Talk:List of largest empires

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Empires with sourced areas but without dates[edit]

I figured I'd make a section for empires where sources have been found for the maximum extent but with no year specified (meaning they can't be included in the list). My hope is that this will be helpful when people try to locate sources. Feel free to add entries of your own to the list below. TompaDompa (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can add those empires in the list, I would only noted in the time cell "unknown". Janos Neman (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about largest empires, as such they might not have been at the time they existed. Slatersteven (talk)

References

  1. ^ Obeng, J. Pashington (1996). Asante Catholicism: Religious and Cultural Reproduction Among the Akan of Ghana. BRILL. p. 20. ISBN 978-90-04-10631-4. An empire of a hundred thousand square miles, occupied by about three million people from different ethnic groups, made it imperative for the Asante to evolve sophisticated statal and parastatal institutions [...]
  2. ^ Iliffe, John (1995-08-25). Africans: The History of a Continent. Cambridge University Press. p. 143. ISBN 978-0-521-48422-0. At its peak around 1820 the empire embraced over 250,000 square kilometres [...]
  3. ^ a b c d e Cioffi-Revilla, Claudio; Rogers, J. Daniel; Wilcox, Steven P.; Alterman, Jai (2008). "Computing the Steppes: Data Analysis for Agent-Based Modeling of Polities in Inner Asia" (PDF). Proceedings of the 104th Annual Meeting of the American Political Scientific Association. pp. 8–9. Retrieved 2020-07-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ Wade, Geoff (2014-10-17). Asian Expansions: The Historical Experiences of Polity Expansion in Asia. Routledge. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-135-04353-7. [T]he state of Đại Cồ Việt was established in the tenth century [...] The maximum extent of the territory at that time was around 110,000 square kilometres.
  5. ^ Bosin, Yury V. (2009), "Durrani Empire, Popular Protests, 1747–1823" (PDF), The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest, p. 1029, doi:10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp0481, ISBN 978-1-4051-9807-3, retrieved 2020-07-14
  6. ^ a b Bang, Peter Fibiger; Bayly, C. A.; Scheidel, Walter (2020-12-02). The Oxford World History of Empire: Volume One: The Imperial Experience. Oxford University Press. pp. 92–94. ISBN 978-0-19-977311-4.
  7. ^ Shillington, Kevin (2013-07-04). Encyclopedia of African History 3-Volume Set. Routledge. p. 733. ISBN 978-1-135-45670-2. The limits of the empire correspond approximately with the boundaries of the Chad Basin, an area of more than 300,000 square miles.
  8. ^ Wade, Geoff (2014-10-17). Asian Expansions: The Historical Experiences of Polity Expansion in Asia. Routledge. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-135-04353-7. [W]hen Nguyễn Vietnam surrendered to France in the late nineteenth century the territory it claimed to control had more than tripled to over 370,000 square kilometres
  9. ^ Hart, Hornell (1948). "The Logistic Growth of Political Areas". Social Forces. 26 (4): 402. doi:10.2307/2571873. ISSN 0037-7732. In the Mediterranean area the earliest historic governments which extended their territory by major use of fleets were the Greek and the Phoenecian, reaching areas of approximately 250,000 square miles each
  10. ^ Morrison, Kathleen D.; Sinopoli, Carla M. (1992). "Economic Diversity and Integration in a Pre-Colonial Indian Empire". World Archaeology. 23 (3): 336. ISSN 0043-8243. At its maximal extent the Vijayanagara empire encompassed some 360,000 square kilometers
  11. ^ Alcock, Susan E.; D'Altroy, Terence N.; Morrison, Kathleen D.; Sinopoli, Carla M. (2001-08-09). Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. Cambridge University Press. p. 85. ISBN 978-0-521-77020-0. The total spatial extent of the empire, not including the north coast, I estimate to have been some 320,000 square kilometers.

Rename to "List of largest historic countries"[edit]

Hi there I think this article should we renamed, to something like the title of this discussion. Empires is just a very specific political concept. Nsae Comp (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany[edit]

This article is protected and I dont want to create an account, so Ill just tell it: the source for the territorial size clearly states it is for Greater Germany, not its whole “empire” (occupied territories) 115.114.30.229 (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Plea for Historical Integrity: Addressing the Obscuration of the Portuguese Empire[edit]

In the ever-expanding digital landscape of Wikipedia, where knowledge is meticulously curated and shared with the world, there exists a pressing need to uphold the integrity of historical narratives. It is within this realm that the actions of an individual, TompaDompa, have come under scrutiny. His persistent efforts to obscure the true extent and accomplishments of the Portuguese empire demand urgent attention and action. Esteemed Wikipedia Administrators,

We turn to you, the stewards of this invaluable repository of human knowledge, with a plea rooted in the principles of accuracy, fairness, and scholarly rigor. The historical narrative of the Portuguese empire, a civilization of immense influence and legacy, has been unjustly distorted by TompaDompa's relentless campaign. His manipulative edits and unwavering commitment to a single, outdated source have created a misleading portrayal of this once-mighty empire. TompaDompa's actions have not gone unnoticed by the community of dedicated editors who strive to maintain the accuracy of Wikipedia's content. His reliance on a solitary source, to the exclusion of a wealth of credible and diverse scholarly works, stands in stark contrast to the principles that guide this platform. Esteemed historians such as Brzezinski, Russel-Wood, and Bethell Leslie have provided extensive research that accurately reflects the Portuguese empire's true size and achievements, estimated at 10.4 million square kilometers by the late 18th century, rather than the erroneously cited 5.5 million square kilometers. We implore you to recognize the gravity of this issue and take decisive action to restore the integrity of 

this historical narrative. The talk pages of the relevant Wikipedia entries are filled with discussions, references, and evidence that attest to the empire's rightful place in history. We urge you to review these conversations, consider the multitude of reliable sources presented, and rectify the undue influence exerted by TompaDompa.

The spirit of Wikipedia lies in its commitment to neutrality, verifiability, and the collective effort of its community to present accurate and balanced information. Allowing the persistent obscuration of the Portuguese empire's legacy undermines these core values. By addressing this issue, you reaffirm your dedication to preserving the authenticity and richness of human history. In closing, we beseech you to act with discernment and integrity. Let us honor the memory of the Portuguese empire and countless other historical entities by ensuring that their stories are told with accuracy and respect. Together, we can uphold the principles that make Wikipedia a beacon of knowledge and truth. 109.49.227.181 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should ping a user when talking about them, or in this case accusing them of wrongdoings. @TompaDompa:. He did nothing wrong though. He has been following reliable peer-reviewed sources only. I see no bias at all from him. Speun (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. He shows an almost religious devotion to a single subpar source, Taagepera. Tercer (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience TompaDompa is trying to keep consistency. The issue is: are there other scholars who provided, following a consistent standard, a size for all empires at their maximum extent (i am assuming we are talking about that section)? If so, that section should be structured like the list of countries by nominal GDP, which shows different lists based on the different sources (there you can sort the list by IMF, UN, and World Bank; in our case it would be: Taagepera, scholar X, scholar Y etc.). If we use individual sources with different standards for each empire then it's going to be a mess and a battlefield among users trying to increase "their" empire, as estimates vary massively. An example is the question that started this debate, it does not seem to be moved by the need for historical accuracy. Barjimoa (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That ship has sailed, other sources are already being used in this table. And I'm afraid there is no alternative, as we don't have a variety of scholars providing estimates for all (or most) of the empires. It's just not an important subject. The only thing we can do is give the best source we can for each empire. Or delete the article entirely.
As for TompaDompa's conduct, he is not trying to keep consistency. His devotion to Taagepera extends to Spanish Empire, where it doesn't apply. Nevertheless he still insists on Taagepera, despite his figures having been explicitly corrected by more modern scholarship. Tercer (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without rehashing our differing opinions on various sources' relative quality in the context of that particular article, consistency between articles is a also a form of consistency.
On another point, you are absolutely correct: quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities is not, in the opinions of scholars, a particularly important subject. Rather, it is a niche topic—if it weren't niche, we would expect to either see multiple competing data sets similar to Taagepera's or a single canonical/consensus one that a large number of authors have collaborated on. But we don't—the sources largely rely on Taagepera's work, occasionally making some adjustments. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the academic mainstream. Taagepera's work on the subject of the territorials extents of historical polities is not just mainstream, it's the go-to source for other authors working on the same topic. As a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, and the one other sources rely the most heavily on, it is the WP:BESTSOURCE.
If you think the article should be deleted, the place to suggest that is at WP:AfD—though I think it unlikely that a consensus in favour of deletion will be found. And of course: if you think there are conduct issues, the proper venue is WP:ANI. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer to are there other scholars who provided, following a consistent standard, a size for all empires at their maximum extent [...] ? is no. It is a rather niche field, where Taagepera is the central scholar. That being said, there are a handful of sources of somewhat comparable quality: there's Taagepera, of course, but also Turchin et al. and—possibly comparable depending on who you ask—Scheidel. Those other two rely very heavily on Taagepera, however, and it is not clear that they apply a consistent approach as they do not outline their respective methodologies as Taagepera does. Those other datasets are also far less comprehensive than Taagepera's (a point Scheidel makes: Attempts to measure the amount of land claimed by imperial powers have a long pedigree: the most comprehensive set of estimates, produced by Rein Taagepera from the 1970s to the 1990s, forms the basis for this section.). It would in principle be possible to take a similar approach to the List of countries by GDP (nominal) where we use, say, those three sources to present differing (or, in many cases, identical) estimates side-by-side, and there would definitely be certain benefits (mainly internal consistency) to doing so. There would also be non-negligible drawbacks, however. I'm not categorically opposed to implementing such a change, but we would need to seriously consider whether the benefits would outweigh the drawbacks ahead of time.
I fully agree that If we use individual sources with different standards for each empire then it's going to be a mess and a battlefield among users trying to increase "their" empire, as estimates vary massively., and indeed this is already the case. At present we handle it by strictly adhering to the WP:BESTSOURCES. Another option would be to require much higher standards for sources and thus removing a bunch of entries with mediocre sourcing.
And no, the initial comment in this section was obviously not made in good faith. It bears telltale signs of coming from the indeffed user Roqui15, who has a long history of socking and whatnot to get this page to reflect their preferred perspective. TompaDompa (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THis is not the place to discus users conduct. Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest portuguese empire forgoten[edit]

The biggest portuguese empire had 13,4 million km² and is not there, it had 9,0% of the world area and was in his biggest in 1815 2001:8A0:FB96:2A00:8CB1:59B:257D:382C (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are just some I got https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_dos_maiores_imp%C3%A9rios
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire 2001:8A0:FB96:2A00:E08C:CDC5:34EC:D655 (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most accepted size is between 10,5 and 13,4 million km², this is because of the changing borders in brasil and african colonies. 89.214.157.10 (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page even has the brasilian empire that was part of the portuguese empire and got independence in 1822, and marks the second portuguese empire that decreased ever since, you have both in this page, the biggest portuguese empire was the brasilian empire plus the second portuguese empire 2001:8A0:FB96:2A00:E08C:CDC5:34EC:D655 (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the Brazilan empire was a separate state. Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, brazil got independence in 1822, in 1815 brazil was not only portuguese but Rio de Janeiro in Brazil was the capital of the portuguese empire 89.214.157.10 (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh I see what you mean, the Brazilan empire was a separate state. What you are talking about is a government in exile, not the Brazilan empire, so find RS that supports your claim. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i see the problem, when i talked about the brazil empire i was just talking about the land, in the last reply i was talking about brasil when it was still a portuguese colony (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Brazil).
So from the beggining, i told that the biggest portuguese empire (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire) that still had brasil as well as the african and asian colonys that was at his biggest in 1815 was missing from the list of the biggest empires by land, you only have the portuguese empire post the brazillian independence in 1822 (https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independ%C3%AAncia_do_Brasil)
The portuguese empire in 1815 had a total area of 13,4 million km², you can find it in this list or in the portuguese empire page (https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_dos_maiores_imp%C3%A9rios)
Im sourcing other wikipedia pages because its har to find other credible websites and i can t just send you photos of my history book. Sorry if i have some English mistakes. 89.214.157.10 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And until you provide an RS there is no point to continuing this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 1815, the Portuguese Empire controlled various territories across different continents. Here are the approximate land areas of the major regions within the Portuguese Empire at that time:
South America:
--Brazil: About 3,127,500 million square miles (8,100,200 square kilometers)(in 1815)-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Brazil).
Africa:
--Angola: About 481,354 square miles (1,246,700 square kilometers)- (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Angola).
--Mozambique: Roughly 309,495 square miles (801,590 square kilometers)-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Mozambique).
--Cape Verde: Covering approximately 1,557 square miles (4,033 square kilometers)-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Cape_Verde).
--Guinea-Bissau: Encompassing around 13,948 square miles (36,125 square kilometers)-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Guinea).
--São Tomé and Príncipe: about 386 square miles (1,001 square kilometers)-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_São_Tomé_and_Príncipe).
Asia:
--Goa, India: Approximately 1,429 square miles (3,702 square kilometers)-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_India).
--Macau, China: About 6.7 square miles (17.4 square kilometers)-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Macau).
Europe:
--Mainland Portugal: About 35,603 square miles (92,090 square kilometers).
--Madeira: Approximately 308 square miles (801 square kilometers).
--Azores: Around 902 square miles (2,333 square kilometers).
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal)
So the sum of the areas of the regions in the Portuguese Empire in 1815 is approximately 10,288,352,4 square kilometers
The actual info of the history of the portuguese empire was checked in the governamental page (https://portaldiplomatico.mne.gov.pt/sobre-portugal) and you can search every piece of info i got here just by doing a google search, the only one that wont show at first is the brazil size in 1815 because brazil is bigger now, about 8,5 million kilometers, but this was his size then.
The size of the empire was suposed to be bigger but this is the info i could gadder and is the number that some websites work with because is irrefuteble.
Hope this is enought, sorry for the mess before. 2001:8A0:FB96:2A00:A8D8:DFA2:29D0:DDB5 (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See note e. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i didnt understand, can you rephrase it? 2001:8A0:FB96:2A00:A8D8:DFA2:29D0:DDB5 (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do I rephrase read note E? I shall quote it then "The reason the Empire of Brazil is listed as having a larger area in 1889 than the Portuguese Empire had in 1820, despite Brazil having been a Portuguese colony, is that the Portuguese settlers only had effective control over approximately half of Brazil at the time of Brazilian independence in 1822". Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see where is note E, that was the problem, but i know that, thats why im talking about 1815, there portugal had total control over brasil, after that Brazil was elevated to a kingdom in union with Portugal instead of a colony and after that was the independence, the portuguese empire was only around 10,288,352 square kilometers at 1815 and years before, after that it started losing colonys starting with brasil. Its in the first link of the last reply. 2001:8A0:FB96:2A00:A8D8:DFA2:29D0:DDB5 (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth reminding that the The Oxford World History of Empire gives an area of 8.5 Mkm² for Portugal in 1760, sourcing the number from Etemad 2007. Both reliable sources. Tercer (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_largest_empires&oldid=1225949621"