[LewisM]

A state's power is measured by the amount of people they have killed and enslaved. The Mongols then are the clear winners.

Unless yo take into account the idea of wage slavery.

Also this misses the point that States are run by their wealthiest people, or corporations, or political party's. For instance one could argue that one small group of men, less than a thousand people, own a controlling untreated in everything connected with "the west", thereby controlling a larger amount of resourses and humans than anyone before.

Time was the big fish WAS the king. Then he CHOSE the king. Now he lets us choose which of his employees becomes king.

So I would like to put up general electric as the most powerful empire the world has ever known.

[foxdemon]

^
An interesting twist on things. It is a fair argument too.

[Groves]

I think the Egyptian, Sumerian, Athenian, Roman, Abbasid, Mongolian, Czarist-Soviet and Anglo-American, are generally considered the most significant cultural, military and political supra-state entities in world history. Carroll Quigley, Spengler and Huntington variously identify these groups, IIRC.

[Potemkin]

I would add the Assyrians and the Spanish to that list.

[Groves]

I think the Portuguese have more claim than the Spanish. Assyria is covered by the Sumer group

[Potemkin]

In that case, I would add Portugal as well as Spain to the list. And I still think you're underestimating the Assyrians.

[Decky]

I think the Portuguese have more claim than the Spanish.

Why's that?

[Potemkin]

Why's that?

The Age of Discovery, I'd imagine. Though the Portuguese were of tremendous historical significance in that respect, their empire failed to become the colossus which the Spanish or the British empires later became.

[starman2003]

I think the Egyptian, Sumerian, Athenian, Roman, Abbasid, Mongolian, Czarist-Soviet and Anglo-American, are generally considered the most significant cultural, military and political supra-state entities in world history.

What about Persian? Bigger and stronger than Egyptian or athenian.

[layman]

The original persian empire was larger than the roman and key in the development of the east/west divide mentality,

I am not convinced about portugal. They discovered and established certain trade routes earlier than others but they dont compare in the long run in terms of power and indluence. Certainly not in power.

[Groves]

What about Persian? Bigger and stronger than Egyptian or athenian.

I think Persia is a reasonable inclusion in the list. I mainly had a problem with a cogent name for the neo-Persian empire. Furthermore, including "Persia" invariably means including Macedonia which I think is problematic. However, I would be willing to include both in the list, if you think there is enough justification.

I am not convinced about portugal.

There are a number of reasons why Portugal is one of the most significant empires in history. In addition to the well established exploratory and conquistadora efforts of the Portuguese, the English empire would not have been possible without the existence of the Anglo-Portuguese alliance. Portuguese trade with India (Goa) and China (Macau) were two of the most profitable trading posts in history, far more significant than Singapore or Hong Kong. This does not include the Portuguese trading efforts with Nipon or the South-east Asian states.

Portugal was arguably a more significant empire than the Dutch empire, which is why I've included it, and not the Netherlands, in this list. Furthermore, the Portuguese empire in Brazil was of immense significance during the Victorian period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Count ... tories.svg

[Potemkin]

I mainly had a problem with a cogent name for the neo-Persian empire.

We call it the Sasanian Empire, Groves.

[fuser]

This thread is not about significant (I have already made that mistake) but most powerful empire and thus Portugal is disqualified.

[Thunderhawk]

I have a question for people.

Would Rome during Hadrian have been considered the most powerful state?
Would France under Napoleon III have been consider not the most powerful state?

If yes and yes, how would one argue that Rome under Hadrian was more powerful or influential world wide, than France under Napoleon III ?

[fuser]

Would Rome during Hadrian have been considered the most powerful state?

No, I would consider Han Empire to be most powerful during that period.

Would France under Napoleon III have been consider not the most powerful state?

Obviously, British Empire was the most powerful state at that time period.

[Lexington]

I figure with Han China and Hadrian's Rome they were within the ballpark of each other in terms of dominance/population/development.

But...Napoleon III's France for what it did (even ignoring how it ended) wasn't even close to the British Empire at the time.

[fuser]

I figure with Han China and Hadrian's Rome they were within the ballpark of each other in terms of dominance/population/development.

I will agree with this and let it end here as I have seen Han vs Rome (in other non existent forum) can get very lengthy and messy.

[Lexington]

I will agree with this and let it end here as I have seen Han vs Rome (in other non existent forum) can get very lengthy and messy

Well, thanks.

I'm not defending Rome and I have nothing against Han China, it's just my impression.

[fuser]

My favourite what if historical scenario will be, let's say at the start of CE Parthia is facing a severe civil war with two claimants for throne, one backed by Han and other by Rome as both Rome and Han had relations and shared border with Parthia but not with each other.

That would had been bloody epic.

[Groves]

What conditions are you using to define an empire's "power"?