Talk:List of empires/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article needs a lot of clean up

I haven't gone though the entire article by any means, but just from reading the first few entries I can see all sorts of inaccuracies and mix-ups. For instance the entries on the Austrian Empire are all in the wrong order and make no sense. I can see there are various other parts that suffer from the same thing. I've gone ahead and placed "Clean-up" and "Expert needed" templates to the start of the article, in the hope that this will spur someone into making it better. I don't want to go through all the dates and facts myself right now, but someone's going to have to do it sometime. --Hibernian 19:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ethiopian Empire!

Ethiopia was an empire under Haile Selassie, why isnt it listed?

I added Ethiopian Empire and Axumite Empire. You will also find these on the List of longest empires List of longest-lasting empires page I created

Scott Free (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Empire

Does it make any sense to have an entry for Chinese Empire? After all, individual chinese empires are listed seperately! --UB 09:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I thought that was crap too. I removed Chinese Empire and put in the following

• • Han Empire
  • Tang Empire
  • Song Empire

The Ming and Qing were already included. Note that the ones I added already had redirects ready so they were obviously more than just dynasties but separate empires. Thnx for forcing me to learn something about Chinese history, lol. Scott Free (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

List of longest empires List of longest-lasting empires

Hi everyone. I took it upon myself to make a separate article chronocling the length of existence of these states dubbed List of longest empires. I strongly urge everyone to check it out and catch any mistakes I imported from here. Thanks to the person(s) who started this page cuz I would have hated to do this all myself. You'll notice some differences in dates and even empires I included. It looks like its been a minute since someone updated this article so feel free to look at my recently updated (tho far from perfect) article for help. HOLLA Scott Free (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What does this list use as a definition of empire?

The entry for empire defines the term in its first line as "a state that extends dominion over populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power." It goes on to say there are debates over what exactly is an empire, but, using the given definition, this list needs some major revisions.
The British Empire is listed as still in existence, yet the Spanish, French, Japanese and Chinese empires are not listed as current, and some imperial states are not listed at all. The British Empire exists within Britain proper, to say nothing of some overseas areas: a single culture/ethnicity - the English - holds the centre of power and extends dominion over culturally and ethnically distinct entities - Wales, Scotland, and Ireland/Ulster. While there is not - in my view - oppression of these nations, demographic realities with limited local autonomy mean that for better or worse, there is clearly an English-dominated British Empire. Likewise, France's domination of Breton, Alsatian, Basque and Corsican minorities make France an existing empire; Castillian domination of Catalonian, Galician, and Basque minorities make Spain an existing empire; Japanese domination of the Ainu and Ryukyuan peoples means its stil an empire; and Han domination of China's 56 recognized minorities (including the well-recognized Tibetans, Mongolians, and Manchus)means the Chinese Empire never died. How about Russia? And what can be said of essentially every country of the Americas where one or more European-origin populations or cultures dominate over Indigenous or African-origin peoples?
I recognize this definition of empire - accurate as it may be - could make the list of empires excessively long. I want, however, that there be a well-defined version of empire with subsequent appropriate editing of the list. AnthroGael 23:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There are definately some entities on here that won't pass as empires or even states. We must be careful not to include civilizations as well as empires. The Indus Valley and Teotihuacano definately got to go. Scott Free (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Definition (see empire) is inherently difficult. I put a 1975 end to the Spanish even if on technical grounds it can be argued that it persists - what is left is just too insignificant and ambiguous. I put a 1607 Virginia settlement as the beginning of the British as the 1587 Roanoke venture failed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.89.216 (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, why is the Indus Valley culture listed as an empire with a 3000 BC date but Egypt is only an empire during the 17th Dynasty? What? It takes 17 Dynasties before you can be considered an empire? Suspect dates there. 71.229.177.167 (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Abbasid Empire

The life span of Abbasid Empire has been given as from 750 to 1517. These dates must be reviewed. Because in 1258 Bagdat was captured by Mongols and the empire which had already been reduced to a city ctate previously came to a sad end. There was no Cairo era. In fact all Egypt was under the control of Mameluks, a cast of non Arab soldiers previous to 1517. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no objective definition of Empire

The definition at the top of the page seems to assume that states are naturally mono-ethnic and seems to consider any state that is more than mildly multi-ethnic as an Empire. In fact Empire is a flag of convenience which a whole host of diverse social forms have come be labeled under. Switzerland most certainly fits the definition even tho it would be absurd to term it an Empire. Athens most certainly does not fit the definition yet is here. Syracuse which dominated the non Greek areas of Sicily fits the definition yet isn't included. And so on. Is such a list that is so subjective useful?Dejvid (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Complete

How can this list be complete, if there cannot be a universal definition of empire? and, what about empires that have been lost to history but may be discovered, or empires in the making? i think the lead should be changed to be clearer, and a dynamic list tag added as well. complete lists are those that have absolute completion criteria, like oscar winning movies, nobel prize winners, etc., but not for things like notable historians, a list of countries, even a list of rivers (we know we will have rivers added in the future, and will find evidence of former rivers over time, etc). any thoughts on the best lead wording? dont want to just dive in, that would be somewhat disrespectful.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed

Please stop adding states without providing citations that they are recognized as empires. This is a violation of wikipedia policies. Unreferenced additions may be removed at any time. Please read WP:CITE and wikipedia:verifiability policies. - Altenmann >t 22:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Altenmann - you are correct that WP:CITE and WP:V, are critical policies. However, normally "List of ..." pages don't need to fully cite (or re-cite) all of the references that are published on the the article's main page. As the page is now, the vast majority of items listed are uncited (there are only two references with no footnotes). When I look at the list of other empires that other users have added (for example Ayyubid dynasty) I can see from those articles that they are very well cited themselves. This seems acceptable to me, and it keeps this list clean. My opinion is that the only time a cite would be necessary on a "list of ..." would be when the topic you were referring to did not have it's own article yet (in which case it should be made a redlink).— 7  07:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Colleague, the difference with, say, List of German poets, is that "German poet" is well-defined and easily verifiable, while the term "empire" is vague, and I disagree that, say, Russian Tsardom, was an empire. Your example, Ayyubid dynasty: the article indeed uses the word "empire" occasionally. However the introduction does not clearly say it was known as empire. But the major problem is that the user in question ignores the request to discuss the issue completely. - Altenmann >t 07:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If entries are disputed they should please not be removed en masse because it is difficult to discuss such a shotgun edit. Instead, please use the {{list fact}} to tag disputed entries and then start some more specific discussions. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As you may notice, I have already come to the same conclusion and reverted myself. Please also notice that initially I removed only most dubious enries, such as Tsardom of Russia, but the user simply reinserts them without discussion. - Altenmann >t 07:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm going to regret asking this, but what is dubious about Tsardom of Russia? I'm no history whiz, but it seems to be a well referenced article, and the entry for Russian Empire on this list also refers to it.  7  08:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian Empire is what grew from Russian Tsardom, which in its turn grew from Muscovy, which splintered from Kievan Rus and then swallowed most of Kievan Rus and then lost parts of it, etc. You got the idea. In the continuity of Russia somewhere a line be drawn somewhere when it became known as empire. Also I fail to see a point about "well referenced article" We are not talking about List of well referenced articles about states, we are talking about List of states known as empires. - Altenmann >t 08:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that a line must be drawn somewhere, but I don't know where. In my limited experience (reviewing the definition in Empire) it says an "empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy.". To me, Russian Tsardom and Muscovy would seem to satisfy that - but again, I'm no expert on Empires. What I was trying to convey was that I don't think there is any requirement for a list to be referenced when the articles it is listing already are well referenced. Otherwise we might expect to see list with reference sections with as many entries as there are items in the list. My point is that, assuming an article exists and is well referenced itself (and the content of the article seems to indicate that it is an an empire) then there is no need to repeat any/all of those those same references in the "List of" summary. I believe you requested a 3O on whether all items in a list needed to be cited and I have given you my opinion. It sounds like what you may really be looking for is a 3O on whether or not certain groups of states or meet a definition of Empire which may benefit from a broader review than just one single 3O. Regards.  7  09:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We are beating around the bush: I am saying that I dont see the proof that Russian Tsardom is commonly known as "empire", and you are saying that "it is well referenced". Just show me the reference that it is empire and done with it! It is a common rule in wikipedia that the burden of proof is on the editor who adds info, and this applies to all articles. Otherwise next thing we see Vatican in the List of empires. And we have quite a few lists in wikipedia which do require references, in cases when the listifying term is vague. - Altenmann >t 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Help on list needed

I would appreciate a little help on the following article as. I have a reasonably good Knowledge of history but would welcome some extra help on the following subject as. I wish to make this article more better for users & readers alike many thanks. Mackay 86 (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide references to the claims that particular states were called empires. - Altenmann >t 18:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware that removal citation tags without discussion is grave disruption of wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 22:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your actions are reported to administrators in WP:AN/I. - Altenmann >t 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Altenmann, if you need any assistance here let me know. (I came here after finding similar edit behaviour on British Empire). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

There is a "citation needed" mark on every Asian or Muslim empire on this list. This seems to be bias and/or vandalism. If you don't think the Ming or Han Dynasties were empires, you don't have the historical knowledge or the ability to put away prejudice needed to edit this page. These tags need to be removed. The Trezbonian "Empire", no bigger than a province/county in most large countries, is very dubiously called an Empire. And, yet, the Ming Dynasty needs a citation?

I don't have the time or interest to remove every one of these tags from this article. But this vandalism needs to be removed. Better yet, there is a simple solution. If you haven't heard of that Empire before, click its Wikipedia Article Link, then go find a source on that page. Easy-peasy. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed these disruptive citation needed tags from the article. They all appear to have been added on Muslim, Asian, and German Empires. It appears very biased towards civilizations that are traditionally looked down upon by the Western world. Anjwalker ^Talk 10:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

About the table

There are two issues I would like to discuss :

1. What is an empire ? In this list there are some states which had never been larger than a modest size principality. (So called the Latin Empire or Trebizond Empire etc.) I think that there must be a lower limit to call a political power an empire.

2. The table is arranged according to names, which is highly inappropriate. In theory, the list can be arranged according to chronological order. But, for this, we need a standart designation in the column headed from . Unfortunatelly some dates are given in most undesirable ways such as "early 7 th cen." or " 2 th cen. BC" etc. I wonder if somebody can suggest a method to reorganize the table. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The list is not very useful in its present state. The dates needs to be sortable chronologically and not alphabetically. Siffuor Kuzmuus (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.75.206 (talk)

You can resort the table by other columns if your browser supports this. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it seems as if the strings in the From and To fields prohibited appropriate sorting. Possible solution is to give dates with - or + (- being BCE), and to give approximate dates as a range (300-400) or similar. Djupp (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Mayan Empire

The Mayan Empire appears at the top of the list with a claimed longevity of over 3,500 years. Whoa, there, cowboy. Back the train up. That's the entirety of the Mayan civilization, and there is no way of knowing for at LEAST the first 2,000 years of this whether or not they met the very definition of "empire" described by this article. The duration really should be listed as "Unknown", because that's exactly what it is: no one knows. Any thoughts? I'll be changing this soon if I don't get any feedback. 63.115.56.33 (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What is empire?

What is the criterium for an 'empire' to be on this list? Why does it count the russian empire only from 1721? Because only then it became the Russian Empire with an emperor? Why then, is the Dutch empire on this list? That was never an empire with an emperor. 94.211.49.114 (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Technical Empires

There are several modern countries which fit the definition of Empire perfectly, even if they do not embrace the title. I believe they should be added, perhaps under a separate section. For now I have included Canada, with the provision that although it meets Empire status (ethnically diverse, geographically large, ruled by a monarch), it is not referred to as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.9.5 (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There should be more criteria...an empire is a way of rule, not just some monarch at the head of state. 94.211.49.114 (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, what definition of "empire" are we using?

This question has been asked many times before on this Talk page (see above), but it has never received an answer beyond pointing out the fact that there is no clear definition of "empire". That is certainly true, but we still need some kind of working definition or clear set of criteria that we can use to decide which sovereign entities belong on this list. At the moment, it seems that the de facto definition used by the list is "an empire is a sovereign entity that is commonly called an empire by most of the historical sources dealing with it". Because that's what the list contains right now - a wide variety of states whose only common feature is that they have the word "empire" or "dynasty" in their English-language name. I suppose we could stick with that, but I think we should at least discuss the matter first. -- User1961914 (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think a lot of the sultanates could and perhaps should be moved to list of possible empires, some of the ones on the list contained a very small land area, for example I have serious doubts about the Majeerteen Sultanate being an empire as it encompassed only the very tip of Somalia. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Pandyas

1. Wikipedia says with citation that the most widely accepted date for the Kurukshetra War is 10th century BCE or 950 BCE according to archeological evidences. The Pandyas have been mentioned in Mahabharata. Malayadhwaja Pandya, according to the epic, took part in the war. Had there been no Pandyas at that time, how could the author of the epic have mentioned Malayadhwaja Pandya as son of Kulashekhara Pandya and an ally of Pandavas in the war?

2. Actually, the Pandya dynasty is much older than 900 BC because it finds mention in Ramayana, an epic which is clearly older than Mahabharata (Ramayana is mentioned as Adikavyam in Sanskrit, which means "First Poem". According to Mahabharata: i) Hanuman thinks about Rama (of Ramayana) when he sees Krishna. ii) Arjuna uses a chariot which was last used by Rama centuries ago. iii) Arjuna, in the Kurukshetra war, uses a chariot with Hanuman (of Ramayana) on its flag. iv) A small version of Ramayana (Ramopakhyana) is narrated to the Pandava King Yudhishthira.

It is possible that because Ramayana and Mahabharata are considered as myths, these points are ignored. But whether they were myths or real stories is immaterial here, since one of them was written after the other, and it can't be that Vyasa and Valmeeki wrote about Pandyas centuries before they came into existence.59.184.143.186 (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Raghav Sharman

Ive now taken this into account, the article says "before 500 BC", but we can not say for certain it was an empire and not just a small minor kingdom before that date, I have put 500 BC as its starting date on the list now, I will read more into the pandyans, and I will see if I can find a reliable source for your dates. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Was Pandya an empire or a kingom? Because clicking on Pandya empire on this page redirects to Pandya dynasty page. Also if you google longest running empires in history, you clearly dont see name of Pandya in any listAnkgupta062 (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC).

Duration

The Roman 27BC to 476AD, and a duration of 503 years. Is that correct? That appears to have been calculated by taking the difference between 476 and -27. But there is no year 0, so shouldn't the duration be 502 years? Iapetus (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

European Union

I included the EUropean Union becuase of its military and economic hegemony [1] [2][3][4]. [5], and neoliberal, capitalist-imperialist expansionist policies [6][7]. Mrdthree 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, now it's a time to reconsider it and do it agan. Though, i'm not sure if the EU lovers will allow us to do it so simply. Look, there is Soviet Union listed as an Empire simply because of their 'critics'... But we can't do it when we talk about the EU. 31.163.241.64 (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This article needs help to meet WP:LISTCRITERIA

WP:LISTCRITERIA requires that a reliably-source criteria for inclusion used to decide what is and isn't to be included in a list. Presently these are lacking and thus this page violates WP:LISTV#INC.

We need a solid definition of "empire" here. Here's some possible ones based on my brief research:

• Rein Taagepera has defined an empire as "any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign".
• The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "An extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state".
• Merriam-Webster defines it as "a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit".
• The Cambridge English Dictionary defines it as "a group of countries ruled by a single person, government, or country".
• Edmund Burke defined it as "the aggregate of many states under one common head".
• J.S. Mill defined the dependencies of an empire as "territories of some size a population... which are subject, more or less, to acts of sovereign power on the part of the paramount country, without being equally represented (if at all) in its legislature".
• Michael W. Doyle defined it as "A system of interaction between two political entities, one of which, the dominant metropole, exerts political control over the internal and external policy - the effective sovereignty - of the other, the subordinate periphery"

The common points of these definitions appears to be that it involves territories (and their people) being ruled either without representation, or with unequal representation, by other sovereign territories (and their people). You may note that monarchy is not actually an essential part of any of these definitions. I think based on this we can move to merge the two lists currently present in the article. There may well also be some members of this list that don't belong under this definition, since they never had colonies or dependencies.FOARP (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2018

Just a request to change the '1997' on the British Empire to '-present' as its never had an official ending and would help educate people about the British Empire. Maybe also add a link showing people to the 'British overseas territories' and 'crown dependancies' to get more people to know about these places and the British Empire. Thank you! TheRebelBrit (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

'Colonized' Songhai

The word 'colonized' in respect to the Moroccan invasion of Songhai probably is not the most appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiddenHistoryPedia (talk • contribs) 01:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

United States

Why isn't the modern US anywhere in the list? "The list includes empires that may only have had cultural and economic influences." America clearly has deliberate cultural and economic influence in many parts of the world. Is there some political taboo that the US shouldn't be called an empire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.226.156 (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC) united states is without doubt an empire , it expanded it's borders offensively many times —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.136.122 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the U.S. really needs to be on this list without a doubt, it fits the description and was probably omitted by a patriotic zealot. 24.201.147.13 (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I would just add that the United States -- besides having a well-known 'sphere of influence,' and claiming to be the world's only superpower, which in and of itself could qualify it as an empire -- also has "unincorporated territories," such as Guam, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa, among others. These "possessions" are governed by the United States, and occupied permanently by the U.S. military, but their residents are not granted the constitutional protections that American citizens have (e.g., right to vote, send representatives to Congress, or be recognized as US citizens). Obviously, there are other, perhaps more controversial grounds for counting it as an empire. But the existence of such US "possessions" seems to be a quite incontrovertible basis for counting the US as an empire, for better or worse. One can be for it or against it. But there's no denying the facts about it, which are documented elsewhere on Wikipedia, and on the US State Department web site, and so on. 66.203.175.84 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Steve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.175.84 (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The United States is an empire, and I'm a proud citizen of that empire. Please, give America the credit we deserve and put us on the list of historical Empires. 24.179.49.22 (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

More controversially I'd say the US is an empire economically via the IMF (see Confessions of an Economic Hitman), but there is no controversy in saying its an empire due to the reasons stated above. Why has this change not been made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.166.135.90 (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Us probably should be listed as an empire, but their empire status shouldn't start with Independence War. It's not very clear to me, but they took active role in the World during WW2 so probably their empire status should start with ~1945 194.28.248.113 (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to omit the US while listing Britain and France as ongoing empires on the basis of their overseas territories. The US has those types of territories--if that counts as an empire than one need not even get into economic influence etc. In fact, on that basis the Dutch empire should also be considered ongoing, along with another couple of countries that have island territories here and there. And not to be silly, but Canada has territories that are not provinces--starts to get dicey. I would be more inclined to put an end date on the British and French empires rather than to include every country that holds an unincorporated territory (and therefore the US), but either way the article is inconsistent as written. 2001:1970:51A3:7D00:295F:FE85:78E3:7869 (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The United States has 14 insular areas, two territorial disputes (it claims areas also claimed by other countries), and a Compact of Free Association with three Pacific countries which are former American protectorates. I am not certain whether this counts as a colonial empire. Dimadick (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Wari/Tiwanaku

Most sources I’ve read, primarily Charles C Mann’s 1491 but also Wikipedia itself, seem to operate under the assumption that the Wari and Tiwanaku political entities were mutually distinct. If no one minds, I’ll separate the entries and correct the note on being the “first empire,” since Chavín obviously came before it. Though the latter empire is similarly controversial in some circles. Dystopianist (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Yuan Dynasty.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Contested empires

I have heard of countries in ancient times that are debated among scholars on whether or not they existed. CycoMa (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

There a section for that Possible and informal empires, but have Wikipedia standard sources. Doremon764 (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay that section is good and all. But, those countries are countries that nearly every one agrees existed. I mostly referring to empires that may have existed in ancient times but, no body knows.CycoMa (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Does this page make any sense?

It is hard to grasp the premise of this page. Perhaps an alphabetical index of things that have been called empires, with links to the pages describing them, has some utility for searches, but that's about it. There's no definition given of what qualifies, and thus insufficient coherence to the category and its implication that these entities are all somehow directly comparable. If the entries were at least grouped by eras and regions, it might start to make sense.

Particularly absurd is the idea that all of these entities necessarily had precise dates on which they began and ended, and were continuous throughout the delineated periods. One example, there was no British Empire in 1603 and nothing would have been called that before the turn of the 18th century. There is little reason to say that the English empire that existed then simply originated on that date, and not in earlier or later eras as part of long sequences of events. With each era the entity transformed in unpredictable ways into different forms. It's a teleological fallacy to look back from today and call it one continuous British Empire from 1603 through 1997 -- and in 2021 Britain still holds an overseas empire of offshore islands. I'll stick with the one example, but you could raise objections about most or all of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.255.157 (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I came to this chat just to say exactly that.

There are a lot of things that I would definitely call an empire that are not listed.

Ex. American Empire

Also I looked into why they gave 1997 as an end date for the British empire, it's because of Hong Kong returning to China.

"In 1997 Hong Kong returned to Chinese administration. Though Britain still maintains overseas territories, the handover marked the final end of Britain's empire ..."

That seems like a propaganda argument to humanize the monarchy. The British Empire is still clearly present in modern day in my opinion. ZacharySasser (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I found a definition that they are likely using here: "Narrowly defined, an empire is a sovereign state called an empire and whose head of state is an emperor; but not all states with aggregate territory under the rule of supreme authorities are called empires or ruled by an emperor;" (Wikipedia: Empire) ZacharySasser (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This needs an edit...

I like this page, but shouldn't a lot of other ones be listed present day ? Oman, Saudi Arabia, and I think if the Soviet Empire is listed the American colonial empire should be listed as well. Same with European countries that have colonial territory. Britain, Denmark, and France should be listed there aswell. France was still listed as a colonial empire as a republic, so it can be on here aswell. I will probably edit these, and everybody can change it whenever they want but to me, from what they said were empires, these should too. ItzMythic (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is the Persian Empire not mentioned?

The Persian Empire conquered and absorbed the Babylonian Empire. Why is it not mentioned? Elifbenzauthor (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The Achaemenid Empire is on the list. It's the third entry from the top. TompaDompa (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

dmt

the dmt is listed under a, I don't know if its a mistake so im not correcting it JonasHuberthirdofthename (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Chinese Empire Duration Inaccurate?

I sorted the duration of each empire and it seems that there is a bit of bias to the "Chinese Empire." Let's focus on the "Roman State" since there's a little bit of favoritism in terms of how long these empires lasted. So first of all, why is the start date of the Roman State 753 BC? 753 BC was the date when Rome, the city, was founded. I think we can all agree that a mere city is far from an actual empire. If we consider doing the same thing to the Chinese Empire then the start date should start at 2070 BC during the Xia Dynasty or 1600 BC during the Shang Dynasty. Instead the start date of the Chinese Empire in this article is 221 BC when China was already unified empire but by then China was already thousands of years old. Isn't it unfair when the Roman state wasn't even an empire yet and yet it's considered the start date?

Next, I want to talk about the end date. The end date for the Roman State was 1453, when Constantinople fell to the Ottomans. The end date for the Roman State is fair, but the end date on the Chinese Empire definitely isn't. The end date of the Chinese Empire is 1912, when the Qing Dynasty fell, which I consider unfair since China didn't disappear and still exists to this day. Sure, China wasn't a monarchy anymore but it was still an empire with huge influence that continues to this day. The Chinese Empire hasn't ended yet and probably won't anytime soon. Even if we say an empire needs an emperor, which China doesn't have anymore, the United States and the Soviet Union are literally on the list. Isn't it unfair that the end date for the Roman State was when the last remnants was just Constantinople, which is just a mere city and nowhere near an empire, while the end date for the Chinese Empire was just a change in the form of government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.69.129 (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)