Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 5

Error: THe Mongol Empire was Not the World's Largest Empire - Need Revision

THe British Empire was the largest empire in the world. I fail to see why the list has been modified.

The British Empire was 33.7 million square km at its peak in 1922 THe Mongol Empire is the largest contiguous (unbroken) at 33 million square km but it is not the largest by area —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.58.149 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, there appears to be a contradiction within the article.

When the size of the Mongol error is ranked in the overall list it is listed as 34 million square km but when it is listed in the Medieval category it is sized at only 33 million square km - the size it had previously been given until edits with dubious sources were made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.58.149 (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also analysed the sources given to support the claim that the Mongol empire was the largest in the world. The first source lsited to support the claim says nowhere that the Mongol empire was 34 million km squared and in fact suggests itwas only 24 million km square. The second source is invalid as it cannot be read.

Now that these source have been dicredited may I suggest that the edit listing the Mongol empire s the largest in the world is reverted and the Mongol empire is sized at 33 million square km. Therefore bringing the overall list in line with the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.58.149 (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have read the source given to suggest that the Mongol Empire is 33 million square km. However, there is no mention at all of the Mongol Empire on the page of 'Colossus' given. May I suggest we set the size of the Mongol Empire at 24 million square km - as shown in the Mongol Empire article. A source is given in that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.50.229 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This Article needs extreme revision

It certainly does because: some countries stated in the article aren't and weren't empires. Some numbers don't have sources: like the population of the Sassanid Empire. Some numbers aren't the largest ones like the GDP of United States which is around 13T $s but in the article it is about 1T $s. -- And Rew 06:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The article clearly states "$1,644.8 billion (in 1945)", I think it's fair to say that doesn't refer to today's GDP. G.R. Allison (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I know it doesn't refer to today's GDP and my question is why? 13T is bigger than 1T so why isn't the bigger number mentioned? -- And Rew 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding I think, sorry. To be honest... I don't know why it doesn't. Perhaps another editor may be able to clear this up. G.R. Allison (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that this isn't the only problem, otherwise I would fix it myself. This article lacks a clear concept, United States isn't an empire, If so why PRC shouldn't be in the list as well? Some listings aren't really sufficient, for example if we want to compare different super powers throughout the history, sorting them by their GDPs is not adequate because there are many poor countries right now that have higher GDPs than that of Roman Empire but in the other hand relative numbers can be comparable like GDP share.-- And Rew 02:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's a poorly sourced, badly collected list. The problem isn't just a single item, the entire list lacks a framework. The collection itself suffers from wp:synth, as there isn't a wp:rs that refers to this random collection of nations as "the largest empires". Unfortunately it's beyond me to fix this article by myself.--Work permit (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to re write this article with current sources. Remove some rankings, edit others. -- And Rew 22:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV: Messed-up and biased cition

The article cited some empire with its maximum extend, while comparing to some with its medium or even minimum extends,

For instance, the British Empires is measured at its maximum possilbe landmass during its empire history.

Also, some empire's landmass listed here is even beyond the maximum extend they have actually reached:

For instance:

The Roman empire's maximum landmass achieved is 5 million km2 at 117AD, not 6.5 million km2 listed here.

Meanwhile, almost all Chinese empires are measured at its medium to low extends.

For instance:

The Han Empire, at its maximum extend, has reached to deep siberia to center asia, taken over entire Huns and Xianbei's region and has a landmass around 16 million km^2 instead of 6 million km2 listed here.

The Tang empire, at its maximum extend, after conquered west turk, has reached a landmass around 15 million km^2, instead of 5.5 million km2.

The Ming Empire, at its maximum extend, has 10 million km^2, instead of 6 million km2.

I will provide source when I go to city-libary next week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.247.138 (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically the article need alot of correction and an fair way to comparing landmass, since most of these empires were around for several hundred years and the landmass of each of them are highly dynamic.

The other problem is, many of the terrorities British Empire/France Empire conquered are only vassal states, has their own government/king etc, it is more comparable to the vassal states around China, who need to pay tax(tributes), and can have their own government, but should name themselves: Whatever Kingdom of Whatever Chinese Empire, same like most of the colony British Empire/France Empire has ruled.

Therefore, this ranking is estentially a joke:

The problems are (I only familiar with the case of Chinese empires, but I assume this hold true for the rest world's empires as well):

1, Counting the landmass of many vassal states for European empires and counting the true region of the empire for most of the rest world's empires. 2, Comparing the maximum-extend or even more than the maximum extend of european empires with the medium or even minimum extend of many of the rest world's empires

I recommend the article to be either pull-off or subject to completely re-written to first establish a rule for comparing (e.g. comparing the maximum extend, discounting vassal state's terrority, etc), otherwise it only serve for european's self-comfort.

It accounts also Antartica area (14,000,000 km2) as part of British Empire. How many cities have British Empire there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.38.218 (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC) 

Actually T'ang is mistakenly consistently 'underrated' smaller than Han in non-Chinese internet sources. My guess is people usually think because its named 'Han' it was probably the pinnacle. T'ang was the high point in territory, influence (along with prestige and innovation etc). E.g. Samarkhand, Uzbekistan, northern India was part of T'ang, for ~half a century, until some time around the Battle of Talas in Kazakhstan, Central Asia was part of T'ang, so its definitely bigger. btw its essentially the reason Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese today all have Chinese influence and use Chinese characters, as my Japanese historian friend said, it was the equivalent of the ancient United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by GR3Y077 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mongol Empire again

Greater than 34 million km2 of the Mongol Empire was ruled boundaries

Recommendation: Add ranges, rather than pinpoint numbers, because all but modern empires cannot be measured otherwise.

The actual size is fuzzy but definitely much closer if not greater in size than the British Empire, when the Mongol Empire was really about 13.8 km2 or more in 1279, when Mongol Empire absorbed all of China. This lasted about 7 years at about that size, until an effective breakup into 4 pieces. By the way the northern boundary was quite fuzzy as official measurements did never exist. The Treaty of Versailles is the quote here for British Empire, someone tell us how long that lasted?

The Mongol Empire estimates here did not include the northern arctic which was at least populated and roughly vassal status, but nobody cared about those areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GR3Y077 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The GDP of the Song Empire

The first source backing up its 50% share of the world GDP is unreliable and the second source is even more so. Does anyone have any sources that are reliable? If not I propose we delete this statistic until reliable sources are found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.52.20 (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Xiongnu again

To various IP editors in particular again DO NOT MISQUOTE SOURCES (see Talk:List_of_largest_empires#DO_NOT_MISQUOTE_SOURCES as well). Sorry for the caps, but this article seems to need a warning flag to get editors to pay attention. The references cited for the Xiongnu give 4.03 and 9.0 and not 7.5. So either you go with 4.03 or you go with 9.0 or you give a range. You may also use the mean, but then you need to explain that and then go with the correct mean of 6.51 ((4.03+9)/2). What you cannot do however just to make up some arbitrary number in between in particular not without explanation. If you look at the history of this page one can really get the impression, that some people have a (possibly reasonable, possible POV) ranking of the empires in their minds already and then just tweak the available data in sources to make it fit their predetermined ranking. As pointed out earlier this is unacceptable for an encyclopedia, the information in the sources needs to quoted/represented correctly. There can be justified reason not to use all the information in a particular source (because it is outdated, there is good reason to assume it is incorrect, etc.), but then this needs to explained. You can not have arbitrary guesses, that neither can be found in the sources nor have have any explanation how they were derived.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch Km, I was wondering where the 7.5 came from. I agree about the mean part of 6.51, but that would borderline POV/OR, so I think its best to leave it at 4.03. To be fair I also left Taag and Turchs estimate because they are the only other ones that make a Xiongnu estimate, however I did leave a note explaining why most perfer a 4.03 estimate. I think the IP editor your refering to is 59... this is unexpected of him, he usually makes good edits, but he seems to have invented a 7.5 number. Regards.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Map

I'm getting tired to argue that over and over, however as a note other editors: The current map is partially incorrect and cannot to be verified to have originated from a reputable soure. A more detailed discussion of that issue can be found here: Talk:Achaemenid_Empire--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Roman Republic

I have added the Roman Republic to the list, with the same measure it has in its Wiki article.Leo-Isaurus-Rex (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

AE Map

What source is there to support that the Achaemenids owned Arabia, Ethiopia, or Bulgaria? What happened to the map we had recently? I think it was blue.Leo-Isaurus-Rex (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

None, as kinda pointed out earlier. This map (the "green map") is even worse than the one i complained about in the section above. While the other one was questionable, contained errors and its source was not exactly reputable and could not be verified it seem to stem from some published source at least. This one however is even worse, it is self made and not directly based on any reputable source. This issue was discussed here already extensively partially here and partially in the article for the Achaemenid empire, but some IPs simply disregard those discussions and keep inserting those questionable maps again. I'm frankly fed up and tired with that.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles V

According to his wikipedia page, he ruled over 4million km2 of land as the ruler of both the Spanish and Holy Roman Empires. Should he not get a mention?

Record-Breaking Empires

Someone created the section "Record-Breaking Empires", but he or she never said what records they broke. Could that please be explained? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.54 (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No reason for this section. Likely to be removed.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Major messup fixed

First off, I am glad that IP 59. and Jagged fixed some errors and typos in the article and made it updated. To be clear, i did not revert those, so dont worry. But secondly, Jagged, I want be clear that my goal is to improve the article, just like you. So here some issues that your edits need to be addressed about.

1. The Roman empire no matter if its AD 117 not AD 100 like Han, does not mean its smaller than han, ive seen 7.0 estimate for Rome, but forgot were it was, so and even Rome is mentioned as second largest empire, so Rome is larger than han.

2. Maritime and Contiguous empires are stated words by scholars to define some empires, the word Maritime and Contiguous sections was not added for fun, like you added a MADE up record breaking empires, articles, books, and even normal websites have TITLEs of contiguous and maritime empires, (and so adding them would make the article have not 9, but 10 uniformed categories for the empires which would give it a good appearance) for proof go here, contiguous [1], maritime [2].

3. Go here [3], to find out why the Updated British museum and Journalist Books from 2008 source for the Achaemenid Empire means that the empire is 8.0 (not 7.7) million kilometers squared. And it is the largest and second most mentioned and most reliable, I actually found 3 sources originally, but added the 2 most reliable for the 8.0.

So there you have it, if you have any questions or comments, please state below. If I don't respond in one day, feel free to revert my edits, until then please dont revert my hard worked on edits to restore, I sincerely thank you. Best regards.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Do you have a source for the 7 million claim for Rome? I've never heard of such a large figure for Rome. I listed Han higher simply because the date given for its extent of 6.5 million is earlier than Rome.

2. I was the one who created the Maritime and Contiguous sections in the first place about 2-3 years ago. I recently came to realize that both of these are just repetitive sections that serve no real purpose, so I decided to, over two years later, undo what I did back then. But if you want to keep them, then is there any particular reason why? And no, the concept of a record-breaking empire is not made up, but can be found in scholarly sources, like this one: Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia.

3. The two sources cited for the 8.0 million figure are [4], which is hosted by some random website, and [5], which is also hosted by a random website but lists an e-mail address associated with the British Museum website, which just isn't reliable enough. On the other hand, the source that quotes the 7.5 million figure is posted on the British Museum website itself, not some other third-party website that claims to be representing it. So yes, the source quoting the 7.5 million figure looks a lot more reliable than the ones quoting the 8.0 million figure.

Fair enough. I'll give it a few days (or maybe more than that if I don't have the time) for you to respond first. I won't remove any of those three things until then. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jagged, I want to thank you for your reply, I just want to say that I wish we keep the contiguous and maritime sections as I listed many in my link that has many books, articles, and websites that have titles of dealing with contiguous and maritime empires (so those sections are relevant). For Rome, to tell you the truth, I now remember the figure was 9.0, I decided not to add it because the author of the book seemed to have counted the water area of the empire too, which you don't do in this article, so that estimate did not qualify here. And after seeing the record breaking empires list that you created, at a second thought I am perfectly okay with it. Therefore do you agree that we keep that article as it is now, with 10 categories for empires, and your 11nth record breaking empires? All I want is for us to expand the article, so taking the contiguous and maritime empire sections would devalue the article. So do you agree? After your reply I will show you were you can find out why the 8.0 sources are better than the 7.5 sources. Best regards.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The 8.0 sources are not acceptable by WP standards - see below--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Use proper sources

Children's book and museum flyers (not to mentioned google chached pages and privates websites) are normally not reputable sources for WP. In particular it is unacceptable to prefer them over available scholarly/academic papers and books, which are available for Persian empire.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

merge

I've made a first stab at merging the two articles. I think its best to put it all in one place and fix it here.--Work permit (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck to you. It's work I'd rather not do. So I appreciate your effort - and you have my support. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Easier to sweep all the junk into one place and pick through it to find what you need to keep. Then vacuum up the rest.--Work permit (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really, it is better to simply delete the other (unsourced) one and at least try to keep the junk in this one at a minimum. I don't quite get why the deletion of List of major empires was cancelled. Also strictly speaking "adding junk to an article" would be a case of vandalism.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was being a bit cavalier. I deleted the obvious overlap, and kept the section "European colonial empires" plus the lead since someone may have objected to deletion of those items. If everyone agrees, I'll delete those additions.--Work permit (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Antarctica

Is the British Antarctic claim considered part of the British Empire's size at its biggest extent and if so, how big was the claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.218.83 (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Empires by population

Are we only doing this list for people that had large land masses? Because China currently has Population: 1,330,044,544 (July 2008 est.) people in it, topping the little over 1/2 billion currently listed as number 1. How many modern countries top that anyway? China, India, Russia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.111.230 (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We have lists in this article for population and percentage of population for empires, NOT current countries, such as China, India, and Russia for example. Modern countries don't count as empires.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

and the United States ?? --Zhonghuo (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The United States was considered an "empire" in the 40s-50s, see the Overseas expansion of the U.S article. However, don't mistake it was Russia which was an empire less than 100 years ago (a monarchy), then it became the USSR and later SU which was not a empire.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

United States

Strictly as a curiosity, I am wondering why the United States is on this list. Granted, there are actions that would be considered "imperialistic" by many people, the United States is not an empire. The source that I see given here notes the United States as a polity, but not an empire, kingdom, etc. Am I missing something here? Should the title of the article be changed, or should the United States be delisted ... or are there other sources out there. Otherwise, I could see that this could be considered original research. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A good definition of Empire is "A group of countries under a single authority". Also, consider that the United States possesses five major overseas territories: Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands in the Caribbean; and American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands in the Pacific. Your assertion that "the United States is not an empire" seems a bit odd for a query.G. R. Allison (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Even the article says, "An empire involves the extension of a state's sovereignty over territories all around the world". G. R. Allison (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge that these are opinions on the definition of an empire, but wouldn't another definition be "an empire is a polity ruled by an emperor or other equivalent royal person/family?" That is why it seemed odd ... also that most lists I have ever seen refer to the US as a "republic", not an empire, kingdom, or other equivalent polity ... but not being an expert in the social studies area, I acknowledge I could be out of my depth. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point, but empires do not need emperors as such, simply to be able to enforce its will on other nations that are under its control. Like everything, this is open to debate and I would encourage others opinions on this matter to be discussed here. G. R. Allison (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The french empire also did not have an emperor through much of the 19th and all of the 20th century and yet it obviously belonged on the list. Furthermore most of the entries for the united states in this article consider the period of time during which the US controlled the Philippines as US territory in addition to other the territories listed above.Zebulin (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think any argument for the US to be on this list is pretty weak, unless you're considering its military conquest of native territories in the interior to make it an empire of sorts. And in that case, Canada, the Russian Federation, and numerous other countries should be included as well. I don't see the US as an empire because it has no single metropol or "high-center" like European and older empires did. Its a union, a federation of sorts, though its federated nature has become increasingly blurred since the US Civil War. I could understand calling it an empire when it controlled the Philippines and dominated Latin America to a greater degree than it does today (economic imperialism is really all that is left), but not now. Inclusion of the US should be more specific, and should account for the exclusion of other large countries that do no fit the classical definition of an empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.72.221 (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. is not an empire. The very reference that is used to "prove" this can only be associated with the U.S.by a VERY long stretch of the imagination. But don't try to correct it. Asking for legitimate sources to verify the claims made here is evidently a no-no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.196.36 (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes we are rather evil men and women at Wikipedia.G. R. Allison (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about evil, but very loose with interpretations & usage of sources. Making them say what you want them to say doesn't help credibility any, that's for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.196.36 (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Before stating anything else, I absolutely concur with talk that this needs to be kept as an open debate.

Re-reading the article more thoroughly, I am concerned that there is no referenced and cited notion on what the accepted definition of an empire is. The definition in the leadin refers to extension of a state's sovereignty over territories all around the world. Not being an expert in politics, if that is the overwhelmingly accepted definition in social studies today, I would accept it, though I think it would be an improvement for the article to see that definition cited. Having said that, I need to ask: is this the overwhelmingly accepted definition of an empire? Are there others being more widely used in professional circles? On this, I am ignorant, but I think it is a worthy question.

As it stands, I have further questions: I see that the USA would have acted in an empire-like way in holding oversees territories, and could even be seen as empire like in its actions of conquering territories held by Native Americans, but are there differneces between acting in an imperial way, and being an actual empire? I am sure that to Phillipinos of that era, and to Native Americans of virtually any recent era, they would not see a difference, but is that universally accepted?

Along the same lines, would nations like New Zealand, Australia, Chile, Argentina, and Norway qualify as empires because they have made claims to territory in Antarctica (again, I don't mean for this to be a smart aleck response ... I am genuinely trying to see what the limits of the definition are). In some cases, these claims have their own flags ... In Argentina's case, the full name of the department that includes Tierra del Fuego is "The Department of Tierra Del Fuego, Antarctica, and Islands of the South Atlantic) .... I am not sure I would classify any of these nations as empires, but they might fit the definition, as it is being used here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The "American Empire" is a pet term that is liked by a small, but VERY obsessed, group of people. The so-called sources they use to "prove" their claim vary wildly, such as one of the main ones used here, "Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia". By their loose & shaky definition of "Empire", modern Australia would be the 8th biggest empire the world has ever known, because of Australia's claims in Antarctica. In the "American Empire" system, those Antarctica claims are as legitimate as the ones they use for the U.S.A., although they will swear up & down that isn't correct.

Even without the Antarctica claims, using this "American Empire" system, then Australia STILL should be #15, right above the Japanese & Sassanid Empires and right below the Persian Empire....but it's not there. Autralia simply isn't part of the little game, so it's not included.

I don't really care either-or. I've tried to correct this & also tried to request more reliable sources for their claims than something that was written about Russia, as have several other people. But it's a loosing proposition which will get you no where. So just let them have their fun with it & sleep peacefully knowing that they've contributed their part to Wiki. The sad thing is, these type of wild & untrue accusations greatly decrease the seriousness of Wiki being an actual encyclopedia. One of the most common rally-cries you'll hear at Wiki is Neutral Point Of View....but then you'll see those same people fight tooth-and-nail to include something as contradictory as this one subject.

Maybe these type inaccuracies will change for the better someday, just have to wait & see. But as long as there are the small groups who refuse to let others add content to pages like this, it won't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.196.36 (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you didn't write things like "obsessed group of people", or "So just let them have their fun with it and sleep peacefully", more people would be willing to examine your points. I have found that once you engage in debates from this stand point, whether you are right or wrong, a lot less people are willing to even consider your points. I certainly support a request for better citation and a better investigation as to whether this article properly reflects the majority views of experts in the political fields, or may be a candidate to include other views. I recommend showing good faith. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Refer to this part of the above post, "I've tried to correct this & also tried to request more reliable sources for their claims than something that was written about Russia, as have several other people." That wasn't just placed there for the heck of it. It was placed for a very specific reason, which is exactly what is stated. This "American Empire" thing has been going on here for literally years. The usually way it's handled, when someone tries to change it to be more accurate, is the very same few people simply delete the entire addition, revert it back to the way they want it to be, and/or post stuff like, "refrain from your rather ridiculous editing", "You keep adding to the article list of largest empires. You have done it several times", & "If you would like sources regarding empire I direct you here"....linking to the same vague & useless "source" that is being used, the "Context for Russia".

Also it's then usually typical that they throw up the warnings & threats, basically saying if you continue to edit an article, you'll be reported & banned. Hello? Does "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" still mean anything? Having just a few certain people controlling content of an article changes it to, "The encyclopedia a certain few can edit". That's why I don't bother to attempt anymore at adding content with an account. It's useless, which is being proven with this very page. Many have expressed concern that it's inaccurate, several have tried to correct it, a few refuse to let it be corrected. I won't go as far as to name names, but it's been the same identical individuals, over & over, for quite some time.

I call them "deleters". They spend 95% of their "editing" time here simply deleting content provided by OTHERS, while basically adding none of their OWN...even if asked to clarify what they claim. The answer to that is always just a link to the current sources, even if those sources don't really apply to what s being claimed, which is the case here. It's a lose-lose situation for all.....except perhaps the "deleters". Those who wish to tweak, correct, & add to Wiki are stopped cold by a certain few who have evidently appointed themselves as policemen for any certain article, even if the ones who are trying to add content are correct, thus making what Wiki offers a highly one-sided view & not trustworthy.

As long as it's perfectly acceptable for others to simply delete whatever content they personally feel doesn't belong, then problems such as with this article will never be corrected. Spam, trolling, & vandalism are almost always obvious & fine for deletion. CONTENT added to clarify an article should NOT be simply deleted to keep an inaccurate article in place. And the people who regularly do that should have their editing privileges revoked, just as if someone were maliciously vandalising the article....there is no difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.196.36 (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Evil members of society have wronged you?G. R. Allison (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can't contribute anymore than the immature & childish one-liners that you seem to be proficient at, why don't you just NOT contribute anything at all. Leave the discussion on this subject for people who actually take the time to do so in a mature & hopefully useful manner. That is at least twice that you've injected your trollish spam into this very page. I wonder how many more conversations on Wiki we would find the same junk from you? You wouldn't perhaps be one of the ones who are determined to keep the "American Empire" inaccuracies on this page, are you? I think your useless additions to this discussion & your behaviour here show that you are definitely not capable of being trusted with editing the actual article. Your remarks so far are on the same level as simple vandalism in an actual article.

But if you have anything useful, intelligent, & on-topic to actually add to our discussion here, by all means do so. If you can't think of anything other than your elementary-level sarcasm, please try something like FaceBook or MySpace for that. It's not needed or wanted here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.196.36 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

More personal attacks? Thanks... I'm sorry but you're claiming everyone has some anti-American agenda. I'm not taking what you say seriously here, no one is. You're just insulting editors who are stopping you changing something. You judge people on a couple of one liners in a clearly futile discussion? We're trying to resolve what counts as an empire... not as you seem obsessed with, claiming x has y agenda. G. R. Allison (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Perhaps if you didn't write things like "obsessed group of people", or "So just let them have their fun with it and sleep peacefully", more people would be willing to examine your points." Couldn't say it better myself. G. R. Allison (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I still have a lot of reading to do here to get up to speed, but one of the late Howard Zinn's books was A People's History of American Empire. Seems that at least he though that the USA had an empire. Carptrash (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, before reading this article, I had only known the 'American Empire' to be an unofficial term used to describe a wide influence around the world. I had never heard it in the context used in this article, for example 'at its largest extent' and the section on the size of its economy, despite my knowledge and wide reading of Empires. Flosssock1 (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The classification of the USA as an empire is inconsistent with the rest of the list. While there are certainly some definitions of empire that would include the USA, these would also include Canada, Mexico, India, the afore mentioned Australia, an pretty much every other large country (YMMV on size requirement). The idea of Empire predates (and arguably created) the idea of nation states. Pretty much any nation with more than one city to its name can make some claim to Empire. However, the USA is the only modern Nation on this list. The only contemporaries listed are those that conquered and ruled vast swaths of land (Japanese Empire, Nazi German Empire, French Empire, Italian Empire). In contrast, due to the Anti-Imperialist League the bulk lands acquired in the "age of imperialize" became states (Hawaii, Alaska) or got independence in short order. Just look at the maps and check out size of the central power the foreign territory that power is controlling. There is no comparison. Dlargecat (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm totally against identifying America as an Empire. If so then We better put PRC and other countries as well. Plus all the data associated with the US (for example) isn't the biggest or latest one. US's GDP is approximately 1 trillion according to 1945 data but the biggest and latest amount would be around 13 trillion dollars and why isn't this number written in there? I don't know. If America was an empire then in the population list it would be in the 3rd position but why isn't it? --Arash Eb (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hate to be the one to throw his two cents in, but for the sake of consistency, if USA doesn't belong on the list, then the EU definitely shouldn't be on the list, as it is a voluntary federal association of sovereign states. I see the case for PR of China being included, as the ethnic Han elite in Beijing exert authority over the many nationalities that compose modern China, at times very obviously against their will (i.e. Tibet). Same goes for Russia to a lesser degree (Chechnya conflict as an example).

USA is a special case and a grey area. Great parts of its territory have been won by conquest (French-Indian war, Mexican-American war, Hawaii), but it is more or less culturally homogeneous, and there are no explicit ethnic barriers to full citizenship (unlike traditional empires). Its military influence undoubtedly played a big role in the domestic politics of other countries in the past (Latin America) and continues to do so today (Middle East), but it stops short of actual domination. The most basic argument is that the overseas territories of the US don't have representation in Congress (only observer status), though it's ambiguous whether they will someday acquire state-status. Overall I would vote yes for inclusion with a disclaimer explaining the US's unique historical position and ambiguities. If the criterion was self-definition as an Empire, then many entries on the list would need to be removed. Best-- 77.208.111.13 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Empire, please read and discuss before any addition or removal

Oxford English Dictionary;

'empire' noun - an extensive group of states ruled over by a single monarch or ruling authority.

I hope this goes some way to resolving the United States as an empire issue. G. R. Allison (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"ruled over by a SINGLE monarch or ruling authority" ... President, Vice President, Cabinet, House of Representatives, Senate, National Supreme Court, Governors, State Legislatures, State Supreme Courts, County Judge, City Mayor ... Hummm, sounds like you just clarified the descrepancy in this article that mulitudes of people have been trying to point out to you. Thanks.

While you're at it, show me one good instance where I have accused everyone of having anti-American agendas, as you try to claim. And try not to use a completely unrelated "source" for that purpose, unlike what is being used to define non-Empires as being Empires. I'm here for ONE reason.....accuracy. This is probaly why you haven't figured that out yet, "I'm not taking what you say seriously here". If you would kindly try to take seriously the content that OTHERS have tried to provide also, rather than simply deleting anything you personally don't agree with, it would most surely be MUCH easier to finally get this article worded correctly. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.196.36 (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would certainly accept the Oxford English Dictionary as a legitimate source for a definition, and acknowledge that this definition encompasses the United States, even if I do find it somewhat ambiguous regarding a "ruling authority". If I could suggest to the editors who know more about this than I, it might go a long way to heading off future problems if there were a discussion of possible definitions and their sources. I think such information early in the article (not the leadin, but perhaps just after) would make it more difficult to make some of the arguments that others (and I) have put forth. My compliments to G. R. Allison, for demonstrating restraint and patience with my questions. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Beacon, out of curiosity, would you classify the US government as a single ruling authority? Also, I appreciate your level headedness in this debate. On a side note am I going too far suggesting the IP editor is trying to imply an agenda with some editors? Finally... IP Editor... you must realise you are implying Empires with a single monarch didn't have, for example, city mayors? Different levels of state government are ultimately accountable to the federal government authority correct? Much of the time of the British Empire the monarch had very little real power. You seem to be under the impression an empire is ruled by literally one person with no micromanagement. G. R. Allison (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also you asked for instances where you implied an agenda IP editor;

"This "American Empire" thing has been going on here for literally years. The usually way it's handled, when someone tries to change it to be more accurate, is the very same few people simply delete the entire addition, revert it back to the way they want it to be, and/or post stuff like, "refrain from your rather ridiculous editing", "You keep adding to the article list of largest empires. You have done it several times", & "If you would like sources regarding empire I direct you here"....linking to the same vague & useless "source" that is being used, the "Context for Russia"."

"The "American Empire" is a pet term that is liked by a small, but VERY obsessed, group of people. The so-called sources they use to "prove" their claim vary wildly, such as one of the main ones used here"

"You wouldn't perhaps be one of the ones who are determined to keep the "American Empire" inaccuracies on this page, are you?" - Loaded question quite obviously.

" So just let them have their fun with it & sleep peacefully knowing that they've contributed their part to Wiki. The sad thing is, these type of wild & untrue accusations greatly decrease the seriousness of Wiki being an actual encyclopedia"

LonelyBeacon is quite correct when he/she says;

"Perhaps if you didn't write things like "obsessed group of people", or "So just let them have their fun with it and sleep peacefully", more people would be willing to examine your points. I have found that once you engage in debates from this stand point, whether you are right or wrong, a lot less people are willing to even consider your points. I certainly support a request for better citation and a better investigation as to whether this article properly reflects the majority views of experts in the political fields, or may be a candidate to include other views. I recommend showing good faith. "

Sorry for the length of my reply. G. R. Allison (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not wish to sound like I am playing semantics, but if asked the question would I classify the US government as a single ruling authority?, I would answer "yes", because virtually all sovereign power (treaties, declarations of war, appointment of ambassadors, etc) is held by the various branches of the federal government (which, to me, constitute a unified central government).

However (and again, I am not trying to be difficult), the "single ruling authority" stated in the definition could be implied to mean a single individual or very limited group of individuals who are not necessarily royal, but exercise absolute power (such as a dictatorship). All I mean to say is that the definition is open to some degree of interpretation, and thus some editors (like me) could come along and raise a question like this. This is why I made that suggestion above .... if a variety of sourced definitions were included, I think it would clarify that according to some legitimate interpretations of what constitutes an empire, the US could be included.

I have certainly run into editors here who seem to push agendas. Might there be some operating on this article? There could be (and that could go for both sides of this and other arguments). This is why I think that a referenced section explaining the various definitions of an empire in use within academic/professional circles, especially in politics, history, sociology, etc may lend itself as a good defense against people like me asking questions like this, and against editors who think that an agenda is being pursued. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And that is EXACTLY why many of us have tried to, at the VERY least, make a simple note beside "American Empire" entries, which state that only SOME people agree with that term, not ALL. It's easy to see that's the truth, because everyone can't even agree to it HERE....in discussion. But even that simple note is deleted within minutes & a warning given us to not try that again. Looking at the ones who do it, 85% of the time, it's the same exact people doing that deleting. So where's the "agenda" then, when those of us who are trying to change the article are doing so for the sake of accuracy.

Allison, every single example of my "agenda" you listed has to do with the fact that you & a couple others simply will not let other editors add their own content to certain Wiki pages. Oh yeah, selective quoting is lame too. You accused me of implying "everyone has some anti-American agenda", not just your most current claim of a simple "agenda". Yes, I DO have one of those, and it's to improve the accuracy of Wiki entries dealing with "Empires". So if "accuracy" is such a horrible agenda to have, then I do suppose that I'm a really bad person.

The simple fact is that several Wiki pages dealing with Empires have a personal point-of-view included within them, concerning an "American Empire", which is being vigourusly defended by a small group of people. The attempts that others have made, including myself, to eliminate that personal point-of-view are simply deleted and/or reverted. I am definitely not the expert on Wiki here & won't claim to be. But I know it well enough to know that simple personal opinions aren't allowed. Claims have to be backed up with a legitimate source.

Looking at the discussion right here, it's clear that no one agrees on the exact meaning of "Empire", and many DO agree that using it to describe the U.S.A.'s method of governing is stretching it a bit...or a lot. Bearing that in mind, it's simply amazing to me that there is any debate at all on whether the Wiki article needs changed for accuracy....or simply reverted back to it's old original version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.196.36 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Useful points as ever, do you not remember simply removing the USA from the list in one of your edits? If not then you then another IP editor. If you want to put a tag saying it's controversial no one is or has been stopping you... will you stop being so dramatic. "the fact that you & a couple others simply will not let other editors add their own content to certain Wiki pages" I'm sorry but just grow up will you? I've been tryign to help resolve this as you can read from my posts... why do you need to be so bloody abrasive? IF YOU WANT TO PUT A TAG THERE DO IT, NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU LIKE WE HAVE BEEN DOING WHEN YOU SIMPLY ADD RIDICULOUS NONSENSE INTO THE ARTICLE "Not an actual empire. Only listed for area comparison." That's not even true, it's not listed for area comparison at all. You are seriously trying to claim the US was never an empire? G. R. Allison (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also IP editor, you claim "multitudes" of people have been trying to remove the US from the list or change the entry, I count hundreds of people visiting this article yet only 3 or 4 trying to alter the US via the talk page or direct action. Multitudes indeed.G. R. Allison (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am completely with G. R. Allison on this. If any editors wants to add something, especially in an area of controversy, then find an appropriate place to add it, write it well, and include reliable sources, and properly cite the source. Simply deleting, or adding items without citation is not helping. If there is a disagreement on the inclusion of information, you calmly bring this up on the talk page. If this is still not to your satisfaction, consider a request for comment. Keep in mind, the overriding policy of Wikipedia is that articles are to be constructed according to the consensus of the editors who work here. If you examine the consensus policy closely, you will note that what you are doing is not trying to build consensus, and is the antithesis of what should be going on. Rather than trying to discuss rationally, there is too much emotional involvement. Do not argue your point; rather find reliable sources that argue your point.

To cut to the point: right, wrong, or otherwise, the badgering needs to end. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right Beacon thank you for the reply, any ideas as to a next step regarding this USA/Empire issue or do we just leave as is?G. R. Allison (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Only my suggestion above --- I think it is clear that the USA meets a definition of empire, but I think it would be helpful to everyone if editors with a better feel for this kind of thing included a brief, referenced section highlighting different definitions of "empire" ... to clearly demonstrate that there are definitions (as you were kind to highlight at the beginning of this section) that can include the USA as an empire. Aside from that, the article is itself very useful. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"IF YOU WANT TO PUT A TAG THERE DO IT" ... I have, and others have. Our comments were simply deleted & at least myself was barraged with several insults, threats, & warnings, along the lines of "Cease your ridiculous nonsense or I'll ask that you be banned". That's a great deal of the ENTIRE controversy here, yet a certain few just can't see it. Some of us ARE trying to address this inaccuracy in Wiki, among others....a few are trying their best to prevent that.

But anyway, I'm done with it. The result was exactly what I predicted it would be from what I have seen before numerous times....the controversial part is still there, as it's always been, even though several have tried to clarify it. There's no use wasting anymore time with this. This is the way that the article is suppose to read I guess, even if it's not entirely correct, and it doesn't need changed to make it more accurate.

That's the answer you were looking for anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.196.36 (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What you done was add, "Not an actual empire. Only listed for area comparison." That's not a useful tag and it's not even true whatever your belief on the issue is. The point of this page is to reach a conclusion or consensus not whine because people won't implement exactly what you say. Tell me... can you also predict the lottery numbers like you predict the immoral editing of us bad people? Joking aside... if you want to add a tag follow the guidelines and do it properly rather than just adding nonsense like you have done with the area comparison rubbish. That is all I ask. G. R. Allison (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that tags of the nature being described ("not an empire", for example) are counterproductive, and following article guidelines is the best advice for any editor. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, however, I stopped over to wiktionary and looked up empire, and found the following:

1. A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.

2. A group of states or other territories that owe allegiance to a foreign power.

3. A state ruled by an emperor.

4. Any vast area under the power of one person; most commonly used in business, e.g. "the McDonalds empire".

Examining these four definitions, all of which I would accept as legitimate definitions, the USA certainly fits the first one, even today (Guam, PR, VI, etc). The second one almost certainly fits the United States today, and definitely fits the USA at certain points in the past. However, the third and fourth definitions don't fit the USA, and jokes about the FDR and W. Bush administrations aside, really never have.

I know I am sounding like a broken record, but I think this constitutes support for keeping the USA in this article, however, I think a discussion of how certain entities listed here, may not fit every definition of "empire", but that all of these entities meet at least one definition, even if that is not the same definition commonly used by everyone. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Currently the article has one unreliable section.--Eirione (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice fix.--Eirione (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to sound insulting but the phrase "the lunatics have taken over the asylum" came to mind when I read this article and then this debate. It is utterly ludicrous to include the US as an empire in this article. The US is not an empire, that is the bottom line here. Their is no absolutely no academic consensus that the US is an empire. 86.184.83.0 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The US in the 1940's was symbolically an empire (not literally), and people make the mistake that this article is saying it is currently an empire (which it is not, it means it was in the past), and please read the US expansion article and American empire article that explains all of this already. We can not change an article based on a couple of people opinions, we need facts from reliable sources that either say it is or it is not an empire.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should either change it to "List of largest countries" or remove countries like the US from the list. It's one of the most bizarre articles I've ever seen in Wikipedia and some out of dated numbers.--Arash Eb (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In the first place, it is jot even extensive. The numbers are large only cause of USA. Americans trying to think they ever had an empire...they were under the British Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.12 (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as a counterexample to the US controversy, it should be noted that both the British and to a lesser degree the Spanish Empire had legislative bodies (Parliament and Las Cortes) and independent judiciary structures, yet nobody denies that they were empires. Empire doesn't necessarily signify despotism, as it might be understood in common parlance, but is more a question of the extension of authority over a non-contiguous territory/non-homogeneous population (unlike a nation-state). Cheers, from a Poli Sci graduate. 77.208.111.13 (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Phrygian Dynasty

211 Phrygian Dynasty - 0.2 million km2 (???→ 750 BC ←???)--San Sanitsch (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Empire ?

Of course, it's not a pure empire, but neither is US Empire. --Alogrin (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree -- Soviets should be in, as should the People's Republic of China. 209.195.164.34 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Concern about territory assignation

Are you using the same rule to assign countries/territories/continents to a given empire (i.e.: British Empire and Oceania/Australia) as you are using with, let's say, the spanish empire? As far as I can see, this territory assignation sounds terribly biased, to say the least. I mean, why do you assign a whole territory to the British Empire and, at the same time, assign only a small portion to portuguese or spanish empires? As far as I can see, both spanish and portuguese empires should be assigned, for example, the whole territory of south america- based on the same criteria you used with the british empire. Sad, cause I'm sure this is not a mistake, but some kind of pathetic nationalist behaviour, which shouldn't have room (except for it's own definition entry) in an encyclopedia.

I also guess that you are considering the biggest empire by territory calculating the amount of territory controlled at the same time, and not the territories ever controlled, which would be a completely different record, but not the biggest empire record, that's for sure. Anyway, and considering the criteria mentioned before, I'd bet this could also be misleading. Although, to be honest, I haven't checked this out yet. Could anyone enlighten me, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.141.50.92 (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

being new here

I am reluctant to jump right in but I am unclear as to the exact meaning of this sentence:

"The only claims on mainland Antarctica are included in the area of the British Empire."

It could be one of several words missing in one of several places, or it might just be because my english (though my only language) is not so good. Carptrash (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of the population estimates here are highly unprofessional. Some citations are blatant lies. The population figures given for Achaemenid Persia were given by non-demographic historians, while McEvdy and Jones, one of the most cited in this source, is utterly abused. McEvdy and Jones only estimated 8 million people for the population of Sassnian Empire, nowhere did it say that it was nearly 80 million. Whoever cited that just made it up, unashamed. I suggest the members here actually read the sources themselves instead of listening to people lying about its contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bh2369 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to make the edits--Work permit (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple empires under the same "nation"

There are multiple entries under the same "nation". Examples include the various French Empires (ie First French Empire, First French Colonial Empire, Second French Colonial Empire) and various Chinese Empires (ie Qing, Yuan, Ming, Han, Tang). However, there is only one entry for the Russian Empire (e.g. no entry for the Soviet Union or the Tsardom of Muscovy). There is no entry for the Peoples Republic of China. There are entries for the Roman Empire, the Western Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire, but no entry for the Roman Republic. What is the criteria used to give entries for some of these empires and not for others?--Work permit (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Work permit, I think your suggestion on some of the empires appears to be valid. I agree we should not have removed Tsardom of Muscovy and the Roman Republic, but most agree that the Republic was not really an empire yet, it was in its developing stages or becoming an empire mode, that is why later the Roman Empire came. However, for the Soviet Union and Peoples Republic of China, I think its best that we do not add those, as you have seen many agree that they should not be added. The main reasons might be because both are communistic nations with parties and did not consider themselves an empire, by the way China's name has not changed, so if we say China is an empire, were saying they are still an empire, which is wrong. Monarchy and communism may be familiar, but if we classify those an empire, we have to classify all communist nations as an empire. The Soviet Union map on its articles page is really bloated and makes it appear larger than it really was, China's borders have still not changed, so basically there is little to support the notion that it was an empire, because of the many uncertain factors. So I would not count those two. On America, which is a controversial one, back in the early 40's it viewed itself as an expansionist self governing or symbolic empire, which its main article suggests, but America is not currently an empire, and before the 40's it was not, so I have no problem with including it in this article which the sources indicate, but because America has parties and a three branches of government system and has not changed its name, personally I would probably not include it in this article. So it all goes down to what the sources say. Thanks for reading.--Eirione (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Eirione. I understand we could use the definition that an empire is a "self-identifying" term. In other words, we only add countries that have identified themselves as empires. But then we run into the problem of the United States. We run into the same problem if we identify an empire by it's form of government, ie communist or republic. I can easily Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL that would justfy viewing the Soviet Union as an empire, just as easily as the United States. The borders were different then the previous Russian Empire. I can't find the reference you mention that the United States "back in the early 40's viewed itself as an expansionist self governing or symbolic empire". China did change its name to the "People's Republic of China". The arguments for the Roman Republic are similar.--Work permit (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think I know what the solution is. We only include the Soviet Empire and others, if they (not referred to themselves as a empire symbolically) but what they called themselves officially in state name. Soviet Union, for example, does not mean Soviet Empire, and later the USSR has no mention of empire in its wording (plus as I said earlier the made up Soviet Empire map makes it as if China and others are in the Soviet Union are a little bit in the Soviet Union, which makes it appear larger than it was only to the untrained eye). Same with China (though I do not mind the Roman Republic, however that is why we later had the Roman Empire). China changed its name to the People's Republic of China, but this does not mean it is a empire (the opposite happened, it went from a Chinese empire to a Chinese state, it became the people's communist republic), China did not even expand its territories or acquire new land after becoming a communist state, it only had some tiny border disputes with India and Pakistan, basically its size remained the same. So I only say we add the Tsardom of Muscovy or Russia (which was short lived and had emperors that expanded its territories to 19 million km2 at its greatest extent) and maybe the Roman Republic. So Best regards.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Population size

I think Nazi Germany has a higher population. It might by at around 200mil in 1943 --Boris 19:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borianium (talk • contribs)

An empire involves the extension of a state's sovereignty over external territories. For example, because of the British Empire's territories around the globe, it was often said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire."

Such an Anglo-Saxon definition, this sentence was used much earlier by the Spanish Empire.$ Jaume87 (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's is not a definition but quote and a correct one. While it is true that this line (or variation of it) have been used for other empires as well (in particular Habsburg/Spain under Karl V), it nevertheless was a common quote about the british empire as well. So there is nothing wrong with that line and doesn't really constitute an anglo-saxon bias per se either.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Kmhkmh "KarlV" never said that, he coudn't. The empire in which the sun never set was the Spanish empire under Philipe II, do you remember "the Philippines"? Jaume87 is right in what he said.--Manuel76 (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ancient empires

according to this list, which the Roman Empire is the third most vast empire of antiquity......., why? I have understood that the Roman empire to its maximum extention was more extensive than the Achaemenid Persian empire, the empire of Alexander the Great and the Han Empire,

I think the issue on which was the maximum extention of the Roman Empire is a special, apparently no account the size of the Mediterranean and the black sea as a territory, at least personally, I think that if it should be counted as such,the maximum territorial extention of the Roman Empire 6.5 million km2 in 117 BC should count the 2.5 million km2 of the Mediterranean sea and black sea of 436.400 km2,that both territories were exclusively controlled by Rome in 117BC, according to these calculations,the -----the Roman Empire really exerted an effective political and military control over 9.4 million km2 in 117 BC.------ my question is: the Achaemenid empire was the largest of the ancient times? or the Roman empire was it?, someone could clarify this?

I have some doubts in the publication of the Achaemenid empire, says it reached its maximum extension of 8.0 million km2 in the year 550 BCE, and the publication of largest empires, in the section of the empires of antiquity shows a map of the Achaemenid Empire at its maximum extention in 480 BC, very different from the official publication of wikipedia. I think the map shown in the publication of largest empires is very inaccurate and should be removed,

I agree with some here present, the Roman Empire was the most extensive empire the of antiquity, that the area in which he applied his military and political control in the year 117 BC, was the land mass of 6.5 million km2, adding the extention on the Mediterranean and black,{both were considered by the romans his private lakes and he rule it whit many War fleets} which the government of Rome rule 100% of their coastal areas and more.

plus,i dont agree, the han empire never reached mongolia even less siberia,the han empire extention was 6 million of km2 or under it.

It depends on how you account for the vast arid and unsettled areas which were part of most empires. Take Egypt: Although the Romans controlled the Nile Delta and all oases as the modern country does, its size is often estimated at being half as large, 500,000 sq km compared to 1,000,000 sq km as of 2010. This difference alone amounts to ca. 10% of total Roman territory. And if only the settled area is counted, then it would only account for only 30,000 sq km. But which figure do we take? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Percentage of world GDP

The assigned numbers are deeply flawed for the following reasons:

• Many lack inline citations, and even the referenced entries often lack page numbers
• Those who have both are mostly the product of synthesis, that is a population estimate of one book is combined with a total GDP estimate of another book. Even the potentially most reliable source, Angus Maddison, is misused. In fact, AM does not offer world share figures in percentage at all and the absolute numbers he gives follow modern boundaries. The way the table lightly interprets his numbers, by piecing together a bunch of modern countries to add them up to one imperial figure, is obviously synthesis and original research.

In sum, I find the table almost worthless. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of the 27 entries, only the numbers on the Pala Empire do not fail the criteria outlined above. But even they need to be checked whether they are actually supported by the references cited. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't find the percentage of "24" confirmed in neither "Late Classical India, 1988, p 25" nor "Dr N. G. Majumdar; The History and Culture of the Pālas of Bengal and Bihar, Cir. 750 A.D.-cir , 1003, p 37". All cited sources appear to be anyway historical books and not macro-economic quantitative works. With even the Pala in doubt, there is IMO no reason to keep the table at all.

And, to be frank, there is as yet no estimate of past GDP by a credible macro-economist which gibes its numbers in world shares and which has solved the problem of overlapping and changing borders on the time line, not even that of Angus Maddison. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

USA=empire?

I know the anti-Americanism and all that, but we could cut the debate short quite authoritatively. WP:Reliable and WP:Source require that the cited source should a) give a GDP estimate (obviously) and also b) that in the very same context the USA is designated as an "empire". Just taking the number, ignoring Maddison's own choice of words and then referring to another WP article for the e-word is WP:Synthesis and WP:OR (apart from WP:circular). Since there have been some users strong on the revert button, I assume they have the required source quick at hand, that is we can give them 24 h to provide the necessary source, otherwise it's got to be removed. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies; I assumed that since Madison was the source for quite a number of these, that Madison had identified these as empires. If Madison did not identify these as empires, then all of the numbers based on his book have to go. I've had the worry for a while that perhaps a lot of this list was OR, but I was AGF that the sources supported the claims. If there is any situation in which the sources don't directly and obviously support the information included then we should remove that listing. If this means there isn't enough left for an article, then so be it. Because I'm worried about the point you raise over all, I won't revert again if you delete, Gun Powder Ma, but I would like anyone who actually has these sources to clarify what's going on here.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the harsh tone, I mistakenly thought you were advancing a political position which you clearly weren't. I've read quite a lot from Maddison, particularly on his GDP estimates, and as a macro-economist through and through he offers absolutely no empire discussion I am aware of. Without a page number "Maddison, op cit" is quite useless, since the two books comprise several hundred pages each with almost as many tables and stats. I remove it again until someone comes up with a clear ref which complies to a) and b). Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. While you've probably pegged my personal POV correctly, I didn't mean to advance one here--I'm only interested in what the sources say. Following up on the above, do you think using Maddison for so many of the other statistics is appropriate? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The citations left mostly seem to refer to "Percentage of world population" where he summarizes the numbers of other authors. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• in the fact, the usa have colonies in the phillipines, puerto rico, etc again spanish empire..see: spanish-american wars.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.198.75 (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

List of largest empires → List of largest Sovereignties — List does or should contain largest Sovereignties. End pointless debates on whether the United States, the Soviet Union, or the Peoples Republic of China are "Empires"--Work permit (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I propose renaming this article to "List of largest Sovereignties". "List of largest Empires" would redirect to the renamed article. The purpose of this article should be to simply list the largest sovereignties. Who cares if the sovereignty is or was "an Empire"? Why waste time debating if Soviet Union, The Peoples Republic of China, or the United States is or was "an Empire"? Or the Roman Republic, for that matter. Let's list them all, by the simple criteria that that are (were) "large Sovereignties".

It is obvious that many readers are confused by some additions. This is because term "empire" has multiple meanings. For example, an empire may simply be a government under an emperor or empress. And so the Second French Empire is a republic, but the French Second Republic is not. And neither are the United States, the Roman Republic, the Soviet Union, or the Peoples Republic of China. It may also mean "A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority". It is under this definition that the United States, et al fall under. Unfortunately, applying the term "empire" to the United States and other modern nations has political meanings as well. There is no reason to bring up these issues up in this article. Let's just use a term that has a simple, canonical, definition with no "political" overtones.

What do people think? --Work permit (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support for reasons given above. --Work permit (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose personally I think the set up we have here is fine, many articles get these levels of nationalist editing, I have never in my life heard the term largest sovereignties. Also as per the policy you mentioned, I think we should follow "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view". G.R. Allison (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As above, I think the term sovereignty is being misused in this move request. The British Empire was not one sovereign state, for example, it consisted of Crown colonies, Princely states, Dominions and so forth. What about moving this article to something like "List of largest historical political entities"? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I find this use of Empire to be a useful, accurate term. I also feel that largest sovereignties is pushing the ball uphill with a wet noodle. Einar Carptrash (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I think it's far more helpful to keep 'empires' for one simple reason, we want the articles to be visible to the majority of users. Most people would use the word 'empire' when searching for the information contained in this article. 'Largest sovereignties' just don't roll off the tongue. G.R. Allison (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC) {{subst:pollbotom}

Nazi German Empire - 3.6 million km2 (1942) ?????

nazi germany was most certainly not an empire !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.36.220 (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• the third reich was a empire; the term reich in german = empire.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.198.75 (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just count all nations/polities as empires for the purpose of this article?

I mean the word Empire has many competing definitions to begin with, trying to decide which political entities count is rather pointless. Simply including everything, including modern states, would greatly simplify things. On another note I have to note my disapproval of the population and economy sections. Although there are reliable sources for the size of many political entities throughout history, population and economics amounts to a guessing game. I find so many of the placements so absurd that I marvel at how the editors managed to find reputable sources to support those numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.145.202 (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove all pre 1800 population figures

I agree on both counts. Empire is a catch all term whose meaning depends on contexts - compiling a list based on a term that covers very different regimes is a bad decision. Population estimates pre 1800 are guesses and when we get the section on percentage of world population when what is being calculated is a guess of another guess it gets really silly. Removing all pre 1800 population figures would solve the problem.Dejvid (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's actually not quite true, first of all there exact some historic counts in some not that different from today (for China and Rome for instance). They do of course require some interpretation still, but Principally so does any modern count.

As long as the articles clearly state what is guessed based on what sources and clearly emphasizes the problem of such estimates, it is imho ok for the article to use/describe them. I'm rather concerned with comparing sources of rather different reliability without that being really obvious to readers.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Some pre-modern states (Rome and China come to mind) did keep population records, but those are notoriously unreliable, usually only used for tax purposes. At any rate even if you could get reasonably good guesses on total population, percentage of world population is just a guessing game, because no such records exist for the world population. Combining a reasonably good guess of an Empire's population with a rather sketchy guess of world population leads to a horrible guess of percentage of world population. Besides that a lot of the numbers use synthesis, which I think is against the rules. At any rate the economics sections are still insane, any attempts to compare economies across history is doomed to fail. I wouldn't even call those educated guesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.145.202 (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that pre 1800 figures are to inaccurate for comparison. Some big discrepancies arise just by a quick look at that list. For example this article states that the roughly contemporaneous Roman empire had a population of(80 million), the Han Chinese empire was at 60 million, and the Kushan Empire of India was around 42 million. Those three empires then had a total population of 182 out of ~225 million. If you factor in the Parthian Empire(roughly analogous to a lesser Persian empire), and take a low estimate of its population, say 20 million, that only leaves about 22 million people in all of South East Asia, Non-Han Chinese East Asia, Non-Roman Europe, Africa south of the Sahara, the Americas and Australia. It seems to me that either the world population was higher, or that the figures for at least one of those three empires is inflated. I'm not saying the person who wrote the article made it up or that the sources are necessarily wrong, but their should be a warning above this part of the list about how population estimates from earlier than ~200 years ago can vary widely. Vishiano (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Some current mistakes/problems

• For the mongol empire the years 1270 and 1309 are given. First of all 1270 is unlikely to have the same size as 1309 and moreover the mogol empire definitely did not peak in 1270 (if some source claims it very likely simply wrong). In 1270 the mogeols had not yet conquered Southern China (that conquest is completed around 1279 with the fall of the Southern Song). Also the short lived mongol conquest in Southeast Asia happened after that.
  • I don't remember exactly, but didn't the conquest of south China occur after the splitting of the empire into Khanates? That would explain the discrepancy (if I'm wrong, well then, we need a better source). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.145.202 (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• The map of the Persian empire is not accurate. There have been several discussion regarding that at other places, unfortunately this map keeps popping up again due to its availability on Commons (in particular the displyed areas in africa and the northern black sea are not correct).

• Many of GDP items are unsourced. Let alone that (meaningful) GDP assessments are difficult and potentially quszionable to begin with it is definitely not acceptable to put figures out there without sourcing.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

Ottoman Empire article states that at 1689 empire's size was 7,210,000 km2. however in this artircle, it's much less. I couldn't find anyhing to confirm any of the sizes. 92.237.26.125 (talk)

Interesting video

Visualizing empires decline. The Ogre (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thinking of taking this to AfD

So, normally I'd just take the article to take an article I thought violated policy to AfD, but this is a particularly tricky article. My concern is that the article is now, and will always by definition be, original research. Two things point me to this conclusion.

1. The very long intro section clarifying how difficult a ranking of this type is to make. This whole section is pure OR--it's not a discussion of how other sources have found it difficult to define the size of empires, it's actually a discussion about how we, here, on Wikipedia, find it difficult to define the size of empires (or, even, what exactly constitutes an empire). That section reads to me as exactly the sort of thing I would expect to read in a scholarly article covering this same topic, not in an our encyclopedic reporting of those scholarly articles.
2. The fact that we have an ordered list, but the specific order is based on multiple disparate sources. To me this is a clear violation of WP:SYN. We're treating all of the different measuring systems found in the various sources as working from similar premises, similar methodologies, and similar definitions. But we have every reason to suspect that that is simply not true, as that simply isn't how academic research works, especially in analytical (as opposed to experimental) research.

Thus, I believe that this article is a definite violation of the prohibition on original research. I further think that there is nothing we can do to make it not OR, unless we could find all of the information in studies that used identically methodology and measuring devices. Before I take the dramatic step of moving to AfD, does anyone want to respond here first? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, luckily we have WP:POINT--otherwise I'd start making changes to the list, moving things up and down, then moving them back again, to prove that it is impossible to create an accurate list that is anything other OR. I still fundamentally believe that the existence of this list is harmful to the encyclopedia, because it damages our claim that we only report what other sources say, and don't make up things on our own. I'll just take the list off of my watchlist and forget about instead... Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Achaemenid Empire

The Achaemenid Empire's area is stated as 8.0 million km2, sourced (3 million square miles) to a casual mention http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/me_iran0794_10_12.asp in an op-ed article about how bad the current Iranian education system is, in a nationalistic emigre newsletter. Other sources used in the article http://books.google.com/books?id=1S-Q-6jDZ7AC&pg=PA14&dq=persian+empire+million+square+miles&lr=#v=onepage&q=persian%20empire%20million%20square%20miles&f=false , http://books.google.com/books?id=DNwaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA56&dq=persian+empire+million+square+miles&lr=#v=onepage&q=persian%20empire%20million%20square%20miles&f=false give a figure of 2 million square miles.

Is this article a schoolyard game of "Yah Yah My ancient empire is bigger than yours"?? Dingo1729 (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It is, and it is not by chance that the article was 5 times proposed for deletion (see top); it is synthesis and original research, but people want to keep it because they find it "interesting". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I intend to delete the section on "Record Breaking Empires" on the three grounds that it is inaccurate, un-encylopedic and original research. The main problem is that the Achaemenid Empire's size has been exaggerated (as noted above). Correcting that would bring in other empires to the list, and we would then have to decide which of the Roman or Han empires is the larger, since they are listed with exactly the same size and very close dates. Does anyone have objections to this deletion? You are welcome to restore it if you can make it accurate and free from Original Research. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree. Such a list can only be reproduced from scholarly sources, but here widely disparate sources are jumbled together; this is classic SYN. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not really more SYN than the rest of the article - it's also quite interesting! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with interesting, but unfortunately the most interesting facts may be incorrect. The false claim that the Persian (Achaemenid) empire was the largest in antiquity has probably spread to a hundred places around the internet by now. I see that the Ottoman Empire has recently been significantly downsized. And do the Brits really inflate their empire by including a big slice of Antarctica? Also, the population figures before about 1800 (as Dejvid pointed out above) mostly look like vague guesses which have been repeated and then exaggerated by people who want to aggrandize their past. And the GDP figures don't look much better. I'd like to get rid of all these ranked lists and simply have an alphabetical list which could take into account more of the uncertainties and unknowns. Dingo1729 (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Antarctica bit is incorrect and should be removed - no reliable source claims it as part of the British Empire. What do you base your assertion that the Achaemenid Empire was not the largest in Antiquity on please? Do you have a quality source for an alternative view? Lots of reliable sources say it was. If that's the backbone of your argument, it's not a promising one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not an expert on this, but if you look at the top of this section and follow the links, the source for the current claimed size (3 million square miles) is very far from reliable and I gave two other links (also used in other parts of this article) which give the 2 million square miles figure. They look more reliable to me. I'd like to track this down and get agreement, I'm not particularly invested in how big these empires were, but my vague memory was that the roman empire was larger and so was the chinese empire, though they were later. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Having looked around the internet I couldn't find anything I'd really say was a quality source for the size of the Achaemenid Empire. When I looked at the original source for the size, both here and on the Achaemenid Empire page I assessed it as third rate (I deleted another source which was even poorer, but you can check that too, if you want). Looking around at the other sources for the empire I found nothing that gave the 3 million square miles figure but the couple which I linked to above which gave 2 million square miles. To be honest I'd classify both of them as second rate. They look as though someone a long time ago glanced at a map and made a crude guess. Then other people repeated that as gospel truth. Ideally I'd like a paper which says "these were the satrapies at this date and each of the areas is such-and-such and the sum is...". But maybe professional historians just aren't interested in details like that. Quite possibly you know where to find better sources than I do? Dingo1729 (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Having looked a little further I might have to back down on this. I did find http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/medes/f/122410LargestAncientEmpire.htm which states clearly that the Achaemenid Empire was the largest. It seems to be based on a paper by Rein Taggapera which I'd been trying to find and is extensively cited in the article. It does come with the problem that it states clearly that the size of the empire was 5.5 square megameters, so we would have to downsize both the Roman and Han empires to make this the largest. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My copy of the Oxford Complete History of the World (the one with all the maps of ancient empires in it) says that the Achaemenid Empire was "slightly larger than the Empire of Alexander at their maximum extents", so presumably that is another good source and I assume you are thinking of the Alexandrian one as the only other serious ancient rival to the claim? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Alexandrian empire was a little smaller, but I haven't found a good source for the 8.0 million square kilometers in the article. Only 2 million square miles (5.2 million square kilometers) or 5.5 square megameters. Those figures are both below the 6.5 million claimed for both the Roman and Han empires in the article. So, no, I was looking at those two as the rivals. Dingo1729 (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dingo1729, we could also find out whether Roman and Han really were smaller than Persia. BTW, how could Persia have been bigger than Alexander's Macedonia? Macedonia controlled the whole Balkan peninsula, while Persia just had a small part of Thrace. Alexander also went farther east into India.Leo-Isaurus-Rex (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to another new editor taking a keen interest in this rather obscure corner of Wikipedia! Alexander did not push as far into "India" as did the Achaemenids under Darius I (note it's the Achaemenid, not the "Persian" empire) empire but they are broadly similar in size. The comparison with Han China and Rome is I fear ridiculous, but we should all seek out further sources rather than arguing from our own opinions. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "ridiculous"? Are you saying that Han China and Rome were much smaller? All along I've been saying that the size of the Achaemenid empire is overstated in the list. For example, the Macedonian (Alexander's) empire is listed as 5.2 million square kilometers and you've already said that the Achaemenid's was only slightly larger. For comparison, Rome and Han are listed as 6.5 million. At the very least, they are all comparable in size, so I'm confused by "ridiculous". Dingo1729 (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to clarify, I wasn't saying that it's all correct in the current article. Han and Rome at peak were much smaller than the empires of Darius I and Alexander the Great. I think they all need reworking. I am out looking for better sources at the moment, hopefully you are too and we will come back with some better ones. We could also do a table based on population - I don't know for sure, but I suspect for example that Han was the largest ancient empire by population. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There's already a list of empires by population size, but the "estimates" for ancient empires are little more than guesses. I was reading a serious book about the later Roman Empire and the author wrote that it was impossible to estimate the population size or to even say whether the population was increasing or decreasing at any given time. There's also a derived list of population as a percentage of world total. That divides two numbers not even accurate to one significant figure and quotes the result as three significant figures. I was considering deleting that table as rubbish. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that it's all very difficult. Even well-researched parts of the Roman Empire like Rome itself and the regions that surrounded it are the cause of much dispute amongst historians and population geographers as to the size and structure of their populations. Nobody knows for sure, for example, how many slaves there were in different parts of the empire. The reason is of course a lack of detailed surviving sources and debate about the value of various types of evidence. How nice it would be to have a copy of that census Caesar ordered according to the NT! However, I would still not come down on the side of deletion. Deleting is much easier than improving and researching. If we are deleting something, let it be to replace it with something better, even if that "better" is just a referenced explanation of how wide and diverse the estimates/guestimates are. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The data for the sizes of economies seems wired. Dominions of the British empire are not considered. Here, it is clear that USA's economy is larger than that of the British Empire, but that should have only happened in 1941, according to Angus Maddision. Dominions should be considered, as they are considered to be part of the British empire until 1947 to 48, when the term dominion falls out of use as these dominions are free to establish citizenship, appoint ambassadors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.89.122.10 (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A sentence that doesn't make sense

"Qing Empire, China - $241.3 billion (GDP decline to 1912, immediately before its downfall)"

This doesn't make any sense... can someone try to clarify this, please? PS: If anyone could be so kind, could you please leave a message on my talk page demonstrating (normally invisible) comments in pages, because I'd like to know how to do this. --Agamemnus (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Far far too long

The length of this article is frankly ridiculous. It makes it impossible to use having so many repeated lists. How about having, for example:

Empire	Land area (million km2)	Era	Population (million)	Percentage of world population	GDP (€ billion)
British Empire	33.7	1946	531.3 (in 1938)	23.1 (531.3 million out of 2.295 billion in 1938)	658.6 (in 1938)
Mongol Empire	33.0	1270 or 1309	110.0 (in the 13th century)	25.6 (110.0 million out of 429 million[60] in the 13th century)
Russian Empire	23.7	1866	176.4 in 1913	9.8 (176.4 million out of 1.791 billion in 1913)	184.7 (in 1913)
Spanish Empire	20.0	ca. 1740-1790	68.2	12.3 (68.2 million out of 556 million in the 17th century)
Ottoman Empire	19.9	1595	39	7.1 (39.0 million out of 556 million in the 17th century)	18.9 (in 1913)
Qing Empire, China	14.7	1790	432.2 million in 1851	36.6 (381.0 million out of 1.041 billion in 1820)	172.9 (GDP decline to 1912, immediately before its downfall)
Yuan Dynasty	14.0	1310	86.0 in 1290
Umayyad Caliphate	13.0	720 or 750	62.0 (in the 7th century)	29.5 (62.0 million out of 210 million[56] in the 7th century AD)
French Colonial Empire	12.3	1938	112.9	4.9 (112.9 million out of 2.295 billion in 1938)	168.1 in 1938
Abbasid Caliphate	11.1	750	50	20.0 (50.0 million out of 250 million in 850)

There can be a column for any criteria is desired, and making it sortable means one list fits all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.57.165 (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

See List of cities proper by population for a good way to do it when the data is clean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.57.165 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that this is a better way to present the information. It makes it possible to leave cells blank when there is no reliable information and allows us to include approximate information in a better way. It also removes the repeated lists. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I did the first three columns. Does anybody want to do the next two (population)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.249 (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the lists by Ancient/Medieval/Modern in the article right now, should I shade each row, depending on whether the date is pre 5th century, or post 15th century, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.249 (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Referring to the accusation of "exchanging information" - what exactly does that mean? Nothing has been changed or lost in the recent edits. The single columnar list includes exactly the same content that was in the many previous lists. All of them are still available by sorting the columns, but this format has the advantage of less scrolling and less storage (which means quicker loading). Plus, it's easier for editors to maintain. If you have an issue, discuss it here instead of auto-reverting.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.249 (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Serious question

We have a list in excess of over 200 empires listed here. So what happens in the future if we decide to add a section on here similar to list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions? Do we repeat the full list of 200 empires with this new information? And then if we also need something like list of countries by life expectancy? Does that mean retyping the entire list of 200 again?! Nobody will be able to convince me that this is the best way to present it, when it's possible to have a multicolomn table with simply one extra column for each... Please respond here, or else you have to right to revert edits in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.249 (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Content dispute"?

Can I ask who with? There has been no discussion on here, just mindless reverts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.33 (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just report him to an admin. Also, I agree with using such a table especially if it is sortable by column. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea of this article being changed to a table format

Hi, User:81.141.18.207 (talk) Notifed me of this issue and I would be happy to help. As you may or may not know I completely redid the article Former countries in Europe after 1815 by completely removng all the information it had and starting it from scratch as a table including every individual country that had existed in Europe in the past. People have liked it quite a bit and have added somnewhat to it since. I worked on it for two months before posting it and made sure it was accurate. If this is something you would like me to do to this page feel free to take a vote by posting a new section on my talk page with 'agree' or 'oppose' tages on the subject and why you feel this way. After I get a good amount of responces I will begin work on this project. Vadac (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vadac. As you may have seen in the edit history, attempts have already been made with this. I copied all the info that was there previously (as far as I could tell, there were no paste errors). I was a bit sloppy and did not put in all the empty cells. Of course, some of the data isn't very clean (mostly dates), but you're welcome to use that as a starting point. Also, if you're good at wiki tables, you might look into putting a static column with the ordinal numbers down the side (I couldn't figure out the markup for the case where rows are different heights). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.71 (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I am actualy quite good with tables. I have become quite an expert at the Wiki-codes and I will consider doing such a project. What do you think of Former countries in Europe after 1815 do you like its layout and style? If I do a table for this article I am going to likely do it much like that article but first I will settle the disputes with those who have already undid others' attempts a such a structure to this article. Do you know who has made the greatest oppositions to a table format for this article? This would be highly appriciated! Vadac (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As you can see below in the section Many lists or one list?, there appears to be consensus that it is better to have one sortable table than all these lists, so please have a go at it. Note that 81 also tried to introduce a table (latest version here) but was thwarted by a uncommunicative edit-warring IP followed by semi-protection. Since then there have been a few corrections, applied to the old format.  --Lambiam 19:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sending me the information about the anti-editors of this article. I will try and settle the disputes with these individuals before beinning work on the table so I do not end up wasting a lot of time. No one ever got in my way wih the redoing of Former countries in Europe after 1815 ands in fact some have added to it since I redid it thoroughly, enhancing it in the process. Vadac (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think they are all the same single individual. As the anonymous IP (in the range 190.134.xxx.xxx) changes all the time, there is no user talk page on which you can meaningfully engage with them.  --Lambiam 20:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to begin working on it and save it as a Word document and load it to replace this articel once I am finished as I did with the article on former countries in Europe. I will also discuss the vandalism issue from the IPs to see what they think should be done about it. Vadac (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese empire

Despite the sources in the article there is an evident error in the sum of total area of the Portuguese Empire estimated around 10 million in 1815: in fact Portugal still controlled Brazil and its 8 million km2, but in Africa and Asia, Portugal at that time controlled only coastal territories that surely can be estimated to be less than 200.000 km2. Portugal lost Brazil in 1822 and gained internal territories in Angola and Mozambique (2 million km2) only during the second half of the 19th century; it is clear that the 10 million km2 estimation was obtained adding incorrectly the area of territories controlled in two different historical periods.---kayac71- (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

VANDALISM

The "Ottoman Empire" is clearly subject of vandalism. If you add in a map all the territories of the former Ottoman Empire, the result is about 5 million sq. Kms.--83.39.40.254 (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is a disgrace!!

This could be probablyone of the worst articles wikipedia has to offer. I think it´s enough to say it´s IMPOSSIBLE that the achaemenid empire was 8.0 millions Km2 and Alexander´s empire was 5.2 Km2.--186.48.103.56 (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. 213.220.106.35 (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.106.35 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Many lists or one list?

The article List of largest empires consists of a collection of lists of empires, each ranked according to a different notion of size. Some editors prefer to combine these to a single sortable list with several columns the reader can sort on, one for each notion of size. However, one or more editors apparently disagree, as is clear from the article history. The issue has been raised on the talk page (see under Talk:List of largest empires#Far far too long), but that has not resulted in a resolving the issue. Hopefully a wider discussion will be more fruitful. So the question is: should the collection of lists be combined to a single sortable list?  --Lambiam 22:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Support:

1. Not only is a size of over 100K exceedingly long, a single list is also easier to maintain, and having the data in columns makes it much easier to read. Furthermore, it is instructive and more informative to see different size criteria for an empire combined on one line.  --Lambiam 22:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Use common sense, which is not to repeat lists over and over when a single table will work well. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Better presentation. Condenses information. Conserves space. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Easier to add or remove entries, Easier to allow for missing or unreliable data. Gets (somewhat) away from "Mine is the best Empire Ya Ya Ya". Dingo1729 (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
5. The table solution is a very good one for the format and making the article much easier to read. --BSTemple (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Go for it! The Ogre (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
7. It's my idea, so of course I support. I suggest reverting back to 00:17, 24 November 2010, and then getting rid of the whole "era" section. I'm thinking the best way to do that would be simply assigning 3 colors to the date cell or something, if it even matters (since you can sort by date anyway, and even sort by two columns). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.71 (talk) 20:14, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Edit request from Savaskan, 9 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Most of the sizes of the empires listed are incorrect - and even contradict their relative articles in Wikipedia. For example, the Ottoman Empire is listed as 5.2million kmsq for 1595, however in its article, again for 1595, the area of the empire is given as 19.900.000 kmsq. Although this is a good article to have as a subject, much work needs to be done to keep it accurate. Also, I believe that colonial empires and conquest based empires should be seperate.

Savaskan (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed difficult to keep articles like this accurate, and internal contradictions in Wikipedia should be resolved, using the best sources we can find. As to your specific example of the Ottoman Empire: the source for the 19.9 million square km in the article Ottoman Empire is a webpage from Turkish Studies at the University of Michigan. One would expect this to be a reliable source, but this can't be right. There is no way the area in the map on that page adds up to even 8 million square km. The estimate of 5.2 million square km given in the article here is definitely from a reliable (peer-reviewed and widely used) source, and comes very close to the combined size of the coloured areas in this image of the extent of the Ottoman Empire at its height in 1683. (Note that, unfortunately, the scale given in that image is wrong; the line marked "1000 km" covers only about 800 km.) So in this case the main article appears to be in error.  --Lambiam 18:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. Since then I've corrected the scale in the image.  --Lambiam 08:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the above, I'm closing this edit request. elektrikSHOOS 21:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

About Spanish territories

Philip II was king of england. I'd put England like spanish colonia too. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_Spain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.207.55 (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Philip became King of Spain after he became King of England, so perhaps we should list Spain as an English colony – wait, he was also King of Naples, so then Spain was a shared English–Napolitan colony! :) Seriously, England was not a colony – at least not according to any usual definition of the concept. It is unclear how much power Philip had personally in England, but the situation did not give Spain any political control over England. Similarly with William III of Orange; during his reign England did not suddenly become a Dutch colony.  --Lambiam 20:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Empires? Largest?

From Empire#Definition

An empire is a state with politico-military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture[3] — unlike a federation, an extensive state voluntarily composed of autonomous states and peoples.

According to this definition, most of the entries in the list are kingdoms...

And the meaning of the largest. Is there any minimum size? If not, we'll be just copying empires from List of empires... Soewinhan (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Alihanyen, 15 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In this page Ottoman Empire has been listed as 5,6 M km2 but actually the original size was 19 million km2 as you may see from the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_empire or from Britanica web site ( in university web sites of Turkey its shown as 23,5 M km2. Can you please update the information?

BR

Alihanyen (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please see the above section. I'll take a look at Ottoman Empire. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Title needed

here is the very good exaple of being fanatic for the sake of the occitan. But why the second source can be taken as the best sure source??? Ottoman Empire, had a 5,2 million km2 in 1595? I would like to say that, many empires, like:

• Great Seljuk
• Juan Juan,
• Hunnic,
• Xiong-nu,

these are Turcs Empires.

As a Ottoman Empire, It had 24.534.242 km² in 1595:)

SOURCE: Kinross, Lord Patrick (1977). The Ottoman Centuries. İstanbul: Sander Bibliotheque. ISBN 0 224 01379 8.(English) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.177.37 (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Population

I remember reading this article and you could see empires ranked by population, what happened to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.20.190 (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Just click the grey box next to "Population (million)" in the heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.220 (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

British Empire

Didn't BE reach its peak (in terms of area) in 1921, not 1946? I think the figures should be corrected. The area of BE was 36.6 million km² in 1921, whereas it was 33.1 million km² in 1946, even if we consider Canada, Australia etc. to be not independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.177.223 (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

this is facinating. im certain that Ireland becoming a independent and not joinging as a dominion was a begining point of the peak period but more would have to be included to provide when the empire actually had lost a great deal of land. and yes canada and australia are not fully independent they are dominions as they never fought a war against britain. and dont have presidents and still put british monarchy on there money and other caricteristics of a fully independent nation. but certainly other examples of nations breaking away could be egypt also in the 1920's and its not even part of the commonwealth of nations now so you could be on to something with this 1921 year. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggest remove "By era" section

I don't think we need to specify "Ancient empires" and whatever, since that much is obvious if you sort on the date column. (we might need a little bit of work on the formatting of years and whatever, and maybe we could shade them according to cutoff dates or something, but otherwise it does the job reasonably well)

This whole section is merely repetition at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.25 (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. I've never liked these multiple copies of the information. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So I'm tempted just to delete that entire era section and leave it at that. Shall we introduce an "era" column to the main table, with or without coloring, or just leave it to be sorted by date?

No one else commented for 4 weeks, so I just removed the era section. I re-arranged the maps and I don't think we need an "era" column. The eras are rather arbitrary anyway.Dingo1729 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

i disagree i never knew if a empire 4,000 years ago was going to make the list and besides having the years helps in identifiying largest countries over the course of all recorded civilization. no keep the time period colum becasue its the whole point of a historical nations by land area list. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Table numbering

This table should be numbered so people don't have to actually count their way down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.106.35 (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

thats a brilliant idea! some one do that. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

austro-hungarian empire

the year of reference is not included but i clicked on austria-hungarian empire and the year 1914 AD would be consistent with a land area of 676,615 KM and a population of 52.8 million austria hungary had this largest size from 1903 to 1919 in 1903 bosnia was made a protectorate and in 1908 bosnia was annexed but world war 1 1914 to 1918 ended the empire and the boundaries of europe were re-drawn in 1919 before the empire was called austro-hungary in 1867 the empire was called austrian empire and it was still just as large going back further to napoleonic war times im certain that the polish partitions in the late 1700's was the latest boundary changes before 1867. but the name of the country referenced on here was austro-hungrian im just saying that 1914 was the year of this country all the other countries on here got time period years of reference. 76.244.150.120 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese Empire

In 1815 Brazil was not part of a "Portuguese Empire", because there was a United Kingdom composed by these two countries. It's like to say that Scotland is part of a British Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.92.78 (talk • contribs) 01:10, January 2, 2011 (UTC) But Scotland was and still is part of the British Kingdom and has been since the 1707 Act of Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.59.52.255 (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

actually the year 1815 as brazil being portugeuse seems consistent with me beacuse im certain brazil was not independent till 1822. 76.244.150.120 (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Area of Sassanid Empire????

In the wiki article about Sassanid Empire is written that the largest area of this empire was 7,400,000 km2. Which statement is true ? In this article or in the article about Sassanid Empire ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.65.18 (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Easy: whoever posts such figures must indicate who came up with them. Whichever figure is unreferenced can be removed without warning or comment. In the case of the Sassanid Empire, both conflicting figures stand completely unreferenced, so both should be removed without further ado. Who ever wants to throw around such estimates on Wikipedia can bloody well respect WP:CITE and post their source. People do make stuff up, and absolutely anyone can edit here, so an unreferenced figure is exactly as good as no figure at all. --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove Contiguous column?

We could argue endlessly about whether particular empires are contiguous and whether including an island makes them non-contiguous. How about removing this column? Mostly it's obvious and when it isn't it's uninteresting. Dingo1729 (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

worst of all, it's original research. If an encyclopedic source was presented which lists empires by contiguity, it would be a different matter. But as it stands, this is just something some Wikipedians pulled out of their collective asses. In other words, remove as unencyclopedic original research. --dab (𒁳) 08:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• If we can establish a definition for what entails a contiguous empire, then it shouldn't be a problem to rigorously apply it to every one mentioned. At the moment, however, you've got a point Lord British (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Achaemenid Empire and Alexander Empire

From what I know of Alexander's Empire is coincident with that Achaemid Empire. But probably Alexander had more territories in central Asia in Sogdiana and Bactria, Gandhara and perhaps in the Tarim Basin (Tocharians) indeed it defeating nomadic populations of steppes and also marrying Roxanne [from a population of Afghanistan muntains]. The Persians had several times tried unsuccessfully to defeat the nomadic peoples and pacify the mountain people. An persian emperor is killed in a campaign. see Herodotus. The expedition of Alexander in Central Asia was also to legitimate his new role as successor of Acheminides enlarging the empire.

The kingdom of Porus that extended beyond the Indus river probably until into Gange valley was a vassal and remained a vassal of the Greek-Bactrian satrap until Sandrokottos(Chandragupta). There was also a big part of Balkan Peninsula (Greece included) that Persian Empire didn’t had. A vassal was also Candace kingdom of Kush (Nubia).

Why the Achaemenid empire is bigger than Alexander empire ? It is substantially the same......

However the cultural area of hellenic civilisation was also more bigger: there were from Iberian peninsula coloniens to north Black sea colonies to see Crimea. Also Nubia also Ethiopian kingdom were influenced. Obviously the Magna Graecia.

--Andriolo (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC) P:S: I have translate a XIV cent. Roman d'Alexandre for job.

Where is ATTILA the Flagellum of God....???!!!!! ;-) Probably the Huns empire in this period was big as medieval Mongol Empire indeed contemporary the Chinese Empire had the same problems with the Huns. Unfortunately we have little data.--Andriolo (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry I find it ..... but probably it was more more more bigger.

Other error: Soviet Union in 1946 ? And in 1980 with Afghanistan ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.74.18 (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2011‎ (UTC)

MauriManya

There appears to be a particular Uruguayan user who is continually changing the Mongol Empire's area to 34.0m km sq. This is simply incorrect. The cited source on its page actually gives an area of 24m km sq, and I have changed it to a more reliable one accordingly. Lord British (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good decision, thank you. That's obviously the right thing to do. This article's reliability has been deeply compromised over the years by people cherrypicking sources of variable reliability using different measurement criteria, in order to maximise a particular nationalist claim, turning it into a synthesis where the comparison becomes original research, which is not allowed. Editors of this article really do have to give preference over all others to reliable comparative sources like Turchin et al., where consistent measurements and comparisons are explicitly made within the quoted source itself. I've restored the Mongol area to the reliable comparative figure of 24m sq km quoted by Turchin et al. All the entries in the article should be checked the same way, systematically giving preference to reliable comparative sources like Turchin et al., over individual figures cherrypicked from non-comparative, non-specialist sources of lesser reliability, which are more likely to be inaccurate and inflated, and where no explicit comparison has actually been made in the quoted source. Lachrie (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I hate to claim that someone might be working in bad-faith, but if he continues to revert the changes then I feel he must eventually be reported for vandalism. Lord British (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC).

Lord British

I do not understand because the user is determined to reverse my edits changing sources, when the above sources estimating an area of ​​34 million square km, not 24, were accepted for a long time that this article. Why insist on changing the references? I hope your answer. Thanks. MauriManya (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the sources? They say 24m km sq. Other Wikipedias say 24m kmq, too (except the Spanish one which you keep changing), so please keep it as such. Other people have also pointed this out, so please stop insisting on this. Lord British (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You say: "Other Wikipedias say 24m kmq", but this is not true, other Wikipedias say 33 million square km (except the English!). But calm, I will not insist, it is clear the impartiality of this article especially when it comes to comparing the British Empire with the rest in English Wikipedia. MauriManya (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the sources? Have you checked other Wikipedias excluding the Spanish one? Lord British (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I made clear that. If you are in any doubt see these articles: [6], [7], [8]. MauriManya (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the sources. They all say 24m km sq. Lord British (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

For background, MauriManya's preferred reference is a casual mention in a book mainly on porcelain. He substituted this, some time ago, in place of a reference to an academic paper comparing sizes of empires. The academic paper says 24m km sq. Quite clearly MauriManya is using a bad reference in place of a good reference. I have no idea what his motivation for this could be, but he should stop pushing a bad reference in place of a good one. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

HANDLING

- Because in the Portuguese empire appears throughout Brazil and the Spanish Empire throughout Brazil does not appear? Handling ... - Who to Patagonia said that was not colonized by the Spanish ..? Handling ... - England colonized across Canada ..? Handling ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.149.231 (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese possessions of the Spanish Empire.

- Where are the African possessions of Portugal in the Spanish empire ..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.149.231 (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Portudgal is different then spain.... So Portugals possessions would not be under the Spanish empireMeatsgains (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

Quantifying

Just to note about my one future microscopic edit here.... I had left an quantify template by Pop. percentage of the AE, I think since that percentage can be already confirmed as easily as using a calculator. Users know it does not need to be proven mathematically. For the time being, as before the percentage was a synthesis and not accurate, now that is accurately sourced by one exact reference. I'll remove the now unnecessary quantify template. It would not affect anything in the article, only a minor suggestion would not be there, like fixing a grammatical error. Welcomed to respond.--Eirione (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

WHERE?

where is Durrani Afghan Empire? much larger then many of these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.170.211 (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To respond here; I could not really see it either, I'll check Afghan Empire main page for suggestions.--Eirione (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Anachronous maps

Some of the maps are labelled as "anachronous". What does this mean in the context of a map? Searching for "anachronous map" on the internet doesn't yield anything helpful. Macboff (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This means it shows all the areas covered by the empire throughout its history on the same map. For example, the 13 colonies and Tanzania on the British Empire map, although they were held hundreds of years apart. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Placement of Maps

The maps seem to be migrating from below the long list to above it. I don't care whether they are above or below, but they shouldn't be in both places. Does anyone else have a preference? If I don't get any replies I'll toss a coin and consolidate them in one place or the other. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

POPULATION IN THE NAZI EMPIRE

The population in the "Nazi Empire", lands under a German Governor (Norway, Netherlands, Vichy-France, Poland, Belgium, Denmark,Ukraine etc) had a population of over 120 million people.--81.44.61.90 (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a huge difference between being occupied or being an empire. Most occupied countries still had their own currency, language, police force and even government. Only they were all controlled by the Germans. Dqfn13 (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is Nazi Germany even there? It was a republic. And I think listing occupied territories is how the Japanese Empire's population is listed at some 135 million. If we just go with Japan, Korea, and Formosa, the population would only be about 100 million. The other 35 million must have come from Manchuria.Qwertzy (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nazi Germany wasn't a Republic, it was a totalitarian, single-party dictatorship. They had puppet Governments and Colonies in Denmark, Sweden, Ukraine, France, Czechoslovakia, etc. All of which would've been fully absorbed and Germanized into the Reich had they won the war in the coming years. You're an idiot, Qertzy. Also, Dqfn13 you're also wrong about that in a sense. The population for the Colonies and Puppet states should be included into the Reich. It doesn't matter if they kept their own currency, language, police. The govermment was controlled and mandated by the General Government of the Nazi realm. It was consolidated and ruled by Reichskommissar. The original poster is correct -the population should be kept at 120 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.102.6 (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ordering numbers in ascending/descending order

The columns with the headers Era, Max Population (million), and % of world population don't seem to be ordering themselves correctly when clicked on.

From what I can see, they're being ordered alphabetically instead of numerically (for example, 100 comes before 40 because the first digit of 100 is 1, and comes before the first digit of 40: 4).

If someone could fix that (I obviously don't know how, or I'd fix it myself), it'd be a great help. Xomm 01:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xomm (talk • contribs)

My apologiesshyjayb 21:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

Ummayad Empire is not in the list. It should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.43.67 (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Soviet Union

The Soviet Union in 1945 was 24.1 km2. That is the biggest area for a land empire. You could also count the entire Soviet sphere of influence in 1945 as an empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.125.239 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)