Could we have a clear objective ranking of the best empires the world has seen?
This is based on influence, military power, and greatness.
>>45167
I don't know if anyone tops Rome and Britain for influence. Mongolia comes close and has to win for contemporary military power, but it didn't last long until it shattered into however many khagantes.
Persia lasted an extremely long time and had tremendous influence but after Alexander never seemed to quite achieve its potential.
The Rashiduns of course changed the course of history pretty dramatically, and in the New World, the Aztecs and Inca had a huge amount going for them as imperial powers.
The USA is the most influential nation ever tBh
I'd say China has had a pretty large influence on the world, especially in East Asia.
Israel - It still exists after all those years. Rome is long gone but Israel will endure anything.
No other empires have come close to the major European colonial empires in terms of the influence they've had on the world.
1. America/Nato
2. British Empire
3. Romans
4. Mongols
5. Islamic Caliphate
6. Egyptians
7. First Persian Empire
8. Spanish Empire
9. French Empire
10. Third Reich
British
Roman
Chinese
Mongol
US
Russian
>>46708
No HRE? They controlled the better part of Europe for centuries having a massive influence throughout the medieval times.
>>46615
>It still exists after all those years
it stopped existing and then was recreated 1800 years later
it also isn't an empire
My current top 5 is as follows:
1. Moor Empire
2. Songhai Empire
3. Mali Empire
4. Axum Empire
5. Umayyad
I suppose Rome is eligible for the top 15 or so, and all of the Chinese Dynasties can fill the remaining spots in the top 30. Anything else missing from this?
>>46788
literally who: the post
>>46766
i was gunna put that, but i felt like the third reich was alot more influential in terms of germany. Just showing the flag brings out heavy emotions in people all around the world
>>45167
Romanes eunt domus.
-Romans
-Brits
-USA
-French
-Germans
-Spanish and Portuguese
-everyone else
>>46708
1. Rome
2. USA
3. Spanish Empire
>>46708
Haha nope.
1. Macedonia Empire
2. Third Reich
3. Romans
4. America/Nato
5. Egyptians
>>46708
How the fuck can you have the Third Reich but no Ottomans?
>>46788
>/lit/shit trying this hard to come up with empires nobody heard of
1. Slovenia
2. everyone else
>>46908
M8 if you ain't heard of those empires you need to read more books or play more map painting sims.
1. Zulu Kingdom
>>46708
>USA
>empire
wew lad
>>46884
>Third Reich above Rome
Wut
>>46965
I think 'empire' is used as a more broad term here
>>46708
Acahaemenid/First Persian Empire is the greatest in terms of total population under its control:
>44.48% (50 million out of 112.4 million in 480 BC) of world population
Anyway in terms of influence, impact, duration, and general standings:
1. First Persian Empire
2. Roman Empire/WRE
3. British Empire
4. Neo Persian Empire tied with Byzantine Empire/ERE
5. Ottoman Empire
6. Safavid Empire
7. Mongol Empire
8. Abbasid/Caliphate Empire
9. French Empire
10. Spanish Empire
>>46965
come on man, at this point nato is a de facto empire
>>46990
The technology they developed was pretty amazing and had a profound effect on the world after the third reich had ended.
Rome
USA
China
Britain
>>46788
>moor empire
>mali empire
>aksum empire
>empire
>implying
i dont think you understood OPs question, he was talking about actual empires with real influence and power
>>47014
What do you guys think?
Probably something like
-Rome
-Britain
-USA
-France
Since these are the countries that have contributed the most to society as a whole.
The Romans, after all, practically invented modern society, and were the first true 'western' nation, and their power and influence is felt today. Shit, even their language is still around, through ours right now. The Brits were probably the most successful conquerors ever, given they owned some 25% of the entire world's landmass simultaneously, and still have significant influence over the world.
The USA had all that cold war bullshit and nukes and the world wars and they're pretty influential I guess.
And the French paved the way for democracy in Europe thanks to the Napoleonic code and shit and they also invented lotsa cool shit and shit
>>47102
they didnt really have a unified culture, and the first persian empire wasnt very stable
>>47014
persia was great, but didnt they get BTFO by greek city states?
I personally dont think the spainiards were very important at all
>>47014
How much cultural influence did the First Persian Empire leave on the peoples it controlled after it dissolved?
>>46788
Lel this is a great post
>>47173
>/lit/ literally is anti-/pol/
>>47166
>the first persian empire wasn't very stable
It lasted for just under 3 centuries, it was plenty stable. It was a dynasty change with the Achaemenid branch family replacing their Median relatives; essentially a second dynasty ruling the first Iranian Empire from 615 BC to 331 BC.
>they didn't really have a unified culture
Yes they did. Also remember, Persian culture and especially the language was to the Near East and Central Asia what Latin was in Europe.
The courts of the various Turkic dynasties, Ottoman Empire, Mongols, and even Arab caliphates spoke Persian for example as language of gentry.
>>47188
Wouldn't you say plenty considering the Macedonians under Alexander tried to spread it and combine it with Hellenism?
>>47173
guys i dont think hes kidding. I think he actually might be serious
>>46766
Wasn't an empire. More of a confederation.
>>47014
>no USA
fucking retard
>>47254
>Wouldn't you say plenty...
It wasn't a rhetorical question. I was actually kind of curious.
>>47014
No way were the Safavids more influential than the Mongols. The Ming or the Guptas should be on there instead.
>>47169
The Persians annihilated an entire Greek army in Egypt if memory recalls, and outside the failed invasions they kept repulsing the Greeks from Asia Minor and North Africa.
>>47188
That's harder to say given the entire dynamic with the Achaemenids was they didn't force or impose their culture or religion on nations they conquered unlike the Romans or Greeks.
>>47342
>Mongols
Shit tier desu, didn't even last a century. Fuck them horse savages.
>>47014
the mongols where pretty much the first globalists
>>47390
No they weren't.
>>47390
Mongs were just raiders and savages. They never had any empire its was just a non stop war path
>>47418
eh depends on the scope. British empire could be the first globalists too
Why do people wank the Mongols anyway
Sure they had the largest empire in terms of area and continuous territories but they didn't last very long at all and even Ghengis' grandson failed in his bid to set up a dynasty in China which lasted not even a generation after his death
The mongols were great conquerors and nothing else
>>47390
Nah. Persians had an empire that reached from parts of Central Asia, Eurasia, North Africa, the Near East and Europe. So did the Romans and Byzantines, so did the Caliphate and Abbasids, and Ottoman Empire.
The Mongols were not the first nor were the Brits.
Number 1 is America, except for military ranking there Mongolia is higher. My reasoning is the US can conventionally beat anyone but is checked by Russia with nukes, no one could withstand the full might of the Mongols.
Second place I don't know. Rome or Britain I guess.
>>46814
Your own ignorance is not a good criticism of others. Fuck off out of here.
>>47506
citation?
>>47329
>USA
>empire
fucking retard
>>47496
Militarily they are the number one in history, otherwise loads of other empires beat them.
>>47342
My justification would be they were pretty great power, often on par with the Ottoman Empire at its peak and its greatest rival and like some have mentioned actually had duration going for it unlike the Mongols.
Also the Ottoman Empire and Safavid Empire both basically form the basis of the modern day Middle East, North Africa, and Caucasus regions as well as parts of Central Asia.
Based on my personal preferences, not any detailed analysis of their power and glory:
1. The post-alexander Persian dynasties, especially the Sassanids.
2. Chinese Empire.
3.Roman Empire
4.Pre-Alexander Archaemenid Empire (altough there´s controversy about it as truly an empire)
5. Ummayad/Abbasid dynasties were pretty based.
6. Byzantine Empire.
7.Khmer Empire
>>47496
their pony express was extremely important for the world economy and they brought the plauge to the western world. they also sacked baghdad, the economic, social, intellectual power house at the time
OP here, so we agree in union that:
1.Achaemenid Empire
2.Roman Empire
3.British Empire
4.Maceodonian Empire
5.Spanish Empire
>>47388
>didn't even last a century.
Lasted longer. Spawned several khanates which went on to be quite succesful in their own right.
Pax mongolia was a thing and the security established allowed trade to flourish along the silk road bringing exchange between east and west.
>>47546
The Islamic Caliphate literally was more or less better in terms of opponents it fought; cut the Byzantine Empire in half, destroyed the Neo Persian Empire, literally were untouchable in the late 7th to 9th centuries, and also the Islamic world was what repulsed and delievered the first of the Mongols defeats.
>>47506
how gullible are you? Jesus i hope this is a troll post or else i have just lost any faith i had in humanity. What dumb ass on the internet told you that spectacular piece of bullshit? It comes from the latin word for black "nigrum" or any other romantic derivation of that word.
i.e. negro, niger, nigeria
>>47585
needs US and mongols, and the caliphate
>>47597
>Lasted longer.
Citation required.
>Spawned several khanates which went on to be quite successful in their own right.
I don't really care about splinter facets of the Mongol Empire; the Yaun dynasty failed to even last a full century under Kublai and his son.
The other Khannates fell apart in Central Asia and Near East once Turks started showing up. Face, Mongols were not particularly competent as administrators or rulers and their greatest failing was duration.
>>47673
>comes from a Latin word
Seeing as how most Romans were black, you're just arguing in a circle here. Your argument couldn't make sense if it wanted to.
In order of most influential to the modern world
1. Mongol Empire (This was the turning point from the Classical age into the Modern. It connected all of asia, allowing for diffusion of ideas and culture, as well as being the largest Empire geographically)
2. Islamic Caliphate (One of the greatest cultural and scientific golden ages of all history; it layed way for the renaissance in Europe, connected a huge area under trade, developed a law code still used today, and united a huge number of people under a belief system, again, still used today)
3. British Empire (Largest trade empire I'm history, spread western culture across the globe, and played the largest role in the age of colonization.
>>47727
>most romans were black
confirmed for troll
>>47580
>their pony express
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Road
>Mounted couriers could travel 1677 miles (2699 km) in seven days; the journey from Susa to Sardis took ninety days on foot.
>The Greek historian Herodotus wrote, "There is nothing in the world that travels faster than these Persian couriers."
>Herodotus's praise for these messengers—"Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds"— was inscribed on the James Farley Post Office in New York and is sometimes thought of as the United States Postal Service creed.
Also system of governors (satraps), and overseers and spies would have a huge influence on the Hellenistic world and later be transplanted to Rome.
>>47761
ACTUALLY...some of them were.
Specially from North Africa.
japan always wins
>>47566
China was a weird empire. They made some really cool things like building the largest navy in the world and sailing it only to burn it down later.
>>47807
north africans were not sub saharan black, they had lighter skin tones.
Romans were white
>>47496
Why do people wank Alexander anyway
Sure he had a huge empire in terms of area and continuous territories but it didn't last even 50 years
Alexander was a great conqueror and nothing else
>>47844
Which Chinese empire? Saying Chinese or Indian empire is akin to saying European empire.
>>47865
its because he had shit successors who divided it up
>>47903
Yup. Same with the Mongols.
>>47924
Indeed but the African portions of Rome were almost universally filled with Arabs and other light brown people. Any blacks came from outside the borders of the empire.
>>47924
no, just because you conquer a group of people it doesnt mean that they adopt the title of the conquering nation
britain conquered south africa and india, but theyre not british. They are still african and Indian.
We're talking about empires anyways, not race. Stop trying to inject black people into everything
>>47990
Mauretania was populated by the Mauri. Black. But for the most part, yes.
>>47865
I like him because he took what was bacially the Alabama of Greece and successfully invaded the biggest power in his known world. Plus I can't help loving GOAT tier generals
>>48127
I'm not arguing his generalship at all. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of disregarding the Mongols when Alexander's situation was almost exactly the same.
>>48033
ITT /lit/ is butthurt that the most important empires havent been black so theyre trying to revise history and claim that every empire was actually black
>inb4 keep /pol/ in /pol/
>>48021
>no, just because you conquer a group of people it doesnt mean that they adopt the title of the conquering nation
The romans actually made efforts to "romanize" their conquered people.
>britain conquered south africa and india, but theyre not british. They are still african and Indian.
First off, the Indians, at the time of the neo-colonialism already had one of the oldest surviving civilization, culture and religion of the world, its quite hard to actually "convert" those people to western culture.
>We're talking about empires anyways, not race. Stop trying to inject black people into everything
Im not the anon who tried to say romans were black, just pointing there WERE black romans, which is undoubtedly true.
>>48193
Can you even read? All he said was that there were some black Romans. He even conceded "for the most part, yes".
>>48193
WTF are you bitching about? I was agreeing with you.
Besides ONE province, all of Roman held Africa was non black. Mauretania was the only province with any significant black population. This isn't about /pol/ or tumbler.
>>48159
Oh gotcha. I think the argument might strongly rely on the effects of his hellenisation of the Persian world. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mongols just rode around collecting tributes while Alexander left behind a bunch of strong Hellenistic states. That'd be my argument at least
>>48259
>just pointing there WERE black romans, which is undoubtedly true
This shit reminds me of all the nonsense regarding the races of the Egyptians. Nobody on the internet can fucking settle for the fact that some Egyptians (including one of the dynasties) were black, AND that that doesn't make Egypt a black civilization.
>>48362
The Hellenic influence wasn't really that lasting. Most of the Diadochi fell almost immediately except the Ptolemies and Seleucids. After the Seleucids the Parthians basically undid all that jazz in Persia.
The real lasting influences were in Egypt and Pontus.
The Mongols had splinter Khanates that hung around until almost the 1700s (Chagatai was the last to fall I beleive), so its kind of a toss up but people like to think one is objectively BETTER than the other.
>>48519
There were romans coming from most of euro/Mediterranean ethnicities. Case closed.
>>45167
Empires that greatly influenced culture and thinking:
>Macedonian Empire
>Augustus's Roman Empire
>Kingdom of Egypt
>Ottoman Empire
>Achaemenid/Persian Empire
Empires that left their mark on the world via brutal warfare
>Any Mongolian Empire
>Songhai Empire
>Zulu Empire
Empires that had a heavy hand in Trade and controlled much of the money flowing through the world:
>Kingdom of Axum
>China
>British Empire
>Late Roman/Byzantine Empire
Modern Empires that set the stage for the modern world:
>United States
>British Empire
>Spanish Empire
>Portuguese Empire
>Third Reich
>Russian Empire/U.S.S.R
>French Empire
Overall Influential Empires:
>Macedonian Empire (Spread hellenistic/greek culture through the ancient world)
>Achaemenid Empire (First extremely powerful empire)
>Roman Empire (Undeniable legacy, many empires after sought to imitate Roman glory)
>China (Mainstay in the east, you can't mention Asian history without talking about China in some form)
>Ottoman Empire (Kicked down the door to Europe, brought the Sunni faith deep into the continent and started the Renaissance indirectly by sending Byzantine refugees to Italy)
>British/French/Spanish/Portuguese Empires (spread their arms around the world, unifying the lands and bringing technology everywhere)
>United States (see above, but also became a world megapower influencing politics up to today)
>Russia (see above, but to a lesser degree than the U.S after the U.S.S.R dissolved)
I discount the Mongolian Empires because they didn't do much besides spread their seed and pillage everything. They were impressive to be sure, but they weren't influential in the grand scheme of things.
These lists are in no particular order.
>>48932
>not influential in the grand scheme of things
>literally eliminate the Abbasid empire and destroy the foundation of scholarship in the ME
>literally make Islam more widespread in Central Asia and Persia
>>47865
Alexander's Empire, well it didn't last a single year after his death once the Diodachi ate it up. The Seleucids also lost control of most of the Iranian territories and the Arsacids revived Iranian and Persian culture. To be honest if you ignore the bump in pre-Islamic Iranian history with Alexander's conquest of the Achaemenids, you had the 617 BCE to 651 AD of continuous Imperial expansion by them.
Not bad.
>>48932
Achaemenids were the first global empire, they spanned three continents, were larger then the Roman Empire at its height and its founding had them destroy four world superpowers; the Egyptian Kingdom, the Lydian Empire, Median Empire, and the Babylonian Empire.
>>48932
>Kingdom of Egypt
>Kingdom
wtf? In what way was it NOT an empire?
>>49091
because ancient Egyptian history is divided into sections of time denoted by Kingdoms "1st kingdom", "2nd Kingdom", etc
>>48932
If you're including Zulu, you have to include the Aztecs too.
The Roman Empire was the greatest in all those areas.
>>48571
Wasn't the founder of Pontus basically a mixed Greek/Persian guy who had his ancestry traced back to Persian satraps in Armenia?
>>49315
The Zulu revolutionized African warfare from stick throwing and small raids to brutal close quarters combat and complete subjugation of tribes.
It's a step up from the Aztec empire.
>>49757
Shaka was one mad mofo.
Gotta respect his intelligence for warfare, and ineptitude to statesmanship. He made an empire, but coudn´t make it last after his death because he was to much of a sociopath to care.
>>47538
>Can't tell he's being baited.
>>46884
This.
