Talk:Empire/Archive 1

message: This seems a very broad definition.  I can't think of many political entities that weren't/aren't empires under this rule?
Call a spade a spade.  This is crap.  NPOV is entirely lacking here.  I'll work on it tomorrow if nobody else does.  -Hephaestos
----
There are aspects of this article which pose some interesting problems, which probably give rise to a sense of POV.
Coercion and multi-ethnicity, whilst being perfectly reasonable attributions of historical empires (past and present) constrain the use of the term, such that there is a confusion about what constitutes an 'essential feature' of an empire.
An empire would not be an empire if it did not have 'subject states', although there are examples of 'single state empires', such as the former 'Central African Empire' (which became the Central African Republic) and Abyssinia (which had an Emperor, Haile Selassie) and it becomes an issue as to whether the 'subject states' are or have ever been recognised as independent sovereign bodies, such that self-proclaimed 'empiredom' determines the nature of the state in question.
Almost all current recognised sovereign states consist of a collection of subordinate 'non-sovereign' geographical entities (towns, cities, regions and provinces, some of which are sometimes even called 'states', as in the USA) and the relationship between the sovereign state and its constituent subordinate geographic components and subdivisions can be claimed to be 'imperialist' if one of the subordinate entities seeks independence and meets with resistance from the sovereign state body, or even where a sovereign state redesignates a subordinate entity as having either some form of autonomy or some kind of title befitting a sovereign state (such as 'principality' or 'republic') but without actually allowing or encouraging sovereign independence to be sought or granted (such redesignation therefore merely having been enacted for the sole purpose of aggrandizing the perception of the sovereign state or appeasing the ambitions of the subordinate, such that it would be seen to be made up of actual countries, rather than mere regions, and thus be an empire, ruled by emperors, rather than merely a nation, ruled by kings). 
It is conceivable that an empire could be less coercive that a particular non-imperial state, but the issue of coercion would not necessarily have a bearing on whether or not the states in question referred to themselves as, or were deemed by anyone else to be empires.
Similarly, the ethnicity of the empire or subject states, whether it be uniform or diverse, would not be decisive in determining imperial status.
There is a supposedly defining feature of empires (no less problematic) which constitutes a 'policy of conquest'.
This tends to manifest itself as 'territorial aggrandisement' which essentially constitutes 'extending the boundaries of the state'.
But states which indulge in such initiatives are not necessarily bound to call themselves, nor behave like empires.
There are historical precedents for situations where, left with the option for self determination, a formerly subordinate ('colonial') state opts democratically for continued subordination within the sovereignity of the former colonial power.
Thus modern day empires can present the complexities of no longer calling themselves empires, yet posessing colonies, some of which treat the arrangement with the mututal consent of a federation, yet there are other colonies of the same former empire seeking and being granted release from colonial status and yet other subsidiary proto-states pursuing and not necessarily being granted autonomy.
Empires, despite appearing to be obsolete remnants of a bygone age of deference to historical authority enforced by invasion, occupation and enslavement, are in fact an extremely diverse set of manifestations of government, governance and governed, no less differentiated in their construction than any other.
As a test of the meaning of the word, to what extent is the UN not an imperial power?
Ericross
-----
I would agree with Hephaestos and Ericross: this does not read as NPOV.  It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that an Empire is something which calls itself an Empire, and that they can be structured in so many different ways that generalisations are difficult.  
I would have thought it probably involved a sovereign or sovereign power, with the power/right/ability to impose some or all decisions in different parts of the empire.  I would expect it to be multi-national (rather than multi-ethnic) and that there would be a degree of local government (whether by a centrally appointed governor or by some form of self-rule), in contrast to a unified nation state.  
A better article would then highlight typical features of empires (possibly with examples) and then show examples which showed this was not universal.
--Henrygb 19:13, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMO many your worries are because you possibly have a pre-defined connotation with the word "empire". Per se, the term doesn't bear 'criminal imperialist mantle'. The article laready distinguishes three types of empire: "classical" empire, colonial empire, and infromal meaning. 
What is missing, is the notion of metropoly, i.e., the center of the empire and the source of the coercion, which replaced the role of emperor in more recent empires. If it were in in goood circulation, as a noun derived from metropolitan (in the meaning relating to, or constituting the home territory of an imperial or colonial state) (or is it?), it could have been used in the definition of the Empire, and it would not have required the reservation made in the definition: "..., though note the American civil war". And the article could have honestly said: yes, federation is also based on the coersion, but the coercion is mutual, rather than centralized.  Mikkalai 00:20, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

message: I'm pleased to see the #REDIRECT. Nice to get rid of that article: Global empire. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Global empire]] 

message: This list is need of some serious work....maybe the dates should not be included and it just be the names. For example, the mongol empire is down as 1206 - 1405, i assume the latter date is a reference to the death of Timur. How can this be the end date for the mongol empire. Timur was not a mongol, but a turk who was able to take advantage of the chaos in the mongol successor states (white and blue horde/chagatai khanate and il-khanate) to create his own empire. 
A more accurate date would be 1294 when Khubilai Khan died and the other mongol states went their seperate ways. I notice that the mongol Golden Horde is there but the Il-khanate or the Chagatai Khanate are not. How can one mongol successor state be there but not the others? all were based on force and extracted tribute from weaker states (the Il-kkans and the Seljuks of Rum for example)
These discrepancies are also present in the successor states of Alexander the Great. For some reason the Seleucids deserve to be called an empire but the Ptolemies do not. Both claimed the title king, both were multi-national kingdoms built upon the ruins of Alexanders conquests (remember the ptolemies occupied palestine, cyrene and parts of southern asia minor at various times). And surely the Macedonian empire should have ended in 323BCE on Alexanders death or maybe at some point during the diadochi wars (perhaps after the battle of ipsus when all hopes of holding the empire together were crushed) rather than with the Roman conquest. The Antigonid kingdom was a much smaller enitity ruled by a different dynasty. If the Antigonids are included in a Macedonian 'empire' surely Alexander's predecessors should be also given that they ruled parts of Thrace and some greek city states.
I would go about it myself but i don't fully understand the process of re-working something on such a scale. Pathetic, i know. And yes, maybe i should learn. SRP 16:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Concentrate on the concept of Empire. Leave the list to the listers, says Wetman 22:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flaws in the list 

message: What, no Sumerian Empire? JDG 23:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sumer 

message: Wow! Since when the Ottoman Empire is an European empire? It didn't have European culture. It did not start in Europe. It never had most of its territory only in Europe (as far as I remember). Even the official language was not Indo-European!
In the same way you could say that the Persian and Mongol Empires were European!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.84.84 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Graphic at the End 

message: All I can say is ... give me a break.  
Its a great example as to why less and less people take wikipedia seriously. "arguably at times lip service"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.203.156 (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Paragraph 

message: Could we have a list of fictional empires from books, films, shows, etc? 
-G
Please not on this page.  A link to it is fine.  Sluggoster (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Fictional Empires 

message: I don't know if the following states should be considered empires.
* Vietnamese Empire (? - 1945)
* Britannic Empire (286 – 297)
* Teotihuacano Empire (300 BCE - 600/700 CE)
* Venetian Empire (800s - 1797)
* Kongo Empire (c. 1100 - c. 1884)
* Abyssinian Empire (1270 - 1974)
* Malinké Empire (c. 1400 - )
* Haitian Empire (1804 - 1806)
What about the Nabataean Empire?---it may prove interesting for Pre-Islamic history and its relation to the downfall of Roman empire.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostwriter888 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okinawa used to be an empire, too.Eregli bob (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really Empires? 

message: The U.S. is a empire today? 
Bull****. Sure, it did stuff like a empire, and maybe was one.
: Its not ruled by an emperor. Every state invades. Its got no colonies. What kind of an empire would that be then? The US is also a democracy and doesn't force beliefs of Religion or Culture like the Arab empire, or any empire tried.
:::Does not force beliefs of religion and culture? (no idea why YOU, Mr. O'reilly, used big letters) Get fucking real.
Heck yes. It has diverse territories and peoples under one rule, You've got Celtic, Teutonic, Nordic, Latin(as in Italian, French, Spanish, etc.), Slavic, Hispanic, African, Amerindian, Arabic, all under one banner. It has "colonies" like Wrangel Island, Pacific Archipelagos. Liberia could be considered a colony of Americans not under U.S. rule. It just isn't a city-state empire. Also, Empires don't have to force beleifs or anything. The Aztecs were pretty liberal imperials. They let conquests keep religion, culture, even leaders sometimes. The Alexandrian Empire neither. YOu could consider Palau, Micronesia, and American Samoa tributaries or conquests. The Philippines were once a U.S. conquest.
The Amerindians were conquered, The Spaniards in The Southwest were conquered. And about being a democracy, *laughs hysterically*, that's what they want you to think.--Whytecypress 00:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, none of that has anything to do with being an Empire, but good for you for giving it some... well I would say "thought" but thats clearly not the case. pookster11 09:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything you discussed above every nation has done. WHy single out the United states to call it an EMpire? PLease find me an example of a country that hasnt done these things!! Fill teh list or empty the list of america. Mrdthree 17:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Empire 

message: I think there done oughter be a timeline of Empires. We can start by timelisting the below list:
;Historical empires (with approximate dates)
; Early empires
* Elamite Empire (c. 2700 BCE to 539 BCE)
* Akkadian Empire (c. 2350 BCE - 2150 BCE - the first historical empire ever)
* Ur III Empire (c. 2100 BCE - 2000 BCE)
* Egyptian Empire (1550 BCE - 1070 BCE)
* Hittite Empire (c. 1460 BCE - 1180 BCE)
* Old Babylonian Empire (c. 1900 BCE - 1600 BCE)
* Assyrian Empire (c. 900 BCE - 612 BCE)
* Achaemenid Empire (aka. the Persian Empire) (c. 550 BCE - 330 BCE)
* Magadhan Empire (500 BCE - 300/139 BCE?)
* Delian League aka Athenian Empire (477 BCE - 431 BCE)
* Macedonian Empire (c. 338 B.C.E. - 309 B.C.E.)
* Seleucid Empire (323 BCE - 60 BCE)
* Chinese Empire (221 BCE - 1912)
* Roman Empire (27 BCE - CE 476)
;First millennium CE
* Sassanian Empire (224 - 651)
* Byzantine Empire (395 - 1453)
* Arabian Empire (c. 630 - 1258)
* Khmer Empire (802 - 1462)
* Holy Roman Empire (843 – 1806)
*  Venetian Empire (9th century - 1797)
* Bulgarian Empire (681 - 1018; 1185 - 1396)
* Mauryan Empire (321 to 185 BCE)
* Gupta Empire (320 to 550)
* Teotihuacano Empire (300 BCE-600/700 CE)
* Ghana Empire (c. 900-1240 - India)
* Ghaznavid Empire (963 to 1187 - Afghanistan
* Vietnamese Empire (? - 1945)
; Early Second millenium CE
* Seljuk Empire (c. 1037 - 1194)
* Mongol Empire (1206 - 1294)
* Ilkhanate (c. 1256 - 1338)
* Ottoman Empire (1281 - 1923)
* Majapahit Empire (1293 to around 1500 - Malay Peninsula, Borneo, Sumatra, and Bali)
* Vijayanagara Empire (c. 1350 - 1700)
* Golden Horde (1378 - 1502)
* Danish colonial empire (13th century - 1953)
* Aztec Empire (1375 - 1521)
* Malinké Empire (c. 1400 - current - Western Africa)
* Mali Empire (14th to 17th century - West African Islamic Empire)
* Inca Empire (1438 - 1533)
* Portuguese Empire (1495 - 1975)
* Russian Empire ( - 1917)
* Serbian Empire (1345-1371)
* Spanish Empire (1492 - 1975)
* Timurid Empire (1401 - 1505)
* Mogul Empire (1526 - 1857)
* Swedish Empire (1561 - 1878)
* Maratha Empire (1674 - 1761)
* British Empire (c. 1583 - *) De jure**
* Songhai Empire (15th century to late 16th century)
* Kongo Empire (? - c. 1884)
;Late 2nd millenum CE
* Dutch colonial empire (1620s-present - Kingdom of the Netherlands)   
* French Empire
**First French Empire (1804 - 1815)
**Second French Empire (1853 - 1871)
**French colonial empire (circa 1605 -1960s )
* Austrian Empire (1804-1867)
* Brazilian Empire (1822 - 1889)
* German Empire (1871 - 1918)
**German colonial empire (1884 - 1918)
* Haitian Empire (1804 - 1806)
* Mexican Empire (1822 - 1823, 1864 - 1867)
* Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867-1918)
* Japanese Empire (July 14, 1871 to September 2, 1945 - political, November 29, 1890, to May 3, 1947 - constitutional)
* British Raj (Indian colony of the British Empire) (1858 - 1947) (Imperial: 1877 - 1947)
* Italian Colonial Empire (1885-1941)
* Korean Empire (1897 - 1910)
;20th   
* Axis Powers (1936 - 1945)
**Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere (1940 - 1945)
**Third German Reich (1933 - 1945)
* Abyssinian Empire ( - 1974)
* Central African Empire (1977 - 1979)
* American Empire (1945-current)
* The United Kingdom still has many overseas territories, and also the commonwealth realms are considered to be completely self governing colonies as they recognise the British monarch as their head of state.
** De facto, The British Empire ended in the 1960s
Why does an empire have to exist as a "multi-etnic state"? A large collection of similiar states might still be an empire, might it not? Avalon 11:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A TIMELINE, dammit 

message: Why isnt the third reich considered an empire? Mrdthree 19:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the third reich does fit the deffention of an Empire. It did invade and control countries.--Scott3 12:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree, "reich" means realm or nation.  Consider "Königreich".  Taemyr (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  THIRD REICH 

message: I added the cleanup tag because this article is disorganized and could use wikification. see my edit as of 20:29 11/28/05 to see what I mean by reorganizing. --Phil 01:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup 

message: Perhaps including something along the lines of "Although Ronald Reagan once referred to the Soviet Union as the 'Evil Empire', it is, in fact, not an empire, and he was just being the alliterate phrase-spewing anthropomorphic raisin he is known as today".
:Very funny. Ha. Ha. Please read WP:NOT. Walton monarchist89 11:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evil Empire 

message: It is tough to define exactly what is meant by "Empire", although what is present on this page seems sufficient. The problem is that a timeline of Empires cannot be completely objective under these circumstances. I offer the example of the inclusion of "American Empire", which is definately a debateable point (i.e. yes the states do have an enormous range of influence, but does that really mean they are an "empire"?).
:It's a very disambiguations term,
:firstly an empire can have a metroploe and land overseas which is clearly the kind of empire many imagine looking at European colonial powers. this gets very confusing when one looks at land based sprawling empires like Russia/USSR, austor-Hungarian, etc - can these be compared with the previous category?
:secondly do we really suppose that "empire" is based solely upon land ownership, think about informal influence (UK in Egypt, Iran, Argentina, etc) and more recently the USA.... Similarly empire is often an expression of the very vague concept of power (be it political, military, diplomatic, economic, religious, etc, etc)
:IMHO it all a load of very vague notions, with no proper defining that is clear and decisive, making it very hard to compare "empire" across time and various regions. Pickle 05:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if a country retitles its head of state from President to Emperor it becomes an empire? No.  "Emperor" is a title above king.  The tsar (king) of Russia did not call himself "imperator" because that title was reserved for the Roman/Byzantine Emperor, a position which ceased to exist when the Turks overtook Constantinople.  But Russia and the Soviet Union were/are empires regardless of the leader's title.  Russia also considered itself the "third Rome", the successor to Byzantium, thus calling itself an empire.  Also note the Caucasian peoples incorporated into Russia against their will, as the current disputes in and around around Chechnya, Georgia, and Armenia show. All characteristics of an empire. Sluggoster (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Empire 

message: In reference to the list of empires on this talk page, I feel it must be made clear that while America may be a de facto empire, it is not a de jure empire, and has never styled itself an empire, nor has it ever had an emperor. Although it is certainly powerful enough to be termed 'imperial', and could be described as 'multi-ethnic' because of its sovereignty over Guam, Puerto Rico and Hawaii, I think that we should restrict this article to the de jure definition of empires. (Arguably, under this definition, the British Empire was not an empire either, but Queen Victoria was styled Empress of India, and the term British Empire was in common use among British people until after WWII.) Walton monarchist89 12:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See American Empire (term). It's a debate as old as the sun. Well, not quite that old. Interestingly, the same thing was said by a Dutchman about Dutch Empire. Note that in the course of the Spanish-American War, the USA attacked and took over what was left of the Spanish Empire - Guam, Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico. These were Spanish imperial possessions that then became American possessions. Did they suddenly cease to be "imperial"? There were certainly many in the US at that time that looked enviously on European empires and believed that it was time for the USA to have a piece of the cake too. There were also many that looked down on America acting like Old Europe. In the Penguin History of the United States by High Brogan (arguably a "bread and butter" history book, not controversial), "imperialism (American)" appears in the index with several entries. If American imperialism can be talked of, then one can arguably talk of an American Empire, even if the United States did not relabel itself as such, or the common folk use it in every day conversation. Gsd2000 12:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That couldn't have been better expressed. Indeed, the very usage is controversial among us. --Wetman 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is manifest destiny imperial, is then acquiring Alaska and Hawaii imperial ?, certainly the acquisition of the former Spanish colonies is colonial. the more important thing, especially today is the informal empire, the non formal control over various areas. in the context of the study of the British empire we refer to places like Argentina (just a massive investor), and Iran (formal treaty over oil rights) as informal empire. thus this term can be transfered across to the US, but this highlights the problem of what on earth is empire, imperialism, et al, as no one can agree one common definition. Pickle 21:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: America became an Empire after the Spanish-American War in 1898. After it acquired Guam, the Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico, it became an Imperial power to match those in Europe and was being recognized by those powers as a powerful country. In the Spanish-American War article it even says in the Aftermath section that America became an Imperial power. Also all Empires do not have to have emperors. Certainly the Spanish Empire did not have an Emperor/Empress, right? Lord Vader 4:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Who conquered the "spanish" in California ?  Do you mean, Mexicans ?Eregli bob (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Empire ??? 

message: Unbelievably, this article contains no central discussion of imperial systems other than European/Western empires. This is ethnocentric, culturally biased, and fundamentally incomplete. There have been empires and imperial systems for centuries before the crusades, or the European colonial empires, or the discussion of whether or not American hegemony constituthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Empire&action=edit§ion=6es empire. Without a substantial discussion of the many many empires of the past, this article remains irretrievably one-sided.—thames 19:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your criticism doesn't make it sound so irretrievable; all you need do is add content on non-European empires. siafu 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. If you really want to see loads of info about other empires, add it yourself. Isaac Crumm 09:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the POV tag as this is a misuse of it. The article does mention non-Western empires - just because the largest section happens to be on Western imperialism doesn't mean that it's POV, it just means that as Siafu says, it needs to be beefed up for non-European empires. This article is not arguing that imperialism equals Western imperialism, so it's not POV. Just incomplete. Gsd2000 21:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add to my comment above - the article begins: "An empire ... comprises a set of regions locally ruled by governors, viceroys or client kings in the name of an emperor." What is POV or culturally biased about that? It goes on to say "The actual political concept predates the Romans by several hundred years: empires began to appear soon after the first cities made the necessary administrative structures possible. The Akkadian Empire of Sargon of Akkad furnishes one of the earliest known examples." This is saying exactly what you said in your criticism: "There have been empires and imperial systems for centuries before the crusades". Gsd2000 21:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It contains a handful of sentences on imperial systems other than European/Western. It has multiple long sections on European/Western/United States imperialism. According to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, that is precisely a violation of NPOV. The tag ought to remain until the balance is restored.—thames 21:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That section, which I already read before posting above, is about viewpoints. This article is not expressing competing views! Again, this article is not arguing that imperialism equals Western imperialism - that would be a viewpoint. Gsd2000 22:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Alternately, instead of insisting on NPOV and putting a tag in place, you could just expand the article as needed. siafu 22:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:NPOV#Anglo-American_focus is also an NPOV problem with this page. It's not NPOV by commission, it's NPOV by omission. I would love to expand the article, discussing the major imperial systems, but that takes time, and until that time, the NPOV tag serves as a warning to the reader.—thames 22:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you have plenty of time for berating this article here on the talk page, but not on actually improving the content. This is curious, as I was under the impression that the purpose of editting wikipedia was to spend time on improving the encyclopedia. siafu 17:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hold on, you are complaining about Empires that existed before the Crusades. How can a failure to adequately mention them be cultural bias when those cultures have been non-existent for centuries?!! I really believe that you are misunderstanding what the NPOV should be used for. Gsd2000 22:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've reverted the NPOV tag again. The "expand" tags that you have added correctly address the concern that you are raising. Tagging this as NPOV is misleading in itself. Gsd2000 22:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's POV because by omitting any substantive discussion of non-Western imperialism, this article has implicit anti-Western or Euro-centric focus. The implication is that only the West has imperialism notable enough to warrant discussion, which is clearly not the case. That's one-sided and reflects the bias of the editors up to this point.—thames 03:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that non-European empires existed is mentioned already mentioned several times. There are several references to non-European empires in the first two paragraphs and in the list of empires at the end. If all editors held your opinion about NPOV, Wikipedia would be strewn with NPOV tags for factual articles that are incomplete, with one set of facts discussed more than another set. Now, if there was absolutely no mention of an empire other than European ones then I would agree that this article was biased - but it does mention it, several times, so it's not biased, just needs fleshing out with the expand tags that you put in. By labelling it NPOV you are indicating to the user that it is advocating a particular point of view - but it's patently not. Gsd2000 11:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It remains NPOV. A few trifling sentences to represent several thousand years of empires from Akkad to China to India to Africa, and then several thousand words on European empire and how American hegemony "might" be empire is a complete misrepresentation of the concept of Empire. It is NPOV by omission not commission.—thames 13:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Although the phenomenon discussed is very real, and great source of turmoil to the empires/colonies, I don't think gerrymandering is the right term to describe it. Perhaps a term that means something much more arbitrary than gerrymander. It was also a big problem in the Middle East and in Africa.Isaac Crumm 09:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also thought "gerrymandering" was inappropriate when reading the article, so I took the liberty of rewording the sentence to remove the term. Equendil Talk 10:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gerrymandering 

message: Why does empire not have 'the' before it? Skinnyweed 12:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the name of the article ? If so it would imply the article is about one empire in particular, which it isn't, in addition, it's contrary to naming conventions on Wikipedia, see WP:NAME#General conventions Equendil Talk 10:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English use 

message: I removed the "haitian empire" entry (that linked to history of Haiti) from the list of empires, while rulers named themselves "emperors" on two occasions, I don't think Haiti could qualify as an "empire" during any period of its history. Equendil Talk 10:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haitian Empire 

message: According to this link it is debated when the roman impire rise. I'll be putting somthing the article. I'll also put both dates of the collapse of the eastern and western impire.--Scott3 17:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roman empire began after the First Punic War with the acquisition of Sardinia, Corsica, and Sicily.  The Roman Empire began in 27BC with the First Settlement under Augustus. pookster11 09:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Impire date 

message: The list section of this article is becoming very long; it's already longer than the entire rest of the article. It's also, IMO, the contentious part of the whole thing as editors passing by have often added or removed entries without discussion. If there are no objections to the split, I'll go ahead and do it myself tomorrow. siafu 22:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Empires]] 

message: The definition of empire used in this article is taken much too loosely, using definitions from dictionaries. The concept of "empire" is much more complicated than simply invading a neighbouring territory. What's worse is that most of the article is written based on this loose definition (especially the ridiculous list of empires, no offense), in light of the fact that the definition is disputed, which is even stated in the intro. At least include information based on alternative definitions. --Šarukinu 18:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble here is what is the definition of  empire, i.e. a one power establishing hegemony over a number of others, and the popular conception of what an empire should be, by rights a single small city state establishing hegemony over its neighbours should be able to call itself an Empire but the popular conception is that Empires should be large powerful and monolithic.KTo288 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be re-written. 

message: I've substituted the traditional term metropole for the term Core countries in this article. The term "core country" as used in World-systems theory i.e. 'industrialized capitalist countries' is not the same as the term 'core' as I understand it to relate to empires i.e. a nation at the centre of an empire. The World-systems theory use seems only to date from the 80's, and there have been Empires around long before that, a lot of them not industrialised and not capitalistic.KTo288 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core and periphery 

message: Thank you so much to whomever deleted that god awful controversial list of empires. *hugs*  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.69.139 (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: can we create a list of the biggest empires? --İlhanli 13:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the biggest empires? 

message: I just wanted to let people know that I removed the paragraph about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The organization is a weak economic/military alliance at best (at least for now, that may change), and nowhere even close to qualifying as an empire, even by the loose definitions supplied in this article. However, if someone is seeking a replacement for the SCO, I think China by itself qualifies as an empire (if you've been out to Xinjiang lately, you'll know what I mean). China is also the major driving force behind the SCO. Cheers! Otebig 12:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed SCO 

message: look, why would anyone want 2 add imperialism to empire??!!Anakin908 13:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It doesn't make any sense. Imperialism should be kept seperate. Imperialism is related but not nearly close enough to merge the articles.--Billy 20:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merge at [[Imperialism]] 

message: I have removed the following statements, as they have been tagged "citation needed" for several months:
*The Neo-Assyrian empire, founded by Tiglath-Pileser III in the mid-8th century BC, was the earliest example of a centrally organized, multinational empire, which was comparable to, and predated the Roman Empire by at least six centuries.
*many point out that the introduction of Christianity and its strict orthodoxy actually created more problems in Late Antiquity than it solved
If anyone can find sources to back up these claims, feel free to re-add them. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 17:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the US captured Hawaii - because American-Hawaiian sugar interests did - and it DID go to the moon (that flag was held up by wires). It is a republic, federation, empire, and superpower, as well as a democracy. What it is not: a monarchy. That was decided upon from the beginning. An empire it most assuredly is (the government has used coercion against cultures within its own boundaries on numerous occasions: the end of the American Civil War, civil rights incidents, the quelling of race riots, the sequestration of the Native Americans, the quelling of various cults; it is also a multi-ethnic country: thank you, Ellis Island and Castle Garden); and a democratic republic it also most assuredly is (we vote and we have governing councils, don't we?) 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statements removed 

message: This bit of spew made it's way here...
While many empires were extremely successful, the Alex Empire is and will always be elite. Within the Alex Empire, scum are strictly forbidden and it never rains. Thanks to many skilled Chinese physicians, the sky permanently reflects Alex's amazing visage. Alex is clearly the Empress, and second in command is Kaviss, commonly known for the abbreviation KGB - Kaviss is gonna get you bitch. If you cross Alex, your most likely fate will be a sentence to serve in the Pit Of Burning Inferno™.
I've undertaken it's removal.Cocacola4blood (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random spew cleanup 

message: Read on wikipedia, not listed here??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.229.242 (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't you know about Maurya empire??? 

message: First let me say I don't have anything personally against defining empire as a state where the people in power hold sway over a group or groups of people culturally different from them. However, I have not seen empire defined that way ANYWHERE. I've been looking through dictionaries and most simply say any state that is either big or composed of multiple nations (that could mean multi-ethnic I suppose) is an empire. I didn't even see a single reference for the article's definition of empire. This really bothers me cuz I went to a lot of trouble creating (and now defending) a page based on this definition. If someone doesn't address this, I might have to put a tag up. I'd really hate to do that cuz I know I hate it when folks tag the hell out of me for minor stuff. But this ain't minor! Scholars do debate what constitutes an empire (another definition of which is any extensive enterprise under a single authority...hell McDonald;s is an empire by that definition). Can we please talk about this and put the issue to rest. i know I can count on you all. PEACEScott Free (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Removed a sentence that is biased anti-Western and obviously aimed at the U.S. and Europe. The paragraph is more neutral without it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.156.253 (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Edit 

message: What Scholars still finds the attempt to define such a loosely used term worth the bother?Dejvid (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholars still debate about what exactly constitutes an empire? 

message: Whatever you think about the above debate, the fact is this article needs work. A quick look over shows me:
1) Organizational Clean up. A lot of the information in the article is ok, but it's messy and cluttered. Some sections have just one long paragraph where several are needed.
2) Page Organization. Shouldn't "See also" and "external links" be above references and bibliography? 
3) Instead of "Lingusitic Imperialism" and "History of Imperialism" shouldn't it be "Linguistic Empires" and "History of Empries"? And is linguistic empires really warranted? 
Any/all input is appreciated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeagleman (talk • contribs) 03:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list 

message: This is the headline definition of Empire:
An empire is an extensive group of states or ethnic peoples united and ruled over by a single monarch or ruling authority; having a strong centralized political power; and a large commercial organization under the control of one person or group within this nation state.
Elsewhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state), this is the headline definition of Nation-State:
The nation-state (or by its common name a country) is a certain form of state that derives its legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit. The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term "nation-state" implies that the two geographically coincide, and this distinguishes the nation state from the other types of state, which historically preceded it. If successfully implemented, this implies that the citizens share a common language, culture, and values — which was not the case in many historical states. A world of nation-states also implements the claim to self-determination and autonomy for every nation, a central theme of the ideology of nationalism.
I like the definition of nation-state, which is quite precise.  By this definition, an empire cannot be a nation-state, and indeed is nearly the antithesis of a nation-state.
I submit that an Empire is a set of territories, ruled by a central sovereign body, typically authoritarian or oligarchic, in which one nation has subjugated other nations and ethnic groups to its will by forcible means.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.38.91 (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empire as a Nation-State? 

message: Maybe I didn't understand well what was said, so if I'm wrong someone correct me.
An autocratic empire can progress to being a republic, usually with a coup d’etat (e.g. Brazil in 1889;
As far as I know, the Brazilian Empire was never an Autocratic system. For it's time, Brazilian Empire was one of the most democratic countries of the world, remembering that at that time (1822-1889) only a few countries were democratic, like USA and England.
But the First Brazilian Republic, that was called the "Sword's Republic", was not a progression from an autocratic system, it was in fact an Autocratic system ruled by Marshals: Deodoro da Fonseca, elected by the insurgents without the participation of the people, and Floriano Peixoto, Deodoro's vice-president that ignored the fact that he couldn't be President by the constitution they had just made.
So a system that evolved by itself from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Constitutional Parlamentarist Monarchy and with other progresses like the Abolition of Slavery, the Abolition of the two phases election (electors were supposed to choose second degree electors, and these were the ones who elected the politicians) to a normal one phase election, can't be designated as an autocratic system, and a Dictatorship of Marshals can't be designated as a progress for Brazil.
Only if the word "autocratic" in this case doesn't have the meaning i think it has, so if it has another meaning someone please correct me.
Spirictum (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazilian Empire 

message: While maritime empires or thalassocracies, (e.g. the Athenian, Achaemenid Persian Empire, British Empire) are intercontinental, far-flung overseas empires. [3]
A map showing the Achaemenid Empire shows that one could walk from one end to the other with a little bit extra in Thrace and Macedon. This hardly meets the standard of "far-flung overseas". After all Persia at one time managed to build a bridge across the dividing sea. Footnote 3 is about an invasion fleet that failed to conquer the "overseas" Greek cities. Taking out the example of the Achaemenid Persian Empire would in no way weaken the point or the article and would better balance the sentence by showing 2 examples of contiguous empires and 2 of non-contiguous. Nitpyck (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  They had a bridge 

message: But imperium according to the Latin to English page http://www.online-dictionary.biz/latin/english/vocabulary/reference/imperium.asp means:  
imperium power to command, authority, command, rule, control
imperium sovereignty, realm, command So in  lede: Empire from the Latin imperium, and in the Empire Defined section someone who know more latin than I could add a sentence with the proper etymology.Nitpyck (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empire derives from the Latin word imperium, denoting “military command” in Ancient Rome. 

message: This section is poorly written , inaccurate, and off-topic. I really don’t want to make this edit. But someone who cares about the article should. What I care about is that the section as written makes little sense. A couple points- Japan is not the world's smallest country. Lenin and Jefferson had no opinions on the post WWII period. Stalin was not a small group of people. Stuart Creighton Miller is an expert on the late 19th and early 20th century. India, Indonesia, and Myanmar were historically colonies not empires. Since 9/11 the USA has not increased its interest in Mexico at the expense of Iraq.  Nitpyck (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like opinions on whether the last section about Mehmet Akif Okur's theory should be deleted. This is a theory of the post-9/11 nature of empires proposed, in one paper, by a fairly obscure academic. Unless there other adherents to his ideas they are not appropriate (no matter how interesting they may be) in this encyclopedia article. Nitpyck (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empire from 1945 

message: Besides simplifing the language used - for example "geographically extensive terrestrial" was changed to "large", I eliminated some uncited and questionable statements.In the 15th century BC, the loosely-organised New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, ruled by Thutmose III, was the ancient Near East’s major force upon incorporating Nubia and the ancient city-states of the Levant. loosely organized is opinion without citation, also since Thutmose failed to control the Hittites and largearea of Mesopotamia maybe not the major force Despite their imperial condition, these early empires had no effective administrative control of their subject territories.Very questionable needs cite saying NONE of the empires existing before Rome had this control  The ancient world’s earliest, centrally-organised empire, comparable to Rome, was the Assyrian empire (2000–612 BC)What does this mean- note Sargon the Great had everything organized to be under him which is as central as it gets, and the first, successful, multi-cultural empire was the Persian Achaemenid Empire (550–330 BC)except the Egyptian, the Semitic empires that absorbed the akkadians, the medean empire, etc. were all multi-cultural.Nitpyck (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up early empires 

message: Voltaire’s remark that the Holy Roman Empire “was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire” is accurate to the degree that it ignores[4] German rule over Italian, French, Provençal, Polish, Flemish, Dutch, and Bohemian populations, and the efforts of the eighth-century Holy Roman Emperors (i.e. the Ottonians) to establish central control; thus, Voltaire’s “. . . nor an empire” observation applies to its late period. This statement misses the point that 1- it was not holy 2 it was German and 3- the "emperor" had fairly limited powers over many of the states which made up his "empire" over a large period of its existence. Nitpyck (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voltaire 

message: This paragraph is highly misleading as countries are grouped together on account of the existence of separatist groups and a weak connection to a previous Empire.
India and Indonesia would belong in the category of imperial-legacy states; they were created by Imperial powers; hence they are not 'historically imperial'. 
There existed a Chinese, a Russian and a Spanish Empire; but the separatist movements in these countries are hugely different from one another. Furthermore, there are many immediate causes for those separatist movements other than an imperial legacy of amalgamated peoples: rebellion against dictatorship, civil war, the Cold War, Communist revolution, rise of nationalism in Europe, etc.
Since the paragraph lacks citations of any kind; I remove it until a more coherent version is put in place, if such concept exists in the literature at all.
MiG-25 (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historically imperial countries 

message: The article does not mention the Portuguese empire and the latter was the first global empire in history (Portuguese Empire, [1]). It was also the longest-lived of the modern European colonial empires, spanning almost six centuries, from the capture of Ceuta in 1415 to the handover of Macau in 1999.
I strongly suggest this to be added to the introduction or to a new section.
Another point missing is the effect on globalization.
References
[1]  The Portuguese Empire: 1415-1825 by Charles R. Boxer
--82.22.79.213 (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The forgotten Portuguese empire 

message: Observation: A couple of problems. Though various historians like to quibble on precise terminology, the Roman Empire, for better or for worse, lasted from roughly the 3rd century BCE to at least the 13th century CE (15th century if you are defining it liberally). For the purposes of the chart that compares the various empires, distinguishing between the longevity of the "Roman" empire and the "Byzantine" empire is misleading in comparing it to other empires. The reality is that the imperial history covered a span that nearly rivals the Chinese empire (and many historians would dispute the notion of a continuous Chinese empire lasting from the 3rd century BCE to modern times).
And, also, the chart indicates that the Roman empire began in the 1st century BCE. This is misleading in the context of this article. Historians define the Roman "imperial" period as beginning in the first century because of the establishment of the office of the emperor (which actually is debatable in and of itself). But this article uses the term empire in the broader sense of one nation ruling over many nations. In that sense the Romans began their major territorial expansion in the 3rd century BCE (one could even argue before that). By the 1st century BCE Rome had long been an imperial power.
--22:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between a "civilization-state (China) claiming the imperial title" versus "continuous Chinese empire". China is the world's oldest continuous civilization is it not? The heart of the situation is ethnocentric nationalism, which is evidenced by your assertion that China isn't a continuous civilization-state. Of course, not under Han Chinese leadership, but using your logic, Barack Obama isn't "American" because he is of Kenyan descent. =-P You are mixing up the exact purpose of this chart. It's about "civilization-states claiming the imperial title", not "continuous empires".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Empire 

message: "Many of Europe's imperial monarchs of the 19th and 20th centuries were related by blood or marriage. Prior to World War I, Kaiser Wilhelm II of the German Empire, Tsar Nicholas II of the Russian Empire and George V of the United Kingdom, were all blood relatives, related through Queen Victoria"
The last part of this is wrong.  Tsar Nicholas II had no proximate connection to Queen Victoria at all.   He was a cousin to George V due to their mutual Danish grandparents,  not Queen Victoria.Eregli bob (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right.  Nicholas and George were first cousins through Christian IX of Denmark; Nicholas and Wilhelm were second cousins once removed through Frederick William III of Prussia and third cousins through Paul I of Russia.  Since this is way too complicated to fit into an image caption, I'll just remove the last part of the sentence. Favonian (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect claim 

message: I think that the notations BC and AD ought to be used. BCE and CE are less accurate, unless they refer to "Before the Christian Era and the Christian Era. If they refer to Common Era and Before the Common Era, they are less accurate, because they don't refer to the actual concept behind the numbering (the birth of Christ). I am going to change the notations back, the CE and BCE notations seem to be simple evidence of a left wing bias that practices atheism and attempts to abolish references to Christianity. The rest of the article seems to have a bit of a left wing bias as well. CaptainNicodemus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.32.206 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be discussed before making that kind of major changes. BCE and CE reflect a non-Christan/neutral POV.  I don't see how they can be "less accurate".  They refer the common Western notion of the year.  Can you give us an example of "...a bit of a left wing bias..." in the article? Dinkytown talk 16:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC and AD 

message: WTF No mongol :\  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.53.7.110 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongols! 

message: If there is going to be discussion about the USA and the EU in the post-1945 section, then surely there must be a discussion of the multinational but Russian dominated USSR.38.112.81.103 (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Union 

message: Why does the intro show images of European rulers and there blood relation (this part is totally irrelevant)?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the article is Empire, not Emperor. Hence my change. GBozanko (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: Needs information covering the Dozens of Muslim empires that have existed; there needs to be discussion of Mesoamerican empires such as the Inca and Aztec; there should be information on sub-Saharan African empires -- there were dozens of pre-European African empires (Asante Union, Oyo Empire, Ethiopian Empire, etc.).  Mongol Empire should be discussed more...
OttawaAC (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requires Way More Content Besides European Empires 

message: What challenges are specific to an empire?
What systems are necessary for establishing and running an empire?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of an empire?
What does it take to have a successful empire? 
What makes an empire different than a kingdom?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.170.246 (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The basics of an Empire. 

message: These are nation-states that may or may not be considered an empire.  For one example, by 1900 Portugal was no longer described as an empire.  The map title might be something like Major Nation-States and Empires 1900. ````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.180.199.141 (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map - World Empires 1900 

message: " a coercive, hegemonic empire of indirect conquest and control with power (the perception that the emperor can physically enforce his desired goals)"
Is this an accurate description of hegemonic power?  I would have thought that hegemony could be achieved not by coercion (and sepcifically, threat of force), but by simply being able to offer something (wealth, protection, culture, etc) that the subject states wanted.  I don't want to get into an argument about whether the US is a hegemonic empire, but if it was, then a lot of its power and influence would either be non-coercive (being the power you run to if you wanted protection from the Soviets) or actual (rather than percieved) use of force.Iapetus (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOes hegemony necesarily impy coercion? 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_world
* Roman Kingdom (753 BC -- 509 BC).
* Roman Republic (509 BC -- 27 BC).
* Roman Empire (27 BC -- 395 AD).
* Western Roman Empire (395 AD -- 476 AD).
* Eastern Roman Empire (395 AD -- 610 AD).
By 610, the Eastern Roman Empire had come under definite Greek influence, and could be considered to have become what many modern historians now call the Byzantine Empire; however, the Empire was never called thus by its inhabitants, who used terms such as Romania, Basileia Romaion or Pragmata Romaion, meaning "Land of the Romans", "Kingdom of the Romans", and who still saw themselves as Romans, and their state as the rightful successor to the ancient empire of Rome.
* Byzantine Empire (610 -- 1204 / 1261 -- 1453).
* Empire of Nicaea (1204 -- 1261).
* Despotate of Epirus (1204 -- 1337).
* Empire of Trebizond (1204 -- 1461).
* Despotate of the Morea (1308 -- 1460).
If the traditional date for the founding of Rome is accepted as fact, the Roman state can be said to have lasted in some form from 753 BC to the fall in 1475 of the Principality of Theodoro (a successor state and fragment of the Byzantine Empire which escaped conquest by the Ottomans in 1453), for a total of 2,236 years.
"The Roman Empire's timeline listed below is only up to the timeline of the Western part."
Because the empire was divided ? --2.33.180.5 (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Empire