV before. 

As for the Han dynasty - interesting - thought it may have been Qin that was favoured.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

The Macedonian Empire.  Though it achieved nothing, created nothing and lasted for no time what so ever.


----------



## Stalker

Won't be original.

M. Aurelius' Roman Empire of 2 cent. AD, Hun's China and Chandragupta's (Maurya) Indian Empire - cannot distinguish any, ll were great and all fell because of being Empires.


----------



## kaneda

Lacedaemonian said:
			
		

> The Macedonian Empire. Though it achieved nothing, created nothing and lasted for no time what so ever.


----------



## evanescentdream

There are two empires I would place here: Macedonia and Egypt. 

Of course, Macedonia was a blip on the Greek timescale. Its rise to power was shortlived. But it is amazing to think that in his thirty-some short years Alexander the Great expanded his small corner of Greece across the map, conquering even the mighty Persian empire. It is said that Caesar, in his forties, came across a statue of Alexander and felt immeasurably jealous that he had not accomplished the same in the same time.

Egypt has always been a favorite of mine. No other culture could entrance me so. A kingdom that went from a branching polytheistic religion to the worship of a single Sun god and then back to the old ways? Amazing. Plus, one cannot forget the great pharoahs such as Tutankhamen (who is given more attention than merited, but is still fascinating); Amenhotep IV, who introduced into the ancient world a true system of monotheism (Israel did not invent it, for it was itself polytheistic for many years before the chief god, Yaweh, overruled the others); and Ramses the Great, builder of many monuments.


----------



## WarlikeMenelaos

I agree with you that Egypt was an amazing civilisation although I absolutely hate Tutankhamen. He was nothing, the only reason we remember him is because his tomb wasn't robbed. Whoever had his tomb built obviously wanted to limit the power and memory of Tut cause his tomb was actually designed more like a Princes tomb or something more similar to one found for a woman.

Ramses II....simply amazing! Is is just me or is there a total lack of documentaries about probably the greatest Pharoah of all time? I mean I was all hyped about a documentary on Ramses the Great and it turned into a 'quest to find proof of the Biblical myth of the exodus' That really annoyed me. One of the greatest Pharoahs of all time and they turned it into a religious thing. If someone wanted to prove biblical myths they need to look for records of loads of people leaving Egypt, a huge group of people leaving would be recorded somewhere!

Anyway, Tuthmosis is also overlooked and so are many of the earlier Pharoahs. Personally I find Egypt much more interesting than Rome and only slightly more interesting than Greece (of the Mycenean age)


----------



## Brian G Turner

I'm sure there must be plenty of documentation on Ramases II - isn't he the one who inflicted a glorious "draw" on the Hittites when they moved into Palestine??

As for Tutankamun - the great thing about that Pharoah is two-fold - one, the only extant ancient pharaonic tomb; and two, his direct relationship with [size=-1]Amenhotep[/size] IV, aka Akhenaten, possibly the most enigmatic pharaoh of all.


----------



## NSMike

The Roman empire has to be my personal favorite.  Partially because they just rocked the world for a loooooong time, and partially because I took Latin in high school, which ended up being a course about the Roman empire rather than learning the language (which is a shame because I took Latin just to know something very few other people did, and I don't remember the very little we actually learned anymore).  The Romans mastered military technique, and actually used what is still considered one of the most viscious close-combat weapons - the Spanish short sword (aka the "Gladius").  They also had impressive social programs not seen before, as well as plumbing and architecture advancements, and inventing concrete.  Plus, they really knew how to build roads - not like the crap we build today.  They dug down three feet to lay the foundation for their roads, and guess what - the Appian Way is still in Rome today!  And as far as I know, no potholes.


----------



## WarlikeMenelaos

I, Brian - you're right, he is the Pharoah who drew with the Hittites at Kadesh (Qadesh) I saw that battle on a documentary called 'Descive Battles' in which famous battles throughout history were recreated using computer gaming technology. However, at least on Sky TV there isn't much about his life, his wife Nefertari or anything which I find strange considering he is the greatest Pharoah of all time.

There even seems to be a growing lack of good documentaries about the ancient world anymore, I guess the ancient world isn't a ratings winner (which is sad) I'm alright with it though since my best friend studies Classical history and Egyptology at Uni, I'm self taught and somehow manage to keep up with him in conversations (mainly cause I steal his books...'The Twelve Caesers' will be the next one I borrow)


----------



## cleasterwood

For me, if Atlantis is real, then I chose it.  But for sake of saving a debate, I'm saying Egypt.  Not only did they introduce us to the mysterious origins of the true pyramid, but they made advances in Medicine, architecture, a stable cultural society (they were the first civilization to allow women equal rights), and military advancements.  They also created underwear.    Egypt survived many a cataclysm when other cultures like the Hitties, the Mycenaean Greeks, Troy, and Babylon simply disappeared.  Their temples still stand homage to the gods of yesterday and this culture has truely stood the test of time by not fading into the history books like most ancient socities that became legends and myths.


----------



## Tikal

For me its got to be Egypt. They have so many ideas, beliefs, gods and rulers that can' get enough of it. Its amazing how much of what they created is still here today, compared to some other cultures which we know little about. 
A few years ago I went to Egypt and I remember being amazed at everyting I saw, the pyramids, abu simbel, it was brilliant. 

I do like the idea of Atlantis, the idea of a sunken city has a very mysterous appeal to it. The Mayan' are also qiute interesting with the crysatl skulls.


----------



## WarlikeMenelaos

I've recently been reading a book about Sparta and I must say that those guys were amazing! They are really interesting and full of unique traits that set them apart from everyone else. I still prefer Egypt but books on Sparta are worth looking at!


----------



## Stalker

What was their greatness? The fact that they made excellent soldiers trained from early childhood? Their aversion of democracy and preferance of a totalitarianism? Well, Licurgus laws were wise in a way but only in spartan (non-democratic) way. Spartans failed to spread their influence across the whole Greece.


----------



## WarlikeMenelaos

Their greatness comes from many aspects of their life that personally I find refreshing. The Spartans did not become a 'comfort' state but prefered a simple plain life without the need to fill their lives with trivial things. True patriotism is another very noble thing, so is viewing everyone the age of your parents as your parents. Respect for those young and old, plus we shouldn't forget how 'free' women were in Spartan society compared to being practicly prisoners in their own houses in Athens.

Their government is an interesting one, two Kings, five Ephors (overseers) who have the power to depose a King if they have enough evidence. Plus a committee of elders (retired soldiers) who while they were voted in, it was a joke of an election because only friends of the Kings or other important people would come to power.

People seem to have such a love for democracy these days that you fail to realise that Kings worked for such a long time and during the reigns of good Kings the people were happy. People actually liked being ruled and if the King was a bad one they could revolt. Despite various slave revolts in Spartan history their government was more stable than any nation has ever been.

Spartans may have failed to spread their influence across all of Greece (despite the fact they managed to beat Athens in war) but they still managed to influence the Roman and and even British Empires.


----------



## Rosemary

Would the Celts BC spreading far and wide across what we now know as Europe be classed an an ancient empire?  Their way of life has influenced almost all of the above mentioned empires in one way or another.


----------



## Stalker

WarlikeMenelaos said:
			
		

> True patriotism is another very noble thing, so is viewing everyone the age of your parents as your parents. Respect for those young and old, plus we shouldn't forget how 'free' women were in Spartan society compared to being practicly prisoners in their own houses in Athens..


True, they were patriots. They also were religious and sometimes these two qualities of theirs interefered with each other. Firstly, when religious celebrations prevented them to join Miltiades at Maraphon. It was the next day they arrived after their celebrations and they were not needed any more. The other happened when they let Leonidas go alone without any military support with only 300 guards of his own. And remember, o, Exalted King, how spartan feminine freedom resulted in war after that lying son of the gun, Alexander, or Paris, kidnapped thine Helena exposing thee as a royal cuckold! And remember, how many glorious men of Hellas died at the walls of Ilion because of that! So, is that praised freedom justified in thine eyes even thus far? 



			
				WarlikeMenelaos said:
			
		

> Despite various slave revolts in Spartan history their government was more stable than any nation has ever been..


Aha, I remember declarations of war against ilots just to teach young Laconians to kill. 


			
				WarlikeMenelaos said:
			
		

> Spartans may have failed to spread their influence across all of Greece (despite the fact they managed to beat Athens in war) but they still managed to influence the Roman and and even British Empires.


Yes, war was where spartans excelled. I will not also argue that they had certain values worth incorporation into our modern society. I even respect deeply their scorn for money... Here Spartans were better than we are now.


----------



## WarlikeMenelaos

I agree with you that in some aspects Spartans were terrible and some aspects they were great.

lol, oh and about decietful Paris whose actions doomed sacred Ilion and the mighty Trojans, breaker of horses I have not a thing to say. His abduction of fair-haired Helen wrought much devestation of the strong-grieved Acheans and the children of Priam, but we must always defer to the will of Zeus, who delights in the thunder....

sorry, I got no idea what I'm saying now! The point is that many may have died but I managed to get back home with my wife!


----------



## lazygun

Roman Empire.The greatest western world empire,still here in the Catholic/religious sense,....ruled from where?.....i forget.


----------



## evanescentdream

WarlikeMenelaos said:
			
		

> I agree with you that Egypt was an amazing civilisation although I absolutely hate Tutankhamen. He was nothing, the only reason we remember him is because his tomb wasn't robbed.


 
Sorry, I should have specified here. I am no great lover of Tutankhamen either, although I find the accounts of Howard Carter fascinating. I merely gave him credit because he is so well known, even among virtual illiterates.

You know, I think that the discovery of the pharoahs in Tunis by the French is a bigger discovery anyway.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Tutankamun was a brilliant discovery and a real key to the history of the Egyptian New Kingdom period - to denigrate Tutankamun is to denigrate one of the biggest moments in Egyptian archaeology.

Tutankamun may not have been a major figure in himself - but he was apparently the son Akhenaten, who is one of the most significant pharaoh's ever to reign in Egypt.


----------



## Stalker

Yeah, he made the first attempt to impose monoteism in Ancient world...
And he had a beautiful wife, Nefertis.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Yep - so Tutankamun was actually one of the more important links in chains of Ancient Egyptian history - how fortuitous it was that his tomb was found.


----------



## Syn

i would personally have to say, the Roman Empire.  Mainly because they had a rise and fall in history, which they counced back on, their religion is still one of the most known and practiced and more knowledge is known about it.


----------



## Salazar

I think it was the Empire from Star Wars. It was long ago and was a great success. No, only joking.  I agree with Syn, the Roman Empire would most likely be the greatest empire that earth has ever had.


----------



## garreth Jacks

Roman Empire with out single doubt


----------



## Syn

by far! for many reasons as i have previously stated


----------



## Eldo

Not doubts, it was the Greek empire.  No other civilisation that has ever existed has had as much impact on the world including the Roman's and British than the Greeks.


----------



## Blue Mythril

Wow, I can't believe I haven't posted in this thread, though it was probably because I wanted to think about it thoroughly. I'll never get around to it though if I do that   I'd probably have to go the Roman Empire, though there are definately several other contenders, especially from the Near East and Asia. I'll also add that the Romans actually aren't my favourite empire or peoples, but they're still the Empire I'll pick to argue here.  I don't count Greece in that category though, simply because it wasn't it's empire that was great, long-lasting or influential, but it's culture. What do you count as the Greek Empire? The Pelopponnesian league? The Athenian Empire and Delian League? Alexander? There was never really a solid, unified 'Greek' Empire, and especially not one that lasted more than a couple of generations. I'll also make the point that though Alexander's Empire is deemed Hellenistic, and indeed he spread Hellenism throughout the world, He was not greek, and it fell apart once he died. greece remained so important and such a big part of western society because of the long term position it held in the mediterranean and the West as the epitome of culture. Long after Athens had lost its political power and empire it remained the centre of 'culture' with the Romans looking to it as the superior culture for many years.   I argue Rome, especially against Greece, as it was not only huge and powerful (they basically re-established much [not all] of Alexander's Empire and then some), but long lasting. It was established around the 3rd or 2nd C BC (and I will argue this point against any other historian who wishes to argue a later date) and lasted until the 5thC AD in the West (and some may argue 1453 AD in the East with the sack of Constantinople)  The Romans successfully created, and sometimes not so successfully maintained, their empire for a vast stretch of time. More than that, there was no other power in the west to truly rival them, economically or politically, for a good while. Other Empires can be argued to have lasted longer, Egypt perhaps, but not in any way comparable to the power and influence of Rome.  On a side note, I'll also add that Christianity was not always the religion of the Roman Empire. It didn't become so until Constantine adopted it. The pan-mediterranean gods and goddesses dominated Roman culture and society before then.


----------



## Blue Mythril

sorry guys, i'd tried to space that post out for easier reading and emphasis on certain points, but for some reason it didn' work...


----------



## Cyril

I think Roman Empire is the best for many reasons. Unlike many other Empires, it makes a synthesis of the cultures of the ancient world and act as a limit between antiquity and modern days in the fields of warfare, policy, religion...

No other empires done that in the way the Roman Empire did.


----------



## GOLLUM

I'm a little unclear on what the term Great is supposed to mean?

However if we're defining Great in terms of the best established and most efficiently run Empire I'll go for the Romans.

For the most significant certainly on western culture I'll vote for the Greeks.


----------



## Marky Lazer

I'd go for the Greeks as well, mainly because they 'build democracy'. (If I'm correct, history never was my best course).


----------



## cornelius

GOLLUM said:
			
		

> I'm a little unclear on what the term Great is supposed to mean?
> 
> However if we're defining Great in terms of the best established and most efficiently run Empire I'll go for the Romans.
> 
> For the most significant certainly on western culture I'll vote for the Greeks.


 
same here. The greek had constant quarrels. I'd prefer the Roman empire before the dividing into East and west...


----------



## Esioul

Assyrian Empire


----------



## Blue Mythril

GOLLUM said:
			
		

> I'm a little unclear on what the term Great is supposed to mean?
> 
> However if we're defining Great in terms of the best established and most efficiently run Empire I'll go for the Romans.
> 
> For the most significant certainly on western culture I'll vote for the Greeks.


  Dammit >.< The "greeks," or the Hellenes, never really had a physical empire empire. The Athenians did briefly, the Spartans had the potential, but chose now to, Alexander started an empire but not only was he not Greek, it also didn't last.  If someone were to argue that they had a cultural empire, then perhaps I might accept that (though I'd probably prefer to think of it as a supremacy, monopoly or influence really).  I think the question was which was the greatest empire, not which was the greatest or most influential culture or civilisation. The 'Greek' 'empire' was nowhere near great. Sad as that may be to say.


----------



## GOLLUM

Blue Mythril said:
			
		

> Dammit >.< The "greeks," or the Hellenes, never really had a physical empire empire. The Athenians did briefly, the Spartans had the potential, but chose now to, Alexander started an empire but not only was he not Greek, it also didn't last. If someone were to argue that they had a cultural empire, then perhaps I might accept that (though I'd probably prefer to think of it as a supremacy, monopoly or influence really). I think the question was which was the greatest empire, not which was the greatest or most influential culture or civilisation. The 'Greek' 'empire' was nowhere near great. Sad as that may be to say.


Well in that case I go with my initial suggestion, the Romans!!....


----------



## direghost

I have to go with my favorite ancient culture, the Etruscans.  Painting in broad strokes, they had the pragmatism and cultural adaptability of the Romans coupled with the artistry and sophistican of the Hellenes.  Yup they sure were tough, until Camillus had to come along and ruin everything.


----------



## Thunderchild

Mine the byzantine Empire for their refinemant their civilaisation and their love of beards.


----------



## chrispenycate

Taking an empire as a region taken by military means, we have to consider the Mongols. In the space of a couple of generations they'd conquered Asia from the Pacific to the Mediteranian, starting as a minor nomadic tribe. Certainly, their empire didn't last quite as long as some of the others cited, but this was largely because it was too enormous to administrate with existing communication methods- how long does it take a horseman to get from Pekin to Bagdad? - and if they didn't develope much new in the way of tecnology, they stirred up cultures and allowed cross fertilisation of existing knowledge far faster than the natural diffusion.
Besides, you have to admire someone who can build a thirty foot high pyramid of human heads, using only muscle power, no machine guns or gas chambers - impressive.


----------



## kyektulu

*I am finding it hard to choose between aincent Egyptions, Incas, Mayans and Romans... I think I might not be able to choose. 
*


----------



## edott

toss up for me between Rome and the Songhai Empire.


----------



## HieroGlyph

I should have studied History instead of mechanical engineering 

This intrigues me now. Especially after the likes of Blue Mythril's reply!

With loose definitions of 'great' and 'power', size and strength and span of time, the Romans must win hands-down. The fewest number of individuals 'controlling' the greatest number of others.

As to cultural influence, religious influence, scientific advancement, border influence, single personal emperor and so on, each has a different answer.

Eight thousand years of China (imagine what that means)... Christianity brought down the Egyptians... Persians influenced all surrounding nations and empires for a great length of time. Without them, I doubt if anyone else would have had the 'drive' to advance civilization, or organization, or knowledge... All of these things give us the story of human civilization. Somethings are re-invented, some things deserve credit to one peoples or a single great mind... 

The greatest empire of all is the human brain. Nothing this Earth can offer will defeat its cunning. At least not for a very long time to come.

And my picture of the future? The geatest empire of all will have to be man as an agreeable single unit. The Earth is too small to hold so many people who fight each other. Diversity, sure. Freedom, sure. But there is no freedom without Law. And with upcoming technology, smaller more devastating bombs, and short vision, Rome will be our only testament of a 'great' empire. For we may have destroyed ourselves all too soon...

Apologies for the lecture, folks. But if we appreciate the past and wonder at Empires of old, imagine how someone might ask the same question 2000 years from now......


----------



## fallenstar

ah the glory of the Empires...I must then stay with my ancestry and state the Chinese Empire. But the only difference of my point of view is that us Chinese see all the dynasties as a continum of this Chinese Empire. There are foreigners who conquered the Hans(nationality wise speaking), but in the end all of them were assimilated by the Chinese culture. There was not a single greatest dynasty, it's not exactly comparable in our eyes. They are just one Empire, passing from the hand of one family to another. (like perhaps Lancaster to York and to Tudor)

If there must be a comparable time, then Tang dynasty seemed to be our greatest Golden Age. Size wise speaking it could have been Yuan but because technically when Mongols were in their haydays there was still a South Song dynasty, it didn't really count. By the time the Mongols established themselves in China, the rest of their empire was broken up already. However, Yuan dynasty in history is represented with brutality as well as uncivilized. Civilization was rebuilt by the Ming dynasty, but then China started to decline.

Why was the Chinese Empire greatest in all ancient empires? Its advanced civilization throughout five thousand years (finally behind the West by the last hundred years) influenced the entire Far East, created the unique system of philosophy, moral and writing. The Chinese writing is still the only developed, systematic writing with graphic representation, even when Japanese and Korean have envolved into phonetic languages, yet Chinese characters still must be employed. 

What's more, the Chinese Empire was perhaps the only empire with so little expansion and invasion history, if you don't count the Mongols when they weren't technically Chinese yet. All those countries who recognizes the Emperor's overlord ship weren't conquered to do so. The Chinese army always withdraws completely after helping one side win in those little countries in their civil wars. There was few record of active invasion, and usually when the Emperor did that, the Court and the people disapproved it on moral grounds. 

Besides, without the fasination of one day finding China, I don't know if all the explorers of the West would be so motivated and could get financial backings that easily.


----------



## HieroGlyph

Well said, Fallenstar. (I made sure to mention China after stating Roman, above.)

China has remained a Nation unto itself, though. Long lived and near always independant. And hasnt been a Nation to dominate other nations, which is the kind of empire (by unspecified definition) that folks here are talking about.

But I do agree. China has to be the greatest civilization of all time, to-date. Longevity, integrity, civility, knowledge and wisdom, art and... ( equates to culture )


HG

[Oh, maybe you'd like to start a thread claiming just such a thing, FS  ]


----------



## Allanon

for me its the brits, sorry im a true blue, you ask for the greatest empire, it depends on what you consider to be great.

great in size or great as in what they did for civilisation?

but still it would be british for me, who did have the largest of the empires.


----------



## Loki

It hast to be the Japenese Empire that actually started WW2 in 1937 with their invasion of China (not the Germans with their invasion of Poland in 1939 as we are popularly taught) although we think of Pearl harbor as their entry.  Flush with two navel victories over Russia, ingnoring their more recent land defeat by the Russian army--these fools armed with airplanes that were little more than fast flamible kites, grossly inferior small arms that were designed for civilian crowd control at best, a respectable navy (without radar,) tanks that were so lightly armored rounds from opposing tanks would simply go in through one side and out the other, high as hippies on their Bushido code, their cult of the Emperor, and their notion of their own racial superiority, swept the lethargic Europeans from their Asiaian colonies, threatened Australia, shot up the American Pacific fleet, before they were hammered into submission taking huge casualties, and often vaingloriously dying in battle to the last man (hense leaving no record of their military blunders for their own high command to learn from,) and ultimately bartering their fledgeling incursions into biological warfare to the Americans in exchange for the emperor's vindication.  We can thank them for introducing large scale fanatical suicide bombers into the lexicon of modern warfare as well.  Gotta love them for being such violent egoticentric idiots, willing to sacrifice an entire generation of their youth for vanity, and basically playing the part of the heavy in a road runner cartoon--you know, the one where he doesn't take the fall into the river bed miles below until the cloud cover thins enough for him to ctually see he's overshot the cliff again.


----------



## HieroGlyph

Allanon said:
			
		

> ...great in size or great as in what they did for civilisation?...


 
*"greatest ancient empire"*

Word is "ancient", fellow Brit


----------



## DJ_Schumi

The British Empire as non of you know is the sole empire that has managed to "peacefuly" cease but managed to leave a total chaos behind it. Except America which in my understaning shouldn't even be considered as a British Colony as now it has absolutely no resemblance is the British Isles as oposed to other colonies. What do I mean by my statement is that the Britished might have left their colonies fairly peacefuly but created a state in such that the remaining country would collapse mostly. Fortunately for the Aussies it wasn't so and I must say that they even managed to outrace the British although no one would admit so.

The Roman Empire was a very good empire in my opinion and managed to have been fairly stable for most of its time in a region that has always been unstable.

The "Macedonian" Empire as you call it is my favourite best for 2 reasons. It was short but was managed by Alexander the Great and only by him. He was Alexander the very Great actually since he managed to merge all the greek kingdoms of that time, and believe me its a very hard task to do. With all them he managed to conquer the whole Persian Empire, made the Egyptians knee infront of him and marched all the way to the borders of India. On top of that on his way he brought scolars from Greece to teach and civilise the people there. Even recently there has been news of a tribe in Afghanistan region that has blonde hair and talks a greek dialect!


----------



## Gwydion

Rome and Greece. Greatest contributions in terms of science, architecture, and orginazation of government and armies. China third, greatest techno contributers, and some very intresting philosophies. Mongols fourth, cause they introduced mobile units and armies. Japan fifth, cause they had samurai!


----------



## electricdragon

I would not really say roman empire. to me a good empire is one that makes it to the 20th century and/or one thats influence that has permantly stuck there

So No. 1 for me is probaly the Ming Empire, No. 2 Persia, No.3 Mungal Empire(cant spell) No.4 Ottoman empire(Suliem rocks!) and No 5. Egyptian Empire


----------



## Fightin gobbo

Rosemary said:
			
		

> Would the Celts BC spreading far and wide across what we now know as Europe be classed an an ancient empire? Their way of life has influenced almost all of the above mentioned empires in one way or another.


 
Hate to say it man but we wernt an empire meerly a savage and insane subculture of the germanic race

We were bloody good warriors,carpteners and black smiths tough!!

if were taling empires id go with either the persians or assyrians
persians were one of the biggest armies and were the greatest archers! and assyrians were good archers and Great at siege warfare


----------



## Curt Chiarelli

NSMike said:
			
		

> The Roman empire has to be my personal favorite. Partially because they just rocked the world for a loooooong time, and partially because I took Latin in high school, which ended up being a course about the Roman empire rather than learning the language (which is a shame because I took Latin just to know something very few other people did, and I don't remember the very little we actually learned anymore). The Romans mastered military technique, and actually used what is still considered one of the most viscious close-combat weapons - the Spanish short sword (aka the "Gladius"). They also had impressive social programs not seen before, as well as plumbing and architecture advancements, and inventing concrete. Plus, they really knew how to build roads - not like the crap we build today. They dug down three feet to lay the foundation for their roads, and guess what - the Appian Way is still in Rome today! And as far as I know, no potholes.




I could not have said it better myself! Ave Caesar!


----------



## Hawkshaw_245

I vote for Rome. I've always thought they really showed how a great empire should be built. AND how mismanagement can tear one down.

Their military conqests, their engineering feats, their road networks and trade that spanned the known world....you gotta love Rome.


----------



## Lissa

I have always had a weakness for the Egyptian empire but I don't know that I would classify it as the greatest of the ancient empires.


----------



## dustinzgirl

I have to go with Egypt. They were far advanced in society (allowing women to own property, amrry and divorce) as well as politics, religion, writing and so on. Most Christian ideas can be traced to early Egyptian, some believe that the Book of the Dead was related to the original Ten commandments. Also, the sheer size and capability of the Egyptian empire was stronger than any other. I have to go with Egypt, myself.


----------



## Spartan27

This is Spartan27....my friends that is any easy question...the Greeks.


----------



## Urien

It all depends of course on what is meant by greatest. By far the most influential of the ancient empires was the Roman. The British was the most influential of the more modern empires.


----------



## SpaceShip

Not so much an empire - more a people = the Jews.  They are a race of people that are still going strong and still make a name for themselves.


----------



## MemmoN

the Mongol empire started only 700 years ago but its my fave, the whole religious freedom,economic innovations and flawless battle tactics really impressed me. There was a descendant of Ghengis's in eastern europe still ruling in the 1950's. All other empires never conquered as much as fast and retain power for so long as the great wolf's.


----------



## Angeline

I agree with you MSMike, the Roman Empire........

More than any other civilization the Romans are famous for their constructions, aquaducts, roads, Hadrian's wall, Collesseum, Basillica's, Temples & fountains............Rome is "steeped" in history and is........one of my favorites.  The other would be the British Empire......


----------



## MemmoN

Both empires built their idols on the ruins of ancient peoples, culturally raped the indigenous of home and identity and can be directly linked to almost all the problems we face as an evolving race, as far as their progress took us physically, they spiritually set us back thousands of years. Now we face the problem of confronting ourselves as the product of their actions, until we know this we cannot attempt to understand eachother, a part from or apart of.


----------



## kilik123

if you look at China's empire as a whole, with highlights upon the Tang dynasty and the Han dynasty, I would say the Chinese empire is relatively the "greatest". 

I tip my hat to the power of the Roman empire, but there are very few things things that the Romans had that the Chinese didn't have and more. 

Also, the very fact that the entity of the Roman empire does not exist and the Chinese entity empire does to this day. Imperial China has 5,000 years of history, and the Chinese civilization has existed for even longer. Namely the Shang dynasty that has records from 12,000 B.C. 

Unlike the Roman Empire, the Chinese Empire can say that there was a point in their history when the entire wealth of the rest of the world was incomparable to the wealth of China. 

China's trade, in the Tang dynasty especially, was monumental. Silk was equivalent to gold, and was created in pre-history China. 

When the near invincible Mongol army began conquering Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and China, it took the longest to conquer China (40-50 years); however, it took a minimal amount of time to conquer Rome (but I recognize the fact that Rome was already on its decline). 

The Chinese cultural has deeper roots than any other culture, not saying this out of bias, but just out of historical evidence and historical time. The Chinese cultural has so far been impossible to bring down, despite the rule of foreigners for two times. And for each time (Mongols and Manchurians), the foreigners failed to defeat the entity of China, and many would say that they became "chinese themselves". 

China's main historical issue was that it had too many civil wars. Every time there would be even a 30 year peace, the economy of China would sky-rocket. Despite a history of internal strife, China still retains a constent identity even while rulers are being replaced, foreigners are taking over, etc. 

The Roman empire was never truly unified under one standard. Ever since the Qin empire, all the standards, namely language, has been united. 

It can be said that the Roman empire's unity was largely due to its military. In the Chinese empire, it did take many wars to unite China after another separation, China remained unified by culture. 

Yes, the Romans had domination over the Mediterranean, but their ships were incomparable to the Chinese ships (especially in the Ming dynasty). 

Where the Romans can be seen as "greater" is in their desire to conquer other lands. China for the longest period in history had the greatest potential to take over much of the world(with its population, cultural identity, nationalism, and advancement); howevever, China never really had an interest in imperialism--unlike the British and others. 

Unlike Rome, China has always "existed", and Rome can be said to have been "created" and then "disappeared."

I think a sad reality is that much of the world that is eurocentric view China as the image it had during European imperialism. At the time, China was being ruled by Manchurians who had hindered China's economy drastically by limiting trade. The Manchu empress was uneducated and beheaded any advisor that believed that China had to change ("people who were once barbarians and lesser are now able to defeat us"--one advisor). This quote is quite racist, i know, but it refers to the view of China on the Japanese--who's culture was learned from China. 

Imperialism, Japanese invasions, rise of Communism, weakeness of the Manchu government were all factors that contributed to the later humiliation of the Han people of china. 

Modern-day western views generally take from the lowest point in Chinese history. 


I know it's hard to win my argument with a bunch of fluffy comments. But here's a self-test if you doubt my opinion: 

Take any time in European history (I'm serious. Any time.)- preferably before the Imperialistic Era in Europe. You'll find that during any time in European history, the Chinese empire was alive and strong. And if you think that it is only because China had a minimal amount of competition, look at the Mongols, as I earlier stated: Mongolians who basically had no standing army but an army on horseback, easily took over eastern Europe and the Middle East, while taking the longest to take over China. This is also the reason why China experienced the greatest brutality from Mongolia, when the Mongolians went into China, they found it to be...well too populated, and literally began to lower the population by execution. I mean really, what other nation that has experienced mass genocide could still continue to hold rebellions and revolutions, and eventually become a world power again?

But anyways, I can say that I definitely know more about European history than Chinese history; but it doesn't take a lot to realize the great extent of the Chinese empire.


----------



## The Ace

What can I say ? A bunch of hilltop villages decide they've taken enough cr*p from those lousy Etruscans and decide to do something about it.

Seven hundred years later, the army deposes a ten-year-old boy who has ruled for only a year, but the legacy continues in the east for another thousand years.

The only time in history that the entire Mediterranean Basin was ruled by a single power, the first cities in half of Europe and a legal system that continues to this day.

OK, I'm biased, but soldiers in civilised armies didn't receive the level of  training, equipment, logistical support  and medical  care enjoyed by the Roman army until  WW1.


----------



## dreamhunter

The Persian empire, or course. There is no contest. All of almost 1,200 years of its pre-Islamic time from Cyrus the Great of Hakhamanish dynasty in 550 BC to Yazdegegrd III of Sassan dynasty in 630 AD. And carrying as an Islamic empire until, what, the 17th century.

Under Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great it stretched from Greece in the west to India in the east, n from Egypt in the south to the Ukraine in the north. How could anybody else beat that?


----------



## Drachir

From the point of view of lasting contributions to civilization, along with size, and longevity pick ancient China.  We're talking gunpowder, paper, textiles, metallurgy, porcelain, government, to mention a few.  I have no particular dynasty in mind, preferring to view ancient China as a single continually linked civilization.


----------



## Sparrow

I would go with China also.

We Europeans can thank our lucky stars that the various Chinese dynasties never mounted an all out invasion of Europe.

And being that I work in the printing industry I'll mention that movable type was a Chinese invention.  Also because I work in printing I'll add the Chinese were probably the first to make wine... and use toilet paper.


----------



## Arwena

I'd have to go with the so-called Byzantine Empire, which was actually the millennial continuation of the Roman Empire, perhaps better the Eastern Roman Empire.  It provided stability directly dor the Mediterranean world and indirectly for Europe and the Missle East, and provided a high degree of human culture.  Isaac Asimov himself wrote a fascinating study in 1970, "Constantinople, the Forgotten Empire."


----------



## La Susanna

I have a soft spot for the Achaemenid (Persian) Empire, especially during the reign of Cyrus the Great to Darius the Great (559 B.C.-486 B.C.). The Empire stretched from some parts of Greece in the west, the Russian border in the north, northern Africa in the south and parts of India in the east. A "Royal Road" spanned the entire length of the empire and connected the Silk Road of China and the Middle East to the Mediterranean Sea, and an ancient day Suez Canal was built to facilitate trade with their African colonies. One of the most profound characteristics of the Persian Empire, though, was its tolerant and accepting nature. Every kingdom conquered by the Persian Empire was permitted to retain their administrative, cultural and religious establishments, along with the benefits they reaped from being under the protection of Persian rule. Similarly, the Persians integrated the various cultural influences of their conquered colonies into their own, creating a unique multi-cultural style which permeated through all aspects of Persian life: from religion and system of administration to art and architecture.


----------



## Uraeus

Egypt. But I also like Greece, Rome and wish the British empire was still around.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I daresay the now independant people of former British-ruled colonies would whole-heartedly disagree with you.

As to the question, for my money, it's a toss-up between the Egyptian and Persian empires.


*EDIT* On second thought, definitely Egyptian.


----------



## Severus

Devil's Advocate said:


> I daresay the now independant people of former British-ruled colonies would whole-heartedly disagree with you.



Damn straight. National independence FTW!

I would say the Roman Empire is probably the one which interests me the most.


----------



## thaddeus6th

I think that's too broad a statement regarding our former empire. The Malaysians seem to be doing very well. I doubt the average Zimbabwean is thrilled with the present situation. Last time I checked (last year) they had 65,000% interest rates and inflation was about 123,000,000%.


----------



## Severus

thaddeus6th said:


> I think that's too broad a statement regarding our former empire. The Malaysians seem to be doing very well. I doubt the average Zimbabwean is thrilled with the present situation. Last time I checked (last year) they had 65,000% interest rates and inflation was about 123,000,000%.



Whoa. It's the twenty-first century. You're not seriously arguing _in favour_ of imperialist domination, are you?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Yeah, exactly.

I'm sorry, Thaddeus, but I hope your comment was more of the "for the hell of it" variety, because if you truly believe in the validity of the British (or any other) Empire in the present world, then that is a ridiculous line of thought.

Flat-out unacceptable.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Flat-out unacceptable? No. Self-determination is obviously the best course. But better a peaceful province than an AIDS-ridden, impoverished, famished dictatorship where the average man on the street is a billionaire who caren't afford a good meal.

I'm not saying we should go out and re-establish the Empire. I'm saying that Zimbabwe now is far worse than it would be if it were run properly, whether as a province or a self-determined and well-functioning democracy.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Precisely the argument that pro-imperialists have made throughout history.

"These people are too incompetent to take care of themselves, so we better do it for them."

Sounds, on the surface, perfectly reasonable. And therein lies the danger.


----------



## Vladd67

Severus said:


> Damn straight. National independence FTW!



Does that include from Brussels?

But getting back to the subject of *Ancient* Empires, Rome has to a front runner.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Speaking of *Ancient* Empires, what's the oldest one, by the way? The first Empire, that is. The 'trendsetter'?

Egyptian?


----------



## Vladd67

Devil's Advocate said:


> Speaking of *Ancient* Empires, what's the oldest one, by the way? The first Empire, that is. The 'trendsetter'?
> 
> Egyptian?



This is a contender


----------



## Peter Graham

> I'm sorry, Thaddeus, but I hope your comment was more of the "for the hell of it" variety, because if you truly believe in the validity of the British (or any other) Empire in the present world, then that is a ridiculous line of thought.
> 
> Flat-out unacceptable.


 
I think very few points of view are flat out unacceptable. I can see Thaddeus' point, although I should also make it clear that I am not advocating a return to the days of Empire.

In the day, the fashionable belief was that the British Empire was an unreservedly Good Thing because we showed these damnable natives a thing or two about running their own affairs and taught them cricket into the bargain. 

Nowadays, the fashionable belief is that the British Empire was an unreservedly Bad Thing as it relied on the vile jackboot of oppression and the stifling of those yearning to be free. 

Whether it's tribe or Empire, it's usually about the control of resources. States that become Empires might be particularly good at acquiring those resources, but if moral opposition to Empire is based on notions of self determination and the sanctity of each tribe/nation/people to govern their own affairs, can anyone explain the qualitative difference between the British annexing India (or the Romans annexing Britain) and the Macsomeones annexing the Macsomeonelses?

And how far back do we have to go to find a first people, living in their Garden of Eden state, to whom the right of self determination attaches?

Take Cumbria as an example. The earliest records suggest it was part of a Celtic Brigantian federation which covered most of what is now northern England. The Celts themselves were incomers who displaced (or at least took over from) their proto-Celtic predecessors, who in turn were descended from waves of different peoples who had been pitching up through the Bronze Age. 

The Brigantes were conquered and/or assimilated into the Roman empire. Following the fall of Rome, Cumbria coalesced into a Romano-Britsh kingdom called Rheged. After a brief but glorious hiatus, Rheged fell to English Northumbria. English Northumbria in turn lost it to the Manx/Irish Viking settlers who in turn were absorbed by expanding British Strathclyde. Strathclyde in turn became part of Scotland (settled by the Irish Dal Riadans), who controlled Cumbria until it was ceded to the Norman French kings in the late 11th Century. 

So, who has the right of self determination in Cumbria? Who are the Cumbrian people? Who are the oppressed and who are the oppressors? Where do we draw the line - and when (in historical terms) do we draw it?

Regards,

Peter


----------



## thaddeus6th

I'm not saying a return to Empire would be a good thing. I'm saying that in the specific case of Zimbabwe, it would be less bad than the state of famine, poverty and rampant AIDS they presently suffer. Life expectancy there was (a few years ago) in the early 30s. There is little political freedom, the economy is in ruins and there's no food. Zimbabwe doesn't have self-determination (which would be the best course) now. A peaceful and well-run province is better than a dictatorship.


----------



## Severus

Vladd67 said:


> Does that include from Brussels?



For me it certainly does, I was a No voter when it came to Lisbon, and I'll continue to oppose such attempts to erode national independence.



thaddeus6th said:


> I'm not saying a return to Empire would be a good thing. I'm saying that in the specific case of Zimbabwe, it would be less bad than the state of famine, poverty and rampant AIDS they presently suffer. Life expectancy there was (a few years ago) in the early 30s. There is little political freedom, the economy is in ruins and there's no food. Zimbabwe doesn't have self-determination (which would be the best course) now. A peaceful and well-run province is better than a dictatorship.



I'd rather live in a lawless nation of my own than live in a stable imperial province. There is also no evidence whatever to suggest that Zimbabwean problems are a result of their own independence and not the deplorable ambitions of a single power-mad despot.


----------



## Esioul

All right people, let's keep to the topic of 'Ancient' Empires, the topic is derailing dangerously. 

I've always liked the Mesopotamian empires myself.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Exactly, Esioul. _*glares at everyone else*_ Shame on you!



Vladd67 said:


> This is a contender


That is quite old, isn't it?

So, we have Akkadian Empire from circa 2300 B.C. Any other takers for ancient-ist empire?

Akkadian going once.

Going twice.

...


----------



## Esioul

How about the Assyrians?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Wiki says "20th to 15th centuries BCE", so that would make it a tad 'younger' than the Akkadian...


----------



## No One

Tough to define _greatest_, but I'd definately go for either the  Persian empire or the cumulated contributions of Greece's Golden Age (I  suppose I could pin it down to the Athenian Mediterranean maritime  empire that effectively peaked with Pericles - now there's a mouthful -  but could/should include Alexander's conquests as well, even if a few  centuries removed, and even if he was Macedonian).

Anyway, I'd choose the Persian for the fact that it was the first true  super-power and, according to some sources, held a higher percentage of  the world's population within it's nations than any empire that came  after it (which kind of makes sense, seeing as population numbers are  always incrementally expanding). It also managed to establish a kind of  social, religious, and economic equilibrium - at least, to _some _degree  - across the different nationalities and belief systems. It obviously  wasn't perfect, but at least conquering a new nation didn't always mean  genocide.

And I'd choose the Greek for the sheer number of innovations in studying  and understanding the natural world around us, how we perceive it and  ourselves. Philosophy, art, literature, etc. When also factoring in how  influential Greek art and learning was to the likes of the Roman empire,  the Renaissance, and even to the British empire as well as other  European powers, and _their _subsequent influence on the  world-stage, well it's hard not to declare a winner, but I guess it  depends on what you look for in "greatness".


----------



## Esioul

The Akkadian's weren't technically an Empire- I think the Neo-Assyrians are considered the first real Empire.


----------



## Tinsel

They all had a golden era, all of the great kingdoms that is. They all fell but the longest surviving was maybe Egypt, but that is just a guess. Ask the Ancient Greeks for the answers because they might know whereas other kingdoms did not know and therefore how could they be great.


----------



## samtodd

I would argue that the British Empire, as the precursor to the modern  western world, is the greatest empire of all time. I have listed below  some of the reasons for my choice.

Science and Technology

Technology - The British Empire made huge strides in technology. The  pace of development was rapid and helped to furnish Britain with the  resources necessary to support such a huge Empire. Britain invented,  amongst other things - The Steam Engine, The Jet Engine, Combustion  Engine, Lightbulb, Television, Telephone, Electrical Motor, Train,  Radio, Vacuum Cleaner, World-Wide -Web. Just some of the things Britain  is famed for and that have helped to shape a remould the modern world.

Science

Britain has contibuted some of the worlds most famous scientists to their respective fields: Newton, Fleming, Bell, Stephenson, Watt, Brunel.

Culture

An embarrassment of riches:

Literature:  Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Burns, Wordsworth, Dickens, Woolfe, Austen, Tolkien to name but a few.

Art - Godfrey Kneller, William Blake, Raeburn, John Constable, George Frederick Watts.

Architecture - Buckingham Palace, Forth Rail Bridge, Big Ben and the  Houses of Parliament, Tower of London, Edinburgh Castle, Westminster  Abbey; Cathedrals - Durham, Canterbury, Salisbury.

Sports (Inventors of) - Football, Cricket, Rugby, Snooker all were first played in Britain.

Healthcare - Invented Antibiotics and modern hospital/nursing environment through Flemming and Florence Nightingale.

Economics - Adam Smith's 'The Wealth of Nations' paved the way for global trading as it exists today.

Food - British cuisine enjoyed throughout te world. English Breakfast, Fish and Chips, Sandwich, Roast Beef etc.

Empire - Controlled one quarter of the worlds land mass. No other empire  has ever come near the global power which Britain held. Annexed Canada,  Australia, India, New Zealand, Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, Hong Kong,  Malaysia, Sudan and many small island states to the empire, (oh and of  course the US) which existed, in parts, between the late sixteenth to  mid twentieth centuries. This is approximately 350 to 400 years  depending on when you consider it to begin and end, though, of course,  it could still be argued to be in existence today. 

Military - Exceptionally well drilled army and navy. The largest navy  fleet ever to have existed was the British and this allowed for Britain  to boss the world on the seas and to claim such large swathes of land.  Tactically superior fighting skills allowed the Brits to conquer and  hold land where numbers were drastically inferior.

Politics - It was (and still is) Britains political system which was the  model for that of most, if not all, of the colonies under its  governance. Whilst Britain undeniably created problems when withdrawing  from parts of her empire and leaving them to self-governance she also  helped to bring order and society to those who had never experienced it  before. I'm not advocationg colonialism here, just stating that Britain  did, in her time in control of these countries build the infrastructure  and political basis for the continued government of many of these  countries. Obviously there have been failures, but look to the good that  was done also. We can see Canada, New Zealand and Australia as versions  of democracy and self-governance which it could easily be argued (with  more space and time than I have here unfortunately!) have surpassed  modern Britain. The Indian railway network, for example, was British  built and now transports 20m passengers daily over 40,000 miles of  track. 

I think that the British Empire was responsible for many technological,  cultural, political and social advances. We live in a world today which  is based around the foundations laid by the British Empire. English is  the primary language of the world. The legacy of the British Empire is  clear for all to see, and though Britain has now ceded most of her  colonies and is in steady decline the British Empire remains, for me,  the greatest in terms of size, power, innovation and influence, that has  ever existed.


----------



## the smiling weirwood

This isn't even a question. Rome, of course, was the greatest.

In partial refutation of the above poster, I would argue that while surviving paragons of British art are indeed lovely, they are hardly seminal. Continental European art, particular French and Italian, later French and German, is far more influential in the modern art world.


----------



## J Riff

British Empire- to witness the death struggles of same- visit Canada.(The Provinces, doncha know?) ...where a lot of the techniques used to uhhh enslave various nations are still very visible. (Double taxation, thug police, massive drug dealing, bent judges etc. etc.)
 Don't cause a fuss though, becos' its been mostly sold to China recently and they don't take kindly to much of anything that isn't Chinese.
 I don't blame English people, the Americans and Canadians are just as bad-  its just that danged little elite white power-crazed old boy's club, would be nice if they finally got some come-uppence. Not that it would undo the damage, nor would they would pay anything back, unless forced to... I just hope to live long enough to see it fall apart. 
 The greatest Empire? ... will be the next one, because nothing that ties back directly to open slavery can truly be considered 'great'.


----------



## Menion

My empire! you'll see, at least when the revelution comes all members of the Chrons can join my galactic empire if they wish.


----------



## The Ace

Re the British Empire, this always raises a smile, a comment about Fatima Whitbread, Olympic javelinist.

"We travelled the world, slaughtered anyone who chucked spears at us and taught them to play cricket.

Now the English are lousy cricketers, but the best spear-chuckers in the world."


----------



## Zethniti

Menion said:


> My empire! you'll see, at least when the revelution comes all members of the Chrons can join my galactic empire if they wish.


 
So, you define your own coming empire as ancient...


----------



## Brandon Pilcher

I wouldn't go so far as to call it the greatest empire in all antiquity, but my personal favorite has to be Egypt. A large reason why is because it was the civilization I studied in second grade as a kid, so I'm more familiar with it than I am with other civilizations. I also have a second reason for fixating so much on Egypt, but stating it might derail this thread.


----------



## Rob Sanders

Let 'Civilisation Revolution' on the XBox360 decide!


----------



## Snowdog

Can it beat Civ II? Can anything beat Civ II?

To stay on topic, I'd vote for the Byzantine Empire, unless you think of it as a part of the Roman Empire. It lasted over 1,000 years, for most of which time Constantinople was the greatest city on Earth. It produced some of history's greatest heroes and biggest villains. It had an artistic flowering that made the rest of the world look like a hovel. 

I doubt any other empire can claim to have had the influence that the Byzantines did over such a long period.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Surely the (Western) Roman Empire could?

I like Byzantium, and the weird absence of knowledge about it is perplexing. Read John Julius Norwich's three-part history? I really liked it, and prior to reading it had no idea about Byzantium. Terrible shame it ended up falling.


----------



## Snowdog

It was Norwich's books that really got me interested. His other books are well worth reading as well, though I'd recommend getting the Norman books separately if possible. The compendium is so big it's almost impossible to read.


----------



## chongjasmine

Tsujigiri said:


> I will second the Han Dynasty.



I love the Han dynasty as well.


----------



## Starchaser3000

I have always liked all the Greek/Macedonian/Roman empires along with the various Persian, Indian, and Chinese dynasties that had flourished alongside them. Interesting how the silk road had so much of an impact for so many years on all those civilizations. But I'm more interested in the Mongol and Byzantine empires mainly because I know the least about them. I think it kind of sucked for the Byzantines that after the crusades, their political/military influence was weak at best by that time. And the Mongol empire became divided within a generation or two after Genghis Khan died. But yeah, cool idea for a thread for sure.


----------



## Gumboot

I suppose it depends what you mean by "greatest".  Certainly, I don't think any empire has left such an endearing mark on human civilisation as Ancient Rome.  People often talk of their military prowess, their engineering feats, and the sheer scale of their empire, but people sometimes forget that Rome also introduced what is the bedrock of western civilisation; the concept of universal rights, the concept of rule of law, and the concept of "the people" as sovereign.


----------



## Snowdog

I'm not sure I'd go along with "introduced", or with the idea that the Roman people were sovereign. The Greeks came up with democracy and a much more obvious sovereignty of the people. In the Greek city-states that had democracy the people could vote to get rid of their leaders. That was never the case in Rome; the only way to oust an unpopular leader was by force.


----------



## Starbeast

La Susanna said:


> I have a soft spot for the Achaemenid (Persian) Empire, especially during the reign of Cyrus the Great to Darius the Great (559 B.C.-486 B.C.). The Empire stretched from some parts of Greece in the west, the Russian border in the north, northern Africa in the south and parts of India in the east. A "Royal Road" spanned the entire length of the empire and connected the Silk Road of China and the Middle East to the Mediterranean Sea, and an ancient day Suez Canal was built to facilitate trade with their African colonies. One of the most profound characteristics of the Persian Empire, though, was its tolerant and accepting nature. Every kingdom conquered by the Persian Empire was permitted to retain their administrative, cultural and religious establishments, along with the benefits they reaped from being under the protection of Persian rule. Similarly, the Persians integrated the various cultural influences of their conquered colonies into their own, creating a unique multi-cultural style which permeated through all aspects of Persian life: from religion and system of administration to art and architecture.


 
I highly agree with La Susanna, the wonderful Golden Age of Iran which continued it's tolerance of other cultures and people of the world and which blossumed before the arrival of the prophet Jesus (peace be upon him), then went further after the prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) introduced Islamic belief.

Iran has such an amazing history spanning thousands of years, bringing great knowledge of art, poetry, mathmatics, architecture, book binding etc. etc. etc. throughout the world.

I would have loved to live in such a wonderful time in such a beautiful part of the world. Truely, Iran is an astonishing country, rich with a fantastic history.

For me, the Persian Empire was the greatest on the planet Earth.


----------



## juelz4sure

This is a hard one I'm between the Egytian Empire (always been a huge fan) and the Khmer Empire in the south east region of Asia.


----------



## Yog-Sothoth

Gumboot said:


> I suppose it depends what you mean by "greatest". Certainly, I don't think any empire has left such an endearing mark on human civilisation as Ancient Rome. People often talk of their military prowess, their engineering feats, and the sheer scale of their empire, but people sometimes forget that Rome also introduced what is the bedrock of western civilisation; the concept of universal rights, the concept of rule of law, and the concept of "the people" as sovereign.


 
All of that was already present in Ancient Greece, indeed much of Rome's greatness is basically cultural incorporation of other regions they conquered, look at their architecture, their naval technology, their legal traditions, their pantheon, they can all be traced back to older or contemporary civilizations like Greece and Carthage.

Also, the first code of human-rights was established in the Persian Empire under Cyrus the Great, and the alphabet originates with the Phoenicians. I also doubt Ancient Rome left a more endearing mark than the more contineous successive Chinese dynasties that influenced our science, culture, art, literature, warfare, etc with some of the greatest inventions and innovations in history.

West -- Western World -- Western Civilization -- are modern terms that can't be applied to ancient history, considering a Roman man in Rome had more in common with a man in ancient Syria than he had with a man in proto-Ireland.


----------



## Yog-Sothoth

My favourite empire is the Byzantine Empire, because it just wouldn't die for more than a millennia after Rome fell to various hordes. It reconquered Rome, then survived the Sassanid Empire, survived the all-conquering Arab empire, survived the gigantic Mongol Empire, survived the Crusades and lived on for several more centuries.....until the Ottomans came....


----------



## thaddeus6th

Yeah, it was gunpowder more than anything else than did for Byzantium.

Ironically, the rampaging psychopath Tamerlane saved the city (incidentally) when he happened to be marauding in the area and obliterated an Ottoman army that was poised to take the city a few decades before it actually fell.


----------



## Morbius

Not exacly 'ancient'. More like 16th -17th century 'recent' but nonethless my favorite.* The British Empire* controlled the oceans & such a vast far reaching span of land mass & peoples that the saying was indeed true: _The sun never sets on the British Empire! _


----------



## jasminevincent

I think i'll go with Alexander the Great and king David


----------



## MPorter

My favourite is the Indus Valley Civilization. Ancient Indian culture that practiced dentistry, produced copper, tin, and lead. It's believed they established trade -certainly with Iran- but possibly as far as Mesopotamia and maybe even to Egypt.

A fantastically diverse culture with a wealth of information to be mined by willing writers.

Cheers!

~Mike


----------



## Glisterspeck

Yog-Sothoth said:


> My favourite empire is the Byzantine Empire, because it just wouldn't die for more than a millennia after Rome fell to various hordes. It reconquered Rome, then survived the Sassanid Empire, survived the all-conquering Arab empire, survived the gigantic Mongol Empire, survived the Crusades and lived on for several more centuries.....until the Ottomans came....



I won't attempt to answer greatest, but I will say that the Byzantine empire is my favorite as well. Of course, until the end, they considered themselves to be a true continuation of the Roman Empire (to give an example, they called themselves romans).


----------



## Venusian Broon

Glisterspeck said:


> I won't attempt to answer greatest, but I will say that the Byzantine empire is my favorite as well. Of course, until the end, they considered themselves to be a true continuation of the Roman Empire (to give an example, they called themselves romans).


 
As did the people who conquered them. For example when the Seljuk Turks established the Sultanate of Rum from the territory taken from the Byzantine empire in modern day Turkey, the word _Rum_ (simplified English spelling I know, can't be bothered to find the accents...) was derived from the Arabic word for the Roman Empire.


----------



## thaddeus6th

True (the Czars also considered themselves inheritors of Rome, the Third Rome/Empire I think they called themselves). 

However, the Byzantines appear to have rather more credible and concrete claim to the name, what with Constantine (sole Roman emperor) moving the capital to Byzantium.


----------



## Venusian Broon

thaddeus6th said:


> True (the Czars also considered themselves inheritors of Rome, the Third Rome/Empire I think they called themselves).
> 
> However, the Byzantines appear to have rather more credible and concrete claim to the name, what with Constantine (sole Roman emperor) moving the capital to Byzantium.


 
Absolutely agree - I mean when the Western Roman Empire fell, Rome itself wasn't even the capital, wasn't it Ravenna? i.e. You don't need to rule from Rome to control a Roman empire. 

As for the Czars, I might be wrong, but I guess the fact that the Russians were religiously orthodox would mean that they were the continuation of the Byzantine empire, because as the number one superpower of Orthodox Christianity after the fall of Constantinople they 'kept the pure flame going'. So to speak.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Yeah, I think it was Ravenna. The Western Emperors moved there because it was more defensible.

I think that orthodoxy was part of it (when the patriarch of Byzantium ceased to lead the orthodox church Russia assumed that role, although not without dissent). In addition, it was a Byzantine who invented the Russian alphabet and I think there were blood-ties through marriages. Oh, and the Varangian Guard migrated from Russia to Byzantium, I think.

So, there were some solid connections, but not enough to justify Third Rome status.


----------



## Venusian Broon

thaddeus6th said:


> So, there were some solid connections, but not enough to justify Third Rome status.


 
Any empire/power will always try to justify itself by reaching out to the past, to legitimise itself, justified or not. We also had Kaisers in Germany and that's even more tenuous. 

And the Romans themselves, I think, put the origin of their people as coming from Troy. Well, you've got to put your origins in the most famous and biggest 'history' so that it legitimises your position as 'ancient thoroughbreds'*. And I'm sure the real power of Troy had founding myths going to their own illustrious ancestors.

Although why they picked a losing side, I don't know. Perhaps, the winners were clearly Greek in the tale, but also because they only actually won because of a dirty sneaky trick - I believe Romans would view Greeks as too clever and devious for their own good. 

Of course you don't have to look back to the Romans all the time, when the British Empire was at it's height there was a big affinity with the ancient Greeks - particularly the city of Athens: the birthplace of democracy and a large navel power, with a huge continental enemy to the East. Plenty of parallels to align the Empire to! 

=====================================

* I thoroughly recommend, if you are interested, in the book _Soldiers & Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity_ by J.E. Lendon. It focuses on the Greek/Macedonian/Roman world and how pivotal the works of Homer, esp. the Ilyiad was these societies. It would be going to far to call it a bible, but he marshalls a good argument that it was the 'manual' of the fighting man of classical antiquity.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Could be wrong but I think that book's already in my (comically large) Amazon basket. Unfortunately lack of time, shelf space and money means I'm reading less now than I'd like.

On ancient legitimacy/legacy, the British Empire did the same thing. We used to used d for pence, because of the term denarius. And the pound sign is a capital L (liber) with two lines through to differentiate it a bit [I think that's the origin, anyway].


----------



## K-9

I've not read all the thread, however ...

HIP HIP HOORAY!!! lots of Byzantine Empire fans here!!!    

concerning the blood-ties through marriages, I think a sister of Basil II married the prince of Kiev ... if I can remember well


----------



## thaddeus6th

Isn't that one of the reasons the Czars thought of themselves as the Third Rome? (A Byzantine also invented their alphabet, and their orthodox religion came from Byzantium).


----------



## K-9

Ah, oh? yes, I supposed... 
maybe I misunderstood what you wrote, or I write bad my post - I'm sorry If I've annoyed ...  I'll pay more attention in future!


----------



## thaddeus6th

Nothing bad with your post, I was just agreeing with you


----------



## chongjasmine

I think China and the roman empire are the greatest empire of all times.
China for much of its uniqueness as an empire, and the roman empire for its achievements.


----------



## JoanDrake

At least in land area it was the Mongols. Greatest known.

The Iroquois Empire in North American exceeded the Roman

Longest Lasting and affecting most people would definitely be the Chinese.


----------



## Gordian Knot

_Although why they picked a losing side, I don't know. Perhaps, the winners were clearly Greek in the tale, but also because they only actually won because of a dirty sneaky trick - I believe Romans would view Greeks as too clever and devious for their own good_.

Also we only have the Greek version of that war. Wouldn't it be interesting if we could uncover a Trojan version of the event? Would be a vastly different story indeed!


----------



## thaddeus6th

They found the site of Troy a while ago and discovered that multiple cities had been built there. There's some suggestion the horse is symbolic, and represents an earthquake that toppled the walls (Poseidon is the Earthshaker, and appeared as a horse in statues).


----------



## DragonKhan25

The Neo-Assyrian empire. The first pure total war machine and a great influence on what we call Greek Architecture as well as having a truly magnificent architectural heritage.


----------



## DragonKhan25

Gordian Knot said:


> _Although why they picked a losing side, I don't know. Perhaps, the winners were clearly Greek in the tale, but also because they only actually won because of a dirty sneaky trick - I believe Romans would view Greeks as too clever and devious for their own good_.
> 
> Also we only have the Greek version of that war. Wouldn't it be interesting if we could uncover a Trojan version of the event? Would be a vastly different story indeed!



They have found references to the Wilusa (Troy) incident in Hittite writings, but nothing else sadly


----------



## Nerds_feather

This thread is so long I can't even remember if I commented on it. 

But what do we mean by "greatest?" 

Most militarily expansive? (Mongols or Alexandrian Empire, I'd guess.) 
Longest lasting? (China, probably.) 
Biggest incubator of lasting institutions? (Rome, perhaps). 
Greatest producer of ideas, per capita/per year (Athenian Empire, without a doubt.)
Coolest monuments and structures? (Egypt, followed by Rome.)


----------



## Gramm838

Well, if you take some of the Ozymandius poem:

"My name is Ozymandius, King of Kings; Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair" 

it must be the ancient Egyptians (Ozymandius being another name for Rameses II)


----------



## JoanDrake

Gordian Knot said:


> _Although why they picked a losing side, I don't know. Perhaps, the winners were clearly Greek in the tale, but also because they only actually won because of a dirty sneaky trick -* I believe Romans would view Greeks as too clever and devious for their own good*_.
> 
> Also we only have the Greek version of that war. Wouldn't it be interesting if we could uncover a Trojan version of the event? Would be a vastly different story indeed!



Actually, I've always been told they did. Effeminate too, but then Schwarzenegger would be effeminate to the Roman ideal.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Nerds Feather, in land size it's the Mongols. In total/including the sea it's the British Empire.

Personally, I prefer Roman monuments, but there we are.


----------



## DragonKhan25

thaddeus6th said:


> Nerds Feather, in land size it's the Mongols. In total/including the sea it's the British Empire.
> 
> Personally, I prefer Roman monuments, but there we are.



It is just a shame that the great monuments of Mesopotamia are no longer with us. They built amazingly huge cities with incredible architecture. Would have been really interesting to see who would win in a fight - Rome vs Assyria at the peak of her powers. One thing is for sure, taking Nineveh would have been nigh on impossible


----------



## thaddeus6th

Must admit, my knowledge of the Assyrians is limited to the fact they preceded the Medes. Oh, and I think they came up with cuneiform[sp], the first written language.


----------



## DragonKhan25

The history of the Assyrian's and Cuneiform is a long and complex one. Strictly speaking it was the Sumerian's who invented cuneiform before the Akkadians (the Assyrian's are an Akkadian people) adopted it and used it for their own use. 

I would definitely recommend reading up on the history of Mesopotamia - the two great Kingdoms of Assyria and Babylon built on such a great scale and had such amazing engineering feats.


----------



## chongjasmine

For me, I love the Han dynasty in China. And ancient Israel.


----------



## Nerds_feather

DragonKhan25 said:


> Would have been really interesting to see who would win in a fight - Rome vs Assyria at the peak of her powers.



Late Republican or Imperial Rome, I'd imagine, because it came much later and thus had benefited from advances in technology, strategy and tactics. 

I think a more open question would be which empire was more impressive, militarily, for its time--relative the the forces around it.


----------



## ralphkern

An interesting wiki on this subject with some surprising results:

List of largest empires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## thaddeus6th

Mildly surprised. I always thought (in land terms) the Mongols were ahead of us.

I'm also surprised the Byzantine empire was half that of the 'Roman' Empire. At its height, the Byzantines had northern parts of Africa, Italy, Greece, Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria and so forth. Not surprised the 'Romans' are ahead, but slightly surprised by the difference.

David's Empire is last. But he who is last shall be first. Hmm, that doesn't bode well for the British, although it could explain our recent Ashes results.


----------



## ralphkern

If anything I think that reinforces the measure of the mongol achievement versus the British empire. They had similar land area, but a higher % of the world population. And they did that with a far lower technology base. 

Interestingly there is a lot of anecdotal comments that something like 1% of the world population had a direct genetic link to Ghengis Khan... He was that... Prolific.

All I can say on that subject is: Playaaaaaah!


----------



## thaddeus6th

I've heard that too. Apparently a few years ago, in defiance of a government proposal for ID cards or similar, thousands of Mongolians renamed themselves Genghis Khan.


----------



## Aquilonian

OK, a few comments on the more recent posts on this very long thread. It  seems there are several strategies you can employ to win the "biggest  Empire" contest. 

1) If "biggest" means "biggest in area", focus  on conquering deserts and uninhabited mountain ranges. The core of the  Mongol Empire was very sparsely populated, with the population (those  whom the Mongols hadn't massacred, anyway) living round the edges. Even  the British Empire included Australia, which was largely empty. 

2)  "Conquer" regions occupied by nomadic tribes, because typically they  will go and hide in the mountains until you've moved on, but history  will still record that you conquered them. (You will write the history,  of course). 

3) Let someone else do the heavy lifting, ie follow  Alexander's model and conquer an existing Empire. Much of his territory  was gained simply by the local satraps (provincial governors) actually  approaching him and offering their submission before he'd even attacked  them, because they were convinced already that his was the winning side.  Persian Empire was easier to conquer because the Persians had not  created any sense of shared loyalty or citizenship among the many  different races whom they had conquered. 

4) Maximise your  population by conquering vast areas teeming with downtrodden peasants.  They're not trained or equipped to fight, and are already accustomed to  paying huge rents/taxes/tribute to their previous overlords- paying the  same amount to some other distant monarch makes no difference to their  lives so why should they bother to resist? If they do resist you can  burn theri crops, which are immoveable, unlike the herds and flocks of  nomadic peoples.

5) Respect the local Gods even if you massacre  the people. Alexander devoted huge resources to offering sacrifices  whenever he encountered an important temple. Priests are real  sh*t-stirrers so it's best to keep them on your side. Check the history  of the Indian Mutiny to see what happens when local religious  sensibilities are ignored by a tiny Imperial elite. 

6) To  maximise the cultural kudos of your Empire, conquer lands that have  already been civilised for thousands of years, then take the credit for  their achievements. This was the Islamic Caliphate's strategy- they  swiftly conquered most of the oldest centres of world civilisation  (Egypt, Mesopotamia, Syria, soon followed by Persia and the Indus  valley).

7) To maximise the "wealth" of your Empire, simply  conquer places where they mine a lot of gold or silver. (Although like  the Spaniards you'll probably ruin your own economy in the long term).

8)  The maximise the longevity of your Empire, you probably need some  mechanism whereby the most intelligent and strong-willed inhabitants of  your conquered territories can aspire to join the Imperial ruling class.  Racial barriers may be popular with your own brutal, arrogant soldiery  (see Alexander) but they create a permanent festering sore of resentment  when clearly intelligent members of the subject peoples are  disrespected by clearly stupid members of the ruling race. This is why  the Roman Empire lasted much longer than the British Empire. In the 18th  Century the British rulers of India intermarried with the Indian upper  class, many of them even converted to Islam. Racial barriers were  erected in the mid-19th Century and were both a cause and an effect of  the Mutiny. Britain was bankrupted by WW2 but the Empire would not have  lasted much longer anyway due to the above issue. If the Third Reich had  won the War, they would have imploded even sooner than the British  Empire, especially after exterminating their most talented citizens. 

9)  Improve the cultural reputation of your Empire by appropriating and  even adding your own name to the monuments of previous Empires (many  pharaohs, Emperor Constantine, etc).

10) Don't waste time and  effort trying to conquer the really tough guys- accept nominal tribute  from their chiefs and recruit them into your army with promises of land,  booty, pensions, etc (see Persia, Alexander, Rome, British Empire, etc  etc). The Indian Mutiny was suppressed mainly by Pashtoons and Sikhs,  who had been fighting against the British a few years earlier.

11)  Finally, if all else fails and your Empire remains small or even  non-existent, have a book written telling the glorious tale of how your  Empire became the greatest strongest and most highly-cultured in the  world and continued for thousands of years so long as your wise laws  were observed. Make sure the priests preserve the book for long enough  for the real history to be forgotten. That way you can be a great  Emperor even if, like King David, you never actually existed.


----------



## Aquilonian

ralphkern said:


> the mongol achievement versus the British empire... And they did that with a far lower technology base.



Yes but compared to other nations of their own era they had an important technological superiority, namely the short composite bow which could be fired easily from a moving horse.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Aquilonian said:


> Yes but compared to other nations of their own era they had an important technological superiority, namely the short composite bow which could be fired easily from a moving horse.



Stirrups, as well?


----------



## Aquilonian

They had stirrups but so did other mounted warriors by then. According to Wikipedia anyway.


----------



## ralphkern

Aquilonian, absolutely no dispute with your 'Guide to Ruling an Empire'. All sounds like reasonable steps I'll one day take. Might have a position for a senior Imperator going if you fancy it?

Re: the Mongol tribes, from having a bit of a read about them, their military prowess is definitely without doubt. Funnily enough the combination of both of the above are apparently one of the reasons for their tactical domination. Stirrups, enabling them to use their composite bows to great effect. Maybe Aquilionian that was the difference?

Additionally, on the softer side, (I just had mental images of a bunch of savages rolling across the plains, a very wrong impression) they had an incredibly efficient postal service (the internet of its day), Encouraged schooling and education and seemed, once a population had been brought to heel (somewhat brutally I might add) to allow great freedoms and religious worship of whoever or whatever they wanted.

As an open minded kind of chap I was full well expecting to rather jingoistically advocating the British empire or Romans etc.  I don't think a 'who would win in a fight' discussion is worth it but I think, relative to their surroundings, they did quite well for themselves and think they, at the moment might be at the top of my list.

  It's not empire an I would particularly want to live myself in though... thats clearly the Galactic empire.


----------



## Mirannan

ralphkern - Which Galactic Empire? Some of them aren't particularly pleasant, and some others aren't very pleasant at some times in their history. The Star Wars Empire isn't all that nice, although TBH most people would never see Imperial troops.

Asimov's Empire at its height would be quite nice to live in, while it's falling apart... not quite so much.

Actually, there are quite a few multi-stellar empires that don't encompass the entire galaxy. And some that aren't actually empires because that isn't their form of government; Civilisation in the Lensman universe is one such.

As for where I'd like to live; well, two rather similar choices would be the Culture and some of the higher-tech, more pleasant places in the Orion's Arm universe. It might bother me a bit that neither place has humans in charge, but unfathomably powerful AIs. One would have to hope that the latter are more like Multivac than Skynet...


----------



## ralphkern

Grumble, note to self, no adding smart ar5e comments to the end of posts!


----------



## svalbard

Not too sure if I would have liked to have lived in the Galactic Empire of the Padishah Emperors or Leto Atriedes...


----------



## Mirannan

svalbard said:


> Not too sure if I would have liked to have lived in the Galactic Empire of the Padishah Emperors or Leto Atriedes...



That rather depends on which House was immediately in charge of your life. I rather think that Caladan would have been more pleasant than Giedi Prime, for example.


----------



## ralphkern

The Star Empire from Harrington (What the Manticorians evolve into), despite the fact that the military officers or crews have a lower life expentency than the average Star Trek redshirt, the society itself is quite egalitarian.


----------



## Aquilonian

ralphkern said:


> Aquilonian, absolutely no dispute with your 'Guide to Ruling an Empire'. All sounds like reasonable steps I'll one day take. Might have a position for a senior Imperator going if you fancy it?



Would have to be a part time post as my day job keeps me quite busy. Unless you have some sort of time-expansion technology?

Three other things I omitted from my list. 

1) A lastingly great Empire needs to overcome the problem of succession. The Roman emperors' biggest error seems to have been allowing their (often useless) biological sons to succeed them, insteading of following the earlier emperors' policy of adopting a young adult contender who had already proved his competence. Problem with that earlier policy is that it goes against human instincts which impell you to prefer your own kin (which is a big reason why responsible positions were so often reserved for eunuchs). Also, the genetic son who has been passed over is a potential source of disruption if he remains alive- hence the Ottoman custom where the sultans had only concubines, not wives, so all their sons were of equal status and could decide the succession by intrigues and assassinations within the harem- survival of the fittest thus ensured reasonably competent sultans, while all unsuccessful candidates were strangled by deaf-mute dwarves. Polygamy at least ensures a plentiful supply of candidates, unlike in Christian societies where the infertility of a single woman or man could decide the fate of great kingdoms.

2) An army officer caste who see themselves as a subordinate profession entirely separate from politics, hence not inclined to launch disruptive coups. I'm not sure if anyone has ever really managed this. We British like to think we have, but certain events like the Curragh Mutiny suggest otherwise. However, although military governments have a bad reputation in modern times, some of the Roman military emperors were actually very effective.

3) To preserve one's own personal Empire long enough to achieve "greatness", you need a trustworthy corps of bodyguards, as there's nothing worse than being assassinated by the people whom you've paid handsomely to protect you. Rome seems to have really gone downhill when the Praetorians woke up to this. A great many Empires seem to solve this problem by recruiting their Imperial bodyguard from far enough away that they have no connection with more local factions. E.g. the Byzantine Varangian Guard, the Ottoman Janissaries, and of course the Pope's Swiss Guard.


----------



## Aquilonian

ralphkern said:


> Re: the Mongol tribes... they had an incredibly efficient postal service (the internet of its day), Encouraged schooling and education and seemed, once a population had been brought to heel (somewhat brutally I might add) to allow great freedoms and religious worship of whoever or whatever they wanted.



Didn't know that but doesn't surprise me as they had plenty of horses/ponies. From what little I've read of Genghis Khan, he had an entirely cold-blooded attitude to the people he conquered, ie he didn;t hate them any more than we hate flies or bacteria. He massacred them firstly to terrorise nearby nations so they'd surrender quickly (Alexander the Great, who has a much better reputation, did exactly the same), and secondly because the Mongols were herdsmen, and therefore needed to restore the cultivate land into open grasslands. clearing the land required clearing the people. Supposedly he orginally intended exterminating the Chinese, but a mandarin persuaded him that he could gain more wealth by keeping them alive and taxing them. 

Freedom of worship was the norm in ancient empires- religious persecution is a monotheistic habit.


----------



## BAYLOR

One could make a argument for number of Empires. My choice Rome .


----------



## Ray McCarthy

Chinese, China & Han
Mongols even used Chinese as administrators almost everywhere.



Aquilonian said:


> Supposedly he orginally intended exterminating the Chinese, but a mandarin persuaded him that he could gain more wealth by keeping them alive and taxing them.


"Mandarin" system was 1912 to 1948. Variations of Empire from about 250BC to 1912, because it wasn't feudal in European sense. Merit did count and most periods the heirs of Nobles would drop a level unless they proved their worth.
The Chinese also didn't have a true Bronze Age like Europe. After Neolithic they progressed rapidly via copper and bronze to iron.
But the Chinese did convince Genghis Khan of their value.


----------



## BAYLOR

Ray McCarthy said:


> Chinese, China & Han
> Mongols even used Chinese as administrators almost everywhere.
> 
> 
> "Mandarin" system was 1912 to 1948. Variations of Empire from about 250BC to 1912, because it wasn't feudal in European sense. Merit did count and most periods the heirs of Nobles would drop a level unless they proved their worth.
> The Chinese also didn't have a true Bronze Age like Europe. After Neolithic they progressed rapidly via copper and bronze to iron.
> But the Chinese did convince Genghis Khan of their value.



His was known as the Yuan Dynasty and with was golden age of sorts for China.


----------



## Harpo




----------



## pogopossum

Reading this necro-thread, that has covered almost all of the bases, I would suggest that where the term "Greatest" has meaning for me it is where an institution best spread civilisation, culture and human happiness.

Other definitions would stress area conquered or predecesors destroyed. Egypt would win for sheer longeavity. The Mongols for area (briefly) conquered. Britain? ruled vastly, but they never consolidated and only spread culture  or much of anything as tools for domination.

Many empires took over previous civilisations and then unified them (mostly) culturally.
China consolidating the warring states and Rome, with its unification from Britain south of the wall, to north Africa to the east to the border of the  Sasanians (late Persians) both did so.
China in a few epochs pushed its borders, north, south, and west and then retreated in the face of barbarian invaders and borderers (and usually assimilated them.) But basically, even though it was divided on several occasions, most notably by the Mongols, it survived and solidified over millienia.

Greece was never spread by empire, but by gradual influence founding cities and trading throughout the Mediterranean.  Athens and Thebes each briefly dominated the homeland, but it was Macedonia (given short shrift here) that in one swoop conquered from Greece to Persia to what is now Afghanistan and into north Africa, spreading Greek culture from Egypt to the east and into what became the Balkans .  Successor Macedo/Greco states continued to rule from Egypt & through the Eastern Mediterranean for centuries.

Then the Romans came in and took over and extended dominion over an even greater area. But in addition to roads they continued to spread the culture that they had learned from Greece (and math percolating out of India). 

So "Rome" had long lasting culture & achieved stability for over a thousand years. You could count an even longer period if you included the successor Eastern state.

China over more than two millenia.

So "Greatest" invites comparison that depends on definition. I"d say China and Rome, with a nod to what the Romans inherited.


----------



## chongjasmine

I like the chinese empire, maybe because I am chinese, and I like Roman empire, because I am christian.
I think these are the two greatest empires.
It may be due to my ignorance, though.


----------



## Rufus Coppertop

Aquilonian said:


> A great many Empires seem to solve this problem by recruiting their Imperial bodyguard from far enough away that they have no connection with more local factions. E.g. the Byzantine Varangian Guard, the Ottoman Janissaries, and of course the Pope's Swiss Guard.


Reprogrammed Daleks would be pretty viable for an enterprising galactic dark lord.

And getting back on the topic..........Roman.

In a couple of thousand years I'd probably go for the British Empire as a candidate for greatest "ancient" empire.


----------



## Justin Swanton

Meself I plump for the Russian Empire. With a land area of 22,4 million km2 it was almost as big as the Mongol Empire (23 million km2) and it lasted a good deal longer. It brought Siberia and eastern Asia into modern civilisation and made the far east as European as western Russia which is a unique achievement. At its height it spanned three continents: Europe, Asia and North America. It broke the back of Napoleon and its Soviet successor (also an empire) broke the back of Hitler, arguably preventing Europe from becoming a totalitarian monolith.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Worth noting the Soviet Union did its best to make much of Europe become a totalitarian monolith too. 

Its role in WWII is more complex than most countries, but we shouldn't neglect that we (necessarily) allied with one monster to take down another.


----------



## Venusian Broon

Rufus Coppertop said:


> Reprogrammed Daleks would be pretty viable for an enterprising galactic dark lord.
> 
> And getting back on the topic..........Roman.
> 
> In a couple of thousand years I'd probably go for the British Empire as a candidate for greatest "ancient" empire.



It's true that on some metrics the British Empire was the biggest, but it seems such a flash in the pan compared to some of the others. 

I mean one _could _argue that the Roman Empire lasted till 1453 and the fall of Constantinople. (The Byzantines called themselves Roman and did not think they were a distinct, different empire from the one that was ruled from Rome.) So that's about 1500 years, maybe even more. How long did the British Empire last? 150 years or thereabouts? 

I wonder who would be the 'greatest' if one plotted 'land controlled' and 'population controlled (as percentage of World population)'*  over time and then added  them up using calculus  - so finding the biggest area under these respective graphs.

 Of course deciding when an empire started and finished would be an endless debate!

==============================

* Such a thing has definitely been attempted. I have _Atlas of World Population History _and they do make a stab at historical empires.


----------



## Justin Swanton

Venusian Broon said:


> It's true that on some metrics the British Empire was the biggest, but it seems such a flash in the pan compared to some of the others.
> 
> I mean one _could _argue that the Roman Empire lasted till 1453 and the fall of Constantinople. (The Byzantines called themselves Roman and did not think they were a distinct, different empire from the one that was ruled from Rome.) So that's about 1500 years, maybe even more. How long did the British Empire last? 150 years or thereabouts?



Technically speaking Britain is still an Empire. It controls territories in the Atlantic, Pacific and and Indian oceans and the Mediterranean Sea, with a total land area of 18,015 km2 and a total population of 272,250. That's more than the Byzantine Empire controlled (outside its core territory around Constantinople) during the last century of its existence.


----------



## Christine Wheelwright

Venusian Broon said:


> It's true that on some metrics the British Empire was the biggest, but it seems such a flash in the pan compared to some of the others.
> 
> I mean one _could _argue that the Roman Empire lasted till 1453 and the fall of Constantinople. (The Byzantines called themselves Roman and did not think they were a distinct, different empire from the one that was ruled from Rome.) So that's about 1500 years, maybe even more. How long did the British Empire last? 150 years or thereabouts?
> 
> I wonder who would be the 'greatest' if one plotted 'land controlled' and 'population controlled (as percentage of World population)'*  over time and then added  them up using calculus  - so finding the biggest area under these respective graphs.
> 
> Of course deciding when an empire started and finished would be an endless debate!
> 
> ==============================
> 
> * Such a thing has definitely been attempted. I have _Atlas of World Population History _and they do make a stab at historical empires.



I think you can definitely argue that the Roman Empire lasted until 1453.  I believe the Eastern Roman Empire (centered on Constantinople) was uninterrupted by conquest until that point.  By then, of course, it was hardly an "Empire" in the accepted sense, though.

As for the British Empire; I'm not sure if there is a clear definition.  I'd say take 1757 (when the East India Company really began it's direct control of the Mughal Empire) to 1945 (end of WWII).


----------



## Venusian Broon

Christine Wheelwright said:


> I think you can definitely argue that the Roman Empire lasted until 1453.  I believe the Eastern Roman Empire (centered on Constantinople) was uninterrupted by conquest until that point.  By then, of course, it was hardly an "Empire" in the accepted sense, though.
> 
> As for the British Empire; I'm not sure if there is a clear definition.  I'd say take 1757 (when the East India Company really began it's direct control of the Mughal Empire) to 1945 (end of WWII).


I'd probably opt for the time that the East Indian Company was 'nationalised', as then the British government had full control, whenever that was. But no doubt there were other territories controlled before that, confusing the issue more.


----------



## Justin Swanton

Christine Wheelwright said:


> I think you can definitely argue that the Roman Empire lasted until 1453.  I believe the Eastern Roman Empire (centered on Constantinople) was uninterrupted by conquest until that point.  By then, of course, it was hardly an "Empire" in the accepted sense, though.
> 
> As for the British Empire; I'm not sure if there is a clear definition.  I'd say take 1757 (when the East India Company really began it's direct control of the Mughal Empire) to 1945 (end of WWII).


End of WWII? A huge swathe of Africa was under British rule until the 1960s as was plenty else in the world. But it's true that once India became independent in 1947 the glory days were over. This video gives a pretty good idea of the Empire's history (except when it makes Rhodesia part of the Empire after 1965 - Rhodesia declared UDI in that year and was independent thereafter)


----------



## hitmouse

I liked the Empire on Portswood High St, Southampton. Saw Star Wars there. It became Mecca Bingo in the late 70s. Now it is an evangelical church.


----------



## Lafayette

I don't think any of these empires were great for most of them (if not all of them) gain their greatness by hitting other people over the head, stealing their land (or whatever they had), attacking or murdering their culture, and raping their women. Couldn't we have the calendar, the alphabet, sewage systems, libraries, art, and medicine without all this nastiness?


----------



## Justin Swanton

Lafayette said:


> I don't think any of these empires were great for most of them (if not all of them) gain their greatness by hitting other people over the head, stealing their land (or whatever they had), attacking or murdering their culture, and raping their women. Couldn't we have the calendar, the alphabet, sewage systems, libraries, art, and medicine without all this nastiness?


Weeell.....our calendar was created by Rome and codified by Julius Caesar. The alphabet likewise comes from Rome and we have it thanks to Rome becoming an empire and spreading Latin everywhere. (the Greek alphabet incidentally also became ubiquitious thanks to Alexander's Macedonian empire). Sewage systems are a Roman invention, starting with the Cloaca Maxima. Libraries - another imperial invention, notably the Library of Alexandria under the Ptolemaids. Art...the best art probably came from small states like the Greek _poleis_ and Mediaeval city states, so OK. Medicine I don't know about. It seems also to have thrived in large states like empires where a free exchange of knowledge made it possible to spread new remedies.

Empires are useful.


----------



## Venusian Broon

Lafayette said:


> I don't think any of these empires were great for most of them (if not all of them) gain their greatness by hitting other people over the head, stealing their land (or whatever they had), attacking or murdering their culture, and raping their women. Couldn't we have the calendar, the alphabet, sewage systems, libraries, art, and medicine without all this nastiness?


As the definition of empire is "an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state." and that states or countries rarely (if at all, I can't think of any of hand) who voluntarily submit to another state to be ruled over, the first part of your statement is usually, unfortunately, how empires are formed. 

What you are talking about is civilisation, which is different. Empires are about power; civilisation is social & cultural development and organisation and they are not really linked - neither necessarily begets the other.


----------



## sknox

It's worth pointing out that most of Rome's expansion happened while it was a Republic. Pretty much all, if you buy Augustus' argument that all he did was restore the Republic.

I agree with the point of view that the question is unanswerable ... in that pretty much every answer will satisfy some and not satisfy others. I'm a strict constitutionalist, so I say it ain't an empire unless there's an actual emperor. The way it's often used, it just means "one government that controls a lot of land and many people." 

Not a very useful term, taken that way.

I also think it's a false comparison. The Athenian Empire (you should put so-called in front of most of these) isn't at all the same thing as the Mongol empire, which is a far cry from the British Empire, which in turn doesn't much resemble the Mali Empire or the Ottoman Empire.


----------



## Pyan

sknox said:


> if you buy Augustus' argument that all he did was restore the Republic.


I really don't think that Augustus' argument is really sustainable, though. Rome_ post_ 27BCE is not exactly a democratic state, IMHO.


----------



## sknox

Democracy is not a necessary component of being a republic. Two different political traditions there.

But that was hardly more than a wisecrack from me. I was merely pointing out that the Roman Republic did a fair bit of real estate acquisition, not to mention outright genocide. The Empire was as big as it was largely thanks to the Republic.


----------

