Talk:List of largest empires

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In reply yo the claim that I'm WP:SYNTH[edit]

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

And again, despite the fact that my edit wasn't WP:SYNTH just as I explained. The most cited paper on this wikipedia article contains a FACTUAL MISTAKE, and therefore should not be accepted as source material for wikipedia. Or what happens if I find an article saying Texas is bigger than the USA? Am I allowed to use that as reliable info?Ppteles (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The value 10.4 is not from a WP:RELIABLE source, but from a blog. If a reliable source cannot be located for the figure, all references to justify it are indeed WP:SYNTH. The analogy with Texas fails to take into account that at the time of Brazil's independence, the settlers did not have effective control over the entirety of the territory that makes up today's Brazil. TompaDompa (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The value of 5.5 isn't either. It's a factual mistake. Where is your evidence that 'the settlers did not have effective control over the entirety of the territory that makes up today's Brazil.' when this was amply proven by the sources I put there. I suppose you believe this page belongs to you, well it doesn't. Nor is your source reliable as it is WRONG. The analogy with Texas stands. Because (1) explained before there was no significant territorial expansion of the EMpire of Brazil (2) the territory which comprised Brazil was already at the extent that it was in independence (3) The idea that there was no settling on several parts of Brazil is wrong as can be seen on the several links I provided some from BASIC educational material used to teach children in Brazil about their own country.(check the slides for Instance). So unless you provide evidence (which you won't because it's historically incorrect) that one half of the colony of Brazil wasn't settled (contradicting History, international treaties, etc etc. etc.) or your beloved source CANNOT be accepted Ppteles (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
And by the way: 'Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources (see WP:Verifiability § Newspaper and magazine blogs)' That is a blog fully dedicated to empires. SO please prove your claim that 'half of Brazil wasn't settled' Ppteles (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
And by the way the Empire of Brazil ended in 1889, so what is this 1900 date? The whole paper is full of factual mistakes. I don't know if you are this man or if he is the source of all your information, but this paper needs to be DISREGARDED on the counts of contaning to many factual errors! The made should in fact write an article either apologising or with an errata! Ppteles (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The source for my claim is the same article, which says that in 1820, the Portuguese Empire had "Effective control over coastal half of Brazil [...]" (emphasis mine). I never said that half of Brazil wasn't settled. An area can be settled without being under the settlers' effective control.
I have read WP:Verifiability#Newspaper and magazine blogs, but that blog is not "fully dedicated to empires". It's a blog on a travel website. It's even called "Just the Flight's Travel Blog". It falls under WP:BLOGS, not WP:NEWSBLOG. Furthermore, it doesn't say that the maximum extent was in 1820, just that the "Political height" was in 1570.
Back to the issue at hand: Changing the area to 10.4 without a WP:RELIABLE source is WP:OR. Using other sources to back it up indirectly as you have done is WP:SYNTH. You should probably also see WP:OVERCITE (in short: keep the number of sources to a minimum, and only use the best ones). If you do happen to locate a reliable source that shows that the area was 10.4, by all means change the figure and cite that source. If you locate a reliable source that shows that the figure of 5.5 is incorrect but not what the correct figure is, the most you can do is remove the entry altogether, per WP:TRUTH.
And no, I don't believe I WP:OWN this article. Nobody does.
On the Empire of Brazil: You're partially right. I take it you haven't actually read the paper, but Taagepera doesn't actually talk about the "Empire of Brazil", but "Brazil" (both before and after 1889). That was my mistake, not the source's. There's no reliable source left for the maximum extent of the Empire of Brazil, and I have therefore removed that entry from the list.
On a sidenote, please don't undo unrelated changes to the page (such as formatting fixes). TompaDompa (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me, but where is the source that it wasn't 'effectively controlled'? You cannot say something like that without data to back up your claim. I gave you several examples of pages which confirm that there was effective occupation of those territories by the time the Empire was created. Or why do you think those territories partained to the Portuguese Crown in the first place? The Treaty of Madrid was based on that fact exactly, if you control it then you own it. This is basic History. Removing the data from Brazil from this list won't save you. The article you use is just wrong and therefore cannot be used. You need to find other sources. I've provided ample sources. Including sources mentioning the 10.4, that the territory of Brazil was fully part of the Portuguese Empire. etc. The figure 10-4 is basic arithmetics just add the territories up, anyone can do it. Apparently you and your beloved source are the only ones who can't-Ppteles (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Also, please read the policies.

Oh, and @RunnyAmiga: I figured you'd be interested. TompaDompa (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ppteles and TompaDompa: Thank you for the notification. At this point, I'm out of my depth and other than consensus-building, I probably can't contribute anything you already haven't. I'm boxing up the thread at my page because it got contentious right out of the gate and I don't know how to productively interact with someone who's spoiling for a fight this badly. RunnyAmigatalk 16:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
To wrap things up (1) The number 10.4 is actually mentioned in many of the sources I have gathered. (2) Even if it wasn't this edit should be starightforward as it IS basic arithmetics. So if you need to add 2+2 do you go to WP:CALC? It is THAT simple, and in fact it was probably the half-baked way in which the author of your favourite article made his (erroneous) calculation (3) Your claim that the Portuguese did not 'de facto' controlled all of Brazil is completely unsourced and I challenge you to find any source that would in fact mention that. My sources (at least three of them) come from Brazilian educational material explaining how Brazil evolved territorially. Also the Treaty of Madrid was based on de facto occupation and not de jure (which was stilll, the Treaty of Tordesillas, which it replaced). This is basic Portuguese-Brazilian History which was completely disregarded, the author of that paper actually offended a whole culture! Maybe inadertedly but still! And this was perhaps repeated by you because you were not in full knowledge of the facts or you didn't care to verify them. (4) Your act of Deleting the Brazilian Empire BECAUSE the source is wrong as you seemed to admit, but THEN you use the same source for the dimensions of other empires is in fact also an act of POV, as you are cherry-picking your data (you just don't like that the data doesn't 'fit' into your bias and so you delete it. (6) I have provided many sources which explain the de jure and the de facto occupation of the entirety of the territory of the Empire of Brazil PRIOR to its independence, as well as sources explaining that the Empire of Brazili DID NOT have any substantial territorial changes throughout its existence, therefore proving the source you use WRONG and finally (7) So it is ok to use a wrong source on Wikipedia? IS that what you are defending? SO if I find a source claiming that Texas is twice the size of the USA? Can I use it? It is clearly a case of POV. RegardsPpteles (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
(1) It is mentioned by three[1][2][3] of the sources, yes, but none of them are WP:RELIABLE. (2) To quote WP:CALC:

"Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources."

I put it to you that there is not consensus that the result of the calculation is either obvious, correct, or a meaningful reflection of the sources when the terms added are not displayed. (3) It is not, in fact, unsourced. This is what Taagepera has to say about Brazil:[4]

Brazil

1822 5.0? LK Independence from Portugal; about one half of the present area effectively controlled by settlers
1900 8.51 Full control of present territory
And this is an excerpt from what Taagepera has to say about Portugal:[5]
1820 5.5 LK, E Effective control over coastal half of Brazil and coastal quarter of Angola and Mozambique
1822 .5 Brazil independent
Note that both mention that approximately half of present-day Brazil was under Portuguese control at the time of Brazilian independence. (4) You misunderstood me. If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I actually said the opposite. I applied the source incorrectly. As you can see above, Taagepera counts the Empire of Brazil and the current republic as a continuous polity for the purposes of his article. I mistakenly added the 1900 figure to a preexisting entry for the Empire of Brazil. The error was mine, not the source's. (6) If you are confident those sources demonstrate that the figure of 5.5 is incorrect, you can remove the figure of 5.5 (preferably with a direct quote from one of those sources that supports your assertion). You cannot, however, add the figure of 10.4, because that is WP:SYNTH. (7) That is not what I said, and you know it. Please WP:Assume good faith. TompaDompa (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The question you need to ask yourself is whether this article is about a list of the largest empires, or about a list of the largest empires ACCORDING TO TAAGEPERA. As I show in the references I give, Taagepera is wrong, as the Empire of Brazil (which you remove because it doesn't fit your bias, regardless of date, it is still mentioned) inherited almost the entirety of its landmass from the Empire of Portugal, thus making your article unfit for Wikipedia. Either you need to find a more accurate source, or otherwise create a new page, or section, dedicated to him. You might also consider creating a fan page . Finally the 10.4 value IS mentioned. Ppteles (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ppteles: Of course other sources than Taagepera can be used (Turchin et al.[1], Harrison[2], Encyclopædia Britannica[3], and Deutsches Historisches Museum[4] are), but they need to be WP:RELIABLE and directly support the material per WP:VERIFIABILITY. Of the ten[5] [6] [7] [8] [9][10] [11] [12][13][14] you cited, none meet both criteria. Specifically:
Accordingly, the figure and references could be tagged something like this:

10.4[excessive citations] [5][not in citation given][self-published source] [6][not in citation given] [7][self-published source] [8][not in citation given] [9][not in citation given][self-published source] [10][not in citation given][dead link][self-published source] [11][not in citation given][unreliable source?] [12][not in citation given][self-published source] [13][self-published source?] This tertiary source reuses information from other sources but does not name them.[14][unreliable source?]

which I'm sure you'll agree is hardly satisfactory. There is no getting around that using the figure of 10.4 with those sources is a violation of WP:SYNTH.
The reason I removed the Empire of Brazil was because it was not properly sourced. Remember that WP:Verifiability, not truth is the threshold for inclusion. I also strongly disagree with the sentiment that we can disregard the date. Re-adding an entry you yourself pointed out was inaccurate strikes me as intentionally disruptive editing to make a WP:POINT.
As I mentioned above, the figure of 10.4 is mentioned solely in the non-WP:RELIABLE sources. See WP:BLOGS, WP:RSTERTIARY, and WP:CIRCULAR for the principal issue with this[7], this[13], and this[14] source respectively.
Finally: I don't have a horse in this race. My issue is not with the figure, but with the sourcing. I'm okay with removing the entry altogether, or using the figure of 10.4 provided that it's reliably sourced. What I'm not okay is using non-WP:RELIABLE sources and/or editorial WP:SYNTHESIS to justify the figure. TompaDompa (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ Turchin, Peter; Adams, Jonathan M.; Hall, Thomas D (December 2006). "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires". Journal of world-systems research. 12 (2): 222–223. ISSN 1076-156X. Retrieved 25 August 2016. 
  2. ^ Harrison, Mark (2000). The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison. Cambridge University Press. p. 3. ISBN 9780521785037. Retrieved 2 October 2016. 
  3. ^ "Encyclopedia Britannica: Germany from 1871 to 1918". Retrieved 29 September 2016. At its birth Germany occupied an area of 208,825 square miles (540,854 square km) and had a population of more than 41 million, which was to grow to 67 million by 1914. 
  4. ^ "Statistische Angaben zu den deutschen Kolonien". www.dhm.de (in German). Deutsches Historisches Museum. Retrieved 29 September 2016. Sofern nicht anders vermerkt, beziehen sich alle Angaben auf das Jahr 1912.  [Except where otherwise noted, all figures relate to the year 1912.]
  5. ^ a b c d http://pt.slideshare.net/mobile/joseeustaquiochaves/expanso-colonial-portuguesa
  6. ^ a b c d "http://ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/11709.pdf"
  7. ^ a b c d e http://www.justtheflight.co.uk/blog/35-mapping-the-empires-of-history.html
  8. ^ a b c d http://www.historytoday.com/roger-crowley/first-global-empire
  9. ^ a b c d http://digilander.libero.it/facnascimento/Geografy.html
  10. ^ a b c d e http://pt.slideshare.net/nataliadorinioliv/expanso-colonial-na-amrica-portuguesa-52971854?next_slideshow=1
  11. ^ a b c d e https://cdv.dei.uc.pt/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/cm10a.pdf
  12. ^ a b c d https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwOA8AfeHM4
  13. ^ a b c d e "The Largest Historical Empires". Retrieved 9 October 2016. 
  14. ^ a b c d e "Counting down the ten largest empires". The Basement Geographer. Retrieved 9 October 2016. 
ok, i now added this reference. It's a book, published, etc. etc. with a reference, and which explicitely mentions the 10.4 figure. Is that good enough ? ThanksPpteles (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The issue with the Empire of Brazil remains, however. TompaDompa (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Portuguese Empire[edit]

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

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

This is what the source used in the article has to say about Brazil:[1]

Brazil

1822 5.0? LK Independence from Portugal; about one half of the present area effectively controlled by settlers
1900 8.51 Full control of present territory
On Portugal, the same source[2] says that the area was 5.5 Mm2 in 1820, with the explanatory note "Effective control over coastal half of Brazil and coastal quarter of Angola and Mozambique". TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
well that source is WRONG. As per treaty of Madrid (1750)the actual borders of the Portuguese then Brazilian Empire were sketched! The author clearly made a mistake. Just check Wikipedia articles. Or are you denying hat international treaties, effective occupation and etc don't count or only count for Brazilians? What did they do after independence magically the territory was theirs? This is a serious mistake that can't be accepted on wikipedia 87.196.80.152 (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
in fact I read the source you mentioned and it is clearly wrong it seems to only assume the third part of the Portuguese Empire as real. This is clearly a mistake. Either for a Portuguese or a Brazilian this is so obvious that it's even hard to explain. It's basic history. The empire of Brazil was created by the king Pedro IV of Portugal who became Pedro I emperor of Brazil. All territory partaining to Portugal in the Americas was claimed by the empire of Brazil. It's just this simple! Hence the impossibility of one being half the other! What sources have you to claim that in 1750 onwards as defined per treaty of Madrid the Portuguese didn't control half of Brazil this is just a wild claim with no historical backing! 87.196.80.152 (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Why is Karkota Empire in the list?[edit]

I fail to see why Karkota Empire, a very small empire is in the list and at a very high position. The area of this empire is a mere 3km square and is mentioned in the article here: Karkoṭa Empire

Kindly make the changes and remove it from the list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.163.3 (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2015‎ (UTC)

United States Missing Discussion[edit]

Like many, I think this article suffers from one HUGE missing country: the United States. As an imperialist power, is it not an empire? The idea what being a "republic" or a federation somehow limits it is just nonsense. The US started out as an oligarchy where only a few percentage points of the population could indirectly vote for certain leaders and it has expanded to the modern oligarchy we have today. Hardly much of a Republic. But I fail to see how it is relevant because it is still an empire.

The way that the British counts yet the American does not just makes no sense. I'm really not sure how to count land in the US empire but even today, the US has control over dozens of countries all around the world. An actual puppet counts more than, say, some odd formality that would count the queen of England as the queen of Canada. 184.58.100.105 (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"An empire involves the extension of a state's sovereignty over external territories and variety of different ethnic groups. The term "empire" in this context (not necessarily a state ruled by an emperor) does not have a precise definition, but is generally applied to political entities that are considered to be especially large by the standards of their time and that have acquired a significant part of their territory by conquest." That is the definition that the article gives for an empire, the United States does not meet that definition now, whether it did pre-mid 20th century, is up for debate I guess, although its territory controlled really wouldn't be considered "especially large." As for your forum-like arguments about "American imperialism", those don't qualify it for inclusion based upon the article's definition of an empire. - SantiLak (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Not that I look forward to another discussion on American imperialism, but what do you mean when claiming that the United States do not control an "especially large" area? Their current total area is estimated to 9,833,517 square kilometers. The Roman Empire at its largest extent (c. 117 AD) only covered 5,000,000 square kilometers.

The States seem huge, and the only current states with a wider area are Russia, Canada, and China. Dimadick (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Almost all of that land mass is in States. The largest exception today is Puerto Rico.--Work permit (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

But at it peaks in 1901, it directly administered Cuba and the Philippines as well which is a signifigant amount of territory. Also circa 1920, it directly administered the Dominican Republic, as well as the Virign Islands, and the philippines, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Largest empires by economy[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Empire GDP (billions of 1990 Int'l.$.) % of world total
British Empire 918.7 (in 1938)[1]
Nazi Germany 375.6 (in 1938)[1]
Empire of Japan 260.7 (in 1938)[1]
French Empire 234.1 (in 1938)[1]
Italian Empire 143.4 (in 1938)[1]
Austria-Hungary 100.5 (in 1918)[2][page needed]
  1. ^ a b c d e Harrison (1998, pp. 3,7).
  2. ^ Broadberry and Harrison (2005).
  • Stephen Broadberry and Mark Harrison (2005). The Economics of World War I. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-85212-9.
  • Mark Harrison (1998). The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison.

Portuguese Empire vs Brazilian on this list[edit]

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


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

Largest empires by population[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Empire Max. population (million)  % of world population
British Empire 533.0 (in 1938)[1][contradictory] 20.00% (458 million out of 2.295 billion in 1938)[1][contradictory]
Qing dynasty 432.2 (in 1851)[2]
Mughal Empire 150.0 (in 1700) 24.8% (150.0 million out of 610 million[3])[when?]
Northern Song Dynasty 123.0 (in 1103)[4][5]
Mongol Empire 110.0 (in the 13th century)[6] 25.60% (110.0 million out of 429 million[7] in the 13th century)
Ming dynasty 110.0 (in 1600)[8][9]
Southern Song dynasty 73.0 (in 1193).[4][10]
Roman Empire 70.0 (in the 2nd century AD)[11][12][13] 21.00% (70 million in 150 AD)[14]
Earlier Zhao dynasty 64 (in 156)[4][15]
Yuan dynasty 59.8 (in 1291)[4][16] 17.10% (59.8 million out of 350 million in 1290)[citation needed]
Gupta Empire 58 (in 400 AD)[1] 26.36% (58.0 million out of 220 million in 400 AD)[1]
Han dynasty 58.0 (in 2 AD)[4][17]
Sui Dynasty 53.0 (in 606)[4][18]
Achaemenid Empire 50.0 (in 480 BC)[19] 44.48% (50 million out of 112.4 million in 480 BC)[20][21]
Maurya Empire 50–60 (in the 2nd century BC) 33%–40% (50–60 million out of 150 million in the 2nd century BC.[22][23]
  1. ^ a b c d Harrison (1998, pp. 3,7).
  2. ^ Recorded number of persons in 1851 is 432,164,047 according to Draft History of Qing.
  3. ^ Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones (1978), "Atlas of World Population History", Facts on File (p. 183, p. 342). New York.
  4. ^ a b c d e f (a) John D. Durand, 1960, "The Population Statistics of China, A.D. 2–1953", Population Studies Vol. 13 (No. 3), 209–256. (b) John D. Durand, 1974, "Historical Estimates of World Population: An Evaluation", University of Pennsylvania, Population Center, Analytical and Technical Reports, Number 10.
  5. ^ Recorded number of persons and households in 1103 are 45,981,845 and 20,524,065, respectively (Song Huiyao), while recorded peak number of persons and households are 46,734,784 and 20,882,438 in 1109, respectively (Song Huiyao).
  6. ^ The combined population of China and Korea in the 13th century was 83 in Biraben (2003[page needed]). The combined population of Eastern Europe, Russia, Central Asia, Iran, Iraq and Turkey was about 27 in Maddison (2006[page needed]).
  7. ^ Biraben, Jean-Noel (January 1979). "Essai sur l'evolution du nombre des hommes". Population (French Edition). Institut national d'études démographiques. 34 (1): 13–25. doi:10.2307/1531855. 
  8. ^ Jean-Noël Biraben, "The History of the Human Population From the First Beginnings to the Present" in Demography: Analysis and Synthesis: A Treatise in Population (Eds: Graziella Caselli, Jacques Vallin, Guillaume J. Wunsch), Vol. III, Chapter 66, pp 5–18, Academic Press:San Diego (2005).
  9. ^ Recorded number of persons and households in 1393 are 60,545,812 and 10,652,870, respectively (Ming Hui Dian), while recorded peak number of persons and households are 66,598,337 and 11,415,829 in 1403, respectively (Book of Ming).
  10. ^ Recorded number of persons and households in 1193 are 27,845,085 and 12,302,873, respectively (Wenxian Tongkao), while recorded peak number of persons and households are 28,320,085 and 12,670.801 in 1223, respectively (Wenxian Tongkao).
  11. ^ Taagepera, Rein (1 January 1979). "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D.". Social Science History. 3 (3/4): 115–138. doi:10.2307/1170959. Retrieved 25 August 2016. 
  12. ^ Mclynn Frank "Marcus Aurelius" p. 4. Published by The Bodley Head 2009
  13. ^ There are several different estimates for the Roman Empire. Scheidel (2006, p. 2) estimates 60. Goldsmith (1984, p. 263) estimates 55. Beloch (1886, p. 507) estimates 54. Maddison (2006, p. 51, 120) estimates 48. Roman Empire Population estimates 65 (while mentioning several other estimates between 55 and 120 ).
  14. ^ Scheidel, Walter; Friesen, Steven J. (Nov. 2009): "The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income in the Roman Empire", The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 99, pp. 61–91
  15. ^ Recorded number of persons and households in 156 are 56,486,856 and 10,677,960 respectively (Book of the Later Han).
  16. ^ Recorded number of persons and households in 1290 are 58,834,711 and 13,196,206, respectively (History of Yuan), while recorded peak number of persons and households are 59,848,964 and 13,430,322 in 1291, respectively (History of Yuan).
  17. ^ Recorded number of persons and households in AD 2 are 58,594,978 and 12,233,062, respectively (Book of Han).
  18. ^ Recorded number of persons and households are 46,019,956 and 8,907,546, respectively, in 606 (Tongdian) or 609 (Book of Sui).
  19. ^ While estimates for the Achaemenid Empire range from 10–80+ million, most prefer 40–50 million. Prevas (2009, p. 14) estimates 10 [1]. Langer (2001, p. 40) estimates around 16 2. McEvedy and Jones (2001, p. 50) estimates 17 3. Strauss (2004, p. 37) estimates about 20 4. Ward (2009, p. 16) estimates at 20 5. Aperghis (2007, p. 311) estimates 32 6. Scheidel (2009, p. 99) estimates 35 7. Zeinert (1996, p. 32) estimates 40 8. Rawlinson and Schauffler (1898, p. 270) estimates possibly 50 9. Astor (1899, p. 56) estimates almost 50 10. Lissner (1961, p. 111) estimates probably 50 11. Milns (1968, p. 51) estimates some 50 12. Hershlag (1980, p. 140) estimates nearly 50 13. Daniel (2001, p. 41) estimates at 50 15. Meyer and Andreades (2004, p. 58) estimates to 50 16. Pollack (2004, p. 7) estimates about 50 17. Jones (2004, p. 8) estimates over 50 18. Safire (2007, p. 627) estimates in 50 19. Dougherty (2009, p. 6) estimates about 70 20. Richard (2008, p. 34) estimates nearly 70 21. Mitchell (2004, p. 16) estimates over 70 22. Hanson (2001, p. 32) estimates almost 75 23. West (1913, p. 85) estimates about 75 24. Zenos (1889, p. 2) estimates exactly 75 25. Cowley (1999 and 2001, p. 17) estimates possibly 80 26. Cook (1904, p. 277) estimates exactly 80 27.
  20. ^ Yarshater (1996, p. 47)
  21. ^ «Five Empires That Were Close to World Domination». Joseph Kaminski. March 20, 2016. Retrieved August 16, 2016.
  22. ^ Boesche, Roger (2003-03-01). The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra. p. 11. ISBN 9780739106075. 
  23. ^ Demeny, Paul George; McNicoll, Geoffrey (May 2003). Encyclopedia of population. ISBN 9780028656793. 
  • J. Beloch (1886), Die Bevölkerung der griechisch–römischen Welt, Duncker and Humblot, Leipzig.
  • Jean-Noël Biraben (2003). "The rising numbers of humankind", Populations & Societies 394.
  • Roger Boesche (2003). "Kautilya's Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India", The Journal of Military History 67 (p. 9–38).
  • Raymond W. Goldsmith (1984), "An estimate of the size and structure of the national product of the Early Roman Empire", Journal of the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth 30
  • Mark Harrison (1998). The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison.
  • Angus Maddison (2006). The Contours of the World Economy 1–2030 AD. Oxford University Press.
  • Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones (1978), "Atlas of World Population History", Facts on File (p. 342–351). New York.
  • Walter Scheidel (2006). Imperial state formation in Rome and China.[dead link] Stanford University.

Territorial Extent at the Tang Dynasty's Height[edit]

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

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

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

Baidu Baike is a collaborative web-based encyclopedia, just like Wikipedia – and WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Baidu Baike is also censored in accordance with the Chinese governement's requirements, which would on its own be enough to put the reliability of Baidu Baike seriously in question.
In case you can't access Taagepera's article[1], here's what it says on the relevant page:

T'ang-Chin-Sung

610 3.1 He,W Sui uniflcation of China since 589
650 3.6 W T'ang dynasty since 618; He: 3.0 Mm2
660 4.9 He,W +/-.5 W. Turkestan conquered
670 3.9 W,He +/-.8 Turkestan lost, Balkash region added
692 4.9 W,He +/-.5 Turkestan retaken from Tufan
715 5.4 W,He +/-.3
751 4.6 W,He +/-.5 Balkash region lost; conflict with Arabs
766 3.6 W,He +/-.5
The table then continues on the following page. As far as I can tell, the campaigns you're referring to have been accounted for.
I'll add that Taagepera's previous article[2] puts the end of the Eastern Göktürks in 640 (with the explanatory note "Destruction by Uighur revolt"), and the Western Göktürks in 650 (with the explanatory note "Defeat by Uighurs, Chinese"). Might the Uyghur Khaganate be the explanation for the discrepancy between what you're describing and Taagepera's figures? TompaDompa (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. ^ Rein Taagepera (September 1997). "Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia". International Studies Quarterly. 41 (3): 492. doi:10.1111/0020-8833.00053. Retrieved 16 September 2016. 
  2. ^ Taagepera, Rein (1979). "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D.". Social Science History. 3 (3/4): 129. doi:10.2307/1170959. Retrieved 16 September 2016.