• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Greatest Empire in History

The Greatest Empire in History?

  • Persian Empire

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Roman Empire

    Votes: 26 53.1%

  • Han Empire

    Votes: 4 8.2%

  • Mayan Empire

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Mongol Empire

    Votes: 3 6.1%

  • Portuguese Empire

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Spanish Empire

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Russian Empire

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • French Empire

    Votes: 2 4.1%

  • British Empire

    Votes: 22 44.9%
  • Total voters
    49
Rainman05 said:
The Roman Empire, hands down, greatest empire ever. You can't even argue with this.

Then I'd vote for French and British empires.

French because the legacy of the Bonaparte conquests are things that are less visible today if you don't know what to look for but they are impacting us every day, like, the standardized metric system and driving on the correct side of the road. Ofc, there are many other heritages but these 2 are subtle and less known of.

And ofc,
the British empire.
Click to expand...
 The great colonizer and spreader of civilization. It industrialized itself via the industrial revolution and civilized the world and because of its global reach, it ended slavery in 1/3rd of the world directly. And ofc, English supplanted French for the first time in the west as the international language in the late late XIXth century.
Click to expand...




The Brits drink, and drank, tea.

Case closed.
 
In terms of what? Power? Influence? Length of reign?
 
I'm stuck somewhere between the British, Romans, Chinese, Mongols, and Soviets, to be honest.

The British and Romans probably had the greatest overall positive impact on global history. They basically made the world what it is today in their respective eras.

The Roman and Chinese empires were also surprisingly stable and long lived. However, China might be somewhat misleading in this regard, given how many times it was conquered by other peoples over the course of its history, or had dynasties collapse into absolutely devastating civil wars. China also didn't really accomplish all that much, preferring to rest upon its laurels and stagnate instead.

The Soviets and Mongols, for their own part, undoubtedly win in terms of sheer size and military power. However, they were ultimately far too short-lived and unstable to leave much of a lasting impact.

In the end, I'd probably chalk it up as being a tie between Rome and the British Empire.
 
Gathomas88 said:
I'm stuck somewhere between the British, Romans, Chinese, Mongols, and Soviets, to be honest.

The British and Romans probably had the greatest overall positive impact on global history. They basically made the world what it is today in their respective eras.

The Roman and Chinese empires were also surprisingly stable and long lived. However, China might be somewhat misleading in this regard, given how many times it was conquered by other peoples over the course of its history, or had dynasties collapse into absolutely devastating civil wars.

The Soviets and Mongols probably win on terms of sheer military power. However, they were ultimately far too short-lived and unstable to leave much of a lasting impact.

In the end, I'd probably chalk it up as being a tie between Rome and the British Empire.
Click to expand...

I rather agree with you, though I think that it's difficult to deal with the Rome v. Britain comparison because of the vast amount of time that separates them.

I'm also very interested that you've mentioned the Soviet Union as a contender. I agree that by the end of World War II, the Red Army was probably the most powerful and largest army in history. But I'm not sure if I can think of their actions, either in World War II or the next 45 years as imperial per se.

What makes you mention them?
 
Ad_Captandum said:
Well, I suppose that's up to you. If you're having trouble deciding, I arrogantly submit my own 'empire guide in a nutshell' to each of the choices in the first post.
Click to expand...

Rome and Britain take the cake for power and influence, no doubt. But the Byzantines, assuming we start counting from the formation of the Eastern Empire in 330, lasted for a whopping 1123 years, despite being constantly opposed by multiple other powers, including the Persians, the Bulgars, the Arabs and the Ottomans. And if we start at the beginning of the Roman Empire in 27 BC, it's even longer.
 
Ad_Captandum said:
I rather agree with you, though I think that it's difficult to deal with the Rome v. Britain comparison because of the vast amount of time that separates them.

I'm also very interested that you've mentioned the Soviet Union as a contender. I agree that by the end of World War II, the Red Army was probably the most powerful and largest army in history. But I'm not sure if I can think of their actions, either in World War II or the next 45 years as imperial per se.

What makes you mention them?
Click to expand...

Their actions in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, for the most part, along with their attempts to basically "convert" large portions of the developing world to Communism as well.

Honestly, I look at the USSR (and even Putin's Russia, to a certain extent) as only really being extensions of the old "Russian Empire" of the Tsars. They all rule primarily through the merit of military force, and have fundamentally expansionistic interests in mind.

The USSR simply happened to represent the peak of this entity's power and influence.
 
Last edited:
As a whole, and as for what was advanced as far as quality of living I would have to say the Roman empire. Most of the others were simply power grabs whereas the Roman empire seemed to be a new era in modernization.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Rome and Britain take the cake for power and influence, no doubt. But the Byzantines, assuming we start counting from the formation of the Eastern Empire in 330, lasted for a whopping 1123 years, despite being constantly opposed by multiple other powers, including the Persians, the Bulgars, the Arabs and the Ottomans. And if we start at the beginning of the Roman Empire in 27 BC, it's even longer.
Click to expand...

The Byzantine Empire (a.k.a. the Roman Empire's rotten stump of a rump state) was certainly long lived, and reasonably powerful in it's heyday.

However, ultimately, they run into the same problems as the Chinese. They could be a real mess at times, and they didn't really accomplish much of anything. They were mostly only interested in preserving the status quo, and failed rather spectacularly in this goal at that.
 
Gathomas88 said:
The Byzantine Empire (a.k.a. the Roman Empire's rotten stump of a rump state) was certainly long lived, and reasonably powerful in it's heyday.

However, ultimately, they run into the same problems as the Chinese. They could be a real mess at times, and they didn't really accomplish much of anything. They were mostly only interested in preserving the status quo, and failed rather spectacularly in this goal at that.
Click to expand...

But they're so cool!
 
Jredbaron96 said:
But they're so cool!
Click to expand...

christian-warriors-of-the-byzantine-empire.jpg


No argument there. :mrgreen:

Their last emperor (the last Roman emperor in all of history, depending upon how you look at things) reportedly died like a real bad ass as well.

"As my city dies, so do I!!" *charges into a swarm of Ottoman Janissaries with his sword drawn*
 
Gathomas88 said:
christian-warriors-of-the-byzantine-empire.jpg


No argument there. :mrgreen:

Their last emperor (the last Roman emperor in all of history, depending upon how you look at things) reportedly died like a real bad ass as well.

"As my city dies, so do I!!" *charges into a swarm of Ottoman Janissaries with his sword drawn*
Click to expand...

Cataphracts are the greatest thing ever after sex and food.
 
I'm voting for Rome, simply because they were the ones who gave later Western powers like the British the idea of having "empires" in the first place. :lol:
 
Gathomas88 said:
christian-warriors-of-the-byzantine-empire.jpg


No argument there. :mrgreen:

Their last emperor (the last Roman emperor in all of history, depending upon how you look at things) reportedly died like a real bad ass as well.

"As my city dies, so do I!!" *charges into a swarm of Ottoman Janissaries with his sword drawn*
Click to expand...

I'm really surprised I don't know more about them, as I'm an avid history buff. I know just that the cataphractii were heavily armoured elite troops in the service of Rome, the Byzantines, and some others.

What makes them so cool? Tell me the story!
 
Ad_Captandum said:
I'm really surprised I don't know more about them, as I'm an avid history buff. I know just that the cataphractii were heavily armoured elite troops in the service of Rome, the Byzantines, and some others.

What makes them so cool? Tell me the story!
Click to expand...

For one, the elite body guard of the Byzantine Emperors was made up exclusively of Viking mercenaries and berserkers from northern Russia.

Varangian Guard

Varangian_Guard.jpg


They were basically Roman Vikings. How freakin' cool is that? :lol:
 
To me it has to be the Han or Roman empires.

Both created cultural legacies that last to this day. Eastern and Western culture owe a lot to those two empires. Picking between them is harder. I'd have to go with the Han empire because the assimilation under that empire was longer lasting. European nations talked about creating a new Roman empire for centuries but the Han empire is a major reason there is a China today. It fragmented over time and re-combined but ultimately it created a legacy and idea that present China was one large combined people.
 
Call it empire or not but America. Even the tinpot dictatorships have to pretend they have democracies these days, all the while they guzzle down Hollywood.
 
As always, depends on how you define "great". Power? Culture? Influence? Reach? Economy? Durability? Morality? (kind of oxymoronic isn't it)
I'd have to disqualify the Romans. I admire their history and culture yet it would be difficult to say that they were the greatest. They were only the 19th in size in history and to say they ruled most of the known world would be to dismiss China, India, Eastern Europe, and the likes as unknown, uncivilized places. The simple fact is that those parts of the world were certainly known. Whereas Roman battles involved tens of thousands, in China at the same time, there were battles involving hundreds of thousands. So no.
I would have to say the British and the US. They were truly global empires in their reach and one may note that they were both modern empires-empires made possible in large part by modern technology. While ancient and old empires could only go so far in extending their reach, they were literally unlimited. One may also make another note from that fact that they are both the most recent ones. Due to the subjectivity of history, it is only natural to paint the most recent and therefore, the ones that have the most immediate impact on us in contemporary times, as being the greatest. They have much more influence on us which is why we tend to think of them as the "greatest".
I still have a great problem with how a person would define "greatest"
 
iliveonramen said:
To me it has to be the Han or Roman empires.

Both created cultural legacies that last to this day. Eastern and Western culture owe a lot to those two empires. Picking between them is harder. I'd have to go with the Han empire because the assimilation under that empire was longer lasting. European nations talked about creating a new Roman empire for centuries but the Han empire is a major reason there is a China today. It fragmented over time and re-combined but ultimately it created a legacy and idea that present China was one large combined people.
Click to expand...

Technically it would be the Han Chinese. There's still 55 major ethnicities that are officially recognized in China and if one is observant of current Chinese issues, it would be obvious that ethnic divisions still exist. In fact there's many ethnic conflicts throughout Chinese history and they are very much fascinating.
 
Gathomas88 said:
For one, the elite body guard of the Byzantine Emperors was made up exclusively of Viking mercenaries and berserkers from northern Russia.

Varangian Guard

Varangian_Guard.jpg


They were basically Roman Vikings. How freakin' cool is that? :lol:
Click to expand...

Very cool! I had heard of the Varangian Guard before, and in fact, it appears to be something of a common theme in the East, having Northern Europeans as body guards.

Even the Ptolemaic Egyptians had the Galatian Guard, made up of Galatians, who were a Celtic tribe who had migrated to south-east Europe.

But my understanding was that the Varangian Guard were not cataphracts -- or were they?

If not, what makes cataphracts so cool?
 
Ad_Captandum said:
I think we're mixing up the objective-subjective context thing again. Remember that no one is denying that the firepower that the US commands is greater than any other nation in history. This is obviously and reasonably true -- technology has advanced. But imploring me to think of what 'Britain could do with aircraft carriers in the Pacific' makes me think you haven't taken this lesson to heart.

At the height of the British Empire, the Royal Navy was overwhelmingly more powerful than any other navy in the world. The US Navy today is overwhelmingly more powerful than any other navy in the world, too, but not to the same extent.

The Royal Navy was so powerful that after Britain decided to outlaw slavery, the RN policed the entire world's oceans to make sure the slave trade was really abolished. Their global reach was so pervasive that they passed a law and then just FORCED the entire world to follow it -- think of that!

As well, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that Britain didn't have command of both the Atlantic and Pacific. It certainly did! British territory across the Pacific, some of which it still owns, included Australia, Pitcairn, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Fiji, Vanuatu, Kiribati, the New Hebrides and the Solomon Islands.

In the Atlantic, the British owned (and still own) Bermuda, the Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, Canada, Nova Scotia, the Bahamas, Jamaica, British Guyana, so much of Africa I don't even know where to start, and of course the British Isles themselves.

In the Indian Ocean, Britain owned (and also somewhat still owns) India, Pakistan, Zanzibar, the Chagos Islands, Ceylon, the Arabian Peninsula, and South Africa.

In the Southern Ocean, the British owned parts of Antarctica, the Falkland Islands, Australia (again), and New Zealand.

In the Arctic Ocean, Britain owned Canada, Orkney, and Shetland.

So I'm not sure what you mean when you say Britain's reach didn't extend to two oceans.
Click to expand...

The United States had slavery until the 1860's, and the brazilians had it even longer.

Will have to look up the stats later for naval power, I'm currently sitting on an airplane.

I compare the British empire to the ancient Greeks, and the Americans to the Romans. Britain, like Greece, was a seafaring conglomerate of a number of nation states (Scotland, England, Wales...)

Greece, like Britain, was celebrated for it's high art, literature, and contributions to the sciences.

America was born of Britain as Rome was born of Greece. As Rome was a mechanized, streamlined, and ultimately powerful version of its predecessor, so America is a mechanized, amped up version of the British Empire on steroids.

Like the Romans, Americans are pragmatic, valuing efficiency over beauty.

I could go on with the comparisons, but I'll spare you.

As the Romans had their republic phase, so America is going through a similar phase. One day, hopefully in the distant future, we will have our Julius Caesar and will be a true empire.

I don't think that's for the best, but I think historical trends would suggest such a thing is in our nature as people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom