| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - World's Strongest Empires: A Timeline
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


World's Strongest Empires: A Timeline

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1053
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: World's Strongest Empires: A Timeline
    Posted: 09 Dec 2012 at 04:30
After completely subjugated another empire(bulgaria), no european would have been stupid enough to challenge him. 
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Picard View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 04 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Picard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2012 at 21:29
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Rome fell in 476 and Byzantium in 1453.
 
However the end of Roman power and dominance was really around 640/650 when they lost the majority of their territory to the Arab invasions.
 
What your missing here is geographic distinctions. In 1600, no-one in Eastern Europe/Middle East could rival the Ottomans, no-one in America could rival Spain, no-one in India could rival the Mughals, no-one could rival Bornu in the Sahel, and well, the Qing were rivalling the Ming in China.

Actually, Roman Empire survived quite some time after these losses, and during Basil II's reign was probably the dominant power in the Europe, or at least one of dominant powers.
Back to Top
ancient historia View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2012
Location: South Korea
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ancient historia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Oct 2012 at 10:28
I strongly argue that it should be divided into several regions; Africa, East Asia, Central & North Asia, Europe, Southwest Asia, India, Southeast Asia, America.

Like the one below.

5th century
-Europe: Hunnic empire
-Central Asia: Hunnic empire
-Southwest Asia: Sassanid empire
-East Asia: Goguryeo empire
-India: Gupta empire
Back to Top
ancient historia View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2012
Location: South Korea
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ancient historia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Oct 2012 at 10:01
An Empire is a political construct in which one state dominates over another state, or a series of states. At its heart, an empire is ruled by an emperor, even though many states in History without an Emperor at their head are called "empires".

At its core, an empire is the domination of one state by another. This idea lies at the heart of the common use of the term ‘empire’ and is as old as state-building itself. The earliest city-states tried to grow by taking over their neighbours. Where they succeeded, a single larger state might form, but more often the aggressor became a core state holding sway over a number of semi-independent peripheral states – a halfway stage to a larger state. This core state became more than merely the strongest in the region.

Sparta was the leader of a league of states but had little interest in interfering with their domestic politics. Athens, by contrast, also led a league but forced a supervised Athenian-style Democracy on its supposedly independent members. Sparta was a hegemonic state, the strongest of a group, while Athens was interventionist and thereby imperial. The fact that Athens replaced tyrants with democratic government did not affect the imperial nature of this relationship.

An empire is an unequal relationship between a core state and a periphery of one or more states controlled from the core. On the simplest level, control means military occupation or other formal political intervention, but it can also cover informal economic or cultural influence. Economic pressure by itself has frequently been enough to manipulate governments. Religion, ideology or other cultural forces have habitually accompanied political or economic persuasion.

The culture of the periphery, however, can exert its own pull and threaten to absorb a conquering power, most famously in the case of the Mongol Conquest of China. As such, cultural imperialism is not a necessary component of empire.

In fact, neither is cultural difference per se, given the difficulty of deciding where one culture ends and another begins. In the modern era, the borders of the nation state have tried to settle this matter, but the nation state itself formed around a core state that standardized language and other aspects of culture in a way that typically alienated outlying regions. In the end, the acid test for cultural identity has remained solidarity in the face of a common enemy and this is a test most empires have at some stage passed.

To explain how empires, thus defined, have risen, persisted and fallen over the millennia, the core, the periphery and the international situation each need to be examined.

The core state is the place to look to find various motives for expansion, from the dream of imposing an imperial peace on squabbling states to the desire for economic exploitation, lust for the glory of conquest or zeal for evangelism, religious or ideological.

The periphery is the place to look for crucial resistance or collaboration. Specifically, the fates of many empires have hinged on peripheral leaders deciding where their best interests lay. Often, the core can provide an account of an empire’s rise, while the periphery better explains its persistence.

Examples of Empires in the Ancient world include those of Sumeria, Babylonia, Goguryeo, Inca, Assyria, that of the Hittites, the Egyptian, the Persian, the Macedonian and, most famously, the Roman.
Back to Top
spiceman View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Location: yuma az
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote spiceman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Oct 2012 at 05:28
In reading the post I question or pose two opening thoughts. 
In history one talks of empires and dynasties almost as one in the same.  In many ways one is the other but not always true.  While great empires have great dynasties ruling them and great dynasties some times form great empires. 

A great empire is the product of its roots in history.


OK with those thoughts in mind I wonder what is consider great or strong.  Land mass controlled, army strength, people conquered, historical future effected, remembrance, independence/sovereignty. good vs. bad?

Alexander, Attila the Hun, Hitler established "empires" depending on view points they were good or bad but none the less great for the period existence and very strong for what was achieved.

I view even nations of history some we know little or discount were great or strong in there own right.  For instance Hohokam and Anasazi or as a whole the Ancient Pueblo people.  We seem to focus on more on Europe, Asia, and part of Africa. 



WIKI-- "The term empire derives from the Latin imperium (power, authority). Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy"






Back to Top
shenglu View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote shenglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 01:24
They do not have the other half of the world the power of interaction. My point is, including their need for a more complex charts. As you said there are two discrete regions
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2011 at 04:02
Of course you are wrong. Seneca was the advisor of Nero.
I know because Seneca was born in Spain, and he is considered part of our culture, somehow.


Edited by pinguin - 14 May 2011 at 04:03
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 18:20
In my opinion, if indeed Seneca ever existed, he existed in the 13th to the 17th century CE.

But, of course, I could well be incorrect?

Regards,
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 03:26
Seneca wrote in Rome, and his Latin is classical.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 03:14
Actually I tend to feel that the so called "classical Latin" is the invention, much like Esperanto, abeit confined to the 14th-16th centuries.

Y tu?
Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 13 May 2011 at 03:15
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 02:40
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

"et tu Graham?"


Interesting. Every time I see Latin quotes I get more convinced Spanish is just a popular simplification (or vulgar form) of classical Latin.

In Spanish "et tu" is "y tu"... Confused
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2011 at 02:20
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

"et tu Graham?"

What's that supposed to refer to?


I don't know Graham, just how is your Latin?

Just what does it mean to you?

I say potatoe and drgonzaga says potato, et tu?

I do not threaten you, do I? Et tu?

I just love using question marks.

It seems you do also. re. your statement, "What's that supposed to refer to?"

Touche'", my friend.

P.S., It means that do you wish for my early demise as does the good Doctor? Do you need an English translation.

Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 13 May 2011 at 02:31
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 May 2011 at 19:02
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

"et tu Graham?"
What's that supposed to refer to?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 May 2011 at 18:06
"et tu Graham?"

Thanks for putting up with me Doctor.

Regards
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 May 2011 at 18:19
Not short enough, unfortunately.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2011 at 14:30
Good to be back Doctor. Yes I was confined within a cocoon for a short period but the metamorphisis is now complete to its first part. I am now a Bombyz mori, and looking for a mate or three. LOL

Maybe my spinning days are over? But I have it seems about a mile of good spin left.

Time is of course short.

Regards,
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2011 at 13:12
I see the Caterpillar has escaped Wonderland.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2011 at 00:44
"Still no definition! Why is everyone skirting internal constructs and political nomenclature set within the appropriate times?"

Because they can Doctor! Limits present limits upon the respondant.

No, limits, equals no limits upon what one might respond. But, even with limits, at one time the combined Spanish/Austrian alliance?, might have emcompassed the most power?

Regards,
Ron

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Apr 2011 at 11:42
Still no definition! Why is everyone skirting internal constructs and political nomenclature set within the appropriate times? Just as done above, I could classify as follows:
 
16th Century Spanish Empires
17th Century Spanish Empires
18th Century Spanish Empires
19th Century Spanish Empires
 
And all would still remain meaningless because the conditionals for discussion are steadfastly ignored, specially within the context of juridical and administrative cognizance.


Edited by drgonzaga - 03 May 2011 at 03:59
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Qymaen View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Qymaen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Apr 2011 at 01:45
 British Empires is one of them. Here is the list of timeline from 18th - 20th century

British Empire Timeline links:





I will list more of the strongest Empires timelines in here. Tongue


Edited by Qymaen - 16 Apr 2011 at 01:48
History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and why we are the way we are. - David C. McCullough
Back to Top
Simonforest View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Simonforest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 23:17
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Agustin Iturbide created an "empire" even named it and made himself its emperor, but I doubt there are people around speaking of the Mexican Empire and discussing it seriously. Dom Joao VI "made" Brazil a kingdom and his son Pedro I declared it an "empire" but all was little more than exercises in nomenclature over an amorphous territory. Are we now to classify Brazil as an "empire"? I do not think so and for the very reason the United States of America is not an empire. Institutional permanence and not evanescent nomenclature sets actual definition. hence from 1565 to 1917 one may properly speak of the Russian Empire, and in a sense continue it into the middle 1950s despite the blather about federated republics, yet consequently the notion of an "imperial ethos" becomes more than problematic.
 
 
 
I'm afraid I don't quite follow the thread of your argument over the classification of America as and empire. I am aware that the definition of empire is problematic; that is why we are considering it.
Exegi monumentum aere perennius
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 20:42

Jean Bekel Bokassa was not only Emperor of Central Africa, but an apostle to boot. What kind of empire did he rule over?

Surely the idea of 'empire' must include a number of different nationalities/peoples subect to the rule of one of them? When the members of the former British Empire became autonomous or independent the whole institution was therefore renamed the British Commonwealth. At more or less the same time the French Empire became the Union Française. Similarly the Russian Empire became the Soviet Union (and very shortly had a non-Russian ruler).


Edited by gcle2003 - 14 Apr 2011 at 20:49
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 20:24
Agustin Iturbide created an "empire" even named it and made himself its emperor, but I doubt there are people around speaking of the Mexican Empire and discussing it seriously. Dom Joao VI "made" Brazil a kingdom and his son Pedro I declared it an "empire" but all was little more than exercises in nomenclature over an amorphous territory. Are we now to classify Brazil as an "empire"? I do not think so and for the very reason the United States of America is not an empire. Institutional permanence and not evanescent nomenclature sets actual definition. hence from 1565 to 1917 one may properly speak of the Russian Empire, and in a sense continue it into the middle 1950s despite the blather about federated republics, yet consequently the notion of an "imperial ethos" becomes more than problematic.
 
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 14 Apr 2011 at 20:38
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Simonforest View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Simonforest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 18:50
Cultural whole: no comment. I think you may find that most of your refutations revolve around your definition of empire; which I'm not sure I agree with.
Exegi monumentum aere perennius
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 14:15
You ain't got nothing if you ain't got an emperor, if I am permitted a little play with Fats Waller lyrics. Moreover, the willy-nilly application of the term "empire" has essentially made its usage either silly or devious. You can assert that there was such an entity as the "Persian Empire" but you would be hard put to fashion a "Macedonian Empire" outside the context of the disintegration of the former.  And then any discussion of the riverine cultures in the Near East as "empires" would necessitate that such terminology is equally valid for the Mexica and Tehuantinsuyo. The United States is not an empire because it is a cogent cultural whole. It is not composed of diverse societies tributary to a center and kept in subjection by the deployment of military force with ultimate political decisions a function of a singular personality. In many ways, "empire" is an eurocentrism with scant foundation on historical criteria and little more than a label of convenience or worse, a tool for political skullduggery. Given that even a dictionary will underscore that the term is one permitting a great degree of antics with semantics (e.g. the corporate empire of Nestle), its usage usually obscures more than it reveals and is also highly convenient for those who would rather generalize than actually inquire into the subject of study.
 
 
Now you might find such a perspective strange in a forum utilizing the title All Empires but keep in mind that the hook is not the fish.

Edited by drgonzaga - 14 Apr 2011 at 14:16
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Simonforest View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Simonforest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 13:08
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Empires need a singular authority beyond which there is no redress and where this singular authority exercises absolute or supreme personal power. Imperium (or the power to command) may be a principle rooted to Roman jursiprudence and military command but to employ "empire" as a convenient label divorced entirely from all internal roots of understanding is an artifice that usually is little more than a label permitting rhetorical excess.
 
I don't think you'll find that many of the entities commonly, and historically, referred to as empires fit that definition.
 
As to the USA, it would be a fair argument to say that just its mainland constitutes a land empire.
Exegi monumentum aere perennius
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 05:17
Empires need a singular authority beyond which there is no redress and where this singular authority exercises absolute or supreme personal power. Imperium (or the power to command) may be a principle rooted to Roman jursiprudence and military command but to employ "empire" as a convenient label divorced entirely from all internal roots of understanding is an artifice that usually is little more than a label permitting rhetorical excess.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 03:55
 
Of course the United States is an Empire. Although it may be unintentional, the United States will need to come to grips with the amount of power it truly has. The institutions of the orginal America have been overriden, and the country which based itself in opposition to Imperialism, has itself became one.
 
The United States does not ask what other countries want, they act according to American interests, as other nations act upon theirs. Having direct control over a state does not make it any more of an Empire than countries that openly state a heirarchial status.
 


Edited by Darius of Parsa - 14 Apr 2011 at 03:55
"I am moved to pity, when I think of the brevity of human life, seeing that of all this host of men not one will still be alive in a hundred years time."

Emporer Xerxes I looking upon his army 480 BC
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 02:41
In re:  "As for the American empire I would say that that it began in 1945..."

The United States has never been a true empire, though there was a short period of neo-Empire from 1898 until 1941 in the Pacific. Their Caribbean 'empire' was undermined by making all Puerto Ricans U.S. citizens in 1917, and even their rule over the Philippines was limited by their creation of the Philippine Commonwealth and a guarantee of eventual independence.

Empires don't ask their component entities what they want, they dictate it. Thus the U.S. was, and is, a hegemon. While the largely Anglophile element of the U.S. electorate may have been enamored with the idea of 'Empire" in the late 19th Century, other segments of the U.S. electorate decidedly were not.

Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Simonforest View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Simonforest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Apr 2011 at 23:17
Do you have a definition that might be appropriate?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.096 seconds.