Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 3

"World Domination High Scores List" redirecting to this page
All I can say is, lol. Unusual Gazelle  19:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Population estimates by Biraben, McEvedy etc.
Figures below are all in millions.

Estimated population by Biraben (2005)
Jean-No&euml;l Biraben, "The History of the Human Population From the First Beginnings to the Present" in "Demography: Analysis and Synthesis: A Treatise in Population" (Eds: Graziella Caselli, Jacques Vallin, Guillaume J. Wunsch), Vol III, Chapter 66, pp 5-18, Academic Press:San Diego (2005).

Updated from the former estimates by Biraben (1979, 1980): (a) Jean-No&euml;l Biraben, 1979, "Essai sur l'&eacute;volution du nombre des hommes", Population, Vol. 34 (no. 1), pp. 13-25. (b) Jean-No&euml;l Biraben, 1980, "An Essay Concerning Mankind's Evolution", Population, Selected Papers, Vol. 4, pp. 1-13.

Estimated population by McEvedy and Jones (1978)
Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones, 1978, Atlas of World Population History, Penguin Books, New York.

Aurichalcum (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Estimated population by Durand (1974)
John D. Durand, 1974, "Historical Estimates of World Population: An Evaluation," University of Pennsylvania, Population Center, Analytical and Technical Reports, Number 10. Aurichalcum (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Aurichalcum (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just letting you know that your figures for China and the world are the same. Elockid (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Have corrected.Aurichalcum (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Aurichalcum (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is full of errors
I looked at this article a few months ago, and when I looked at it just now, it was totally different. Now it calls the Xiongnu an empire, when they were just a tribal confederation. The Han empire was not marked as being bigger than the Roman empire last time I looked. Also, I have compared maps, and I see no way the Ottoman empire could have been bigger than the Roman empire. And why on Earth are the Ummayad and Abbasid empires counted as the same thing when everyone knows they're not? Also, in the Roman Empire size, I think it should include the abandoned German territories under Augustus. Why are three Byzantine empires included?

Taagepera (1997)'s estimated size for "Islamic Calphate" is as follows:


 * 622 0.05 M km2 Hejira: Medina
 * 625 0.21 M km2 + or –.05
 * 628 0.4 M km2 +/–.1 Conquest of Arabia
 * 632 2.1 M km2 +/–.5 Mohamed’s death
 * 634 2.8 M km2 Advance into Syria
 * 644 4.1 M km2 Mesopotamia, Egypt
 * 655 6.4 M km2 Iran, Tripolitania, Armenia
 * 661 6.7 M km2 Omayyid dynasty begins
 * 670 9.0 M km2 E. Iran, Maghreb
 * 720 11.1 M km2 Transoxania, Indus, Spain
 * 750 11.1 M km2 Abbassid dynasty begins
 * 756 10.3 M km2 Cordoba secedes
 * 787 10.6 M km2 Baghdad founde in 762
 * 800 8.3 M km2 N. Africa secedes
 * 847 4.6 M km2 Formal suzerainty over 9.5
 * 885 1.8 M km2 Formal suzerainty over 8.3
 * 900 1.0 M km2 Formal suzerainty over 6.2
 * 945 0.0 M km2 Caliphs lose political controlAurichalcum (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Xiongnu are listed as an empire in the article's most comprehensive comparative source, so their inclusion in the article isn't really open to serious challenge based on original research by private individuals. Published sources disagree according to their respective methodologies, so we don't have a single definitive list of empires and their surface areas. We should not be combining information from conflicting sources into a single table. That's false synthesis. A lot of the recent changes are inappropriate and will have to be reverted. We should not be picking and choosing estimates from individual sources which we can't compare directly. We need a separate table for each source, otherwise we can't tell if we're comparing like to like. The article needs a major overhaul to systematise the presentation of data on that basis. Lachrie (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Xiongnu 9.0 km? No way!
This needs some more fact checking. First of all, just by looking at the map i can tell its bogus. Some of the areas marked as Xiongnu territory is where a collection of Iranic language speakers occupied, such as Scythians & Sarmatians. Furthermore, it never was an organized empire like the Persian or the Roman empire, more like a bunch of tribes here and there. I don't see how that qualifies as an EMPIRE..

TheTruthA (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. The Xiongnu should NOT be counted as an empire! If we count them as an empire, why don't we just mark down the whole American continent as the Indian Empire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.58 (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree too, while Xiongnu map checking, the highest estimates I can find are 3.5 K2/m (the article stating the 9.0 k2/m never calls it an empire, and never calls it an empire for the ancient world, plus the 3.5 estimate was sourced and was on Wikipedia months ago, it is now lost in a huge pile of edits), and the largest the empire/confederation became was the size of 2.5 Mongolia's. The borders were undefined and always fluctuating, and the Xiongnu Huns never organized their realm, so if anyone wants to include it as an ancient empire, the only acceptable way is to listed as 3.5 k2/m under ancient empires, either that, or we should remove it. Currently I can't find the Xiongnu in this article anyways.

Roman Lake
Is the Mediterranean Sea included in the Roman Empire's measurements? Because it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.38 (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No it should not not, common usage is measure land mass only. Which may include inland lakes, but it does not include the open sea. If you include the meditteranean seas into the roman empire, the figure becomes uncomparable to other data in literature or current countries.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the Achaemenid Empire is 10.7 million k2 in the 5th century BC/~480 BC
Hi, this section is made to discuss the reliability of a 9.0 figure for the Xiongnu, and the inclusion of a 10.7 figure for the Achaemenid Empire at its greatest extent. There are several concrete reasons and evidence (mainly 10) of why many now consider this estimate to be reliable;


 * The Xiongnu were a confederation and always had a 3.5 figure according to most historians, and its status as an empire is still disputed.


 * The source which has a 9.0 figure for the Xiongnu is considered a semi-fringe scholarly article, becuase its is even called a East to West orientation of empires, and it is very likely that they got their estimate from a unreliable map of the Xiongnu (there is a similar map on Wikipedia right now that shows the Xiongnu larger than it actually is, which is user created), months ago there was a reliable source that had a 3.5 figure for the Xiongnu, and is now lost in a pile of edits, so how can the Xiongnu jump from 3.5 to 9.0?


 * The Xiongnu borders were always flucuating and changing because they were undefined, even original Chinese sources that contains our only knowledge of the Xiongu say they were a ever changing confederation of many tribes.


 * If one scrolls up on this discussion page there are at least 6 active or founding users (half of which are not signed in) of this article that are against the 9.0 figure and empire status of the Xiongnu, and support a 10.7 figure for the AE.


 * As done for every empire in this article, the highest estimates are put first, and currently 10.7 is the highest for the AE.


 * The 10.7 number is agreed from multiple users of multiple Wikipedia's, the 1971 map of the AE on the Ancient Empires list comes from a map historians book, which contains the most detailed and accurate renderings of the AE and is not user created.


 * So basically, the 10.7 figure comes from the map that is displayed on the Croatian Wikipedia, of which it is the same map from the 1971 map book, therefore, the 10.7 figure is implied, illustrated, and displayed in the 1971 map book, but it is not known if the author of the book mentions it in numbers (it would help to find the full version of the book).


 * Nevertheless, this automatically means that the 10.7 figure is not originally user created and existed since the creation of the 1971 historical map booklet that was made by a Persian historian (this is the same year that there was a celebration in the country comemerating the AE foundation, and where renewed interest in the subject produced the first accurate portrayals of the AE).


 * So, to be neutral, and be against original research by synthesis, I have included all the estimates, of which I concluded none are user created, that is why I support, because it is semi-reliable for the time being, a 9.0 (I perfer 3.5) figure for the Xiongnu, and a 10.7 figure for the AE (because the reliable map contains that number), please remember, that nearly all history books, and even on Wikipedia itself, it is generally known to historians that the AE was the largest empire in the ancient world.


 * Finally, if we reject the 10.7 figure, we have to reject all other books, which we can not, this issue also falls in the fact that the colonial empires are also given farfetched numbers, numbers that say they are larger than they should be, similar to the Xiongnu case. So if anyone has any questions feel free to comment below for suggestions, I welcome all dialogue and resent all discourse, I am not here to start an arguement, but a discussion so please be good, thank you all for reading, goodbye.--99.35.54.226 (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you put the source or post a link or something that refers to the 10.7 million figure instead of using Croatian Wikipedia. If the source does exist on Croatian Wikipedia, please post it. As a said before, using a Wikipedia page for a source is not very reliable. Check WP:Reliable Elockid (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Elockid, thanks for the comment, I'll definitely look for the source on the Croatian Wikipedia, but remember that the map itself for the ancient empires list already conveys the 10.7 figure anyways (the number 10.7 is just what we get from the 1971 and its clone map from the Croatian Wikipedia). Also it is interesting to note in this link, you will find a 3.5 figure for the Xiongnu, but it is not sourced, this confirms what I kept saying that there used to be a sourced 3.5 figure for the Xiongnu on this article a while ago. So I thank you again for the suggestion, and I'll look into it ASAP.--99.35.54.226 (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the Xiongu, I didn't touch it. But it might be back in the history of the article. Do you happen to know the time that you saw it. If you do, I would be glad to help out and find the source for Xiongu. Also, thanks for looking into the AE. Elockid (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The 3.5 figure can be seen on encyclopaedia's that have been copied from Wikipedia in Google search engines however, for Wikipedia itself, I remember seeing the Xiongnu number there about 2 or 3 months ago. Best regards.--99.37.108.244 (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I just had a thought, even if we find the 3.5 number sourced for the Xiongnu, we would still (because it is the indirect policy of this article for sizes) have to list the largest estimate first, meaning the 9.0 number would still be there, even though it is most likely innacurate, I have actually found that the Xiongnu at their greatest extent was 4.5, and their greatest emperor managed to capture 2.25 million k2 for them. So basically if we can not change the Xiongnu, im afraid for now we have to keep the 10.7 estimate for the AE, because nearly all the sources say it was the largest empire in the ancient world, even larger than the Xiongnu, and the 1971 map shows the 10.7 figure anyways. It is pretty much established that the AE was 10.7, but our main problem is that 90% of the sources about the Xiongnu and maps show them to be around 3.5-4.5 million k2, and only one source that says 9.0, even if we accept the 7.75 estimate for the AE, the second estimate for the Xiongnu is smaller, so the Xiongnu will still remain under first place. Finally then, I suggest we keep the article the way it is, until we can find better sources for both the AE and Xiongnu, because both of their numbers are not far from the truth, so our only issue is to find clearer sources that better confirm the numbers that are already there, or providing an close estimate. Thank you for this discussion.--99.55.170.205 (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What in the World?
What happened to this article? It was firmly agreed on that the Xiongnu weren't an empire. And the Achaemenids? No way! The southern, northern, and western borders are way stretched. They didn't control the whole horn of Africa. And they didn't control so much of the Balkans. They didn't own the whole Caucasus either. When Alexander's empire was at its height, it was about the same size of the Achaemenid empire, if not a little bigger. Yet this article says Alexander's empire was only half as big! What the? The whole thing needs to be reworked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.38 (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

TheTruthA (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)TheTruthA Achaemenid Empire was still bigger than Alexanders empire. Acahemenid had shrunk and was severely weakened. When Alexander conquered the persian empire, he still did not have as much land as for example Darius I had under him.
 * It is true that the empire shrank somewhat after Dareios/Xerxes, but Alexanders conquest did contained additional areas as well (hat did not belong to the Persian empire) in particulr his incursion into India east of the Indus and of course Greece itsself.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, I have to agree with TheTruthA, because I'm getting tired of reverting some IP editors (to many reverts, I had no choice, see history of edits), like 59. and 75. who constantly vandalise this article, am I the guardian angel of this article? People need to stop removing sourced material, especially if they have their own theories or can't add a new source, which we be OR. Do some critical thinking before removing sourced material! The caucausus on the AE map and horn of Africa may be a little streched, but it contians the same 10.7 number as found on the 1971 map of the AE. So its sourced and its the largest estimate, anyways basically wiki and ancient scholars agree the AchPersia was the largest empire in the ancient world. So to the Xiongnu, even though many and I have doubts about Xiongnus 9.0 number, I checked the rulers and conquests timeline of the Xiongnu, and found that they Are an empire, but because 9.0 is sourced by a scholar, we have no choice to keep it for now. And as the user above said, the AE had shrunk to half its size, that is why Alexanders empire is about half as big as what the AE was at its greatest extent, so Alexander went beyond the AE of his time, when the AE was small, not the AE of 480 BC. Thanks.--99.183.241.35 (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get the Achaemenids controlling Somalia? Or Bulgaria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.56 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the comment. It is common knowledge that Bulgaria or ancient Thrace (Skudra) was part of Persia. I think you probably mean the Saka Paradaya or Ukrainian Scythians, well, only Taurica or Crimea and the whole coast of the Black Sea was conquered by Persia during Darius' semi-successfull invasion of the European Scythians as told by Herodotus in 513 BC (Herodotus even said Darius chased the retreating Scythians all the way to the north of Poland or overlooking the Baltic Sea, but only managed to conquer the area by the Black Sea!). Anyways, at its largest even in ~490-480 BC, the AE had incompleted forts by Volgograd, but the main border was by Mt. Elburs or half of the Caucasas. They also controlled the Yuechi (eastern fringe into China) area in the east, and only had bases on the coasts of Oman or ancient Maka, Yemen has various ancient names, and Somalia or Punt, meaning that is where their sea routes of trade, and tribute from the frankincense (a type of money) givng Arabs came from. For the three regions I mentioned, mostly Somalia, there was no governmental or satrapal center of control, it was loosly controlled, but still part of the empire. Below are some of the facts for the interesting notes of above, and at least prove the Achaemenids traveled far and wide by both historical and physical evidence;


 * In Gherla, Romania, archaeologists found an worn off Achaemenid inscription of Darius that was part of his expedition.


 * In Pazyryk, Russia, near Lake Baikal, archaeologists found an Achaemenid rug that could have came there by a pre-Silk road trade route.


 * Historians know Cambyses conquered Nubia, and half of Ethiopia, but the other half and Somalia and many other places was conquered by Darius, when the Seuz canal was constructed which made them a naval power too.


 * History of the Persian Empire, page 244: "Punt on the Somali coast was never organized as a regular satrapy," as the author later explains in meaning the upper coast of Punt was conquered by the Achaemenids, but similar to Libya, it had no big governers office building at its capital or satrapal center.


 * The Persian Empire, page 87: "Concerning the other (unamed peoples in the Skudra lists), the island of Socotra is not out of the question" the tiny island of Socotra was farther and only about 50 miles east of the coast of Somolia, it was used primarly as a naval base, and sea route passed through there, so the author say's there is very good or obviously certain possibility that Socotra was part of the empire, as some of the Achaemenid reliefs imply.


 * One final note, even if these reliable sources or references were not around, the 1971 and other maps of the AE by the percentage of world population list shows the AE at 10.7, the cloned user made map contains that same number, but I agree the north and south is destorted, making the AE look larger than it is. I might contact the user who made it make a more accurate map of the AE at its greatest extent. So there can finally be a accurate map of Persia, because too many show it smaller or larger than it actually is. Things are okay for now, so I hope my message helps to better understand this subject, thank you and goodbye.--99.24.160.173 (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well i'm rather wary about those figures and claims. As far as i can see they do contradict too many reputable sources. First of all i can't find any support for that claim Cambyses conquered Africa south of Egypt. It is true, that he attempted to conquer the Kingdom of Kush but it basically failed and at best only accupied Northern Nubia next to Egypt. He did not add it to the persian empire and certainly did not conquer areas south of it. In addition I checked 3 books (Chronik der Menscheit, dtv-Atlas Geschichte, Meyers (1992)) for maps of the persian empire, all of them have maps with a much smaller area (in particular in Africa). In any case that map from 1971 (via the croatian wikipedia) is not acceptable as a reputable source as it is. The very least that is needed would be an precise reference (in which book or paper the map was published). And even if this becomes available, it is probably still not a good idea to use it as long as it contradicts all those other and often more recent reputable sources. Another thing is that you cannot count regions, which were merely allies or clientel, as parts of the empire, even less so for regions where only persian artefacts were discovered.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Something Odd Roman/Persian numbers
Roman Empire - 35.3% 80 million out of 226 million in the 2nd century AD Sassanid Empire, Persia - 37.1% (78 million out of 210 million in the 7th century AD

Anyone else react to that? 80million of 226million in 2nd century for Romans. Also says 78million out of 210million in 7th century AD. This would mean the population had DECREASED 16million within 500 years. I find this to be VERY unlikely. Please resolve this. TheTruthA (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No comment on the numbers/references, but significant decreases in population are not that uncommon. They are often due to large pandemics, climate changes and resulting changes in food production, wars and similar.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Truth, thanks for noticing that, for some reason I missed this, but if you look here, for the Sassanid its 207-210, I picked 210 because Mcdevy and Jones say 78 mil for Sassanid of 7th century, so this is a comparative source, which means I did not combine sources, which makes it more reliable. Secondly, the population would increase or decrease 16 million in 500 years, I dont know why, but if you look at the link, I posted this is most reliable population estimates that can be found on the net, and this source is used in population articles of Wikipedia already, the 226 is probably a number that comes from an unreliable author, giving out of place numbers. Mcdevy and Jones give 190, while Biraben gives 256, the mid avrg would be 223 million for the 2nd century BC, I know this becuase if we accept 80 out of 190 for Rome it would 50% of world population for Rome, this is incorrect from reading other sources. Most of Rome was actually water, and the coast had packed and fluctuating populations. so I think 223 not 226 is acceptable (its 223 because the user avrg wrongly and got 226, so I'll fix it to 223), because Mcdevy and Jones estimate for population can't compared to a user averaged 80 million that comes from another source anyways. So I guess we need to live with the 13 million decrease of population in 500 years, I don't think this is too unusual to be concerned about, 500 years is a pretty long time. So in conclusion, its 80 out of 223 million for Rome, and a already comparatively reliable sourced 78 out of 210 million is for the Sassanids. If you find a better source for the Romans please feel free to add it, but Sassanid is fine as it is. Thanks for bringing this up, Cheers!--99.39.235.182 (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Mcdevy and Jones say 78 mil for Sassanid of 7th century"

I have the source and it never stated that the sassanid population was that high, please dont make things up.

Currently a big mess
The current text is misquoting or misrepresenting its sources several times. In particular if several references are given it simply picks the largest (often a rather unreliable reference) instead giving range or picking the most reputable source. One example for this (old) persian empire. The somewhat reubtable sources range from 5-7.5 million km2, but the article used the 10 million figure from a self made area computation based on a rather questionable map (maps i've seen in reputable sources look rather different).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Km, first off, I'm glad this issue has gotten some attention, becuase this is a never ending issue that should have been taken care of long ago. So I would like to thank you for investigating this, but mistakes are being made to the Achaemenid Empire as other users a awhile ago did, that is to the numbers. I currently changed the 7.5 to 7.7, because citation 4, even the source you put next to the AE says 7.75, so I just fixed the typo, the 7.5 comes from the British Museum source. If you want to continue this discussion (on how the AE could be 10.7), as I know you might want to, from now I suggest we discuss it in the What in the World... section above. Thank you.--67.160.195.101 (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First that difference is fortunately rather small, so it doesn't matter that much. However your correction again illustrates the problematic way in which sources/references are handled in this article. Let me explain what went wrong here. First out of 3 references you pick the largest estimate instead given a range and moreover you've picked clearly the least reliable one again. Why is is that? Well the source itsself seems reputable enough, but it doesn't give an actual figure (but appararently just a ballpark comparison such as "roughly as big as the continental US") and again similar to croatian map problem from earlier, the actual figure is self derived by a WP author. Which would be a reasonable approach if no other sources were available, but there are, i.e. we have 3 reputable sources giving "exact" figures, so there is no need to resort to self derived number based on a ballpark comparison. Note that the best resource ist probably footnote 6, which actually refers to 2 different academic publications placing the empire at 5.5. That number would be also at least somewhat in sync with the 5.2 of te alexandrian empire, which should have roughly the same size if not even slightly more (Alexander basically conquered the complete Persian empire (not at its peak though) and added Greece and areas in India to it). regards--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay Km, I hope this is the last time I have to discuss the true size of the AchEmp or AE, because frankly I'm sick and tired of it, excuse my tone which was not towards you. I even suggest we semi-protect lock this article, or for the AE numbers, because other IP users change it or vandalize this article, I am speaking as a whole, even other empires suffer. Alright, to the AE, lets go there. I want to make sure what is the main issue or problem about, [the AE's African realms that are in question, or is it other areas you think are shown (for the map that was there) to be not part of the empire, but are there]? If this is about the African areas in question, that if counted would make the AE, note; 10.7 not 7.7 (a difference of 3 mil kilo sqr), then please tell me, so I can focus on proving the African areas were part of the empire with my vast resources at hand. Firstly, most of your questions can be answered in the first messages of the Why AE is 10.7 and What in the World sections, please first read those carefully. Secondly, your one of many with, I'm sorry to say, limited knowledge on the size of the AE, to come here and make wrong edits based on right motivations, I know your intentions are good, but like I say to everyone... "Research until you can prove or disprove a subject until there is no shadow of a doubt." Then come here make those edits that you made, it dissapoints me and waists others time, and I get a sense of being this articles protecter, when I see others mess up good sources with wrong ones (as I am into looking for the best of the best sources), after spending a long time trying to find them, our hard worked for edits vanish. So please just answer that first question, so we can focus on that one subject, which ever it is. Best regards to ya.--67.160.195.101 (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all I don't care which empires is the largest or how large a particular empire might have been to our personal judgement/speculation. Frankly as far as Wikipedia is concerned those things matter very little. What matters for wikipedia and what I do care about, is the proper use of reputable sources. The data and content in this article should only reflect what is stated (explicitly) in reputable sources. It should not reflect how a WP editor personally would like to amend/extend/correct/improve their content, any such attempt is strictly speaking WP:OR and has no place in WP. Nevermind how knowledgeable the author might be or whether his personal views might turn out to be correct, any insight written in WP must be published in reputable sources first. If you think the figures given in reputables sources are wrong or outdated and you've achieved new and better knowledge, you need to publish that in an reputable source first, before you can add it into WP. We cannot figure out together what the most likely the real area of AE was according to us, but we have to stick to the figures given in reputable sources. There is no room for discussion on that, because that's a basic WP principle. As far as the discussion in the "what the world"-section is concerned I posted a comment there already. But again it doesn't really matter whether 99..IP's arguments or my criticism of them are more convincing, it only matters what's written in reputable sources. I can understand, that you are tired of neverending discussion, but the best way to avoid them is to strictly adhere to data from reputable sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia page about Xiongnu does NOT
Call The Xiongnu an empire. It says they were a confederation of nomadic tribes from Central Asia. This is so conflicting it's starting to get annoying. I'm not accepting Xiongnu as an empire. I hadn't even HEARD of an chinese empire untill i read this article. I knew about rome, Persia and Macedonia in the ancient world, as the biggest, then the smaller ones, Parthia, selucia greek ruled egypt etc, but this so called "Xiongnu empire" just popped up from nowhere. I Don't trust those source as reliable either. Academics i speak to have maintained that the persian empire was the largest one in the ancient world. Either find a proper very reliable source or remove it. Just because it's sourced it doesn't make it right. And the MAP used in the Xiongnu article is obviously usermade by Paint or Photoshop. That's not reliable at all!

TheTruthA (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I somewhat agree that i personally would be reluctant to the Xiongnu an "empire", however that entry quotes 2 reputable sources. And the area figure is explicitly stated in the those sources and has nothing to do with the selfmade map. The fact that you personally distrust those sources or that they don't match your previous experience doesn't make them unreputable as such. Aside from the fact that the  Xiongnu do not present as center of (high) civilzation as the other empires, there is another reason why many scholars or sources may not consider the  Xiongnu as the largest empire of ancient history or antiquity, because the term antiquity of ancient history is often used exclusively for the European/mediterranean/middle east cultures and therefore does not include East asia, South Asia and precolumbian America. That is due to historic/traditonal reasons (and possibly past eurocentrism). This means many sources calling something the greatest or largest empire of antiquity or ancient history only consider empires west of the Indus and east of Spain. That aside if you survey various literature on antiquity via Google Books you will find that the terms largest or greatest empire antiquity is somewhat loosely used for either of the three: Persian Empire, Alexandrian Empire, Roman Empire. It is important that this doesn't artcile doesn't become a competition of making your favoured empire the largest one and most importantly whatever ranking or content is used it needs to backed up by proper reputable sources. So not "books I've read..." or "Academics tell me that..." but rather reference/cite a concrete reputable source instead. If you have concrete sources explicitly stating the Persian Empire as the largest - cite them in the article. If many concrete sources do not consider the Xiongnu you can add a footnote explaining that (as we have it now) or remove the Xiongnu from the list or list it separaretly with a footnote explaining why you did so. All that is fine, but what you cannot do is (knowingly) misrepresent given sources by ommission without comment or resorting to unreliable sources just to get "your" empire on the top of the list.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Km, first off, I suggest we all from now only respond here, because responding in different sections is getting confusing. It is basically half and half that say that the Xiongnu were an empire, and EVery map that I have seen on the net which I post everthying on the AE and X in the next message, show the Xiongnu from 3.5 to 4.5 mil kil sqr, the only map showing a 9.0 estimate is user created, which means the reputable sources probably used a wrong map to come to the 9.0 conclusion. And lets get something straight, the reason I'm tired of explaining this, is because I have done so many times, but now I'm going to display the various sources that support the higher number for the AE (which are not mines or anyones opinion, just facts). Plus, it is NOT just to get YOUR empire on the top of the list, because first of all, it is me, Truth, and at least 4 other IP users, some have accounts now, that support a 4.5 for the X, and 10.7 for the AE. I am only going to talk in a discussional matter in this message so we can be clear on the main issues. And seeing you added a 1940s map in the AE article, and say old outdates sources are reputable, is a little contradictive, I have on the net, and in my hands many 30 year old or and newer/less, reputable comparatively reliable, and new sources that show just how wrong most AE maps are, thats eurocenterism, when they make the colonial empires larger than they are, and reduce the AE size by almost half, they ignore even Herodotus. For instance, Herodotus says Cambyses' Ethiopian expedition was a disaster, then in the next line says the Ethiopians in the Persian army (even appearing to wear rams skulls on their heads during the rhino charge at the Spartans scene in the movie 300!) were in the army, because they were conquered by Cambyses. So I suggest we include a source(s) that has looked into all the info concerning the african conquests of cambyses and darius, only these sources should be considered reputable, sources that have concidered all the facts, then we include them here. Therefore, saying outdated or simply wrong sources are good as based on a limited knowledge on the AE shows why Wikipedia gets weak in some areas, and that some users here have a lot to learn, and frankly its better that they stay within their own expertise. Again, this is a commenting type messsage, this message here does not contain the facts I will present later, so this is the answer to some of your speculations and questions you state in your above message. AND please, from now lets make our messages not tooo long, like my huge paragraph here, and yours above, be clear, and short, so it does not make this talk page too crowded so people think we are fighting, because clearly you and are having a friendly discussion and debate on this subject, and I apologize before hand if some of my comments seem to look negatively direct towards you, which overall they are not and are direct towards vandalizing IP editors (my frustration). So I promise in my next message to provide my enlightening and startling facts that will show that we stil have a lot to learn about the AE at its greatest extent. Thank you very much.--67.160.195.101 (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok - to answer the points you've raised: --Kmhkmh (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The reputable source for the Xiognu states 9 million and it has nothing to do with that user created map. That you and other editors think it might be smaller is iirelevant for WP, find a reputable source that gives a smaller number and cite it.
 * The map change in the AE article is irrelevant for this article. If you have an issue with that discuss that in the AE article. However the reason to exchange the new green map by the old map is, because the old map stems from a reputable source and more recent maps from other reputable sources still show maps which roughly match the old one, whereas the selfmade green map so far has no reputable source whatsoevr.
 * If you get tired of all the IP-Edits (which is understandable), I suggest you help to improve the situation by getting an account yourself.
 * Frankly you need to apply some critical thinking and analysis on (circumstancial) "evidence" you present. Ethiopian soldiers in the Persian army are no evidence for Ethiopia being conquered. They could have been captured in the (failed) expedition or in border raids from Egypt. Or they could have enlisted from occupied territory in northern most part of Nubia or even just hired from a neighbour of the empire. Or provided as token of good will or in exchange for peace by the rulers of Kush. Or etc., so basically there are plenty of reasonable explanations for Ethiopian soldiers in the Persian army that do not require the conquest of Ethiopia/Kush. While Herodot's account of Ethiopian expedition may overly biased against Cambyses and so there is reason to believe it did not went as badly as described it, there is however no evidence that Ethiopia was conquered. There is some archeological evidence suggesting the very North of Ethiopia next to the border of Egypt was occupied by Persians, but that's about it. There is no evidence suggesting that Nubia/the kingdom of Kush (called Ethiopia by Herodot) was conquered, in fact the kingdom of Kush survives the Persian empire by roughly 500 years before it finally falls. If you need authoritative literature on that check Welsby's Kingdom of Kush or the books by Pierre Briant and Amélie Kuhrt on Persian empire. Some of them can be read via Google Books as well.
 * Again, again and again - do not argue vaguely from the point of "superior" personal knowledge or "newer" informtaion, but cite reputable sources (only they count for Wikipedia). So as I said at several occasions now, if you have newer reputable sources superceding or debunking older ones, then cite them, but stick to what they actually say rather than giving your personal interpretation and conclusions from them.

Hi Km, I want to thank you for clearly stating the goals and requirements to revise our current understanding of the various issues concerning the AE and XE empires. I apologize that I have been unresponsive these past few days, it is because I am currently looking over hundreds of sources to prove or disprove things that you and me believe about those empires. So in the next message, which will be long, but will be put into a scrolling box because of its massive size, I will answer these four main questions (note; I have taken into consideration by finding and displaying only the mostly reliable, comparative, unbiased, unrefuted, and updated sources)...

A. One map showing places in the empire, but others don't show it, when combined make the most accurate green map that was removed. B. Maps showing tiny portions or half of Oman and Yemen with the western coast of Arabia in the empire. C. Maps showing Nubia, Ethiopia, and Punt loosly controlled but still inside the empire. D. Estimates that convey that the AE was mostly larger than 7.7, with maps accurately portraying the northern areas. E. Maps that have both Items B. and C. which show the empire at 10.7 not 7.7, the difference of 3 million square kilometers. F. Showing that when the most and reliable AE maps are found, they show a larger figure for the empire. G. Using the best sources, to show that tributaries (also no one says they were clients, vassals, or allies, the allies of AE were actually Carthage and Sicily) like Kush and Colchians and some others had those special names attached to them NOT because they were not territorially part of the empire, but because instead of paying tribute in money, they gave gifts. Semi-answer: This is because their type of money was not accepted by the AE, so they gave them gifts that the AE could use to exchange for money. Sounds complicated, for example; You desperately need 20 dollars, so you ask for if some money, I don't have 20 dollars, so I give you my shirt, which is 20 dollars, so you can exchange that shirt with someone for 20 dollars, that way you still get 20 dollars in cash or coins.
 * 1. What is the largest size for the AE as found in both non-user created maps and non-user created estimates?


 * 2. Does it say anywhere that the AE was the largest empire in the ancient world or classical antiquity?


 * 3. Are there any lower sizes for the XE as found in both non-user created maps and non-user created estimates?


 * 4. Does it say anywhere that Nubia, Ethiopia, and Punt-northern coast of Somalia (which Darius is known for combining satrapy-province names into one, meaning he took those two to three names and listed the satrapy just under Kush) was ever conquered or partially conquered by Cambyses (meaning he conquered Nubia, which broke away during Darius's beginning years when the whole empire revolted, which he later restored order. Then during organizing the empire, Darius built the Suez canal and managed to incorporate Nubia with the newly conquered Ethiopians and Puntans with some of the Arabians into the empire [many other places like India were conquered by Darius's maritime expeditions in this way when he nearly doubled the size of the empire]) during his invasion of Nubia?

So there you go... The sentences inside the are actually common knowledge to me, because I see them in many scholarly books on the AE, so they are not my interpretations or conclusions, but don't worry, these will also be answered in the next message. Which I hope can answer all of them the first time, because I know there are many, but I will try to the best of my ability to prove or disprove these questions, thank you.--67.160.195.101 (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again you provide a lot of "known" information that partially seems to contradict other reputable sources and you do not provide a single concrete source yourself. As i said before it doesn't even matter for the article whether your conclusion is correct or not, what matters is that whatever you write in the article needs to be backed up by concrete reputable sources. I don't care which of the candidates turns out to be the "really largest", I care only about the article being properly sourced and the sources being properly represented. The goal of this discussion is not to convince me which empire might be the largest, but assure whatever is claimed in the article is backed up by reputable sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to remember
In a update, I would like to say that I'm done with finding sources for questions 1 & 2, so stay tuned, thanks (you don't have to respond to this message).--67.160.195.101 (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * AE size estimations that we already know about (note, at its greatest extent is in 480 BC, so even if the 5.5 estimates are the most and are reliable, they are estimates made for when the empire was not at its largest, so for this article, only the largest estimates that were made when it was at its largest count, or 8.0 million km2 in 480 BC);
 * 1) AE area estimated at 2.5 million km2 in 480 BC, by an author that can also be found under the 70 million population estimate mentioned in the population section for the empire (note, it comes from a childrens book, possible typo by author or an extreme fringe estimation).
 * 2) AE area estimated at 5.0 million km2 by an author of which the name escapes me.
 * 3) AE area estimated by Taagepera (1979) and Turchin (2006) is 5.5 million km2 in 500 BC, of which at least 100+ other semi-reliable books have been found to carry this estimation.
 * 4) AE area estimated by Clara Colliver Rice Persian women & their ways (1923) is 6.4 million km2 in 490 BC.
 * 5) AE area estimated by The New York Times' Guide to Essential Knowledge (2007) is 6.4 million km2 in 490 BC.
 * 6) AE area estimated by the British Museum's Forgotten Empire (2005) is 7.5 million km2 (The British Museum: Forgotten Empire, The World of Ancient Persia.) in 485 BC (by the end of Darius' rule, greatest expansion gets mixed up with greatest extent, that is why most make the mistake of saying greatest extent for Darius, not Xerxes).
 * 7) AE area estimated by Strauss (2005) is nearly 7.5 or 7.8 million km2 (Strauss, Barry S., The Battle of Salamis, Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, p. 37. (2004) At its greatest extent, Strauss estimates as large as the continental U.S., excluding Alaska and Hawaii, which would be 7.8 million km2 in 480 BC).
 * 8) AE area estimated by Alloway (2008) is about 7.5 or 7.8 million km2 in 480 BC, at its absolute greatest extent for one year 480-479 right before the battle of Plataea (this is where I think it's 10.7 [~10.0] not 7.8).
 * 9) 2 or 3 other sources state exactly over and more than 3 million square miles (miles sq2 converted to kilometers sq2) [meaning 3.01 to 3.1 which is averaged to 3.055 which rounds to 3.1 thus 8.0 km2] (we have to do this because we don't know what they exactly mean for neutrality) at 3.01-3.1 million square miles or 7.99 or 8.0 million kilometers squared, they are found in main article.

Some updated info for the roman empire
The current figure of 5 million km2 ist well sourced, however in light of this discussion Talk:Roman_Empire it seems that is does not describe the empire at its maximal size, which apparently seems to be 6.5 million km2 instead. Note that Tuchin/Hall/Adams does not tell explicitly to which period of the empire the 5 million figure belongs. The 3rd source was a book on Marc Aurel, hence i suspect the 5 million might refer to size of the empire from Hadrian's reign to the crisis of 250. From this perspective at least all the different figures that are given in various sources seem to make sense 3.3 million (Goldsmith)/3.4 million (Taagepera) for the empire at he death of Augustus, 4 million (Seidel) as general (average) figure, 5 million (Tuchin/Hall/Adams, Mclynn) for most of the 2nd century, 6.5 million for the maximal expansion during trajan's Parthian wars.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Km, I don't want to involve myself in another issue, but for this instance I have to agree with you. I always thought Rome was the largest or second largest empire, especially larger than Alexander's or Han's. I even remember a figure of 5.9 for Rome, and 5.4 for Alexander, but it was removed (not to go off topic, even a 3.5 for Xiongnu, that still can be found on foreign Wikis). So if you find a 6.5 source, I think it would be appropriate to add it, and since many other sources say Rome was the largest or second largest empire in ancient times, to listed it 3rd place. Best regards.--67.160.195.101 (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the given link/discussion above contains quotable 2 sources (Parker, Scarre). However i don't have those books myself. As for roman empire and han empire, most sources i've seen usually descrobe than as being roughly of the same size and the same population (and actually assuming similar structural/historical roles for their areas). Seidel for instance gives 4 million km2 for both, but that's probably just meant to be an average ballpark figure, rather than largest expansion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Auto archiving using User:MiszaBot
I added MiszaBot to the talk page because it's about 289,000 bytes. If consensus shows that there is a disagreement over this. I'll revert myself. Elockid (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sizes
I see no way that the Rashidun, Fatimid, and Sassanid Empires could have been bigger than the Roman Empire, or that the Ayyubid Empire and the Byzantine Empire could have been the same size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.38 (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your personal opinions don't matter, Rome may be larger if you count the water area, but in terms of land area it was smaller than the Rash, Fat, and Sassanid empires, I don't know about the Ayyubid and Byzantine, but your editing is out of control. We are tired of reverting your edits, please stop editing this article, The article has missed up again, and there are actually 2 sources that say 6.5 for Rome, and at least one source saying an impossible 9.0 for Rome, oops did I say that? So I'm going to restore Rome to 6.5 with a new reputable source, I might even look for more books saying 6.5 for Rome in Google Books, its just a matter of time, Xiongnu at 9.0 will also be restored. User Km I am not sure if your against a 6.5 for Rome, but please if your reading this please respond to the section titled AE Size Debate: Question 1 of 4, let me know what you think, I want your Wikipedian feedback before moving on to question 2 (if it seems to complicated tell me, so I can present a shorter focused version of it) thank you.--67.160.195.101 (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not against the 6.5 for Rome (as can clearly be seen in referenced discussions). However i'm very against any careless or sloppy handling of sources by some edits, which makes this article so problematic. When the 6.5 for Rome was entered, it was citing 4 sources and none of them supporting the 6.5 figure, that's not acceptable for Wikipedia. Moreover such a behaviour somewhat destroys any constructive cooperation of authors, since it makes other authors to distrust anything they cannot verify themselves directly. If this problem keeps persisting the article might become semi protected down the line (i.e. blocked from IP editing).--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT MISQUOTE SOURCES
Several editors keep misquoting sources and enter data not being supported by the references they cite. That's unacceptable. If you cite or reference sources please make sure that their data does indeed match whatever you write in the article. Also you should check any source you use yourself and not just rip them off from elsewhere without checking them yourself.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoah Km! Okay slow down... Look, I'm really sorry, I thought, as no one had removed it before, to have different estimate sources for one empire, for example, one area says Peak area estimated by Taagerperda at 5.0 km2 for Rome, while also including a 6.5 for Rome. Even AE has at least 3 citations by it, WHICH I thought was common practice in this article to show that we show different estimates for one empire to be fair. But I totally understand what you mean, I thought you were against the 6.5 source for Rome, and did not know you meant to include only one source there (which I also found that policy strange, so I now agree to have only one source, for example only a one 7.7 source for the 7.7 AE estimate). So I greatly apologize for this big misunderstanding. On another note what do you think about my answer to question 1 in the AE size debate? Wish you the best.--67.160.195.101 (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you can include as mayn sources as you want, but they need to be referenced correctly. Meaning you want to use all the source on te Roman empire, they you need give a range in the article (to accurate reflect the referenced sources). Or of you want to use the other figures just as lower bounds, the yoou need to write a footnote explaining that. But the one thing you cannot do, is simply referencing a source (without comment) that does not support what you claim in the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)