** Grendel69
I can see where you’re coming from here, in that they were very advanced and powerful and such, but I couldn’t call them the world’s greatest empire for the same reason that my Hamurabi sugestion was shot down, but it applies even more in this case: they had no lasting influence. Their culture was literrally destroyed.
I don’t know very much about the Incas, except that they aren’t considered to be an actual ‘civilization’ because they had no written language, but it is doubtful that the Maya really qualify for Great Empire status. The ancient Maya were organized into city-states not unlike those in Greece and fought a lot between each other. Not really the making for a great empire. The Aztecs, on the other hand, truly kicked a lot of ass and had a very wide sphere of dominance in Mesoamerica. They were ultimately defeated by the Spanish, but likely wouldn’t have been if it weren’t for their enemies, who, eager to see their downfall, joined up with the Europeans. Bet they regretted it later.
I feel that it is necessary to take into consideration the shrinking of the world when discussing this. A great distance a thousand years ago is now only a short one. How can we even compare? Of course, some ancient empires were huge even by today’s standards. Using that line of thought, the greatest were probably the Roman and Mongolian empires.
Much thanks Kyla. That’s exactly what I wanted to know. I’d have to say that it’s between the present day US, 19th century-early 20th century Britain, and the Ottomans.
I am basing this on the criteria as follows…
Size
Longevity
Military Might
Cultural Influence and Preservation
Scientific and Social Advancement
I disqualified the some of the previously mentioned empires because they were utterly lacking in some categories. Sure the Mongols had size, and military might, but did they discover the automobile or do we read mongolian epics in high school. Methinks not.
I still feel we’re missing some nations. Maybe that ever so powerful Eskimo empire of the Arctic…
Influence and Empires can be quite differant, duh!, no really .
The Vikings didn’t have an Empire as such but their influence which was militarily based was out of proportion to the size of population.
They were invited into Russia to make it governable and some of their influences live on in most of the Northern European states.
Interesting thread, however I didn’t read any mention of the great African empires of West Africa: Segou, Ghana, Timbuctu or Great Zimbabwe. Obviously these empires seem small next to the giants: US, British, Soviet Russia, but they were influential in trade, universities/science, wealth, the spread of Islam. There are tales of one leader’s visit to Mecca and the tons of gold, philosophers etc he brought with him. The universities in Cairo, Khartoum and Timbuctu existed well before the European Renaissance and they continue to operate even today. Well, Timbuctu bit the dust several hundreds of years ago, but the books in the library are still there for folks to use.
I don’t think that historians have given enough serious attention on the impact of the African empires, certainly on North and SubSaharan Africa, so that we can really appreciate the richness and glories of these societies.
I’m not an African historian, but I would greatly appreciate if anyone would post more information on the subject.
Good call peaches. That’s what I was thinking when I mentioned the South American civilizations. I am in college right now and there are few courses on African history, philosophy , etc… Zimbabwe was supposed to be a center of wealth and culture, but alas, I know no details. I do have to say that I wouldn’t group the universities in Cairo into an African group though. They has been a Muslim insitution since theirinception. I would associate them more with the Ottomans than anything else.
I agree that the Mongol empire was very powerful. It was by no means the MOST powerful at any time, but they had the biggest advances in the shortest amount of time. The Mongols rose from living in tents on the harsh steppes of Mongolia to become a military might. They conquered much of Asia using simple wood bows and horses. All of this in one lifetime. Of course, when Kubali Khan died, the empire split again, much like what happened when Charlemagne died.
The Saracen empire at one time was much more civilized than any european culture. While Europe was fighting itself in the dark ages, the middle eastern empire built a wonderful culture based on Islam. They had founded libraries and universities, monestaries and mosques. Not to mention they held off three crusades.
I’m not so sure about that, (here’s another possible candidate:) the Caliphate after Muhamed’s death. Around tyhe year 600 Muslims shot out in every directin to conquer the world, and they damn near succeeded, too! All of North Africa, Afghanistan, India, the Middle East, the Caucases, Turkey, pats of the Balkans, and most of Spain came under their sway- that was with in 100 years, true, but it took the Mongols that much time (if not more) to conquer twice the area in size, but half the population (…after casualties…)
The interesting thing about that era of Islam was how they interacted with their newfounded conquerees. They were a lot more just and fair than one would expect of a conquering empire in that they allowed most of the conquered cultures to retain the customs and such.
peaches added:
The second line of your comment answers the inquiry. The thread is dedicated to debating who was the greatest empire…Africa has at best been a pawn on the global stage. Just or not, they aren’t considered because they don’t merit it. Now, I am aware there is an immense amount of cultural and governmental history there, but that is all besides the point.
Grendel, your criteria are reasonable, but I’m not sure I agree that the 3 canidates you had remaining fit. The US most certainly does. Britain however falls well behind on the scientific stage. Considering how many advances the US and Germany (well before their peak of success) made during that pre-industrial age when Britain was in dominance, the Brits expended all their enegry expanding and governing the colonies. They accumulated great wealth, but were unable to or unwilling to dedicate their energy to the impending technology boom. This is a factor that sealed their fate as short lived empire by the standards of their predecesors. While the Ottomans were also successful, no one has offered any of their achievements to qualify them by your standards. I have no knowledge of any scientific or engineering feats they demonstrated. The other factors you highlight, the Romans surpassed the Ottomans by a large margin. The Romans had a much greater military might, larger size, more longevity, and their cultural and social influence was at very least equal to the Ottomans.
As I said above, I really don’t think any final conclusion is possible in this debate. However, I don’t think it’s at all accurate to state the British Empire did not contribute tech advancement.
The Empire effectively grew out of one such tech leap – the ability to measure longitude – then there was the small matter of the steam engine and what was that thing called……’The Industrial Revolution’. I believe some people are bold enough to consider this computer age might eventually lead to something worthy of a second industrial revolution. But not everyone considers it to be that significant yet.
Of course, Newton on gravity, splitting the first atom……ahh, can’t be bothered.
Mass production of steel, power loom, programmable industrial machines, recognising the effect of diet on health(Limeys?)
Index machine engineering, Accurate timekeeping, Newtonian laws of motion, Calculus, Maxwells laws, the legal system upon which the US is based, abolition of slavery, universal state education, microscope, theory of evolution, parliamentary system, using cowpox as a vaccine against smallpox, the battleship, bicycle, postage stamp, naperian logarithms, steam turbine, steam engines and steam trains, pneumatic tyre, rubber vulcanisation, curry as we now know it, Babbages differance engine, mapping using contours, effect of mass on gravity
Now what have the Romans ever given us?
not to mention evolution, profesional modern military, exploration, foot holds in China, mass opium, and others.
casdave wrote:
[ul]
[li]Calculus was invented by Newton in England and Leibnitz in Germany (Austria?) at about the same time. Today, it is Leibnitz’s system of notation that is used, as Newton’s is too limited.[/li][li]Maxwell didn’t discover any of the 4 “Maxwell’s Equations”, although he did modify Ampere’s Law to take the field inside a capacitor into account. Ampere was French.[/li][li]The legal system in Louisianna is based on the common law of Napoleonic France, not the common law of England.[/li][/ul]
Sorry guys, but every techincal advance made by Britain over the last 500 years doesn’t count as a advancement during their great empire. Several of those mentioned occured before Britain made any true advances. Several occured long after much of their empire had crumbled. Also, Britain was a secondary player in the industrial revolution. Not to mention Britain was barely a shadow of their empire when the industrial revolution actually occured.
Even so, when one considers all the listed advances, it isn’t on par with the other nations at the time. Now they came up with things that the Romans didn’t 2000 years earlier, but 2000 years ago, the Romans did things that are impressive when the rest of the world was still building tents and banging on drums. The Brits however have things to their credit, they did nothing to overshadow their peers in the times. A poor statement considering their global and financial dominance.
Secondary player…riiiiiggght…Let’s see, where did it START? London? Uh-huh…The steam turbine really started the revolution and that was invented in, guess where- England! True, it wasn’t during their peak days, but it was at a decent date, imperial wise- by 1800 they had imperial holdings in America, India, the Mediteranean, and the Middle East.
Secondary player…riiiiiggght…Let’s see, where did it START? London? Uh-huh…The steam turbine really started the revolution and that was invented in, guess where- England! True, it wasn’t during their peak days, but it was at a decent date, imperial wise- by 1800 they had imperial holdings in America, India, the Mediteranean, and the Middle East.
And Maxwell was prescient enough to imply inconsistancies in Newtonian physics that had a bearing on Einstein’s theories.
Maxwell just 4 equations - and the rest of his body of work ?
The screw propellor had some effect on the world too, guess where it came from ?
Anyway GB’s time has been and gone everyone knows who has the big boots on nowadays.
George Carlin once said that America is the only nation on Earth whose national anthem has rockets and bombs in it. 
Good point, tracer - although could it be fireworks ?
If National Anthems were to contribute to determining the ‘greatest’, i would have to seriously question the Mongols. OK, it’s only on the basis of hearing (something like) ‘The Mongolian Throat Singers’ on a Frank Zappa album but i just hope they don’t win any gold medals at the Olympics. Sheesh.
Could the expansionist tendencies of that empire have been based on the desire to escape ?