Talk:List of largest empires

The Soviet Union

The Soviet Union in 1945 was 24.1 km2. That is the biggest area for a land empire. You could also count the entire Soviet sphere of influence in 1945 as an empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.125.239 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

austro-hungarian empire

the year of reference is not included but i clicked on austria-hungarian empire and the year 1914 AD would be consistent with a land area of 676,615 KM and a population of 52.8 million austria hungary had this largest size from 1903 to 1919 in 1903 bosnia was made a protectorate and in 1908 bosnia was annexed but world war 1 1914 to 1918 ended the empire and the boundaries of europe were re-drawn in 1919 before the empire was called austro-hungary in 1867 the empire was called austrian empire and it was still just as large going back further to napoleonic war times im certain that the polish partitions in the late 1700's was the latest boundary changes before 1867. but the name of the country referenced on here was austro-hungrian im just saying that 1914 was the year of this country all the other countries on here got time period years of reference. 76.244.150.120 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese Empire

In 1815 Brazil was not part of a "Portuguese Empire", because there was a United Kingdom composed by these two countries. It's like to say that Scotland is part of a British Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.92.78 (talk • contribs) 01:10, January 2, 2011 (UTC) But Scotland was and still is part of the British Kingdom and has been since the 1707 Act of Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.59.52.255 (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

actually the year 1815 as brazil being portugeuse seems consistent with me beacuse im certain brazil was not independent till 1822. 76.244.150.120 (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2011 (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? --Jayron32 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. --Jayron32 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)

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)

British Empire

Didn't BE reach its peak (in terms of area) in 1921, not 1946? I think the figures should be corrected. The area of BE was 36.6 million km² in 1921, whereas it was 33.1 million km² in 1946, even if we consider Canada, Australia etc. to be not independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.177.223 (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

this is facinating. im certain that Ireland becoming a independent and not joinging as a dominion was a begining point of the peak period but more would have to be included to provide when the empire actually had lost a great deal of land. and yes canada and australia are not fully independent they are dominions as they never fought a war against britain. and dont have presidents and still put british monarchy on there money and other caricteristics of a fully independent nation. but certainly other examples of nations breaking away could be egypt also in the 1920's and its not even part of the commonwealth of nations now so you could be on to something with this 1921 year. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggest remove "By era" section

I don't think we need to specify "Ancient empires" and whatever, since that much is obvious if you sort on the date column. (we might need a little bit of work on the formatting of years and whatever, and maybe we could shade them according to cutoff dates or something, but otherwise it does the job reasonably well)

This whole section is merely repetition at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.25 (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. I've never liked these multiple copies of the information. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So I'm tempted just to delete that entire era section and leave it at that. Shall we introduce an "era" column to the main table, with or without coloring, or just leave it to be sorted by date?

No one else commented for 4 weeks, so I just removed the era section. I re-arranged the maps and I don't think we need an "era" column. The eras are rather arbitrary anyway.Dingo1729 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

i disagree i never knew if a empire 4,000 years ago was going to make the list and besides having the years helps in identifiying largest countries over the course of all recorded civilization. no keep the time period colum becasue its the whole point of a historical nations by land area list. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Title needed

here is the very good exaple of being fanatic for the sake of the occitan. But why the second source can be taken as the best sure source??? Ottoman Empire, had a 5,2 million km2 in 1595? I would like to say that, many empires, like:

• Great Seljuk
• Juan Juan,
• Hunnic,
• Xiong-nu,

these are Turcs Empires.

As a Ottoman Empire, It had 24.534.242 km² in 1595:)

SOURCE: Kinross, Lord Patrick (1977). The Ottoman Centuries. İstanbul: Sander Bibliotheque. ISBN 0 224 01379 8.(English) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.177.37 (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Table numbering

This table should be numbered so people don't have to actually count their way down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.106.35 (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

thats a brilliant idea! some one do that. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Population

I remember reading this article and you could see empires ranked by population, what happened to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.20.190 (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Just click the grey box next to "Population (million)" in the heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.220 (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

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: [1], [2], [3])--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)

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)

 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)

Remove Contiguous column?

We could argue endlessly about whether particular empires are contiguous and whether including an island makes them non-contiguous. How about removing this column? Mostly it's obvious and when it isn't it's uninteresting. Dingo1729 (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

worst of all, it's original research. If an encyclopedic source was presented which lists empires by contiguity, it would be a different matter. But as it stands, this is just something some Wikipedians pulled out of their collective asses. In other words, remove as unencyclopedic original research. --dab (𒁳) 08:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• If we can establish a definition for what entails a contiguous empire, then it shouldn't be a problem to rigorously apply it to every one mentioned. At the moment, however, you've got a point Lord British (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2011 (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:[4] 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. Nightw 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)

Area of Sassanid Empire????

In the wiki article about Sassanid Empire is written that the largest area of this empire was 7,400,000 km2. Which statement is true ? In this article or in the article about Sassanid Empire ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.65.18 (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Easy: whoever posts such figures must indicate who came up with them. Whichever figure is unreferenced can be removed without warning or comment. In the case of the Sassanid Empire, both conflicting figures stand completely unreferenced, so both should be removed without further ado. Who ever wants to throw around such estimates on Wikipedia can bloody well respect WP:CITE and post their source. People do make stuff up, and absolutely anyone can edit here, so an unreferenced figure is exactly as good as no figure at all. --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Achaemenid Empire and Alexander Empire

From what I know of Alexander's Empire is coincident with that Achaemid Empire. But probably Alexander had more territories in central Asia in Sogdiana and Bactria, Gandhara and perhaps in the Tarim Basin (Tocharians) indeed it defeating nomadic populations of steppes and also marrying Roxanne [from a population of Afghanistan muntains]. The Persians had several times tried unsuccessfully to defeat the nomadic peoples and pacify the mountain people. An persian emperor is killed in a campaign. see Herodotus. The expedition of Alexander in Central Asia was also to legitimate his new role as successor of Acheminides enlarging the empire.

The kingdom of Porus that extended beyond the Indus river probably until into Gange valley was a vassal and remained a vassal of the Greek-Bactrian satrap until Sandrokottos(Chandragupta). There was also a big part of Balkan Peninsula (Greece included) that Persian Empire didn’t had. A vassal was also Candace kingdom of Kush (Nubia).

Why the Achaemenid empire is bigger than Alexander empire ? It is substantially the same......

However the cultural area of hellenic civilisation was also more bigger: there were from Iberian peninsula coloniens to north Black sea colonies to see Crimea. Also Nubia also Ethiopian kingdom were influenced. Obviously the Magna Graecia.

--Andriolo (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC) P:S: I have translate a XIV cent. Roman d'Alexandre for job.

Where is ATTILA the Flagellum of God....???!!!!! ;-) Probably the Huns empire in this period was big as medieval Mongol Empire indeed contemporary the Chinese Empire had the same problems with the Huns. Unfortunately we have little data.--Andriolo (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry I find it ..... but probably it was more more more bigger.

Other error: Soviet Union in 1946 ? And in 1980 with Afghanistan ?

POPULATION IN THE NAZI EMPIRE

The population in the "Nazi Empire", lands under a German Governor (Norway, Netherlands, Vichy-France, Poland, Belgium, Denmark,Ukraine etc) had a population of over 120 million people.--81.44.61.90 (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a huge difference between being occupied or being an empire. Most occupied countries still had their own currency, language, police force and even government. Only they were all controlled by the Germans. Dqfn13 (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is Nazi Germany even there? It was a republic. And I think listing occupied territories is how the Japanese Empire's population is listed at some 135 million. If we just go with Japan, Korea, and Formosa, the population would only be about 100 million. The other 35 million must have come from Manchuria.Qwertzy (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nazi Germany wasn't a Republic, it was a totalitarian, single-party dictatorship. They had puppet Governments and Colonies in Denmark, Sweden, Ukraine, France, Czechoslovakia, etc. All of which would've been fully absorbed and Germanized into the Reich had they won the war in the coming years. You're an idiot, Qertzy. Also, Dqfn13 you're also wrong about that in a sense. The population for the Colonies and Puppet states should be included into the Reich. It doesn't matter if they kept their own currency, language, police. The govermment was controlled and mandated by the General Government of the Nazi realm. It was consolidated and ruled by Reichskommissar. The original poster is correct -the population should be kept at 120 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.102.6 (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

MauriManya

There appears to be a particular Uruguayan user who is continually changing the Mongol Empire's area to 34.0m km sq. This is simply incorrect. The cited source on its page actually gives an area of 24m km sq, and I have changed it to a more reliable one accordingly. Lord British (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good decision, thank you. That's obviously the right thing to do. This article's reliability has been deeply compromised over the years by people cherrypicking sources of variable reliability using different measurement criteria, in order to maximise a particular nationalist claim, turning it into a synthesis where the comparison becomes original research, which is not allowed. Editors of this article really do have to give preference over all others to reliable comparative sources like Turchin et al., where consistent measurements and comparisons are explicitly made within the quoted source itself. I've restored the Mongol area to the reliable comparative figure of 24m sq km quoted by Turchin et al. All the entries in the article should be checked the same way, systematically giving preference to reliable comparative sources like Turchin et al., over individual figures cherrypicked from non-comparative, non-specialist sources of lesser reliability, which are more likely to be inaccurate and inflated, and where no explicit comparison has actually been made in the quoted source. Lachrie (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I hate to claim that someone might be working in bad-faith, but if he continues to revert the changes then I feel he must eventually be reported for vandalism. Lord British (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC).

Lord British

I do not understand because the user is determined to reverse my edits changing sources, when the above sources estimating an area of ​​34 million square km, not 24, were accepted for a long time that this article. Why insist on changing the references? I hope your answer. Thanks. MauriManya (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the sources? They say 24m km sq. Other Wikipedias say 24m kmq, too (except the Spanish one which you keep changing), so please keep it as such. Other people have also pointed this out, so please stop insisting on this. Lord British (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You say: "Other Wikipedias say 24m kmq", but this is not true, other Wikipedias say 33 million square km (except the English!). But calm, I will not insist, it is clear the impartiality of this article especially when it comes to comparing the British Empire with the rest in English Wikipedia. MauriManya (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the sources? Have you checked other Wikipedias excluding the Spanish one? Lord British (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I made clear that. If you are in any doubt see these articles: [5], [6], [7]. MauriManya (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the sources. They all say 24m km sq. Lord British (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

For background, MauriManya's preferred reference is a casual mention in a book mainly on porcelain. He substituted this, some time ago, in place of a reference to an academic paper comparing sizes of empires. The academic paper says 24m km sq. Quite clearly MauriManya is using a bad reference in place of a good reference. I have no idea what his motivation for this could be, but he should stop pushing a bad reference in place of a good one. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

HANDLING

- Because in the Portuguese empire appears throughout Brazil and the Spanish Empire throughout Brazil does not appear? Handling ... - Who to Patagonia said that was not colonized by the Spanish ..? Handling ... - England colonized across Canada ..? Handling ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.149.231 (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese possessions of the Spanish Empire.

- Where are the African possessions of Portugal in the Spanish empire ..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.149.231 (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Portudgal is different then spain.... So Portugals possessions would not be under the Spanish empireMeatsgains (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

WHERE?

where is Durrani Afghan Empire? much larger then many of these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.170.211 (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To respond here; I could not really see it either, I'll check Afghan Empire main page for suggestions.--Eirione (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Quantifying

Just to note about my one future microscopic edit here.... I had left an quantify template by Pop. percentage of the AE, I think since that percentage can be already confirmed as easily as using a calculator. Users know it does not need to be proven mathematically. For the time being, as before the percentage was a synthesis and not accurate, now that is accurately sourced by one exact reference. I'll remove the now unnecessary quantify template. It would not affect anything in the article, only a minor suggestion would not be there, like fixing a grammatical error. Welcomed to respond.--Eirione (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Anachronous maps

Some of the maps are labelled as "anachronous". What does this mean in the context of a map? Searching for "anachronous map" on the internet doesn't yield anything helpful. Macboff (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This means it shows all the areas covered by the empire throughout its history on the same map. For example, the 13 colonies and Tanzania on the British Empire map, although they were held hundreds of years apart. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2012 (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)

Placement of Maps

The maps seem to be migrating from below the long list to above it. I don't care whether they are above or below, but they shouldn't be in both places. Does anyone else have a preference? If I don't get any replies I'll toss a coin and consolidate them in one place or the other. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ordering numbers in ascending/descending order

The columns with the headers Era, Max Population (million), and % of world population don't seem to be ordering themselves correctly when clicked on.

From what I can see, they're being ordered alphabetically instead of numerically (for example, 100 comes before 40 because the first digit of 100 is 1, and comes before the first digit of 40: 4).

If someone could fix that (I obviously don't know how, or I'd fix it myself), it'd be a great help. Xomm 01:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xomm (talk • contribs)

My apologiesshyjayb 21:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

Ummayad Empire is not in the list. It should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.43.67 (talk) 11:20, 3 April 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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