Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 6

Alexander's Empire
It doesn't appear to be in the table, but it was surely larger than the Achaemenid Empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.252.78.224 (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC) --111.252.78.224 (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Empire of Alexander you're looking for is listed as the (Macedon)ian Empire at 5.2 million km2 at 323 B.C. It was larger than the Achaemenid Empire of the 330's B.C., because it had shrunk to half its size from 480 B.C., when it was at its largest extent. Eirione (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

How on Earth is Alexander's empire so much smaller than the Achaemenid Empire in the table? Just by comparing the two maps in the article, it is obvious that Macedon should at least be very close to the size of the Achaemenid Empire. I think by just a quick glance, the same would apply to the Tang Dynasty, Rashidun Caliphate, and Umayyad Caliphate- whom must surely be larger than the Achaemenid Empire. Either they need drastic scaling up in their land size, or the Achaemenid Empire needs drastic scaling downSuid-Afrikaanse (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two ansers to that:


 * One is that this article is plagued for years by somewhat careless or naive edits and structural problems. Naive and careless edits usually make claims by either using inappropriate sources or misreading appropriate sources. The structural problems is, that this article is forced to combine a large variety of different and somewhat inconsistent sources, this is in particular problematic since data from different sources cannot always be accumulated or compared in an obvious fashion and combining that data often leads to a (serious) violation of WP:SYNTH as well. In addition at least in my perception there is also a bit of personal or national POV pushing, where people sort of "blow up" their personally favoured empires.


 * The second reason with regard to the Alexander's empire and the Achaemenid Empire is probably a typo, the actual area of the is about 7.5 not 17.5. The at first glance somewhat odd fact that the Achaemenid Empire was still larger than its conquering successor is due to the fact, that Alexander conquered it around 150 years after its peak when it was not at maximum extend anymore.
 * --Kmhkmh (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On closer inspection it was probably no typo but an intentional stunt pulled by IPs (so reason one, see:, , )--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the response and clarification.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Canada
Although not commonly referenced as an Empire, it is hard to say Canada does not fit the basic criteria for Imperial status. From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Empire we have the following definition:  (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an aggregate of peoples and territories, often of great extent, under the rule of a single person, oligarchy, or sovereign state Which Canada undoubtedly fits. Dictionary.com gives the following: ''a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire. '' Canada is most distinctly a single entity comprising an amalgamation of people and provinces, several with aspirations of statehood. And as a Constitutional Monarchy, it is ruled by a powerful sovereign. More to the point, it fits the "large" category very nicely, being the second largest existent nation.

Although not a primary power, not all Empire throughout history have been primary powers. Portugal and Denmark's Victorian empires spring to mind. As such, I request Canada be included on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.9.5 (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a WP:Reliable source calling Canada an empire, please add it. CMD (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Roman Empire
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how was the roman empire not contiguous? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)What about North Africa.


 * Britain? -- Jayron  32  13:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought that, but the list lists areas such as the Russian Empire as contiguous, despite having islands etc. (Alaska in Russia's case) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True enough. Hey, why not fix it and if someone objects we can work it out.  -- Jayron  32  18:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a good argument for describing the Roman Empire as contiguous, since during it's peak it controlled the connecting waters, such as the Mediterranean and the Channel, over which their legions freely passed. For a time, there was an isolated pocket of Roman-ness north of the Black Sea and I suspect that's the only bit that could have been said fairly to be non-contiguous. Of course, this all changed in the later empire. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

i agree controling waters inbetween land is a form of contiguous. islands near the main landmass or mainland of a empire have to border it. but inter-continental empires cannont be contiguous unless its russian empire or roman empire or and other empire stradleing parts of afro-eurasia super continent. but russia was a rare case not involing afro-eurasia. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't think controlling water between land makes it contiguous.  Otherwise, Majapahit could be considered contiguous.  Even if we ignored holdings in Britain, the Roman Empire still wasn't contiguous, as the holdings in Europe and the holdings in North Africa and West Asia were separated, even at the Empire's peak, by the Turkish Straits.Qwertzy (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Roman Empire was a contiguous empire 100%.--Lubiesque (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Ozgurcano, 8 April 2011
please can wikapedia correct the mistake under the ottoman empire as its not 5200000 km that the ottoman ahd in there biggest extent they had 24.534.242 km² please can you do correct reseacrh please also check the turkish wikapedia http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmanl%C4%B1_%C4%B0mparatorlu%C4%9Fu, as wikapedia will not be known as a honest website thanks.

Ozgurcano (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Logan Talk Contributions 22:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The source ^ Peter Turchin, Thomas D. Hall, Jonathan M. Adams, East-West Orientation of Historical Empires, Journal of World-Systems Research Cilt 12 (No: 2), 2006, s. 219-229 say 5.2 km² not 24 km². So the Turkish page is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakiratusem (talk • contribs) 17:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ottomans' land area and total area differs in big amounts. There are many reasons about this. Ottoman political strategy strongly state that any war cannot take place between any Islamic country and the Ottomans. Because of that Ottomans never took the Iran, Morocco, some Berberis' lands, half of Egypt, today's central Saudi Arabia, Yemen, India, Caucasia etc. Main political strategy was based on extending to western (non-muslim) lands and controlling the Mediterranian and Black Sea.
 * For example Ottoman only took Tabriz in Iran because of Iran's behaviors and not proceed inwards because it would not fit political/religion strategy. Morroco was not taken, because the king of Morocco was a descent of the Prophet Muhammad. Etc.
 * Total area was about 20 million km squares, while land area was about 5-5,5 million km squares.

Changes to figures, stats, empire sizes, etc
This article has been bombarded by numerous small changes to the figures for empire populations, sizes, rankings, etc. Many of these come from IP users, so I requested and obtained semi-protection for a while. It would be great if we could obtain agreement that from now on, all such changes should be discussed first here in the talk page and attempts made to gather evidence for any such changes. No evidence, no changes. There are bound to be lots and lots of errors and disputable facts in the article as-is, since the start point is somewhat arbitrary and there was a great deal of messing about beforehand. However, we can make a start. When semi-protect comes off in a month, I will re-apply if it continues. The aim is to try to take this article away from it's somewhat shaky current status towards being a better article. The alternative already discussed is full deletion which I will support if we can't get anywhere with a more structured approach. Would welcome thoughts from other editors. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several problems with this article. I agree that many of the numbers in the article are disputable and in error. I think that a fundamental problem is that the "reliable sources" we quote simply are not reliable for areas of empires. Historians don't care about these numbers. Why should they? They are reliable on dates and much other data but if they state the size of, for example, the Roman Empire, they don't mean it to more than (at most) one significant digit. I would suggest making clear that all these numbers (at least before about 1850) are very approximate.


 * Although currently I have no verified source for this, I'm pretty sure the Roman Empire did in fact have quite exact records of the Empire's size. 213.220.106.35 (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There are many other problems with the article, such as when is a kingdom (or any other state) an empire. I think that both the USA and the USSR have genuine arguments both for and against and we could get into endless arguments over whether the Central African Empire or the Assyrian Old Kingdom were really empires. My suggestion would be to merge this article with List of empires, which, interestingly, seems to be shorter than List of largest empires. This wouldn't solve the problems, but the editors there seem to have many of the same problems and there's no benefit to doing the same work twice. Alternatively, if you do nominate this for AfD, I'll vote delete. But I doubt that there would be consensus to get rid of it. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would vote delete, too, for the reasons I gave here and which are just as valid now as then. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Another problem is that already fixed error keep creeping in again. For we've got again a rather questionable map of the Persian empire. Also some authors seem to augment/combine already shaky or not particularly reliable sources which produces an even more questionable outcome. The constant stream of (sometimes questionable) edits make any real quality management really difficult and verarious authors have simply giving up in the past. There have been various AfDs in the past iirc, but they all failed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder if we should start with some kind of big simplification, remove everything that sounds like an exact sizing pre-1850 and cut out a lot of the material. Make the article more manageable and give us a starting point to work from? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

How did the figure of GDP size for British Empire -arrive at $918.7 billion (in 1938) Looking at Mark Harrison's "The economics of WW2" which is cited at the source, I can only make a GDP of $683.3 billion. On Table 1.1 page 3 of Harrison's book the UK has 284.2 billion, UK dominions have 114.6 billion and UK colonies have 284.5 billion. This is quite important given the $918.7 billion figure dwarfs Nazi German Empire - $375.6 billion, where as 683 billion is not so dramatic. Aok58 (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly many problems with trying to work out exact, or even roughly ascertaining the area of many empires. The british empire we know to be very close, because we have the records. But take for example, the mongol empire. We call it an empire, but it was actually a series of largely tribute states. Which in historical rules, does not constitute an Empire. Now we know they did conqour large territories, but mostly withdrew after placing someone they wanted on the throne. When the Turkic tribes invaded asia minor, and into the Roman Empire. That wasn't done with the blessing or instruction, let alone the Mongol army itself. That has been attributed to migration pressure by the Turkic Tribes. So until 1400's when Timur the Lame invaded the Ottoman realm, no Mongol army held territory in asia minor, and no Timur was not a mongol Khan. We also know that the Principality of Vladamir-Suzdal (Moscow Region) was a tribute state to the Mongol Khan, but still ruled independantly. But Novogorod wasn't. The Mongols tended to stay away from the colder areas of modern north russia.

Take Keiv, from 1241AD it was suppose to be under Mongol overLordship. But, by paying money, they stayed free from occupation. When in 1336AD or 1363AD, A combine Grand Duchy army of Rus, Poles, and Lithuanians und a Grad Duke of Lithiunian, Defeat the Golden Horde army. Now do we include Keiv as part of the Empire, or Not? Armenia and Georgia where never occupied by the Mongol Army. The Persian Empire yes, and the Romans, and attacks from Turkic Tribes (known as Kipchaks) until the 1300'sAD. From 1184 to 1230AD, Georgia was a powerful Kingdom. Take the conqest of Northern India. The mongols Didn't stay in India. They placed a few of there own in positions of power, and left. Hence the Mugal Emperor, the last one of course was conqoured in turn by the British. What goes around, comes around I guess. This is one of the problems, the area conqoured by the Mongol Khans, was great. The area they held, was not. Neither was the population. Most people tend to forget, the mongols were extreme in brutality. Read the history of Mongol invasion of modern Iran. Millions are killed for pleasure. We do however know that trade contact halfed in terms of the Roman Empire trade with the mid and far East, and didn't recover within the next 100years. There were no people to buy the products. The Mamelukes stopped the Mongol Army in the Middle East 1250'sAD. And in 1260AD, the mongols spilt in two and fought each other, which made Persia, and China Independant under their own Mongol leaders. Which then made four Empires. Of course by 1290's they had lost effective control over vast areas, most people had become free again, if such, just out right opposing the mongols. Which is why the Last mongol army ended up fighting the Grand Duke of Lithiunian. That effectively ended any and all mongol hopes to re-establish their empire. Very complicated, is it not? So in effect, when you see a map of the "Mongol empire", it's actually a map of what they conqoured, not what they held, two different things.

Take the Comparison of the British Empire, who not only conqoured, but held. They were actually after trade. Hence the saying, the British Fell on Empire. The Mongols didn't hold. They placed their own people in positions of power to reward loyal followers. Whereas the British Left the established system in place, and add law enforcement, and mass trade. For good or worst, i'm not making a judgement on any here.

Anyway, must go, got work to do.

fenir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.91.77 (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The area of the Mongol Empire is valued differently in km and mi. If the value in km, 24.0, is correct, the most the value in mi could be is 9.29 (3sf); if the value in mi, 12.35, is correct, the least the value in km could be is 32.0 (3sf). Observer (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

L'Empire
While I suppose the English word empire has been borrowed from the French, I must say English speakers have a tendency to use and abuse of the word a lot. For the French for instance, comparing the Napoleonic Empire and the French colonial empire in terms of size or whatever makes no sense.

Comparing colonial "empires" and historic contiguous empires is comparing apples to oranges: we're not talking about the same thing.

I had a good laugh when I saw the comparison of the GDPs of "empires" at the end.--Lubiesque (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not specific to the English language. It's the article, which has always been a botched synthesis. Lachrie (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

English version of the mongol Empire
Hi,

in the others languages for the article "Mongol Empire", the surface of the empire is written as 33-34 millions of km²... English article is the only version with a 24 million km² surface empire...

I think there is a cohesion problem ?!

Or is thit a way to place the British empire in the first place for this article : ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires ?

Yours,

Niko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.15.92.67 (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The English Wikipedia probably just has a higher standard of evidence due to the larger volume of contributors. Lachrie (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Durrani and Hotaki empires
The Durrani Empire and the Hotaki Empire which encompassed Afghanistan, eastern Iran, part of Pakistan/India and part of Turkmenistan in the 18th and early 19th century aren't included in the list? Khestwol (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian Empire mistakes
I think there was a mistake made in the Max. Land area, as well as world population percentage for Bulgaria The max. land area states Bulgaria had 6,500,000 Km2 placing it above Nazi Germany and empires such as the Ottoman I've searched Wikipedia articles on the Bulgarian empire and the greatest extent on the First Bulgarian Empire page is 750,000 Km2 so i believe that should be changed The second thing about population, it states Bulgaria had 4 milion, which is 12,5% of 50 milion. Well, the percentage is wrong and also, i believe the world numbered ~300 milion then, this should be changed also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.244.155.65 (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Spanish annexed Portugal?
Please change the section that discribes the ascention to the portuguese throne of Felipe II of Spain (Filipe I in Portugal) as a annexation. That is completely not true. He was, by all means, grandson of Portuguese king Manuel I (his mother Isabel was daughter of that portuguese monarch), and second cousin to Portuguese king Sebastian I who died childless in a foolish  self denominated "crusade" in Morocco, in 1578. He was, therefore a rightfull contender in the Portuguese succession. In fact he was probably the "most" legal heir, but as he was also king of Spain, it was inconvinient to allow him to become king of Portugal as well. So, in order to buy some time, another son of Manuel I was chosen to be king (Henry I, great uncle of the late king Sebastian) but as he was old, and a Catholic cardinal (so not allowed to marry) he was seen as a transitorial king. That turned ou to be true as he died 2 years later, in 1580, and this time, there as no evident "portuguese" heir. The other main opponents were Anthony of Crato (sometimes styled I as some people recognize his kingship) who was a bastard son of Louis of Beja, second son of king Manuel I; and Catherine of Braganza who was daughter of Edward of Guimarães, sixth son of king Manuel I. So, both of them were fist cousins to Phillip I of Spain. As in crown succession male prefered over female combined with the fact of Anthony being a illegitimate son, some argue that, inf fact Phillip of Spains, was (unfortunatelly, some may say) the righfull heir to the portuguese throne and he was recognized as such in 1580, and crowned in 1581. So as you se he didnt annex or conquer anything; he inherited. And, as a final note, let me add that he was very much aware of the separation between the Spanish and Portuguese crowns, as he was allways respectfull of Portuguese laws and institutions. He's grandson, Phillip III (IV in Spain), wasn't, so the Portuguese rebelled against his rule and sellected John of Braganza (grandson of Catherine) as king, in 1640. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.153.52.71 (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Why the maps, for example, color all Canada when shows the British Empire and don´t color Patagonia when shows Spanish Empire? The real phisical possession was similar and there was native population that doesn´t know they were under the government of the empire in both cases. Why the effort to doesn´t include Iberian Empire (Spanish and Portuguese Empire between 1580 and 1640) claiming administrative excuses? It was the major Empire ever (more than British) with 35 million km (you have to add Patagonia, Amazonas and other European, African and Asian zones that are missed). If the administrative organization is relevant, the empire of Alexander the Great just doesn´t exist, he maintain the greeks, egypcian, persians, etc isolated and with they way of life (not only administrative, in all aspects), and that was the primary cause of the fall of the empire when he died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.39.58 (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Worst, in the Iberian empire map (the second one, appears like Spanish Empire), shows only the coast of Brazil as part of it, but in the Portuguese empire map (the first one) appears all Brazil (with amazonia and Matto Grosso inclued), What? the portuguese along dominates all the country and with the spaniards they leave it? This isn´t serious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.30.117 (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits in contrast with the only sources given
I checked the only sources present in the article (at note 4 and 8) for the areas of the Russian, Sassanid, Timurid and Mughal Empires, the Uyghur Khaganate, the Fatimid and Ayyubid Caliphate, and Kievan Rus' and corrected them accordingly. However, user MauriManya has reverted three times my edits, without providing any new sources or justification (well, for the Russian empire, he referred to the corresponding Wikipedia article, which doesn't have any reference for the area). --Analytikone (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Analytikone's edits seem to be supported by the sources. I have reverted to his version. If MauriManya wishes to change this he should bring his reasons here. This article seems to be a magnet for people changing numbers with no justification or extremely flimsy justification. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is iffy enough as it is, additional unsourced entries or edits should be avoided and if necessary reverted.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

May I bring something up about the Mongol Empire? I keep finding conflicting information on the web, and the number for land area given in the article does not conform to the first source listed. Even reliable sources are disagreeing. what's going on with this?AlexanTR (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Modern empires
Regarding the Soviet influence as an empire, that idea is exaggerating and unhistorical nonsense. But, then again, empires did not exist like this article portrays empires. Some portrayals of empires in this articles are more accurate than others, but regarding the Soviet Union: that is blatantly wrong. The Soviet Union and China are put together, Soviet Union and Europe (including Albania!) are put together, as are Cuba, Vietnam and Korea. Come on. That's all wrong. 94.211.59.112 (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Saadian Empire
I believe the Saadian Empire in Morocco should be included, however I don't know the details. 69.232.199.35 (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hotaki Empire
The Hotaki Empire (see map) was a large empire which should be included but does anyone know what exactly was its area?? Khestwol (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Spanish Empire
Can somebody explain why the Spanish Empire is in third place ahead of Russia (despite the page for Russia claiming that the Russian Empire was the third largest) whilst on the Spanish Wikipedia the Spanish Empire is in fourth place after Russia and has wholly different stats to the ones featured here regarding the size of both empires? Sanddef (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I see that seems to have been taken care of. Sanddef (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Size of Mauryan Empire Questionable
Size of Mauryan Empire which stands at 8.0 Million sq kms is hughly doubtable...If Ashoka had whole of India,Nepal,Bhutan,Bangladesh,Pakistan,Afghanistan under his control even then it would work out to a mere 4.8 million sq kms and lets assume he had parts of south eatern Iran even then at max 5.0 Million square kilometres...Please somebody change this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.123.211 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Late replying to this, but I agree! First and Foremost, the Mauryan Empire was not the largest empire on the Indian Subcontinent, it was the Mughal Empire.

For proof of that, see here:.

Kirby (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Where is Pontus?
Where is Kingdom of Pontus (Pontic Empire)? It was great empire in east. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.240.177 (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

British Raj and British Empire?
In the section, "Empires by GDP", why are "British Raj" and British Empire listed separately? I'm pretty sure the British Raj was an integral part of the British empire. 206.225.133.1 (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Empire within an empire. The British Empire was a colonial empire ruled from London, with viceroyal governance in the various colonies, dominions and protectorates - rather than a single entity like the French or Russian Empires. Older Emprie's and Kingdoms often had vassels and tributary states, which were also Kingdoms in their own right - especially in that part of the world; and with India that was the case: there were a number of indian Princes who were subject to the British monarch in her/his capacity of Empress/Emperor of India, and by extention the British government who appointed a Viceroy who governed behalf of the Emperor/Empress and his/her government. 81.152.64.215 (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Mauryan Empire was not larger than the Mughal Empire!
First and Foremost, the Mauryan Empire was not the largest empire on the Indian Subcontinent, it was the Mughal Empire.

I have sources that prove this! See here:.

Most of my sources consist of scholarly maps. I could go on for hours listing sources to back up my claim, but I won't. None of the less, I will be revising the list with this being said.

Kirby (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Cuman-Kipchak Confederation?
I didn't see the Cumans on this list, and I was wondering if they should be added. Everbodynobody (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Percentages
Just to let everybody know that the percentages calculated to give the share of the world population are .... false. First sometimes the ratio is just wrong and needs to be recalculated. See : Han dynasty 26.00% (58 million out of 130 million[12] in 2 AD) Moreover the world population figures are obviously taken from different estimation because they make no sense at all. For example : Rome was 70 millions (21%) in 150 AD (so the world was apparently populated with more or less 350 millions inhabitents), then we got the Kusha standing at 42 million in a world populated by 220 million people in 200 in 140AD!!! Should we understand 130 000 000 were born in 10 years! Maybe we should agree on one particular estimate for world population and based ALL the percentages on it ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.88.183.243 (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Armenian Empires size?
Was Armenian Empire of Kingdom of Armenia under Tigranes the Great really same size as Seleucid Empire? I have never found a map that shows Armenia as this big, just asking if there is mistake or... If some one could show a map it would be helpfull :) 83.146.240.177 (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Several important problems, please read.
What is the "Gokturk Khanate" at the fourth place? the links just show the Spanish Empire, which is lacking from the list. I guess a funny guy just wanted to be annoying. We should put back the Spanish Empire in its place.

Where is the first French Colonial empire? Not the second colonial empire (8th on the list), not Napoleon Empire (later on the list too), but the first colonial empire of the 18th century.

Where is Alexander Empire? the "macedonian empire" on the list doesn't seem to be based on it, if you consider the size http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/MacedonEmpire.jpg (edit: ok let's forget this one, it's not so different from what i saw elsewhere https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/empires.htm, it's actually the comparison with the roman empire which confused me, since he's considered much larger on wiki's list) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.72.102 (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Charlemagne's Frankish kingdom, weirdly called "Carolingian dinasty" (why dinasty?) on the list don't show it's true size. http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/Roman/ESBdioceses0811.gif Just by looking at it and even without calculating, it's obviously bigger. Something should be done.

Finally, why is Nazi Germany so high? (even "larger" than alexander empire) For example compared to Napoleon Empire which is really low in the list? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany I guess you're counting the aera under occupation and the satellite states, then why not doing the same thing with Napoleon empire? The area he controlled was way larger than the proper French territory. They should have the same treatment, it's either nazi germany is lower on the list, or napoleon empire is higher. Two choices. http://www.memo.fr/Media/Empire-Napoleon.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.72.102 (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. I reverted the vandal that removed the Spanish Empire. About the other problems, I agree with you, but I have no sources to correct the data. Maybe you could do it, if you have reliable sources. Alex2006 (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to say i was wrong about Charlemagne empire, after some research it's the correct size and my estimation was wrong. Same for Napoleon: the source actually talk about both Napoleon empire and satellite states with Napoleon family was rulers. What confused me was just Nazi Germany which was really large, probably counting France's colonies (which were supposed to be free, but well), and allies like Italy which is really going too far. I guess continental European empires were just small in size even if they were the most powerful of their time. Btw Nazi Germany as been completely removed and it's not me who did it. I don't know what to do now, i won't complain no matter the decision.

The only thing i'll do then, is to add the first french colonial empire. I found three sources but two are wikipedia pages (lol) and one (Larousse encyclopedia) is doubtful, even though Larousse is usually very reliable. The Larousse encyclopedia claims that the first french empire size was 10 millions km². The wiki pages say roughly 8.1, but i don't have the books that are cited as sources. I personnaly think it's the correct size. I propose to chose 8.1km², but i'll still link larousse encyclopedia as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.72.102 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect that by Nazi Germany it was computed also the territory gained until september 1942. I removed the line, but if you or someone else has reliable data can add it again at any time. Thanks for your edits, Alex2006 (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Spanish Empire
As some people noted above, the Spanish Empire was removed, but it was there a few months ago. I think this could be an act of vandalism. Although there might be different sources and definitions for measuring the size of a certain empire, there is no doubt that the Spanish Empire should be somewhere in that list. Probably in the top places. What do other editors think? I am not an expert in restoring wikipedia articles, but I think this should be fixed and maybe the article should be locked to avoid further vandalism.Eosar (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I was baffled why the Spanish Empire was missing considering it was one of the largest empires stretching over 4 continents. Lazyazian (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Number error
The article has this in the final column for Han Empire: "44.61% (58 million out of 300 million[10] in 2 AD)" One of these numbers must be a mistake. Not sure which, though. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Metrics and suggestions for further development
Besides the two metrics adopted in this article (total area and absolute GDP) there can be so many other metrics:


 * 1) total population
 * 2) total population as percentage of total world population
 * 3) GDP as percentage of total world GDP
 * 4) military power
 * 5) military power as percentage of total world military power
 * 6) speed of expansion (whether expansion in land area, in population or in GDP)
 * 7) duration (how long did control last)
 * 8) connectedness (mathematical definition might be delicate but it's clear there's a difference between an empire composed of a bunch of mutually far removed pieces like the British Empire and one more or less in one piece like the Russian Empire)
 * 9) sea domination
 * 10) spread (distinct from area since with certain well placed positions powers can dominate a greater area than they nominally own; an example is again the British Empire whose possessions were spread around the world)
 * 11) and so on...

I hope people will consider tackling those in the future.

Contact Basemetal here 19:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Area of the Mongol Empire
The given area of the Mongol Empire is highly dubious. The sources are contradictory, and the ones that (apparently) give the highest estimates aren't freely available online none of them agree with the number in the table. A sample:

The above three are the ones used in the article as of my writing this, and the area given is 33.0 Mm2, so I can only assume that's what Morgan says despite none of the sources actually claiming that.
 * 24.00 Mm2
 * 26 to 31 Mm2
 * ?? Doesn't provide any figure whatsoever (not available online, as far as I can tell)

The following are other claims I've found:
 * 24 Mm2
 * 36 Mm2
 * 25 Mm2 (also claims the British Empire encompassed 38 Mm2)
 * 65 Mm2 (25 million square miles stated) (obviously incorrect, as that would be larger than Europe and Asia combined)
 * 25.2 Mm2 (note that it's not outright stated that it's the Mongol Empire that's referred to, but it's obvious from the context)
 * >31 Mm2 (>12 million square miles stated)
 * 34 Mm2 (has a footnote that I have been unable to access)
 * 21 Mm2
 * >31 Mm2 (>12 million square miles stated)
 * 26 Mm2 (10 million square miles stated)
 * >36 Mm2 (>14 million square miles stated)
 * 30 Mm2
 * 22 Mm2

As should be abundantly clear by now, these claims need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. We have to decide what the best course of action is, because as it stands, the situation is unacceptable. 79.136.41.6 (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Certain sources are more reliable than others. It's widely accepted that the Mongol empire was the largest continuous empire and was the second largest altogether. PS, you should make a wikipedia accout. IP addresses aren't treated too kindly by some of us here. Khazar (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I came across a physical copy of The Mongols, and it turns out Morgan does not provide a number, although he does state that the Mongol Empire was the largest continuous empire in history. 79.136.41.6 (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll also add that this doesn't provide any figure whatsoever either, but is sometimes used anyway.79.136.41.6 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't Spain have been one of the largest empires?
Wouldn't Spain have been one of the largest empires..? I'm talking about the GDP section. It's not even mentioned but Britain and Portugal are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.197.87.222 (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Problems about largest land area of several Chinese Empires
I believe that there are some mistakes on the largest land area of Chinese Empires. For example, the Tang Dynasty was considered to be one of the most powerful dynasty in Chinese history, yet its land area is even much less than other Chinese Dynasties. --Alvin Lee 06:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I think they just don't consider the Tang domination over Gokturk and Khorasan in the 660s~680s as sovereignty since the locals were quite autonomous and it didn't last long. Although for the same criteria, at least Sassanid, Ummayya and French colonial empire should be removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cd2c:4c00:b07a:bdb0:6b5b:ce01 (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2015‎ (UTC)

ISIL
Should we list ISIL here? It seems to fit the definition of empire. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't as it doesn't meet the definition of a sovereign state. - SantiLak  (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For that matter, when Iraq was fully united it was larger and more populous than ISIL is today. I fail to see how ISIL is an empire when it is merely a sectarian faction in a civil war across the borders of two different established nations. The old colonial empires are now gone, so there truly aren't any empires in the world today if you discount the American Empire. Even that's kind of a misnomer if applied to today's overseas territories of the US that don't belong to one of the 50 States in the Union. Pericles of Athens  Talk 11:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Occupied territory as percent of whole world does not take into account the known world to that date
Dear friends,

In the table with ranking of greatest empires, the column "% of world land area" is not entirely meaningful as it is, because it does not take into account the area that was known to the civilised world. For example, the Bizantine empire is shown as having only 3%, while given the known area at that time, I'm sure it would be much more. I would suggest you take this into account, and perhaps also when creating the ranking.

--Omar1984 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire size is incorrect!
 TRIGGER WARNING 

Please comment peacefully

Warning: I'm new here

Noticed something while I was arguing with someone online!!!

"Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D." from the peer-reviewed Social Science History gives the Byzantine Empire 2.7 million Km square

and "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires and Modern States" from the peer-reviewed Journal of World-Systems Research gives the Byzantine Empire 2.7 million Km square

If you noticed someone clearly referenced the Byzantine Era as 555 (which is correct at it's peak by both of my sources) and references by using "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D." but failed to fix the size??? the only time 4.5 was mentioned while I was reading was the size of Roman Empire during 275 A.D. and in another part that confused me but had nothing to do with Byzantine Empire.

I need people to agree with me, before we can move on. RussianDewey (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

incorrect fallacies
How come there's a totally unknown empire listed to be around as big as the Achaemenid Empire without any good reference? There's not even an article about this so-called large empire. I'm talking about the Karakota empire of Kashmir.

Also, Afsharid dynasty about as big as the Armenian Empire, for real?....

This article needs fixed badly.

- LouisAragon (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There is something un-encycloepdic about the so-called Armenian Empire, first of all I researched the papers, there is no mention of Armenians???? There is something wrong going on, also someone edited the size as 0.75 which is small on a chronological order yet forgot to downgrade it to the button of the list. A quick research(very fast) concludes me that the Armenian Empire is simply an expanded Kingdom of Armenia during the Tigranes the Great. Also there is no references for the Afsharid Empire's size. RussianDewey (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman Area
Ottoman Empire is known to be 19.9m sq km in 1595 Some people say that this doesn't include inner lands and inhabited areas. The state has total hegemony over these lands. 5 million figure covers only coasts. Russian Empire is calculated with Siberia and vast Asian tundra. Umayyad also has vast deserts. But only Ottomans excluded surrounding areas. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Cannolis (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You have to remember that Umayyad Caliphate included Persia, Khorasan, Kirman, Makran, Sistan, all the way to Sind touching Multan next to Punjab and in the upper areas they had Transoxania and the Ferghana Valley and don't forget Khwarezm. In the Western Europe areas, they had Andalus(Iberia) and Southern France under their control especially Septimania with the City Narbonne. Ottoman Empire is not comparable to the Umayyad Empire in that regard. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Several problems - rank & Karkota
I'm not sure that this can be fixed without quite a bit of work, but the "rank" column seems out of step with a few generally minor wiggles, e.g., ranks 83, 84, 85 are 2.5 > 2.3 >(?) 2.5. Sorting by any column works (assuming all the data-sort-value are correct, I haven't checked), but the default rank order isn't quite right.

There is one glaring anomaly for which the article on the empire needs some work: the Karkota Dynasty of Kashmir has recently been messed with in this table, but has a totally unreferenced article with what seem suspicious numbers. I've added a comment to its Talk page. The numbers in this table are totally incompatible with the listed rank (much too large). However, I'm not an expert, and haven't found any reliable sources on a quick search. I think the article is best titled "Karkota Dynasty" - there seems to have been a single region ruled by several dynasties. It originally had that name, but it was changed. The size needs to be sourced, in the Karkota article if not here. If somebody has the information, please correct relevant articles, but be sure to include sources. Pol098 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Alexander's empire
... MUST come in before the Achaemenid at least — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.200.23 (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete this article
Please delete this article and have it built up by scratch by some competent historian. It is entirely worthless and contributes only confusion and factual inaccuracy. A terrible mess!

- and have this person add token maps next to the empires listed while he's at it

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.118.234.118 (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The empire on which the sun never sets
The phrase "The empire on which the sun never sets" was first used for the Spanish Empire, not the Portuguese. See the Wikipedia article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.15.160.36 (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Unaccurate statements
This article is really dubious. Just take the example of the Bulgarian Empire, supposed to have had a maximum extension of 5.5 millions km². It is a plain lie. Can't we just delete the article and write it again with the verified and accurate bits ? Criton-tomates (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The Spanish empire is most bigger than you get here
The Spanish empire had all of South America except Suriname and French Guiana (but Brazil if I had the Iberian Union), the caribbean islands (Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti and Puerto Rico), to Mexico and MORE OF THE HALF Or 75% in the United States, and what is now British Columbia. Thanks to the Iberian Union had as I said to Brazil, Portugal, Angola, Mozambique, Somalia. In Western Sahara, the Philippines, European parties as the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Roussillon, Millan, Naples, etc. Add it up and that was to extension of the Spanish Empire. The Spanish Empire was the second most extensive. --Derekitou (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

First and Second Bulgarian Empires
The two entries for Bulgar Empire and Bulgarian Empire both linked to the same article, but with vastly different statistics. I changed those entries to First Bulgarian Empire and Second Bulgarian Empire, then fit the numbers and references to the ones in the primary articles. In the process, I deleted some citations that were attached to the old data; I suspect the sources were actually associated with another entry in the past.

While doing this task, I ran across several conversion and arithmetic errors, and corrected what I could. I suspect that this list has succumbed to data corruption over time, most likely due to new editors struggling with table formats, and maybe some vandalism. The whole list needs to be proofed, and citations filled in. But this is not my field, and I have no access to sources. I hope maybe one of the WikiProjects can take it on as a team task.

It would also be extremely helpful if the table could be broken down into a few smaller ones. — Gorthian (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the entire article could use a do-over. Utilizing one of the WikiProjects sounds like a good idea, but I have to confess I'm not familiar with how these things are usually done. How would you suggest going about this? TompaDompa (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

American Colonial Empire should be included
Since the Second French Colonial empire and other democratic state's empires are included, so should the united state be. Its largest extent was either when it had a protectorate over Cuba from 1898 to 1902 and 1908 or when it held a protectorate over the dominican republic after its purchase of the virgin islands in 1917.XavierGreen (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Someone would have to out the figures, but the USA would easily top the GDP table, and I suspect would be in the top 10 for land mass (do we count seafloor these days).
 * USA       		      9.857,000.0 km²
 * Philippine  	        300,000.0 km²
 * Cuba        	        109,884.0 km²
 * Puerto Rico   		      9,104.0 km²
 * Ryukyu Islands			 4,642.1 km²
 * Serranilla Bank			 1,200.0 km²
 * Guam			 	       549.0 km²
 * US Virgin Islands	 	    346.4 km²
 * Northern Mariana Islands	477.0 km²
 * American Samoa             199.0 km²
 * Bajo Nuevo Bank				100.0 km²
 * Kingman Reef				 76.0 km²
 * Wake Island					 7.4 km²
 * Navassa Island				 5.4 km²
 * Midway Islands				 5.2 km²
 * Jarvis Island				 4.5 km²
 * Johnston Atoll				 2.8 km²
 * Baker Island				 2.1 km²
 * Howland Island				 1.8 km²
 * Swains Island                        1.5 km²
 * TOTAL:                       10,283,566.1 km²  (3,970,507 miles²)
 * A.j.roberts (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the area numbers. I'll add a list of territorial possessions and dates.
 * MAJOR TERRITORIES
 * Philippines (1898 - 1942, 1945 - 1946)
 * - United States military government of the Philippine Islands (1898 - 1902)
 * - Insular Government of the Philippine Islands (1901 - 1935)
 * - Commonwealth of the Philippines (1935 - 1942, 1945 - 1946)
 * Puerto Rico (1898 - Present)
 * - Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (1952 - Present)
 * Territory of Guam (1898 - 1941, 1944 - Present)
 * Panama Canal Zone (1903 - 1979)
 * United States Military Government in Cuba / First Occupation of Cuba (1898 - 1902)
 * Provisional Government of Cuba / Second Occupation of Cuba (1906 - 1909)
 * United States occupation of Veracruz (1914)
 * United States Occupation of Haiti (1915 - 1934)
 * United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1916 - 1924, 1965 - 1966)
 * Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (1947 - 1994)
 * - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (1978 - Present)
 * - Federated States of Micronesia (Associated State) (1986 - Present)
 * - Republic of the Marshall Islands (Associated State) (1986 - Present)
 * - Republic of Palau (Associated State) (1994 - Present)
 * U.S. Virgin Islands / Virgin Islands of the United States (1917 - Present)
 * Territory of American Samoa (1889 - Present)
 * Ryukyu Islands (1945 - 1972)
 * - United States Military Government of the Ryukyu Islands (1945 - 1950)
 * - United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands (1950 - 1972)
 * United States occupation of Greenland (1940 - 1945)
 * United States occupation of Iceland (1941 - 1946)
 * American Occupation Zones in Allied-occupied Austria (1945 - 1955)
 * American Occupation Zones in Allied-occupied Germany (1945 - 1949)
 * Occupation of Japan (1945 - 1952)
 * United States Army Military Government in Korea (1945 - 1948)
 * Coalition Provisional Authority (Iraq) (along with the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland) (2003 - 2004)
 * MINOR TERRITORIES
 * Occupation of Clipperton Island (1944 - 1945)
 * Corn Islands (1914 - 1971)
 * Line Islands (disputed with UK until 1979)
 * - Kingman Reef (1856 - Present)
 * - Palmyra Atoll (1898 - Present)
 * - Jarvis Island (1857 - Present)
 * Phoenix Islands (disputed with UK until 1979)
 * - Baker Island (1857 - Present)
 * - Howland Island (1856 - Present)
 * Quita Sueno Bank (1869 - 1981)
 * Roncador Bank (1856 - 1981)
 * Serrana Bank (until 1981)
 * Swan Islands (1863 - 1972)
 * Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (1903 - Present)
 * Johnston Atoll (1858 - Present)
 * Wake Island (1899 - 1941, 1945 - Present)
 * Midway Atoll / Midway Islands (1859 - Present)
 * Navassa Island (1857 - Present)
 * Serranilla Bank (1879 - Present)
 * Bajo Nuevo Bank (1869 - Present)
 * Additionally, some 30-40 former territories that are now incorporated into US states, along with 326 Indian Reservations aka Domestic Dependent Nations.
 * At first I had the peak territorial extent occurring from 1945-1946, but if we include the occupation of Greenland, that probably dwarfs other territories and would thus make peak territorial extent occurring in 1941.

...The United States is one of the most impressive political entities to have ever existed since the Treaty of Paris which assigned the Mississippi River as most of its western boundary. Although the United States has never had any semblance of monarchical government, the office of President of the United States is one of the most powerful institutions that any leader has ever had.

Military power? This has been the worst nemesis that any other country could face in a frontal war. Economic power? Obvious enough! Cultural power? Surprisingly limited. (Small countries like Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, and Norway have classical composers more impressive than any American). Pbrower2a (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

United states and possesions at greatest extent is not included?
in the year 1903 The United states and possesions was at greatest land extent when the protectorate of cuba was granted independence. this does not include the un-reconized banana republics in mexico during the panco via rebellion of 1917 in which the the western states of mexico were temporarily occupied becasue they were never legally a possesion of the usa. but certainly a artical on ahistorical nation of the usa at its greatest extent till 1903 would be afacinating wikipedia artical to read. and a non-contiguous one becasue of the philipines islands in asia which were granted independence in 1946. but paro-doxically new territory was gained after world war 2 called US trust territory from japan but its now 3 independent nations marshall islands ,micronesia ,and palau. all gaining independence from 1991 to 1994. but this trust territory was never larger than cuba in land size and this chart is based on land and not water or total surface area. its not fare that contemporary nations like russia and brazil get a historical empire and leave out the united states of america. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe because this is an article about the worlds largest Empires, and the USA is and was a Republic. An Empire is ruled by a monarch, and America is ruled by elected President and a Senate. Gaining territory does not make a nation an empire, your government doesn't consider your country an Empire, nore does anyone qualified to make that decision. 95.147.158.66 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not true second IP. The French Empire was not ruled by any sort of Monarch. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear IP:69.208.14.63, perhaps you/we need to consider the following article from the Wikipedia itself: Andre L D Cavalcante (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC).


 * Empires are not necessarily ruled by a Mon-Arch (i.e., Single-Ruler). For example, during much of its history, the Roman Empire was ruled by two or more emperors.  Also, the Romans controlled large territories around the Mediterranean while they were still nominally republican, ruled by a triumvirate or even the full Senate; and their territorial control functioned similarly in both eras.  The form of domestic government just doesn't matter to their external territorial control.


 * Also, monarchy would not even distinguish empires from mere kingdoms.


 * So being called an "empire", or even having a single ruler, seems to be a rather useless criterion for having a WP article. How about largest states, regardless of what we think of the form of government?  If not, can we at least call this "List of Largest Monarchies"?  Then we could avoid pretending that we are making some useful distinction between empires and other forms of government that control large territories.


 * This article is especially weakened by including so many "largest" empires that many of them are, in fact, tiny. At least could we limit the list to those with at least one of the following: (a) population above (say) 5% of the world's total, (b) land area above 5% of the world's total, and (c) GDP above 5% of the world's total (in purchasing-power parity), if we can get this number?  I believe that would remove at least 3/4 of this list and leave us with something that might have some value, however slight. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The United States needs to be included, during its administration of cuba from 1898 to 1902 and 1906 to 1908 it was one of the largest empires in existance.74.105.134.233 (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the absence of the United States has been commented on in the past. It's awkward because the area of its overseas territories was insignificant relative to the area of its continental states, which have traditionally rejected self-description as an empire, on political grounds which do seem more subjective than otherwise. On balance there's probably more reason to include the United States than not; one could say 'for comparative purposes only', if challenged. Lachrie (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @ Chipmunkdavis: France used to be a monarcy, how else do you thing New Orleans got a flag with three fleurs-de-lis and Saint Louis, named after the saint Louis IX, KING of France between 1226 and 1297. France was a kingdom untill the French Revolution. Remember Louis XV style... And no, I'm not French, just happen to be a history buff and read this gigantic mistake. Dqfn13 (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it did, but it wasn't at the time of the French colonial empire, which was the whole point. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It started growing in the 1660's... at that time they still had a king (Louis XIV). After him came many other kings and three emperors, with only a decade (max) with a president. Dqfn13 (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was this and that, but at the height of its power, France was a republic, yet its territory then is called the French Empire. Which was the point. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. Under the Third Republic to be precise.  Night  w   23:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * France, the United States, India, Novgorod Republic, and other non-monarchical "Empires" that have aquired large percentages of their territory should be included.XavierGreen (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it started as a monarchial empire (is that even correct English? Not sure as it's not my mothertongue) So I think countries like it should be included. We can't exclude countries just because they were at their biggest while they were no longer a monarchy. The US, however, has never been a monarchy... so not an empire. It has never used the name empire either. Dqfn13 (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know of an adjective that can be used before empire, so that may be the best option. "An empire ruled by a monarch"? Anyway, it's hard to define when something becomes an Empire. Rome was a republic for some of its expansion, yet that's still considered history of the empire. Actually, I think all of roman times was an empire, I've never read a clear start date for when the city became an empire. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Many books and sources label Carthage as an Empire, even though it was a republic. Similarly John Haywood's Historical Atlas of the 19th Century World lumps the United States in the same category of empire along with Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK, Germany, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of people don't realize the United States is not an empire by any definition of the word. It is what is called a Federation. This isn't widely known probably because Federation isn't in the country's name. But a Federations is similar to an Empire but not the same thing. An empire is multiple regions/territories controlled by one centralized government. It doesn't matter if that government is a monarch or a republic. But what makes the United States different from the rest is one thing; its 50 states. A state, as known through out the rest of the world, means country. Each of the 50 States in the USA is their own country. Each State elects their own government leaders including a Governor, Senators and Representatives. Each State operates its own budget and services separate from the Federal Government of the USA. Federal coming from the word Federation. The one Federal government DOES NOT rule any of these States but presides over them, keeps the Union together and provides for the common defense. All this can be found in Article 4 of the United States Constitution. Pepervenge (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They're not countries by any common definition of the word, but anyway, the discussion here is not about the states and integral territories of the USA, but rather the possessions it had/has outside of that. Mostly the Philippines, Cuba for a short time, and currently a number of pacific territories and Puerto Rico. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what the topic is. But to use the Territories under US possession as evidence of the US being an empire is a moot point at best. As I see it, their aren't enough of them either now or in the past to call the US an Empire. Their have never been any more then 10 overseas territories at any given time. Most of them have just been minor, small islands. Some have just been atolls. Most of them(even now) are self governing. And, most importantly of all, they have never been considered part of the Nation of the USA as only States get that right. So even if we had dozens of overseas territories, their not part of the USA, just possessions that govern themselves. And I brought up the states because the topic here is the "United States AND Possessions..." as seen in the title. And your right, the "Common" definition of the word country does not apply to the 50 States. But these States are not common country's. So they are country's, just not sovereign country's. The difference is the States in the union are guaranteed their own republican government. As stated in Article 4, Section 4 of the United States constitution. They are given the right to govern themselves as states. This makes them their own country but, again, not a sovereign independent country as they are part of the greater union of 50 states. They can, however, secede from the union under threat of war as seen during the American Civil war. Also, Vermont, Texes, Hawaii and I believe at least one other State were once their own Independent nations. Pepervenge (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * California is thought to have been independent by some, but anyway, you're playing with your own strange semantics. What you see or what I see is irrelevant, many sources have discussed American empire. The fact that the territories were never part of the USA is the reason it was an empire, India was never part of the UK, Indonesia was never part of the Netherlands. And it's not just states which are part of the USA, Washington DC and Palmrya Atoll are also full parts, being incorporated territories. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, federalism isn't unique to the United States: there are many federations in the world today, from Russia to India, Brazil to Australia. It isn't entirely clear if the terms "federation" and "empire" are mutually exclusive, since the term "empire" can be used in a variety of ways. The British Empire involved a form of free association of member states as well; the legacy of the project of imperial federation is the Commonwealth. The simplest way to address the ambiguity would be to move the article to "List of largest states and empires". That would help to head off these recurring side arguments over the internal political structures. It would make the list more comprehensive and useful by facilitating modern comparisons. Lachrie (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Federalism isn't unique to the United States, no. But the United States is the oldest and largest(by member states) federation on the planet. And yes I'm playing in my own semantics but isn't that what we're all doing? Saying what we all know in our own way to find the answer to this topic? Isn't that the purpose of this? Non the less I agree with what Lachrie said. But instead of "largest states and empires" how about renaming it simply "List of largest nations" or something of that kind. That way, the United States can be added to the list without being called an Empire. The same would go for other nations that don't take/full under the title Empire. Pepervenge (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The difficulty with that is that "nations" are first and foremost "peoples", making contemporary China the largest "nation" in history, and growing with every birth. On the other hand, an "empire" in the sense used in the article is a sovereign state ruling over subject territories or countries. Hence the list's emphasis on the total surface area of territories. An empire is a kind of state, often a multinational state, composed of many nations. Not all empires are nations, and not all nations are empires. However, every empire or federal state is a sovereign state of some kind. So "state" rather than "nation" would be the most inclusive term.


 * Moving the article to "List of largest states and empires" would preserve the basic meaning while allowing for a comparison to be made with a few large, formally democratic states, like the United States, the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, which, because of their great size, have been described as empires in all but name. These three large states would be the main exceptions. But the problem would still be how to set a limit: if we add the United States, the Soviet Union and Red China, people will start adding statistics for every country, and we will end up with worse than what we have now, which is already a horrible synthesis. But really the only way to avoid a synthesis would be to present a separate list from each source, rather than compiling our own list from different sources. Lachrie (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We go by what sources have. I'm quite sure we could add the USA (after WWII but before Philippine independence probably, depending on Cuba) as many sources note that as empire. It would of course be a weird one, but then most of these are. We don't have a strict definition for empire, as there is no prevalent definition. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion is becoming too redundant to be taken seriously. We're arguing in circles. Again, I suggest we go with what Lachrie said. Change the name of the article or move to one with a different name. I think, that way, most people would be satisfied.


 * Here's what I'm going to do. Chipmunkdavis is right, we're all talking in semantics here so to end this I have a Websters Dictionary in my hand. Its a physical book, not anything from the internet. I'm going to list the definitions of both Empire and Federation and you will see the difference.


 * Empire 1: A large state or group of states under a single sovereign who is usually and Emperor 2: Imperial sovereignty or dominion.


 * Federation 1: A political or social entity formed by uniting smaller entities 2: A federal government 3: A union of organizations 4: The forming of a federal union


 * Now we have a strict definition for both Empire and Federation. By reading them carefully and understanding them, you can clearly see that the United States of America Can Not be an empire as no single person rules these lands. No one has ever ruled the USA and hopefully will never. Each state in the said union governs themselves in a Republican form of government. Other Federations in the world most likely have different rules by witch they fallow. But we're not talking about other Federations. The topic here is the USA, lets keep it at that.


 * We should go with what Lachrie said. The USA cannot be added to the "List of largest empires" because it is not an empire according to the definition stated earlier. It can be added to "List of largest States and Empires". I feel that would be acceptable. Pepervenge (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It easily falls under definition 2 for Empire, due to its imperial sovereignty over the Philippines etc. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have already provided an objective source above that lists the United States as an empire along with other colonial democracies during the late 1800's and early 1900's. And Pepervenge's assertion that there has never been more than 10 american overseas territories at any given time is entirely false since even right now there are 15 and until the 1960's there were well approximately 30 different unincorporated territories. One must also remember that about half of American territory was conquered by force from Spain and Mexico not to mention the native americans.XavierGreen (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess not... Ok, I'll play along. As of right now and in the past, most of the possessions over seas have just been insignificant mounds of dirt. There's hardly anybody there. There's little to no resources so how can you call an Empire Of Dirt an empire? As for right now there are only 5 incorporated territories. Unincorporated possessions do not count as territories. Several of these other islands and atolls currently under US control aren't even inhabited these include; Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Kingman Reef, Navassa Island and Palmyra Atoll. So when I said territories I meant incorporated ones. Also, just because a country conquerors its territory does not make it an empire. A good example is the Roman Republic from 509 BC to 27 BC. It conquered Spain, North Africa, Greece and parts of Asia Minor while under the control of the Senate and Plebeian Council, not a singe person. It was not until after 27 BC when Rome was ruled by one person, Augustus. After that it was called an Empire. So XavierGreen, this nullifies your objective source above. Simply cause a country is not defined as an Empire by what it conquers. No, America is not an Empire. Its a Federation. Its federal government is ruled by its people, its state governments are ruled by its people. Pepervenge (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It rather seems like you dont know what your talking about, there is only one incorporated territory Palmyra Atoll. Incorporated territories are fully integrated first order political divisions of the united states akin to australian internal territories. In the past there have been as many as eleven incorporated territories. Fully integrated areas of a state are not considered to be possesions. If one went by your thinking than the british empire would not have really been an empire since it had no fully integrated divisions called territories. Throughout various points in its history the united states has administered possesions that have had large populations. In the early 1920's the united states directly administered the following inhabited possesions Philipines, Puerto Rico, Canal Zone, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Swan Islands, Corn Islands, Pheonix Islands, the Canton and Enderbury Islands, and the Dominican Republic. These areas together constituted a greater population than held by the possesions of the Spanish Empire did at the time. During the same time period the United States also established protectorates over Haiti and Nicaragua. Earlier the United States had directly adminstered cuba from 1898 to 1902 and 1906 to 1908. During the early 20th century the United states also occupied large portions of Honduras and Mexcio. Many of these areas were taken by force from their native inhabitants who resisted in the various Banana Wars, Filipine-American War, Samoan Civil War, and the Spanish American War. The United States also fought several other conflicts aimed at gaining territory by force including the Mexican American war and War of 1812. Even during the 1940s the United States directly governed and administered huge portions of the earth including the entirety of Japan, the American Occupation zones in Germany, Austria, and Berlin, South Korea, and the Pacific Trust Territory. I would hardly call the tens millions of people that lived under American military rule in the Dominican Republic, Philipines, Puerto Rico, and Cuba An Empire of Dirt.XavierGreen (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pepervenge, we're not saying the Unites States is an Empire (you wouldn't say Britain is an empire either), rather, it had (or perhaps has, although the idea of empire has gone out of vogue) an empire. And yes, incorporated territories, being as much a part of the USA as states are, wouldn't qualify as it controlling external territories. Also, read up on the history of the roman empire. It includes the period when Rome was a republic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If the United States is included, then China, for example also need to be included, for as many reasons as the USA 'needs' to be. As such, you take away the meaning of "Emprie", because China, India and the USA are countries, nations not Empires. What of inclusion of the European Union? The current European Commissioner, José Manuel Barroso, even described it as an Empire: "What we have is the first non-imperial empire". It's also an unhelpful comparison, since the economies do not take inflation into account, everybody knows that the USA has the largest economy and that is reflected on wikipedia's article on list of countries by size of economy. Alexsau1991 (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the Qing controlled the largest poriton of territory of all the various chinese governments so that takes care of the chinese which are already included. As for the Indians, a large portion of their territory was conquered and added to the Indian Republic by force from independence until the 1960's (dirty little secrets that Indian nationalists try to cover up). The independent state of Hyderabad was forcibly conquered by the Indians in 1948 and annexed into india, Portuguese Goa was conquered by the indians in 1961, and increasing portions of Kashmir were siezed from the Pakistanis well into the 1980's. Economies have nothing to do with the list which deals with the largest empires by area. Polities listed on this page are states and by definition an empire must be a state, since the EU in its current form is not a state it could never meet the criteria for the list. One cannot have a non-imperial empire, that would be like having non-monarchical kingdoms.XavierGreen (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also Alexsau1991, we're talking about the United States and its colonies. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidently people don't seem to know what qualifies for inclusion in this article, since they are suggesting that nations (one in particular) should be included; "statehood" hasn't been identified as the qualifier. The British Empire, for example, was never a 'state', it was a group of territories, under various classifications, administered by the United Kingdom; the UK being the state. I had no intention, and I made no serious suggestion that China, the EU etc should be included in the article, I was merely saying, through a couple of examples, that once you make an exception, you have to make another, then another; your rambling about the Indians etc were not required, nor relevant. Alexsau1991 (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, what people have been suggested is including one state which at one point had an empire, similar to how the UK is included. No exception at all. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alexsau if your suggesting that states dont meet the criteria for inclusion, than every single polity on the list would need to be removed. The Qing and Byzantine Empire are examples of states. By your indication they shouldnt be included on the list. And as Chimpmunkdavis stated, the vast majority of American colonies were never incorporated into the United States. The Dominican Republic for example.XavierGreen (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a habit of reading what wasn't written. I never for one moment suggestion that states didn't meet the qualification, that's a preposterous suggestion. I said that to qualify, one needn't be a state, as in case of the example I gave. Alexsau1991 (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, well in that case, I suppose there's no reason not to include the United States and its colonies? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No reason apart from the fact that the United States and its colonies are not an Empire. Since this is an article about the largest Empires, I suppose that is reason enough. Alexsau1991 (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You've given no evidence it wasn't an empire. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've given no evidence that Wikipedia isn't an empire, yet that doesn't make it so. --- People above have made the argument, and provided reasons already (many, many times); and the fact that the USA is Federal Republic is reason enough. Alexsau1991 (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have provided a source that states that the united states is an empire along with other democracies such as the French Republic during the late 1800's. I can provide dozens of sources stating that america was an empire.XavierGreen (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No you can't, you can provide a dozen sources by claiming that america is an Empire; which is why it is not already included in the article. I could provide a dozen sources stating that America is not an Empire e.g.. One user said, one of the numerous times the topic has come up: "In my opinion, United States is there through, perhaps, jealousy of European Empires and the US not having one.", which is spot on; your subjectiveness (or lack of) is clearly evident. The topic of American inclusion has come up numerous times, and each it has resulted the eventual removal. Alexsau1991 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Alexsau, your source says the USA is not currently an empire. Which is fine, I personally agree. Yet it did have one. It's being a federal republic has a much bearing as France's being a unitary republic on whether it controlled foreign territory: Absolutely none. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alexsau if the United States wasn't an empire than how would you describe its direct subjugation and administration over the Dominican Republic 1916 to 1924. Its conquest of the Philipines, and its occupation and partial administration of Haiti. Even after the american occupation of Haiti ended in 1934, America continued to pilfer Haitian tarriff revenue until 1947. Nicaragua was forced by military subjugation to become a protectorate of the united states and cede concessions to the US. If these arent the activities of an empire than we might as well just throw the list out entirely. And to be quite frank during the Age of American Imperialism, the policies of European empires were critized by the united states not lauded and envied as you suggest. Its quite clear that you havent researched the topic at all given your ignorace of american history regarding the subject.XavierGreen (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When I talk of envy, I refer to now not then. My ignorance on American history is in equal measure to your bias. If it was as clear as you pretend to believe, then America would already be on the list; more qualified people than me have made the argument against, and each time they have eventually won; since they are not here I've done my best to argue against. Alexsau1991 (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

2015
It is very strange and quite frankly inexplicable that the United States of America is not included in this list. I'm not sure how the Wikipedia community has come to the conclusion that it doesn't qualify for inclusion, as the arguments against it are rather poor. Some have argued that due to its form of government (Republic, Federation), it does not qualify. As noted, France was a republic for much of its imperial existence. The USSR, also included, was a federation of subnational republics (regardless of how centralized control actually was). Additionally, virtually all current and former US territory acquired after the Louisiana Purchase was done so through force (with the exception of Alaska), and all territory west of the original states started as territories, not states in the union. Manifest destiny. Continental expansion was carried out through conquest, via wars against Mexico and the various Native American tribes. The Spanish-American War along with the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii marked the beginning of overseas American colonies, with the acquisition of Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. In the early 20th century, the U.S. was counted among the great powers, the rest of which are all included in this list. Other American overseas territorial acquisitions included American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, Panama Canal Zone, Guantanamo Bay, and various minor outlying islands (some of these listed were purchased, however). American military occupations over the course of the 20th century additionally include Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Veracruz, Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, and the American occupation zones of Germany and Austria. Peak territory was thus reached in 1945-1946. I don't know whether it's American exceptionalism or some other reason, but there is no legitimate reason for the United States to be excluded. From the arguments above, it seems as though the editors against its inclusion are seeking any possible reason not to include it, which is not a very objective way to go about doing things here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.132.130 (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Commenting here due to an ongoing edit war. This appears to have only been recently added without any sources, and improper table numbering. A bare scan of this fairly substantial section shows a consensus for inclusion was never really reached. There is additionally another talk section below this one opened in 2013, to which the editor who added "11a US" replied with some statistics before adding. My position is that the row should be removed pending further discussion. -- ferret (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

what do you mean USSR is now on the list? When did that happen? i have been watching this Wikipedia page for like the past 7 or 8 years now and i remember in the early days it was not on the list, American was never on the list? An besides this page is not what im looking for anyways, Im looking for List of Longest Civilizations it would rank civilizations not individual governments such as Empire, Republic, federations what ever its government was, it would be purely based on when the civilization had existed, for instance Chinese civilization was more like 2500 to 500 BC for its anceint Aboriginal civilizations and then from about 500 BC to present would be current day chinese civilization. to be fair Japanese civilization only began a little over a century earlier then current han chinese civilization. French civilization goes from 960s decade AD to present day and so on and so forth and it would be a list of Longest civilizations and the Americans would go from 1783 to present day. 99.45.130.77 (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Add a paragraph: "Total empires and total areas by ethnic peoples"
You should add a paragraph which lists all empires created by a category of people and give the total area of these empires.

Example: Total empires from Turkic peoples: Göktürk Khaganate	6 Golden Horde Khanate	6 Ottoman Empire	5,2 Mughal Empire	5 Timurid Empire	4,4 Hunnic Empire	4 Eastern Turks Khanate	4 Western Turkic Khaganate	4 Great Seljuq Empire	3,9 Ilkhanate	3,75 Khwarazmian Empire	3,6 Chagatai Khanate	3,5 Safavid dynasty, Iran	3,5 Shaybanid Uzbek Dynasty	3,5 Ghaznavid Empire, Afghanistan	3,4 Uyghur Khaganate	3,1 Kara-Khanid Khanate	3 Khazar Khanate	3 Khilji dynasty	2,7 Avar Khaganate	1 Khanate of Kazan	0,7 Crimean Khanate	0,4

Total Area = 77,65 million km²

China: Ming dynasty	6,5 Han dynasty	6,5 Tang dynasty	5,5 Xin dynasty	4,7 Xiongnu Empire	4,03 Western Jin dynasty	3,5 Sui Dynasty	3,1 Eastern Jin dynasty	2,8 Liu Song dynasty	2,8 Qin dynasty	2,8 Later Zhao dynasty	2,5 Wei dynasty	2 Earlier Zhao dynasty	2 Former Qin dynasty	2 Wu Dynasty	1,5 Northern Zhou Dynasty	1,5 Liang Dynasty	1,3 Western Wei Dynasty	1,3 Later Liang	1,3 Later Tang	1,3 Shang Dynasty	1,25 Eastern Wei Dynasty	1

Total = 61,18

Arabic people: Abbasid Caliphate	11,1 Achaemenid Empire	8,5 Rashidun Caliphate	8,5 Fatimid Caliphate	4,1 Almoravid dynasty, Morocco	3,3 Bahriyya Mamluks	2,1 Burjiyya Mamluks	2,1 Almohad Caliphate	2 Mamluk Sultanate	1,6 Tulunids Emirate	1,5 Idrisid dynasty, Morocco	1,5

Total = 46,3

Persian: Sasanian Empire	6,6 Afsharid dynasty	5,3 Ghurids Sultanate	3,2 Samanid dynasty	2,85 Saffarid dynasty, Iran	2 Buyid Sultanate	1,6

Total = 21,55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.183.23.239 (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Dubious
The reference for the area of the Norwegian Empire says:"This number is found by adding up the areas of Jämtland, Härjedalen, Bohuslän, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Shetland and Orkney. The entire area of Greenland was not effectively controlled by anyone at the time; however it is today under the Crown of Denmark and therefore would have been under the Crown of Norway." I'd argue that the second sentence (specifically the "not effectively controlled by anyone" part) makes a strong case against including the entirety of Greenland in the area. I'll note that the area of Denmark does not include Greenland (which is listed separately), and the area of Norway does not include Queen Maud Land.

As a side note, displaying one's calculations (in a comment, if nothing else) makes it easier to check for errors, update figures subject to change, and so on. TompaDompa (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Largest empires by economy
After a cleanup of this section, this is what remains of the table. It's incomplete (the percentage column is completely empty, for one thing), and in all likelihood inaccurate (with regards to the year the GDP was the largest for each individual empire, as that's not what the sources set out to investigate).

The WP:Editing policy (as quoted by WP:Inaccuracy) states that "on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". I contend that the table below is inarguably misleading, and have consequently elected to remove the section from the article.

In accordance with WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, I have brought it here to discuss whether it's possible to improve it to a satisfactory quality, and how to do so if it is possible. To my mind, the only proper way of doing it would be to use a source that has systematically assessed most or all of the largest economies at any given time over an extensive period of time (analogous to what Rein Taagepera has done with regards to land area).

The best such source I have found is Angus Maddison (see Angus Maddison statistics of the ten largest economies by GDP (PPP) and their other publications). There are a number of issues, such as the at times poor temporal resolution, though. By far the biggest issue is the fact that Maddison does not deal with polities, but with regions (for instance, Maddison does not evaluate the GDP of the British Empire, but does evaluate the GDP of both the United Kingdom and the British Raj – though the latter is called "India"). While we are allowed to add numbers together by WP:CALC, in order to do so we would have to decide what figures and therefore regions to include ourselves – in essence define the boundaries of the empire in question, in clear violation of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.

Thoughts? TompaDompa (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Stephen Broadberry and Mark Harrison (2005). The Economics of World War I. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-85212-9.
 * Mark Harrison (1998). The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison.

Portuguese Empire vs Brazilian on this list
How can be possible, if Brazil was part of Portuguese Empire in 1820, on this list Brazilian Empire is bigger tha

FerreiraBorges (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Largest empires by population
After a cleanup of this section, this is what remains of the table. It's incomplete (the percentage column has quite a few gaps), contradictory, and of questionable accuracy (the percentages in particular are dubious, as they're calculated by different people who may be using different methods).

The WP:Editing policy (as quoted by WP:Inaccuracy) states that "on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". I contend that the table below is misleading for the reasons outlined above (and may be so for other reasons as well), and have consequently elected to remove the section from the article.

In accordance with WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, I have brought it here to discuss whether it's possible to improve it to a satisfactory quality, and how to do so if it is possible. To my mind, the only proper way of doing it would be to use a source that has systematically assessed the populations of both the largest empires and the world as a whole over an extensive period of time (analogous to what Rein Taagepera has done with regards to land area).

For lack of such a source, this section has been removed in its entirety. Feel free to add it back upon locating a source like that, but until then it doesn't really live up to the standards of a Wikipedia article.

Thoughts? TompaDompa (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * J. Beloch (1886), Die Bevölkerung der griechisch–römischen Welt, Duncker and Humblot, Leipzig.
 * Jean-Noël Biraben (2003). "The rising numbers of humankind", Populations & Societies 394.
 * Roger Boesche (2003). "Kautilya's Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India", The Journal of Military History 67 (p. 9–38).
 * Raymond W. Goldsmith (1984), "An estimate of the size and structure of the national product of the Early Roman Empire", Journal of the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth 30
 * Mark Harrison (1998). The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison.
 * Angus Maddison (2006). The Contours of the World Economy 1–2030 AD. Oxford University Press.
 * Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones (1978), "Atlas of World Population History", Facts on File (p. 342–351). New York.
 * Walter Scheidel (2006). Imperial state formation in Rome and China. Stanford University.

Territorial Extent at the Tang Dynasty's Height
The Tang Dynasty's height was from 663-670. This period saw the Tang Dynasty hold vast lands in Central Asia and Mongolia after the successful conquest of the Eastern and Western Göktürks. The campaigns ended in decisive Tang victories, which saw the Tang annex the lands. But by 715, the Tang Dynasty lost most of the land (except for the Tarim Basin, which it regained) due to separatist rebellions.

Maybe there isn't a wholly "reliable" (I don't see why Baidu ins't one) source on the exact measurement on the size of the Tang Dynasty at 663, but there is no way that the Tang Dynasty was larger at 715 than 663.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_campaigns_against_the_Western_Turks — Preceding unsigned comment added by BloonCorps (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Baidu Baike is a collaborative web-based encyclopedia, just like Wikipedia – and WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Baidu Baike is also censored in accordance with the Chinese governement's requirements, which would on its own be enough to put the reliability of Baidu Baike seriously in question.


 * In case you can't access Taagepera's article, here's what it says on the relevant page:

T'ang-Chin-Sung
 * The table then continues on the following page. As far as I can tell, the campaigns you're referring to have been accounted for.


 * I'll add that Taagepera's previous article puts the end of the Eastern Göktürks in 640 (with the explanatory note "Destruction by Uighur revolt"), and the Western Göktürks in 650 (with the explanatory note "Defeat by Uighurs, Chinese"). Might the Uyghur Khaganate be the explanation for the discrepancy between what you're describing and Taagepera's figures? TompaDompa (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The discrepancy deals with Tang campaigns that were not accounted for. The table above does account for the Tang campaign against the Western Turks, but not the Tang campaign against the Eastern Turks (629-630). The campaign was successful and resulted in land divided between the Tang and Xueyantuo, which was a vassal to the Eastern Turks but revolted and sided with the Tang during the campaign.

Later, the Tang also campaigned against the Xueyantuo, destroying it, annexing the land, and establishing protectorates in the territory in 645. The table above did not account for this either.

The Tang also held a bit of land in Korea after the Goguryeo–Tang War. The table did not account for this at all.

So basically, the discrepancy comes from the fact that Taagepera did not account for the Eastern Turks (Göktürks)(630), Xueyantuo (645), and Goguryeo (668) campaigns at all, where the Tang gained massive tracts of land. You can see the extent of the Tang by looking at the map of the Tang on the Chinese Wikipedia page.

Here are some links on Wikipedia, if you wish to read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Taizong%27s_campaign_against_Xueyantuo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goguryeo%E2%80%93Tang_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_campaign_against_the_Eastern_Turks

I'm not sure what Taagepera was referring to when he said that the Eastern Göktürks ended in "Destruction by Uighur revolt" in 640. The Eastern Göktürks ended from a Tang campaign in 630. I could be misinterpreting or misreading what you wrote though.

The table did account for the campaign against the successful Western Turks (Göktürks) however. But I would think that the Tang gained much more than 1.3m square kilometers of land, considering that the Western Turks (Göktürks) had an area of 3.5m square killometers.

At any rate, 12.37 might be a wrong figure but the Tang held more territory in 663-668 than 715.

I think that the most important thing is that I apologize if I came off as a bit rude and aggressive earlier. BloonCorps (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Portuguese Empire
The data for the Portuguese Empire was nonsensical because : (1) The Brazilian Empire seceded ffom the Portuguese Empire in its maximum territorial extent, so what sense does it make that one is 8.4 and the other 5.5? (2) I can't find the source which was there originally but other sources point to this as the one which is now there in Portuguese.

I remember this list was more accurate previously with logical numbers for the Portuguese Empire, and it clearly was edited by someone who is a lusophobe.2001:8A0:FF84:8E01:4943:1C5D:CB3E:99E4 (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is what the source used in the article has to say about Brazil:

Brazil
 * On Portugal, the same source says that the area was 5.5 Mm2 in 1820, with the explanatory note "Effective control over coastal half of Brazil and coastal quarter of Angola and Mozambique". TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * well that source is WRONG. As per treaty of Madrid (1750)the actual borders of the Portuguese then Brazilian Empire were sketched! The author clearly made a mistake. Just check Wikipedia articles. Or are you denying hat international treaties, effective occupation and etc don't count or only count for Brazilians? What did they do after independence magically the territory was theirs? This is a serious mistake that can't be accepted on wikipedia 87.196.80.152 (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * in fact I read the source you mentioned and it is clearly wrong it seems to only assume the third part of the Portuguese Empire as real. This is clearly a mistake. Either for a Portuguese or a Brazilian this is so obvious that it's even hard to explain. It's basic history. The empire of Brazil was created by the king Pedro IV of Portugal who became Pedro I emperor of Brazil. All territory partaining to Portugal in the Americas was claimed by the empire of Brazil. It's just this simple! Hence the impossibility of one being half the other! What sources have you to claim that in 1750 onwards as defined per treaty of Madrid the Portuguese didn't control half of Brazil this is just a wild claim with no historical backing! 87.196.80.152 (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

In reply yo the claim that I'm WP:SYNTH
I am not using source after source with wild material just to back up this claim. This source: https://cdv.dei.uc.pt/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/cm10a.pdf contains the explanation I have been trying to tell you. This youtube video is a result of that paper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwOA8AfeHM4 each ball represent the empires at their extents in history. You can see what I mean there as well. This one http://digilander.libero.it/facnascimento/Geografy.html provides a map where the territory extent of Brazil (before and after independence is shown). The value 10.4 is taken from this source: http://www.justtheflight.co.uk/blog/35-mapping-the-empires-of-history.html Ppteles (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And again, despite the fact that my edit wasn't WP:SYNTH just as I explained. The most cited paper on this wikipedia article contains a FACTUAL MISTAKE, and therefore should not be accepted as source material for wikipedia. Or what happens if I find an article saying Texas is bigger than the USA? Am I allowed to use that as reliable info?Ppteles (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The value 10.4 is not from a WP:RELIABLE source, but from a blog. If a reliable source cannot be located for the figure, all references to justify it are indeed WP:SYNTH. The analogy with Texas fails to take into account that at the time of Brazil's independence, the settlers did not have effective control over the entirety of the territory that makes up today's Brazil. TompaDompa (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The value of 5.5 isn't either. It's a factual mistake. Where is your evidence that 'the settlers did not have effective control over the entirety of the territory that makes up today's Brazil.' when this was amply proven by the sources I put there. I suppose you believe this page belongs to you, well it doesn't. Nor is your source reliable as it is WRONG. The analogy with Texas stands. Because (1) explained before there was no significant territorial expansion of the EMpire of Brazil (2) the territory which comprised Brazil was already at the extent that it was in independence (3) The idea that there was no settling on several parts of Brazil is wrong as can be seen on the several links I provided some from BASIC educational material used to teach children in Brazil about their own country.(check the slides for Instance). So unless you provide evidence (which you won't because it's historically incorrect) that one half of the colony of Brazil wasn't settled (contradicting History, international treaties, etc etc. etc.) or your beloved source CANNOT be accepted Ppteles (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And by the way: 'Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources (see WP:Verifiability § Newspaper and magazine blogs)' That is a blog fully dedicated to empires. SO please prove your claim that 'half of Brazil wasn't settled' Ppteles (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And by the way the Empire of Brazil ended in 1889, so what is this 1900 date? The whole paper is full of factual mistakes. I don't know if you are this man or if he is the source of all your information, but this paper needs to be DISREGARDED on the counts of contaning to many factual errors! The made should in fact write an article either apologising or with an errata! Ppteles (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The source for my claim is the same article, which says that in 1820, the Portuguese Empire had "Effective control over coastal half of Brazil [...]" (emphasis mine). I never said that half of Brazil wasn't settled. An area can be settled without being under the settlers' effective control.


 * I have read WP:Verifiability, but that blog is not "fully dedicated to empires". It's a blog on a travel website. It's even called "Just the Flight's Travel Blog". It falls under WP:BLOGS, not WP:NEWSBLOG. Furthermore, it doesn't say that the maximum extent was in 1820, just that the "Political height" was in 1570.


 * Back to the issue at hand: Changing the area to 10.4 without a WP:RELIABLE source is WP:OR. Using other sources to back it up indirectly as you have done is WP:SYNTH. You should probably also see WP:OVERCITE (in short: keep the number of sources to a minimum, and only use the best ones). If you do happen to locate a reliable source that shows that the area was 10.4, by all means change the figure and cite that source. If you locate a reliable source that shows that the figure of 5.5 is incorrect but not what the correct figure is, the most you can do is remove the entry altogether, per WP:TRUTH.


 * And no, I don't believe I WP:OWN this article. Nobody does.


 * On the Empire of Brazil: You're partially right. I take it you haven't actually read the paper, but Taagepera doesn't actually talk about the "Empire of Brazil", but "Brazil" (both before and after 1889). That was my mistake, not the source's. There's no reliable source left for the maximum extent of the Empire of Brazil, and I have therefore removed that entry from the list.


 * On a sidenote, please don't undo unrelated changes to the page (such as formatting fixes). TompaDompa (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but where is the source that it wasn't 'effectively controlled'? You cannot say something like that without data to back up your claim. I gave you several examples of pages which confirm that there was effective occupation of those territories by the time the Empire was created. Or why do you think those territories partained to the Portuguese Crown in the first place? The Treaty of Madrid was based on that fact exactly, if you control it then you own it. This is basic History. Removing the data from Brazil from this list won't save you. The article you use is just wrong and therefore cannot be used. You need to find other sources. I've provided ample sources. Including sources mentioning the 10.4, that the territory of Brazil was fully part of the Portuguese Empire. etc. The figure 10-4 is basic arithmetics just add the territories up, anyone can do it. Apparently you and your beloved source are the only ones who can't-Ppteles (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

As I stated, the source is Taagepera. Taagepera's source, in turn, is Engel (1953-1962). This isn't about the area the Portuguese Empire owned de jure, but the one it controlled de facto (see the List of largest empires – it's in the sense of "having some undisputed military and taxation prerogatives").

Again, you have reverted unrelated changes. Please don't. The formatting is again messed up, and the Empire of Brazil was re-added.

If the figure of 10.4 is basic arithmetic then by all means add the calculation to the page per WP:CALC. "Show your work", as it were. If you're unsure how, see how it's done for the German colonial empire on this article.

Also, please read the policies.

Oh, and I figured you'd be interested. TompaDompa (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. At this point, I'm out of my depth and other than consensus-building, I probably can't contribute anything you already haven't. I'm boxing up the thread at my page because it got contentious right out of the gate and I don't know how to productively interact with someone who's spoiling for a fight this badly. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 16:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * To wrap things up (1) The number 10.4 is actually mentioned in many of the sources I have gathered. (2) Even if it wasn't this edit should be starightforward as it IS basic arithmetics. So if you need to add 2+2 do you go to WP:CALC? It is THAT simple, and in fact it was probably the half-baked way in which the author of your favourite article made his (erroneous) calculation (3) Your claim that the Portuguese did not 'de facto' controlled all of Brazil is completely unsourced and I challenge you to find any source that would in fact mention that. My sources (at least three of them) come from Brazilian educational material explaining how Brazil evolved territorially. Also the Treaty of Madrid was based on de facto occupation and not de jure (which was stilll, the Treaty of Tordesillas, which it replaced). This is basic Portuguese-Brazilian History which was completely disregarded,  the author of that paper actually offended a whole culture! Maybe inadertedly but still! And this was perhaps repeated by you because you were not in full knowledge of the facts or you didn't care to verify them. (4) Your act of Deleting the Brazilian Empire BECAUSE the source is wrong as you seemed to admit, but THEN you use the same source for the dimensions of other empires is in fact also an act of POV, as you are cherry-picking your data (you just don't like that the data doesn't 'fit' into your bias and so you delete it. (6) I have provided many sources which explain the de jure and the de facto occupation of the entirety of the territory of the Empire of Brazil PRIOR to its independence, as well as sources explaining that the Empire of Brazili DID NOT have any substantial territorial changes throughout its existence, therefore proving the source you use WRONG and finally (7) So it is ok to use a wrong source on Wikipedia? IS that what you are defending? SO if I find a source claiming that Texas is twice the size of the USA? Can I use it? It is clearly a case of POV. RegardsPpteles (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * (1) It is mentioned by three of the sources, yes, but none of them are WP:RELIABLE. (2) To quote WP:CALC: "'Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.'" I put it to you that there is not consensus that the result of the calculation is either obvious, correct, or a meaningful reflection of the sources when the terms added are not displayed. (3) It is not, in fact, unsourced. This is what Taagepera has to say about Brazil:

Brazil
 * And this is an excerpt from what Taagepera has to say about Portugal:


 * Note that both mention that approximately half of present-day Brazil was under Portuguese control at the time of Brazilian independence. (4) You misunderstood me. If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I actually said the opposite. I applied the source incorrectly. As you can see above, Taagepera counts the Empire of Brazil and the current republic as a continuous polity for the purposes of his article. I mistakenly added the 1900 figure to a preexisting entry for the Empire of Brazil. The error was mine, not the source's. (6) If you are confident those sources demonstrate that the figure of 5.5 is incorrect, you can remove the figure of 5.5 (preferably with a direct quote from one of those sources that supports your assertion). You cannot, however, add the figure of 10.4, because that is WP:SYNTH. (7) That is not what I said, and you know it. Please WP:Assume good faith. TompaDompa (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The question you need to ask yourself is whether this article is about a list of the largest empires, or about a list of the largest empires ACCORDING TO TAAGEPERA. As I show in the references I give, Taagepera is wrong, as the Empire of Brazil (which you remove because it doesn't fit your bias, regardless of date, it is still mentioned) inherited almost the entirety of its landmass from the Empire of Portugal, thus making your article unfit for Wikipedia. Either you need to find a more accurate source, or otherwise create a new page, or section, dedicated to him. You might also consider creating a fan page . Finally the 10.4 value IS mentioned. Ppteles (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course other sources than Taagepera can be used (Turchin et al., Harrison , Encyclopædia Britannica , and Deutsches Historisches Museum are), but they need to be WP:RELIABLE and directly support the material per WP:VERIFIABILITY. Of the ten         you cited, none meet both criteria. Specifically:
 * Not WP:RELIABLE: WP:SELFPUBLISHed slideshows, WP:BLOGS  , WP:DEADREF , WP:CIRCULAR use of Wikipedia as a source , WP:SELFPUBLISHed YouTube video , unsourced apparently WP:SELFPUBLISHed WP:TERTIARY . The ones that may be WP:RELIABLE are these.
 * Fails WP:VERIFIABILITY: Does not mention the figure 10.4 at all     , provides the figure but not the year 1820 . The only one that provides both is this one.
 * Accordingly, the figure and references could be tagged something like this: "10.4"which I'm sure you'll agree is hardly satisfactory. There is no getting around that using the figure of 10.4 with those sources is a violation of WP:SYNTH.
 * The reason I removed the Empire of Brazil was because it was not properly sourced. Remember that WP:Verifiability, not truth is the threshold for inclusion. I also strongly disagree with the sentiment that we can disregard the date. Re-adding an entry you yourself pointed out was inaccurate strikes me as intentionally disruptive editing to make a WP:POINT.
 * As I mentioned above, the figure of 10.4 is mentioned solely in the non-WP:RELIABLE sources. See WP:BLOGS, WP:RSTERTIARY, and WP:CIRCULAR for the principal issue with this, this , and this source respectively.
 * Finally: I don't have a horse in this race. My issue is not with the figure, but with the sourcing. I'm okay with removing the entry altogether, or using the figure of 10.4 provided that it's reliably sourced. What I'm not okay is using non-WP:RELIABLE sources and/or editorial WP:SYNTHESIS to justify the figure. TompaDompa (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ok, i now added this reference. It's a book, published, etc. etc. with a reference, and which explicitely mentions the 10.4 figure. Is that good enough ? ThanksPpteles (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that works. It's not perfect (ideally the book should be specifically about the subject matter and show how it arrived at the figure), but it's sufficient. I removed the other two sources as they aren't needed and changed the formatting somewhat.

The issue with the Empire of Brazil remains, however. TompaDompa (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, I added a reference from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) in Portuguese, referring to the first territorial estimate of the Empire of Brazil performed in 1883. First Paragraph. The value is slightly different 8.337 million km^2.I hope this is ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppteles (talk • contribs) 16:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's great. I tweaked the formatting a bit. If you could translate the quote "A primeira estimativa oficial para a extensão superficial do território brasileiro data de 1889. O valor de 8.337.218km2 foi obtido a partir de medições e cálculos efetuados sobre as folhas básicas da Carta do Império do Brasil, publicada em 1883." into English, that'd be perfect. TompaDompa (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)