Talk:List of major empires

Global
I thought it was important to add the legacy bit as these empires, having grown from a commercial impulse from the very beginning, laid the foundations of today's globalisation. Rob 7-1-06

Now when I look at a globe, I do not see the distance in longitude from Egypt and Greece in the West to India in the East spanning anywhere near half the circumference of the globe. So for that reason I must question why Persia, Macedonia, and Rome are listed as "Global" empires on this article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah. Just as I suspected, the bit about Persia being the first "global Empire" was added in by user Zmmz, solely to prop up his edits at the article about Babylon (the city) where he is repeatedly insisting to the point of 10xRR that Persia was the world's first global empire.  I see that once this is undone, the article does a good job of explaining why these were NOT global.  Sorry for any confusion. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Largest empire
What about the largest empire in strength vs the remaining states? Or even the percentage of world's population or the actual population?

I'm a bit biased towards the mongol empire, but I do think it was the only empire to hold more than half the world's population since they aimed for population and power centers while britain aimed for empty distant lands (exception being India). Can anyone guess what percent of the world population and actual population actually lived in the british and mongol empires? I know the mongol empire cannot win in actual population.

Another interesting thing would be actual and direct control, no vassalages etc. That would shrink up the mongol empire a bit and the soviets too but britain pretty much had englishmen at the helm everywhere.

The Mongol map shown shows unclaimed areas to the north and around the Kamchatka peninsula. These people paid tribute to Genghis Khan early on, and all lands should be attributed to the mongol empire just as lands close to the north pole in the British Empire map are shown to belong to the british empire. Noone directly ruled or controlled all the Cree Inuit etc people in North America while it was a british empire because most of it was empty, similar to the space shown at the top of asia in the mongol empire map. This begs the definition of what level of 'control' constitutes inclusion. Was the choice of the level of control chosen just to include all of north canada but exclude northern asia from the mongol empire?

India is missing from the mongol empire. The word 'mughul' means mongol in persian, and its progenitor insisted he was mongol (through his mother). Maybe that qualifies india for inclusion there.

Speaking of India, the Asoka empire extended widely and had a large population in it when the world population was tiny. So did the vikings and greeks. There were other much less known Hun-related empires before them with unknown boundaries, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.228.3 (talk • contribs)

joint stock company

 * Dutch East India Company - founded 1602
 * British East India Company - founded 1600
 * Our article says - "the [British East India] Company was founded as The Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies by a coterie of enterprising and influential businessmen, who obtained the Crown's charter for exclusive permission to trade in the East Indies for a period of fifteen years. The Company had 125 shareholders, and a capital of £72,000."
 * How does that make the Dutch East India Company the first joint stock company? Jooler 13:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The article actually says: "For example they created the first global joint stock corporations (British East India Company, Dutch East India Company)..." - not the "first" nor does it indicate the Dutch to be the first. The term "global" here is meant to emphasis their "global ambition and reach" in the sense we understand today. Its really meant to make the reader aware that these, and other such companies, were the seeds of today's global corporations. Provocateur 05:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Russian Empire? Loose article?
Does the Russian Empire really belong? Doesn't "global" mean "worldwide"? Controlling a large contiguous area may not be enough. It did rule huge parts of Europe and Asia, and Alaska in North America. But what about the Pacific Ocean islands, South America, and Africa? I think this article is too loose with the definition of "global". Very few empires qualify as global empires, I believe. SamEV 06:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I essentially agree. However I think it is clear within the article that the definition of "global empire" is a somewhat loose one - a bit like the idea of "mountain" or the colour "orange". Was the Russian empire "global" in quite the sense of the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, British and French? I think not, but I feel it could be like splitting hairs to argue over, so let's leave it in. I like the little bit on the Duchy of Courland, however, strictly speaking, its its possessions were not spread across a wide enough area to qualify as a global empire. On the other hand it was part of the trade motivated western maritime based imperialism of the period - so it should be left in. The main thing is that the reader is made aware of these things, but also the usefulness of the concept in describing a historically distinct pattern of imperialism. Hopefully it will encourage them to explore the linked articles that get into the nuts and bolts of the phenomenon of western imperialism in the 15th to 20th centuries and imperialism generally. Cheers Provocateur 05:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, persuasive points, Provocateur. SamEV 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * {| style="background:#ddffdd; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * It seems as though the basis of inclusion in the list of "Early Empires" was based upon spanning multiple continents; note that the Inca Empire is not listed. Nor is the Empire of Japan listed.  I would imagine that this is the reason the Russian Empire / Soviet Union is in the list because it spanned Europe, Asia, and North America.
 * It seems as though the basis of inclusion in the list of "Early Empires" was based upon spanning multiple continents; note that the Inca Empire is not listed. Nor is the Empire of Japan listed.  I would imagine that this is the reason the Russian Empire / Soviet Union is in the list because it spanned Europe, Asia, and North America.

I must say that including Germany sets the bar pretty low anyway. It ought to go before any of the other ones mentioned.--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * }

United States: the "American Empire"?
In 1898, the U.S. annexed the former Spanish colonies of the Philippines which had became independent in 1946, and the U.S. a year before (1945) annexed the Ryukyu Islands, including Okinawa which was returned to Japan in 1972. Political analysis, along with newspaper reporters at these times, coined the term "American Empire" to depict the U.S. after acquiring territory on the other side of the world in the Eastern Pacific. + Mike D 26 (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Prod
We already have a List of empires and a List of largest empires. So what is this article supposed to be? List of empires I think are really kick ass empires because I personally heard of them? Thank god it is up for prod, let it die a quiet death.--Work permit (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good observation. But do you remember what it was before? An article dubbed, "Global empires," even though it was merely a "list." Do you think maybe it should be Merged in case it has something the others omit? --Ludvikus (talk)
 * This one can deleted, both articles have POV-problems, but List of largest empires is much more sophisticated still and at least somewhat properly sourced. I don't. how a see a merger makes any sense, since there isn't really anything to merge, as this one has hardly anything to offer to the other one, hence just dump this one here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't now. I'm not interested in a close and careful comparison. But I put up the Merge notice in case the bad article has something good which the good omits. But I'm neutral on what to do with the list - I just don't want to be responsible in dropping some good stuuf with the bad. So maybe others might check these 2 out. You know, once you Delete you gotta get an Adm. to figure out if there was something good dumped. it seems quite a few editors put some effort to make the article/list. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)