Jump to content
270soft Forum

Greatest Empire Poll


Greatest Empire Poll  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Which Empire do you think will eventually be considered the greatest empire in human civilization?

    • Roman Empire
    • Ghana Empire
      0
    • Holy Roman Empire
      0
    • Frankish Empire
      0
    • Ottoman Empire
      0
    • Portuguese Empire
      0
    • Spanish Empire
      0
    • Abbasid Caliphate
      0
    • French Empire
    • Egyptian Empire
    • Mongol Empire
      0
    • British Empire
    • Mughal Empire
      0
    • Aztec Empire
      0
    • Persian Empire
    • Soviet Empire
    • Timurid Empire
      0
    • Hunnic Empire
      0
    • Inca Empire
      0
    • American Empire
  2. 2. Which country is most likely to surpass the United States to become the next ranking superpower in the world?

    • China
    • Russia
      0
    • The European Union
    • India
      0
    • Brazil
      0
    • Japan
      0
    • The United Nations
    • None. The United States of America will be the last top superpower either because America will not decline as former superpowers have or because the world will end before another power overtakes America.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Sure. Relative to other tribes one could make an argument for that. If the Holy Roman Empire classifies than Iroquois could. 

I don't think the Holy Roman Empire (despite it's name and pretenses) was really an "empire" either, to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

I'm more interested in towns than big cities.

This sounds like gateway thinking to Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge's "agrarian revival" ideal, where the cities were depopulated into the rural areas, leading to the biggest genocide of the 20th Century NOT based on targeting and persecuting demographics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

This sounds like gateway thinking to Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge's "agrarian revival" ideal, where the cities were depopulated into the rural areas, leading to the biggest genocide of the 20th Century NOT based on targeting and persecuting demographics.

???

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

???

A seeming belief in the rural system being inherently superior in quality or organization to the urban system is what spiralled out of control in Cambodia and led Pol Pot into believing "foreign influence" and the "rot of the nation" were in the cities, among the educated and moneyed classes and ways of life, and that Medievalist "agrarian purity" in a toxic nostalgic view (like most social conservatives call upon one distorted, warped, and incorrect and inaccurate nostalgic view of the past to draw upon - and the Khmer Rouge were strongly socially, if not economically or politically, conservative in that way, unlike any European- or North American-based Socialists or Communists, but more like African Socialism, other than the ANC). I'm not saying it always, or even usually spirals off the deep end to that extent, anymore than modern Western Nationalism is guaranteed to reproduce Naziism, or certainly Scandinavian Socialism will bring Stalinism about, but it's "seed ideology," is all. The urban/rural divide was always been played against each other unfairly for political gain, and never to the long-term and benefit of either. But, in the modern world, both economic and social structures are essential.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Patine said:

I don't think the Holy Roman Empire (despite it's name and pretenses) was really an "empire" either, to be honest.

That's why I am suggesting that the Iroquois could be included if the HRE is included. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

That's why I am suggesting that the Iroquois could be included if the HRE is included. 

The Iroquois are more akin to a more militant Switzerland or Dutch Republic than an "empire" in any case, in their concept and theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ido said:

Achaemnids specifically

That clarification make sense. The Sassanids were effectively Zoroastrian Theocratic Police State. But very well organized. Until Caliph Abu Bakr's general (I can't remember his name off the top of my head) conquered the huge Sassanid Empire in seven weeks in the 7th Century.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Could Canada be considered an empire for these purposes?

I'm fairly inclusive for this "just for fun" poll. If you can make an argument for it, then it could be included.

An Empire, in my opinion, is a government that absorbs multiple former sovereign entities against their will that are likely culturally different and are able to rule over this varied group for an extended period of time--say at least a generation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I'm fairly inclusive for this "just for fun" poll. If you can make an argument for it, then it could be included.

An Empire, in my opinion, is a government that absorbs multiple former sovereign entities against their will that are likely culturally different and are able to rule over this varied group for an extended period of time--say at least a generation. 

There's also the concept of "cultural influence and hegemony," without conquest or political rule (or, at least, political rule from the start) as thing that's iffy in that definition. Like Ancient Hellenic cultural influence and hegemony, which was very powerful even before the military and political Macedonian Empire (and the Macedonians, themselves, were a "Hellenized" people, not actually ethnic Greeks, and even the Etruscans and Romans were partially Hellenized).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

An Empire, in my opinion, is a government that absorbs multiple former sovereign entities against their will that are likely culturally different and are able to rule over this varied group for an extended period of time--say at least a generation. 

Then it is, unless someone wants to argue the French as well as all the indigenous civilizations were absorbed before the creation of Canada proper. In that case, it was still part of the British empire. However, many treaties with First Nations were made after confederation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ido said:

@vcczar well for all the first nations, Canada is very much an empire

Well, yes, but the Canadian (and Australian and New Zealander) governments have recently made far more public recognition and willingness to redress the past injustices with our indigenous people's than the U.S. And while I'm not saying the U.S. government has done nothing, the relative difference is very sharp, and the overarching attitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ido said:

doesn't disqualify it from being an empire, doesn't it? @Patine it's just a more chummy and friendly one

I think you're blurring the definition of "empire." Is Israel an "empire?" I imagine the Palestinians, and the displaced Syrians of Golan Heights would say so. How far shall we push this term?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Patine said:

the Canadian (and Australian and New Zealander) governments have recently made far more public recognition and willingness to redress the past injustices with our indigenous people's than the U.S.

To be fair, Native Americans make up about 1% of the U.S.'s population, but First Nations make up about 3% of Canada's (5% if including Metis). One reason it's less of an issue in the States is that there are fewer Native Americans per capita.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine I'm mostly talking about Canada in the past, today it's less really of an empire but you can't deny that Canada's actions may be viewed as empire like, just because Canada is a "good" country doesn't make it less imperial

 

P.S don't try to wade me into arguing by bringing Israel into the equation

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

To be fair, Native Americans make up about 1% of the U.S.'s population, but First Nations make up about 3% of Canada's (5% if including Metis). One reason it's less of an issue in the States because there are fewer Native Americans per capita.

Many States in the West have much higher percentages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ido said:

@Patine I'm mostly talking about Canada in the past, today it's less really of an empire but you can't deny that Canada's actions may be viewed as empire like, just because Canada is a "good" country doesn't make it less imperial

I notice you avoided answering the other part of my question entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...