- This topic has 10 voices and 42 replies.
-
Posts
-
See it for yourself. The ones listed on the site are:10. Ottoman9. Umayyad8. Persian7. Byzantine6. Han5. British4. Holy Roman3. British2. Mongol1. Roman
Well, perhaps they took into account the geographic expanse of the empires listed more than the level of difficulty in managing such empires. See this:
From Vietnam to Hungary, the Mongol Empire is the largest contiguous empire in the history of mankind.
I can't imagine that the land under its control was densely-populated.
I saw that. It looks like they're going by land mass and duration rather than wealth and lasting influence.
See it for yourself. The ones listed on the site are:10. Ottoman9. Umayyad8. Persian7. Byzantine6. Han5. British4. Holy Roman3. Russian2. Mongol1. Roman
That's ridiculous. Mongols and Russia above British Empire?
What about the Greek Empire of Alexander? Had to be greater than the Ottomans and Umayyads at least.
What about the Greek Empire of Alexander? Had to be greater than the Ottomans and Umayyads at least.
Too short lived? But I agree, it should have at least made the list.
Why not put Holy Roman at #2? It lasted for almost 1000 years. I would bump the Byzantine above the British Empire. My list would look something like this10. Umayyad Caliphate9. Mongol8. Persian7. Russian6. Ottoman5. British4. Han3. Byzantine2. Holy Roman1. Roman
Interesting that nobody is disputing the number 1 slot. When you say empire, it is hard not to think of Rome.
Interesting that nobody is disputing the number 1 slot. When you say empire, it is hard not to think of Rome.
That is interesting. What's also interesting is that in the list we've split up the Byzantine from the Roman Empire. That's like saying ancient Rome was the greatest with half its empire tied behind its back. 😉
I separate the Byzantine and Classical Roman empires because their composition was different. Plus, the Romans had to conquer their Empire, the Byzantines started huge and just had to maintain.
I think it is largely geography that makes us think of the Byzantines as splitting off, rather than the empire relocating the seat of power and shedding the old stomping grounds because it was becoming too expensive to maintain. I think smart money was on the east when they split and the demise of the western half was not that much of a surprise.
I am not a specialist in “New World” empires, but does anyone here know the current information about how long the Inca, Olmec, Mayan, and Aztec Empires lasted, how vast they were, and if any would qualify?
Inca – less than 100 years (but they were the largest)Mayan – about 2500 years (classical period about 700 years)Olmec – about 2000 years (the smallest of the 3)
Thanks, skiguy.Living in Florida and having experienced hurricanes — and earthquakes when I grew up and lived in California — I have often wondered if the Mayans especially were sophisticated regarding weather predictions, and if not to what degree they might have been hammered by a surprise hurricane with the destructive power of an Andrew.
