Talk:List of largest empires

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Colonialism (Rated List-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colonialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colonialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject British Empire
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 
WikiProject Countries (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Geography (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

United states and possesions at greatest extent is not included?[edit]

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:[1] 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)

2015[edit]

It is very strange and quite frankly inexplicable that the United States of America is not included in this list. I'm not sure how the Wikipedia community has come to the conclusion that it doesn't qualify for inclusion, as the arguments against it are rather poor. Some have argued that due to its form of government (Republic, Federation), it does not qualify. As noted, France was a republic for much of its imperial existence. The USSR, also included, was a federation of subnational republics (regardless of how centralized control actually was). Additionally, virtually all current and former US territory acquired after the Louisiana Purchase was done so through force (with the exception of Alaska), and all territory west of the original states started as territories, not states in the union. Manifest destiny. Continental expansion was carried out through conquest, via wars against Mexico and the various Native American tribes. The Spanish-American War along with the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii marked the beginning of overseas American colonies, with the acquisition of Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. In the early 20th century, the U.S. was counted among the great powers, the rest of which are all included in this list. Other American overseas territorial acquisitions included American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, Panama Canal Zone, Guantanamo Bay, and various minor outlying islands (some of these listed were purchased, however). American military occupations over the course of the 20th century additionally include Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Veracruz, Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, and the American occupation zones of Germany and Austria. Peak territory was thus reached in 1945-1946. I don't know whether it's American exceptionalism or some other reason, but there is no legitimate reason for the United States to be excluded. From the arguments above, it seems as though the editors against its inclusion are seeking any possible reason not to include it, which is not a very objective way to go about doing things here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.132.130 (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Commenting here due to an ongoing edit war. This appears to have only been recently added without any sources, and improper table numbering. A bare scan of this fairly substantial section shows a consensus for inclusion was never really reached. There is additionally another talk section below this one opened in 2013, to which the editor who added "11a US" replied with some statistics before adding. My position is that the row should be removed pending further discussion. -- ferret (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

American Colonial Empire should be included[edit]

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)

Someone would have to out the figures, but the USA would easily top the GDP table, and I suspect would be in the top 10 for land mass (do we count seafloor these days).
USA 9.857,000.0 km²
Philippine 300,000.0 km²
Cuba 109,884.0 km²
Puerto Rico 9,104.0 km²
Ryukyu Islands 4,642.1 km²
Serranilla Bank 1,200.0 km²
Guam 549.0 km²
US Virgin Islands 346.4 km²
Northern Mariana Islands 477.0 km²
American Samoa 199.0 km²
Bajo Nuevo Bank 100.0 km²
Kingman Reef 76.0 km²
Wake Island 7.4 km²
Navassa Island 5.4 km²
Midway Islands 5.2 km²
Jarvis Island 4.5 km²
Johnston Atoll 2.8 km²
Baker Island 2.1 km²
Howland Island 1.8 km²
Swains Island 1.5 km²
TOTAL: 10,283,566.1 km² (3,970,507 miles²)
A.j.roberts (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the area numbers. I'll add a list of territorial possessions and dates.
MAJOR TERRITORIES
Philippines (1898 - 1942, 1945 - 1946)
- United States military government of the Philippine Islands (1898 - 1902)
- Insular Government of the Philippine Islands (1901 - 1935)
- Commonwealth of the Philippines (1935 - 1942, 1945 - 1946)
Puerto Rico (1898 - Present)
- Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (1952 - Present)
Territory of Guam (1898 - 1941, 1944 - Present)
Panama Canal Zone (1903 - 1979)
United States Military Government in Cuba / First Occupation of Cuba (1898 - 1902)
Provisional Government of Cuba / Second Occupation of Cuba (1906 - 1909)
United States occupation of Veracruz (1914)
United States Occupation of Haiti (1915 - 1934)
United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1916 - 1924, 1965 - 1966)
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (1947 - 1994)
- Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (1978 - Present)
- Federated States of Micronesia (Associated State) (1986 - Present)
- Republic of the Marshall Islands (Associated State) (1986 - Present)
- Republic of Palau (Associated State) (1994 - Present)
U.S. Virgin Islands / Virgin Islands of the United States (1917 - Present)
Territory of American Samoa (1889 - Present)
Ryukyu Islands (1945 - 1972)
- United States Military Government of the Ryukyu Islands (1945 - 1950)
- United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands (1950 - 1972)
United States occupation of Greenland (1940 - 1945)
United States occupation of Iceland (1941 - 1946)
American Occupation Zones in Allied-occupied Austria (1945 - 1955)
American Occupation Zones in Allied-occupied Germany (1945 - 1949)
Occupation of Japan (1945 - 1952)
United States Army Military Government in Korea (1945 - 1948)
Coalition Provisional Authority (Iraq) (along with the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland) (2003 - 2004)
MINOR TERRITORIES
Occupation of Clipperton Island (1944 - 1945)
Corn Islands (1914 - 1971)
Line Islands (disputed with UK until 1979)
- Kingman Reef (1856 - Present)
- Palmyra Atoll (1898 - Present)
- Jarvis Island (1857 - Present)
Phoenix Islands (disputed with UK until 1979)
- Baker Island (1857 - Present)
- Howland Island (1856 - Present)
Quita Sueno Bank (1869 - 1981)
Roncador Bank (1856 - 1981)
Serrana Bank (until 1981)
Swan Islands (1863 - 1972)
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (1903 - Present)
Johnston Atoll (1858 - Present)
Wake Island (1899 - 1941, 1945 - Present)
Midway Atoll / Midway Islands (1859 - Present)
Navassa Island (1857 - Present)
Serranilla Bank (1879 - Present)
Bajo Nuevo Bank (1869 - Present)
Additionally, some 30-40 former territories that are now incorporated into US states, along with 326 Indian Reservations aka Domestic Dependent Nations.
At first I had the peak territorial extent occurring from 1945-1946, but if we include the occupation of Greenland, that probably dwarfs other territories and would thus make peak territorial extent occurring in 1941.

...The United States is one of the most impressive political entities to have ever existed since the Treaty of Paris which assigned the Mississippi River as most of its western boundary. Although the United States has never had any semblance of monarchical government, the office of President of the United States is one of the most powerful institutions that any leader has ever had.

Military power? This has been the worst nemesis that any other country could face in a frontal war. Economic power? Obvious enough! Cultural power? Surprisingly limited. (Small countries like Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, and Norway have classical composers more impressive than any American). Pbrower2a (talk) 04:46, 15 January 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)

Ottoman Area[edit]

Ottoman Empire is known to be 19.9m sq km in 1595 Some people say that this doesn't include inner lands and inhabited areas. The state has total hegemony over these lands. 5 million figure covers only coasts. Russian Empire is calculated with Siberia and vast Asian tundra. Umayyad also has vast deserts. But only Ottomans excluded surrounding areas. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Cannolis (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You have to remember that Umayyad Caliphate included Persia, Khorasan, Kirman, Makran, Sistan, all the way to Sind touching Multan next to Punjab and in the upper areas they had Transoxania and the Ferghana Valley and don't forget Khwarezm. In the Western Europe areas, they had Andalus(Iberia) and Southern France under their control especially Septimania with the City Narbonne. Ottoman Empire is not comparable to the Umayyad Empire in that regard. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Several problems - rank & Karkota[edit]

I'm not sure that this can be fixed without quite a bit of work, but the "rank" column seems out of step with a few generally minor wiggles, e.g., ranks 83, 84, 85 are 2.5 > 2.3 >(?) 2.5. Sorting by any column works (assuming all the data-sort-value are correct, I haven't checked), but the default rank order isn't quite right.

There is one glaring anomaly for which the article on the empire needs some work: the Karkota Dynasty of Kashmir has recently been messed with in this table, but has a totally unreferenced article with what seem suspicious numbers. I've added a comment to its Talk page. The numbers in this table are totally incompatible with the listed rank (much too large). However, I'm not an expert, and haven't found any reliable sources on a quick search. I think the article is best titled "Karkota Dynasty" - there seems to have been a single region ruled by several dynasties. It originally had that name, but it was changed. The size needs to be sourced, in the Karkota article if not here. If somebody has the information, please correct relevant articles, but be sure to include sources. Pol098 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Alexander's empire[edit]

... MUST come in before the Achaemenid at least — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.200.23 (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete this article[edit]

Please delete this article and have it built up by scratch by some competent historian. It is entirely worthless and contributes only confusion and factual inaccuracy. A terrible mess!


- and have this person add token maps next to the empires listed while he's at it

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.118.234.118 (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The empire on which the sun never sets[edit]

The phrase "The empire on which the sun never sets" was first used for the Spanish Empire, not the Portuguese. See the Wikipedia article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.15.160.36 (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Unaccurate statements[edit]

This article is really dubious. Just take the example of the Bulgarian Empire, supposed to have had a maximum extension of 5.5 millions km². It is a plain lie. Can't we just delete the article and write it again with the verified and accurate bits ? Criton-tomates (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

First and Second Bulgarian Empires[edit]

The two entries for Bulgar Empire and Bulgarian Empire both linked to the same article, but with vastly different statistics. I changed those entries to First Bulgarian Empire and Second Bulgarian Empire, then fit the numbers and references to the ones in the primary articles. In the process, I deleted some citations that were attached to the old data; I suspect the sources were actually associated with another entry in the past.

While doing this task, I ran across several conversion and arithmetic errors, and corrected what I could. I suspect that this list has succumbed to data corruption over time, most likely due to new editors struggling with table formats, and maybe some vandalism. The whole list needs to be proofed, and citations filled in. But this is not my field, and I have no access to sources. I hope maybe one of the WikiProjects can take it on as a team task.

It would also be extremely helpful if the table could be broken down into a few smaller ones. — Gorthian (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the entire article could use a do-over. Utilizing one of the WikiProjects sounds like a good idea, but I have to confess I'm not familiar with how these things are usually done. How would you suggest going about this? TompaDompa (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The Spanish empire is most bigger than you get here[edit]

The Spanish empire had all of South America except Suriname and French Guiana (but Brazil if I had the Iberian Union), the caribbean islands (Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti and Puerto Rico), to Mexico and MORE OF THE HALF Or 75% in the United States, and what is now British Columbia. Thanks to the Iberian Union had as I said to Brazil, Portugal, Angola, Mozambique, Somalia. In Western Sahara, the Philippines, European parties as the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Roussillon, Millan, Naples, etc. Add it up and that was to extension of the Spanish Empire. The Spanish Empire was the second most extensive.

Look at the extension by mixing only America (CONTINENT), African (Angola, Mozambique, etc), European and asiatic , IT IS BIGGER THAN THE MONGOLIAN AND RUSSIAN!!
They are smaller than the Spanish
They are smaller than the Spanish

--Derekitou (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)