a good cheese? 200 years is insufficient? The Mongol Empire is definitely legit, rest assured. In fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_empire


My favorite is the Byzantine Empire for their longevity and their tragic, but heroic fall, coupled with Romantic associations with the crusades and the Roman Empire, it makes them the most fascinating to me. Justinian and Constantine XI being my favorite emperors.

I also give honorable mention to the Seleucid Empire and the Gupta Empire. As well as the Songhai.

The British... The biggest, the best :)

What, there aren't cheeses older than 200yrs?
Ok I'll accept Mongol Empire, but still refuse the rest. I was just trying to be controversial anyway. :)

And I agree that the Byzantine Empire is pretty awesome in its own right, with a very colorful history.. Indeed they might be my favorite for study. However, they're just a relic from a strong tradition established via the Greeks and the Romans.. and ultimately the great minds of the West seem to have looked past Byzantium, for whatever reason, turning to the older traditions and ideas founded elsewhere.

In that way I've always seen Byzantium as something of a relic has-been. Powerful due to its heritage, but almost its entire history is a story of an empire past its prime. (which is the inescapable result of being birthed from a larger/bigger/older entity).

I have a strange affinity for the Ottoman Empire, as well as most other Muslim empires during the European Middle Ages. Conquering Constantinople is a mean feat. Their ownership of the Bosphorus and the Black Sea made trading between China and Europe quite difficult. Enough so that Europeans were driven to seek a westward path to China and India, and the rest they say is history.

This may be true but while most of West Europe was wallowing in the Dark Ages and feudalism, Constantinople was the biggest city in Europe (the world?) and they had a centralized government unmatched by any other Christian power. Though they were mostly losing ground during the whole of their existence, they fought for it tooth and nail and extended the physical, literal Roman/Hellenistic legacy right up into the age of gunpowder.

It is precisely because it was a relic that I find it so interesting. And they had some pretty impressive innovators/generals/thinkers too, better than what most other places were turning out anyway.

Procopius, Justinian, Anna Comnena, Alexius I, and Belisarius, one of the best of them all.

Can anybody beat Germany's size/time ratio between 1933 and 1942? Of course, they probably hold the record for the fastest shrinking after that.

Alexander and his burst across Persia and north india could probably beat that.

i think Islam did a pretty spectacular expansion job when it first came out of the desert. otw to work now so cant look up the name of which Caliph it was.

the Dutch and Portuguese managed to run pretty big empires from a small population homelands, that took some effort

To throw people off Eurasia topics. What about the long time running Incans: longest empire in history! It takes more than just war to run their country it took diplomacy and instituting religions and such. Or the Mayans with a more accurate calander than the one today? or the Aztecs: because they had cool finger-paint?

@gjdip:
Wouldn't something like the Lousiana purchase, (or any other large annexation) beat that?

Germany probably wins for the fastest conquest of the largest population.. I guess.. And then you'd have to consider revolutions as well.. (Depending on when you start the count, Mao's new government took over all of China in about the same time frame).

@Sean: oops, posted too soon.
Ya I think that might win too.

The prize for rapid expansion poses an interesting question.. and it brings the maligned Mongols (and other North-Eastern empires) into their strengths.

The Mongols had conquest, but as far as governing went, they were pretty dissapointing.

First of all, British is not an empire, or at least a classic empire. It's called the British "Empire" but this word is very off. Britain, when formed, was a monarchy, ruled by a king. In Colonial Age, Britain was considered a Nation-State, just like France and Prussian "Empire," although Prussia ended in Franco-Prussian war and Germany was formed, but the official Germany as we know of today did not exist till Hilter.

True empires are Roman, Greece, Mesopotamian, China, ect.

And as greatest, I would nominate Chinese Empire, the only classic empire existed to this day.

Britain* typos

the future American Empire.....(when it comes) haha

But I'd hardly consider native american empires to be influential. Especially not in today's world.

Mongol Empire was ephemeral, so too the Byzantine. But I like them, Justinian is kind of cool. =P Hagia Sophia is amazing.

The American Empire. Which could of been a lot bigger if the USA kept Durne from the 1st Barbary War, kept Cuba, kept Panama, on and on of what ifs?

@ Onar,
Not so true. Every empire existed in history is influential. They shape the culture, the people, the past.
Native American culture is pervasive.

It is, but not to the extent of the romans, or greeks, or even the mongols.

Lets see...Cuba, Panama, Durne, Liberia, Canada, More of Mexico...

bishopofRome, I would consider the American Empire now and in recent history to be about as "Empire"-ey as America is ever going to get.

idealist, it was an empire not in the sense that it had an Emperor, but in the sense that it had intense imperialistic values and expansionary ideals.

Thucydides, I agree, the Byzantine Empire was classy. I have fond memories playing Age of Empires II. =)

That said, I think that while Western Europe was "wallowing in the Dark Ages", much more credit must be given to the Muslim Empires than the Byzantium Empires when it comes to catalyzing the Renaissance and bringing Europe out of it's feudalistic funk.

POLAND EMPIRE OWNS ALL! LOLLOLLOL...well at least in Empire: Total War

America has always recognized the need for cultural homogeneity and refrained from taking over too much too quickly. Imagine if, in the middle of the 20th century, America had to deal with Filipino, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Hawaiian, Panamanian, Liberian, and North African uprisings, all at once? Instead, the US kept Hawaii and Puerto Rico, and both are largely Americanized now.

I would think the USA would cut and run. Like Britain in Post Seuz Canal Crisis.

I vote for Trebizond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Trebizond

I always had a fond spot for the Austrian Empire

I'm studying 'American Imperialism' at the moment, so it is quite funny... but I'd hark back to Rome, and just point out Rome isn't a country - it's a city - and it expanded into one of the most significant empires around. Gotta be cool right?

You could leanr so much from playing total war...
Anyone here have Empire Total War?