Official ranking of top 10 empires considering (relative to their time) their military power, power projection, economy...

>British Empire was the largest empire the world has ever seen
Claimming tones of wasteland means jackshit.Britain had little to no power projection against none niggers/chinks

>British Empire at 2nd position
t.Nigel Farage
The British empire shouldn't even be ahead of the French empire to begin with

British Empire should be at 2nd, considering that US(its colony) is now the most powerful nation. Canada and Australia become the first world nations and English is pretty much the Lingua Franca of the world. And Steam Engine, Scientific Revolution....

25% of the world's population isn't 'wasteland'

>25% of the world's population isn't 'wasteland'
It is when the average wage of the British empire was 1 dolar a year and that those people never learnt English under British command.The only impact that Britain had on its colonies was cricket

>The British empire should be 2nd because a former colony that was a backwards shithole when they recieved independence became a superpower
kek tbhwyfamilia

>and those people never learnt english

So? Did everyone in the Ottoman empire learn Turkish? Did everyone in the Russian Empire learn Russian?

It means that the influence of the British empire over its subjects was minimal.Its only real impact were sports which is pretty sad

Colonial empires were powerful, but considering criteria i have set up, they don't really apply

>power projection
they were severely limited by each other

>economy
their economy was largely based on exploitation and import of goods from conquered areas which is unstable source of income

>inner stability
some of the land overseas was just leased cities from local powers (i.e. India)

Mmhm, I'm sure colonizing a continent, uniting India into one state, creating the modern middle east, and conquering Egypt had zero impact upon the world. This is ignoring technological advancements of course.

>he said, speaking English, the lingua franca of the entire fucking world.

They pretty much shaped the world that you are living today.

US argument is invalid since its power is no credit of the British empire.

English becoming lingua franca of the world is partly because of Brits but also maybe even more significantly because of the US.

Industrial and scientific revolution started in Britain but that was solely due to pleasant conditions at the time, the whole revolution as a process is a western european thing and giving Britain all the credit for it is nonsensical.

I agree with you that Britain was one of the most important historical entities of the world, but looking at it from the wider perspective, Han dynasties, and by extension, Chinese cultural impact on whole of eastern Asia (which holds almost half of the world's population) was undeniable. Plus their military, which was at the time comparable (at least in numbers) to Roman Empire, and their stability, which made their empire last basically to modern days, this all earned them the second place.

>They pretty much shaped the world that you are living today.
It is the lingua franca because America.Don't fool yourself

>Did everyone in the Russian Empire learn Russian?

Yep, that was mandatory

Same as did other thousands and thousands of states/nations throughout history, that is not really an argument

>Ott*man empire
>S*viet unuin
>united st*tes
>mongol """empire"""
just shoot yourself in the face famalam

>I'm sure colonizing a continent
Australia is irrelevant
>uniting India into one state
It is splitted into 3 different states which are irrelevant shitholes thanks to Britain
>creating the modern middle east
Yeah Brits fucked things up with Israel
>and conquering Egypt
Totally irrelevant.French were doing the Suez canal.

>Chinese cultural impact on whole of eastern Asia

East Asia, specially

>which holds almost half of the world's population)

Kek, nope

>Same as did other thousands and thousands of states/nations throughout history

Sure, mr. slant eye

Why does the Mongol map not have Mesopotamia and south China, two most famous conquests after Genghis, which they held for years, but Rome has their absolute maximum extent?

Mongols were, are, and always will be superior to Rome

Habsburg map is also exaggerated

>80% of Mongol's empire is a barren wasteland scarcely inhabited by goatfuckers
Wow it's fucking nothing.
Mongols as a political entity are the most overrated empire in history

Greek
Roman
Byzantine
Spanish
Portuguese

Anglo

>no Achaemenids

Inner circle

Start date hegemony atomic bombs

1. The Han dinasty (they were economically very developed, although we westerners often underrate them).
2. The Roman Empire.
3. The Habsburg dinasty.
How the hell is the British Empire in the third place???

>1. The Roman Empire (27 BC – 395AD)

>implying

You put the Roman Empire twice

>Meme Dynasty
>ottomeme empire
>Memegol empire

>literally no Achaemenid Persian Empire in this list
>the empire that literally had the largest percentage of the human population under their control in history
Shit list, man.

It's clearly a chink created that list

I'm starting to think this board is worse than /mu/

1. Roman Republic
2. Roman Republic
3. Roman Republic
4. Roman Empire
5. Roman Empire
6. British Empire
7. Napoleonic France
8. USA.
9. Achaemenid.
10. Even though Tang was stronger and wealthier, Han had more of an impact on China.

The "overall cultural and historical impact" makes this undecidable, since it's impossible to measure with any degree of accuracy, it privileges older empires, and it raises questions such as: should all US accomplishments be credited to Britain, since Britain spawned the US?

Some people consider conquering wasteland all over the world as an achievement.

>Han
>Ming
>not great Tang
Tang was Chinese civilization objectively at its peak in every regard and hands down the most influential dynasty in history.

Why does Veeky Forums hate the british empire so much, is it salty colonials? Is it a meme?

Two words: industrial revolution
Also, seeing how edgey this board is, the British Empire has the highest K/D, we've killed more people than any other nation
Mao can get fucked

You're a retard. The Honorable East India Company fucked up India for years and turned it into the poo in loo shithole it is now, the Empire's colonies in North America resulted in the United States, which would come to dominate the world stage after their independence. The British Empire just in terms of its influence on history deserves a top 10 spot.

t. Chink

>Genghis dies
>his empire immediately shatters

>Britain made the US maymay
When will it stop? The purchase of Louisiana and the Mexican-American war have nothing to do with Britain and it is what made the US a global power in the end

The mongols were still relevant in the XV century. The Timurids cucked the shit out of the Turks for example

Oh, you're baiting. Nice one, have a (you)

DESU senpai the Chinese should be like on the lowest end. While both great they fucking hated the outside world and did nothing for the rest of humanity basically. The Ottomans are shitstains that should be lower as well why is Persia not on this list?

How would the 13 colonies become a world power without Louisiana and all the Mexican west? These territories represent 3/4 of the US GDP. The US built itself as a continental power. Britain had nothing to do with it

>Largest empire the world has ever seen
>Ruled nearly a quarter of the world's population
>Pax fucking Britannica
>Irrelevant because Veeky Forums deems it so

When did Veeky Forums let their prejudices make them so historically illiterate?

why did they disintegrate so quickly if they were so good?

Having tones of poo in loos doesn't make a country strong.Germany alone surprassed the whole economy of the British empire in 1913.The US around 1880.And this is not counting things like the failure of projecting power in Europe throughout the whole XIX or getting embarassed in Crimea.The British empire was a giant with feet mad of mud.Whenever it rained a little the empire was on the verge of collapse

The USA is not an Empire, please do not include us on these ridiculous clickbait lists.

>The USA is not an Empire

it most certainly isn't, no matter how much you lie to yourself and others

not him but
>India isn't united
Literally look at a map of the indian subcontinent prior to the british raj
>Australia is irrelevant
Right so the thirteen colonies, canada, a quarter of Africa, and New Zealand is all part of Australia
>IT'S I-I-I-RRELEVANT
Lmao at this delusion

>Has the Abbasid caliphate but not the Umayyad Caliphate
>Doesn't have the Persian empire, or the Sasanian Empire

The criterion for this is utter bullshit

>Literally look at a map of the indian subcontinent prior to the british raj
The British raj was splitted into 3 countries.India,Pakistan and Bangladesh
>Right so the thirteen colonies, canada, a quarter of Africa, and New Zealand is all part of Australia
You said a continent and to attribute the achievements of america to the British empire is just pure delusion
>Lmao at this delusion
What value did Egypt had outside of Suez?

>look at the map

Maratta confederacy with approximate India borders, earlier, Mughal with approximate Raj borders yet actually a native empire not a colonial trade deal.

>NA
settled by Britons running away from Britain

>Africa
Lines on a map they were still exploring in the 70s and 80s

I'm not the person you responded to by the way

checked
the only thing seperating the USA from the formal defintion of an empire is a sovereign head of state, what you can call it is a hegemon but those two concepts are very similar

"splitted" is not a word

"split" holds dual tenses regarding to the context

>Cohesion of Mongol "empire" lasts a single generation
>Rome lasts a millennia, arguably two
>Superior
Are people actually this retarded

spotted the dirty colonial

then by your "definition" canada is an empire

desu the mongol states lasted until the fall of the timurid empire

Canada wasn't taken through conquest.

Quality > quantity

And Rome had countless civil wars

Mongols lasted 3-4 centuries after G. K.

for fucks sake man
why do you even come to this board?

why do you?

have you written this because you actually think it's true? or because you're just trolling?

>The Raj was splitted into three states
I feel like you don't understand why, it was only decided that it would be split into two in order to ease religious tensions by creating seperate states for muslims and hindus. And again, you don't understand that pre-british india was a myriad of many many nations or expanding/declining empires
>You said a continent
First of all im not him, and that guy said Britain colonized the continent, not that they were responsible for the USA's achievements. Are you going to tell me that Britain didn't colonize north America
>What value did Egypt have outside Suez
kys

>Looking at a single time period with a particularly large empire. I'm sure we can find another one where the mughal empire didn't exist.
The colonial borders of British colonies in Africa are mostly intact today though. In fact most countries are defined by the colonial borders drawn by European politicans. How can you say this doesn't show that Britain had a big impact on Africa, they literally created new countries from scratch.

>Germany alone surprassed the whole economy of the British empire in 1913.The US around 1880.
Fair point on the economic side of things, but economy is one aspect of an empire; power projection, influence and longevity also play a part.

>failure of projecting power in Europe throughout the whole XIX
Projecting power in Europe in the sense of getting involved in continental wars etc simply wasn't their intention. Sea power, commerce and colonies increased Britain's standings far more than meddling in Europe ever could.

>getting embarassed in Crimea.
Military setbacks don't make an empire irrelevant. Today's global hegemon has fucked up more than a few times in the Middle East yet the USA is still the global leader.

>Whenever it rained a little the empire was on the verge of collapse
Yet even if that were true, there's no denying the British Empire has had a considerable effect on the shaping of the modern world

>1783
>US population
>2,5 million people
The US was nothing after it gained independence.

you think canada is a hegemon?
the world doesnt keep milk in bags

keyword: hegemon
you just ignored the crucial part of the definition because you couldnt be bothered to look it up

surely you think any nation that culturally influences its neighbors or allies is an empire

I think that's retarded

I rejected it, that's all

look up the word ffs

I don't need to

Purchase of territory didn't ensure American dominance. It's political philosophy did. The american system of government was largely derived from British political philosophers and founded by British colonialists. It's shere insanity to dismiss how central Brittain is to America. This coming from a Romanian who doesn't give two shits about suckin up to the anglo, but America is most definitely a British product, albeit a revolutionary one. I see the dynamic very much like protestantism and Catholicism (inb4 people get into retarded christian debate now, I'm solely referring to how protestantism is clearly a catholic biproduct).

>power projection
Mostly outside of Europe.They were unable to do anything during the unification of Germany and needed France to win in Crimea
> influence
In what sense?
>and longevity also play a part
The second English empire didn't last a lot
>Sea power, commerce and colonies increased Britain's standings far more than meddling in Europe ever could.
Europe was more than 50% of the world's GDP.And the British were unable to stop the formation of Germany which totally broke the continental balance
>British Empire has had a considerable effect on the shaping of the modern world
I would say that British did not the political entity known as the empire.Liberalism,capitalism or industrialism were way more important thant the conquest of Burma

>I reject reality and substitute my own

your delusion is not reality

>Purchase of territory didn't ensure American dominance. It's political philosophy did.
The one designed by Hamilton that totally diverged from the model of the 13 colonies set by England/Britain? The US made itself through expansion,federalism and inmigration.Not because Burke wrote some nice essays about the American revolution or the model of local goverment that British imposed that was slowly errased.

pls look up what hegemon means, your arguing against a point that nobody made

I agree with this list for the most part, everyone is just being contrarian. The only glaring omission is the Achaemenid Empire.

I don't think you even know what's being argued.

I don't think you know what being even is

India completeley ignored again...Gupta Empire pioneered decimal system and 0

>official

I don't think you even know what a post is.

>Lingua Franca because of America

Another byproduct of English colonization you dunce

Roman civil wars only threatened it's stability during the crisis. No single Mongol entity that lasted more than 50 years is worth putting on this list, let alone competing with Rome.

Rome as a globally dominant political entity lasted over a fuckin millennia and cultivated a Hellenic and Jewish infrastructure that continues to dominate the world today. You have to be pants on head retarded to think these two even remotely compare.

>

>Britain creates a backwards agrarian colony
>After gaining independence it becomes a manufacturing and economic powerhouse and quadruples its size
>It was all us.Britain stronk.