The Most Powerful "Empire" In History?

[LCBOY]

What "empire" or nation has had the most influence in human history? Where does the USA stand? I've read in several articles recently that the USA is probably the most "powerful" nation in human history. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? Do you see the EU even rivaling the USA in terms of power or influence in the future?

[jimlintott]

What have the Romans ever done for us?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think you have to put it into the perspective of the amount of influence a given empire exerted over "the known world."

With that in mind, Alexander's empire would probably top my list.

[JAR]

I'm not sure. To find out which empire was the most powerful, you'd have to take a lot of things into account.

[Supercharts]

The USA has the most powerful military in history. Not considering the technology but rather the extent it can project power and influence around the world.

In terms of Empire as commerce I'd say the UK in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Mainly for it's scope.

In terms of the known world at any time the Mongols.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by LCBOY
What "empire" or nation has had the most influence in human history? Where does the USA stand? I've read in several articles recently that the USA is probably the most "powerful" nation in human history. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? Do you see the EU even rivaling the USA in terms of power or influence in the future?
If you mean military influence, I would vote for Great Britain. If you mean cultural influence, I would vote for Greece, or perhaps Islam, if you can call that an empire. Even though it is really a religious movement, I consider it essentially a military empire as led by Mohammed.

Tim

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I think you have to put it into the perspective of the amount of influence a given empire exerted over "the known world."

With that in mind, Alexander's empire would probably top my list.

You make a good point. Would you happen to know that state of the Chinese "empire" at the time of Alexander? How much land did Alexander control?

[Kilted_Canuck]

The US, UK, and Canada have made one of the largest lingual empires in the world with English. I know that more people speak manderin than anyother language, but greater numbers of people in more countries speak english. All trading with the richer 'western nations' must be done in english, with few exceptions.

[Graham]

Originally posted by LCBOY


You make a good point. Would you happen to know that state of the Chinese "empire" at the time of Alexander? How much land did Alexander control?

IIRC, Alexander's level of control was minimal and consisted mostly of leaving a governer and a garrison in conquered cities.

Alexander's empire was also very short-lived too. I don't think he was that interested in actually ruling, he just wanted to conquer and move on.

The mongol empire was far bigger and far more concrete. The Chinese Empire gets far too little recognition in th eWest, IMO. Didn't it last for something like 6000 years? And control an area of land larger than Europe.

Actually, if you think about it, in a way the Chinese Empire still continues. The communists are no more alien or different than some of the other dynasties that went before.

So that's it - China gets my vote!

Graham

[Dancing David]

Some people believe that India is the root civilization that culture came from...

[Kodiak]

In their totality, it would be a toss up between the Roman Empire and the "Golden Horde" (AKA the Mongols).

[kedo1981]

Most influence on the world: Ancient Egypt ; because nearly all western religions are just off shoots of Egyptian myths and religions, same with architecture.

Most Powerful: USA USA USA

Wealth: Mongol

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Kilted_Canuck
The US, UK, and Canada have made one of the largest lingual empires in the world with English. I know that more people speak manderin than anyother language, but greater numbers of people in more countries speak english. All trading with the richer 'western nations' must be done in english, with few exceptions.

Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Romanian, and others are derivative of Latin, left over from the Roman empire. English is technically Germanic but 60% of its words have Latin roots.

Most legal systems to this day are influenced heavily by that of ancient Rome. The Romans invented "Legaleze".

[Larspeart]

Good topic. Interesting and tough question, depending on the criteria.

Sheer size- No question, the Mongols.

Lasting impact- A combined answer. It is easy to say the Romans, but their empire was all derivative of the Greek empire, so. . . Both.

Military Power/Effectiveness- USA. No military has ever been able to project power with the speed power the US has.

Wealth- Toss up between the Mongols and the US. If we are talking 'mass of total global wealth' it could be either one.

Religious- Islamic Empire.

Length of empire's rule- Mongol or Romanogrecian


That's my take.

[MartinGibbs]

Originally posted by jimlintott
What have the Romans ever done for us?

...apart from the sanitation, the medecine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system, and public health...

[Hellcat]

The UK is top dog on adapting to changes *ahem* borrowing ideas then exporting them back out to the original country borrowed from.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Graham

Actually, if you think about it, in a way the Chinese Empire still continues. The communists are no more alien or different than some of the other dynasties that went before.

So that's it - China gets my vote!

Graham

I would agree with you. I do not believe China has even been occupied by a foreign power. I may be wrong, though. I have not really studied the issue. Present China is very strong economically and militarily.

[SteveW]

I take exception to the Aztec's as being a great "empire." Anyone conquered by a few hundred guys and a cannon can't be that great.


It sucks to not have gunpowder and cavalry.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Good topic. Interesting and tough question, depending on the criteria.

Sheer size- No question, the Mongols.

Lasting impact- A combined answer. It is easy to say the Romans, but their empire was all derivative of the Greek empire, so. . . Both.

Military Power/Effectiveness- USA. No military has ever been able to project power with the speed power the US has.

Wealth- Toss up between the Mongols and the US. If we are talking 'mass of total global wealth' it could be either one.

Religious- Islamic Empire.

Length of empire's rule- Mongol or Romanogrecian

That's my take.

Obviously the current American military might is impressive and powerful. Is it as powerful as the Roman military at its peak? I remember a few months ago a History Channel special on the Roman military. One of the historcial experts gave the view that the Roman Army simply could not be defeated. I'm not sure I believe that but it was an interesting point he made. Is the present American military machine unbeatable? I would say all the militaries in the world that can give the USA a battle are allies of the US, except for China.

[Mike B.]

Well the Ostrogoths and other German tribes beat the Romans.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by LCBOY
What "empire" or nation has had the most influence in human history? Where does the USA stand? I've read in several articles recently that the USA is probably the most "powerful" nation in human history.

The United States may be the 'most powerful' country in the world. The thing is, I don't really know if it qualifies as an empire.

When I think of 'empire', I think of a powerful country which directly controls other countries within its sphere of influence. In the case of the US, even though it does have military bases and 'allies' around the world, it usually doesn't exert full control over the policies of the other countries.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


The United States may be the 'most powerful' country in the world. The thing is, I don't really know if it qualifies as an empire.

When I think of 'empire', I think of a powerful country which directly controls other countries within its sphere of influence. In the case of the US, even though it does have military bases and 'allies' around the world, it usually doesn't exert full control over the policies of the other countries.

Good point, which is why I put "empire" in quotes. The US might not exert full control over other policies DIRECTLY but it does exert influence INDIRECTLY. I wonder how many governments has the CIA help topple? It would be too difficult to occupy other nations today and there is no more land available to colonize.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Addressing a couple of points from above.

I mentioned Alexander within the context of my "known world" comment. He had conquered both Egypt and Persia, two of the most powerful nations in the world. Obviously, since he took neither Carthage or Rome, he didn't conquer the "known world," but he had conquered much of the world that was known to the Greeks.

Regarding Alexander and China. When he got to India he was told tales of another civilization off to the northeast. Of course his troops were ready to go home at that point so they turned around.

What's interesting is that China was in the Warring States period when he would have arrived there. I wonder how his cavalry would have fared against 250,000 screaming Chinamen.

Regarding China as uninterrupted empire. Yes and no. China as a culture has remained largely the product of the Han ethnicity and the Han (in addition to the the Han dynasty itself) have been the rulers of most of China's dyansties, but there have been several breaks in the chain.

Apart from the Three Kingdom period after the Han you also have the Yuan Dynasty (Mongol) and the Qing Dynasty (Manchu) and neither of these people's are considered chinese. So for 100 years under the Yuan and 400 years under the Qing, the Chinese were living under foreign rule.

Some of the other comments above have been great. Good thread.

Let me try and toss a monkey wrench into the mix.

Most influential last 2000 years - Rome.
Most influential last 1000 years - Viking.
Most influential last 500 years - Byzantine.

Discuss...

[Cinorjer]

An Empire, according to my dictionary, is "a group of territories or nations controlled by a central authority". So what nation(s) fall under this definition depend on how strictly you want to define the definitions. Rome was certainly the classic example of an Empire. China, for all its strength, was never an Empire. Empires don't build walls to keep people out; they march into other nations and take over.

The US has played with being an Empire in the past, and never been very good at it. Not because of some great moral principle, but because it's been more bother than it's worth. Local populations are notorious for not appreciating the benefits of foreign rule, and maintaining an army in the field to keep stomping on the rebels is expensive. The driving force of Empire building has always been economic at heart, with the riches of the conquered territory flowing back into the central nation.

Many people are concerned that the US is on the path of becoming an Empire. All it takes is military power (we certainly have that) and the willingness to ignore human rights in the conquered territory (we can learn that). Only time will tell.

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Let me try and toss a monkey wrench into the mix.

Most influential last 2000 years - Rome.
Most influential last 1000 years - Viking.
Most influential last 500 years - Byzantine.

Discuss...

Hmmm...not sure I understand the last one- wasn't the Byzantine empire destroyed by the Turks when Constantinople fell in 1453?

As for the other two- it depends onto whom the influence was exerted. Culturally, China was very influential on its surrounding region. But if you mean the West, then I would agree with you for the first one.

As for the second one, I think the Islamic empire probably had more of an influence on the West during the middle ages up to early modern times. Don't forget that much Europe was once controlled by Islam, and that Europe's interaction with Islam shaped much of its history during this period. Also a lot of science and learning in this period was transmitted to the Europeans from the the Arabs, not to mention the fact that many ancient Greek texts were preserved by Arabic scholars. In fact, the rediscovery of this classical learning through this source was one of the things that sparked off the Renaissance.

Just my two euro-cents. :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
China, for all its strength, was never an Empire. Empires don't build walls to keep people out; they march into other nations and take over.

I must disagree (on your whole point, but I quoted China because it's applicable).

Here's why. The progression of Dynasties throughout Imperial China did conquer peoples... it was just the same peoples repeatedly. ;)

Brian, I'll address your points this evening.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Well the Ostrogoths and other German tribes beat the Romans.

Actually, the Romans beat the Romans!

The Marian Legions took on all comers for about 4 centuries (and the Camillan legions prior to that hadn't done to badly either with Carthage and the Greeks to their credit).

The peak of Roman power was probably in the period of the "5 good emporers" (from Nerva 96-98 AD to Marcus Aurelius 161-180 AD) who appointed their successors on merit. This ended when Marcus Aurelius died in 180, and was succceeded by his son (you have seen "Gladiator" right!!!) and things were never quite the same again. Cue half a century of economic decline, tyranny and general unpleasentness only slightly offset by the spectacle of Christians being thrown to the Lions (If you look hard enough there's normally a bright spot in even the darkest chapter of history).

Anyhow, around 230 AD a massive civil war kicked off as several Army detachments proclaimed their generals emperor. The ensuing struggle lasted 50 years! To put this in context, the US civil war lasted 4 years (and was by far the bloodiest war the States have fought), the English Civil War went on and off for the best part of a decade and was costlier in terms of percentage of population than any other war England has been involved in. Now with the Romans we're talking 50 years of chaos, anarchy, hastily levied troops thrown straight in.

By the time Diocletian restored order around 280 the old Roman legions had gone forever. The old professional long service army, staffed by the famed centurians, had been lost over half a century of atrritional combat against fellow legionaries.
Recognising this Diocletian reorganised his army around an (increasingly barbarian) core of heavy cavalry.
Who - eventually - got beaten by the barbarians.

The Romans still win overall I reckon, having defeated all comers in Europe, Asia and Africa for over 500 years.

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by Giz


Cue half a century of economic decline, tyranny and general unpleasentness only slightly offset by the spectacle of Christians being thrown to the Lions (If you look hard enough there's normally a bright spot in even the darkest chapter of history).



Now come on. That's just mean.


Anyway. . .

The Chinese were interupted many times. The mongols were NOT chinese for starters, and took over the whole of China for a time. Also, as another poster pointed out, the Manchua were also not chinese.

Alexander was the holder of the title of 'Greatest Empire' up to his time, for certain.

The Vikings. As a trading empire, they are unmatched, at least until modern times. As anything else empirewise, no way. What they had (unless you count Russia as being their empire) was never an empire of settlement, conquer, take-over, etc. They were raiders n' traders through and through. The Danelaw can't be counted as 'Viking' empire, or viking territory. The vikings that happened to go there and stay simply happened to be Viking. They were NEVER a cohesive nation-state, ruled by a leader or set group of leaders, nor were they ever (really) governed back in Norway/Sweden. So, I'll allow that they had a massive trading empire, but that is the only way I can see their accomplishments in terms of Empire.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by SteveW
I take exception to the Aztec's as being a great "empire." Anyone conquered by a few hundred guys and a cannon can't be that great.


It sucks to not have gunpowder and cavalry.

The importation of disease had more to do with the fall of the native americans than any imagined superiority in arm! Small pox and measles killed upwards of ninety percent of the adults.

The stuff about the natives being afraid of horses is foolish, these were some tough warriors.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Dancing David


The importation of disease had more to do with the fall of the native americans than any imagined superiority in arm! Small pox and measles killed upwards of ninety percent of the adults.

The stuff about the natives being afraid of horses is foolish, these were some tough warriors.

As I understand it, the key to Spanish success was that they (despite being a small group) could use their gunpowder weapons, metal swords etc at a crucial point in the aztec battle line, breaking it, which would then be exploited by their native allies.

On their own the Spainiards would have just got mobbed but at the head of the anti-aztec coalition they proved to be the winning edge.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Giz
Cue half a century of economic decline, tyranny and general unpleasentness only slightly offset by the spectacle of Christians being thrown to the Lions (If you look hard enough there's normally a bright spot in even the darkest chapter of history).


I remember seeing a show on the history channel that talked about these 'spectacles'. Apparantely, the lions weren't treated all that well, and were often not that interested in 'attacking' their victims. Sometimes, the victim had to actually go up to the lion, open its mouth and stick their head in to get them to bite.

Originally posted by Giz

By the time Diocletian restored order around 280 the old Roman legions had gone forever. The old professional long service army, staffed by the famed centurians, had been lost over half a century of atrritional combat against fellow legionaries.
Recognising this Diocletian reorganised his army around an (increasingly barbarian) core of heavy cavalry.
Who - eventually - got beaten by the barbarians.


I had also heard another reason why the Romans relied on more 'mercenaries' at the end of their empire. In the early days, one of the 'rewards' of being a soldier is that you would eventually become a citizen. Later, citizenship was extended to all people born within the empire; when that happened, some of the incentive to be a soldier was lost.

[Larspeart]

Bone/wood/stone spears and arrows vs. steel breastplate = Spanish winner.

Spanish guns vs. unarmored Aztec = Spanish winner

Spanish cannons vs. unfortified and unreinforced Aztec cities, castles, and temples = Spanish winner

Look, I get tired of this 'but they were fierce warriors' crap. Yes, they were brave. Yes, they were fierce. but. . .

Yes, they got beat by vastly superior technology. Same as the 'Fierce Afgan mujaheedan's' we heard about before going to Afganistan. Took the US what? a couple weeks? a month, tops?

Technology wins the day on the modern battlefield, even against overwhelming numbers, knowledge of terrain, better supplies, etc. If your enemy is 1000 years behind you technology-wise, you WILL LOSS.

Want more proof? Take one M1A1 tank with plenty of gas and ammo. Go back 1500 years. Watch you take over all of Europe with that one tank. No weapon could harm you, and no defense could stop you.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Want more proof? Take one M1A1 tank with plenty of gas and ammo. Go back 1500 years. Watch you take over all of Europe with that one tank. No weapon could harm you, and no defense could stop you.

On a similiar note, I once operated a high-tech tank simulator that allowed me to take a modern Leopard MBT against WWII era tanks (Sherman's, Churchill's, T-72's, Mk IV Panzers, etc...).

The result, every time against every vehicle type, was that I could shoot and move at will while receiving either one or two ineffectual hits, or no hits whatsoever. Often, once my main cannon ammo was gone, I was even able to incapacitate other tanks by pushing them into ditches or over drop-offs and bridges.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Kodiak


On a similiar note, I once operated a high-tech tank simulator that allowed me to take a modern Leopard MBT against WWII era tanks (Sherman's, Churchill's, T-72's, Mk IV Panzers, etc...).

The result, every time against every vehicle type, was that I could shoot and move at will while receiving either one or two ineffectual hits, or no hits whatsoever. Often, once my main cannon ammo was gone, I was even able to incapacitate other tanks by pushing them into ditches or over drop-offs and bridges.

I hear that tie-fighters work pretty well against ww1 biplanes as well...

[LW]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
Rome was certainly the classic example of an Empire. ... Empires don't build walls to keep people out; they march into other nations and take over.

You do know of Hadrian's Wall (http://www.hadrians-wall.org/), don't you? And the Upper German-Raetian Limes (http://www.limes-in-deutschland.de/limes_english.html)? And the one in Tunisia and Libya?

[LW]

Originally posted by Larspeart












Take one M1A1 tank with plenty of gas and ammo. Go back 1500 years. Watch you take over all of Europe with that one tank. No weapon could harm you, and no defense could stop you.

I believe they had already invented spades even back then. A M1A1 stuck in a 10-meter deep ditch may have some trouble in conquering the rest of Europe.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Larspeart

The Vikings. As a trading empire, they are unmatched, at least until modern times.

I don't know. I would suspect the Hanseatic league can more than compete with the Vikings as a trading empire.

That said, the Vikings (in the broad sense of the word) was a culture rather than an empire of any kind. There was never any centralized authority or even any cooperative organization of "the vikings."

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


Hmmm...not sure I understand the last one- wasn't the Byzantine empire destroyed by the Turks when Constantinople fell in 1453?

As for the other two- it depends onto whom the influence was exerted. Culturally, China was very influential on its surrounding region. But if you mean the West, then I would agree with you for the first one.

As for the second one, I think the Islamic empire probably had more of an influence on the West during the middle ages up to early modern times. Don't forget that much Europe was once controlled by Islam, and that Europe's interaction with Islam shaped much of its history during this period. Also a lot of science and learning in this period was transmitted to the Europeans from the the Arabs, not to mention the fact that many ancient Greek texts were preserved by Arabic scholars. In fact, the rediscovery of this classical learning through this source was one of the things that sparked off the Renaissance.

Just my two euro-cents. :)

A couple of quibbles and a nod to Lief's comment about the Viking influence.

I looked back, through the lens of my formal and informal education at where the world is today and found it is largly the result of two major historical eras - European Colonialism and The Cold War. Both of those events have their roots in each of the touchstone empires* I mentioned for their respective time frames.

The simple fact is that Europe would not be the Europe it is today if:

1. Rome hadn't established cultural and political influence of most nations south and west of the Rhine.

2. This fact made Rome the obvious chioce to be the home of Christendom's most powerful Bishop (aka the Pope).

3. The Vikings(*to address Lief's point) while not an empire, had a lot of cultural influence on some of the most powerful nation states to develop after their time had ended (England, France and Russia specificially).

4. The Vikings, because of Rome's cultural influence, long after the Empire fell, become Christian and largely adopt the practices of the lands they have emigrated to.

5. There would be no Russia without the advent of the Kieven Rus state - a Viking state.

6. Islam and the associated culture is held back from Europe by the Byzantines, and eventually only the city of Constantinople itself for 800 years. Had Islam overrun the Byzantines, Europe, and the world we live in today would be radically different.

7. Catholic Spain - another Roman legacy eventually goes on to dominate the southern Western Hemisphere, while France and England - a Viking legacy dominate the majority of the northern Western Hemisphere.

8. By the 1800s virtually the entire planet is ruled in some way by one of the three mentioned above or other Roman legacy states like Belgium (Gaul) or Italy (Rome itself).

9. Following WWII the cold war develops between the US and UK (Viking states) and Russia (Viking State).

I think the case is clearly made just through these nine points that the Empires I've mentioned have had the most influence (within the times I've framed them.. up to today).

One last point regarding China. China actually, if we consider the Buddhist religious and the Mongol and Manchu cultural influences actually was more influenced by outside sources than exerted influence on other cultures.

Ex. Vietnam is Buddist, not Conficious or Taoist. And the concept of an Emperor with a Mandate of Heaven is foreign to most of the surrounding peoples. Neither did they adopt the Chinese language something seen in the official language of Rome to this day (QE II reference to her "annablis horriblus.")

The influence of the Arab empire (and later Turkish Muslim empires) is never to be overlooked, but in most cases, with the exception of preserving the wisdom of the Greeks, Persians and Egyptians, most of the "what happened later down the line" aspects of their civilization were in opposition to it, not acceptance or adoption of it.

--- Thank you all for a wonderfully stimulating thread btw. :)

[Larspeart]

Lief and Sinner,

I thought I had made the point that the Vikings were more of a culture then an empire clear. I ceretainly wasn't trying to imply they had any kind of an Empire in any true sense of the word. Also, I brought up that the only thing that they had that would even closely resemble an Empire was the same thing you did; Russia.

Lief quoted only the 1st sentence of my post. If he'd have quoted/looked at the rest, I think it would have been much clearer how I felt. :rolleyes:

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Giz


As I understand it, the key to Spanish success was that they (despite being a small group) could use their gunpowder weapons, metal swords etc at a crucial point in the aztec battle line, breaking it, which would then be exploited by their native allies.

On their own the Spainiards would have just got mobbed but at the head of the anti-aztec coalition they proved to be the winning edge.

I guess thats why they went and killed all the soldiers of the Aztecs during a religous ceremony and held the king hostage and then got driven out of town by the old people and children.

Seriously I think that the europeans history over plays the role of the technology.

I agree that tacticaly it gave them a slight advantage, but the reload time on muskets is so slow that you basicaly get one shot and then use your sword.

The reason the spansih conquered is disease, in my bloated opinion.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Bone/wood/stone spears and arrows vs. steel breastplate = Spanish winner.
Spanish guns vs. unarmored Aztec = Spanish winner
>>>>
Spanish gun goes bang, then they draw the sword. Aztec warrior goes down, another taKes his place But they run out quickley because 97% of them are dying from small pox and measles)
>>>>>
Spanish cannons vs. unfortified and unreinforced Aztec cities, castles, and temples = Spanish winner
>>>>>>>>
Spanish carry very small mortars and a few cannon. No real impact on unfortified city.
Tenochtitlan is in the middle a lake, Spaniards use kidnap and ambush to kill warriors who are left after disease, old people and children drive 'superior' forces from city.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Look, I get tired of this 'but they were fierce warriors' crap. Yes, they were brave. Yes, they were fierce. but. . .

Yes, they got beat by vastly superior technology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Look I get tired of this 'vastly superior technology' crap, yes they had guns, yes they had armor

They got beat because they were dying in huge numbers from disease
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Want more proof? Take one M1A1 tank with plenty of gas and ammo. Go back 1500 years. Watch you take over all of Europe with that one tank. No weapon could harm you, and no defense could stop you. [/B]

Larspent this is really silly
- where will you get gas
-where will you get ammo
-will you live in the tank? Howuch food is there?
-how will you control your empire?


The logistics of war fare are as important as the weapons. You can't control a world with one tank.

Giz- I agree with your notion of the tactical advantage.

The reason the europeans conqured the new world is that disease did the work for them, they had a slim tactical advantage.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Giz


I hear that tie-fighters work pretty well against ww1 biplanes as well...

Giz, you do know that tie-fighters are not real, right??? :(

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Lief and Sinner,

I thought I had made the point that the Vikings were more of a culture then an empire clear. I ceretainly wasn't trying to imply they had any kind of an Empire in any true sense of the word. Also, I brought up that the only thing that they had that would even closely resemble an Empire was the same thing you did; Russia.

Lief quoted only the 1st sentence of my post. If he'd have quoted/looked at the rest, I think it would have been much clearer how I felt. :rolleyes:

Actually Lars, instead of agreeing to disagree, we seem to have a (at least on your part) disagreement over agreeing.(sic - damn I hate English).

I agree that while the Vikings were not part of some grand unified political empire... their trade and cultural roots as a culture as a whole left deep impacts on the world as we know it today. And that was my whole point. The Viking conquests of land resulted in the overall cultural and political landscape we see today more than any other entity of their time period (about 750 to about 1000 CE).

All this makes me think of the verbiage I did not use to describe my points about the Empires/civilizations that I listed for the time frames - "ripple effect." Many nations have had influence in some way or another during the time periods I couched my nominations within, but only the ones I listed had a lasting "ripple effect" on the history of the world.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Lief and Sinner,

Lief quoted only the 1st sentence of my post. If he'd have quoted/looked at the rest, I think it would have been much clearer how I felt. :rolleyes:

Sorry - I actually only disagreed with your assertion that the vikings were unmatched as a trading empire. The rest of my post was in agreement with your's (which is why I only quoted your first sentence - it was the only part of your post I replied to directly.) I should have made that clearer.

[Larspeart]

David, the point was, taking gas/ammo restraints out of the equation, a single tank could.

Look, if we are gonna put a tank in Medieval Europe, I 'think' we can suspend disbelief on the gas/ammo amounts. I said that given enough gas/ammo, a tank could. My point wasn't on logistics. It was on armor and weapon capabilities, as they pertain to technology.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Larspeart
David, the point was, taking gas/ammo restraints out of the equation, a single tank could.

Look, if we are gonna put a tank in Medieval Europe, I 'think' we can suspend disbelief on the gas/ammo amounts. I said that given enough gas/ammo, a tank could. My point wasn't on logistics. It was on armor and weapon capabilities, as they pertain to technology.

I think David's point was that a technology advantage alone isn't enough - you alse have to be able to apply that advantage. A single tank might be able to apply that advantage for a few battles, but it will not be able to force a battle at will, and without a pretty extensive support team in place, it will break down pretty soon.

The gas / ammo concerns are also limits of the technology, and if you're going to conduct thought experiments, you can't just ignore them because they're inconvenient.

[LW]

Originally posted by Larspeart
David, the point was, taking gas/ammo restraints out of the equation, a single tank could.

As I already posted above, early medieval Europe knew what spades are used for. I think that digging a large-scale AT trench and camouflaging it to trap the tank requires a lot less suspension of disbelief than infinite gas and ammo supplies. Early medieval people did some very remarkable construction works, like the 130 km long Offa's Dyke (http://www.castlewales.com/offa.html).

And, even if the tank is a magic hovertank that can fly over all obstacles, then how is it going to control the area?

[thinkren]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


One last point regarding China. China actually, if we consider the Buddhist religious and the Mongol and Manchu cultural influences actually was more influenced by outside sources than exerted influence on other cultures.

Ex. Vietnam is Buddist, not Conficious or Taoist. And the concept of an Emperor with a Mandate of Heaven is foreign to most of the surrounding peoples. Neither did they adopt the Chinese language something seen in the official language of Rome to this day (QE II reference to her "annablis horriblus.")



To say China was less of an empire because it was influenced by a foreign religion like Buddhism is like saying most of the Christian West is actually semitic in its roots because the Roman empire adopted Christianity which started off as an off-shoot of the Jewish religion. One may argue about how much of Buddhism or Christianity reflects the identity of its place of origin, but I think the important thing is that characteristics of these religions took on important significance in the adopted land that reflected the local sense of cultural identity. The Buddhism as practiced in China is notably different from that practiced in India. It is more the Chinese variety of Buddhism that was eventually passed on to other places in the far east such as Korea and Japan. Likewise, Christianity was originally an apocolyptic messianic movement in the tradition of Jewish prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel before Jesus. (may not be completely accurate) The revolts of Jerusalem against Rome and its aftermaths among other events and factors eventually shaped the "Jesus Movement" into something much larger, more greco-roman, and strikingly different from the Jewish religion of its origin.

China's surrounding regions may not have adopted the Chinese language or accepted direct governance, but with the exception of Japan, all the regions were at one time or other under the political/military hegemony of the Chinese empire.

[CapelDodger]

From Graham:
Alexander's empire was also very short-lived too. I don't think he was that interested in actually ruling, he just wanted to conquer and move on.
Actually Alexander was very focused on taking over the Persian Empire and ruling it. That's clear from even before he crossed into Asia Minor. His empire was short-lived (as was he) but the parts it broke into were Greek and there was significant Greek cultural influence all the way to Central Asia.

Empires like the Persian and Alexander's that occupy the area from the Eastern Med to India and the outskirts of China have had their greatest influence indirectly, by acting as conduits for trade and the exchange of knowledge and philosophy. In that regard the Greek Empire lasted longer than Alexander, in a fragmented (and thus less effective) state.

That said,
So that's it - China gets my vote!
I'd agree with that. In terms of home-grown technological innovation and financial techniques like paper ("flying") money they've probably contributed the most.

From Cinorjer:

Empires don't build walls to keep people out; they march into other nations and take over.
Chinese imperial attitudes have varied between expansionist and isolationist. Expansionist periods saw Chinese garrisons in Samarkand and Bokhara and the Central Asian oases, in Vietnam and, of course, Tibet. At times all the city-states and kingdoms of Indo-China, Malaysia and the Indonesian Archipelago sent tribute to China. And the culmination of this policy was seen in the great Treasure Fleets of the mid-15CE that sailed the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf.

At other times, of course, China has put up the shutters and tried to keep out a world it thought it didn't need. A bad idea, as it turns out, but the tendency is still there in the culture (as demonstrated by Mao).

China is definitely a place to watch.