Most powerful state/empire/kingdom through history

Mar 2019
506
Kansas
#11
In the traditional sense of something like the 19th century colonial empires? No, definitely not. Aside from small exceptions like Puerto Rico and their Pacific island territories they don't engage in much direct colonisation. And they certainly don't annex land they conquer (e.g. they did not annex land in Korea or Vietnam or Iraq). Instead their 'empire' is more of a 'soft empire', relying on dozens of military bases, armed coalitions (e.g. NATO) and client states (of which countries such as South Korea and Australia, and arguably even Japan, could qualify). The US has the ability to project its massive military anywhere in the world on short notice, and dozens of allies that really aren't in the position to say 'no' (sure, they technically can, but diplomatically it would be disastrous). There empire is of a more subtle kind.
I really wouldn't see Australia as a client state. Historically Australia has always gotten far more from the US than they have ever had to give.
 
Jul 2017
201
Srpska
#12
Not to stray into contemporary issues and politics, but is the US an "empire"?
Yes it is. a modern equivalent. A traditional empire consist of many kingdoms who pay tributes and are obliged to military support. A modern empire of course is not empire in traditional sense because monarchial systems have been replaced by parlamentary states. Nonetheless, states pay tributes and pledge military supports, NATO being one example of the American imperial arm.

I think it's also a bit wrong to separate the period from the Roman empire and the ''Byzantine empire'' while they were of course more or less the same thing.
.
They were not more or less the same thing. They were very different. Byzantines were more a kingdom than an empire. They were a remnant of the Roman empire. They paid tributes to Gothic rulers frequently. The only reason we call it an empire is because the rulers kept the roman titles. It was a shell of an empire, a kingdom really.
 
Mar 2019
1,134
KL
#13
The Mauryans defeated Selucids and yet they are not number 1. The Seleucid king gave his daughter to Chandragupta to sue for peace. Not a single Indian empire. Can’t take this list seriously
The reason why indian empires are not taken seriously is more because of the **** up mess the colonists left behind and the indians instead of reverting that mess continued that legacy with some very prominent indian historians and heads staunchly backing colonial narrative. and now mix that with the emerging hindutva, etc narrative which makes it even more **** up using the same old colonial propaganda only for ideological/sectarian purposes. I can even say that modern western historiography school narrative is even revising their own colonial narrative to make indian history seem even more insignificant that they already made it out during colonial revision.

on contrary to that, there are some sinophile western academicians who wish they were born chinese or born again chinese. so it really depends how the academics is performing its job in projecting certain narratives.

these lists are more a result of popular propaganda and pop historic narrative fed to the western people by their by their pop academics history books.

regards
 
Last edited: