I was arguing with on of my friend about what was the greatest empire ever. He said that it was that of Alexander the Great. He even showed me a TV program which said that.
I on the other hand believes that the mongollian empire was the greatest. I told him that sometimes TV are not always correct. He agreed with me on that. Since we’ve been reading your website for about a month now, we decided to search the website for the mongolian empire or on Genghis Khan , but found NOTHING. There we ask you to answer once and for all, who was the greatest empire on Earth?? Please don’t tell me the Romans, because We want to know in terms of land and army.
In terms of land area and military strength, an excellent case can be made for the United States.
I’m not sure you can compare a modern nation to one of thousands of years ago.
A single one of the US’s nukes could have taken out an unbeatable army of millenia ago.
It wouldn’t take a nuke. The most pissant modern army on Earth with modern weapons could conceivably take out an “unbeatable” army of millenia ago.
What criteria should be considered when naming this “greatest empire?” Percent of world population controlled? Land area controlled? Economic strength? Military strength? All of the above plus longetivity?
Someone said United States. Why am I not surprised.
In terms of Land Area and Man-Power (army) I’d say The British Empire… (as far as I know - no other empire has covered more of the earth. And I assume that at that time it’s total number of military employees was greater than any other empire, but that is just an educated guess. someone correct me if I am wrong - nicely)
Afterall, this is an ‘in history’ question not a ‘now’ question.
I agree with friedo.
Besides - Is USA really an empire? Empires seek to conquer. USA doesn’t.
No contest in terms of land, the British Empire was unarguably the largest empire the world has ever seen. At its peak it controlled significant portions of nearly every continent (the Americas, Africa, Australasia, Europe-Asia even a bit of Antartica). It was not called “The Empire on which the Sun never sets” for nothing!
I don’t know about size of armies but will do some checking
Sure - USA could anhialate any other Empire (probably all of them put together) with it’s bombs/planes/tools etc. But the op asked said ‘in terms land and army’ which I interpret as - how much land did it cover, and how big, in soldiers was it’s army (or military)
We need to define some Citera here. Are we talking Military strength? Land area? Influence?
The problem is, it’s hard to compare different eras of history. Right now the US is aurguarbly the most powerful nation on earth, however, that distinction would only be true since around 1990 or so. From then back until around 1945, it would be a draw between the US and USSR. Further back, we’d probably have to go with the British empire, then Spanish, Roman, etc.
Even a relitivily crappy military(say, france) of today would probably be more then a match for the best army of a hundred years before, just due to differences in technology (unless training was bad).
The question needs to be clarified.
As the above posters have noted, it is hard to compare across periods. The British Empire was the all time champ in total acreage, the Mongols in total contiguous territory.
Alexander’s empire was the largest the world had seen up until that point, but it did not survive his death intact and he died young.
If you want the state that was the most comparatively dominant in the world over the longest period, I’ll very tentatively throw out Achaemenid Persia, which Alexander overthrew. From the mid-6th to the late-4th century B.C.E. there was no comparable large, unified state in the world to match it. India didn’t begin to unify until the Mauryan dynasty, which arose at the same time the same time the Achaemenids were eliminated, Europe/Mediterranean Basin/Near East was either Persian or far below the Persians in scope and power, and China, despite an already ancient civilization, wasn’t anywhere near unified until the late 3rd century.
But really you could put forward several historical candidates based on a variety of criteria. And yes the Romans are definitely in the running as one of the most significant, including in terms of land area and military assets ;).
- Tamerlane
For the army with the most soldiers, I believe the Chinese army of the 60s was the largest. According to this site, it maxed out at over 6 million soldiers.
I’m curious as to the question implied by the OP, ie, which was greater, Alex’s empire or Genghis’s empire?
Well, again it comes down to difficult comparisons. Also are we talking about the two empires at those respective leader’s deaths or at the two empire’s greatest extent? Alexander’s state, despite some attempts to hold it intact, in hindsight died with him. Whereas Chingis Khan’s continued to actively expand, quite substantially so, for decades after his death. Chingis’ state at his death was larger than Alexander’s. But the Mongol Empire at that point still faced some tough opponents, most notably the enormously populous and immensely wealthy Southern Sung dynasty in central and southern China and had not yet penetrated seriously into Europe or subdued all of the Middle East. In contrast Alexander was pretty much absolutely supreme with no real compeitition from any single state, though his planned campaigns in the west may not have been cakewalks had he lived, just because of transportation and logistic difficulties, if nothing else.
I would say that the later Mongol Empire at it’s height ( say after 1279, or even the unified state in 1258 ) dwarfed Alexander’s in just about every respect. But it still is a somewhat awkward comparison, considering the 1500 years that separate the two and the very different worlds they existed in.
- Tamerlane
In terms of empires conquered by single leaders, Ghengis Kahn is the undisputed champion. Alexander was earlier, and probably more tightly ruled, but in area, and military might (compared to the existing military might of its contemporaries) the Mongols were unrivaled. The British Empire was by far the most enduring of the World Empires during last two millennia, but their military was not unchallenged, even at it’s height.
Do we consider the Celts an empire? Probably not, but they did extend their influence from Hungary, to Britain, and Ireland, and south into Spain, and possibly even the Mediterranean. But they were not centrally governed. They were also pretty much unopposed for the first thousand years of their expansion. What about the Rus? Is their Empire gone yet? Does the Soviet Union count? If so, do you count in the satellite nations? Population alone leaves Mao Tse Tung the all time Emperor Champion, and it doesn’t seem reasonable consider his empire has gone yet either.
Comparing military strength across the ages is pretty pointless. The Ohio National Guard could destroy any ancient army, with impunity, and if they desired it, without being detected. If you go back to a time before the development of guerrilla warfare techniques, modern weaponry is pretty much invincible by comparison. Support for the systems needed is also impossible without a modern society, so the daydream battle against the Mongol Hoard is of no real significance, since the modern army gets to starve to death shortly after they win.
Denying the expansionism of the USA is a bit ingenuous. If you consider Maine, to Hawaii, Alaska, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands there are few contenders in history who have covered a wider area. The US Navy says that the Pacific is an American Lake. The thousand-mile diameter encompassing the Carrier Groups of the various fleets come fairly close to meeting any reasonable criteria for military domination.
Tris
“You could park a car in the shadow of his ass.” ~ Geena Davis, in Thelma and Louise ~
Just out of curiosity, does modern-day Russia cover more area than Alexander conquered?
Bryan Ekers: Definitely. By far. Russia is about 17,000,000 sq. kilometers. Alexander’s conquests covered maybe 5-6,000,000 ( very rough estimate ).
-Tamerlane
Yes, by far. Alexander’s empire wasn’t really great for the vast territory he covered (not inconsequential, but hardly enormous among any world state), but for the expert ilitary, his rapid, glorious expansion and conquest into old Persia and Greece and to India and Egypt, and the ill-timed bout of fever he came down with.
The Mongols, of course, came with certain advantages 1500+ years of technology, political alignments, and resources Alexander’s heavy Footmen could not have matched.
But to answer this OP, one must first define Empire and then define “Greatest”.
In terms of population and cultural hegemony, in the ancient world, try China. In terms of money, versatility, and cultural hegemony, try Rome. In terms of land area, try the Mongols. (The Mongols are a special case, since there as sort of a great Khan and autonomous kings as well. I’m not sure whether you can state it was a single Empire or not.)
I forgot about the Chinese. I actually thought there’d be significantly more than 6 million. If china wanted, being communist, it could probably muster 600 million!
I’d say they qualified as a unitary state until the death of Mongke in 1259. In fact Mongke, in contrast to his predecessors Ogedei and Guyuk, was something of a centralizer. After his death, although the fiction of a single empire remained, the state de facto broke into its four big constituent khanates, with two recognizing Kublai Khan’s authority ( the two Toluid-ruled states - Kublai Khan’s Great Khanate and his brother Hulegu’s Il-Khanate in Persia ) and two violently opposed ( the Golden Horde under the Jochid, Berke, and the Chagatai Khanate under the quasi-usurper and Anti-Khan, Qaidu, a member not of the Chagataid dynasty at all, but rather of the Ogedeid branch of the family that had been removed in the political coup that installed the Toluid Mongke ).
- Tamerlane