Here is the list of the top ten largest nations, by land area, in the history of the world. This information is taken from http://ellone-loire.net/obsidian/earthrul.html. The site seems to be generally reliable, so until new evidence comes up, I regard this information as accurate. Those who go to that page, however, will notice that I have altered the list somewhat, for one reason only: the compiler of this list seems to regard the Axis Powers and the Cold War-era Communist world as being equivalent to single states. I do not. Even if the Axis had taken over the entire world in World War II, no single person or governing body would have controlled it all. Germany and Japan and Italy, among others, would have had their own separate holdings. Similarly, no one person or governing body controlled all the members of the Communist world. If the Communist world qualifies as an 'empire' simply because of influence and ideology, then surely so does NATO. But that wasn't included on the site.

Numbers, as noted on the original site, reflect the size of the nations at the time of their greatest territorial extent. Lands that had been lost before the nation reached its greatest size don't count.

Comments given for each entry are my own, though I freely admit that in many cases I'm simply paraphrasing the site. Credit where credit is due. It's not like I have the time to do all the research to put a list like this together myself. :crazyeye:

10. At 3,849,000 square miles (9,968,910 square kilometers) :
The Dominion of Canada
The second largest nation on Earth at the time of this post is also the tenth largest nation in history.

9. At 4,000,000 sq. miles (10,360,000 sq. km) :
The Portuguese Empire
Reached its greatest extent around 1815, when it controlled much of South America and Africa.

8. At 4,300,000 sq. miles (11,137,000 sq. km) :
Qing Dynasty China
The Manchus controlled all of what now constitues the People's Republic of China, as well as Mongolia and some land bordering Manchuria that now belongs to Russia. (It also had several vassal states which probably don't count toward the total.)

7. At 4,863,000 sq. miles (12,595,170 sq. km) :
The French Empire
Long after the loss of Quebec and Louisiana, the French expanded their empire to an even greater extent by taking over most of western Africa.

6. At 5,100,000 sq. miles (13,209,000 sq. km) :
The Caliphate
For a time in the Middle Ages, the entire Muslim world was headed by a single ruler, the Caliph. The Caliphate stretched from Spain to central Asia in the early days, though it was not long before it started to fragment into separate states.

5. At 6,592,000 sq. miles (17,073,280 sq. km) :
The Russian Federation
The largest nation in the world today, by land area.

4. At 7,500,000 sq. miles (19,425,000 sq. km) :
The Spanish Empire
Its greatest extent was in the late 18th century, when it controlled a great deal of the American landmass and portions of the Pacific.

3. At 9,883,591 sq. miles (25,598,500 sq km) :
The Soviet Bloc
The site this information came from would have us accept the entire Communist world in the Cold War era as a single body, and placed it at number 2 on the list. I do not accept China etc. as a part of the same nation as the Soviet Union, so I use the smaller number given, for the "Soviet Bloc" rather than for "The entire Communist world". Even so, the Soviet Bloc is meant to include Cuba, and no doubt other nations that I would have left out. Still, since I'm not sure of what all is being included, I can't filter them out and arrive at my own number.

2. At 12,800,000 sq. miles (33,152,000 sq. km) :
The Mongol Empire
Yes, folks, the Mongol Empire at its greatest extent, in the early 13th century, was larger than the Soviet Union. It did not stay together long, however, and quickly fragmented.

1. And the number one largest nation in the history of the world, at 14,157,000 sq. miles (36,666,630 sq. km) is:
.
.
.
The British Empire
No surprise here, I think. Its greatest extent was reached just after World War I. British holdings around the world at the time already included, among other things, Canada, Australia, the entire Indian subcontinent, and so much land in Africa that one could walk from Cairo to Cape Town without ever leaving British territory, if one could avoid malaria and other hazards of walking in Africa. This already enormous empire was made slightly larger in the years just after World War I, when new portions of the Middle East came under British control.

So there it is. No major problems were solved here, but a good time was had by all. :rolleyes: The site itself gives the top 25, but I thought putting in more than ten in this format might be tedious. For those that are curious, the United States fell just shy of the top ten, as I define it, occupying slot eleven, just below Canada. (Though that's not the United States as it exists today, but as it was back when we still controlled the Philippines, among other things.) Brazil is right below the United States, and Australia is right below Brazil. The Roman Empire at its greatest extent, during the brief period when it controlled Mesopotamia, is three slots below Australia. The Ottoman Empire is just below Rome, and Alexander's Macedon is just below that.

Congratulations to my ancestors is all I can say :D

Go Canada

Go Mongolia! :D Kick those Commies butt!

What is the point of this thread?

What's the point of any thread? What's the point of conversing at all? It's such a waste of message board space to talk, isn't it. Forgive me for trying to insert a bit of interesting historical trivia. Perhaps I assumed people who play Civ might be receptive to this kind of thing, but apparently I've committed a grievous error in judgment. Please excuse my frivolity; in the future I won't say anything about anything unless it has weighty repercussions that make it vital information for everyone to know.

Nice info - and a couple of other useful things that might skew it is the TOTAL area controlled by the countries (including sea control) might be different again. But again I think the British Empire comes out on top, being it is the only country that has near complete mastery of both the sea and a large land empire at the same time.

Though there is no real way you can check this except measure the navel power of each nation in each ocean at certai times and create a % of control which is of course a lot harder to do. But might sway the favour in Americas favour to get in the top ten so I see someone trying to work it out as I type. ;P

~ Boli

Many of those entries are misleading. The Portuguese, for instance, controlled very little of the territory they held sovereignty over. Similarly with the Spanish. Even french territories in Africa consisted for a large part of the empty Sahara desert.

It is just the other way around. Spain´s control about all his territories became DIRECT and ABSOLUT. And mostly spanish territories were very populated.
OTH mostly British Empire was extended over semi-desert lands like Canada or Australia or protectorates where British didnt have direct control, or only some military or commercial bases.

well Calgalus, the same can be said about Canada, Australia, Russia, Mongolia and even the USA.

it just numbers them according to square kms, nothing more, nothing less..

why isnt the Russian empire on that list? its bigger than the Russian federation

Nice list ;)

Originally posted by calgacus
Many of those entries are misleading. The Portuguese, for instance, controlled very little of the territory they held sovereignty over. Similarly with the Spanish. Even french territories in Africa consisted for a large part of the empty Sahara desert.

Controlled very few of its territory??!! I think you mean we didn´t ocuppied all of it (we didn´t had population for that, small country) but we controlled it and very well for a very small country :)

You controlled the whole of the amazonian jungle? Most europeans couldn't go through it without getting lost :p ;)

Originally posted by privatehudson
You controlled the whole of the amazonian jungle? Most europeans couldn't go through it without getting lost :p ;)

Amazonian jungle is really a place to get lost :) We sended groups of ppl called Bandeirantes to explore Brasil :) But as I said probably we didnt getted to every spot but we controlled the territory (area). Thats why the brittish empire and others robbed some territory from us, because they arrived stronger. We were smartest, they were strongest, its sad but the strongest rules always ;)

Robbed? Please, we borrowed them from you* don't slur our good reputation! :D

Besides you just know the Spanish or French would have done it instead :p

*Indefinately without asking permission first of course, but they are just side points of course....

Originally posted by privatehudson
Robbed? Please, we borrowed them from you* don't slur our good reputation! :D

Besides you just know the Spanish or French would have done it instead :p

*Indefinately without asking permission first of course, but they are just side points of course....

We have to say the truth ;)

Yes if weren´t the English, the Spanish, the French and the Dutch had done it :lol: Maybe was best to be the English, they are more Polite :lol: ;)

Naturally! Even when stabbing you in the back we're shaking your hand in a greeting :lol: British diplomacy for you! ;)

Originally posted by privatehudson
Naturally! Even when stabbing you in the back we're shaking your hand in a greeting :lol: British diplomacy for you! ;)

ehehehe Good to know that we laugh about it, nice to meet you Private Hudson ;)

PS: If you have time see that biography about Dom Afonso Henriques that I putted in the wrong trhead ... he is really my favorite of all :)

I'd had prefer to lost any colony to Portugal rather that to England or France... :p

Originally posted by yaroslav
I'd had prefer to lost any colony to Portugal rather that to England or France... :p

The problem is that Portuguese and Spanish had a treaty, so we never attacked each other (for some time eheheheh) ;) But if no treaty Maybe I prefer "nuestros irmanos" because at least all the richness was in Peninsula Ibérica ;)

PS: Hi yaroslav :wavey:

More than something about "nuestros irmanos portugeses" is something about England being our MAIN enemy in the colonies war ;)

Hah! we still won though ;)

Originally posted by yaroslav
More than something about "nuestros irmanos portugeses" is something about England being our MAIN enemy in the colonies war ;)

Yes Was true, pirates...but later for some reason The Portuguese were allied with the English, maybe they said something like in civ: "Or you join us or we will crush you". :rolleyes:

Originally posted by privatehudson
Hah! we still won though ;)

It was our Main enemy, but in that time we didn´t cooperate, so it would been different if we had joined forces ;) dreams ... :p

Originally posted by raen


Yes Was true, pirates...but later for some reason The Portuguese were allied with the English, maybe they said something like in civ: "Or you join us or we will crush you". :rolleyes:

:nono: It was more like "We see an advantage here, we will occupy your territory, you will agree due to the need to defend yourselves from your enemies.... oh yes, and we keep it for a while after... ok? :)

(what do you mean how long? Don't ask stupid questions!)

Originally posted by privatehudson


:nono: It was more like "We see an advantage here, we will occupy your territory, you will agree due to the need to defend yourselves from your enemies.... oh yes, and we keep it for a while after... ok? :)


ehehehehe, probably it was that way you got us :p

Originally posted by privatehudson

(what do you mean how long? Don't ask stupid questions!)

??!!

Edited: ahh I think I understand, it was Portuguese response?

??!!

And that was probably the Portugese reply

"huh, what does he mean?"

"Dunno, sign anyway, these english are mad, probably something about potatoes!"

(I meant that the english person said "what do you mean how long this transfer of land will last? Don't ask stupid questions!")

Originally posted by privatehudson


And that was probably the Portugese reply

"huh, what does he mean?"

"Dunno, sign anyway, these english are mad, probably something about potatoes!"

(I meant that the english person said "what do you mean how long this transfer of land will last? Don't ask stupid questions!")

:lol: very funny ;)

Darn, USA was 11th. Bah.

I don't know why the Sovietic Bloc should be counted at one bloc, and other historic alliances and vasal states are not count as a single bloc.

Originally posted by raen


Amazonian jungle is really a place to get lost :) We sended groups of ppl called Bandeirantes to explore Brasil :) But as I said probably we didnt getted to every spot but we controlled the territory (area). Thats why the brittish empire and others robbed some territory from us, because they arrived stronger. We were smartest, they were strongest, its sad but the strongest rules always ;)

If you take out the Amazon Jungle, most of much was never explored, then Portugal's "Empire" slumps dramatically.

Controlled the territory? I don't think so, unless you mean that they had their theoretical right to exploit it recognized by other colonial powers. Portuguese governors certainly weren't issuing orders to the 1000s of largely still undiscovered rainforest tribes. :p

Damn, must I be reminded this humiliating part of history again? Damn those Manchurians, they lost so much land to the Russians!

Originally posted by calgacus


If you take out the Amazon Jungle, most of much was never explored, then Portugal's "Empire" slumps dramatically.

Controlled the territory? I don't think so, unless you mean that they had their theoretical right to exploit it recognized by other colonial powers. Portuguese governors certainly weren't issuing orders to the 1000s of largely still undiscovered rainforest tribes. :p

I dont know if we explored much of the Amazon Jungle, but as I said "Bandeirantes to explore Brasil", Brasil is much more than Amazon Jungle.

Yes, controlled the territory, not with super cannons or super armys, but being smart ;) Maybe with that right to exploit, but that is being smart, Do you know that Portugal deceived Spain in the Tordesilhas Treaty? Because Portugal already knew that Brasil was there ;)

And when Portugal was annexed to Spain, Brasil's colonies use that the Tordesillas Teatry was not in use (both Portugal and Spain were the same country) to take even more terrain.

Portugese people has been always smart ;) (and big explorers too)

The British Empire, including dominions, was the largest and most populous nation on the planet.

Originally posted by yaroslav
Portugese people has been always smart ;) (and big explorers too)

:blush: :o :goodjob:

--- Portugese people has been always smart (and big explorers too)

And in the same light: Britsh people have allways been big inovators and adaptive.

i.e. we are a bunch of mongrol thieves/pirates and damn proud of it :D.

:lol:

Yes you were a bunch of pirates :p

But on the other hand, we were a little intolerant about other religions :rolleyes: :p

Pirates we may have been, but there's not many countries who produced a man mad and dangerous enough to have been like Grenville and to do what he did with the revenge :p

The problem is that, given the British dominance and now the USA dominance, Iberian, French, Italian,German and so on figures are not very well know :p

Originally posted by yaroslav
And when Portugal was annexed to Spain, Brasil's colonies use that the Tordesillas Teatry was not in use (both Portugal and Spain were the same country) to take even more terrain.


I think there are two mistakes in this sentence. Firstly, Portugal and Spain were not the same country, they were two countries under the same king, and to make justice to Philip II, he allways respected that promise he made when he came to Lisbon. Only the foreign policy was the same, the rest was kept as it was: portuguese laws, political institutions, traditions, language, etc. It was only with Philip IV and particulary his minister, Olivares, that the monarch started to aim at a full political union. Notice that it was not just Portugal, Spain herself was far from being a political unified entity, thus the catalan rebelion when Madrid started to push for more political and cultural integration. It was at this point that the portuguese made thier own and successful rebelion.

On the territorial issue, although the dispositions of the Tordesillas Treaty had been violated by both countries, I think it was the Treaty of Madrid in 1750 that gave Amazonia to Portugal. In return the portuguese colony of Livramento (later called Uruguay) went to Spain. But yeah, both were in Spain's half under Tordesillas. :D
But if you want consolation you can allways remember the disputes over the possession of Molucas, which both countries claimed to be in their side. Eventually the portuguese king decided to "buy" the islands to Spain, and later, when technical progress allowed more rigorous measures, it was seen that the islands were portuguese in the first place, so I guess we're even and it was just the payback to "Nuestros hermanos" (and not irmanos raen). ;)

Originally posted by MCdread

"Nuestros hermanos" (and not irmanos raen). ;)


thanks for correcting me ;)

Originally posted by yaroslav
The problem is that, given the British dominance and now the USA dominance, Iberian, French, Italian,German and so on figures are not very well know :p

Oh come on! You have to hand it to grenville, sailing right at what a dozen ships bigger than his alone plus smaller supporting vessels? And then sinking or crippling a few of them and holding them all off for hours? :D

Either your boys were useless or Grenville knew his stuff pretty damn well my friend ;)

Originally posted by MCdread


I think there are two mistakes in this sentence. Firstly, Portugal and Spain were not the same country, they were two countries under the same king, and to make justice to Philip II, he allways respected that promise he made when he came to Lisbon. Only the foreign policy was the same, the rest was kept as it was: portuguese laws, political institutions, traditions, language, etc. It was only with Philip IV and particulary his minister, Olivares, that the monarch started to aim at a full political union. Notice that it was not just Portugal, Spain herself was far from being a political unified entity, thus the catalan rebelion when Madrid started to push for more political and cultural integration. It was at this point that the portuguese made thier own and successful rebelion.


I know... I know ;) I was very unexact... Spain was more a group of nations that any other thing, but you understand what I wanted to say with "same govt." The supreme authority of all the countries was the King, and under the same authority the teatry of Tordesillas has no efect ;)


On the territorial issue, although the dispositions of the Tordesillas Treaty had been violated by both countries, I think it was the Treaty of Madrid in 1750 that gave Amazonia to Portugal. In return the portuguese colony of Livramento (later called Uruguay) went to Spain. But yeah, both were in Spain's half under Tordesillas. :D
But if you want consolation you can allways remember the disputes over the possession of Molucas, which both countries claimed to be in their side. Eventually the portuguese king decided to "buy" the islands to Spain, and later, when technical progress allowed more rigorous measures, it was seen that the islands were portuguese in the first place, so I guess we're even and it was just the payback to "Nuestros hermanos" (and not irmanos raen). ;)

Don't forget Ceuta, that was yours and we kept after 1640's revolution ;)

Originally posted by privatehudson


Oh come on! You have to hand it to grenville, sailing right at what a dozen ships bigger than his alone plus smaller supporting vessels? And then sinking or crippling a few of them and holding them all off for hours? :D

Either your boys were useless or Grenville knew his stuff pretty damn well my friend ;)

Yes, of course, I'm not trying to say that his deeds are not a shof of umm courage ;) but what I'm saying is that there are other coragerous guys thata are non-british and non-american :D

Originally posted by yaroslav


I know... I know ;) I was very unexact... Spain was more a group of nations that any other thing, but you understand what I wanted to say with "same govt." The supreme authority of all the countries was the King, and under the same authority the teatry of Tordesillas has no efect ;)

That was actually one of the causes of portuguese revolt, because generally Spain's enemies didn't make a distinction between portuguese and spanish possessions and ships, and the sentiment among portuguese people was that the rule of the Habsburgs was being catastrophic to the portuguese empire, cause Portugal had nothing to do with the spanish wars. Subjects of the Habsburgs yes, but not countrymen of the spanish was allways the portuguese thinking.


Don't forget Ceuta, that was yours and we kept after 1640's revolution ;)

Ceuta was an expensive possession that never brought what was supposed to and anyway, it now allows us to sit back and watch with a smile the successive spanish governments double standard about Ceuta and Gibraltar. :D

Originally posted by MCdread


That was actually one of the causes of portuguese revolt, because generally Spain's enemies didn't make a distinction between portuguese and spanish possessions and ships, and the sentiment among portuguese people was that the rule of the Habsburgs was being catastrophic to the portuguese empire, cause Portugal had nothing to do with the spanish wars. Subjects of the Habsburgs yes, but not countrymen of the spanish was allways the portuguese thinking.

I disagree a little, becuase I'd rather say habsburgs wars more than Spanish wars. In fact, for Spain herself it'd have been a lot easier (an maybe better) to release the Netherlands... but this was against the Habsburgs prestige.


Ceuta was an expensive possession that never brought what was supposed to and anyway, it now allows us to sit back and watch with a smile the successive spanish governments double standard about Ceuta and Gibraltar. :D

Maybe we should return it to Portugal and smile when you deal with the Morroco goverment :) (In that sense, the other day I read in the newspaper a very interesting article about Morroco-England-Portugal-Spanish were the author was asking to rework the borders, giving away Ceuta and Melilla to Morroco, returning Olivienza to Portugal and recovering Gibraltar. But that is, nowadays and with the current status quo and the feeling of the inhabitants of all these places, political-fiction regrettabily...)

The people make the places and not the other way arround, so I agree with you.

I won't mind though, to count with your cooperation, in a future project of unification of all portuguese speaking people in the peninsula. You could be kind enough to release Galicia for the aforementioned project. :D

People in Galicia call his language Galician, not Portuguese :p

That's their opinion and it's not consensual. :D Any well-informed study of the case will see that it's just used as political tool. ;)

Originally posted by yaroslav


Yes, of course, I'm not trying to say that his deeds are not a shof of umm courage ;) but what I'm saying is that there are other coragerous guys thata are non-british and non-american :D

They don't count! :p I don't like your type around here ;) (joke)

That's their opinion and it's not consensual. Any well-informed study of the case will see that it's just used as political tool.
I like the well-informed study thing. :lol:

BTW Political tool? You really think any political tool is or was needed in this case?

I was obviously joking :), but what I had in mind is that in the modern world, the language is perhaps the strongest support of a people that wants to project their own culture and political existence outside the same pot of that of the state to which they belong. Thus, starting in the XIX century, the european nationalisms of the new countries have the linguistic issue very high in their priorities. Obviously Galicia, as a region that aim at such recognition (please note that I do not mean political independence, just emancipation), followed the steps of the catalans and basques, only much later, IIRC just after the transition to democracy. And at the time, even among galician scholars, there was also a group that considered galician as just a dialect of portuguese.
Now I'm not an expert, and I can't judge properly, although I believe it can perfectably be a language on their own. However, I know the 3 languages (portuguese, castillian and galician) and it is obvious that galician is very similar to portuguese. After all, until the XV century there was no difference at all.

Originally posted by yaroslav


Yes, of course, I'm not trying to say that his deeds are not a shof of umm courage ;) but what I'm saying is that there are other coragerous guys thata are non-british and non-american :D


Unfortunately they don't appear in many history books. Just as an example, how many british or spanish know about this guy?

Don Blas de Lezo

Spanish naval hero. Veteran of 23 campaigns. In 1704 fought against Admiral Vernon in the Battle of Gibraltar, and the Battle of VŽlez-M‡laga lost his left leg to a cannonball, fighting French and Anglo-German squadrons. In the Battle of Toulon he lost his left eye, during the assault on Santa Catalina Castle. In 1713, during the Battle of Barcelona, he lost his right arm. In 1741 he was appointed to defend the City of Cartagena against an attacking fleet of 180 ships manned by 28,000 British, North American Colonials and Jamaicans, led by Admiral Vernon. Lawrence Washington, a half brother of George Washington, was among the attacking fleet. Don Blas had only 6000 soldiers, some Native Indian archers and a mere six ships at his disposal, but was able to fend off the siege which started on 15 March 1741 and lasted till 25 April. By launching strategic attacks from the massive Fort of San Felipe de Barajas, and being well provisioned, Don Blas' men defeated overwhelmingly superior enemy (the attacking fleet was bigger than the Spanish Armada that tried to invade Britain). Vernon retreated on 20 May, his aspirations of one day being Prime Minister in tatters. Don Blas died a few months later from injuries sustained during the siege. At the foot of the fort is a statue of Don Blas. The plinth on which it stands has large reproductions of the victory coins that the English had prematurely minted, showing Don Blas kneeling before Vernon with the motto "The Spanish Pride pull'd down by Admiral Vernon" and "True British Heroes Took Cartagena April 1741".


A big upset for the british who intended to eliminate the spanish colonial empire :p

In 17th and 18th century Britain when an individual was praised for showing a high level of physical courage they would be described as being "as brave as a Spaniard". British people of the time were clearly aware of the Spanish fighting capabilites - the term seems to have slipped out of use by the 19th.

@Jorge

Blas de Lezo is one of these dark figures I was refering to... In fact, I learn about Blas de Lezo only because he was going to be the main character of a Civ2-scen that, unfortunately, never was ended.

@Samildanach:

I remember reading something about that, but it was mutual because there was some sayings relative to the English's courage at sea in Spain quite close to the one you told us about :)

Cool. Except they forgot the Hun Empire under Attila.

Originally posted by Loaf Warden
10. At 3,849,000 square miles (9,968,910 square kilometers) :
The Dominion of Canada
The second largest nation on Earth at the time of this post is also the tenth largest nation in history.


If Russia keeps on shrinking, soon we'll be first!
(as long as we keep Quebec :) )

Originally posted by privatehudson
Congratulations to my ancestors is all I can say :D

I second that. :D

Originally posted by yaroslav


Yes, of course, I'm not trying to say that his deeds are not a shof of umm courage ;) but what I'm saying is that there are other coragerous guys thata are non-british and non-american :D

Those are the Canadians

:lol:

And the aussies, I suppose ;)

what about the empire of Alexander the great, even though it lasted for less then ten years

19. The Macedonian Empire

Alexander the Great briefly established a vast empire on the carcase of the Persian supr-state; but it fragmented almost immediately after his death.

2,100,000 sq. miles (05,439,000 sq. km.)

Or roughly 1/7th of what the British held at their height, smaller than USA and Canada at their height and Australia at this moment in time.

Isnt Canada still at its height?

Probably, I just put it in the wrong part of the sentence :p

where did you get the numbers for the macedonian empire, they seem a little suspect

Same site as the rest of the figures actually.

really, strange I thought the Macedonian empire was far larger, strenching form Macedonia to India seems like a rather large amount of land

really, strange I thought the Macedonian empire was far larger, strenching form Macedonia to India seems like a rather large amount of land

really, strange I thought the Macedonian empire was far larger, strenching form Macedonia to India seems like a rather large amount of land

why did it repeat 3 times

Triple posting takes a lot of skill. :thumbsup: :D

It is a lot of territory, but of course a lot of empires and so forth have also covered far more territory.

Exactly :) Alexanders acheivements may have been enourmous, but purely in terms of land, many other empires were much bigger.

I see, I must be mistaken then, but is was an amazing acheivement

I see, I must be mistaken then, but is was an amazing acheivement

what is this know it double posted, my internet is really weird

:hmm: when you press 'Post Reply' or 'Submit Reply' or whatever it is called, are you pressing the button more than once?

Suprised Rome didn't make the list.

aperrntlly, everyone fails to take into account the defacto control of Armenia,the Kingdom of the Bosporus, and Nubia...

Does defacto control count?

it seems it dose for China...

Go PORTUGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Xen
aperrntlly, everyone fails to take into account the defacto control of Armenia,the Kingdom of the Bosporus, and Nubia...

Xen, if the people of those areas you listed were seen by themselves and Rome as citizens of Rome or subjects of the empire then you have a point. If control was not formal with troops or culture and Imperial control then it cannot count otherwise you could count Iraq or even the UK and Japan today as part of the US.

Just some quick subjective reactions.

I'm surprised that the Mongols under the Khans and the heyday of the Hitler's Third Reich (however short that might have been) have not been significant cf Canada.

I guess in my mind population should be as important a parameter (if not more so) in historical terms.

I didn't realize that the Roman and the Macedonian Empires were in the bottom, but now I know

If defacto control counts, the Persian empire should be bigger than Alexander's, considering they "de facto" controlled Macedonia, Nubia, and large parts of Central Asia at around 500 BC.

The "defacto" control of Armenia can not be considedered control, there was a series of times when rome controlled Armenia. The control was never permanent really, some periods of control only lasted a single kings reign, the speratic control of Armenia really can't be counted as control. Even during these period of control Armenia was still very autonomos, it even feilded its own military, if you truly control a nation, you wouldn't allow it to have its own military and government would you.

I DON'T AGREE

With what?

(You raise a thread from the dead and what you say doesn't make much sense)

I agree!!!

Check One:
[ ] with Rolo master
[ ] with Mongoloid Cow

:lol:

Originally posted by RagingBarbarian
The "defacto" control of Armenia can not be considedered control, there was a series of times when rome controlled Armenia. The control was never permanent really, some periods of control only lasted a single kings reign, the speratic control of Armenia really can't be counted as control. Even during these period of control Armenia was still very autonomos, it even feilded its own military, if you truly control a nation, you wouldn't allow it to have its own military and government would you.

It was a client state of the Roman empire- meaning that even with its own monarchy and military, it wasnt indipendent of Rome.

nations is not the ideal word, it should be empires

nation has got more to do with a piece of land, habited by a population sharing the same traditions, history, customs etc.

(just nit picking here)

if that were tue, then the US wouldnt be a nation- IMO, a nation is based on how many people, regardless of individual culture, are actually citizens with rights of the state they live in

Canada is no longer a Dominion.

I think it meant when the British Empire was at its height

how large was Nazi Germany at its height in the 1940s?

Not that big Kmad. It had almost no holdings outside of Europe and North Africa, and even then it was suprisingly not a lot.

would the whole Axis count as a single empire, possibly?

meh, I guess not.

Napoleonic France was far larger than the Third Reich at its height.

Hmm I disagree:

Taking 1812 as a point of Napoleonic France at it's height (land wise) their controlled territory is shown here:

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~nwickend/Hist209/Meurope1812.htm

(not in english, but light green is Napoleonic France, dark green is Napoleonic satelite states)

Taking 1942 as a high point, a map of the Third Reich is here:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/euro1942.htm

Even being generous and leaving out Axis satelites and such like it's clear that Germany controlled much more land than Napoleonic france. Even then to come close you have to place Poland, Spain etc in Napoleon's lists which makes the leaving out of Axis satelites unfair. Now admitedly the 1812 map lacks the land taken off Russia in the invasion, but since they owned that land for a very short time it's difficult to add it automatically. I doubt it was more than Nazi occupied Russia somehow though.

Originally posted by privatehudson
Naturally! Even when stabbing you in the back we're shaking your hand in a greeting :lol: British diplomacy for you! ;)

perfidious albion!!


"The sun never sets on the british empire, because god doesnt trust them in the dark"

Who said that? It's classic! :lol:

Its been attributed to Krishna Menon but i think it predates him its an ooold joke ;p

First off, Tsarist Russia while they controled Alaska and a large part of Western Canada is the largest Empire ever to grace this Earth. If you really want to challenge me don't. I know im right.

Im looking for a map but it isn't easy.

@Teknalee

by controlling Western Canada you mean a few isolated trading posts confined to the Pacific coast? Hardly seems like control. Dont mistake claimed for actual control.

Besides, I don't think the natives living in Alaska and western Canada even knew what Russians were. It was claim only, which does not suffice.

That hardly matters. In the 1700's the Britsh clamed us and the rest of the world saw and considered us part of the British empire. Even though we were fighting for our freedom.. It isnt the people who matter it is the land and the Russians claimed the land but the rest of the world reconized it. By the way France and the US bought land from Russia, this so called claimed land.

What about the Dutch Empire?
What about Napoleon's Empire?
What about the Austria-Hungarian or German empires?

The reason I mention these is because USA is apparently 11th in the list, but I think the above may have been larger.

The Mongolian empire broke up into smaller empires, what about them? They are still pretty large by themselves.

Claims huh? Britain claimed France, and by that logic, presumably all the territories thereunder ;)

The English were a bunch of traitors too. In the 14th century the Portuguese and the english signed a kind of "mutual protection pact" or a "locked alliance" and in Napoleon's time the british went to portugal to defend it from the french and the continued here as portugal was part of it. And in the 19th century too they made an ultimatum to we leave the lands in the middle of Angola and Mozambique, all this because of a stupid railroad between Cairo and Cape Town.

If the British had the largest empire why is Britain not represented in civilisation. 'English' is not quite the same as it does not include contributions from Scots, Welsh or Irish. e.g. consider the contribution of the Welsh Guards at Isandlwana.

Methinks I detect American jelousy and/or racism in the writing of Civ.

Just because we trashed the white-house :D

If the British had the largest empire why is Britain not represented in civilisation. 'English' is not quite the same as it does not include contributions from Scots, Welsh or Irish. e.g. consider the contribution of the Welsh Guards at Isandlwana.

Isn't the problem that the Scots and the Welsh would rather have their own civ's, and they are d...d if they are going to accept having to share one with the English? :p (Even if it was a Welshman, the high-learned doctor John Dee, who came up with the appelation "British" around 1600, probabaly during a break when he wasn't conjuring up spirits or dabbling in alchemy.)

And considering the number of Irishmen in Britain's armies shouldn't they be in on it too, even if reluctant? As far as I know, only the Scots ever really took a liking for the empire building.

Isn't the problem that the Scots and the Welsh would rather have their own civ's, and they are d...d if they are going to accept having to share one with the English? :p (Even if it was a Welshman, the high-learned doctor John Dee, who came up with the appelation "British" around 1600, probabaly during a break when he wasn't conjuring up spirits or dabbling in alchemy.)

And considering the number of Irishmen in Britain's armies shouldn't they be in on it too, even if reluctant? As far as I know, only the Scots ever really took a liking for the empire building.

Well I know that British is not a very acceptable term at the moment, and perhaps what you are saying is that Welsh Scotts and Irish were perhaps 'colonised' by England. Maybe thats why 'British' is left out of Civ in favour of 'celtic' and 'english'. I don't agree with this view, as I said, Welsh at Rorkes drift (not isandelwana), Irish soldiers in the trenches etcetera.



But I think this 'un_Britishness' is more to do with imposing a post-colonial, modernist discourse on history. You think the term 'Briton' dates around 1600. That must be incorrect. It was used to describe the geographic area before then. As to whether Romans used the term Briton I don't know.

I still think British is an inexcusable ommission from Civ. I mean, the biggest empire ever (1/5 surface + sea), come on!!

And as I say, leaving Britain out has probably more to do with the authors historical prejudice than anythig else. American culture currently victimises the British ihistory in other media (Enigma U boat film, The Patriot, Saving Private Ryan etc etc).

Its brushing out history which does not fit in with their world view.

Certainly the Romans called the place Britannia, and its Celtic inhabitants called themselves "brython" or something similar. (And then they were called "valas", foreigners, by the anglosaxons, later turning into Welsh.) But really, the early modern appelation British seems to date from around 1600.

I think the concept of Britishness should be chalked up to what Hobsbawm has reffered to as "the invention of tradition", and it is a very much a 19th century construct (even if work has been going on since around 1600). Lloyd Geroge did quite a bit of it around WWI as well. There have been several layers of work on it, and it now seems to be under dismantling by some people among the Welsh and the Scots who most certainly dont want to be "British". Anyway, my point is that the British identity isn't static (no national identity is), and maybe is in a bit worse shape than a lot of others simply because everyone can always turn to another one; English, Welsh or Scot. (Or maybe it s just being reworked at present? We shall see.)

For historical purposes, and certainly for a Civ scenario, I'm fine with using British.

You're spot on about Hollywood's way of dealing with history of course. Though I tend to feel that, while the British are getting short changed in favour of the Americans, at least part your history is sufficiently known and considered to be of interest to get put on the screen. (Even if it sometimes means having to be the baddies.) I've sometimes wondered if the popularity of the Irish in the US may have something to do with the portrayal of Britain here?

What about the Dutch Empire?
What about Napoleon's Empire?
What about the Austria-Hungarian or German empires?

The reason I mention these is because USA is apparently 11th in the list, but I think the above may have been larger.

The Mongolian empire broke up into smaller empires, what about them? They are still pretty large by themselves.

The Dutch empire would follow close behind I reckon. The land mass of Indonesia alone is 1.91 million square kilometer . You can count South Africa on top of that which is 1 221 040 sq kilometer.

Then we had some smaller colonies Suriname, Nieuw Amsterdam (New York), some coastal city's in Africa and South America etc.

But still not enough to be in the the top 10. Even if The Netherlands itself were as large as Brittain we still wouldn't be in it I think. But still not bad for a small country :)

If only we colonized Australia and didn't sail around it ignoring it, and didn't sell Nieuw Amsterdam to the British. We would still rule the world I tell you :D ;)

The Dutch discovered Australia?

Counting only Europeans, that is correct.

***edited***

The Dutch discovered Australia?

They missed it... I think they discovered Tasmania

Early Dutch discoveries of Australia

http://www.newmanjunior.wa.edu.au/West/dutch.gif

Fortunately, discovery does not quite equate to owning it :D

Remember, the Chinese were there at least a millennium before. They mined for copper in Australia. Their maps were used by the European 'discoverers'.

Nor does mining it :p As interesting as discussions on the first discoverers are, it's not getting us further as to who had the largest empire or nation...which was the UK :smug:

Isn't Microsoft's empire larger? ;)

Nah, but they are more dominating :D

No, the site not accurate at all, for it included a lot of nonexistant political entities such as the "communist bloc", "axis power" and the entire "mongol khanate", communist bloc and the Axis were never a political unit, such calculation is meaningless. It also excluded many steppe empires such as Xionnu, Turuk, Rouran, Uighurs, Xianbei, Kitan, Nadir Shah, Mauryan and much more. All this perhaps due to the author's ignorance of these empire and region. While the figure he gave for many are also grossly exaggerated while some underestimated. Britain's size in 1900 was 11.4 million sq mile by 1920, it acquired German African territory, Iraq, Israel, and scattered territory which increased its territory to 12.7 million sq mile, the mongol empire is much less than the given figure, itwould seem the maker of the list counted too much Taiga in northern siberia as part of the mongol empire, not to mention he included South China which isn't part of the Mongol domain at its height in 1260. The figure given for China represent that of 1911 rather than that of Qing at its height during 1792, with the addition territory of the Ussuri close to 400,000 sq mile, Tannu Tuva in north western Mongolia(640,000) and the issyk kul region, nor did he include vassal for many of the empires given.
a territory must be both de jure and de facto to be part of an empire,

here is a list I made through research and estimates and is fairly accurate. It did however include de facto military control.


1) British empire (1920): 12.7 million sq mile
2) Soviet Union(1945): 9.5 million sq miles
3) Mongol Khanate (1259): 9.3 million sq miles
4) Russian Empire (1900): 8.9 million sq miles
5) Spanish empire (1790): 7.1 million sq miles
6) Russian federation (1991): 6.6 million Sq miles
7) Chinese Empire (1792): 5 million sq miles
8) 3rd French republic (1930): 4.5 million sq miles
9) United States and its empire (1945): 4.1 million sq miles
10) Gokturk Khanate (580): 4 million sq miles
11) Canada (1990): 3.9 million Sq miles
12) People’s Republic of China (1990): 3.7 million sq miles
13) Islamic Caliphate (718): 3.5 million sq miles
14) Holy Roman Empire (1550): 3.5 million sq miles
15) Portuguese empire (1820): 3.3 million sq miles
16) Brazilian Empire (1815): 3.3 million sq miles
17) Brazilian Republic (1990): 3.3 million sq miles
18) Republic of China (1927): 3.2 million sq miles
19)Australia (1990): 3 million sq miles
20) Japanese Empire (1942): 2.9 million sq miles


The United States here include all its oversee possession as well as military occupation and that include Japan and its German's occupation zone. Satellites however are not included.

The Roman empire including all its possession from the Bosporus region and Armenia is roughly 2.4 million sq miles.