Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Modern Chinese Empire

Is the current chinese empire on this list and i missed it? If not, it should be included somewhere, because it is as large as or almost as large as the US empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.180.210 (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

China proper is the pale yellow coloured areas on the map.

American Overseas territories

China does not possess an empire as it does not possess any possessions. The American empire listed is not an American empire of today, which today America does not possess an empire, but the American empire of 1898-1946. Having said that China could be considered an empire like that of the Soviet Union. China is constructed much like the Soviet Union was by invading and absorbing many smaller neighbouring countries such as Tibet, making it much larger than the original China proper. Also the United States still possesses a few possessions such as Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Signsolid (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I am still not sure that i understand. Because the Soviet Union is listed, The Peoples Republic of China should be listed as well, correct?164.58.180.210 (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The exclusion of modern communist China as well as modern India is inconsistent with the definition forming the basis of the article:

An empire is a state that extends dominion over areas and populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power. Often, there is an emperor at the head of an empire. An empire is not necessarily a unity, though.

Communist China extends dominion over 56 different ethnic groups with distinct cultures and languages who are dominated by the Mandarin-speaking ruling class. The situation is analogous to that of the Soviet Union.

India is also a case where many (though far fewer than in China) culturally and linguistically diverse populations are domainted by a Hindi-speaking ruling class. If not for the legacy of the British Empire and the adoption of English as a secondary official language, India could well have broken up into separate states even after the split with Pakistan (witness the violence that erupted in non-Hindi speaking parts of the country when an attempt was made to discontinue the use of English in the mid-1960's). Only 30% of the population speaks Hindi as a first-language and at least 21 other languages are spoken by dominated ethnic groups within the country.

Although I do not seriously advocate Canada being added, the French-speaking minority in Quebec is dominated by the English-speaking culture at the center of power. The definition serving as the basis of the article is overly broad and so imprecise that almost every country in the world fits the definition. However, given some of the other countries already considered empires in the article by the definition given, then intellectual honesty demands the inclusion of modern communist China and democratic India. The inclusion of the Qing Empire and the Mughal Empire already set a precedent given that essentially the same ethnic groups are dominated today by the modern governments of those regions. Llihrednu (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

China succeded Qing and smaller, so not written for a second time as same entity.India would be possible as not to be counted as succeding Mughal or British Empire. USA not possible because of just tiny few islands, then even New Zealand would have to be named for the few Pacific possessions and also Venezuela for the few islands inhabited by Natives, Australia, Nigeria and all other African and South American and Asian countries (even Japan because of Ainu and Okinawans),Canada federal country, can't be counted otherwise Belgium should be included and UK (see Wales and Scotland), Germany(Bavaria and Sorbs and Danish minorities of Schleswig), Switzerland (German parts dominate French and Italian parts), Finland (dominate Swedish people of Aland Islands and Saami),statistics would be led ad absurdum. User:kailas007,28.08.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.58.40.138 (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

TheTruthA The Sassanid Empire did not grow this big before sometime between 600-650 AD. It can therefore not be counted as a 7,4 in the list of ANCIENT empires. (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC) TheTruthA

EU

Largest empires by economy - and where's EU here? AtomAtom (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

EU has today 33% share of the world economy. Do we face with a giant empire and we didn't noticed?AtomAtom (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, till today EU is not an international entity, it doesn't regard itself as one (that's why it could not become a member of the UN etc.), more specific would be the EC, but this entity still lacks will to ascertain power over territories, also people needed who see it as own "state", per definitionem otherwise no "empire"/nation/state/country according to international public law. User:kailas007,28.08.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.58.40.138 (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Misleading comparisons

Can we not find a way of distinguishing the size, at least where possible, between the imperial power and its empire? For example "American Empire" is listed as being the 10th largest of all time in terms of size, whereas it was actually quite a small empire (Philippines, some islands in the Caribbean, some in the Pacific) - most of that figure actually relates to the size of the actual U.S. rather than of its colonial empire of the time.

I understand that this may be more difficult to achieve in cases such as the Russian Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarby (talk • contribs) 16:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems of semantics, provinence and gravitas

Wikipedia is a wonderful thing but its weaknesses, compared to academically edited encyclopaedias, include the large numbers of assertions contributed that have the distinctive ring of unqualified and biased presumption. How therefore, can this resource ever be relied upon as definitive? The upside of this methodology is that constant revision is occurring. When one considers just how much revision is taking place in the official academic world in just about every discipline from History and Science to Medicine and Social Morality, one might be forgiven for thinking that a greater part of officially accepted academia is just as unreliable.

Concerning Empires though, much of the debate discussing the semantics and definitions will always be liable to argument on a forum such as this since no relevant editorial or academic standard can be established. Following this conversation so far, I do wonder why folks who quite evidently have limited knowledge of the subject they make assertions about, feel compelled to reveal the fact? Just a couple of things to consider though, since some writers have mentioned Greenland as if it were a contentious part of the British Empire, Greenland is not and never has been a part of the British Empire. Greenland has been a part of the Danish Empire since Lief Ericson claimed it during the time of the Vikings. The Danish Empire has not even been mentioned here, even though at its peak it would have been considerably larger than others listed here, once including other parts of Scandinavia and Iceland beyond today’s Denmark and the Faeroe Islands, which together with Greenland remain semi autonomous parts of Denmark, making Denmark arguably one of the biggest empires existing today, in terms of geographic size.

With regard to the British Empire, I can understand why some folks, for socio-political-tribal reasons, don’t like the aggrandisement of it. It may well be that one can belittle the extent of the British Empire by nit-picking over definitions, but the power of overbearing influence in terms of politics, culture, rule of law, socio-economic infrastructure and military domination must be the real basis for measuring an empire and in that respect no other empire, including those of the Mongols or ancient Rome, comes anywhere near. At its height, immediately after the League of Nations mandates of ex German and Ottoman territories after World War One after Britain had captured by conquest, Germany’s extensive African and South Pacific territories and much of Turkish Arabia, including Palestine (Israel) Iraq, Jordan and the whole of the Arab Gulf from Kuwait to Oman. At that time the dominions of Canada. Australia and New Zealand were still very much a part of the Empire despite having gained considerable local autonomy. But the actual power of Britain’s empire extended far beyond the niceties of internationally recognised political borders, Egypt, Sudan and Saudi Arabia were militarily, politically and economically occupied and/or controlled by Britain. Britain also maintained such a presence in China and despite the often misunderstood history of Afghanistan this relatively lawless frontier of imperial India was very much under the control and influence of Britain, to the extent that Britain chose and installed their Kings and regularly battered tribal war lords whenever they got uppity. But more than that, Britain prevented Russia from extending her empire into that and other regions on the edge of India, such as Nepal and Tibet, by ensuring it was Britain that held sway and none other.

Additionally, consider the fact that for centuries most of the oceans of the world were totally dominated by the Royal Navy. The patriotic anthem ‘Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves’ was no mere whimsy. The Royal Navy’s doctrine was in both policy and fact, even up until the outset of World War Two, that; “The Royal Navy shall be larger than the Worlds next two navies together” (sic). The Royal Navy was not only large but well ordered with epic and dazzling displays of naval skill peppering and dominating the course of World history. Apart from a few very brief tactical suspensions of that total maritime domination, after all, the Britain had an entire Maritime World to control; the Royal Navy ruled the oceans of the World for more than three centuries, from the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 to the destruction of the combined German and Italian navies between 1939 and 1944. Whether or not such a maritime empire is accepted as an empire per se, the fact that Britain instituted the Royal Courts of Admiralty in London with which they presumed, tellingly without irony, to enforce laws upon everyone else anywhere upon the seas, proven by the extensive large scale arrest of slavers, pirates and smugglers on every ocean of the World by the Royal Navy, who were tried at the Admiralty Courts in London, must be prima facia evidence of imperial power across the oceans. So not only was the British Empire, if the actuality of total dominance is to be the scope of it, the most extensive in terms of land mass, geographic spread and population (the only empire upon which the Sun never set), but in terms of actual reach and power over the Earths surface, both wet and dry, no other empire has ever got close to the extent of Britain’s, or is ever likely to again. 62.49.27.221 (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of American Empire

This page is a list of the de jure Empires. I think we could include the hypothetical "American Empire" but under a different section, such as "Disputed Empires" or "Cultural Empires" something along those lines. (Trip Johnson (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

where does the page say that? I do see that it says:

An empire is a state that extends dominion over areas and populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power.

Zebulin (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? By that definition, any state that contains more than one distinct culture or ethnicity, where those cultures or ethnicities aren't at an equal balance of power, is an empire. By that definition Finland is an empire because it has a Swedish minority, which it seeks to govern, and which it would certainly not allow to secede. Imperialism would seem to require no or limited (i.e., not proportional to the rest of the state) representation in the government on the part of the population of a certain area. 69.209.78.94 (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This article wikilinks the Empire article in its lead sentence. The second sentence of the Empire article says, "Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and ethnic peoples united and ruled either by a monarch or a group authority." The lead sentence of the American Empire article says, "American Empire is a controversial term referring to the political, economic, military and cultural influence of the United States." My take on that is that the so-called "American Empire", whatever it might be—and it's not at all clear to me what "American Empire" might or might not be—is not an empire within the meaning of that term as used by this article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

American Empire?

this recent edit changed numerous instances of

[[Overseas expansion of the United States|United States of America]]

to

[[Overseas expansion of the United States|American Empire]].

This seems potentially confusing to me since an article named American Empire exists. Just thought I'd mention that here in case it's a problem. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of American Empire / United States

America is, simply, NOT an Empire. This is a list of Empires which expanded through conquest, whereas in the U.S.'s case, states were admitted into the Union through democracy. In my opinion, United States is there through, perhaps, jealousy of European Empires and the US not having one. The term was coined by a bunch of students, and thus, I think the best we could do for the United States is put it in its own area of "Disputed Empires". (Trip Johnson (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

I think the disputed empires section is a good idea. I've seen some entries on this page that I feel are dubious candidates for inclusion at best. America DID expand through conquest, however. Still, I don't think its really an empire since the culture at the center of power (European Americans for the most part) are still a majority in the "empire". This may change in the future, but the cultures which are distinct from the founding one were not conquered into it but immigrated there. The only folks conquered into America were the Native Americans and they are far from a majority here. Then again, if u really want to be technical, the founding culture of the United States (the English) are a minority within the country today (when compared with the Irish and Germans who came after them). Still power in America is not exclusive to any of these cultures.Scott Free (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's just a list of large empires. Conquest doesn't seem to have anything to do with it, according to the empire article; "An empire is a state that extends dominion over populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power."

I suppose you have to decide whether this "American Empire" held dominion over peoples who where ethnically and culturally distinct from those who held power. America is probably culturally diverse (arguable, I suppose); with Native Americans, Spanish, Mexicans and so on residing there.

The case for "dominion" is less clear cut. Can democracy ever be dominion? I suppose it depends how much of a minority your interests are, and how pluralist the state is. If people can vote, it is difficult to argue them as being under dominion. But if people are unable to vote, they could under dominion. Have blacks always been allowed to vote? What about illegal immigrants?

America though, it's recognised as an empire in the same why, for example, the French Empire is recognised as an empire. The French Empire is pretty much undisputed. The American Empire is pretty well disputed. A footnote should be added, to show that the American Empire is disputed, at the least. --CalPaterson (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

filipinos and other inhabitants of territories conquered from the spanish in the Spanish-American war certainly were not given the right to vote or send voting representatives to Washington. It was an empire in essentially the same manner as the democratic British Empire or post revolutionary french empire were empires. What is the nature of this dispute you cite apart from obvious embarrassment by US editors who want to pretend their country was somehow innocent of the imperialism of the late 19th and early 20th century?Zebulin (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Entering the debate slandering people doesn't gain you _anything_. By doing this you ensure that the continuing debate will be an argument, and stifle any chance of a decent discussion. I'm not actually an American, and I'm just trying to get this article to decide whether America should be included as an empire.

As for the actual issue at hand, the Philippines looks to a case of an empire, with the arguable point that it wasn't without some electoral representational for very long (6 years between 1901 and 1907). I know they didn't have full representation, but some representation makes it a little unclear. Cuba and American Samoa are other examples, but they both also have arguable circumstances. --CalPaterson (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Zebulin, you said: "filipinos and other inhabitants of territories conquered from the spanish in the Spanish-American war certainly were not given the right to vote or send voting representatives to Washington." U.S. voting rights at the Federal level are constitutionally bound to the U.S. States (and, since the ratification of the 23rd Amendment in 1961, the District of Columbia) (see Voting rights in the United States#Overseas and nonresident Citizens). The U.S. Constitution would need to be amended to change this (e.g., as it was amended for the 23rd) . Also, please note that during the Commonwealth years (1935-1946), the Philippines sent one elected Resident Commissioner to the United States House of Representatives, as Puerto Rico currently does today (see Commonwealth of the Philippines). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And this grants them more power in the 'empire' than colonials in the British or French empires how exactly?Zebulin (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a factual correction, he wasn't making a point. --CalPaterson (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to argue anything regarding relative empowerment, just to point out that the assertion that they "... certainly were not given the right to vote or send voting representatives to Washington" is inaccurate. In July 1907, the first elections for the Philippine Assembly were held (the locally-elected lower house of the Philippine legislature, established following on the Philippine Organic Act of 1902), and it opened its first session on October 16, 1907. Once the Philippines became a Commonwealth following on the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916, local voters elected a Resident Commissioner to the United States House of Representatives. See the History of the Philippines (1898–1946) article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want this to turn into a debate on whether America is an Empire or not. Its just that it should be in its own disputed section. An Empire is a faction which expands through conquest, forcibly places the conquered people under its command and forces the subsequent nation to submit. Technically though America did expand through conquest, the areas which it conquered were admitted as states into its union through democracy. Empires do nothing of the sort. They force the subsequent nation into its empire, no democracy involved. While Oklahoma may become the State of Oklahoma, say if it was conquered by Spain again, it would simply be territory of the Spanish Empire. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

The Navajo didn't choose to become Americans, neither did the Ohio, the Dakota, the Cherokee, the Blackfoot, etc. If Nazi Germany had have survived WW2 and continued their ethnic cleansing in Poland, the Baltic, etc. and colonized the areas with Germans, leaving only small Polish (et al) homelands, would that mean that Germany wasn't imperial? The States to the West of the 13 originals, were American Colonies after the US conquered the Native Nations. Conquest + Colonization = Empire. The method of internal governance is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you had checked the United States of America link in this article, you would have seen that while the presence of the US in this list is unrelated to the addition of various new states to the US, the spanish imperial possessions and other US overseas territorial gains during and as a part of the general trend of 19th century imperialism which that article also describes certainly fit the definition of empire used in this article.Zebulin (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Americans still refer to the famous "Conquest of the Wild West", the way indians where treated is not democratic at all, it was done through conquest, war and slavery. What America did to Japan it's the same the British did to China or India, just see the famous american Commodore Mathew C. Perry. Philippines, Guam, Panama and Puerto Rico are other examples of imperialism. See Operation Condor in Chile, see the Che Guevara in Bolivia, Plan Colombia in Colombia, the Iran-Contra scandal in Nicaragua, all of Mexico's history, West Germany, Turkey, Israel, Bay of Pigs, the dictaroships of Argentina through the 1980's and 1990's. America IS an Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.162.239 (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC) the British didnt invade China, but we actually ruled over india as an imperial state, our queen as the empress, with our goverment controling the country. There is no evidence at all that america is an empire, all its over see's terrotry is ether sent by the UN or a over see's colliny which many other countrys have but done consider to be an empire, an empire needs a monachy and america is republic, regardlis over see's expansion, it should be removed this artical is called 'a list of empires' and the USA isnt an empire in any contex. 84.64.14.35 (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Rome was a Republic. An Empire can be a republic. 68.148.123.76 (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire

Why isnt the Holy Roman Empire included in this list? It was larger then some of the empires that made the list. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The medieval list does include #23, the Frankish Empire, which I believe is understood to cover everything up to and including Charlemagne -- that is, the beginning of what is understood as the Holy Roman Empire. Nevertheless, the HRE, as it extended well into the modern period, was arguable something quite different from the Frankish Empire. Therefore, I agree with Lucius Sempronius Turpio: why isn't the HRE listed? Lapisphil (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. 90.205.92.29 (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

tang empire

the tang empire's size is WAY TOO SMALL, i just noticed, it was twice as big as ming and around same aize as qing,(not covering the same terrirories though), at its MAXIMUM EXTENT. it controlled goguryo, xinjiang, a big part of turkistan(kazakstan krgystan tajistan uzbekistan) northern afghanistan, northern pakistan and part of kashmir, and part of northeast iran, vietnam, southern mongolia.

territories it did not conquer were tibet and they used local soldiers and soldiers from allied states so dont nag me on how they couldnt have seized that amount of territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.135.187 (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

carthage

The Carthaginian empire should be listed if anyone can establish area 144.137.118.72 (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Göktürk Empire

The Göktürk Empire should be on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Population Size

I don't understand why the US is listed with a 1940's population. If the criteria is that the US ruled the Philippines, then (a) ruling one other nation does not make one an empire and (b) then modern China's rule of Tibet makes modern China and empire and it should be listed.

Realistically, the title of this whole article should be "List of Largest Empires and States" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Presumably the reasoning was that if a political entity was large enough to be on this list, it would be an empire, so this would be a list of empires. But the U.S. clearly shows that this need not be the case, and if an entity is large but not an empire, or could be construed as not being an empire, why shouldn't we include it? Also, it's a tough call to make. With the definition given in the article, the U.S. could very well be an empire today – aren't Hawaii, Puerto Rico and American Samoa pretty "distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power"? But any such discussion would be original research. (Then, the proposition "The U.S. is an empire" can probably be sourced, but so, no doubt, can "The U.S. is not an empire", so that doesn't help much.) Your proposed wording would rid us of all that, and for modern times it would just default to including the largest sovereign states, which is much more clear-cut (although not entirely, as e.g. China shows). For ancient and medieval empires, it would hardly make any difference. (The title should be in lower-case though.) -- Jao (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Han Dynasty China vs. Alexander the Great's Empire

Under ancient empires, Han Dynasty China is listed as having an area of 6 million km while Alexander's empire is listed as 5.9 million. However, Alexander's is ranked higher. So which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.215.130 (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Mexican and Brazilian Empires

I can't believe how much eurocentrism exists in this page, of course both Mexican and Brazilian empires must be included, both had huge sizes, Mexico included much of current South USA and most Central America. I already added Mexico and it would be an obvious bias if you remove it Lefairh (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Empire/Iberian Union

one thing , the spanish empire in 1790 reached 20 million miles and not 19 million as incorrectly showed in the list

another thing , i think we should include the Iberian union empire shoudlnt we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroHistoryTeacher (talk • contribs) 19:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing: Holy Roman Empire

I fail to find the Holy Roman Empire is the list. Does anyone has some data about the largest extent available to include that into the list? Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Propagandistic denomination

To say Nazi to German Nationalsocialists is not different than pejoratively calling Muslims "Muzzies" in some more decades, after a heavy propaganda campaign against them. Can anyone ever point out when did German Nationalsocialists ever called themselves "Nazis", opposed to Ashkenazi Jews? Shouldn't Wikipedia's neutrality at least be applied to the terminologies used? If your criteria is just taking propagandistic terms, shouldn't the Persian website of Israel be rather called "Regime of illegal occupation of Israel" or something like that? Would you accept that just because of how Iranians call Western characters? It makes no sense. Germanicus24

Theres a naming section here in Wikipedia, this isn't the place for this discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.7.97.51 (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

These Wikipedias rankings sucks

Every list in Wikipedia seems vandalized, there are always ethnic enlargments over reality; we can see it in "most spoken language by number of native speakers", "Countries by total area" etc. We must not attain to numbers, but to the truth. In my opinion, truth is a stuff reconigzed by everybody, and we what we can see here is a very tendentious and disconnected article. Is this the Wikipedia motto? "Be selfish alter the article as you wish, and everybody will know your truth" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.106.199.39 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Maritime empires

I think the list of maritime empires is wrong by listing the Achaemenid Empire and Sassanid Empire. None of them controlled large overseas territories, except for a few islands in the mediterranian. The Sassanid one didn't even control them. So I believe they do not qualify as Maritime Empires. If they do, there are many others that should qualify as well, such as the Macedonian, Russian, Roman, and many others. If no one disagrees, I will remove them from the list in a few days, ok? Uirauna (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Uirauna, I have carefully read your proposal, but see various problems with it. You are right when stating that the Sassanid Empire was not a maritime empire, it was not as large as the Achaemenid Empire, so I removed it myself. The Macedonian was even smaller, the Russian is possible, because they owned almost all the Arctic islands, for the Romans, I am not sure because their Empire was centered around water which except Britian it was all connected. So now we shall examine the AE (Achaemenid Empire). Well, the AE was (and please do not get me wrong, I think that the maritime list should be more expanded to include some Indonesian and Asian Pacifice, Tongon Empires too) a maritime empire, and here is why;

(Please feel free to click on the links, as they will help you see a better visual of regions discussed below)

Known possesions;

• For similarities, it is similar to the Italian Empire, which owned land that was almost connected but maritime across the Mediterranian.
• For the Seas, it owned half the Mediterranian Sea and Arabian Sea, all the seas of the Agaean, Thrace, Azov, Crete, Black, Red, Caspian, Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Aral, Gulf of Aden.
• Now for the maritime lands, the AE at its greatest extent in 500-480-79 BC owned Cyprus, Crete, 75% of Greek islands, was allied in control with Sicily, at least half the islands of the Caspian, all the islands of the Red, Aral, Sea and of the, Persian, Oman, Aden, Gulf, plus the island of Socotra, Yemen, you may want to check this one out.

Possible possessions;

• According to Herodotus, in 513-18 BC Darius sent Scylax on an Indian to Arabian sea expedition which helped annex India into the Empire, and later Darius made an barely successfull invasion which he passed Moscow in a counter clockwise loop and may have reached the Baltic Sea and back to Persia, they also found a tablet of Darius in Gherla, Romania, which the inscription is mostly gone, but only this is readable, "I am Darius of Persia, I did..." [smote the Saka Paradaya?] (Scythians of Europe, which according to historians only the northern shore of the Black Sea was conquered).
• The same historian and others claim, that in 470 BC when Xerxes was punishing his brother Sataspes for an affair, he made him be the second expedition to circumnavigate Africa. The first people were the Phoenicians under Egypt, which Sataspes' expedition log reported to reach the Canary islands, have an encounter with a successfull fight with the Pygmies of Africa near the Congo basin, and even reaching the Port of Elizabeth in South Africa in the Atlantic. If they ever managed to go around all of Africa is not known, but they still came back alive.

So there you go, after much thought these are the reasons why I included the AE in this list. Which because they were mounting land and sea expolartions (with leaving semi-active bases, an empire too large for the time) spanning from the Atlantic-Indian oceans for sea, and in land, from India to Spain, Russia to South Africa, or doing these things at least 2,000 years before the Colonial Empires did. If I'm not mistaken this is a great feat for the time. Also, some of the claims I made here do not match the 7.5 m/kl size of the Empire listed here, thats why one day that number has to be updated. From researching various Empires and this one, the AE was somewhere near 12 m/kl, and so this article has to be heavily updated in the future. Finally, I would like to add, if you have disagreement, to just comment back on this page, because I have watchlisted this page, thanks.--Amerana (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Amerana. I agree with you about the AE, but I believe the Roman should be added as well. Rome had a very powerfull Roman Navy, and not only controlled an patrolled all of the Mediterranean but also the Atlantic and the English Channel. The Navy was extremly important to mantain Roman power, in a similar way to the British Empire, albeit in a shorter scale. A large part of the [[Roman Empire | File:RomanEmpire 117.svg}} was not accessable by Land from Rome or was too far away by land. Also, it disputed with Cartage (IMHO another maritime empire) the control of the mediterranean and won. Several decisive battles in the history of ancient Rome were fought in the sea such as Battle of Naulochus, Battle of Actium and Battle of Myonessus. What do you think? Uirauna (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! First off, I want to thank you for your message here. I totally agree with your assessment on the Roman Empire, because it is fact that they owned most of Britian, which is an island, and many others, that would qualify for a maritime empire. I was not sure in the begining, but I am sure they probably had sailing routes similar to the AE, spanning the Atlantic to the Indian ocean. It is also a fact that a 2 inch marble head of Roman style figurine was discovered in Mexico(though how it got there is another matter), this is found in the Pre-columbian transatlantic theories, which are about cultures that sailed to the Americas before Columbus, which is mostly true, the best evidence is the Vikings in 1,000 AD fighting the Skaerlings in Newfoundland, native americans, and Viking buildings are all over the eastern coast of the U.S. Some evidence shows people sailed to the americas 5,000 years ago! Anyways sorry I got of topic, but regardless of the transatlantic theories, Rome was mostly a maritime empire, remember if you like, to add indonesian, tongan, polynesian empires to, because they are of course maritime empires, so thank you very much for reading. I also think the titles of the some of the empires is wrong too, like they call the Qing Empire, the [Chinese] Qing Empire! This is a nationlistic title! It should be only Qing Empire, they are trying to show off, even in Arab Empires, Russian, and many other cultures, the titles are messed up, do you agree? Cheers!--Amerana (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, as a update, I am now going to tell you that I added Rome for you and corrected like all the mistakes I talked about in the article, so now to improve the article we need to make sure the other maritime empires are included and each sources is reliable, thanks.--Amerana (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Maritime Empires should be based on a clearer definition of what Maritime means. This should in my view only list empires whose power was based on naval force and naval trade. But I'd really favor eliminating this list. Nitpyck (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: 'Modern American Empire'

I see a lot of debate here over the American Empire, and some confusion over the historical American Empire and the present day country.

I propose a suggestion: adding a 'Modern American Empire'. Why? At the present time, the USA militarily, politically and economically controls at least 2 overseas states : Iraq and Afghanistan. To me, this clearly fits the definition of 'Empire' even if it is undeclared. As a world superpower, people expect to see it in the rankings. It therefore makes some common sense to include a reference to the modern status of the USA. I propose using one of 3 maximal land areas:

1. Present day USA including conquered territories like Iraq and Afghanistan.

2. Greatest military extent of USA - probably 1945/6, and including conquered countries like Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Egypt, Spain etc. (France was not 'conquered' as such but it was recaptured from the Nazis by the USA so I include it here. Other nations like UK and Canada played a part in the recapturing but it was overwhelmingly a USA organised, controlled, led, marshalled, and dominated effort. 3. USA plus highly controlled client states of the USA (greatest extent probably 1960s / 70s, including Iran, various CIA-controlled south american countries etc.) Asserting an exact figure here would be problematic, but some sort of list could be made of nations which had a new regime installed by the USA. This would help exclude 'sphere of influence' arguements.

I personally favour 1 or 2 as being clear and easy to source. Comments? RedTomato (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The United States of America does not "control" Iraq and Afghanistan. The American troops in Iraq are there at the request of the sovereign Iraqi government recognized by international institutions such as the United Nations and all countries of the world. For the past 4 years (up until the end of 2008) the American troops were in Iraq under a United Nations mandate. The USA does not "occupy Iraq or Afghanistan" so the basis for a mention of the US empire because it controls those countries is incorrect.

The United States of America has the power and influence many empires in the past could only dream of, but it does not mean its an "Empire". BritishWatcher (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you need reliable sources that claim the U.S is currently an empire, which of none exists. Your right BritishWatcher, how could the U.S be an empire if it is only a corporation? Secondly, I discovered shocking facts about the U.S recently. Thirdly, remember, in case of a national emergency, the shadow government must be activitated to protect the president and continuity of government, according to the NSA director quote on the news, "Every agency has an unseen agency inside it," and apparently when something goes wrong, who gets the blame? No one, research Operation Rex 84, Garden Plot, W2=after WW2, 1040=the year something big happened in Catholic Rome. Thank you.

Sources; [1], [2], [3], [4]. These two LAST links are mostly true, if you want to skip the long paragraphs to read, only check out the LAST two links, they are videos, but I urge the reader to watch them to the end. The videos have a black screen with okay music, and list real laws that are legal today, if your an American citizen, it will be suicide not to watch these videos, it is your obligation to know these life or death laws, viewer discretion advised, now close your eyes, and forget everything you saw and lets sing the national anthem! Thank you my fellow Earthlings.--Amerana (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Umayyads Caliphate smaller than Achaemenid Empire?!! how come

without getting into too much argument, by just looking at maps its clear enough that the Umayyads were larger than the Achaemenid Empire, there were no Persian empire larger than the Umayyads. its historical fact that the Umayyads controlled all the Arabian peninsula, the Iranian Platue, all the coasts of the north africa and the iberian peninsula.Ioj (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Found this on the interested users talk page, of User:Amerana;

To begin with, the Umayyad size was wrong by some million km, so that was fixed a typo longed ago, and plus I found this.

Based on all the categories, these are all the numbers that it ranks in, 1, 4, 5, 7, 12= 29/5= The Achaemenid Empire is the '5.8th greatest empire up to the modern age known to the science of man.'

Check the section on the Sassanid Empire size revision on this talk page, and how it was found out it was 7.4 milkm, not 6.5 milkm, this section is similar to that.

Here it is, bigger and better maps of Persia support this, but are not on Wikipedia, should check google images...

greece= 131,990 km2/5= 131,990-26,398= (105,592 km2)

turkey= (783,562 km2)

macedonia= 25,713 km2/2= (12,856.5 km2)

romania= 238,391 km2/8= (29,798.875 km2)

ukraine= 603,628 km2/17= (35,507.5 km2)

russia= (~154,000 km2)

georgia= (69,700 km2)

azerbaijan= (86,600 km2)

armenia= ( 29,800 km2)

iran= (1,648,195 km2)

cyprus= (9,251 km2)

lebanon= (10,452 km2)

israel= (20,770 km2)

iraq= (438,317 km2)

jordan= (89,342 km2)

egypt= (~668,300 km2)

libya= (~109,971.3 km2) Because of this was conquered at its greatest extent, it would make it bigger than Sassanid Empire.

arabia= (716,563.3 km2)

kazakhstan= (54,4980 km2)

uzbekistan= (447,400 km2)

turkmenistan= (488,100 km2)

kyrgyzstan= (149,925-[174,912]-199,900 km2)

tajikistan= (143,100 km2)

afganistan= (647,500 km2)

pakistan= (803,940 km2)

india= (~547,873.3 km2)

qatar= (11,437 km2)

bahrain= (655 km2)

uae= (83,600 km2)

oman= (309,500 km2)

yemen= (527,968 km2)

socotra= (3,796 km2) Source is page the persian empire by james cook, page 246 and 81? Because of this was conquered at its greatest extent, it would make it bigger than Sassanid Empire.

djibouti= (23,200 km2) Because of this was conquered at its greatest extent, it would make it bigger than Sassanid Empire.

eritrea= (117,600 km2) Because of this was conquered at its greatest extent, it would make it bigger than Sassanid Empire.

ethiopia= (~368,100 km2) Because of this was conquered at its greatest extent, it would make it bigger than Sassanid Empire.

sudan= (~501,162.6 km2) Because of this was conquered at its greatest extent, it would make it bigger than Sassanid Empire.

TOTAL= [~10,763,412.38 million km2]

[edit]

The end.--153.18.22.30 (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Came on, Romania, Ukraine, Ethipia, Sudan, Eritrea, Oman, Yemen, achaemenids?? No, no --Bentaguayre (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Protect this page

This page have become a total chaos, people enter here and change the dates according to their calculations, now we have the Alexander empire with more than 11 millions km2, other guys stimate theirself the extension of Sassanian Empire... The only size dates allowed must be, according with wikipedia rules about information, those which are well supported by achademics works. --Bentaguayre (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, it has been changed again and again without references or any valid data. Uirauna (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it to stop new IPs, I suspect one of the IP hoppers is a user who has been banned indefinitely under various socks. Too much of it has no references anyway, and 'largest'? Larger than what? Do we have a list of small empires somewhere? dougweller (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we need this page so various chauvinists can waste their time fighting over which people has the biggest genitals empire. This is Wikipedia, you know. List of small empires? I'd start with the Hackney Empire. --Folantin (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please return to the version of Beeswaxcandle, after this sucessive edits have destroyed the work of the last months, and if it¡s possible semiprotect the page. Sorry i forgot to add the signature --Bentaguayre (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I've just looked for figures for Alexander's empire, found figures ranging from 1.5 million square miles to 22 million. Then I looked at the sources used here. East-West Orientation of Historical Empires Peter Turchin, Jonathan M. Adams, and Thomas D. Hall is a reliable source by our criteria, Bruce R. Gordon definitely not and should be removed. We can add more figures from Turchin et al. Where we can find reliable sources from different estimates, we should be clear about the differences. Meanwhile perhaps we should put fact tags besides unsourced entries. dougweller (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting the whole list

Ok, lets try to organize this mess. Bellow I created a table with all the 'empires' listed here. Lets go one by one and fill up the data, BUT ONLY WHEN REFERENCES ARE AVAILABLE! So everyone please do not fill the 'choosen size' and 'choosen source' yet, only after we have discussed. Also, if there is no reference AT ALL to an empire's size, it should not be included in the final list. If there are multiple conflicting references, please write all of them, just like the example in the first line. When this table has enought data, we move it over to the main article. What do you think? Uirauna (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I've already provided a good source above for most of them. BUT -- 'largest'? How is that defined? dougweller (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

South American Empires

Why are there no South/middle/north american empires, such as the mayan empire, the aztecs, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.142.204 (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Size of the Roman empire

Republic at its height, 2m km²?

Empire at its height, 9m km²?

According to this source on the page of the Roman Republic, it was -- right before Caesar's civil war -- about 2m km². According to the source just cited for the Roman Empire on this page, it reached 9m km² at its height. Looking at these two pictures, the difference between them was clearly not x4. Now, there are two possibilities for this absurd discrepancy:

• One of the two sources is wrong; in this case, we need to identify which one is wrong and fix each page accordingly.
• These sources are not using the same criteria for size, i.e., one is counting client states or maritime area and the other is not. In which case, this needs to be clarified on all three pages. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise, I'm going to use the source found on the page of the Roman Empire for 5m km², since that appears more reasonable, until you can find another source to substantiate that claim, or clarify the huge discrepancy. Then, we'll put a "disputed" tag on it. Alright? -- LightSpectra (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a very strange date, all the sources claim that the empire had around 5 millions km2 at his height, for example in this book of the Oxford university page number 1 http://books.google.com/books?id=ixUePMNx8BkC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=size+of+the+roman+empire+square+kilometres&source=bl&ots=bruSfxG-be&sig=pSXnFxro6av6lsC1O4tbsBG0Ah8&hl=es&ei=OqjbSYDCIYmrjAf3wom-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA1,M1 --Bentaguayre (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The 9 million figure is definitely false (fir the commonly used land surface), it was probably computed by adding the surface of the mediterranean seas, which roughly doubles he size. The 2 million figure for for the reublic seems reasonable. At Augustus death in 14 AD the area was 3.4 million km² which grew to 5 million due to serveral addition over the first century and under trajan (mauretania, Thracia,Britain,Romania/Dacia, agri decumates,arabia and the short lived conquests by Trajan before his death (mesopotamia, armenia, Assyria).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

an undefined term

What is Greek empire? Show me an encyclopaedia that defines it and says explicitly what it was. And wikipedia does not define Macedonian empire either! We have Seleucid empire but that was not what you mean. I am worried that Herodotus is back with fictional numbers.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Greek empire" shenanigans was vandalism. Ignore it. The Macedonian Empire was created by the conquests of Alexander the Great; I believe after the fractioning of his empire, the Greek part of it just became "Macedon". Correct me if I am wrong. -- LightSpectra (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Define the Terms

The meaning of Contiguous and Maritime should be explained in the article since both have multiple meanings. I guess, and it is only a guess, that in this article contiguous means not separated by an ocean and maritime means having an imperial navy. I'm not sure what purpose is served by either list. Nitpyck (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Parthian Empire

According to this source, a complete study of the Parthian Empire, at his height the parthian territory size was 800000 thousand square miles, that mean 2064000 km2

http://books.google.es/books?id=Swt66Fh4NcUC&pg=PA25&dq=parthia+square+miles

Another source give less territory during Mithridates the Great reign but probably it's too much restrictive http://books.google.es/books?id=_hbwMlUBo0wC&pg=PA64&dq=Mithridates+II+of+Parthia+square+miles&lr=#PPA64,M1

--Bentaguayre (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Critics to the article

I cannot but help see a dramatic bias in this article. With regards to the British Empire, entire mass lands are included, regardless of whether they had been fully explored or colonized. With all others, the Spanish example being particularly poignant, massive areas are excluded for no apparent reason. If the article is to have any credibility at all it has to use consistent, objective criteria for measuring the size of empires. Otherwise, it merely feeds the view that Wikipedia lacks even the most basic academic rigeur. Please revise it thoroughly or delete it.

Nachofon (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish empire reached its maximum extent in the eighteenth century and at 20 million sq km its claims are all included, even the sparsely uninhabited areas of independent Indigenous peoples in North America, which, if anything, actually serve to exaggerate effective Spanish reach. Lachrie (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Provided that every inch of territory attributed to the British Empire (for instance) was obviously under effective British authority... (The entire Canadian and Australian territories? Come on...)

Synthesis

I've tagged the article as a reminder to editors that this article covers comparative history so when we quote a source it should be a comparative source. This means the source itself should contain the comparison. If we go hunting for individual estimates in separate sources of variable quality and do the historical comparison ourselves we may breach WP:SYNTHESIS, which we want to avoid. Lachrie (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's just absurdly unrealistic and unhelpful, and I have removed the tag. There is no reason to suppose that comparative sources will be more reliable than others for specific facts. Using only one source for all facts would simply replicate the biases in that source, and would almost certainly be a breach of its copyright. You need to accept that assembling a table of data from a variety of sources is a standard and legitimate task for the editors of an encyclopedia. This article will never be 100% accurate and beyond dispute, but adding that tag won't induce any improvement. Nor will it be understood by those readers naive enough to take the article at face value, who are presumably the ones you are most concerned about (but the will understand accuracy tag, so that one has its place). All in all, it makes no contribution to the quality of the article or the appropriateness of the reader response. Luwilt (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Xiongnu really an empire??

I was wondering if the inclusion of Xiongnu in this article is valid, let alone naming them the largest "empire" of the ancient times. Based on their wiki page:

The Xiongnu were a confederation of nomadic tribes from Central Asia with a ruling class of unknown origin and other subjugated tribes. The bulk of information on the Xiongnu comes from Chinese sources. What little is known of their ...

I would recommand removing them from the list.--LogiPhi (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The immediate basis for including the Xiongnu in the article is that they're included in the main reference source from which the comparative figures are derived. Empires aren't limited to sedentary peoples so they can't be excluded on that basis. Lachrie (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Han dynasty numbers are exaggerated.

I understand there are problems with this article, and that some(!) numbers are exaggerated. Many of these numbers are 'sourced' too. But the reliability of those 'sources' are another problem in itself. Case in point: Han Dynasty is ranked 2nd largest empire of ancient time with 6 mil km2 area. Whatever map I could get my hands on, shows Hans at their largest extent to be almost/no more than HALF of modern day China.

Modern China ~9.6 km2, so I deduce Han Dynasty < ~5.0km2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LogiPhi (talk • contribs) 23:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The figures quoted come from a reliable comparative source. The justification for using a comparative source is to ensure a consistent measurement. How the authors derived their estimates isn't clear from the source. Their estimates are quoted because they're verifiable. Your concerns may be legitimate, but Wikipedia can't use original research to challenge findings published by academics. All we can really do is try to find a more detailed reliable comparative source to present an alternative opinion. Lachrie (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Xiongnu really 9.0?

I've recently checked this article, and there seems to be a problem. Was the Xiongnu "Empire" really 9.0 million km2? I believe the author of the source has vastly exaggerated the size. I've seen the empire at its greatest extent overlapped on modern day borders, and it is the size of 1 Mongolia, 1 Kazhakstan, 0.5 Kazhakstan= 5.5+ million km2 at the most! If 9.0 is correct, then Xiongnu would be at least as big as the huge Arab empires, which its not. Even historians agree the Mongolia empire has loose borders, and their borders were undefined, especially for an ancient turkic confederation. I have seen earlier that this page once held a 10.7 estimate for Achamenid, which might be true, anyways going back to this issue, I think we should and I myself am highly skeptical about the 9.0 figure. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.18.19.61 (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said above with regard to Han China, the Xiongnu total is verifiable in the sense that it comes directly from a reliable comparative source. It's possible that it's an overestimate, but in an article on comparative history we're dependent on comparative sources. If we can find a superior comparative source where the methodology is transparent, we can justify revising the order in the list on the basis of that comparative source. If we find a lower estimate for the Xiongnu maximum in a non-comparative source, we can justify adding the reference as a footnote, to give an alternative opinion. Otherwise we could be accused of committing a major breach of wp:synthesis. Lachrie (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Achaemenid Persia

An article on comparative history has to rely on comparative sources to avoid breaching wp:synth. Comparative sources are to be preferred for the main text, where available. While the British Museum estimate for Achaemenid Persia does not come from a comparative source, I think we can justify its inclusion as a footnote, without harming the integrity of the sourced comparison in the main text. Lachrie (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Lachrie, I want to thank you for giving your thoughts and edits to this issue. I have not changed anything but mentioned the higher estimate first and the pdf 5.5 estimate second. It is mainly because I promise you if you check the other empires the Lower estimates are mentioned second. It is not the other way around as your edit shows. For example, if the fictional Tata Empire has a 6.0 and a 5.2 estimate, the 6.0 is mentioned in the Rank for all users to see, while the 5.2 estimate is mentioned in the footnote, you'l see the best examples in the medieval and contigious empires sections. If you know the achaemened was possibly 7.5, why chose the lower estimate over the higher, and if you check modern day maps they perfer a 7.5 estimate, no matter how "comparative", in the above you kinda contradict yourself like in the previous section (If we can find a superior comparative source where the methodology is transparent, we can justify revising the order in the list on the basis of that comparative source. If we find a lower estimate for the Xiongnu maximum in a non-comparative source, we can justify adding the reference as a footnote, to give an alternative opinion. Well, that is what I did to the Achamenid Empire, I followed your advice, the lower estimate is at the bottom). Also, the More Diverse our references are, the more legible the article becomes, if we have one reference for most empires, the article becomes less reliable and doubtfull, but if we include newest (the British 7.5 estimate is from the best Achaemenid Scholars, and it is from the book Forgotten Empire, which came out in 2005, but the 5.5 estimate is from a small article that came out in 2004, so the British source is newer too) and more scholarly sources, more people will take Wikipedia seriously, I see no issue here. I AgreE with you that it is not really a good thing to always find the highest estimates, because then it would be less reliable in commononality, But This Time, the British source that I provided is a reliable source, which is not OR or SYN. So I suggest you take this into consideration and accept it as it is, because the 7.5 estimate has always been here, but people changed it to 8.7, 5.5, whats next? 3.2? Finally, I stand by my edit, and thats all I have to say, thanks.--99.183.243.103 (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The rationale for preferring a comparative source is to avoid breach of wp:synth. It's also the best way to keep a consistent measure, because the academic authors are more likely to be applying the same measurement criteria to every empire that they survey. Using individual estimates from separate non-comparative sources is more dubious both in terms of policy and method (as it facilitates cherrypicking by people with a personal preference), but I think that including them in footnotes is a reasonable compromise, especially as there is such a degree of uncertainty for many of the entries. Lachrie (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

On the name, for clarity it's best to include both the dynasty name and the country name, thus Achaemenid Persia, rather than Achaemenid Empire. Labelling it an "empire" in a list of empires is redundant. It conveys less information in the entry than naming the country does. Persia is much better known than the Achaemenids. Putting the two terms together makes it easy for people who aren't too sure who the Achaemenids were to figure out what political entity is being referred to. The same goes for other empires with multiple entries like China and India. We should also give numerical dates rather than the reigning sovereigns so that people can see the date on the page rather than having to follow a link to another page to find the date out. It's clearer, reduces clutter and makes the article easier to use. Lachrie (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you seen to missing the point here again. I said that the other empires included their largest estimates for size Where users can see them in the rank. Then the smaller estimates where mentioned in the bottom footnote. You are doing what is opposite of what is done here 99% of the time, I have found a more reliable and newer source, the Forgotten Empire one, and I can't listed because you think its syn? It would be syn if I was comparing it to a 5.5 estimate to advance a position (that they are top 3), your doing that right know, for the Achaemenids.

I said earlier that we should include the highest estimate on the top, if you weren't advancing a position, you would not put the 5.5 estimate at the top, but you have, which has dropped the achaemenid empire down the list, and sources say it was the largest in ancient times. In this case were both doing syn, but because I have legitement reasons for (not removing the 5.5, but listing it at the bottom as an alternative) the 7.5 estimate, it should be at the top.

Firstly I can gaurantee you that the Han empire was not larger than Achamenid Persia (I now agree we should call it that). And secondly, this list, before the most recent major edits to it, The Xiongnu empire was 3.5 million square kilometers, and was cited! I came up with a 5.5 estimate for it, but it said 3.5 in the article awhile ago, (note, my estimate for was for discussion purposes only, I never intended to change it without a citation, which I havent). So if I was advancing a position, I could have said 2.5, but I came up with 5.5, which would have helped the Xiongnu go higher in the list of greatest ancient empire.

So my main concern is why you have a problem with including the better source, which is the 7.5 at the top of the list, when you know that the Han empire was smaller than the Achaemenids. Secondly, the same measurement criteria IS THE SAME as measuring any country, in all maps, for example, know that current Mongolia is 1.5 million square kilometers, it is NOT DIFFERENT for any other map measurement, unless they make up a fake map and widen it, or use a false map projection, or that suddenly the Earth shrunk 2 million square kilometers which made Achamenenid Persia shrink from 7.5 to 5.5 million square kilometers (it would have caused massive earthquakes).

If you go on the Achaemenid Empire article, and look at that most accurate map, count up all the million sqauare kilometers for each country that is included in the empire, and you'l know which one is bigger. Anyways, please tell me why the mostly wrong estimate is right to put at the top, while we have every reason to include it at the bottom (review the many facts reference inclusion I said at the top already). AND note that the British musuem source does compare empires in there books, and is a academic source, so don't say its an individual estimate (a small pdf article by 3 amatures does not compare to a scholarly book), cause its many years worth of scholary research that indicated that size, it is from the big book Forgotten Empire. There is some degree of uncertainty, like was it 5.9 -or- 10.7 these are the highest and lowest estimates that I have found for the Achaemenids. Plus you can't call it cherrypicking, when that British source has been here for years now, most sources for other empires where also by Cambridge and Oxford sources, which are both British.

I have given my reasons, so please enlighten me.--99.183.243.103 (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. In comparative history the preferred sources are reliable comparative articles, not the largest estimates from non-comparative sources that we can possibly find. If we use non-comparative sources, we don’t know if we’re comparing apples with oranges, and if we draw new conclusions haphazardly from individual sources we’re violating wp:synth. We need to be as sure as we can that we have a consistent basis for comparison. I don't see any evidence that the British Museum source is a comparative source, and Turchin, Adams and Hall offer a more comprehensive comparison in their article. Since different sources have different estimates, a reasonable compromise is to include the other estimates from reliable non-comparative sources like the British Museum in footnotes, with the important caveat that we don't know how these would compare if the same authorities had applied their survey criteria systematically to other empires on the list. For all we know, the approach taken by the British Museum could yield higher or lower estimates for other empires as well, so it's dangerous to draw firm conclusions from disparate sources like that. It makes our comparison less reliable and it violates wp:synth.

Turchin, Adams and Hall are not amateurs.

Peter Turchin is Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Connecticut. Thomas D. Hall is a Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at DePauw University. Jonathan M. Adams is a Doctor of Geography at Rutgers University.

Their comparative article is peer-reviewed and is a reliable comparative source for comparative historical geography. Their findings are published in an accredited academic journal:

Peter Turchin, Thomas D. Hall and Jonathan M. Adams, East-West Orientation of Historical Empires, Journal of World-Systems Research, Vol. XII, No. II, 2006.

In their published article they explain:

“ Our list of large historical states was based on the compilation by Taagepera (1978a, 1978b, 1979, 1997), which has been systematized and posted on the web by Chase-Dunn and coworkers http://irows.ucr.edu/. We checked the Taagepera list with all major historical atlases in the library of the University of Connecticut and found eight additional empires that fit our criteria (Axum, Hsi-Hsia, Kara-Khitai, Srivijaya, Maurian, Kushan, Gupta, and Maratha). For historical empires, we used states that peaked before 1900. We excluded the maritime empires of the European Great Powers, because these empires were not contiguous (widely distributed collections of territories). One difficulty in constructing the list was presented by the repeated rise of empires in the same location, such as in China. We adopted the middle road of counting each major dynasty (Han, Tang, Ming, etc.) as a separate empire, but did not distinguish between cycles within any one dynasty (e.g., Early versus Late Han). Analysis of a reduced dataset, which included only the largest empire for each geographic location, yielded qualitatively the same result. This lends support to our argument that successive dynasties had significantly independent opportunities to expand in any direction. ”

Please let me know if you have any other questions. Lachrie (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been followig this conversation, and I am not a big fan of that research paper either. It looks like a lone 'research' to me. Lachrie, it might be near impossible to find a comparative piece that includes both Xiongnu and AE? After all AE was a major empire of the ancient times and Xiongnu, for example, is some obscure collelction of nomadic tribes with loose borders and blah blah. Your comparative source only included them to advance its agenda, if you read the article, proving how all empires are east-west oriented. So no matter what other (better) sources say, just because there's a single article that has these 3 names, Hans, Xions and AE, we'd have to take this? That doesn't violent some Wiki doctorine?? Cause it sure violates common sense! What's the regular course of action here, when there's a lack of Consensus?--LogiPhi (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please specify your source for a world population estimate of 152 million in the 4th century BC? It's not clear in the citation you provided for the population estimates for Achaemenid Persia, and we have to confirm that it's based on a consistent measurement. Lachrie (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what I could find, about the world population question: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html. This says 160 Mil for 400BC, so I could understand if someother sourse has 152 Mil. Not far off! Someone should go over dates and verify populations to be consistent with this link, I suppose.--LogiPhi (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. We should be sourcing as many figures as possible from a common source. 152 million for the 4th century BC looks basically consistent with 160 million for 400 BC quoted in Historical Estimates of World Population. Significantly, the estimate of 152 million for the 4th century BC doesn't seem to come from Hanson, Cowley or Dougherty. We need to find a source for the world estimate, but it looks reliable. However, the numbers in the footnote don’t all seem to match the sources cited for them. Checking Cowley, he says 70 million, not 80 million. Hanson says nearly 70 million, not 75 million. Dougherty checks out: he does say 70 million. Cowley and Hanson are popular military histories, and Dougherty’s book seems to be aimed at children. They're not historical demographers; their focus is on the military conflict with Greece, and their tone is sensationalist. We don’t have an estimate for world population from them, and it’s not credible that Persia was supporting a population greater than China and India and the rest of the world combined, so it’s probably a mistake to combine their very high estimates with a moderate estimate for world population from a more reliable source. Walter Scheidel at Stanford University is a more reliable scholarly source for demographic history than Hanson, Cowley or Dougherty. Scheidel’s estimate is 35 million. It also comes from a reliable comparative history. W. Scheidel Rome and China: comparative perspectives on ancient world empires (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). We should definitely go with that, so I’ll make the correction as soon as I have an opportunity. Lachrie (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I recommend against this change. I understand your reasoning, but don't agree with it. Looking at this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WorldPopulation.png, I see Asia's population's been ~60%, and Africa's ~10-15% of the world population since 1750. (a total of 70-75% in these 2 continents combined). I didn't find anything for periods prior to 1750's. This isn't scientific, but I could understand that in a 4th BC era, with major population centers/civilizations being centered and around niles valley(egypt/africa), mesopotamia, indus valley, india and china, with other areas including europe and northern asia and etc, lightly populated with scattered nomadic tribes; AE encompassing niles valley, mesopotamia, and indus among other dense area could amount to, say 45-55%. This doesn't sound sensational to me, 35 mil might (on other side of the sensationalism spectrum)! The impression I'm getting is that we are labeling sources that we don't like as non-comparative. Please answer me this, military historians are not qualified to be taken seriously, we need demographic historians, However we dismiss reliable historians specialized in ancient Persia as non-comparative and hence unreliable, but use numbers from a paper about east-west orientation of states(!) as experts in this subject SIMPLY because it has Hans, AE and Xiongnu names in one page! To me, this is against common sense and without the intention of providing correct information, and sure hope it should be against some wiki doctorine! I would like to repeat my question again. What's the regular course of action here, when there's a lack of consensus? or are you, Lachrie, the person in charge of this page? I'm simply asking because I don't know much about the process. Thanks--LogiPhi (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this might come in handy too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates —Preceding unsigned comment added by LogiPhi (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Turchin, Adams and Hall are professional academics who have published a study of historical geography in a peer-reviewed journal. It is a reliable source for comparative historical geography. They don't have an agenda. Their list of large historical states is very comprehensive and their study of the territorial dimensions appears to be systematic. While it may not be perfect (and we can register this by giving alternative estimates in the footnotes), they're not pushing a point of view. There's no reason to suspect them of favouritism. They're not maximising estimates for one historical state and minimising those for others based on personal preference. Theirs is the best single source for comparative historical geography anyone here has yet come up with, and the one whose use best meets Wikipedia's expectations of consistency and reliability. Since your method of data collection is, by contrast, haphazard and unscientific, it's unlikely you'll be able to gather much support for it from other editors, but you're welcome to ask.

To take your latest example, the historical demographers cited in the Historical Estimates of World Population US Census bureau source above, McEvedy and Jones, estimate a world population of 100 million for 500 BC. I have a copy of their actual book in my hands. I can tell you that they estimate a Persian Empire population of 17 million in the 4th century BC and a north Chinese agricultural population of 25 million by the same date. They also estimate an Indian population of 25 million, including 15 million in the Ganges basin, in 500 BC. Other sources show a similar distribution of world population. So Walter Scheidel's 35 million for Achaemenid Persia is actually quite high by the standards of some other historical demographers. But it incorporates more recent research and it's very obviously more authoritative and reliable than Cowley, Hanson or Dougherty. Scheidel's study is explicitly a comparative history of early empires published this year by a leading specialist in comparative history, while it seems reasonable to conclude that the astronomical total of 70 million for Persia in the popular military histories is either sensationalist or assumes a much larger world population than 152 million for the 4th century BC. And please note also that until we can actually confirm Scheidel's estimate for world population, making any calculation based on demographic estimates from disparate sources is technically a breach of wp:synth. However, it does seem plausibly compatible with Scheidel's estimate for Achaemenid Persia, based on the likely relative distribution of world population. Lachrie (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Lachrie, on the 152 million estimate, it was here before I edited this article. Plus 152 and 162 are not far off. Firstly Cowley, and I seen his book later say's on very next page that the empire was overshadowed by millions or tens of millions more, indicating 80 million. Doughetry says with Greece it would be 70Persia 2Greece= 72 or almost 75 million. The last source blatantly says about 70 million. Even if it was 69 million, in terms of percentage it would highly exeed the Qing's Empire world population percentage, which around 36% and is second place, so Achaemenid Persia would still remain in first place (35/100-90= 35%-38% 70/100= 70% 80/100= 80% only 35/152= 23%, so I am not doing syn but comparing the two estimates of 70 or 80 so the user can decide which one would be higher, I am giving room for speculation that does not hurt anyone, I am showing that estimates vary, and that there is no clear answer). The plus sign there is to indicate possibly more, as all three source hinted that it could have been more, meaning plus. Later, I might improve this rendering so it would seem less complicated, to of course make things simpler to understand. Thanks again for your input. And again, we don't know how they make there population estimates, but it seems your favoring the pdf and Scheidel's estimate more, which would be cherrypicking and uneutral, I know you have good reasons for this, but I assure more people are now favoring and accepting the 70-80+ million estimate. Please try to use the wpsynth justification more lesser, because sometimes this issue has nothing to do with wpsynth, but more with wpNeutrality, which this article heavily lacks.

I have a theory to why the pdf people calculated a 5.5 and not a 7.5 estimate, becuase they were looking a eurocenteric map of Achaemenid Persia, which showed it to be smaller than it really is, for example at its height in 500 bc under Darius compare these two maps;

This is supposedly at its greatest extent.

This is at its greatest extent too, and its similar to the second map on Achaemenid Empire article too, both kinda corroborating eachother.

So my point is that the pdf people were looking at a older or less reliable map, that is why they came up with 5.5 and not a 7.5 estimate. Even for the Xiongnu some online maps are highly exaggerated, the greatest estimate I found for Xiongnu (and I was comparing all maps) was 5.5 (I mean this for discussion purposes only, I don't intend to include my original research in the article, so don't worry). ALSO please check out this link [5] IF THIS is supposed to be 7.5, then the second Farsi map on this page is probably around 9-10 million square kilometers. Finally, there you go.--99.24.163.51 (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree a larger surface area for Achaemenid Persia is possible, which is why it makes sense to include it in a footnote. As for the population, it's not cherrypicking to prefer Scheidel, because his is a much more reliable scholarly source for comparative history than the popular military histories. Scheidel's total is also more consistent with what we know from other historical demographers. That said, the problem isn't so much the population estimate of 70 million itself, but the fact that it's been haphazardly slapped together with a world total of 152 million from a separate and as yet unidentified source, which doesn't seem very compatible with it. Putting the two together and just assuming they'll fit violates wp:synth, and it's important. It's important because absolute estimates in historical demography vary widely, and mixing and matching figures without knowing which sources they come from is reckless. It's a real problem for the article, because professional historical demographers like McEvedy and Jones have found that the populations of China and India at that time were both larger than the Persian Empire's (although China and India weren't yet united into single states, making Persia the largest empire in 500 BC). Whatever the exact balance, the total for each of these three civilizations should at least be similar, based on the relative distribution established by historical demographers. We should therefore expect the Persian total to account for less than a third of the global total. Scheidel's moderate estimate of 35 million for Persia looks a good match for a world population of 152 million, implying about quarter of the global total. While the high estimate of 70 million in the popular histories isn't impossible, it doesn't appear to be compatible with a global total of 152 million, given what we know from comparative sources about the populations of China and India. Based on conventional estimates of the relative population distribution, 70 million in Persia implies a much higher global total than 152 million. The problem is we don't have a global figure from the same popular sources to compare with their estimate of 70 million for Persia, precisely because these popular military histories aren't sources for comparative historical demography. They're non-comparative military histories. The figure of 152 million comes from an unknown source that we can't compare directly. Just picking and choosing among disparate sources like that renders the estimate of Persia's share of global population unreliable and implausible. It's actually a very good illustration of why wp:synth ought to be respected. Lachrie (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It’s absolutely essential to use a single data set when calculating the percentage of world population. It’s necessary because demographic estimates for antiquity vary widely. Combining them without cross-checking for consistency is statistical manipulation and produces a meaningless result. It also violates wp:synthesis. Using the estimates of McEvedy and Jones, Atlas of World Population History (1978), pp. 125, 127, 342, 343, assuming exponential global growth between 500 and 200 BC, the population of the Persian Empire in the fourth century BC comprised less than a seventh (13.5%) of the population of the earth (17 million out of a global total of 126 million in 330 BC). This is a direct calculation from a standard reference work of quantitative historical demography. This way we know where all the numbers come from and the margin of error is attributable not to us but to sampling and weighting by experts. Lachrie (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have seen three estimates for 500 BC, your 126 was in 330 BC, it's 100-110, 152, 160. Now from what I seen, I believe its around 70 million for the Achaemenids, note 70/126= 56%. But you say it was 17 million. I promise you I can find a 5 million for the Achaemenids. So if your out to find the lowest estimates, please do. But at the same time it would be unfair to the article, because every other empire incorborates their highest estimates, so in turn it would unfair for the Achaemenids.

Also, because you favor 5.5 million for the ancient empire section, I say we keep both citations, and favor BOTH estimates, which means between 5.5 and 7.5, I'm forced to do this synthesis, because of the current uneutrality. So we would get 6.5 million. Note that 5.5 and 7.5 are not far off. So what do think of this proposal, its okay if you disagree, its a just a suggestion by me. Thanks.--99.24.163.51 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No, 6.5 million sq km is a completely fictitious number invented by you in violation of wp:synth and wp:or. It's totally inadmissible as it's not a real estimate. The estimate we have is already reliably sourced. If you try to insert a fictitious number in place of a reliably sourced estimate, it will have to be reverted. Lachrie (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The 5.5 million sq km estimate from Turchin, Adams and Hall (2006) is a reliable estimate from a comparative source. The 7.5 million sq km estimate from the British Museum site is a reliable estimate from a non-comparative source. We use reliable estimates from the comparative source because that allows us to make direct comparisons from a single source, which is the best way to make a reliable comparison, since estimates vary from source to source. In a comparative source we can be reasonably confident that the authors are applying the same criteria to all the empires that they survey. Perhaps the British Museum estimate includes uninhabited desert areas and areas where claims of Persian authority were uncertain or unenforced. But we don't know what the British Museum's criteria are or what effect they would have if they were transposed equally onto other empires. If we could find British Museum estimates for other empires which applied identical criteria, we could give those equal consideration to Turchin, Adams and Hall (2006). But we haven't found directly comparable estimates from the British Museum to use in a direct comparison with other empires. So in fairness we have to stick to Turchin, Adams and Hall (2006). Lachrie (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to comparative population. The only comparative reference source I’ve found quoting the 35 million figure is from Ian Morris. He estimates 1 million for Athens, 35 million for Persia, and 50-60 million in the Roman Empire or Han China.

Ian Morris, 'The Greater Athenian State', in Ian Morris and Walter Scheidel (eds.), The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from Assyria to Byzantium (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 99: 'Fewer than a million people lived in [Athens], as against 35 million in the Persian Empire and 50 to 60 million in the Roman or Han Chinese.'

Unfortunately Morris doesn't express any of these estimates as a share of contemporary global totals. We can't use the 35 million estimate without them, just as we can't use the 70 million without world estimates from the same sources, as we have no basis for comparison. This forces us to use the 17 million estimate for Persia, from McEvedy and Jones. Fortunately this estimate is supported elswhere.

Morris’s estimate of 35 million for Persia apparently comes from Josef Wiesehöfer, professor of ancient history at Kiel, author of Ancient Persia, 550 BC to 650 AD (2001).

Josef Wiesehöfer, 'The Achaemenid Empire', in Ian Morris and Walter Scheidel (eds.), The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from Assyria to Byzantium (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 76: 'Information on the demographic parameters of the Achaemenid Empire is rudimentary at best. What we have comes from a variety of different sources, and the numbers they provide us with are highly controversial. As far as the total population of the Achaemenid Empire is concerned, a presentation of two different demographic tables reveals the problems of such calculations (table 3.1)’, p. 77, Table 3.1: 17 million is listed as a 'low estimate', and 30-35 million as a 'high estimate'.

Josef Wiesehöfer, 'The Achaemenid Empire', in Ian Morris and Walter Scheidel (eds.), The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from Assyria to Byzantium (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 95, n. 29. ‘Since the author has already presented his ideas of the features of the Achaemenid Empire in detail elsewhere (Wiesehöfer 2001a), he limits this presentation to the essentials here and omits from earlier scholarship. Pierre Briant’s survey (Briant 2002a) has been especially influential thanks to the richness of information and insights it contains.’

Thus Wiesehöfer (2009) classifies 35 million as a high estimate, and 17 million a low estimate. He quotes both in his table and expresses no opinion about which he sees as more likely in the main text of the article quoted above, published in 2009. Therefore 17 million is supported as a reasonable estimate by a leading scholar of Achaemenid Persia working in the field today. It also comes from the same source quoted above, McEvedy and Jones, from where the world total for the same period is sourced. Since the world total in McEvedy and Jones is arrived at by the same methodology as their Persia total, both the world total and the Persia total are likely to be on the low side to a similar degree. While different methodologies produce different absolute totals, any variations are likely to apply to a similar degree to both the Persian and the world totals, so the share of the former is likely to be fairly constant. Unless we can find a directly comparative high world estimate to go with the high 35 million estimate for Persia, we have to go with the 17 million low estimate for Persia and the 126 million low estimate for the world total, since that gives us a consistent comparison from a single, reliable, comparative source.

I do agree that all the other demographic estimates in that table will have to be checked as well. Lachrie (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We can't give automatic preference to high individual estimates from non-comparative sources, as we can't use those to find direct comparisons. In any case, the 70 million estimates for Persia come from less reliable sources, which, even more importantly, are non-comparative sources. We have to give automatic preference to reliable estimates from comparative sources. That's the only way we can find reliable comparisons, and ensure that the statistics aren't being manipulated by contributors giving the false impression that all the data sets share the same measurement criteria, when they obviously don't. Lachrie (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Lachrie, I was a little concerned with your tone, when you said I violated the rules, I was asking your thoughts on it, I was never going to do such a thing. Also, One of the sources come from "The Foremost Military Historians," and I agree the other 70 is less reliable, as to the 35 million I'm open on the issue. I have seen other estimates at 25-50 million. I can tell you the reason why Rome probably had less, because there was mostly water in the center of the Empire, and it was not larger than the Achaemenids, but it was at time when the population was more in the world than the Achaemenid time. But because Achaemenian times had growth in population and trade, plus it was larger in land size, it was larger in population percentage. Also, the 7.5 estimate is not too farfetched, if you look at the map were they get the 7.5 its not an exaggerated map as compared to the other ones on this page, it dosen't show Nubia, Ethiopia, Punt, the Southeastern coasts of Arabia, some of Central Asia and India IN the empire. Other better maps do, so the British map is mostly incomplete and does not show Persia at its greatest extent as according to my 10 year research on this topic. It seems to me that your in favor of the lowest estimates, but the reason I favor the highest estimates is because every other empire in this article lists their highest estimates, even exaggerating at times. But I am personally in favor of an average or just to list all estimates, which would make the article more complicated but clearer to understand. In your case you favor a ONE source for everything in this article, is it not better to have many sources, or just one source for everything, wouldn't that be unfair to the other sources, as they would get booted out (note uneutrality)? So then you say you want a comparative source, which a few and sometimes unreliable estimates are in existance (and if they all come from one or two people for every estimate on this page, it would be a most unreliable source in the eyes of scholars). In terms of land size km2 is one type of measurement, its just that some people Base their conclusions on false maps, that is why I have been concerned with this article, because of these false maps. The conclusion that these false maps lead to is, the wrong estimate. Also, measurment criteria may differ in a few kilometers, for example 7.56 could be stated by others as just 7.5, hardly a major difference. So when I see scholars state over and over that Persia was the largest of the ancient world, and I also see that the previous estimate for Xiongnu was (3.5)-5.5, I come to the conclusion that its mostly accurate. Then I see a 9.0 estimate for the Xiongnu out of nowhere, I become sckeptical of these comparative tables. I hope you can undertand this situation, thanks.--153.18.19.230 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but we have to give preference to reliable comparative estimates to avoid false syntheses, like the bogus population ratio for Persia that's been created by combining conflicting data sets. That's statistical manipulation. It's going to have to be replaced by the ratio reliably sourced from McEvedy and Jones. The other population ratios will be double-checked in due course. If it's any consolation, other editors have been trying to replace sourced estimates with higher estimates for the surface areas of other empires too, without giving citations. As you know, original research isn't accepted either. Lachrie (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If we can find alternative comparisons from reliable comparative sources, by all means, we should list those as well, to show the range of academic opinions. But the problem with presenting non-comparisons from non-comparative sources as if they were direct comparisons is that we don't know if they're directly comparable or not. Where we already have reliably-sourced comparisons, we can list sourced non-comparisons in footnotes, but more than that would be giving them undue weight in a comparative article. We would end up making the comparison ourselves and deriving original conclusions from conflicting data sets. Lachrie (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Lachrie, firstly, the problem is that your contradicting yourself (doing uneutral things which forces me to do synthesis, which I don't want to do). You say comparative sources, but the recent map you put for Xiongnu is a user created map with no source, if you check the main page of the original map, it says it comes from a maps book, and I have checked Google images, all other Xiongnu maps are 90% identical in size to the previous map that was there. Plus, from glancing at the new map there, I can gaurantee you it's probably around 10 million kilometers sqaure, not 9 million.

Secondly, as you have mostly accepted the 35 million for population, well I have checked in US census and world population articles all over the place that say in 500 BC there was 100 million (though 150+ million is still possible) for world population, so here are the possibilities for Achaemenid Empire populaton percentages, (Your discovery 17%) (My discovery 25% 42%-50%) (Scheidal 35%) (Dougherty, Hanson, and Cowley 70%, 75%, 80+%). So only the unreiable 17-25% and possibly 35% would drop the Achaemenids one number down from the percentages section, if you consider the latter percentages it would highly exeed Qings (which is 36%) and the Achaemnids would remain in first place. I just don't understand the fascination with screwing around with Achamenid numbers, there are other empires in the article in dire need for evaluation.

Finally, your only option (in a Wikipedia sense) is to either accept individual sources or comparative (which are incomplete), if we mixed them up, we have to come up with equal averages which would force us to do OR by SYN, and would make the article more disputed and complicated. Like I said before, it would be a major challenge on Wikipedia, it would possibly make this article unreadable, so it is near impossible for this solution to work. I like your suggesting of putting individual estimates at the bottom (for all empires), but who are we to dictate which source goes at the top or bottom, this is my Main concern here, for example, if 7.5 was at the top, then Achaemenids would go one rank up, but because its at the bottom, it goes one rank down, how do we justify this? We have to average them, no that breaking the rules. So we have to chose comparative or non-comparative, I mostly agree with you, but in a future sense, a more expert Wikipedian might check this article soon, and if they provide evidence that yours and mines editing ways are not in since with Wikipedia guidelines, they will have the right revert all our edits. So we have to come up with a real solution ASAP, so we can get this issue responsibly over with already.--99.56.140.16 (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Using comparative estimates from a comparative source is the only way to be objective. No one can "force" you to commit a breach of Wikipedia guidelines. Synthesis isn't allowed. It's as simple as that. Ultimately, there should be a separate list for every comparative source, to avoid a false synthesis. We can start to move towards separate lists because we now have at least one reliable comparative source with a fairly comprehensive list of ancient and medieval empires, namely Turchin, Adams and Hall (2006). We have Angus Maddison (2001) as another comparative source for more modern empires. We also have McEvedy and Jones (1978) for other comparative estimates. We can compile separate lists from sources like these. It's the only way to do it and retain any kind of objectivity at all, by grouping estimates according to their sources, rather than playing pick-n-mix with unreliable and non-comparative sources, which has been going on until now by editors pushing personal agendas. We shouldn't be compiling any single list from disparate sources, since that gives the impression that their estimates are directly comparable, which is false and misleading. That's been the major problem with the article up until now. All the individual non-comparative estimates should be kept separate from the comparative lists. And if we do tack on individual estimates from non-comparative sources anywhere in the article, it should be with the warning that they can’t compared with each other directly. Lachrie (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The 100 million estimate for world population in 500 BC comes from McEvedy and Jones (1978). Unless we can actually confirm that the 30-35 million estimate for Persia comes from the same source as the 152 million estimate for the world in the fourth century, we can't use them together. That's a false synthesis. We can't make claims that aren't directly supported by the sources. We can't be intellectually dishonest. We have to stick with the one reliable comparative estimate that we do have, from McEvedy and Jones: 17 million in Persia out of a global total of 126 million (13.5%) in 330 BC. Lachrie (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The present Xiongnu image is fine. The map says it shows the empire's maximum extent, which makes it a more appropriate illustration for the article. The present map doesn't include a square kilometric, but it looks consistent with the estimate published in Turchin, Adams and Hall (2006). It doesn't include a citation either, but the old map was only 'partially based' on an atlas anyway, and according to wp:or: 'Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.' Lachrie (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, YOUR choosing the lowest estimate, no matter if its comparative, its flawed. Achaemenid Empire at its greatest contained the most people in 500 BC, and also Egypt by itself had according to historians 7.5 million, Greece 2 million, Persia proper 5 million= 14.5 million (and thats not even a quarter of the empire!!!) in 500 BC, so 17 million is fringe, and 126 is OR, they probably found the average number between 152 and 100 million (Guess what, it equals 126, a Coincidence???). I am willing to even accept an 35-42 million for Persia, which other than the 70 million, an 35-42 (which I have the source written down and in the future will present it to you) is the most common non-comparative and comparative estimate for Persia, and out of 100 or 126 million would still leave it in first place, so we could add those sources to be Accurate, but it would leave Persia in the same place for population percentage. So our main focus is to see if an Xiongnu 9.0 estimate is accepted by historians, which I have not even found One, should'nt that be our Main concern, population percentages always vary, but this time for Persia it would not change anything, for ancient empires the 9.0 figure Still remains to be corraborated by other historians. My solution, lets say for example, two sources say 1.2 and 1.7, so we would put 1.5 in the rank, and keep the sources at the bottom for everyone to find out about the 1.2 and 1.7, would this be OR? So (Note, this has been done since this article was created, it was done by all users, I even remember an 14.7 and 11.2 estimate for Qing, Guess what, in the rank it said and still says about 12.5, so if your going to call this OR, then the whole article is currently OR, or most of it)?--99.56.140.16 (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Xiongnu surface area estimate is sourced and verified.

The existing lists do breach wp:synth because they fail to discriminate between estimates from different sources. Ideally, each list should be organised according to a single source. Unsourced estimates and estimates from non-comparative sources should be set aside from sourced lists. It's less of a problem with estimates for modern empires, where there’s more consistency; nevertheless, we still have to find a reliable comparative source for European colonial empires.

We have to use the estimate of the Persian share of world population which is actually sourced: 17 million out of 126 million (13.5%). Original research and false synthesis aren't verifiable or legitimate. Most of the world population shares come from Maddison (2001). We should restrict the existing list to empires from that common source, which means removing Persia from the existing list, since the source is different and is based on different assumptions.

McEvedy and Jones (1978), p. 127, Fig. 2.5, list top-ranking empires by population. Persia is included on that sourced list. We should include Persia by quoting that sourced list as separate list in the article. And if we find another list from another source, we should keep that as a separate list too. Since estimates differ in different sources, we don’t have a single combinable master list. We can only quote separate lists we find in separate comparative sources. Lachrie (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Qing estimate of 14.7 million sq km is reliably sourced from Turchin, Adams and Hall (2006).

We shouldn't add any estimates which aren't sourced. We shouldn't replace a sourced estimate with an unsourced estimate. We definitely shouldn't make up any numbers of our own. Since the variant estimates are incommensurable, averaging them would only create a false synthesis, a bogus statistic.

We have to remove Achaemenid Persia from the percentage of world population list, as it's a bogus statistic. Since we shouldn't be combining estimates from widely divergent sources in a single list anyway, I won't replace it with the estimate from McEvedy and Jones, since that comes from a different source. We don't want to add to the synthesis when we should be trying to reduce it. Ideally, each list should only include estimates from a single source to ensure internal consistency. Lachrie (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If we want to include Achaemenid Persia in the percentage of world population list, we have to use the one estimate of world share which is reliably sourced: 17 million out of 126 million (13.5%). That said, nine of the estimates on the percentage of world population list come from Maddison (2001). For consistency, we really ought to restrict the list to estimates from that source. Unsourced or incommensurable estimates should be kept separate. Including them in the list on the naive assumption that they're directly comparable with the Maddison estimates is potentially seriously misleading. Lachrie (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Lachrie, on the Xiongnu estimate issue, I am still open minded to the possibility that it was smaller, as based on every other map I have seen on the internet. But for now I can not and will not replace your 9.0 estimate, because it is sourced and reliable, so if I find a another reliable estimate for Xiongnu, I'll definitely tell you about it if I choose to add it. I myself don't like unexpected changes and appreciate further discussion on the topic.

On the population percentage issue, I'm glad to see that you have made a wise decision on even including the Achaemenids in the list, because I know that a wide range of estimates are possible. So I guess I agree on this change, unless we can find, for example, a reliable source or sources that say 30 out of 90, or 50 out of 150, in a comparative way, we should not comit synthesis by original research. So until we find a comparative source for the Achaemenids in a population percentage estimate, I agree not to include in the list currently, but if I find a reliable one, then we could include it.

Until those two things can be achieved as stated at the top, I will not edit the article, except to fix typos to improve the article. So now I'm going annouce that I we end this discussion here, as this Achaemenid Persia section is getting too long. Also I'm going on a break from editing Wikipedia, and to focus more on research than speculation. Finally, I want to thank you for this engaging discussion topic, and I hope to see you more, if I choose to join, on this article in the future. Then I'll see you around later, best regards.--99.56.140.16 (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)