[Doomhammer]

The Byzantine, Chinese and Ottoman Empires were successful in terms of longevity. In terms of size, influence and the speed in which the empire was established Britain, Spain and France were pretty good. We can't comment on America yet because history is still unfolding.

I would still argue that the Turks are legitimate contenders for the title of most victorious nation ever because of its martial traditions and performances on the battlefields of Eurasia and Africa. You have to consider the terror inspired by the Huns in Europe and China and the Turks of the Abbasid army, the Seljuks, the Ottomans etc...

Anyway, we need to determine a set of criteria.

The initial victories of the Turk were compensated with all the losses he suffered when poor sod became sick.

Yeah probably. The defeats in the early 20th century (prior to the Great War) were the most humiliating because the Empire was defeated by a bunch of disrespectful, Slavic, upstarts.

I wouldn't say Mongolia or Turkey are contenders at all unless you're speaking strictly in terms of number of military victories. Look at them today, they've both had quite a fall from glory. They're just two insignificant blobs on the map with nothing to be happy about these days. This could hardly be the result of being the most victorious nations ever.

I don't entirely disagree but the 'curse of empire' plagues all former great powers. UK, France, Germany etc. have decent armies, enjoy great living standards and wield some influence but, really, no one cares that much (America, Russia and China are more important). Turkey has an army and some influence and that' it. Sweden... great living standards but overwhelmingly mediocre and irrelevant. Among the traditional empire only China and Russia maintain strong armies and have significant influence.

Also be specific, which one of the States I mentioned above, Mycene, the Ionian confederation under Pericles(aka Athenian empire), Alexander's empire, Heraclius empire and Basil's Empire, was not a Greek nation?

As an advocate of Sparta, I demand the Peloponnesian League to be put on that list. Lakedemonians are the proper hegemons of Greece and don't you forget it (Athens and Thebes sucks).

[noemon]

As an advocate of Sparta, I demand the Peloponnesian League to be put on that list. Lakedemonians are the proper hegemons of Greece and don't you forget it (Athens and Thebes sucks).

Hehe, I love Sparta too, but I reckon even the Pelloponesian league which had holdings in Sicily, Magna Grecia, the boot of Italy and even Marsellie were not really an "Empire", like the Delian League was, and not even the Delian League was a proper Empire, but she could stand against an Empire like Persia, and make advances in her territory and that is what makes her sort of world player and that is why I put here there, mainly because she influenced global politics directly and actively. The Peloponnesian league of Sparta performed no conquering feat against barbarians and its greatest achievement was the defense against Persia in Thermopylae and such, no aggression, so one could say she influenced global politics by defending Greece, but not really taking Greece to the next level as the Athenians did through the Delian league, and eventually as Alexander did to a whole new level through the Hellenic league.

The difference being between Delian League and Pelloponnesian league, that the former actively engaged in foreign policy with barbarians while the latter was introvertial and content in keeping its Greek cities together, and leave it at that.

[Dr House]

Most Victorious Nation Ever? ( Since Roman Split )

Andorra of course.

[Potemkin]

North Korea of course.

Thanks to the Dear Leader!

Your post has been edited, Dr House. I suspect the hand of Japan in this....

[Doomhammer]

were not really an "Empire", like the Delian League was, and not even the Delian League was a proper Empire

Oh, quite so. Donald Kagan calls it an "alliance under a hegemon" which is probably a more sensible epithet for the Peloponnesian League.

The Pelloponesian league of Sparta performed no conquering feat against barbarians

The difference being between Delian League and Pelloponesian league, that the former actively engaged in foreign policy with barbarians while the latter was introvertial and content in keeping its Greek cities together, and leave it at that.

Well, yeah. It is because the Spartans were virtuous, meticulous people. They were stoic and lovers of restraint. One should think of the Lakedemonians (lol Spartans were also "laconic"... more material for the father character in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding") as uber-powerful robots who usually remained inert because they did not care for the bullshit and petty squabbles of the barbarians. They felt no need to destroy what they did not fear. They were ticked off Athens' 'method' of empire and owing to Athens' mistakes (and to some Persian help), the Spartans defeated the heathen Athenians. But even in victory the Spartans restrained themselves and Athens was hardly punished. [/Spartan Revisionism]

[Bosnjak]

Russia simply the biggest, Their King Iwan 4. maried the Princes of Byzantine and called him Car Iwan 4, russian for Cesar/Emperor, Byzantine/Constantinopel was the later Roman Capitol built by Cesar Constantin.

Russia consider it self as the 3rd Rome.

[Oxymoron]

Thank you for that. What ever that was.

[Igor Antunov]

Mongolia, and that includes all time periods combined, is the most victorious nation on earth. No other nation went from zero to invincible hero in such an explosive fashion.

Turks had a good run too. Hundreds of years of reigning supreme, but that just makes them even with ancient rome.

In terms of longevity, Greece and China, and even Iran are way up there, top three probably. To survive such a span of time and still remain relevant (well maybe not greece) is extraordinary.

[Einherjar]

Mongolia, and that includes all time periods combined, is the most victorious nation on earth. No other nation went from zero to invincible hero in such an explosive fashion.

The Arabs did pretty much the same thing, except their victories were long-lasting

[U184]

When they speak of Greece they are describing a culture, a people a geographic area, not a nation.

Shared culture of a given people and geographic area, united in following the same basic belief structure is the basic definition of a nation.

Still either way you look at it the British Empire wins hands down. They now rule around 30% of the world and have held what they took and have had positive impacts where they rule. (for the most part) The USA was their one and only failure, at least at that proportion.

The Mongols had a 1000 year hay day and at one point held the majority of the then known world. They didn't hold it long and their borders fluctuated constantly. They did not change or control the land that they conquered in any significant way other then to strip the area for their own needs.

Many Nations come close, very few fit the bill, for the most victorious nations are the ones that survive and hold what they have.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Russia would have to rank up there. From a smallish state that lived because the Mogols didn't think it worth the time to conquer it grew and grew until it hit the Pacific (and Nth America for a bit). It has suffered invasions that lesser nations would have been destroyed by but it always came back and grew again. The Russian bear might go through periods of hybernation but once awake is a fearsome beast.

[Thunderhawk]

Does one consider individual battles, wars or long campaigns when determining success? - and if so, with what weight?

Unless we get an measuring system in place, most victorious will remain up to the individual to decide.
- and on that note, I vote England.

[The Antiist]

When measuring sheer mass geographically, here's a list:
http://my.raex.com/~obsidian/earthrul.html

I personally admire the Napoleonic Empire the most by the way, but that's just me. It's the combination of Napoleon's military genius and his liberal reforms that do it for me. I know he was a heartless tyrant at times, but then again we're talking about empires.

[Thompson_NCL]

Well the UK is one of the few countries to have not lost a major war in over 200 years and is still a strong independent nation with the legacy of global Empire (1/4 of worlds land surface). Russia would be a close second but their defeat to the Japanese and the Revolution are my reason for their not holding first place.

[InterestedInPolitics]

The United States is the most victorious nation ever.

[Godstud]

I hate to admit it but the USA is pretty darned Victorious nation. Aside from 1812 & Vietnam they've been very successful and their "empire" has lasted almost as long as the Romans.

[Thunderhawk]

USA: existing for ~230 years
Western centred Roman Empire lasted for ~500 years
Tack on another ~500 if you count the Republican era.
And another ~1000 years if the Byzintines are considered successors.
Their empire hasnt lasted nearly as long as the Western Roman Empire, let alone Rome in its various incarnations.

[The American Lion]

I would like to nominate the Holy Roman Empire. It's Empire lasted over 800 years. It never really had a big Empire for landmass, but for dominance of power during the middle ages it was the strongest.

[jimjilin]

I'd have to say the British Empire because of their military and cultural and economic dominance.

Here's a very informative website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

Geographic extent, population, wealth, and cultural dominance are all to be considered.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Spanish.

[Godstud]

We're not talking about longest surviving nation but the most Victorious.
USA is pretty victorious lately if you count Iraq a win.

Then again the British had the Falklands...

Israel has had a pretty good run of 'victories' so they could qualify.