Empires are all individual in character, having been formed in widely different times under widely different political structures.Indeed, measuring and comparing empires is a tricky game. Sorta like comparing sports teams and players from different eras. Then there's the "influence" factor. I remember a university history professor rhetorically asking, "who was more influential in Western culture, Ancient Greece or Rome?"
The calculation of the land area of a particular empire is controversial. In particular, there is the question of whether a particular empire can be considered to have laid claim to an area that is sparsely populated, or not populated at all. The below lists err on the side of including any land area that was explored and explicitly claimed, even if the areas were very sparsely populated or unpopulated. No claims on mainland Antarctica are included in the area of any of the empires.
2009-12-27
Ranking World Empires Not Straightforward
Over at Costo's blog a few days ago, the subject of great empires came up. It intrigued me and eventually led me to this link ranking history's great empires.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ancient Greece or Rome? Nice debate. Militarily and economically, Rome did have the upper hand also in roads and aqueducts building.
ReplyDeleteOn the arts, architecture,political traditions and religion it can be said that Greece had the upper hand over Rome where many Greek cultural traditions were assimilated by the conqueror.
Call it a draw?
I would add to Greece philosophy and to Rome law and administration, and engineering as a whole; which includes aqueducts.
ReplyDeleteI think it is indeed a draw.
Speaking of absorbing culture, that's exactly what happened with the Franks and Germanic tribes that clashed with Rome when they willingly assimilated into Roman civilization.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the additions. The same can not be said of following empires that tok the "my way or the highway" stance.
ReplyDeleteHere is my come late take.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to the question "Greece or Rome?" is "Yes". Bear in mind that the Roman Empire eventually relocates their HQ to Byzantium under St. Constantine and continues for a long time -- until 1453.
Much of the fusion of Hellenic and Latin thought takes place in the Romano-Byzantine Era and is still with us in the writings of the Church Fathers, the Codes of Theodosius and especially of Justinian.
Two great philosophers of the later Roman Empire include St. Augustine and the Martyr Boethius (a victim of that sometimes difficult assimilation of Roman and Germanic peoples) who were both totally Roman but also Hellenized in much and Christian. Of course, the Patristic writers of Alexandria, the Levant and the Greek lands are imbued more heavily (or should one better say "more immediately") with the culture of Greek antiquity.
That later Roman Empire, very Greek, Christian and Roman transmitted art, culture, religion, an alphabet, elements of a political system, a worldview to the peoples of greater Kievan Rus, who in turn after throwing off the Mongol Yolk will eventually create "The third Rome" that is the Moscovite Russian Empire.
For the Western World (which includes Britain, Russia, Romania, France, Italy the Americas, etc), I would have to say the fusion of Greek and Roman with Christianity in the Romano-Byzantine Era (misnomer "the Byzantine Empire") makes this period the top "ranking empire" in terms of making an almost indelible (unless pernicious modernism should truly triumph) stamp upon European and American civilization(s).
There was the Germanic-Roman; which, culturally and politically had probably the largest impact on Europe. The barbarian invasions of Rome as it were; was it gradual or a sudden impact?
ReplyDeleteYes, after the split of the Roman empire, Greek influence was restricted, by way of Byzantium to Eastern Europe and Russia. Whereas, Latin influence on the rest of Europe.
If St. Augustine were alive today, speaking of rampant secularism from the previous thread, he'd be scorned by secularists!