A question which has always bugged me is what empire in history has been the most powerful for its time?

Many seem to think that the Roman Empire was by far the most powerful and extensive, but I've always felt that the Ottoman Empire was by far the most powerful and expansive.

A question which has always bugged me is what empire in history has been the most powerful for its time?

Many seem to think that the Roman Empire was by far the most powerful and extensive, but I've always felt that the Ottoman Empire was by far the most powerful and expansive.

I will have to argue with you tommorow sometime inbetween classes, so i'll make this short. the Mongols made quick work of the Turks, and the ottomans actually saw it coming, which was an ultra rare strategy employed by Genghis and company ... They (ottomans) were greedy and believed to be untouchable, as did most of the Kings and Sultans of the middle/nearEast of that time which led to their down fall. In fact some still do (Saudis) :p

Mongols made quick work of the Turks,

From my understanding, the Mongols laid the smackdown on the Serjuk Turks, not the Ottomans? And the Mongols only occupied Turkey for one generation. That's the problem with nomads trying to build a empire. They don't settle down to watch their flock.

From my understanding, the Mongols laid the smackdown on the Serjuk Turks, not the Ottomans? And the Mongols only occupied Turkey for one generation. That's the problem with nomads trying to build a empire. They don't settle down to watch their flock.

read this its the only thing i could find that is accurate and a synopsis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ankara

Wikipedia doesn't go into great detail, but the reason the Mongols did not stay and conquer the ottomans is because they sought after victory and trade routes from eastern europe to Far east china. the problem with that is that during the time of Genghis Mongolia had a populace of fewer or just over 100,000 , and during the "Ankara" war fought by Kahn's descendents Mongolia was still relatively small, although made up for it with Valour :cool:

truth be told i have heard some say that the roman Army at one time consisted of over 100,000 soldiers when you calculate all the garrisons and enlisted men by treaty of conquered nations :eek:

Yeah, I knew about the battle between Bayezid and Timur. From my understand, Timur was the ruler of the Tartars, which ruled Turkish Islamic Empire neighbouring that of the Ottomans. Am I correct?

From my understanding, Turk and Mongols are ethnically very similiar.

Yeah, I knew about the battle between Bayezid and Timur. From my understand, Timur was the ruler of the Tartars, which ruled Turkish Islamic Empire neighbouring that of the Ottomans. Am I correct?

From my understanding, Turk and Mongols are ethnically very similiar.

"tartars" were mongolians, before Genghis ethnic cleansed then from the earth

*edit*

ok i did a quick search (bacause i wasn't sure) that says that "tartars" still live in regions of russia. Although it doesn't change my statement above, the Tartars were in constant battle with other tribes until Genghis Khan united them all, but he decimated the tartars.

A question which has always bugged me is what empire in history has been the most powerful for its time?

Many seem to think that the Roman Empire was by far the most powerful and extensive, but I've always felt that the Ottoman Empire was by far the most powerful and expansive.
Rome.
I've always had a penchant for the Austrian Empire...not just because of the Habsburgs, but also the sense of dominance they had in central europe from 1815-1866. The grandeur and majesty on which the Austrian Empire acted was simply awe-inspiring, though not as great as Rome's, but still pretty fuckin' cool.

It's the USA in 1991. After Ukraine independece from Russia and the defeat of Saddam in Kuwait.

While the US manufacturing base had aready dwindled this time was peak of global influence for any one man (George Bush seoir president) in the history of the world.

Rome had no influence beyond a third of the world. Bush through political alliances and the threat of the mighty US military, and foreign aid, and control of the World Bank, IMF, UN, CFR, and alliances with hundreds of politically active multinational corporations, had semi control over most of the worlds politics.

The USA alone may have had more people than the entire world in Roman times. Most modern people with modern technology are more powerfull than the people of Roman time and therefore control of modern people means more power.

Rome could not defeat Persia and could not afford to subdue the german tribes. In 1991 the USA had more influence in Russia than Rome had in Persia. For both Rome and the USA, a great Chinese empire existed outside their sphere of influence.

The Mongols occupied the most territory at any one time, and took over, what, three previous empires? And a whole crapload of civilizations. They weren't just occupying empty land. Would have had Europe, too, had Khan not died. Nothing prevented them from marching through Europe. Man, history would have been so different if they had moved through Europe. Yikes.

A question which has always bugged me is what empire in history has been the most powerful for its time?

Many seem to think that the Roman Empire was by far the most powerful and extensive, but I've always felt that the Ottoman Empire was by far the most powerful and expansive.
It has always been the Roman Empire that was the most powerful , their empire controlled 2/3s of Europe , North Africa and the mideast . It was the first Empire built on global finance and banking with a sophisticated trade network it was unrivalled for power and influence . Roman trade reached as far as Vietnam ,Roman coins have been found in China , the Roman empire had an emissary in Sri Lanka .

The Mongol empire consisted of vast empty spaces , the Ottoman empire contained the shell of the former affluent Levant that the crusaders looted out .

China is considered empty space?

1/5 of Europe,2/3 of Russia,1/2 of india,the middle east,1/2 of south east Asia, all of China and Mongolia - only controlling half of the population of the world .....
Weaklings ........

Coke and Pepsi can do better than that ......

It's the USA in 1991.
Most powerful Empires....not "most powerful nations".
Does the united states have an officially titled "Emperor"? No. Thus, it is not an "Empire".

Most powerful Empires....not "most powerful nations".
Does the united states have an officially titled "Emperor"? No. Thus, it is not an "Empire".

True, the US is a Dynasty not an Empire. That being said you will find alot of people who disagree, and they are usually in the far east (China, Japan :rolleyes:)

the domain ruled by an emperor or empress; the region over which imperial dominion is exercised
a group of countries under a single authority; "the British empire"
a monarchy with an emperor as head of state
conglomerate: a group of diverse companies under common ownership and run as a single organization
an eating apple that somewhat resembles a McIntosh; used as both an eating and a cooking apple
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
----An empire (also known technically, abstractly or disparagingly as an imperium, and with powers known among Romans as "imperium") comprises a set of regions locally ruled by governors, viceroys or client kings in the name of an emperor. By extension, one could classify as an empire any large, multi-ethnic state ruled from a single center. Like other states, an empire maintains its political structure at least partly by coercion.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire

Well, since nobody has done it better , than the mongol Khans , then they take the prize !!!

Their mentality is well described in this example , from a book about Djenghis Khan:
one of the mongol warleaders talks philosophy: "True happiness and joy is : going into battle, killing all your enemies, executing the men while their families weep, raping the women and taking possesion of their treasures, driving their horses and the slaves in front of you - that is true happiness !! "

The Mongols occupied the most territory at any one time, and took over, what, three previous empires? And a whole crapload of civilizations. They weren't just occupying empty land. Would have had Europe, too, had Khan not died. Nothing prevented them from marching through Europe. Man, history would have been so different if they had moved through Europe. Yikes.

Timur-i-Leng took off around 400 years after Khan died and spread the mongol empire farther than even genghis himself could accomplish. i know the history channel had a special a few months ago that said his main goal was to conquer eastern china or china-minor as genghis had intended before he mysteriously fell ill. when Timur began his voyage to Central China he mysteriously died as well, although believe he fell off of a horse.

For the guy who started this thread! ;) Tatars (Tartars)
An immortal name as it sounds, this is a much abused name ever seen, considered to be a collective name for all tribes and nomads of Asia by the Europeans (see Latinized Tartarus, Greek Tartaros, and Germanic Tatar). When Dr Sun Tat-sen called on the Chinese to overthrow the Manchus, he proposed a slogan called "Expel the Tartars (Da Lu) and Restore Our China". Paul Ratchnevsky indiscriminately applied the later generic term 'Tartar' to the specific group of nomads called Tatar or Ta-ta-er. (I had used Tatar for the name of the enemy tribe of Genghis Khan's Mengwu people while reserving Tartar for designations by Ratchnevsky and modern Western scholars.) Then, how long a history did this name have? While Paul Ratchnevsky mentioned that the Tartar name was recorded as early as the Kul-tegin inscription of 731-732, there was a difference in the Chinese pictographic form for the denotations. Father of Li Chunxu (founder of Posterior Tang AD 923-936), before Tang Dynasty ended in AD 907, had once sought refuge with a group of nomads called the DaDan, a word that was used by Dr Sun in his slogan. This early group of the Tartars apparently lived north of China's Shanxi Province, the ancient Dai prefecture. It would be extremely difficult to associate the Tatars (Tartars) with those who existed 200 years before Genghis Khan.


Mongol Invasion
http://www.uglychinese.org/steppe-4.gif

And Hapsburg - in 1241 the mongols captured both Poland and Hungary - stretching their border to your beloved Austria !!

Well, since nobody has done it better , than the mongol Khans , then they take the prize !!!

Their mentality is well described in this example , from a book about Djenghis Khan:
one of the mongol warleaders talks philosophy: "True happiness and joy is : going into battle, killing all your enemies, executing the men while their families weep, raping the women and taking possesion of their treasures, driving their horses and the slaves in front of you - that is true happiness !! "

Have you seen "Conan: The Barbarian" ? the director talks about taking Conan/Arnolds quote from something Genghis said and changing it abit.

Conan the Barbarian movie quotes:

• Mongol General: "What is best in life?"

Conan: "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."

Hi Artofwar- no I didn´t notice - I think I´ve got a video with Conan - I will look at it when I´ve got the time .......

Bloody aggressive militants - stil it is the only way to build an empire .....
I am glad I didn´t live in that time .......

Eh. The Mongols were pretty good as long as you weren't their enemy. Bloodshed between conquered parties was not allowed, you were allowed to worship any damn god you feel like and they didn't tax an arm and a leg. Life would go on much as it had before the Mongols came. They didn't really oppress you and they didn't allow anyone else to oppress you either.

Even if you were the enemy, the Khans usually made a point of offering surrender twice before taking a city. Fight them though and a quick death is something you should pray for. They were known for making an example of their enemy.

Japan :rolleyes:)
They still have an Emperor. In fact, they are the only country with a reigning Emperor in modern day.

It depends how you define the spread of an empire. I could argue that an empire is just as much a psychological entity, as it is physical in terms of its extent. Consider the British Empire, which most people would consider has gone to dust for fifty years. Yet they spread the use of the English language over the entire world; they spread the use of English institutions such as parliaments and the English legal system. I could argue that the present-day empire of the United States would never have spread so far--or comparitively so fast--if English had not been essentially a world language by 1945, when the British Empire started falling apart.

Hapsburg:

I've always had a penchant for the Austrian Empire...not just because of the Habsburgs,

The Habsburgs were pissing themselves in fear when the Ottoman Empire was at its zenith, and knocking on its doorstep after taking most of Hungary.. Hell, all the European nations were, especially when one of their crusades against the Turks was resoundingly crushed, as well as a naval fleet that the mightiest Christian nations put together under the command of Andrea Dorea. Up until the end of the 16th century, the Turks continually laid the smack down on inferior Christian nations. Only after the Counter-Reformation, when the Christians fought against each other and upgraded their mode of warfare, did they start to have victories over the Turks.

Before that, many Christian nations were vassals, or paying tributes to keep the Turks off their soil.

The Venetians lost naval dominance to the Ottomans, and had to hand over Crete and Cyprus. The only thing which prevented the Ottomans from marching into Central Europe was Vienna.

http://www.bartleby.com/86/4804.gif

Not too bad for Muslim savages. That's not including the Arab Empire, and the Persian Empire.

Without any question the British Empire. Ruling 1/4 of the world. The Sun Never Sets, etc. I am staggered that nobody proposed this yet. In terms of population mumbers - at the time; land area; resources; military power; political influence. No comparison.

Ophiolite:

Without any question the British Empire. Ruling 1/4 of the world

Didn't take them long to lose a lot of it, from my understand.

The Ottomans were slapped over the fingers at Malta 1565 by the knights of St. John
of the hospital - the turks ran home crying for mommy ......

The british Empire was spread out all over the world and the sun never set "just like in the former spanish empire " but the mongols ruled over a higher percentage of the worlds population .......

The most landarea ruled by B.E. was some 37 mill square km.
The most landarea ruled by mongols was some 35 mill square km.
(according to wikipedia)

B.E. had a field day with rifles and machineguns against natives ...
The mongols did it the hard way, with just about the same weapons as the opponents ........

Ophiolite:

Didn't take them long to lose a lot of it, from my understand.We didn't lose it. We gave it away. Yet, despite our comparatively small population we remain the fourth largest economy on the planet. How many others Empires ended up with their core intact and strong? [Please ignore the fact that currently we have a smiling dick head as a leader.]

yup
just as i thought ;)
fucking working class stiffs bartering and trading
rule brittania

Re: British Empire:
Didn't take them long to lose a lot of it, from my understand.
Well, that is perfectly true. But it is true of the Mongol Empire as well.

If "powerful" implies a system with the power to sustain itself, you have to put the Roman Empire in a class of its own. It brought a degree of organised violence and suppression that the world had not witnessed before.

Neither Alexander (before) nor the Mongols (afterwards) introduced a self-sustaining system which fed on its own strengths; merely they exhibited superior force of arms. It may be that because the Roman Empire grew so much more slowly that it evolved by degree the necessary apparatus for long-term survival.

Ophiolite:

We didn't lose it. We gave it away.

LOL. Big difference... Britain realized that you were too weak to sustain many of their colonies. They were far more trouble than they were worth, so you were forced to 'give them' away (except the United States). Instead of losing their colonies to enemy empires, they lost them to independence.

River Ape:

Well, that is perfectly true. But it is true of the Mongol Empire as well.

It wasn't a powerful empire to begin with if it slips through your fingers in one generation (eg. Mongol Empire).

Powerful Empires held onto their land, assimiliating the current inhabitants, and permanently settling their own citizens on conquered territory.

In otherwords, the Roman, Habsburg, Russian, French, British, Persian and Ottoman Empires would be the very definition of powerful empires.

We didn't lose it. We gave it away. Yet, despite our comparatively small population we remain the fourth largest economy on the planet. How many others Empires ended up with their core intact and strong? [Please ignore the fact that currently we have a smiling dick head as a leader.]
One might consider the present US dominance as a continuation of the British Empire. Surely if you were looking back at this period from a distance of a thousand years or so one might say something like:
The Anglo Empire relocated its leadership to Washington at about the middle of the twentieth century and its dominance continued and, in fact, increased through......

Without any question the British Empire. Ruling 1/4 of the world. The Sun Never Sets, etc. I am staggered that nobody proposed this yet. In terms of population mumbers - at the time; land area; resources; military power; political influence. No comparison.
Britain was the empire upon which the sun never set because god wouldn't trust the wankers in the dark...

But its all in good fun.

mountainhare, wouldn't you define the adaptation of the English language by millions and millions of people world wide as assimiliation?

mountainhare, wouldn't you define the adaptation of the English language by millions and millions of people world wide as assimiliation?

No.

What would you define it as then?

Hapsburg:

The Habsburgs were pissing themselves in fear when the Ottoman Empire was at its zenith,
Who wasn't? Poland, The Reich, hell, even Spain was all "ah shit, bitch!"
The only thing which prevented the Ottomans from marching into Central Europe was Vienna.
Which was defended by....Austrians (and Poles and Hungarians).

It seems like there are several dimensions of an empire that must be measured and balanced in order to measure its "power."

How much populated land mass did it cover? The USSR and its satellites or modern China probably have that one. I don't count Britain because so much of Canada and Australia were (and still are) really unpopulated. Still, they had India which is huge.

How far in linear distance did it spread? The British have that one with no competition. "The sun never set" on their empire, indeed.

What percentage of the Earth's population did they encompass? Modern China, once again, with about 20 %. Modern India a close second.

How diverse were their subject peoples? A bit difficult to define but surely the Brits nailed it. Mesolithic Australians, Canadians, Africans, plus the ancient civilizations of India and the Middle East.

How much influence did it have? The British outdid the Romans, Greeks, etc. But I believe we American "imperialists," as our Soviet enemies used to call us, thereby qualifying us as an "empire," have outdone them all. How many people in the world were not touched by Mickey Mouse, Elvis Presley, Sly Stallone?

So how about a tie-breaker? How long did it last? Ahem. Folks, it's China. About five thousand years as a continuous nation. If you take the integral of their influence, land mass, and population over time, they've got us all beat by an order of magnitude.

And if you don't think China should be called an empire, you'd better not say that to a Chinese. They were ruled by emperors until a hundred years ago. That's an eye blink to them.

By the way: The Turks/Ottomans are Mongols. They were one of the many waves of "Mongol hordes" that spread out across Eurasia over the last couple of millennia. They probably qualify as the slowest-spreading horde, however. They were Mongols when they started out but they kept marrying locals and having mixed-blood children everywhere they went. As they moved eastward they became Uzbek, Kazakh, Moghul, Kyrghyz, etc. By the time they reached Turkey they had picked up the Islamic religion and were about as much Arabic and Indo-Iranian as Mongolian. The Turkic languages are in the same family as Mongolian.

The Romans, Han China, and Tang China.

The British empire didn't last too long, and comparatively similar to the Mongol empire in terms of space-time.

If America can continue its prestige for another two centuries, I would rank it up with those three.

I'd say America. Sure, there's no "Emperor", but we have politicians that are worse. :p

I say the United States because we have soldiers all over the world in almost every country and hey, we basically run the whole planet too. Many countries adopt our ways and we also forces others to be so as well. The biggest thing though, is that we invented the nuke which has the ability to end all life here on earth. I don't care who you are, but that's power (And yes, I know other countries have nukes, but I had to place a limit somewhere).

And no, this isn't nationalism speaking either as I don't like most of the above, but since you're talking about "power", there it is.

- N

Hapsburg:

Who wasn't? Poland, The Reich, hell, even Spain was all "ah shit, bitch!"

Exactly! That's why I think that the Ottoman Empire would have to be one of the most powerful empires in history. All of Europe was fearful of Ottoman expansion from the 13th to 16th century.

john smith:

What would you define it as then?

Absorbing other nationalities. 'Forcing' them to follow your country's laws and edicts. 'Forcing them' to obey your government. Forcing them to adapt to your culture.

I don't see Australians, Canadians or Americans as 'assimiliated'. I see them as people who 'diverged' from the British, and retained some of their culture.

Most powerful empire? USA of course :D

Most powerful empire? USA of course

The same U.S.A which can't handle the Vietnamese, Koreans, Afghanis and Iraqis?

Errr, right.

And as Fragglerock mentioned, I would have said China is the most powerful empire in history for all the reasons he mentioned, but I can't say that now. Perhaps in a decade or two, they can be. The reason being is that they've basically always been the "sleeping dragon". To be the most powerful, at least in my book, there has to have been some kind of major exapansion which the Chinese just haven't yet done. They've always basically kept to themselves. Now that they're vying to be the top superpower, if they do some sort of major land grab in the future, they will have fulfilled all the requirements on my personal list.

- N

In my opinion, the Ottomans were about as great as the ancient Persians.

And a lot more comfortable to sit on.

The Mongols occupied the most territory at any one time, and took over, what, three previous empires? And a whole crapload of civilizations. They weren't just occupying empty land. Would have had Europe, too, had Khan not died. Nothing prevented them from marching through Europe. Man, history would have been so different if they had moved through Europe. Yikes.I thought the Queen of England had 1/8th of the total world under her control?

Regardless I'd say the 'Europeans". They conquered everything except Japan, central China/Mongolia and Russia of course.

And a lot more comfortable to sit on.
LOL, the death penalty joke also.

And a lot more comfortable to sit on.
They weren't just a load of poufs, you know! :p

I should haul you on the carpet for that. ;)

I thought the Queen of England had 1/8th of the total world under her control?We were taught 1/4.

In 1909 the British Empire encompassed 20% of the land area of the Earth and 23% of its population.

So 1/5th the land area, and just an insignificant tad under 1/4 of the population.

Source:http://www.friesian.com/british.htm

Interesting read at towards the middle where is labled "History" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria Really didn't know much about Celtic history, unless Scotts and Irish are considered true Celt's. Didn't know that Austria And Southern Germany were conquered so many different times. I was aware of the Roman's believing the Germanic people were Monkey Savages when conquering Germania.

A question to anyone who can consider themselves a self taught historian on the Indo-European History and Culture. Did the people of Germania take to Catholacism well after fighting somewhat gallantly against the Roman Empire:confused: I ask becasue i do know that germans have been Lutheran for quite sometime...

What would you define it as then?
Multiculturalism.

Really didn't know much about Celtic history, unless Scotts and Irish are considered true Celt's.Of course the Scots and Irish are Celts. They are the bulk of the modern Celtic people. Gaelic is one of the Celtic languages. The other surviving Celtic peoples are the Welsh, Cornish, and Bretons. Those three are the remnants of the true Britons, the Celtic people who were run out of their own country by the Angles, Saxons, and other Germanic invaders after the fall of Rome. The Celts were the first Indo-European tribe to migrate to Europe. After overcoming the earlier people, whose ethnicity is lost to history, they had most of the place to themselves until the Germanic people started coming down out of Scandinavia, the Romans began expanding, and the Slavs came in from the East, all at more or less the same time. The older Celtic tribes like the Bohumil, after which Bohemia (now known as the Czech Republic) is named, faded away under the three-pronged onslaught.Did the people of Germania take to Catholicism well after fighting somewhat gallantly against the Roman Empire? I ask becasue i do know that germans have been Lutheran for quite sometime...The Western Roman Empire fell but the Christian church did not. Christian monks continued to spread out across the known world, converting people and entire nations everywhere they went. What we now call Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy were the only two branches of the Christian church until the Reformation a thousand years later. Martin Luther, a German, was one of the first "Catholic" priests to "protest" and break away from the church. So the "Protestant" sect he founded in the German-speaking states was named after him. All of Europe, including the non-Indo-European peoples like the Basques and Huns, was converted to Catholic Christianity. Except for Russia and the northwestern fringe of the Byzantine Empire including Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia, where the Orthodox church held sway.

The same U.S.A which can't handle the Vietnamese, Koreans, Afghanis and Iraqis?

Errr, right.

Vietnam, I digress, was certainly a loss. Although it's worth mentioning that politically, America atrophied to the point where everybody was sick of hearing about Vietnam, nobody wanted to continue the war, so we pulled out.

Koreans were a different story. By any reasonable standards, America and South Korea "won" the Korean War, although technically we are in a cease-fire and the war is still going on.

Afghanistan, although still being fought, is definitely "handled." America's special forces are the ones fighting in Afghanistan at this point, and they aren't fighting against the actual Afghan military. They are fighting insurgents who come out of the woodwork to take shots at the soldiers and get the hell out of Dodge. The Afghan military was reduced to no more than the sand that they are fighting on. Makes me wonder what the Soviet Union was doing in Afghanistan for ten years. ;)

Iraq, Iraq, Iraq...Again, it's to America's defense that the Iraqi military (which used to be fourth largest army in the world, until they bit the wrong ass and got their asses handed to them back in '91) was wiped out within a month or so. To this day, America's forces are battling INSURGENTS, which is completely different than a regular military. I agree with many of you that America must change it's tactics if we are going to be anything than glorified target practice for the insurgents.

AmishRakeFight

Amish:

Vietnam, I digress, was certainly a loss. Although it's worth mentioning that politically, America atrophied to the point where everybody was sick of hearing about Vietnam, nobody wanted to continue the war, so we pulled out.

Correct. There is more than one way to win a war!


Koreans were a different story. By any reasonable standards, America and South Korea "won" the Korean War, although technically we are in a cease-fire and the war is still going on.

That really depends what America was aiming for. Were they aiming to stop communism from spreading to South Korea? Or were they hoping to eliminate Communism from the Korean peninsula?

In my opinion, the Korean War was a stalemate. Which really says a lot about the ineffectiveness of the U.S military. Surely they could handle some backwards Korean and Chinese soldiers no problem? Especially since America had many other allies from the U.N.


Afghanistan, although still being fought, is definitely "handled." America's special forces are the ones fighting in Afghanistan at this point, and they aren't fighting against the actual Afghan military. They are fighting insurgents who come out of the woodwork to take shots at the soldiers and get the hell out of Dodge.

Precisely. The U.S army can't even control insurgencies in countries that they claim that they occupy. Another example of how inefficient the U.S military is.

Did the people of Germania take to Catholacism well after fighting somewhat gallantly against the Roman Empire:confused: I ask becasue i do know that germans have been Lutheran for quite sometime...
1. Lutheranism and other Protestant branches didn't even exist until over a thousand years after the end of the Western Empire (though I'd be sooner to call it a long interregnum than an "end").
2. Depends on how you mean "Germans", or "people of Germania", since there were several peoples in Roman-era Germania: Saxons, Angles, Teutons, Alemmani, Franks...the Franks were probably some of the first Germanic tribes to convert. The Lombards and them had a big feud over who would control Italy, and thus the Papacy, essentially. In the long run, the Franks, under Pepin and Charlemagne, won out. Charlemagne was crowned Emperor Charles I by the Pope in 800. Prior to, and during, his reign as Emperor, when he was just King of the Franks, he conquered the Lombards, making himself King of that tribe as well. He invaded Saxony and the land beyond the Rhine, all the way up to the Elbe River...and converted the remaining nonchristian tribes...so, by Charles' death in 814, a lot of the Germanic people had converted to Catholic Christianity, and by 918, all of them had. Henry of Saxony became King of the Germans (Ol' Chuck's empire had been split amongst his grandsons in 843 and reorganized again in 870, and East Franconia was one of the three kingdoms)...
...and thus was the road to the Ottonian empire, and one of the most prestigious, strongest, yet most shattered monarchies in the history of Europe: the Holy Roman Empire.

Regardless I'd say the 'Europeans". They conquered everything except Japan, central China/Mongolia and Russia of course.

Too general; you could just as well say "Humans". Or "Africans", since we're all supposed to originate from some southern African tribe...

Too general; you could just as well say "Humans". Or "Africans", since we're all supposed to originate from some southern African tribe...
Bo, Australeopithicus was from what we now call Abyssinia.

Should outer space be included. Does the moon equal land mass? I rekon outer space should be included as well. The something like the potential of an empire should be looked at.

I have no Idea why there is any discussion at all. The British Empire was by far the Greatest ever. It was as big as the Spanish, French and Roman Empires put together!

Land Area of the Biggest Empires Ever at their height
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/Sizeofemp.PNG

Population size of the Biggest Empires ever when they were at their height
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/Popofemp.PNG


Here is an introduction of the British Empire I made for a website that I am in the process of Creating:

Once there was an Empire that spanned the globe. The "Sceptred Isle"Ruled over a third of the World, oppressing Slavery, bringinng levels of prosperity to the world that were never before experienced. It was the largest in history until its hasty dismantling saw the British Empire nearly disappear completely from the face of the globe. I hope this page answers the question an anxious George V whispered on his deathbed- 'How is the Empire?'

The origins of the British Empire can be seen as going back to the Middle Ages with the beginning of the conquest of Ireland (1169) and conquest of much of France during the Hundred Years' War. However, the modern British Empire can be considered having started in 1497 with John Cabot's claim to Newfoundland. The British Empire was the largest Empire in history; At it's zenith it held sway over a population of nearly 500 million people — roughly a quarter of the world's population — and covered about 14.3 million square miles (17.4 million including Antarctic claims), almost a third of the world's total land area. During the mid-19th century Britain was the sole developed hyperpower, enjoying unparalleled prosperity. Britain was "the work-shop of the world," and even by 1870 she still was producing well over 30% of the global industrial output, no other nation coming even close to her production superiority. In 1885 America and Germany can be considered as having become industrialised, but Britain was still the world's most developed nation until around 1913 when she was surpassed by America. Even in 1900, The United Kingdom was the only nation on earth to have less than 20% of its population employed in agriculture, compared to France, who even in 1950 was still 25% agricultural. In modern Britain about 1% of the population are farmers. Due to the supremacy of the Royal Navy Britain was largely a thalassocracy, and truly did rule the waves for centuries. With territories scattered across every continent and ocean and in every time-zone, the "Empire Under Palm and Pine" was accurately described as "the empire on which the sun never sets."

The Empire facilitated the spread of British technology, commerce, language, and government around much of the globe through Pax Britannica and British Imperial hegemony. The contributions the British Empire made to the world, the technology, philosophy, literature, medicine, investment, institutions, and plain advancements of man-kind have left a profound legacy. She was the birthplace of both the industrial and green revolutions (The green revolution was huge improvements in farming that led modern farming methods, so that much more food could be produced). As the birthplace of the industrial revolution she was more technologically advanced than any other nation on Earth.

Of course the Scots and Irish are Celts. They are the bulk of the modern Celtic people. Gaelic is one of the Celtic languages. The other surviving Celtic peoples are the Welsh, Cornish, and Bretons. Those three are the remnants of the true Britons, the Celtic people who were run out of their own country by the Angles, Saxons, and other Germanic invaders after the fall of Rome. The Celts were the first Indo-European tribe to migrate to Europe. After overcoming the earlier people, whose ethnicity is lost to history, they had most of the place to themselves until the Germanic people started coming down out of Scandinavia, the Romans began expanding, and the Slavs came in from the East, all at more or less the same time. The older Celtic tribes like the Bohumil, after which Bohemia (now known as the Czech Republic) is named, faded away under the three-pronged onslaught.

Whooaaaaa! I understand that modern research is making it a lot more complicated than that regarding "Celts". For starters, the only link relating UK populations to "Celts" is the language. Genetic studies suggest that the language was imported, rather than the people, or else it's origins were much further back into the Bronze age. Plus we need to make sure we talking about the same "Celts". If you mean celtic languages, then I will roughly agree with what you are saying. If you mean Celtic people, ie genetics etc, then I will disagree slightly. All we can really be certain of is the language link, but the Celtic culture and multiple invasion waves theories (La tene spreading outwards etc.) that have dominated the scene for over a hundred years are somewhat out of date. Not to mention that there is either only one, or no, references at all by the ancient writers calling the Britons "Celts".
Also do you have any good resources?



As for the thread title, well, if you mean most powerful as "Most able to destroy stuff", then the USA's hegemony after WW2 comes first. However, if you go by population and cornering of the world economy, then I think the UK empire comes first.

Well, you type "Celtic Britons" into Google and you get a quarter of a million hits. Even after you toss the ones with titles like "Proud History of the Magnificent White Race," it's chaotic. They go into about the same level of detail, talking about the Celtic Picts who lived in what is now Scotland when the Romans came and the Celtic Britons who lived south of there at the same time. Some say that the Welsh and Cornish were already established as distinct tribes and are not descended from fleeing Britons.

None of them really impresses me with authoritativeness, footnotes, or original scholarship. This is what I've been reading all my life and I had no idea that it was controversial. It must be a well-loved theory because I've never encountered an opposing viewpoint before yours, but I see that it could as easily be legend as history.

I am swayed to think that the Celts may not have been the first Indo-Europeans in Europe. Archeology says that the Indo-European diaspora started spreading in that direction around 4,000BCE. A likely scenario is that the Celts showed up 2,500 to 3,000 years later with their Bronze Age weaponry, and the Neolithic tribes they overwhelmed were simply previous Indo-Europeans who had missed out on the Paradigm Shift to metallurgy.

As for genetics, I'm of the opinion that DNA analysis of modern humans is not a promising approach to sorting out the migrations of their ancestors. The Romans made long-distance travel safe and practical, and they welcomed foreigners, if only as slaves. If that didn't stir up the genetic pot to the point of obliteration, subsequent transporation technologies like full-rigged sailing ships and railroads certainly did. You might find occasional pockets of recognizable gene pools in the backwoods of New Guinea or Brazil, but not in England.

Does the moon equal land mass?
Yeah, has anyone bought that thing yet? Or at least has a country attempted to claim it entirely?

Fragglerocker, your definitely right about the chaos. First I should say I do not know about Indo-europeans in Europe, that has been somewhat outside my interest so far, since I have started with my home country (Scotland) first and am working outwards as I go.

Much of it is due to the continuation of misguided and totally wrong victorian ideas. I have had nasty arguments with people about it before, especially since I've started reading more up to date material, such as the Historic Scotland book on Celts in Scotland, in which the author essentially says that Celts is something of a misnomer, and really only refers to the language, and that we arent really as certain about the culture as people like to think. For example, when lokoed at with modern eeys and techniques, the archeological record does not show invasion of the UK by Hallstatt and La Tene celts, unless you are somewhat biased. Instead, it looks more like trade, movement of important people by marriage or such, leads to artefacts turning up in out of the way places.
I have also read a modern book called "The Celts: origins, Myths and Legends", by John Collis, professor of Archeology at the University of Sheffield and the leading British authority on the European Iron age. Or in other words he very likley knows his stuff. In it he points out that at most, only one ancient source calls people in the UK "Celts", and ex[plains how the word has spread from meaning the tribes/ peoples around Northern Italy/ southern France, into covering an entire language group. Yet the simple fact is that people in the UK speak a variant of a Celtic language, so, my idea and one that I shall be reading more about, is that the Celtic languages may have been spread in the Bronze age. The Historic Scotland book I mentioned above suggests that Celtic started as much as a trade language like Swahili or similar, and changed and grew over hundreds of years, a reasonable hypothesis based on the evidence we have. Which to be honest is nowhere near as much as we would like. So much of the popular understanding of "Celts" is based upon old pre modern studies, wishful thinking, biased writing and propaganda.

About gene studies, it was one about red hair I was meaning, that found the mutation to have occured a few thousand years ago in the UK/ Ireland, and seeing as that is where red hair is to this day still found, the investigators suggested that meant that there had not been wholesale population replacement by "Celtic" invaders in the British isles. I shall see if I can dig the url out.

Heres the URL:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

Very interesting article. Heres a link to the thread I was involved in discussing it all:
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54271

The poster padraig Shuteran is a textbook example of the kind of buffoon that bedevils discussion of this kind of thing.

i'd say the mongols or the hapsburg empire at it's zenith. if i'm not mistaken, the hapsburg empire (under the family) at one point ruled the Holy Roman Empire (Germany, Austria, Western Poland, etc...), the Spanish Empire (including all of it's South America, Central American, and Asian colonies), and had various alliances with other families through marriages. it was absolutely HUGE.

if we were to include any political entities (not just empires), i think America was one of, if not, the most powerful "empire" in history. of course...that might not last too long hah.

You forgot Hungary, Croatia, Lombardy, Venetia, Modena, Luxembourg, parts of the Netherlands, Galicia and Lodomeria, Portugal + Portugese Colonies, Burgundy, etc.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Francis_I.jpg
Gott Erhalte Franz den Kaiser.

Hapsburg:

We're men, we're men in tights.
We roam around the forest looking for fights.
We're men, we're men in tights.
We rob from the rich and give to the poor, that's right!
We may look like sissies, but watch what you say or else we'll put out your lights!
We're men, we're men in tights,
Always on guard defending the people's rights.

We're men, MANLY men, we're men in tights. Yeah!
We roam around the forest looking for fights.
We're men, we're men in tights.
We rob from the rich and give to the poor, that's right!
We may look like pansies, but don't get us wrong or else we'll put out your lights.
We're men, we're men in tights (TIGHT tights),
Always on guard defending the people's rights.
When you're in a fix just call for the men in tights!

We're Butch!

In reply to by nirakar's: "It's the USA in 1991."
Most powerful Empires....not "most powerful nations".
Does the united states have an officially titled "Emperor"? No. Thus, it is not an "Empire".Yours is a rather useless definition. Would you say that a rose ceases to be what it is, if we change the name?

The pope is not called and "emperor," but he sure heads and empire, by any reasonable definition of "empire."

To be clear, I will define an "Empire" as:
Any organization that collects more than half of it income as tribute from distant peoples, by some form of intimidation.

Usually the "organization" is political, typically a state with citizens and has some central ruler or rulers.
Usually the "some form of intimidation" that get the tribute paid is military might. (The Pope also uses fear, but it God’s wrath, not bullets and clubs etc.)

With this definition, rather than whether or not the leader is called an "emperor", then clearly, nirakar has a case for the USA as an empire, probably the most powerful and efficient that has ever existed, but the Catholic Church has done well longer. Both may be in danger of collapse by being over extended and no longer are serving their citizens/members well.

These are the usual reasons why empires collapse - to much wealth is corruptly concentrated into the hands of the few - Enron, corruption of Congress, four straight years of average wage decrease, etc. in case of USA. Pedophile priests eating in the best restaurants with gold plated Churches and hungry congregations (especially in 2nd and 3d world countries), difficulty in replacing aging priest, growing secularism, etc. for the current Roman Empire)

The next Empire will be one of the oldest, much transformed, called China, but it certainly has already sown the "corruption seeds" well, but even with this, the influx of tribute wealth is so great that the people's lot is rapidly improving.

One can notice the increasing efficiency of Empires:
All pre-Christian ones simply sent the army in and took what they could that the central group wanted. (Usually setting up a local administration, who could call the army back, if needed, to continue taxing the concurred group.)

Post Christian ones need a rationalization (or face saving justification) to do the same. (Usually this was to "save the souls" of those whose natural wealth was being stolen. The church cooperated, and participated but did teach the natives their language)

The now dead British, dying American and rising Chinese empires have less need of "save the souls" but "white man's burden" (to civilize), "make the world save for democracy" or "establish the people's welfare" seem to be adequate replacements.

Perhaps the British empire failed because they spent to much making India speak English, building schools, rail roads etc. rather than simple looting, as in the "good old days." The Spanish and Portuguese, managed to get gold out of South and Central America, spread their languages, etc. without failing because of this Effort. (Napoleon occupied Portugal, driving the king to what is now Brazil, and the British seamen destroyed the grand Spanish fleet.)

American made a quantum leap in efficiency of collecting tribute wealth, especially oil. - The US fiat dollar*. - Most of the world gives valuable goods, reasonably willingly still, for pieces of paper with no real lasting value that have been printed in such quantity that soon their near worthless nature will be apparent to all. (These pieces of paper cost less than one cent to make, yet while they are accepted, buy 100 times more. - Many more circulate out side of US than in it. Definitely the most profitable export ever invented, at least for now.)

China is making further efficiency improvement. - They exploit the workers to help the capitalist of the world! (Poor old Carl Marks must be spinning!) China is the first country in history to have an influx of greater than US$ 100 billion direct investment by foreigners in one year. Soon they will need a stick to beat away the hordes wanting to bring wealth to them. - Now that is efficient collection of tribute, will little external deployment of the army or administrators required!
___________________________________
*Normally in the case of oil, the US does not even give these green pieces of paper, just brielfy changes some bank records, which are returned to their original values in days, at most, when the previous owner of the oil buy US's IOUs. (called Treasury bonds etc. - You must grant that is a "quantum leap" in efficiency of tribute collection.)

Your definition would be wrong, then. How can it be an Empire without an Emperor?
American Superpowerdom, maybe, but there has never been an American Empire.

China has been Empire in the past, but isn't and never will be until another family takes up the Mandate of Heaven, a sort of transferrable right to the throne.

Your definition would be wrong, then. How can it be an Empire without an Emperor?...What is your definition of Emperor? (non circuLar, PLEASE.)

I like discriptive definitions. Can you desicribe an empire, even if you define it as any domain of influence by someone must call himself (or is commonly called) "emperor."

BTW - I am the Emperor of my fish tank, so that is an empire. :rolleyes:

I'd say the British, just for the fact that a tiny Island managed to achieve such a feat, and that English is still the second most spoken language in the world behind Mandarin.

What is your definition of Emperor?
Someone with the official title "Emperor", and is recognized by a third party.
BTW - I am the Emperor of my fish tank, so that is an empire. :rolleyes:
Not observed or recognized by a third party, thus not valid.

Hapsburg:

Not observed or recognized by a third party, thus not valid.

I recognize that Billy T is the Emperor of his fish tank Empire...

You still have missed my point.
An Empire is a nation with an Emperor. It can be a multiethnic nation, but if it doesn't have an Emperor or regent, it's not an empire.

Hapsburg:

An Empire is a nation with an Emperor. It can be a multiethnic nation, but if it doesn't have an Emperor or regent, it's not an empire.

Not true.

http://www.answers.com/topic/empire-1

An empire (also known technically, abstractly or disparagingly as an imperium, and with powers known among Romans as "imperium") comprises a set of regions locally ruled by governors, viceroys or client kings in the name of an emperor. By extension, one could classify as an empire any large, multi-ethnic state ruled from a single center. Like other states, an empire maintains its political structure at least partly by coercion. Land-based empires (such as Mongol or Achaemenid Persia) tend to extend in a contiguous area; sea-borne empires, also known as thalassocracies (the Athenian and British empires provide examples), may feature looser structures and more scattered territories.

In the broader sense, yes. But, fuck the broader sense. I'm talking about the simple version, going to the root of the word.

In the broader sense, yes.

Then why are we arguing?


But, fuck the broader sense.

???


I'm talking about the simple version, going to the root of the word.

If that's how you choose to interpret it...
Although you are really constraining yourself by claiming that only emperors/empresses can rule empires.

The issue here isn't really whether an empire has to have an 'emperor/emperess' as such (although to be fair, the clue is in the word empire), no, the issue is what an empire actually is. I've been through many web deffinitions and one of the most common I found was: 'a group of countries under a single authority; "the British empire"'.

A single authority could be a group of people, e.g, one government, and not an emperor, controlling a number of different countries. But again, that isn't the point, the point is, an empire is a group of countries under a single rule, submitting to one nation, one flag, one law and under control by one nation. America, in no sense of any of these definitions, has an empire. It does not controll any other countries except its own! Sure, it has military bases and embassies in other countries, but only because those countries allow them to be there. And if one of America's trading countries decided to halt all trade with America, they could do nothing about it, unlike the British empire, which controlled all trade, politics, military etc etc within the countries it ruled, and every nation was under the British flag and embraced british rule, law and language. No-one can deny that America is the most powerful NATION at the moment, and that it has a significant presence throughout the world, in terms of economy etc, but it does not qualify as an empire, by any traditional sense of the word. It did have an empire once though, back in "1915-1934, when it controlled not only the Philippines, but also had occupied Haiti." which ranks it 12th in the list of the world's largest empires.

If you wanted to totally stretch and distort the definition of what an empire is, then sure, you could probably include America, just like, if I wanted to stretch and distort the definition of 'genius', I could probably include G.W.Bush :p

But even if, by some twisted stretch of the imagination, you wanted to include America into the list of poweful empires, it STILL would not come close to the power of the British empire. A quote from wikipedia: "On a world scale the power of America is rivaled only by the peak of the British Empire during the 19th and early 20th centuries."

The British empire once controlled about 1/4 of the world's land surface, and almost a third of its population, making it the lagest empire in history. No nation has ever achieved that kind of power, and that is a fact. And what's more, Britain held sway over the ENTIRE ocean, which comprises a lot more aread then land! There was no area of the sea on the globe that the British navy did not have controll over, and again, no nation or empire has ever achieved that. To me, this isn't a debate, the British empire wins this topic hands down, it isn't open to debate, its just a fact that no other empire was more poweful then the British empire, and to suggest differently is like trying to argue that 2+2=5

The British were also unique in that instead of pillaging and plundering their conquered lands and buggering off home, they actually paid for and built schools, hospitals, trading ports etc etc, and put a lot of money into the whole empire, which is one of the reasons why it went bankrupt! I'm not saying the British empire was all goodness and done for the benefit of others, and I know the British committed some seriously bad crimes, but no other empire ever put as much work into building up its colonies and lands as the British. They gave the world education, law and medicine, established the world's first real global trading network, introduced people to the english language, started the industrial revolution which brought the world into the modern era...the list could go on and on... And it is a credit to the greatness and uniqueness of the empire that there is still a commonwealth of nations, all of whom were former colonies of the British empire, and areas such as Hong Kong and America/Canada/Asutralia etc still use the English legal system, still speak English, and some even refuse to drive on the right! :D

This image shows all the land conquered by the British, though the Eastern seaboard of the USA was gone before the colonial expansion that occured later on:
http://www.safalra.com/other/graphics/britishempire.png

If that's how you choose to interpret it...
Although you are really constraining yourself by claiming that only emperors/empresses can rule empires.
If it's an "empire" in a sense, but lacking an "emperor", I'll simply call it a multiethnic nation. Like modern China: no emperor, but an "empire" in the sense that it has many ethnicities (Han, Manchu, etc.) and so on.
The British Empire didn't have an "Emperor" per se, until 1877. They referred to thier colonial empire as "the dominions beyond the seas". In 1877, however, Queen Victoria titled herself "empress of india", thus making an actual imperial title to the "empire".

Most nations called an "empire", however, have an "emperor" or "king of kings" type of title.

1. USA
2. Ming China
3. Roman Empire
4. Han China
5. Abbasid Caliphate
6. British Empire
7. Achmaenid (Ancient) Persian Empire
8. Spanish Empire
9. Mughal Empire
10. Mauryan (Classical Indian) Empire

What a load of nonsense.

British Empire 6th?

USA first? USA is not even a proper empire.

what about the Egyptian kingdoms?

The issue here isn't really whether an empire has to have an 'emperor/emperess' as such (although to be fair, the clue is in the word empire), no, the issue is what an empire actually is. I've been through many web deffinitions and one of the most common I found was: 'a group of countries under a single authority; "the British empire"'.

According to the map, it says Britain conquered Afghanistan, but this is true. The British could not get past the Durrani line which has now become the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I believe the largest empire is the British Empire though it was hard for them to maintain and it didn't last very long due to its sheer size. The Moghal (Mongol) Empire under Timuchin Chengez (Gengis) Khan, Kublai, and his descendants was also very large, but they merely obtained tribute from their subjects and never actually 'ruled' them. Their empire was then made into a Muslim Sultanate when the Maghals became Muslim. The longest lasting Empire would have to the Khilafah, Caliphate, which lasted almost 1000 years. The Khilafah has historically also been the determining factor major of the world's Muslim cultures and many countries entire cultures are based solely on its history. The impact of the Khilafah on the regions which it controlled are enormous. The British and Moghal Empires had significant influence on their peoples, but as far as influence I believe Islamic Khilafah was the greatest.

Peace.

I believe the largest empire is the British Empire though it was hard for them to maintain and it didn't last very long due to its sheer size. The longest lasting Empire would have to the Khilafah, Caliphate, which lasted almost 1000 years. The Khilafah has historically also been the determining factor major of the world's Muslim cultures and many countries entire cultures are based solely on its history. The impact of the Khilafah on the regions which it controlled are enormous. The British and Moghal Empires had significant influence on their peoples, but as far as influence I believe Islamic Khilafah was the greatest.

One thing you said is actually true, the British Empire was the largest.

The Caliphate Empire however, spanned Spain to Central Asia, was conquered by Muslims and broke up after about 200 years. And of course, back then, it was either the 'carrot or the sword.' In other words, join Islam or die, very simple indeed.

One thing you said is actually true, the British Empire was the largest.

The Caliphate Empire however, spanned Spain to Central Asia, was conquered by Muslims and broke up after about 200 years. And of course, back then, it was either the 'carrot or the sword.' In other words, join Islam or die, very simple indeed.

Historically there have been different rulers controlling the Khilafat from Sahabah, Umayya, Abbasi, Seljuk, Uthmania (Ottoman). Majority of the Islamic States during the time, while not specified on the map of Khilafat control, were under rule by the Khilafat and swore bayat to Khalifah. The Islamic Khilafat had different regions which had local governments who were loyal to the Khalifah.

Peace.

what about the Egyptian kingdoms?
Hmm...yes, lasting for about 3000 years with relatively the same culture throughout would be a major achievement...add to that the massive structures they built to display thier power.

Hello young scientists,

I was trying to find links on contributions made to society be the Ottoman Empire or technology pioneeered and couldnt find any. Can someone point a few out to me, i know there must be many.

It is undeniable that the Roman Empire changed the world forever. I cite governance, infrastructure, architecture and some of the greatest artwork created during this time period. Alot of which just did not exist prior.

They had really no religion to speak of, i think they believed in human achievements more than anything.

I would not use the physical size or the power of its war machine as a sign of a great civilization.

Didnt the founding fathers of America look at Roman Empire for ideas as much as or more than they did Britian?

Ummmm the Roman Empire is the reason Europe is Christian.

They were personally responsible for the Dark Ages.

Previous to that they were pagan, and sacrificed livestock and that kind of thing.

Hello young scientists,

I was trying to find links on contributions made to society be the Ottoman Empire or technology pioneeered and couldnt find any. Can someone point a few out to me, i know there must be many.


Recognition and Archiving Knowledge of Modern Diseases (http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?TaxonomyTypeID=11&TaxonomySubTypeID=56&TaxonomyThirdLevelID=-1&ArticleID=527)

Training of Specialists in Medicial Field (http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?TaxonomyTypeID=11&TaxonomySubTypeID=56&TaxonomyThirdLevelID=-1&ArticleID=538)

Modern Primary School System (http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?TaxonomyTypeID=101&TaxonomySubTypeID=-1&TaxonomyThirdLevelID=-1&ArticleID=531)

Wind Power in early Islamic History (http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?TaxonomyTypeID=103&TaxonomySubTypeID=26&TaxonomyThirdLevelID=-1&ArticleID=328)

Construction of Complex Dams and Hydraulic Technology (http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?TaxonomyTypeID=103&TaxonomySubTypeID=28&TaxonomyThirdLevelID=-1&ArticleID=239)

Early Muslim Science Discoveries (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/themes/science/index.html)

1001 Achievements of Islam (http://www.1001inventions.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.viewSection&intSectionID=309)

Islamic contributions (http://dictionary.al-islam.com/Eng/Dicts/SelDict.asp?Lang=Eng&DI=85&Theme=37)

Essay on Islam and Medicine (http://www.islam-usa.com/im4.html)

Islamic Technology and Europe (http://www.ais.org/~bsb/Herald/Previous/95/science.html)

Islamic Medicine (http://www.islam-usa.com/im3.html)

Islamic Contributions to Science and Math (http://www.netmuslims.com/info/contributions.html)

Arab and Muslim Influence on Sciences (http://el.hct.ac.ae/Mosaic_04/Contributions.htm)

Muslim Scientists (http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/index.htm#scit)

Peace.

DiamondHearts,

thanks dude.

Schleebenhorst,

your assessment is innacurate on all accounts.

Please elaborate.

Please note that inaccurate is not semantically equivalent to wrong.Ummmm the Roman Empire is the reason Europe is Christian.The conversion to Christianity of a single Roman Emperor set in train a series of events that led to the nominal Christian character of Europe. That is quite a different thing from what you said.
They were personally responsible for the Dark Ages.The Roman Empire, as a conceptual entity, cannot be personally responsible for anything. The Dark Ages were a consequence of the fall of the Empire, not caused by the Empire.
Previous to that they were pagan, and sacrificed livestock and that kind of thing.Since pagan is derived from the Latin paganus, meaning 'rural' or 'related to the country', it would be wholly inappropriate to call the Romans pagans. Perhaps you meant heathen. At any rate not all their diverse pre-Christian beliefs called for livestock sacrifice.

I am confident Vasislidante will come up with his own set of objections.

For one thing, since a Roman Emperor converted to christianity, which caused the chain of events to occur, couldn't you just simplify that into what GF said?
And, if the Empire hadn't been stupid enough to cause thier fall, then they wouldn't have collapsed.
And the word you two are looking for was "polytheistic". "Pagan" cannot really apply because Roman polytheism was highly organized and urbanized, and "heathen" cannot really apply because that more describes northern European polytheism, i.e Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Old Germanic polytheism, than classical Greco-Roman polytheism.

Didnt the founding fathers of America look at Roman Empire for ideas as much as or more than they did Britian?
That, and the ancient Greeks, and especially to thier own land: the Iroqouis Confederation was one major influence, as was the local colonial governments like the Virginia House of Burgesses.

Speaking of size. the No.1 Empire is Russia. Got the most land, so screw all other empires, Russian empire is the greatest cause what does empire want? to expand. And guess what Empire expanded the most? Russia.

...The British could not get past the Durrani line which has now become the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. ...DH, you seem very knowledgable about middle east history, unless you are a very skilled fabricator. - (I am too ignorate in all this to be sure you are not one, but do not think you are one, so I want to ask a question of you.)

I read once, long ago, that Alexandria the Great conquered most of what we now call Turkey and down into Iraq, but was not able (or did not care to) control the mountainous region which most of the population living there then and even today, would like to be recognized as a Nation, called Kurdistan.

Is any of this reasonable true?

Is it true that the mountainous land in which many Kurds live has been unconquered or at east enjoyed a degree of self-rule for all of recorded history?

I lived most of my pre-college years in the US state of West Virginia, which is also mountainous. The state motto of W. Va. is three Latin words, which translate as "Mountaineers are always free."*

I suspect that GWB's Iraq war will end with the division of Iraq and finally cause Kurdistan to be a recognized nation. This will cause a significant part of Southern Turkey's population to want to become a "Turkish state of Kurdistan" and a civil war in Turkey. I.e. the net effect of GWB's war will be war in the region for at least a couple of generations and nothing resembling any "model democracy" in Iraq, but most of GWB's decisions have been about as bad as one can imagine. He has a knack for doing the things, which will destroy the American empire and end the global dominance of the US dollar.

I would appreciate your views on all of this.
----------------------------------------------------------
*I do not even know my US history well, but suspect that this motto was not always the noble, general, claim it appears to be. W.Va was a western part of the state of Virginia until the US civil war, in which the "slave states" fought the "free states". Virginia was a "slave state,"** but the western part of it did not support slavery as much as it did the idea of each man has the right to determine his own life, make "moonshine," hunt when ever he wanted to, etc. I suspect the "free" in the state motto was originally equivalent to "not slave," but even if that is true, to be "not slave" is sort of the same thing as "free" in the more general sense the motto is understood today.

My heart is not Diamond, but is with the Kurds. -They should be recognized as a nation.

**Slavery, of course, was not the true reason for the US civil war. The true reason was, as is almost always the case, an economic conflict, But few are willing to die so that the wealthy can become more so. Consequently, some nobel cause is always proclaimed to be the reason for every war.

DH, you seem very knowledgable about middle east history, unless you are a very skilled fabricator. - (I am too ignorate in all this to be sure you are not one, but do not think you are one, so I want to ask a question of you.)

I read once, long ago, that Alexandria the Great conquered most of what we now call Turkey and down into Iraq, but was not able (or did not care to) control the mountainous region which most of the population living there then and even today, would like to be recognized as a Nation, called Kurdistan.

Is any of this reasonable true?


I have also heard this from many Kurdish people. The Kurdish were known for being strong and great warriors, a very independent people. When Islam came to the Kurdish region, many Kurds joined the Islamic armies and quickly gained respect as brave and courageous people. Even Salahuddin Ayyubi, the famous Islamic general during the crusades, was Kurdish. He was renowned in his time and even now as a military genius, yet being extremely kind and devoted to his religion.

I do know that Alexander the Great did have a hard time in Afghanistan as well, as he met fierce resistance from Afghanis who are also renowned for being brave and courageous in the region. Speaking of the region, in my country of Pakistan we have people of the Macedonian army of Alexander the Great who settled in the north of our country in that era and whose descendants live there today, they have very white skin and dress different than our people.


Is it true that the mountainous land in which many Kurds live has been unconquered or at east enjoyed a degree of self-rule for all of recorded history?

Yes, before they joined the Islamic Caliphate, they were an ethnic group with a region on the north of Arabia. When Kurdhish people became Muslim, they became devoted subjects to the Islamic government and rose in ranks in the government. Many Kurdish regements fought the crusaders with Salahuddin during the Middle Ages. They enjoyed great respect and admiration during the Islamic rule of the Middle East, even under the Ottoman empire.

In the beginning of the 1900s, the Young Turks organization (which was a european educated revolutionary group) took control of the Ottoman Empire and took the Khalifah out of power and ended the Islamic ottoman Empire. The Young Turks were responsible for genocide of Armenians and many minorities, and after a while they left control of all territories which used to belong to the Ottomans, leaving them at mercy for the Europeans. This was of the demands which the Europeans supported the Young Turks into power for doing. After this, the Europeans directly invaded the Middle East and subjugated Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Berbers, and many ethnic peoples in the region.

During the end of the imperialist era, after World War 2, the European powers decided to divide up the nations of the former Ottoman empire among only their sellouts among the Arabs, Persians who sold their own people for better relations with the Europeans. This is how iraq's kinf Faisal, Iran's Shah, the Saudis, and many dictators came from. They are descendants of the parties which supported genocide of their own nations to gain power and favor form the Europeans. The Europeans were afraid of the Kurdish people, this is why they divided up the Kurds between Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. Like Afghanis, Kurdish were strong people and practiced religion strongly. Even today, the Kurdish parties in influence in Iraq are many Islamic parties. Kurdish people are Sunni Muslim. So after some Kurdish desired freedom, they were not allowed by Iraq's old government and even the new one because they live on top of oil.


I lived most of my pre-college years in the US state of West Virginia, which is also mountainous. The state motto of W. Va. is three Latin words, which translate as "Mountaineers are always free."*

I suspect that GWB's Iraq war will end with the division of Iraq and finally cause Kurdistan to be a recognized nation. This will cause a significant part of Southern Turkey's population to want to become a "Turkish state of Kurdistan" and a civil war in Turkey. I.e. the net effect of GWB's war will be war in the region for at least a couple of generations and nothing resembling any "model democracy" in Iraq, but most of GWB's decisions have been about as bad as one can imagine. He has a knack for doing the things, which will destroy the American empire and end the global dominance of the US dollar.


I believe that Kurdistan should be a separate country and that the oil should belong to only the Kurds. Kurdistan was a region with a local government in the old Islamic Khilafah, and the Kurdish were very loyal to the Islamic government. However the Kurds should not be ruled by Americans and right now many American government companies are controlling Kurdish oil.

Many Muslims in the world are against American influence in their region, and the rights of the Kurdish to a separate country is natural for the people.


I would appreciate your views on all of this.
----------------------------------------------------------
*I do not even know my US history well, but suspect that this motto was not always the noble, general, claim it appears to be. W.Va was a western part of the state of Virginia until the US civil war, in which the "slave states" fought the "free states". Virginia was a "slave state,"** but the western part of it did not support slavery as much as it did the idea of each man has the right to determine his own life, make "moonshine," hunt when ever he wanted to, etc. I suspect the "free" in the state motto was originally equivalent to "not slave," but even if that is true, to be "not slave" is sort of the same thing as "free" in the more general sense the motto is understood today.

My heart is not Diamond, but is with the Kurds. -They should be recognized as a nation.

**Slavery, of course, was not the true reason for the US civil war. The true reason was, as is almost always the case, an economic conflict, But few are willing to die so that the wealthy can become more so. Consequently, some nobel cause is always proclaimed to be the reason for every war.

Yes I agree with you. The American people do not want to subjugate Iraq, however they are being manipulated by the government to support this war. The American people have recently become fiercely anti-Muslim and Americans must realize that Iraqis and Afghanis are Muslims and they must respect their cultures.

Not all Americans are bad, but the majority of the people who voted for Bush and supported Iraq war are hated by the Muslim people of the world, we blame these people for genocide of our people.

Thanks for asking these questions, I'll be free to answer any other questions you or anyone else might have, please send me a private message.

Peace.

....Even Salahuddin Ayyubi, the famous Islamic general during the crusades, was Kurdish. ...Thank you for the information.

I note for the benefit of those who do not know, it was Salahuddin who retook Jerusalem from the Christians, but unlike when the "Christians" conquered the city, he did not slaughter the inhabitants. Instead he gave them safe passage to return to Christian lands.

I would also like to note, since this is a science forum in large part, that Ptolemy’s great collection of astronomical data has come down to us "Westerners" only because it was copied into Arabic and preserved while most of my ancestors were illiterate. If they happened to have a copy, they would not doubt have found it useful only for wiping their ass, but most probably did not bother with that.

It is an unfortunate characteristic of many Americans to be both ignorant and arrogant. When a local school board in western Kentucky (or SW West Virginia, I forget which) held a public meeting about 55 years ago to discuss the advisability of adding a foreign language to the high school curriculum, I read in my local paper a summary of some of the comments. The only thing I clearly remember now, was the reason why one old man was opposed. Holding his Bible high and waving it, he said: “If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it dam well is good enough for our kids.” Some of his grand children are no doubt active in the “Intelligent Design” movement of today.

I was raised as a "church going Christian" but I am now agnostic. I have more admiration for Islam's historical global actions than for those of the Christians;* however, on a more individual level, my feelings often reverse. That is, I think things like wanting to execute an Islamic man for switching to another religion is outrageous intolerance. etc. (Ref. The recent case in your country.)
----------------------------------------------------
*You no doubt agree and know many horrors the Christians have committed on innocent people. I am an American, by accident of birth, but now live in Brazil, by choice. What the Christians did to the natives living here (and all of South America) I think was much worse, if that is possible. From the POV of their global actions, the Devil could not have designed more effective agents for mass murder and mayhem than Christian invaders of other's lands. Unfortunately, the arrogance and ignorance that this is founded on is still very wide spread among Americans today. GWB is a good example of what I am referring to.

Peace

oh my, thank you Billy.

Since pagan is derived from the Latin paganus, meaning 'rural' or 'related to the country'


Well you can argue with Cambridge Online Dictionary on that one.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=57037&dict=CALD

As for your other points....fair enough.

I never touch dictionaries that don't say Oxford on the cover. :)

Collins has a good name too ;)

Well, they were pagans according to the Oxford Online Dictionary too....of course there is room for struggling on that one.

Thank you for the information.

I note for the benefit of those who do not know, it was Salahuddin who retook Jerusalem from the Christians, but unlike when the "Christians" conquered the city, he did not slaughter the inhabitants. Instead he gave them safe passage to return to Christian lands.

I would also like to note, since this is a science forum in large part, that Ptolemy’s great collection of astronomical data has come down to us "Westerners" only because it was copied into Arabic and preserved while most of my ancestors were illiterate. If they happened to have a copy, they would not doubt have found it useful only for wiping their ass, but most probably did not bother with that.

Are you trying to denounce the western countries? Are you saying that European civilisation didn't produce the greatest (scientific) minds in history? Are you saying that Ottomans weren't brutal killers, murdering entire cities' populaces at times?

I could tell you all about Islamic wonders and greatness or horrific inventions (such as slavery) and actions or those of Christianity or any other religion for that matter. The problem is in the nature of humen...

Are you trying to denounce the western countries? ...No.
Western minds have indeed made some great contribution, especially in science. In general, because that, for several centuries, the Westerner have been more capable of doing either harm or good. Say since the discovery of guns /canon etc.

I agree with you that doing evil is human characteristic when it is self beneficial and will not be punished. Even better, if the powers can persuade the masses that the evil is really in service of some great cause, like making the world safe for democracy or protecting freedom of the seas, converting the heathens, etc. (Few will go to war so the wealthy can become more so.) Thus in South America, armed with guns and wanting the yellow metal, Christian did terrible things because they could. I strongly suspect this had little to do with Christianity but more with who had the guns and who had the bow and arrows.

What I am trying to point out is that many Americans are arrogant and ignorant. This combination often gets America into trouble and foreign ill-advised adventures.

For example, American entered the Vietnam war AFTER the French were defeated, fully expecting to do much better even thought the French had been their much longer, knew the customs of the population, spoke the same language as the educated natives, etc. A more recent example is Iraq, but there are many historical examples of this arrogance and ignorance. Perhaps it was best summed up as "America's manifest destiny" - Arrogant phrase first proclaimed more than 100 years ago by a US President, I think, but forget which. Book of a couple decades ago also made the point I am trying to make. It was called: "The Ugly American."

GWB has solidified this view in most of the world. Just to mention one item: his go-it-alone attitude on lots of things from Kyoto requirements to his US claims of the rights to make "regime change," or "targeted killings" where ever he deems it necessary.

I agree with you that doing evil is human characteristic when it is self beneficial and will not be punished. Even better, if the powers can persuade the masses that the evil is really in service of some great cause, like making the world safe for democracy or protecting freedom of the seas, converting the heathens, etc. (Few will go to war so the wealthy can become more so.) Thus in South America, armed with guns and wanting the yellow metal, Christian did terrible things because they could. I strongly suspect this had little to do with Christianity but more with who had the guns and who had the bow and arrows.

What I am trying to point out is that many Americans are arrogant and ignorant. This combination often gets America into trouble and foreign ill-advised adventures.

But you just got through arguing that imperial hubris is a universal trait that any powerful group will display (a sentiment I'd tend to agree with). That implies that Americans get into trouble not because they're more arrogant and ignorant than others, but rather because they simply have the power to do so while others do not (i.e., France couldn't invade Iraq even if they did want to). Did not the French (and English, Portugese, Spaniards, Belgains, etc.) get themselves into similar fixes time and again during their powerful years? And does not their newfound "wisdom" about foreign adventures coincide exactly with the decline of their capacity to engage in them?

But you just got through arguing that imperial hubris is a universal trait that any powerful group will display (a sentiment I'd tend to agree with). That implies that Americans get into trouble not because they're more arrogant and ignorant than others, but rather because they simply have the power to do so while others do not (i.e., France couldn't invade Iraq even if they did want to). Did not the French (and English, Portugese, Spaniards, Belgains, etc.) get themselves into similar fixes time and again during their powerful years? And does not their newfound "wisdom" about foreign adventures coincide exactly with the decline of their capacity to engage in them?I agree that America currently has the power,* but in answer to your two questions, No and No; however, I am not completely sure the difference is due to some uniquely American characteristic instead of simply the current, more rapid, pace of the world. The second “No” is becaused they showed this “wisdom” when they did have the power. Now that they do not, we can not tell if they still have it or not. If you want to argue for a “Yes” answer to the first, please do so. I would like to be educated as to the Vietnam and Iraq like blunders these other nations made back when they were the most powerful.

Americans invented "fast food" and in general do not want to take the time and trouble to learn the "inferior" local customs etc. (I view this as more evidence of their arrogance.) They tend to think that all the world will want to do things as America does them, have the same goals as America has for themselves, etc. will quickly fall into line with the American values and system, etc. This was so “obvious” in Iraq, that there was no need to plan for the post military victory phase!

America lacks the patience for making successful "regime change." For example, the British made one in India, but it took about 100 years. America is almost out of patience in Iraq in less than 1000 days. America is proud to state that it has no intention to occupy the lands it has conquered, but most of the prior examples you cited succeeded precisely because the invaders stayed for the generations it is necessary to transform a country.

WWII and Japan may be an exception, but I suspect that Japan "was ripe for change" anyway. I do not know the facts well enough to support this, but bet that even without a new constitution handed to them, the emporia would have no more real power today than the Queen of England has. Again, I admit that this difference in patience may be at least partially due to the pace of the modern world, but it does seem to be most strongly expressed in America, home of the "fast food" fast regime change etc. I do not think any other nation is so confident that they have the best form of government. Most educate their citizens with a more global view that their country is one of many and not "better" than the rest. I think most Americans believe America is better than the rest and are simply ignorant of facts like where educational levels are higher and life expectancies are longer etc. Again, my point is America needs to be a little less arrogant and less ignorant, for it own good. Do you know how much your children will pay for the Iraq adventure, which will probably result in a stronger Iran, Turkey in civil war as its Kurds try to join Kurdstan, oil production from that area continuing to be below the pre-invasion levels for decades etc.?
------------------------------------------------------------
*My last post even stated: “Westerner have been more capable of doing either harm or good” and of course America is the leading “western power” at the present time.

I would like to be educated as to the Vietnam and Iraq like blunders these other nations made back when they were the most powerful.

Well, how about Vietnam and Iraq? You yourself just mentioned how badly the French fared in Vietnam when trying to reassert their empire after WWII. Good info on the British empire in Iraq is available at:

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/iraq.htm

Notably:

"Britain's withdrawal from Iraq was a swift one. It came with the overthrow of the Hashemite regime that Britain had so assidiously cultivated over the years. The Hashemites had never fully gained legitimacy as rulers in the eyes of the Iraqis. They were regarded as little more than foreign rulers who followed every beck and call of their British masters. Constant tribal bickerings and uprisings weakened the government in outlying areas of Iraq, whereas in the main cities, political dissatisfaction was expressed in the ballot boxes and the free press that Britain had expressly created for the country. Political instability was a concern for the entire period of Hashemite rule, they regularly had to call upon the police and the military to maintain order in the country. "


America lacks the patience for making successful "regime change." For example, the British made one in India, but it took about 100 years. America is almost out of patience in Iraq in less than 1000 days. America is proud to state that it has no intention to occupy the lands it has conquered, but most of the prior examples you cited succeeded precisely because the invaders stayed for the generations it is necessary to transform a country.

WWII and Japan may be an exception, but I suspect that Japan "was ripe for change" anyway.

You should probably wait till the US actually withdraws from Iraq before counting up how long they lasted. But anyway, the United States has hundreds of foreign military bases in like 130 countries, many of which predate World War II. Besides Japan and Western Europe, there's South Korea, the Phillipines and Panama, just to name a few. And as far as patience goes, the US Navy is still in Cuba, 40 years after the whole thing blew up in our face...

A question which has always bugged me is what empire in history has been the most powerful for its time?

Many seem to think that the Roman Empire was by far the most powerful and extensive, but I've always felt that the Ottoman Empire was by far the most powerful and expansive.


Wrong, the british empire was, oz, america, india, canada, africa, no other empire spanned the world as ours did, your ottoman empire did not cover the expanse of oz or the states or canada, so your choice is wrong.

I am happy to correct you, in this matter, and i wont be billing you neither, not this time, but i can not continue to correct you in many matters, without incurring charges in the future, regards Sir Vincent.

I never touch dictionaries that don't say Oxford on the cover. :)


Oh really, you snob.

Ive heard of geolgists, being killed by land slides, and poking around active volcanoe's how come its never you?

Or are you a couch geologist wanabee, i urge you to stick your head down a active lava chute in hawaii, then let me know the temperature, if your still alive.

Well, how about Vietnam and Iraq? You yourself just mentioned how badly the French fared in Vietnam when trying to reassert their empire after WWII. ...
You should probably wait till the US actually withdraws from Iraq before counting up how long they lasted. But anyway, the United States has hundreds of foreign military bases in like 130 countries, many of which predate World War II. ... You are not exactly responding to my point. I agree that pre 1900 almost all of Africa and most of SE Asia, including even China, were ruled (at least indirectly if not actual colonies) by foreign powers of Europe. Germany had not gotten "its share" of the spoils (part of reason for WWI) with France and England (do not forget India) dominating although the smaller European nations generally had an amount proportional to their size. With few, if any exceptions, they are all gone now. Therefore, I obviously agree that the European lost their control of much of the Earth. That was not what I was speaking about when I asked for education about other "blunders" comparable to the US's in Vietnam or Iraq (I forgot to mention Bosnia and Somalia, "Black hawk Down" etc. where we got only costs, no gains) Since you have misunderstood my intent with "blunder" I will try to define it, but don't hold me to any precise definition - I am just trying to show that I was not talking about losing a colony etc.

I consider it a national "blunder" (of the foreign adventure type - there are other kinds.) when a nation spends a lot of blood and treasure and in the end has only "egg on its face" and lessen power in the world to show for the "foreign adventure."

The British may no longer "rule the waves" but I cannot think of any of their colonial losses that cost them more than the profits extracted. They really knew how to lose a colony (US included) with such grace that the former colony becomes a great ally - Even today, the sun never sets upon the British common wealth.

The French were never as good as the British about getting out, but most if not all (Algeria may be a net negative) were far from "blunders" in sense that the wealth extracted exceeded the expenses. Often when they left a colony in Africa, they took the phones home with them. The French are not quite as ignorant as the Americans are, but they do not have to take second place when it comes to pride, and that is closely related to "arrogance." It is their huge pride that may have caused Algeria to be a net negative (and thus nearly meeting my "blunder" requirements) Rather than give Algeria up, it was considered to be "a part of France" - get born there then and you were a French citizen. One can argue that the cars burned recently in France are part of the "Algerian blunder" if one wants to claim it was a blunder. (I am not sure it was, but not well informed. I think Algeria supplies France with natural gas still, but could be wrong about that. In any case, even if a blunder it is a minor one compared to the recent ones of the US.) As far as the French adventures in "French Indo- China" region is concerned, including their period of domination of Vietnam, I suspect rubber alone extracted more than paid the cost. Certainly it was not a "blunder" as I use this word.

I cannot comment on all the European "foreign adventures" but most were far from blunders. The Belgium Congo was actually the personal property of the King, and a great source of income (diamonds and gold, etc.). The Dutch did very well years earlier. Etc. I suspect the US loss in blood in Iraq alone, not to mention the 50,000 or so in Vietnam, has already exceed the total of all the minor European nation's blood loss in conquest of their colonies.

There is also another slight disconnect in our exchange: I was not concerned with how long the domination of the foreign land lasted, but with the net gain or loss associated with the "foreign adventure." However, the longer the land is controlled the easier it is for the "conquest costs" to be fully recovered. I will also admit that even the British have not always been exactly what I would call moral in their conquest methods. -I think they dominated China by the introduction of opium until the "boxer rebellion" ended that, but I am very weak on my history so may have it all wrong.

Summary: Because of their ignorance (especially of the culture they are invading) and arrogance (especially "we are the best that can be" attitude), the Americans have end up with a very negative net result in recent years. We did better long ago when stealing land for the Indians or the Mexicans and even pulled off good deals in our "purchase expansions" at the expense of France and Russia, but US’s recent foreign adventures have been unprecedented disasters. I am still waiting for you to educate me on any blunders of some other nations that even come close.

Oh really, you snob.
I am not a snob, I am an elitist. Elitists are justified in their sense of superiority. Snobs are just deluded. I am sure with some effort you could make the latter.
Ive heard of geolgists, being killed by land slides, and poking around active volcanoe's how come its never you?I am a geologist of the old school. The traditional method of accidental death is to be struck by a train while investigating a railway cutting. This has become increasingly difficult to engineer since Dr. Beeching.

In terms of sheer power, Mongols 100%. They took down the Chinese empire, the Persian Empire, the Turks, the Russians, the Koreans, the Indians, the sultanates of south east Asia, and I believe pushed as far west as Bulgaria. Europe was pretty much doomed, had not Ghengis died. What they did was truly amazing.

In terms of most influential empire, probably the Romans.

British Empire, hands down

they owned a quarter of the globe - more then any other

even though they lasted a shorter time in power then say, the romans, this is due to the fact that they were a more modern empire

In terms of sheer power, Mongols 100%. They took down the Chinese empire, the Persian Empire, the Turks, the Russians, the Koreans, the Indians, the sultanates of south east Asia, and I believe pushed as far west as Bulgaria. Europe was pretty much doomed, had not Ghengis died. What they did was truly amazing.

In terms of most influential empire, probably the Romans.


This thread is closed now!!!!!!!!!!!

The last word is mine, the UK and no one else had the greatest & most powerful empire ever.

Our empire spanned more countries & more land than any previous empire.

Oz, America, Nz, canada, africa, india, can you comprehend the land mass.

I dont want to hear about romans, mongrels, hippie's or anyone else.





James R

This is no longer a discussion, and the thread is now closed, Sir vincent has proved his point.

Vincent, when James closes a thread, you can't reply... :p

History changes. One day there might be a galactic empire, and anything earthbound will seem tiny in comparison.

Does not seem to be closed. Quadraphonics and I were having a mutually educational exchange, perhaps of benefit to others. I hope he is given the opportunity to reply to my latest post. I admit that most of the other posts here are pretty worthless expressions of opinions, without much educational value, but see no reason to close this thread, which IMHO does have some usefulness. Most of the threads should be closed if the base for closure is that they are mainly repetitive expressions of opinions.

I doubt Vencent28UK is really James R in disguise.

Vincent:

Wrong, the british empire was, oz, america, india, canada, africa, no other empire spanned the world as ours did, your ottoman empire did not cover the expanse of oz or the states or canada, so your choice is wrong.

I stated that the Ottoman Empire was the most powerful and expansive for ITS TIME, imbecile. I wasn't attempting the compare the Ottoman Empire at its peak to the British at their peak. When the Ottoman's were at their peak, their Empire was more expansive, more integrated, and more technologically advanced than any European country, INCLUDING the U.K. Don't forget who won the Crusades against the Turks...

Although a quick thought. The British Empire may have been 'expansive' per se, but how much control did they have over their colonies

In terms of sheer power, Mongols 100%. They took down the Chinese empire, the Persian Empire, the Turks, the Russians, the Koreans, the Indians, the sultanates of south east Asia, and I believe pushed as far west as Bulgaria. Europe was pretty much doomed, had not Ghengis died. What they did was truly amazing.

In terms of most influential empire, probably the Romans.

I'm with you on this one Roman the mongol armies that invaded the middle east and europe were light years ahead of everyone they met. They practically toyed with thier opponents whether they were light missle troops from the middle east or heavy cavalry from northern europe. They were short on longevity but were unequalled in terms of military dominance for about a century. I thought "The Devils Horsemen" was a good start for some insight intothe mongol war machine.
I have a suspicion that the persians should also rank in the top as far as longevity and influence go. I mean they got as far as Greece about a half millenia before the height of Rome and remained a thorn in the side of Rome and later Byzantium right up until muslim armies overran them in the seventh century. They were of course also the only empire ever to capture a Roman emperor.
After I finish Byzantium some Persian history is on my to read list any recommendations would be appreciated.

I'm with you on this one Roman the mongol armies that invaded the middle east and europe were light years ahead of everyone they met. They practically toyed with thier opponents whether they were light missle troops from the middle east or heavy cavalry from northern europe. They were short on longevity but were unequalled in terms of military dominance for about a century. I thought "The Devils Horsemen" was a good start for some insight intothe mongol war machine.
I have a suspicion that the persians should also rank in the top as far as longevity and influence go. I mean they got as far as Greece about a half millenia before the height of Rome and remained a thorn in the side of Rome and later Byzantium rig