![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I propose that we change this to "List of Largest Soverign States". Right now we have data from the US as of 1942 when it was a supposed "empire", but not data from today when it is not an "empire". We have data from the Ming/Tang period of China, but not from modern China. By what criterea do we include 1942 United States and ancient China, but not modern US and modern China.
This change would make things much more clear-cut. The lists would be less arbitrary and more meaningful.
I will make this change if there seems to be a consusus to do so, or if no one complains. Kitplane01 ( talk) 05:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
WITH ALL MY RESPECTS TO THE IMPORTANT EMPIRES EXISTING IN ALL AGES. CONSIDERING SPECIALLY BRITISHProxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0
ND RUSSIAN (AMProxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0
ICAN IS NOT INCLUDED INDEED) THE LARGEST EMPIRE IN HISTORY WAS THE SPANISH EMPIRE UNDER THE REIGN OF PHILIP II OF SPAIN AND I OF PORTUGAL. HAVING JOINT PORTUGAL AND ITS COLONIES (END OF THE 16THC AND EARLY 17THC). PLEASE, CONSIDER REVISION...
American empire is stated as having "($1,644.8 billion[29] out of $4,699 billion[30] in 1945)" in percentage of world GDP, why then does it not figure at all on the total GDP standings? 82.34.137.65 14:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
US GDP numbers have not been changed since 2007 above message. It still looks wrong. 1938 British Empire is only some 400 billion, yet US a few years later is 4x bigger?--
Lexxus2010 (
talk)
11:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
How could one have 'Arab Empire' then 'Nazi German Empire' then 'Qing Empire'? Qing is part of China, Arabia had seperate caliphates, and the Nazi's where a German political party. 195.252.123.2 16:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Qing mentioned here ruled as Manchu,regarded by Chinese as foreigners;whole area surrounding Vladivostok/Sachalin was ruled by them, as well as Mongolia larger than today's republic, and nearly half of Kasachstan,also Kirgistan etc., so Qing is correctly named.User:kailas007,28.08.2008
I don't understand why historical Chinese dynasties have been regarded as empires but Modern China is not included. Modern China is far larger and far more ethnically diverse than the Tang Dynasty ever was. Modern China is fairly similar to the size it was under the Qing Dynasty (the major land difference would be the independence of Mongolia). The central power still exerts dominion over culturally and ethnically diverse groups (eg. in Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia). China would probably be just as ethnically diverse as the Ottoman empire was. Also Russian Federation probably should be considered an empire because the central power also exerts dominion over diverse ethnic groups, just not to the same extent as the Soviet Union did.User:unknown
Have to agree with criticism above, but then ALL larger modern countries are not homogenous, so Brazil,Mexico, USA, Canada, India, Sudan etc. etc. would have to be named. I guess this would have changed the impression of the feats of those "rulers of days gone", who unified these large territories without that modern machinery,telecommunications etc. as the countries in the last 150 years. Also, would be interesting to note sphere of influence of the Soviet Union, would have been the largest empire with half the world in its grip around 1980. My critique: Why Korea?Per definitionem it never dominated foreign people, atleast not the way given here (Koryo could have been counted).The borders given by hyperlink to the Korean Empire show it should have been excluded. User: kailas007,28.08.2008
We should have times for all the empires when they reached peak area -- Perfection 21:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm an anonymous Wikipedia reader. I was extremely curious about which empire held the greatest number of people. Not as an absolute number, but as a proportion of the world's total population. For example, the British empire had 500 million people, but the population of the earth at the time was almost 2 billion. On the other hand, the Roman Empire was estimated from 55 million to 120 million, at a time when there were maybe but a few hundred million people alive.
Perhaps the population records back in the ancient times are too spotty to be able to form any conclusive results. But I know as a reader, I would really appreciate a section that even discusses who MIGHT have held the greatest percentage of the world's population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.156.225 ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm somewhat wary of listing the Japanese Empire by the fullest extent of Japanese controlled territory during World War II, considering that it was so short lived and never really consolidated (at least not all of it)... Japan, the territory won from Russia, Korea, Formusa, and certain Chinese territories held certainly qualify, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.15.150 ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 June 2006
Both the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire are being described with 22.4 million km². This cannot be true, because the territory of the Russian Empire was larger. It additionally contained Poland, Alaska, Finland, Manchuria and north-eastern Turkey. Both empires were different states and should be listed separately. Voyevoda 14:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
If you apply the same rules used to define the American Empire (possesses sovereignty over territories which it has not annexed as states) the whole Warsaw Pact and/or Comecon should be considered as the Soviet Empire. Which would give a new entry of: 23,424,197 km² in 1961, for the Warsaw Pact, 25.4 million km² between 1975-79 for Comecon, and 26.1 million km² between 1979-1989 for Comecon (including Afganistan).
Where are the Soviet Union in the list? They should be added.
Nooone has added the Soviet Union since in the land area listings.
Also I would put into question the GDP values of United States of 1945 and British Empire of 1938. The latter had some 500+ million and the former less than one quarter, yet it has twice the GDP? As it is dated in 1990 USD term, there may well be huge distortion to the actual GDP of the British Empire. This is in particular probably one of the most interesting comparison to make from all the tables, if it is true that is. -- Lexxus2010 ( talk) 10:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
In view of the definition , we can now rework the list accurately and break out the pieces that do not belong or add those that do belong-- CltFn 13:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to pinpoint the sizes of the empires and how the empires get judged in one way or another and whether we have same understanding of empires between like British and Mongol Empires per se. Just want to get discussion and clarification going in the article so that people can have little better understanding about the sizes of these empires and how they are understood. Thanks. 71.196.154.224 04:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well the main source for this article had been provided - but you know that already as you actually deleted it to accomodate your own completely unsupported view. There is absolutely no controversy over this issue, the British Empire was the largest ever seen and no amount of vandalism/unsourced POV edits on your part placing the Mongol Empire erroneously in the first position will change this fact. You can revert back to your preferred version as much as you like but youl simply get yourself banned. siarach 14:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This is hilarious. The source has been provided - it had been there in the reference section before you deleted it in the first place and it backs up the orthodoxy that the British Empire was the largest in history. You provide nothing whatsoever to backup your completely novel and unorthodox views regarding the extent of the Mongol Empire. siarach 15:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys! Before you make any edit please note that, as I've said before <
see below>, the 33,152,000 sq.km figure provided by the reference of Hostkingdom.net is not the greatest extent. It clearly states that its from the period 1238-1268 A.D., but as common knowledge, until the year of 1279 when Kubilai unified China finally, Southern Sung's realm, which formed a large portion of
South China, was territorially independent of the Mongol/Yuan Empire. Also, the exact size of the northernmost Lingbei Province of the Yuan State was unknown...
But the british did not have direct control of many parts of their empire, much was actually own states and nations, this makes them smaller.
I have to agree to this. If by 'empire' one means area of influence, perhaps the Soviet Union was the largest ever (since it consisted of most of Asia, half of Europe, Indochina and Central America countries). The Soviet Union, however, is NOT an empire.
However, the conclusion of weather some territory is an area of influence and should not be considered part of the empire is not easy to achieve. One could argue that the Roman Empire, for instance, did not have actual power (whatever that may be -- which is another point of arguement) over some parts of the land it owned.
So, given all the variables we must consider, it is not a fair fight. As you can see, the British Empire is given credit for Greenland, India and what-not. This means that after WWI (and before) it 'received' territory which was not actually fought for, and is automatically creditted the whole country's territory.
Meanwhile the Mongol Empire or Egyptian Empire (the discrepancy in sampling is intentional), gained most of its territory by military conquests (I say most because it's foolish to think that territorial agreements did not occur in the most ancients of times, but given the fact that India is a very large country, the small portions of land earned by agreements by the Mongol Empire, for instance, is not worth considering).
These are some of my thoughts in the matter. It is not, in any way, some foolish attempt to undermine the British Empire (I simply directed my examples at it because it is easier to examplify). However, if we are looking for a true account of the facts, I believe such a list is irrelevant and outright stupid, for no one will take in account every single variable and 'buts'. Those who might have the knowledge to do a list such as this and might be fair in their choice (historians), will discard it as unimportant.
Does anyone has Southern Sung's figure? 219.79.29.47 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Under largest empires, the German empire is included, but it was no bigger than Germany and half of Western poland. Is this a reference to the territories controlled by Germany (at its largest) during WWII? If so, that should be specified.
It appears to me that the figures you used in measuring the Nazi German empire reflect only Germany and their territories gained prior to the invasion of Poland. For example, in population size the date given is 1938. It seems that only the territories considered by the Nazi's to be Germany were included. Shouldn't the empire include the conquered and occupied territories (ie France, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, etc)? This would largely increase the size and population. I understand not including some parts of Russia that were in their control briefly, but many of these places were occupied for 3-4 years and under the administrative rule of the Nazi system.
As for Ancient empires, the smallest ones on the list are noted at about 1 million km^2. I do not know the exact figures, but considering that Aksum at its greatest extent included Northern Ethiopia, Eritrea, Northern Somalia, Northern Sudan (probably Khartoum and more north, from the nile to the Red sea), Yemen, and the parts of modern day Egypt under Meroitic control (i.e. up until the Roman border), it probably deserves inclusion. I'm not sure how this would be referenced, though. It seems as if it would be WP:OR to calculate a general estimate, and I'm not sure if anyone has ever done so before.
Although larger under the Nazi Warmachine, the German Empire did have a overseas empire. One could also put in the Habsburg's empire under charles Quint as a member of the List of largest empires. Dryzen 13:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
We have here a naming problem. Which name should we use for this Arab political adminstred area, which extended from southern france to the borders of china:
1) is inaccurate, since there were many islamic empires, like the Ottoman empire, Seljuq Empire, Ghaznavid Empire, etc. 2) is also inaccurate, for the same reasons as 1, and because that could also mean the Ottoman empire, and many other ruleres of empires that claimed the titel of caliph. 3) is wrong. The Ummayeds was a name of an Arab dynasry, not an empire. If we look at the list we find, Persian Empire is mentioned not Achaemenid dynasty; Chinese Empire is mentioned not Qing Dynasty; 4) is also inaccurate. If we called it Arab caliphate, then we have to say also Ottoman caliphate not ottoman empire, since the head of state of the ottoman empire was also called caliph. Whether the head of state is called caliph, king, casear, or clown, a one political unit composed of a number of territories, peoples, or nations which is ruled by a single supreme authority, deserves the name empire.
Therefore, I think the most accuarate,correct, and non-relgious term is Arab Empire. jidan 23:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
jidan 16:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The naming issue aside, where is this 13.2 million kilometer figure coming from? Is there a source? -- ManiF 16:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Here [1] jidan 17:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, dynasty names should be used to be more specific when refering to an empire. For instance, the Umayyad Caliphate was much larger than the Abbasids, and the Achaemenid Empire of Persia cannot be compared with the Timurid Empire of much later. Furthermore the name Ottoman Empire refers to the singular Osmanli Dynasty, not the "Turkish Empire". The term Ottoman Caliphate cannot be used either because no Sultan made great use of the title Caliph and solely went by Sultan. Thus I think Umayyad Empire/Caliphate is the best name.
According to the follow source, the size of the Umayyad Caliphate at his peak under Hisham (723-743) was as follow:
http://books.google.es/books?id=Jz0Yy053WS4C&pg=PA37&dq=umayyad+caliphate+square+miles#PPA37,M1
-- Bentaguayre ( talk) 16:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The conquests of Alexander basically led to the conquest of all of the Persian Empire and added a few territories further to the east and, of course, Greece and Macedonia, which would make his empire the largest of the ancient world rather than the Achaemenid. Tombseye 16:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
That's incorrect, Persian Empire under Darius the Great was larger than Alexander's Empire. Persian Empire had significantly shrunk in size by the time of Darius II and Alexander's conquest. -- ManiF 16:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Tombseye 17:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, from what I know and remember of my high school history classes back in the days, Alexander's entire territory was smaller than that of the Persian Empire at its greatest extent centuries before Alexander. -- ManiF 17:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems rather odd to include both of these on the list, as the Ming Empire was Chinese (whereas, ironically, the "Chinese Empire" referred to is the Qing Dynasty, which was actually Manchurian.) Suggest either altering the list so that the Chinese empire isn't counted twice under different dynasties, or change "Chinese Empire" to "Manchu Empire" or some such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.113.156 ( talk • contribs) 06:00, 15 May 2006
First time ive ever seen it acclaimed as such. Ive never seen it ranked anything other than 2nd to the British Empire before. siarach 21:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the size of the Mongol Empire, using the 33,152,000 (1238-1268 A.D.) figure from the "hostking.net" link is inappropriate. Its because the Mongol/Yuan Empire didn't unify China until 1279. It means: the Empire's greatest extent was reached only after the 1270s.
219.79.29.47
16:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I dont see how providing a source is innapropriate. If a more reputable source ( which surely shouldnt be too hard to find in all honesty) can be given which contradicts it then excellent but atm the only source ive seen for most of this article is that website and i find it hard to take opposition to it too seriously given when it is based on criticism of the figures given for the Mongol Empire especially given the recent spate of completely unreferenced pro-Mongol POV edits. siarach 16:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
This article really needs to be fully referenced if it is to be taken seriously and especially so given its POV attracting nature - as mentioned in the proposal that it be deleted. siarach 16:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
People should remove citation needed link only if they provide primary source of that assertion, without that it is going back to where it was, people claiming this and that without any source to look at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.236.162 ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 10 June 2006
Comparing the population of the 19th- or 20th century British Empire to that of the 17th Century Manchu Chinese Empire is inappropriate, because of the much large number of human beings on earth during the later period. Indeed, today 2006 both India and China have larger populations than any empire on the list, and Brazil would be number 4! A more meaningful statistic is the percentage of humanity controlled by the empire. rewinn 02:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree with anyone who says he/she can prove the percentage of population an empire had. Data on worldwide population (including the Americas, Southern Africa...) in any time cannot be 100% right, and as old as you get as far as history goes, the percentage drops. Maybe the Akkadian Empire, for instance, once had 70% of the world population. But who can corroborate that? Maybe the Roman Empire had even a higher percentage of world population. But do we have the data to make such assumption? No.
Even if we're talking estimatives, we wouldnt have data enough. The 'Percentage of Humanity' quest is foolish. We will never know for sure. And might not for hundreds of years. A 'good enough' conclusion cannot be attained with what we know now. Actually, the only claim I think we can make using this statistic is that the Chinese Empire was the largest, since (and I'm guessing this, since the statistics for this are hard to get) it might have had about 250 million inhabitants around 1900 (China had 562,000,000 in 1950). It corresponds to around 15% at the same time. I believe it's tough to beat that. But then again, we'll never know.
The two main online sources used for this page are:
Both of these are sourced. However, they both give conflicting figures for many of the empires listed on this page, leading to uncertainty over which source to use for these figures (particularly for the Roman, Macedonian, Arab, Ottoman, Chinese and Mongol empires for example). I think we may need to use our judgement to reach a consensus over which figures to use, perhaps on a case-by-case basis. Jagged 11:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Negative, the figures are not sourced by specialty from that site (hostkingdoms), the author had left almost zero footnotes to his site and left nothing explain about his figures on the bibliography. Other than earning a few bucks, the site served more like a personal website. Eiorgiomugini 06:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
"Hostkingdom has given numerous sources from where it gathered its data" No, there's no evidence for that, you had just based upon your assumption, even if all of those sources listed on the page had given a few datas it would be vary, I repeat the author explain almost nothing with regard to ther figures on the bibliography, which is why he left no footnotes on the page, as he had none. If anything, uconn should always be used in preference to other sources, such as hostkingdoms of equal calibre. Eiorgiomugini 05:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's the endnote of uconn's specialties through measure and datas gathering:
Endnotes:
- Note 1. Our list of large historical states was based on the compilation by Taagepera (1978, 1978,1979, 1997), which has been systematized and posted on the web by Chase-Dunn and co-workers ( http://www.irows.ucr.edu/). We checked the Taagepera list with all major historical atlases in the library of the University of Connecticut and found additional eight empires that fitted our criteria (Axum, Hsi-Hsia, Kara-Khitai, Srivijaya, Maurian, Kushan, Gupta, andMaratha). We excluded the maritime empires of the European Great Powers, because our measureof the latitudinal tendency is not applicable to such non contiguous, widely distributed collections of territories. One difficulty in constructing the list was presented by the repeatedrise of empires in the same location, such as in China. We adopted the middle road of countingeach major dynasty (Han,Tang, Ming, etc) as a separate empire, but did not distinguish between cycles within a dynasty (e.g., Early versus Late Han). Analysis of a reduced dataset, which included only the largest empire for each geographic location, yielded qualitatively the sameresult. See Table 1 for the list of empires.
- Note 2. Log-transforming the ratio of distances was necessary to make the distribution of the index symmetric. Positive values indicate east-west orientation, and negative values – north-south orientation.
- Note 3. It may seem strange to call the Chinese home biome a “forest,” because in present-day China, of course, very few forests are left. Remember, however, that the biome names reflect the types of ecological communities that would be present before substantial human impact; the names are simply a short-hand reference to particular combinations of the climate and soil types.
An extract from associates page of hostkingdom:
This page is intended to provide information about who I am, and from whom I get considerable amounts of data from. "We" are not a formal organization as such, merely a group of people, worldwide, interested in the structure underlying historical development. I must in all fairness say that the individuals listed below form only a part of the contacts I have made - there have been many who have solicited material and wish to remain anonymous. That's fine, and I have no problem there - but, if you have assisted this website and wish to be listed, please let me know.
MYSELF Ordinarily, I would not think to place myself here, but I am sometimes asked to supply an author's name for purposes of attribution - that is reasonable: I am Bruce R. Gordon, and I live in the USA, in northeastern Ohio. Any original material is my own (unless otherwise signed), and is copyright 1997-2005 - however, I normally allow free reproduction of the material here, all that I ask is that you contact me beforehand with the details, so that I can help decide how best to provide what is needed - backlinks are always welcome. I can be contacted at obsidian@raex.com (my normal email address) or at bruce.gordon@hostkingdom.net (the address associated with this site - but it is sometimes down). As noted in the cover page, I am an amateur, both as an historiographer and as an internet publisher. Any errors or clumsiness are my own, and can only be corrected or modified if I am alerted to them. Still, there is some method to my madness - this website seeks to present regnal data in a straightforward and easily loadable form. The files herein are not terribly aesthetic, but hopefully they should at least serve to present useful information.
The article refers to the British Empire in 1921, and when I look that up, I see it includes Australia and Canada, which by then were already independent. So how can they be counted as part of the empire? DirkvdM 09:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Dominions are greatly overrated, they were actually 'independant' long before they were made dominions.-- Josquius 15:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, how so? Is "independent" the same as Independent? If a central power weaves considerable control over you, you're not truly independent. As for the Dominions of Canada, Australia, NZ, etc the British Empire was hardly a "foreign" power, both were still part of that empire. Westminster still had the last word until the "patriation" of the constitution to the local parliament. Autonomy was probably a good way to describe it. Even today the British Monarch still has some considerable constitutional influence over her former dominions. Even though in those areas she is officially known as the Queen of (insert country's name). Akaloc ( talk) 05:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Should we talk about fictional empire such as Galatic Empire? :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.196.183.2 ( talk • contribs) .
Please, people, read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Any particular reason why the links to Persian Empire on this page do not link to the page on the Persian Empire but to the page about one of its dynasties?
I have just added a link to a really cool flash animation for the history buffs out there: Imperial History of the Middle East .Check it out and enjoy.-- CltFn 05:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
In the article it says that the Qing empire was 14.7 million km² without giving ANY source/lin !!??. Jidan 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a bit of a problem with the largest by population stats here- They say the largest is the Qing empire back in 1912 however modern China has twice that. As does India. I guess you say they are not empires because they are not ruled by emperors? But then most of the British empire wasn't and neither were the French or many others. Also why no mention of the USA anywhere?-- Josquius 15:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
And the French empire at its greatest extent didn't have any sort of monarch.
The US is just as much a empire as Britain or Russia. --
Josquius
14:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
em·pire (n): 1. A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority. 2. The territory included in such a unit. 3. An extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire. Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control: "There is a growing sense that the course of empire is shifting toward the . . . Asians" (James Traub).
Under this definition, the United States of America, the Soviet Union, republican France, and other such nations which came to rule over unassimilated ethnically different populations by conquest can be called empires. Zhek 06:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
if so then the largest empire by population is China(1.3b), then India etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.29.253 ( talk) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted the GDP numbers for ancient empires because there are many estimates on each one of them and it is much more complicated to "measure" GDP than land area or population. For example, the GDP per capita of the roman empire has estimates that vary from 400 dollars to 2500 dollars (all then 1990 international dollars) and its population estimates vary from 45 million to 135 million. So its total GDP could be from less than 20 billion dollars to over than 300 billion dollars. Also, calculating the total global GDP is even more complicated (maybe it is simply impossible since we do not have enough information) so I deleted this section.-- Rafael G12 12:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I'm speaking for just myself when I say I'm curious how all nations/empires/kingdoms stack up. I think a lot of people come to this page and are confused that some key historic polities are missing. If this doesn't fit in the current article, I nominate that we should create a 'sister article' for this page.
Disqualifying America, China, or India simply because they do not have a despotic rule is just not in the interest of information... the line is drawn quite arbitrarily. I think the article should be expanded to include all political unities, for lack of a better term. America has a tremendous GDP, and China/India are also impressive with their population and rising GDP as well. The former USSR would also have some great stats, I'm sure.
(Sorry all I have to offer is discussion. I'm afraid I lack the research to be able to create this content myself.) 130.179.252.54 05:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
United States were also a colonial empire during the times of colonialism. While their status as an empire is quite disputable right now, in early XX century the americans were definately an empire (albeit without monarchy). With respect, Ko Soi IX 20:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
As I've said. They said a empire needs a emperor but at their largest point the French didn't have a monarch at all. Britain only had a 'emperor' in a small part of the empire.-- Josquius 15:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
In the same vein as adding the American Empire -- why is the "Brazillian Empire" included in this list at all? This appears to be another case of lazily applying the definition "Empires are things with Emperors" (a definition that much of the list fails, by the way), rather than using the accepted scholarly (and wikified) definition. Brazil could never be defined as a central state exerting dominion over a periphery. I propose that the Brazillian Empire be removed from the page. -- Atarr 19:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
So, keep Brazil in, an USA out. The fact that USA was never an empire (also, arguable) is something to be proud of, so don't be hasty to join the club.
Actually, Brazil was a empire after the independence from Portugal in 1822. The official denomination was Brazil Empire, from 1822 to 1889. Afterwards (11/15/1889), the emperor was deposed and the republic was formed. It had two emperors, Pedro I and Pedro II. [5]. The extension of the empire is also incorrect, I believe, because in 1822 it included de territory of Uruguay, then called Cisplatina Province. Rodrigo Mello. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.101.240.32 ( talk) 12:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be difficult to compare the Persian Empire with, say, British Empire, because of different methods of calculation. For example, the Persian Empire would have needed a lot of estimations as it is impossible to count every citizen in the Empire in ancient times; while in modern times more advanced methods could be used and the estimation error would be lower. It would also be difficult to categorize an empire in specific aspects so as to make the influence of the empire in contemporary time more obvious - for example, the American Empire is largely a contiguous empire, with most of its landmass in present-day United States - these states are also themselves not an empire at all. Aran| heru| nar 13:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Jagged 85 has requested a citation backing up the 35% statistic. Well, actually, the 35% statistic is already properly cited (and is available in many other scholarly sources), as is a seperate citation for the American Empire's income in 1944-1945. The world GDP figure currently on the list is found simply by interpolating from these figures.
What is NOT easily available is an independent statistic for the World GDP in this timeframe. A quick totalling of the tables from Maddison for individual regions shows the overall trend in GDP from 1940-1945 to be a downward path in Europe and East Asia, while the USA trends upward. But because the total figure is not updated between 1940 and 1950, and neither are several regions, it's impossible to confirm the world GDP figure using Maddison's data.
Interestingly, Maddison's American Empire income for 1944 and 1945 is larger than the income cited in the Economic History Services page, which is what we are currently using. In fact, if we were to assume flat world GDP from 1940-1945, and rely on the Maddison figures for USA GDP, the American Empire would be over 38% of world GDP in 1945. I wouldn't assume that, of course, but since we are citing Maddison extensively throughout the page, it would make sense to use his numbers for the American Empire's GDP as well. This simply means I will assume some small growth in the overall world GDP over the period, which is consistent with the incomplete data for the 1940s present in the tables.
In conclusion, I intend to take the following actions:
Going by the data provided in this page we can make the following estimate.
Gupta Empire - 3.5 million km² Maurya Empire - 5 million km²
Both these empire occupied similar area. Therefore, the % of world population should be in the ratio of area occupied. So,
Maurya Empire - 33.3%
Should mean:
Gupta Empire - 3.5/5 * 33.3% = 23.3%
It should place Gupta Empire between Roman Empire and Song Empire.-- UB 06:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Vijaynagar empire with an area of 360,000 km² appears at 18th position. However, Harsha empire has an area of 1 million km² (almost 3 times the size) and Pala empire has an area of 600,000 km² (almost twice the size). Also the population density of these two empire are likely to be more than Vijaynagar empire because these occupy the most fertile area of India.
So, Harsha empire and Pala empire should find a place before the 18th position.-- UB 12:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the anonymous bump of the Byzantine Empire (from 2.7 million km² to 3.5 million km²) consistent with the source cited? If not, we should either revert to the old number or find a new source consistent with the larger number. - Atarr 21:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought you take the largest expansion of every empire? Ottoman Empire had it's peak at 1595 with 19.9 million km²! so it would be placed 4th. Please Correct this if it is a mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.179.162.65 ( talk) 23:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
please look at ottoman empire page (french and turkish) you will see...
where? please add. 24.218.8.72 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems we should use the 1867 figure (immediately before the sale of Russia to the United states) in stead. It's going to take a bit of research to figure out exactly how far along Russian conquests in Central Asia were on October 16, 1867 (the last day Alaska was officially administered by Russia).
File:1533-1896.jpg.gif
This image shows the area in question; specifically, we're talking about the teal area in Central Asia (the teal areas in Georgia and the far east were already annexed by 1860, and the orange areas came later). We know that they had captured
Tashkent at that point, but not
Samarkand or
Khiva. At any rate, the total area conquered between 1867 and 1895 is under 1 million square kilometers (after all, the total of all the central asian republics except
Khazakhstan is not much more than that). Alaska, by contrast, is over 1.7 million square kilometers. So it's seems clear that Alaska is larger than the portion of Central Asia not yet conquered in October 1867, but by exactly how much? -
Atarr
23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Why the napoleonic empire is not their?
Someone correctly edited the current listing to match the reference (Gordon) given - that is, that the Spanish Empire reached its peak under Charles III from 1782-1790, between the capture of the Bahamas and the signing of the Nootka Conventions. That said - is it possible that the Empire actually peaked 200 years earlier, under Philip II and Philip III? Both were the King of Portugal at that time, so the entire Portugese Empire can righfully be included in the Spanish Empire of that time.
It comes down to one major question: Do we credit Spain with holding the Pacific Northwest at this time? It was explicitly claimed under the Treaty of Tordesillas, but it had only questionably been explored as of 1592. Gordon gives Spain credit for this territory in his calculations (circia 1763-1790). The territory was more disputed at that point, but better explored.
If the answer to this question is yes, then the extra territory Spain held at this time (Belgium, Milan, Sardinia, Florida, Portugal, Brazil, coastal Sri Lanka, many other Portugese enclaves in Africa and Asia) outweighs the addition of the Louisiana territory after 1763.
If we do decide to make this change, we need some reference that gives reliable numbers on the size of the Asian/African portions of the Portugese Empire. - Atarr 21:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Empires should not be classified solely to the landmass or population, rather, the duration. The Mongol Empire lasted a miniscule time compared to the Roman or Ottoman Empires. That determines an empires ability to survive, not just expand briefly militarily, and then fail once the leader dies. Does anyone really think that the landmass acquired by means of invasion supercede the abilty to survive multiple centuries? Oyo321 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, the Chinese Empire would be the first one, by a large margin. I see a pattern here. But it is all arguable, so it doesnt really matter.
I believe we should add an extra category for cultural influence. It could be measured in either how many people or successor states adopted that empire's cultural traits namely language and government styles. just off of my head, the list would include at least the following empires
i'm not very familiar with the rest of the world's imperial forefathers so please help me fill this list. Scott Free 15:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Too subjective.-- RafaelG 04:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The largest Spanish Empire was under Philip II of Spain and I of Portugal. The incorporation of the Portuguese empire in 1580 (lost in 1640) hasn´t been taken into account in this article.
. Exatly, check this wikipedia page http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol and you wil realize that in this page of "largest empires" there are a lot of mistakes.
In different places, the article states that the Spanish Empire is 19 million and 18 square kilometres in size under the same King, Charles III. Is that a mistake? 194.125.86.3 ( talk) 08:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
User “Atarr”, on 15.12.06, removed the Brazilian Empire from the list because he understands “it was not an empire in the sense this article explores”.
The Brazilian Empire was a fully independent political entity from 1822 to 1889, with well-defined borders, an Imperial Constitution, centralized political power, codified laws, a reasonably organized bureaucratic administrative structure, and a well-assembled land army. When it ceased to exist in face of the instauration of the republican system, the same basic borderline was maintained, thus being roughly equivalent to current day Brazil in territorial extension.
If inclusion is based on the article definition of “empires” (“an empire is a state that extends dominion over areas and populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power”), I believe the Brazilian Empire surely meets the requirements.
I don’t see why the list can include the “American Empire” and the “Mexican Empire” but not the “Brazilian Empire”. The “Brazilian Empire” was never a great political powerhouse, but as far as I understand that’s not one of the requirements.
I will wait for other users to present their views on the matter, and will reintroduce the Brazilian Empire to the list if no one brings new arguments in the next few days.
Sparks1979 03:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
My view is Brazilian Empire was simply a neme given to a compact and ordinary state, thus not an empire 193.253.199.143 23:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I'm brazilian. The Brazilian Empire did exist, we study it at school and it's in every single history book (by the way, there's a whole english wikipedia article about it). It was somewhat different from other modern empires in the way that it was not a colonial empire like the european ones, nor like the medieval-born empires such as the ottoman, and that causes a kind of confusion, so people tend to (mistankenly) think it was not a real empire. Here's the deal: after independence from Portugal, Brazil had a centralized power over a large land extension, and it was a monarchy with hereditary right and everything. There was imposed culture, language and religion over multi-ethnic people, mainly the amerindians, but also african descendents and others. It had land borders issues, especially with Argentina and Paraguay, and it anexed Cisplatina (modern-day Uruguay) from 1821 to 1825. You probably think it's weird because you don't study our history and may have never heard of it, but it actually existed as any other empire. For instance, I had never heard of the Mughal Empire before I read this article, because I don't know much of Indian history, but I can't just deny its existance. Same with the Brazilian Empire, it was real and that's simply a fact, it's not about agreeing with that or not. It's true, though, that it didn't conquer too much and it wasn't a powerhouse (as someone said before), but there are many other empires like that (especially in Asia and Africa), and they are still empires after all. If you still doubt that Brazil was an empire, just see the legacy: Brazil is nowadays the only portuguese-speaking country in Latin America, but is the largest country of this region in both size and population. That is somewhat different from the Hispanic America, which was split in a lot of different countries, because they didn't have a centralized imperial power like the one in Brazil (Mexico did have an empire, but it was short-lived). Hope you understand it, and sorry for the bad english :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.172.195.49 ( talk) 19:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Why the bourbonic is not their? because they have a large territory with Louis 14 and Philip 5
I think Bulgaria has its deserved place here. In its best times it comprised almost the whole Balkan Peninsula (the European part of Bizantium), most parts of present-day Romania and Moldova, Bessarabia in Ukraine and about half of present-day Hungary.
There are two interpretations of American Empire:
The former is a valid listing that adheres to the definition of Empire in this article. The latter is a subjective interpretation open to ideological and philosophical discussion, but falls outside of the technical definition.
I am very curious as to which American "Empire" is being described in the figures for greatest territorial extent.
Clearly, only the territories annexed/occupied and/or otherwise falling under US political sovereignty should contribute to said figure.-- Supersexyspacemonkey 07:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think The United States during the period in which it officially and/or actually pursued a foreign policy of colonialism in competition with European empires is getting used. The Honorable Kermanshahi 09:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually United States still occupy by 2007 several colonies around the world:
Puerto Rico, Alaska, Hawaii, Pacific Islands, northern Mexico... without counting all Indians Territories it conquered in continental America.
Why there Polish Empire isn't included? Quoting Wikipedia: "Area
- 1582 815,000 km2
314,673 sq mi
- 1618 990,000 km2
382,241 sq mi" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.15.3.75 ( talk) 17:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
On the left is the map of wikipedia of the sassanid empire at it's greatest extend. as you see a lot of states are in this empire and I've added their sizes up and see that your size is totally wrong. here is a table I made of it, it on;y includes the states that are completeley in the Sassanid empire but the total number would be even higher
Nation | Size |
---|---|
Iran | 1,648,195 km² |
Yemen | 527,968 km² |
Turkmenistan | 488,100 km² |
Uzbekistan | 447,400 km² |
Iraq | 438,317 km² |
Oman | 309,500 km² |
Syria | 185,180 km² |
Jordan | 89,342 km² |
Azerbaijan | 86,600 km² |
United Arab Emirates | 83,600 km² |
Georgia | 69,700 km² |
Armenia | 29,800 km² |
Israel | 20,770 km² |
Kuwait | 17,818 km² |
Qatar | 11,437 km² |
Lebanon | 10,452 km² |
Palestine | 6,020 km² |
Bahrain | 665 km² |
Total | 4,470,864 km² |
Now don't come with the argument that this is the sassanid empire at it's largest and it usually was smaller because you've shown all empire at their largest. Let's make it 5 milion instead of 3.5 milion or at least make it 4,470,864 km²/4.5 milion, what do you think? The Honorable Kermanshahi 16:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Here are the other countries that where occupied by the Sassanid Empire
Nation | Size | Explenation |
---|---|---|
Afghanistan | ~630,000 km² | they don't posses around half of Badakhshan |
Egypt | ~450,000km² | a bit less than half (490.00) |
Turkey | ~400,000 km² | around half (391,782) |
Pakistan | ~360,000 km² | most of Balochistan and some of the Federal Tribal areas |
Kazakhstan | ~350,000 km² | parts of Mangghystau, Qyzylorda, South Kazakhstan and Zhambyl. |
Saudi Arabia | ~200,000 km² | My estimations |
India | 196,000 km² | mostly Gujarat |
Russia | ~154,000 km² | parts of Krasnodar, Stavropol, Dagestan, Chechnya, Karachay-Cherkessia, Karbardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia-Alania, Adygeya and Ingushetia but the total area is smaller than Syria |
Tajikistan | ~120,000 km² | they don't posses about a third of Gorno-Badakhshan |
Kyrgyzstan | ~110,000 km² | they don't posses Issyk-Kul and Naryn. |
Libya | ~30,000 km² | around the same size as Armenia |
Total | 3,000,000 km² | All numbers are made in to round numbers |
4,470,864 + 3,000,000 = 7,470,864 = ~ 7.47 milion km². Has anyone got any objections? IF you do tell me and we'll duscuss it. The Honorable Kermanshahi 11:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I lowered the size of the sassanid empire in the ancient chart list because ancient times are considered to have ended around 500 ad and the sassanid empire would have made its brief yet major territory gains during the medievil period -dermot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoloney ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a contradiction about the size of Macedonian Empire. You can see 7.61 million km² in the first section and 5.4 million km² in the second. Which one is correct?-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 03:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The size of the Macedonian empire was 5,400,000 because by the time they invaded the Achamenid empire, the Achaminid empire had significantly shrunk. The Honorable Kermanshahi 11:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
ok lets try and be serious on this.
I added the areas of present day states that were controlled by the Macedonian Empire.
Bulgaria 110,910 km²
FYROM 25,333 km²
Albania 28,748 km²
Kosovo 10,887 km²
Serbia 88,361 km² roughly half -> 40,000 km²
Greece 131,990 km²
Turkey 783,562 km²
Syria 183,885 km²
Lebanon 10,452 km²
Israel 22,072 km²
Jordan 89,342 km²
Egypt 1,001,449 km²
Iraq 438,317 km²
Iran 1,648,195 km²
Afghanistan 652,090 km²
Pakistan 803,940 km²
Tajikistan 143,100 km²
Turkmenistan 488,100 km² roughly half -> 200,000 km²
Uzbekistan 447,400 km² roughly one third -> 150,000 km²
Kyrgyzstan 199,900 km² roughly a quarter -> 50,000 km²
Total 6,524,272 km²
Alexander was proclaimed Strategos Autokrator (Commander in Chief and Emperor) of all Greeks in Corinth. In order to be in the 'safe' side of the estimation i didn't include the areas of northern Libya (Cyrene), Southern Italy and Sicily (Magna Graecia), Southern France (Massilia, Nicaea, Monaco), northeastern Spain and the northern shores of Black Sea (Taurica) which were populated and controlled by Greeksin 4th century BC.
the 5.4 million sq km is a wrong estimation and should be changed. Chabos4 01:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
If the size of the achaemenid empire is correct than alexanders empire was larger than 8.4 million km2 because Alexander extended l the Achaemenid empire and if the size is not changed then the page will contradict with another 2 wikipedia pages. The size is wrong and also it should be called the Greek macedonion empire because Alexander called it a Greek empire himself and he was proud to call himself Greek as he had routes in central Greece .
I'v changed the name of this section to talk about more greek entities. After hard research, i can say that there is a certain consensus about the size of the Macedonian Empire, according to these achademic sources it was around 2 million square miles, that mean 5'16 million square kilometres althought other dates are avalaible.
The first one seem to be the best dettailed and is used as reference in other books, there is a lot more with date of the 2 million square miles but it deosn't show the page and the text
The size of the other greek empires after the death of Alexander were as follow according to Ehrenberg (first source)
1,5 million square miles - 3,87 million square kilometres
Another source: http://books.google.es/books?id=_hbwMlUBo0wC&pg=PA64&dq=Mithridates+II+of+Parthia+square+miles&lr=#PPA33,M1
(No less than... so this is a minimum) 1,2 million square miles - 3,096 millions square kilometres
600000 square miles - 1,5 million square kilometres
500000 square miles - 1,29 million square kilometres
-- Bentaguayre ( talk) 19:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
How come that Sweden ( Swedish empire) aren't listed? /Paco 192.176.230.1 11:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably cause it wasn't big enough. The Honorable Kermanshahi 11:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a nice article but there are several problems. Some data should be adjusted 'cause they are abvoiusly wrong... but there are few simple changes I propose in order to make the list coherent:
1- remove Brazil Empire once at all, 'cause it was not un Empire;
2- count Russia's area in 1867 instead of 1895, 'cause at that time it was bigger;
3- correct Imperial Japan's area 'cause it's not logic count all the territories it conquered during WWII since it didn't annex them;
4- credit China just once in each category, since it's what it was done for the other countries;
5- remove the "Nazi" adjective from Germany, remove the WWI figure 'cause it's a double, and use the 1943's surface (after annexion of north-eastern Italy) instead of the 1941's one;
6- Add the Holy Roman Germanic Empire, currently absent;
7- Highest American GPD should be added.
193.253.199.143 05:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
B.R. Gordon's account is nothing but an unverifiable source. The Mongol Empire didn't reach its peak in 1268 when the Southern Sung territories still had not been conquered. [Needham, Joseph, Science and Civilization in China Volume 1] 219.73.11.127 07:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Iran 1,648,200 km²
Azerbaijan 86,600 km²
Armenia 29,800 km²
Iraq 350,000 km²
Turkey 150,000 km²
Kuwait 12,000 km²
Afghanistan 300,000 km²
Pakistan 160,000 km²
Turkmenistan 80,000 km²
Russia 10,000 km²
Syria 8,000 km²
Georgia 3,000 km²
Total 2,837,600 km² = ~2,85 milion
The Honorable Kermanshahi
19:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Iran 1,648,200 km²
Azerbaijan 86,600 km²
Armenia 29,800 km²
Iraq 350,000 km²
Turkey 100,000 km²
Kuwait 12,000 km²
Afghanistan 400,000 km²
Pakistan 300,000 km²
Turkmenistan 180,000 km²
Russia 80,000 km²
Georgia 45,000 km²
Total 3,231,600 km² = ~3,23 milion
The Honorable Kermanshahi
20:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
In this article, I think it is only really appropriate to include real/actual empires rather than hypothetical ones. ImperialismGo 05:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
In those lists USSR should be entered (i remind you, USSR is a seperate unit from Russian Empire). If someone could do that it will be really nice. PocketMoon 11:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
At it's height in the early midle ages the Norwegian kingdom ruled over an area of aprox. 2,650,115 km²(present day mainland Norway: 323,762 km²+ Greenland: 2,166,086 km²+ Iceland: 103,000 km²+ Faeroe: 1,399 km²+ Shetland: 1,466 km²+ Orkney: 990 km²+ Isle of Man: 572 km²+ Outer Hebrides: 3,071 km²+ Inner Hebrides:?+ Jemtland: 34,009 km²+ Herjedalen: 11,405 km²+Särna and Idre:?+ Bohuslen:4,400 km²) Inge 15:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
"Swedish Empire - 3.6 million km²" Couldn't find it sourced... there's a, too low though, figure in the article about the Swedish Empire. I've added Sweden and Finland together with 1/3 of Norway, which makes it around 688000+128000=816000 km2. Original research, but maybe someone could find a source for a more accurate number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.152.202 ( talk) 02:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but i think that there is not a really good precisation and concretation of the empires. For example the Spanish Empire was bigger under Philip II, when we got the Portuguese Kingdom as well.
Thnka you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.55.171 ( talk) 21:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like you to check the spanish wikipedia page of "Spanish Empire" (Imperio español), and you will see that the biggest expansion of spanish empire was under the kingdom of Philip II and not under Charless III, because under the kingdom of Philip II there were territories like Portugal, some points from India, Most of the occidental porguese coast, Brazil, etc. who were part of Spanish kingdom, but sure that it wasn t under Charless III kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.43.120 ( talk) 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not wrong.The Portuguese empire was not part of the Spanish empire.Both empires during that period, were ruled totaly separate from each other. XPTO 17:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It s not wrong, you can check this wikipedia web page " http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.132.195 ( talk) 12:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It s not abot to agree or not to agree, just about to read history books, so please, go to whatever history book or the the wikipedia web page of spanish empire (imperio español) and there you will have all the explanition, but please do not speak just with no idea, please try to inform before. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.87.20 ( talk) 19:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I never read in any History book, that the Portuguese empire was part of the Spanish empire.What everybody knows, except you apparently, is that both empires shared the same King but they still remained separate and autonomous from each other.The Portuguese empire was ruled by portuguese only, and kept there own autonomy, flag, language, coin, institutions, etc. XPTO ( talk) 20:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Please, le s go to this web page and check it " http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol" if you need some translation or whatver, if i can be useful, i will try as much as possible to translate some part that can be interesting for you or to develop this wikipedia page of "list of empires". Thanks you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.87.20 ( talk) 12:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I dont care what it says in the spanish wikipedia.I just care on History books and real facts, and no book says that. See this websites talking of the Spanish empire, none of them have the Portuguese empire as part of the Spanish: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=1734&HistoryID=ab49 http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761595536_1/Spanish_Empire.html http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781533809/Spanish_Empire.html http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/eurvoya/Imperial.html http://www.angelfire.com/mac/egmatthews/worldinfo/europe/spainempire.html XPTO ( talk) 13:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The situation of the Portuguese empire and the Spanish empire being both ruled by the House of Habsburgs during 60 years, is very similar to the rule of the House of Hanover in Great Britain, in wich King George I ruler of Hanover (and his descendants)also became King of Great Britain ruling both countries at the same time.Does that mean that the British empire must be part of some Hanover empire because they had the same ruler?Well i dont think so, and also I never saw in any History book a combined empire of Hanover and Great Britain just like I've never saw one of Spain and Portugal's empire too. XPTO ( talk) 17:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I finally added the Songhai Empire in at 1.4 million square kilometers. Took me forever to find a source for its size. I wasn't sure what citation format u all were following so I used the following in the ancient empires section ( [1]) and tried to make a shorthand for this in the medieval section as ( [2]). For some reason it added a second link from the medieval section when I was just trying to quote the same source twice. Let me know what changes I need to make so I don't screw up the page. Good work everyone. Scott Free ( talk) 19:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
should this be in - I have not out of deference and ignorance chad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadnash ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Why no mention of the Angevin Empire? Signsolid ( talk) 03:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)