Which was the greatest ancient empire?

I have always had a weakness for the Egyptian empire but I don't know that I would classify it as the greatest of the ancient empires.
 
I have to go with Egypt. They were far advanced in society (allowing women to own property, amrry and divorce) as well as politics, religion, writing and so on. Most Christian ideas can be traced to early Egyptian, some believe that the Book of the Dead was related to the original Ten commandments. Also, the sheer size and capability of the Egyptian empire was stronger than any other. I have to go with Egypt, myself.
 
It all depends of course on what is meant by greatest. By far the most influential of the ancient empires was the Roman. The British was the most influential of the more modern empires.
 
Not so much an empire - more a people = the Jews. They are a race of people that are still going strong and still make a name for themselves.
 
the Mongol empire started only 700 years ago but its my fave, the whole religious freedom,economic innovations and flawless battle tactics really impressed me. There was a descendant of Ghengis's in eastern europe still ruling in the 1950's. All other empires never conquered as much as fast and retain power for so long as the great wolf's.
 
I agree with you MSMike, the Roman Empire........

More than any other civilization the Romans are famous for their constructions, aquaducts, roads, Hadrian's wall, Collesseum, Basillica's, Temples & fountains............Rome is "steeped" in history and is........one of my favorites. The other would be the British Empire......
 
Both empires built their idols on the ruins of ancient peoples, culturally raped the indigenous of home and identity and can be directly linked to almost all the problems we face as an evolving race, as far as their progress took us physically, they spiritually set us back thousands of years. Now we face the problem of confronting ourselves as the product of their actions, until we know this we cannot attempt to understand eachother, a part from or apart of.
 
if you look at China's empire as a whole, with highlights upon the Tang dynasty and the Han dynasty, I would say the Chinese empire is relatively the "greatest".

I tip my hat to the power of the Roman empire, but there are very few things things that the Romans had that the Chinese didn't have and more.

Also, the very fact that the entity of the Roman empire does not exist and the Chinese entity empire does to this day. Imperial China has 5,000 years of history, and the Chinese civilization has existed for even longer. Namely the Shang dynasty that has records from 12,000 B.C.

Unlike the Roman Empire, the Chinese Empire can say that there was a point in their history when the entire wealth of the rest of the world was incomparable to the wealth of China.

China's trade, in the Tang dynasty especially, was monumental. Silk was equivalent to gold, and was created in pre-history China.

When the near invincible Mongol army began conquering Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and China, it took the longest to conquer China (40-50 years); however, it took a minimal amount of time to conquer Rome (but I recognize the fact that Rome was already on its decline).

The Chinese cultural has deeper roots than any other culture, not saying this out of bias, but just out of historical evidence and historical time. The Chinese cultural has so far been impossible to bring down, despite the rule of foreigners for two times. And for each time (Mongols and Manchurians), the foreigners failed to defeat the entity of China, and many would say that they became "chinese themselves".

China's main historical issue was that it had too many civil wars. Every time there would be even a 30 year peace, the economy of China would sky-rocket. Despite a history of internal strife, China still retains a constent identity even while rulers are being replaced, foreigners are taking over, etc.

The Roman empire was never truly unified under one standard. Ever since the Qin empire, all the standards, namely language, has been united.

It can be said that the Roman empire's unity was largely due to its military. In the Chinese empire, it did take many wars to unite China after another separation, China remained unified by culture.

Yes, the Romans had domination over the Mediterranean, but their ships were incomparable to the Chinese ships (especially in the Ming dynasty).

Where the Romans can be seen as "greater" is in their desire to conquer other lands. China for the longest period in history had the greatest potential to take over much of the world(with its population, cultural identity, nationalism, and advancement); howevever, China never really had an interest in imperialism--unlike the British and others.

Unlike Rome, China has always "existed", and Rome can be said to have been "created" and then "disappeared."

I think a sad reality is that much of the world that is eurocentric view China as the image it had during European imperialism. At the time, China was being ruled by Manchurians who had hindered China's economy drastically by limiting trade. The Manchu empress was uneducated and beheaded any advisor that believed that China had to change ("people who were once barbarians and lesser are now able to defeat us"--one advisor). This quote is quite racist, i know, but it refers to the view of China on the Japanese--who's culture was learned from China.

Imperialism, Japanese invasions, rise of Communism, weakeness of the Manchu government were all factors that contributed to the later humiliation of the Han people of china.

Modern-day western views generally take from the lowest point in Chinese history.


I know it's hard to win my argument with a bunch of fluffy comments. But here's a self-test if you doubt my opinion:

Take any time in European history (I'm serious. Any time.)- preferably before the Imperialistic Era in Europe. You'll find that during any time in European history, the Chinese empire was alive and strong. And if you think that it is only because China had a minimal amount of competition, look at the Mongols, as I earlier stated: Mongolians who basically had no standing army but an army on horseback, easily took over eastern Europe and the Middle East, while taking the longest to take over China. This is also the reason why China experienced the greatest brutality from Mongolia, when the Mongolians went into China, they found it to be...well too populated, and literally began to lower the population by execution. I mean really, what other nation that has experienced mass genocide could still continue to hold rebellions and revolutions, and eventually become a world power again?

But anyways, I can say that I definitely know more about European history than Chinese history; but it doesn't take a lot to realize the great extent of the Chinese empire.
 
What can I say ? A bunch of hilltop villages decide they've taken enough cr*p from those lousy Etruscans and decide to do something about it.

Seven hundred years later, the army deposes a ten-year-old boy who has ruled for only a year, but the legacy continues in the east for another thousand years.

The only time in history that the entire Mediterranean Basin was ruled by a single power, the first cities in half of Europe and a legal system that continues to this day.

OK, I'm biased, but soldiers in civilised armies didn't receive the level of training, equipment, logistical support and medical care enjoyed by the Roman army until WW1.
 
The Persian empire, or course. There is no contest. All of almost 1,200 years of its pre-Islamic time from Cyrus the Great of Hakhamanish dynasty in 550 BC to Yazdegegrd III of Sassan dynasty in 630 AD. And carrying as an Islamic empire until, what, the 17th century.

Under Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great it stretched from Greece in the west to India in the east, n from Egypt in the south to the Ukraine in the north. How could anybody else beat that?
 
From the point of view of lasting contributions to civilization, along with size, and longevity pick ancient China. We're talking gunpowder, paper, textiles, metallurgy, porcelain, government, to mention a few. I have no particular dynasty in mind, preferring to view ancient China as a single continually linked civilization.
 
I would go with China also.

We Europeans can thank our lucky stars that the various Chinese dynasties never mounted an all out invasion of Europe.

And being that I work in the printing industry I'll mention that movable type was a Chinese invention. Also because I work in printing I'll add the Chinese were probably the first to make wine... and use toilet paper.
 
I'd have to go with the so-called Byzantine Empire, which was actually the millennial continuation of the Roman Empire, perhaps better the Eastern Roman Empire. It provided stability directly dor the Mediterranean world and indirectly for Europe and the Missle East, and provided a high degree of human culture. Isaac Asimov himself wrote a fascinating study in 1970, "Constantinople, the Forgotten Empire."
 
I have a soft spot for the Achaemenid (Persian) Empire, especially during the reign of Cyrus the Great to Darius the Great (559 B.C.-486 B.C.). The Empire stretched from some parts of Greece in the west, the Russian border in the north, northern Africa in the south and parts of India in the east. A "Royal Road" spanned the entire length of the empire and connected the Silk Road of China and the Middle East to the Mediterranean Sea, and an ancient day Suez Canal was built to facilitate trade with their African colonies. One of the most profound characteristics of the Persian Empire, though, was its tolerant and accepting nature. Every kingdom conquered by the Persian Empire was permitted to retain their administrative, cultural and religious establishments, along with the benefits they reaped from being under the protection of Persian rule. Similarly, the Persians integrated the various cultural influences of their conquered colonies into their own, creating a unique multi-cultural style which permeated through all aspects of Persian life: from religion and system of administration to art and architecture.
 
Egypt. But I also like Greece, Rome and wish the British empire was still around.
 
I daresay the now independant people of former British-ruled colonies would whole-heartedly disagree with you.

As to the question, for my money, it's a toss-up between the Egyptian and Persian empires.


*EDIT* On second thought, definitely Egyptian.
 
I daresay the now independant people of former British-ruled colonies would whole-heartedly disagree with you.

Damn straight. National independence FTW!

I would say the Roman Empire is probably the one which interests me the most.
 
I think that's too broad a statement regarding our former empire. The Malaysians seem to be doing very well. I doubt the average Zimbabwean is thrilled with the present situation. Last time I checked (last year) they had 65,000% interest rates and inflation was about 123,000,000%.
 
I think that's too broad a statement regarding our former empire. The Malaysians seem to be doing very well. I doubt the average Zimbabwean is thrilled with the present situation. Last time I checked (last year) they had 65,000% interest rates and inflation was about 123,000,000%.

Whoa. It's the twenty-first century. You're not seriously arguing in favour of imperialist domination, are you?
 

Back
Top