The Mongols didn't change anyone to become like them. They themselves changed to Chinese-esque-ness when they invaded China (and then the Ming dynasty outlasted the rest of the Mongol Empire).

The idea that the British Empire should be considered a failure because it was eclipsed by America ignores the fact that this is the way of the world and happened with every Empire... Hell, the Mongols just got assimilated by the Chinese, and I suppose you could say "eclipsed" by them too, though China was there far before and far after.

I think nationalism is bullshit, but after you disregard some of their exaggerations, the forum's Britain lovers are right. British Empire > Mongolian Empire.

And to be fair, both of them mostly conquered empty land. Most of the Mediterranean empires probably presided over a larger (or at least comparable) portion of the world population than either the British or Mongolian.

Israel acquired nuclear weapons primarily with French help actually, and possibly South African collaboration too. See the Vela Incident. Exaggerations? Me? Never! :D

You're right Chrispminis, I think the Romans managed one quarter of the global population.

Not that it is bigger than the British or the Mongol, but you haven't mentioned yet the Portuguese Empire. That little country (my country) in the west of the Diplomacy board, back in history dominated the seas.
Portugal and Spain also signed a Treaty: Tordesillas, which divided the world to conquer in 2 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas ).
Besides that we had and still have the longest alliance in history with those of the "Big Empire": The British.

The British Empire actually reached its zenith after it lost the American colonies.

Nationalism?
I'm neither British nor Mongolian, (though I do speak English, obviously). So please don't reduce my arguments to that of a 'Britain lover'.

After all, I clearly stated my support for the more classical favorite (Rome) in the first reply to the thread.. I'm merely challenging the ubiquitous 'Mongol lovers' who seem to crop up in every such discussion, despite the comparitively minor contribution the mongols have made to our world history. (He said, smugly).

Brief periods of great military success do not the greatest empire make.

@Hereward: Obviously I'm not crediting the British for supplying nuclear arms to said countries. The U.S. built their own, as did India (with some external help from somewhere I presume), and indeed the U.S. probably supplied the UK's nuclear arsenal to some extent.

I'm just pointing out that it's a very short list of nations that control such power.. And the British have heavily influenced the modern development of quite a few of the countries on that list..

Which means: Either the British were good at picking them, or the British were good at making them.. Either way, they've spread a subtle and lasting influence across the globe.

It is impossible to talk about which empire is the "greatest" without specifying criteria.
All of the empires mentioned in this thread were great in one way or another. The Mongol Empire is fascinating because such a seemingly backward people were able to conquer so much of Eurasia in such a short space of time.
The Romans are fascinating because their profound and long lasting impact on Europe.
The British Empire is extraordinary because for most of history it was an insignificant Island on the peripherals of civilization that created on of the biggest empires the world has ever seen and more than any other country ushered in the modern age as we know it. The British were particularly fortunate in that their rise to greatness coincided with age of modern communications, resulting in their language becoming the most likely candidate as the "world language".

Well... When it comes to determine the best empire, I think peace and happiness should be taken into consideration first. Regarding recent and the most active conflict areas in the world, they were mostly part of the British Empire. What is the difference of ruining a land when you capture it like Mongolians or any so called "Barbarian" nations then ruining it when you have to leave it like British Empire?

I think it is just too narrow-visioned perspective to say British Empire was a great nation because it gave birth to conflict areas and the biggest illegal (regarding the International Law and UN Charter) nuclear weapon holders. It is actually such a shame.

Mongolian Empire was large. And after Genghis Khan it was divided among sons and grand sons and became different nations. Just like Roman empire it gave birth to many nations starting from Korea to Turkey. Yet they were nomads and actully became the only nomadic empire on earth. Which also means it was one of the first culture tolerant nation on earth. They didnt impose religion. They didnt impose people who join them to change. However they couldnt manage to stand as how they are and got assimilated.

Regarding Roman Empire, it was large, yet failed to show the tolarance to religions and even different people. There were a sharp class difference and discriminataion unlike Mongolian Empire.

Yet another empire that should be mentioned is Ottoman Empire. It was more tolerant to religious differences compared to any European Empire. Call it Fall of Constantinople or Conquest of Istanbul, the city was not even ruined besides just 3 days after the conquest; Mehmet II who keep the title of "Emperor of Byzantines" till his death and become the last legal emperor of Byzantine declared that nothing will change for the people who lived in the city and the damaged parts of city will be restored immediately. Yet it was also the Ottoman Empire who kept the King of France and gave his throne back to him and prevented the fall of a European Nation. Yet no one remember such issues recently.

Regarding Alexander, Hitler, Napeloen and similars, they just created a nation that falls immediately within their death or even before. Gathering a horde and traveling world is just a massacre nothing else.

Yet another strong empire I can recall is, of course Chinese Empire. Yet it was not tolerant to foreigners and was quite isolated. Yet it struggled on its own inner power balance for long times.

^^ Well I'm open to critics, as long as you are open to responses =D

A strong post. With regard to the Romans, they were actually extremely tolerant and adoptive of religions. They only ever had a problem with Druidism for the insurrectionist role it played and monotheistic religions. This was because it was usual for the Romans to ask that the Emperor was given a place in the religion, and monotheistic religions could not allow this for obvious reasons. As a result there was friction. It must be remembered though that for the handful of religions they didn't tolerate there were hundreds they did.

In the Princess Diaries there is a line to the effect of "The only thing stupider than that is trying to fight a land war in Asia!"

Guess what? Genghis Khan fought a land war in Asia and conquered the whole damn thing. Their story is just more impressive than Britain's gradual rise and anti-climatic decline. And though their Empire may have been large, the British never had like literal "we have conquered you" control expect in a few places. They had lots of protectorates and spheres of influence that I really wouldn't count in territory. Also, you have to take the territory at a certain snapshot it isn't fair to include the North American colonies along side, say, Africa, because North America was mostly free by the time all the rest became colonies.

The British Empire just isn't enough of an Empire to be considered cool in the context of this thread. If the Mongols wanted they could have wiped the significance of the Germanic and Romance languages away forever. If they had invaded Europe fully the most important languages would probably be Chinese and Arabic, and the most important European language being maybe Russian or Latin in church services.

Psh, to be honest, Genghis Khan was preceded and succeeded by many other Mongoloid peoples that conquered a ton of Asia. I can't remember their names right now, and they didn't get as far, but they certainly proved that anyone with enough balls and horses could do it. =P

And welcome Nebuchadnezzar, I'm surprised you didn't mention the Babylonian Empire considering your name. I mentioned the Ottomans earlier, and I'm glad you brought them up, because I'm quite the fan.

The Chinese Empire went through phases of isolationism and expansionary policies. I feel that it's potential was terribly hampered by the isolationism and the conservative Confucian values that didn't value progress. Every time they busted out of their shell they flourished economically, explored the world, expanded major arts and gave fantastic technologies to the world. But then, a new emperor comes in, burns all the books and kills all the scholars and China gets set back even more. Ebb and flow, I guess.

The Mongols did invade Europe. There is a Muslim population today in Poland which has been living there since the 13/14th century as a legacy of the Mongol conquest of Eurasia.

That was in answer to Thucydides btw.
One more point they actually advanced as far as far as Vienna by 1241.

Thanks Chrispminis. I didnt mention Babylon because such empires doesnt have enough strong historical evidance. Yet I can say Babylon impresses me more than any other Empire. But I can only refer to religious holy books like Quran, The new and old Testament etc.
Besides, in those books it is told that Babylon was the empire where there was a single language on earth until they build the tower (ziggurat) to reach or challange the god. And God cursed them for their challange and divide them with languages.

But when we look at the chronology they lived at the times of late periods of Ancient Egypt which mean ancient Egypt was also have a single language, at least until her late periods. So I sometimes think all those happen even before the Ancient Egypt. Maybe there could be an even "ancienter" Babylon Empire with no truce left behind. XD But no way we can know it. Yet the only proof that can support my claim is a part in a bible where it ssays Babylon was a country people built up by people after the great flood. Which means that was before a long time ago from Ancient Egypt.

Yet regarding Babylon EMpire Ancient Egypt was also an important empire. Yet it was too old and had a very long life span. and there werent much discrimination :P since most people were slaves. Anyway besides jokes, they really build a strong empire though with despotism and slavery.

Just like other nation Before Christ, they built spectacular and obscure buildings. Which fasinates everyone. Who doent like or wonder about Pyramids, Tower of Babel etc? =3

Too bad we are so clueless about them compared to nations which history managed to recored.

@Nebuchadnezzar "maybe there was an even 'ancienter' Babylon Empire".

Sumer?

@Nebuchadnezzar - that was a 'snapshot' of the British Empire in 1922. Canada is huge and was a Dominion (I thin) at that time - certainly part of the Empire. The areas involved were those directly controlled/governed by London - you know all the pale pink countries on a world map. It doesn't even get into 'spheres of influence'.

There are lots of Empires that were important, and they've been mentioned. Yes, the Mongols are 'cool', but the Brits - they're just Great :)

@Thucydides "And though their Empire may have been large, the British never had like literal "we have conquered you" control expect in a few places. They had lots of protectorates and spheres of influence that I really wouldn't count in territory."

Most empires operate on a similar prinicple (unless they were completely genocidal - which did happen). For example when the Romans added territories to their emprire they didn't automatically replace the existing power infrastructure completely with their own. Rather they influenced the existing structures (local chiefs etc) to their own ends. I don't think any of the above mentioned empries above had more power over their territories or were more empire like than the British Empire.

@spyman
I was just fantasizing. =D

Well regarding Bible Babylon was a nation, built just a little time after the great flood.

That may be Sumerian as you said but they werent really a nation but tribes in BC 4000s - 5000s

What I mean is, a nation that is far more advanced like Ancient Egypt. Which was vanished by "divine" curses like confusion of languages and so on and left no truce. A nation that we cannot know about it :P Any way just as I said I was just fantasizing. =D

@Pete U. Regarding the list of population of Canada in 1920s there were only 8 million people where as France was 40 million people and even the newly established Turkey had 13 million people. There were more ice peaks then people for sure in 1920s.

When I also get the conflict areas of world map, or UN Peace keeping forces map; I'm just amazed how it look like the British Empire. If controling world from one center was the issue, Hitler did it only in 2 days.
The shame of England was, when it comes to colonization they are here to do anything. When it comes to responsibility and freedom; they just create a chaos and leave those areas without a single effort to maintain the peace. Look at india, israel, even smaller lands like Cyprus.

Yet again if a good empire is destroying the other nation and people, USA and USSR were more close to it than any nation in Cuban Missile Crisis =3

So as I said before, to call a nation great; we shouldnt look at how many people or how large lands they siezed, this is barbaric. We should look at how long they could maintain peace, happiness tolerance and reconsilation on that lands.

Too bad while some "Empires" call some nations barbaric just because they live in a different way, themselves were much brutal to people of the lands they colonized while those so called barbaric nations were acting in a much civilized way to their people and even to Europeans.

Have you ever heard someone who is from Tunis to control all fleets of the country while an Armenian was in the highest position after the Emperor? How many empires have a palace where all the nationals under their empire was working for the same government? Would you feel happy under an empire which colonizes your lands and make you work for themselves or an empire that can even give you a chance to get a room in palace?
Too bad that wasnt British Empire but the Ottoman Empire. ._.

For Mongolian Empire it was same, even at a range to cause the empire it self to get assimilated. =3

Jeez someone stop making me writing :S I know I'm becoming painful XD okey I'll send short messages like this from now on :P ._. Well I hope so :P

"The shame of England was, when it comes to colonization they are here to do anything. When it comes to responsibility and freedom; they just create a chaos and leave those areas without a single effort to maintain the peace. Look at india, israel, even smaller lands like Cyprus. "

Do any other empires have better record in this regard than the British. I coudl be wrong here but I think ex-British dominions have fared better than those left by other European powers. The worst would have to be the Belgians and their treatment of the Congo.

I should modify that... the Belgian were brutal, but I guess their have been plenty of other brutal empires in the last 200 years.

This is a good subject for debate because there is no possible single answer as we lack clear criteria for "influential/powerful/awesome". Also, sequence creates difficulties: later empires have taken elements from earlier ones and spread them further through improvements in transport. Should we credit Greece (city-state of Athens) with inventing democracy or others for spreading it to many parts of the world?

My own view is that the size, military and commercial power of the British Empire over several centuries until WW2, combined with it's lasting influence on legal, political and cultural matters today, make it the most successful in history. Which is not to say that it is "a good thing".

@Nebuchadnezzar:
- most (all?) empires grew to secure resources and increase power & security, spreading "civilisation" was a means/consequence not an end
- to accuse Britain of making no effort to ensure peace after colonisation is simply incorrect
- Hitler never controlled the whole world, let alone "did it only in two days"

I also disagree that it 'went in and created chaos'. That's hardly a basis for a productive colony. More often than not it 'went in and created order'. A different type of order maybe, but order nonetheless.

On the land war in Asia...I think it chiefly refers to external invasions. The primary problem is the climate and size, which external invaders are usually not used to/prepared for. If you already live there you've adapted to these things. The Mongols were extremely hardy people with regard to the Asian climate.

BTW, Viscount Montgomery of Alamein is responsible for the original quote on land war in Asia:

1) In the House of Lords, 30 May 1962 (Hansard, Col. 227):
'Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: "Do not march on Moscow". Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule. I do not know whether your Lordships will know Rule 2 of war. It is: "Do not go fighting with your land armies in China". It is a vast country, with no clearly defined objectives.'

2) In the House of Lords on American policy in Vietnam, 1962:
'The US has broken the second rule of war. That is, don't go fighting with your land army on the mainland of Asia. Rule One is don't march on Moscow. I developed these two rules myself.'

"Who controls the Spice, controls the Universe."


It's as simple as that, isn't it?

Nutmeg, Nutmeg, Nutmeg...Nathaniel's.

Well, when it comes to European Empires, they are not really different. Say it Belgian or English... They just suck the sources until it gets dried.

Yes it is a fact that England didnt do a single thing to keep peace in Israel or to keep peace in Cyprus... Which were in peace for really long time before England.

I dont say England come and created chaos. England come, exploit the sources then when it cannot maintain the land, they created the chaos.

That's even worse than ruining a city because it may fall to another country. That's ruining a city which is leading to freedom just to prevent its path.

When Ottoman Empire "decolonized" Balkan countries, those countries had no inner political problem.
When England Empire "decolonized" India, it supported the conflict of Indians and Pakistan.
When it comes to Israel, they both promised the same lands for both Jews and Muslims.
When it comes to Cyprus, they allied with Turks against rising Greeks nationalists(unionists) whom were living peacefully with Greeks before. When England left Cyprus, unionist turned to Turks and that peaceful island become a land of terror in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea.

Most Empires harmed, effected, influenced the people/countries they capture. But non of them make brothers fight against brothers to keep the chaos after they live.

For sure England was a good empire. Colonized a lot of lands and many different people. But there was an essential point that they missed about being an empire. Being an empire does not mean global domination, but peace.

While Ottomans, Chinese, Mongolian aimed to gather people "Under one Heaven", England aimed to gather people under the Queen. Colonies that showed respect to queen is still peaceful but the other parts that doesnt have such intention were severely punished by their own Empire. ._.

Right, let's address all of your factual inaccuracies. In Israel the British did a significant amount to try and maintain peace, quite a few British soldiers died trying to keep the two sides apart. We didn't -promise- the land to both actually, you need to read the Balfour Declaration and the McMahon - Husayn correspondence more closely. Cyprus can't be blamed on us really, I think it had more to do with a Turkish invasion, whatever the motive.

The Ottomans never decolonised the Balkans, they had to be forced out through a series of bitter wars. Following that the Balkans has been a hotspot of conflict ever since, it's even lent the name Balkanisation to a breakdown of an area.

The wars in India post-independence cannot be laid SOLELY at Britain's door. There were deep historical and cultural grievances that had existed long before.

Empire is not and never has been about peace. Being an empire means domination of a large area by definition. The Ottoman state was largely secular and had little to do with unity under Heaven. I'm pretty sure the Mongolians weren't invading and conquering for peace purposes. I'm not aware the Chinese ever had an empire in the same sense as the British or Mongols so I don't know where you're going with that.

I think you need to study these empires a bit more before you make such huge and sweeping claims about them. On a final note, 'England' is a constituent state of Britain. As such most of your claims refer to the wrong entity. It was called the British Empire for a reason.