Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Size of Japanese Empire

Currently, per TompaDompa's edit, the size of the Empire of Japan appears as being 8.51 km². This is clearly false. If you sum up the land areas of the territories occupied by Japan in WWII, a list of which is here, you obtain circa 5.8 million km², not counting occupied China, pretty far from the value provided here. And this is assuming that Japan controlled the entirety of New Guinea, of Indonesia, and 3 million km2 of Chinese territory which seems false. I'd like to ask if TompaDompa can reproduce these results from other sources?Ppteles (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Reminder that summing up measurements from multiple sources constitutes WP:SYNTH suggest you find reliable sources for areas. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I know, but thanks for reminding me. I was just really curious to know since it seems the value isn't reproducible in other sources. I presume the current value on the table takes into account ocean areas that were also controlled, but not 100% certain about it.Ppteles (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I assume it includes territories in Mainland China. And please, can we stop the edit-warring with TompaDompa please Ppteles? We're supposed to be colleagues here, and assume good faith. TompaDompa has cited a source, the source appears to be RS, and that's the end of the analysis. If you know of an alternate RS that gives a different figure, then cite that too. FOARP (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean, I just think that this is wrong. I did provide alternative values, and proposed several ways of going about this list, including several columns with different estimates by different authors, none of which seem to have gained much praise from the other editors.Ppteles (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@FOARP: You have endorsed Zbignew Brezinski as a reliable source for this topic (while he was not an historian and the main topic of his book has nothing to do with this article) and user Ppteles used this as a reason to remove the Taagepera source and figure about the Portuguese Empire. I think that if the sources disagree about the size of an Empire, then both figures should be equally represented in the list, per WP:WEIGHT. Thoughts ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

OMG you keep insisting that Rein Taagepera is a historian, when it has been shown to you countless times that this isn't so. If you insist on this, I must assume that you are not here in good faith. Ppteles (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ppteles: I think you should read carefully what people say and refrain from making baseless accusations. Since you have some difficulties to understand what i said above, i'll make it clear : Let's say that Taagepera is not an historian, why should we list only Brezinski's figure while he is not a historian either ? At least, Taagepraa's book is focused on the size of empires, this is not by any mean Bresinski's case. Last point, i would like to have FOARP's opinion about this, since i already know your opinion.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You keep the aggressive dialogue which is clearly against wikipedia policies. Both Brzesinski and Taagepera are considered RS in this article. There have been a number of proposals to change this which you and others have decided to ignore. How about constructive editing rather? I have proposed, for instance to have different columns for several authors, which has been vastly ignored. As have other criticisms made, which are not being enforced. Ppteles (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

As I've said a number of times, Brzezinski and Taagepera appear to both be RS's for this. Brzezinksi is an expert in international relations and this is clearly a relevant area of expertise. Historians are not the only people with expertise in this area. FOARP (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

"You keep the aggressive dialogue which is clearly against wikipedia policies" : For the last time Ppteles, stop making defamatory statements since this is against Wiki policies (see this). If you really think that my behavior goes against Wikip policies, then go ahead and report me, otherwise, stop your baseless accusations please. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

what have been your contributions other than refusing to accept an otherwise reliable source and insisting in adding OR to the article? I don’t want to report you I am asking you to stop this. Ppteles (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

"I don’t want to report you I am asking you to stop this" : You don't own this article dude, you'll have to discuss this further. Also, if you keep edit warring instead of finding a consensus, i'll report you (again).---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

first I am not your ‘dude’, so please refrain from using this type of language with me. Second, again, what have your contributions to this article been? Where were you when I asked for mediation? When tHid article was selected for deletion? When I presented a series of solutions to the article? Nowhere? You come back after a week, and after a fellow countryman of yours was blocked, also here and here, talking about something that has been settled and moreover disrupting this, confronting fellow Wikipedians in a very aggressive tone (I’m not referring to myself). And please stop menacing me too. Ppteles (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

"You come back after a week, and after a fellow countryman of yours was blocked, also here and here, talking about something that has been settled and moreover disrupting this, confronting fellow Wikipedians in a very aggressive tone" : This has nothing to do with me and again your words are personal attacks, since you consider that if some of my "fellow countrymen" were disruptive, then i'm disruptive too ! May i remember you that the one who got blocked two times for disruptive editing was you, not me. For the last time, stay cool and stop your personal attacks if you don't want to get blocked again, just a friendly advice. By the way, i'm going to wait a few days for an answer from FOARP to my question in the next section and then, i'll add back Taagepera's figure next to Brezinski's one in the table, since there is a clear consensus about the fact that Taagepera is at least as reliable as Brezinski. I strongly recommend you to avoid edit warring about this. Thanks in advance.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, C.Fred, FOARP, and Simonm223: You do not have consensus to do that, so go right ahead, thanks for warning me that you're about to start another edit war. To the administrators reading this, there is a clear warning here.Ppteles (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way I have proven that the value for Taagepera is incorrect, as can be seen here, and here ,to which, alas, I received, again, no reply. Ppteles (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, @Wikaviani:, please stop reverting this article in the aggressive fashion and tone with which you are doing it. The list clearly says 2% and this wasn't even by me but by Kansas Bear and Kleuske. Thank you.@Kansas Bear and Kleuske: -Ppteles (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I would welcome the eye of any admin or Kansas Bear here. Rein Taagepera has been identified as a reliable source by FOARP, TompaDompa, Work Permit, me and many other editors, but since you don't like his figure about the size of the Portuguese Empire, you say "he is wrong", quite just don't like it behaviour according to me. Also, i never said that i will edit war, i just said that i will add back the Taagepera's value (along with Brezinski's value) since it has been endorsed as a reliable source, i'm just waiting to gain consensus for that, nothing less, nothing more. The one who is aggressive here is not me, but you with your attacks based on the ethnicity of other editors, just like you did above. By the way, the one who is currently engaged in an edit war is you (and against two editors), not me. Good night.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Size of the Portuguese Empire

I thought it would be useful to restart the discussions regarding the size of the Portuguese empire.

The purpose of this article is to list the sizes of various empires throughout history. Implicit in this is that there is a common way to measure them. Regarding the strength of the various sources we could use, Taagepera is unique because his series of papers specifically compares the relative sizes of different empires throughout history. He defines empire size at any given time as "the dry land area it controls, at least in the sense of having some undisputed military and taxation prerogatives." His research leads him to state Portugal controlled roughly the coastal half of Brazil ( and the coastal quarter of Angola and Mozambique) at the time of Brazil's independence. He is consistent with this analysis, since he finds the independent empire of Brazil was roughly half the size it was in 1900, by which time his research indicates Brazil controlled all the land we are discussing. He was certainly aware of the entirety of Brazil's claims, so this is not just some oversight.

Having said this, we should be open to the possibility that he is wrong. His paper references two sources in a table (page 502) but does not provide information on what one of those sources are. The question is not how "large" was Brazil at the time of it's independence, but was Brazil "in control" of the territory nominally under it's jurisdiction. Absent knowing what source Taagepera used in his paper, I thought it would be useful to look at more sources and see if his assertion is credible. --Work permit (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

To that end, perhaps we could discuss sources in a structured way, as follows:

Support for effective control of entire political boundary in 1822

Bethell

• Leslie Bethell edited a series of books on Brazil, including a book titled "Colonial Brazil". This book contains a translated article titled Instrufies imditas de D. Luis da Cunha a Marco Antonio de A^evedo Coutinho (ed. Pedro de Azevedo and Antonio Baiao, Academia das Sciencias de Lisboa, Coi'mbra, 1930), 218 On page 251 of the book, a map showing the northern and western defensive systems of Amazonia and the Mato Grosso state together with a map of Brazil after the Treaty of Madrid (1750) is shown --Work permit (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The map shows 11 forts along a number of rivers and at the borders of the territory. -- Work permit (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Nunes

• There are many sources which cite a larger area. For example, ""During the colonial period, from 1500 to 1822, all of Brazil, including Rio, was part of the Portuguese Empire" (section written by Rosana Narbosa Nunes) Work permit (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This source would seem to be discussing the political boundary, since without a doubt in 1500 Portugal only occupied a small portion of Brazil. --Work permit (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for structuring the debate Work permit. About the Rosana Barbosa Nunes' source, i think we should balance what she states. Indeed, the Portuguese Empire certainly did not control all of Brazil from 1500 to 1822, since she says for example that the French occupied the region of Rio de Janeiro from 1555 to 1567, before being expelled by the Portuguese. However, this source makes it quite clear that for a time, between 1500 and 1822, all Brazil belonged to the Portuguese Empire.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, the clarification provided above should be made here. Ppteles (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Brezinsky

• A page of Zbigniew Brezinsky on pages 22-23, where there is a table with a list of the largest empires. It cites the Portuguese Empire (1815) 10,400,000 km Work permit (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This source lacks wp:context, and says nothing about control boundary vrs political boundary. --Work permit (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The Brezinsky source is not written by a historian AND is not focused on this topic, therefore, i would say it's completely unreliable here. By the way, few days ago, i was making some research on the size of the Achaemenid Empire which is 5500000 km² in the article while Brezinsky states it was 8000000 km², but i decided not to use it as a source and change the figure given in the article precisely because this source is not reliable for this topic.

I'm going to take some time to see if i can find some sources who are more explicit about the period when the Portuguese Empire controlled all of Brazil. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Brzezinski is just as reliable as Taagepera. None of them are historians. And Brzezinski also 'mentions history' in his book, same as Taagepera. I fail to see why it is unreliable.Ppteles (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I think a clarification is needed. Portugal always controlled the whole of Brazil. What it did not control at all times, was the whole of the territory which today comprises the country of Brazil. I think it is important that this distinction is made. Ppteles (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Harris

• On page 11 of his book on the 'Cabanagem' insurrection, Mark Harris provides a map of South America in 1799 outlining the borders of Colonial Brazil in this year.Ppteles (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I fixed your citation -- Work permit (talk) 04:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Albuquerque

• An atlas, which was the official book of the Brazilian Education ministry in 1977, shows economic activity across Brazil in the early colonial, late colonial, and pre republican time. Page 24 relates to the earlier colonial times, page 28 refers to late colonial times. These pages show forestry, cane sugar harvesting, ranching, mining, and the harvesting of plants for herbal remedies (in the Amazon region). Page 32 show these activities during the Brazilian empire time, where the primary economic acitivity in the Amazon region is rubber harvesting. On page 18 there is a mpa highlighting the 'bandeiras' which were organized militias of settlers who set out to expand territory and conquer it for the Portuguese Crown. Most of them left from the São Paulo region. There is an arrow showing how this expansion was also made towards the Amazon. On page 18 there is a map highlighting the forts built and Aldeias settled by the Portuguese along the Amazon river. This argues that the Portuguese did have an economic and military presence beyond the coastal half of Brazil -- Work permit (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Mitchell

• Describes the Brazilian territory in 1844 (unfortunately past the date in which Portugal controlled the country), but says the following which is appropriately sourced, page 281, "Brazil is a very extensive region [...] after being long held as a Portuguese colony, has of late, by peculiar circumstances, been formed into a separate empire.[...] In the interior, this Empire borders on every side upon the former provinces of Spain.[...] The dimensions of this immense range of territory may be taken from about 4º N to 23º S lat. and from about 35º to 73º W lon. This will give about 2500 miles of extreme length, and about the same in extreme breadth. The area of the whole has been estimated at upwards 3,000,000 square miles" (note: 3,000,000 square miles give circa 7,800,000 km^2, much closer to the actual value, and completely wrecks the assertion by Taagepera that Brazil "doubled its territory size' by 1900"(!!!!!) )Ppteles (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems that this source bases itself on the encyclopedia of Murray, below.Ppteles (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Murray, Wallace and Jameson

• In their work 'The Encyclopædia Of Geography: Comprising A Complete Description Of The Earth, Physical, Statistical, Civil, And Political', Volume 3, published in 1837, so only just 12 years after Brazil became independent, Murray, Wallace and Jameson, say the same as Mitchell (from which we can conclude Mitchell based himself on them), quoting (page 223)"Brazil is a very extensive region [...] after being long held as a Portuguese colony, has of late, by peculiar circumstances, been formed into a separate empire.[...] In the interior, this Empire borders on every side upon the former provinces of Spain.[...] The dimensions of this immense range of territory may be taken from about 4º N to 23º S lat. and from about 35º to 73º W lon. This will give about 2500 miles of extreme length, and about the same in extreme breadth. The area of the whole has been estimated at upwards 3,000,000 square miles", also, on page 222 (fig. 965) a map is provided . (note: the links leads to a later edition(?), the original was published in 1837, as can be seen here).Ppteles (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, this 1837 encyclopedia discredits Taagepera's values for Portugal and Brazil Ppteles (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Establishes treaty boundaries as does other sources. Does not establish effective control. -- Work permit (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

See my reply on Pinkerton. In my opinion the burden of proof that Portugal didn't control these areas falls on you. I've shown you cities founded, forts built, wars fought, missions and trade established in the very same areas you claim were not controlled by the Portuguese. Thanks.Ppteles (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Barman

• Quoting, from page 12: "Portuguese America, as defined by the treaty of San Ildefonso, signed with Spain in 1777, encompassed territories of nearly 3 million square miles"Ppteles (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Additional source that establishes treaty boundary, though not effective control. -- Work permit (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

See my reply of Pinkerton, Jameson, Murray etc. Ppteles (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Pádua

• Quoting, from page 93: "Unlike the United States, Brazil did not need to expand by way of treaty negotiations or military conquests to obtain an enormous expanse of Territory. The country received as its political inheritance, at least technically speaking, all of Portuguese America, a territory that already encompassed a space that was nearly the country's current size" Ppteles (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Gordon

• I've noticed that in this article, there's several different languages that reference Portugal's 10.4 number with just "Gordon (2005)" and no link provided. I've been researching and found that it could refer to Raymond G. Gordons book Ethnologue: Languages of the world which was published in 2005. Now I can't find a way to search the pages in this book, but it might mention the Portuguese Empires size in it (most likely around 10.4 million km2). Empirecoins (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking into the page history, it turns out to be this source, which unless I'm mistaken fails WP:RELIABILITY by being WP:SELFPUBLISHED. See my comment about it at #Portuguese empire size above. TompaDompa (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Pinkerton (the ultimate proof)

• @Work permit: This one completely settles it. It was published in 1807 therefore at a time when the Brazilian territory was still a part of Portugal, and I quote from page 707, "The dominions of South America, held by the small kingdom of Portugal, extend from the frontier at the French Guiana, lat. 1º 30' to port St. Pedro, S. lat 32º, being 33 degrees and a half, or 2000 g. miles: and the breadth, from Cape St. Roque to the furthest Portuguese settlement on the river of Amazons, called Sapatinga, equals, if it do not exceed, that extent*" and the footnote reads: "Da Cunha computes the length of Portuguese possessions, from the river of Pinzon in the North, to the river of San Pedro S at five hundred Portuguese leagues, that is two thousand B. miles, but as there are eighteen Portuguese leagues to the degree, each is not equal, like the Spanish, to four B. miles. He computes the breadth as of the same extent from Cape St Roque to the most western missions". I think this one pretty much settles it.Ppteles (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

A quick estimate using these values, and this calculator, which converts degrees to kms, we obtain the following values - largest N-S lenght: 3700 kms, largest E-W length: 3700 kms (conservative as the author claims it to be larger than the value for N-S). This is slightly smaller than the actual values we can find today of circa 4300 kms for both, but still settles it, since as can be seen from the link these two values are computed diagonally. Ppteles (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

established treaty boundaries I assume, as do other many other sources mentioned in this section. Does not establish the issue of control. Thank you. -- Work permit (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Usually historians prefer contemporary sources to use as primary sources to settle disputes. In this case we have an encyclopedia describing the size of South America that was 'held' by the Kingdom of Portugal. It proceeds to describing the various states, including the State of Grão-Pará and Maranhão, which you and others claim did not belong or was not controlled by the Portuguese. If you want to be even more specific, 'held' is synonymous with 'controlled'. The burden of proof in my opinion falls on you since you seem to claim Portugal didn't control this area, even if I've shown you forts, cities founded, farms, etc in that region that existed in this period. Ppteles (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Picturepedia

• My main concern now is that I know this to be right, but it seems hard to find a reliable source for the 10.4 figure. I have found this source, but am unsure whether it can be used, as it is for kids, and I ignore the policies of wikipedia in regard to such things. It's an encyclopedia for kids, published in 2015, by the famous DK publishing, having as main contributor Ann Baggaley, and somehow related to the Smithsonian. On page 322, it lists 4 major European empires by territorial extent (Britain, Spain, Portugal and Italy), and gives the value of 10.4 million km² for Portugal.Ppteles (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Not wp:rs by any measure. -- Work permit (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Bridges

• In his light reading book 'Man Facts: Fascinating Things Every Bloke Should Know', which provides lists on a huge range of topics, in the History section, Bridges gives the value 10.4 million km^2 for Portugal. .Ppteles (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

a light reading book. Not wp:rs by any measure but thank you for the observation.-- Work permit (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Mura people (wikipedia)

• I know wikipedia is not a source for wikipedia, but I think this entry is representative. There was a war between Portuguese settlers and this people in the 18th century. It is difficult to not accept Portuguese control in this area when faced with facts like these.Ppteles (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Support for partial control in 1822

Havighurst

• I've only begun looking into this. In one source I found the assertion "Although 8.5 million square kilometers were included within the political boubndaries, only a small portion of the territory was effectively organized." It is not strong, just a start. --Work permit (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This source is unreliable- Also 'effectively organized' doesn't mean 'not controlled'. In fact I would say that your source corroborates the 8.5 km^2 extent of the Portuguese Empire in America, as it should.Ppteles (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm certainly not making any claims based on it. -- Work permit (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a way to access this book "The Portuguese Empire, 1415-1808: A World on the Move" I think the maps could be of value.Ppteles (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I do, but at a different location. I'll have access to it in a few days.-- Work permit (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

COLOMER

• Josep Colomer In his book GREAT EMPIRES, SMALL NATIONS, has a table for the sizes of various empires. He quotes 6m sq km for the size of Portugal at its peak. Data about empires are taken "from four illuminating articles by Rein Taagepera." -- Work permit (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't source it. Might as well be referencing this table, therefore doing exactly what I was afraid would happen: spreading false informationPpteles (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

He does, please read References and further Reading at the end of the book. That is where references are usually cited. -- Work permit (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok his references are taagepera, just as I said. Therefore, unreliable. ;) Ppteles (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

If by "spreading false information", you mean this wikipedia page I'll note that Colmers article was written in 2007. At the end of 2007 This wikpedia article was quoting 10.4km^2. So I would say it is the reverse. Colman is an academic who looked to compare sizes of empires across time and chose to use Taagepera. -- Work permit (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Very well, but it's the same source. It's Taagepera. He took the values from Taagepera, and we have seen how they can be easily disproved.Ppteles (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

General observations

• The problem about his topic is that Brazil before independence what not just a claim in the interior states, nor was is fully controlled by the Portuguese people. I'd say I would classify it as an unorganized territory since there was untouched tribes in the amazon not influenced by the government even though the Portuguese signed several treaties giving them full ownership to those lands. However, even saying that its an unorganized territory is a stretch, as the Portuguese were present at the borders between them and the Spanish colonies; building forts along the border and fighting two wars with them in the areas. In my opinion, reducing Portugal's area is like reducing France's because they weren't fully present in the uninhabited desert lands of French West Africa, or reducing Canada's land area because of the unorganized territories of Northern Canada and the Native reserves. It just seems incorrect and unjust to me. Empirecoins (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This is why I'm keeping an open mind. You have mentioned Canada and France. I had noticed that Taagepra credits the entire Louisiana purchase to the United States in 1803, the date of the purchase. Yet the first fort established west of the Missouri river was in 1819. I believe the first permanent settlement in Nebraska was a fur trading post established in 1822 Widespread settlement of the region came even later. I am unclear on how the treatment of the Louisiana Purchase is consistent with the treatment of Brazil. -- Work permit (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Just as an FYI. In case you haven't read Taagepera, the vast majority of his sources are atlases. In his previous work he states "Empire size at any given is defined as the dry land area it controls, at least in the having some undisputed military and taxation prerogatives. This area is determined on the basis of the consensus of historians pressed through maps in historical atlases and other texts." Regarding the Portuguese empire, he mentions two sources called "LK and "E". He cites "E" as ENGEL, J., ED. (1953–1962) Grosser historischer Weltatlas.Vol. I (1953) up to AD 565; Vol. II (1958) 600–1527; Vol. III (1962) from 1477 on. München: Bayerische Schulbuch-Verlag, a german Atlas. His footnotes do not indicate what source "LK" is. For the Brazilian Empire, he just cites "LK". I have not bothered to track down ENGEL because I suspect the source for Brazil may be the unknown "LK" source. -- Work permit (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Just all the more reason to discredit his calculations. I still think we could have two or more separate tables. Or even two or more columns on the same table for each empire, showing different estimates by different authors. This kind of tables already exists in other wikipedia pages.Ppteles (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Work permit: Based on this 1978 paper by Taagepera, I believe "LK" might be Atlas zur Weltgeschichte by Karl Leonhardt. TompaDompa (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I've already debunked Taagepera's faulty calculations in here. To which I received, again, no reply. Ppteles (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, @TompaDompa:, that would make sense. Unfortunately I don’t have access to either of those sources -- Work permit (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• I looked at the relevant articles in Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition and Encyclopædia Britannica Online without any success in finding figures for the maximum extent. TompaDompa (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Historical maps by Fundação Getúlio Vargas

Missions, trade, outposts, cities, schools, seminaries controlled by the Portuguese in the Amazon region in colonial times

• I put this here for general knowledge. Still awaiting reply from other editors.--Ppteles (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes there were outposts in the 1600’s.-- Work permit (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

These are not just outposts, and this is not the 1600s it's the 1700s. The white churches represent seminaries with formal (superior) education, the small house a larger religious community, the yellow crosses a main residence, the red dots a 'fazenda' (farm) or a mission, the black dots a fort. the boats show the maximum degree of expansion. The darker areas along the Amazon river the areas where herbs were cultivated to be exported to Europe and other places. Taagepera himself, the source that seems to be preferred here, says that an empire ""any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign" and its size as the area over which the empire has some undisputed military and taxation prerogatives". Please tell me how taking this definition into account this area of the globe doesn't belong to the Portuguese Empire.Ppteles (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Your Quora article started with “The early 17th century...”,and showed a map from the 17th/18th century. Is that not correct, is this not from “the early 1600’s” and the map from 1600/1700’s?

I didn't write it, although I asked from where he got the maps, and I have them now, it's from Fundação Getúlio Vargas. He starts with in the 1600s to refer to the fact that the Portuguese started 'going west' as far back as the 16th century.Ppteles (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Wars fought with native Indians and Indian slave trade performed by the Portuguese in the Amazon region

In here you have another map showing something no one should be proud of, but nevertheless, on-topic. It shows Amerindian slave trade already in the 17th century. The areas encircled correspond to battles that were had between Portuguese settlers and natives. As you can see the area encircled in white is way inland in the Amazon, which corresponds to the War with the Muras, a war that involved the Portuguese and natives that lived along the river in that area, and guess who won it? Yep.Ppteles (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrative region showing the number of Portuguese subjects in the Amazon region and hinterlands (Mato Grosso)

In here another map of interest. Here we have the administrative divisions of the Portuguese colony of Brazil. As you can see the area that you claim wasn't controlled by the Portuguese possessed subjects of the crown of Portugal (about 100 000 people in the three administrative divisions you believe were not part of the colonies - Pará, Amazonas e Mato Grosso) who lived in this region already. And this is the 18th century.Ppteles (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Ppteles (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Notes

References

Is this an article about Taagepera or a list of the largest empires

Look, I get it. This scholar Taagepera got it wrong about Portugal. He probably only considered the second Portuguese colonial Empire which did not include Brazil. I don't know. The truth of the matter is, this isn't an article about him, it's an article about the largest Empires in History. And it is unhistorical and unethical to say things such as 'Portugal didn't control the whole of Brazil', and then delete all the sources that show otherwise claiming that they are unreliable, because it doesn't fit your world view. First, because it is not true that these sources are unreliable because they do not mention this topic. So many other sources would fall in a similar category, including those of Taagepera, who doesn't really talk about empire sizes all that much - it's a geopolitical analysis of Empires in the scope of Russian expansion especially towards the Baltic nations, of which his is a citizen. Second, if you have some kind of prejudice which doesn't allow you to see the truth, to the point that you have to delete all the source that show this as fact, then please stop 'vandalizing' this page (which you are, in a broader sense', and contribute to wikipedia in a positive way. When an article in wikipedia makes a false, unhistorical claim, such as a claim 'that Portugal did not control the whole of Brazil9, you are contributing for the spread of false information, which is ethically and scientifically wrong. So please stop doing that. And no, the 'consensus' is not that Portugal did NOT control the whole of Brazil - even if it were, it would be factually wrong, as per the sources given. Please stop. And also, please do not delete my comments. Ppteles (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Who deleted your comments? I did two edits, here [1] ,and here [2]. In neither case did I delete your comment, nor do I see anyone else who did. Work permit (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I have to admit, my concerns about the article notwithstanding, I'm honestly curious about how this page became so fixed on the work of a single political scientist. Yes, he does work on empires, some sources of his may be relevant. He's cited once at Empire and not in the section on definition. There's a preponderance of sources here. My original bemusement at WP:RS/N was because I couldn't believe that in a field as widely studied as empires there wouldn't be a diverse selection of high-quality academic sources to choose from. And yet, every discussion on this talk page either boils down to, "we aren't doing that because it doesn't match Taagepera's definition," or alternatively, "Taagepera is a crank," and neither of those is really a useful way to construct an article. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

And whenever anyone edits this page with info that discredits the works of Taagepera, it seems to be almost immediately reverted. Ppteles (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I have raised concerns over what I believe may be an attempt at WP: Pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Also, that the table as it is, may as well be a Frankenstein, based on a fringe theory. Example of 'pulling the rabbit'. Source A (Taagepera) who is clearly the preferred source says that the Portuguese empire was only 5.5 million km2 in its maximum extent. Therefore this means that Portugal did 'not control' the entirety of Brazil (this was said without any source whatsoever until I vehemently objected to it). Also the 'threshold'. Why a threshold? It is a list of empires at their maximum extent. Just the purpose of defining a threshold constitutes original research, clearly. Ppteles (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This is your interpretation of the course of events, obviously, it's not mine. Also, to answer to your comment " Why a threshold? It is a list of empires at their maximum extent. Just the purpose of defining a threshold constitutes original research", we need a threshold for inclusion, otherwise, we'll have to include any country in the list. I think that criticizing is good, but proposing solutions is better. there is a simple solution to avoid original research : for example by saying in the lead something like "this list includes countries with more than 3000000 km² at their greatest extent", just an example.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: A good guess as to why the page cites Taagepera so much is that finding WP:RELIABLE sources for the historical extents of empires is fairly difficult, and Taagepera provides values for a large number of them. I would give the same reason as to why Turchin et al. is cited so much. I'd also like to note that there are several entries where Taagepera's values aren't used, even though they could be – Turchin et al. is used for the Maurya Empire, Khazar Khanate, and Gupta Empire. TompaDompa (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

So, basically, it is ok to use values for empires from other sources. Because for a while it seemed that you disagreed with that. ThanksPpteles (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have disagreed with the use of specific sources, but as my track record shows (with for instance my 2016 addition of the Italian Empire and my recent addition of the Empire of Japan) I'm not opposed to using all other sources. TompaDompa (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I am ok with that, although I have been in disagreement with you over the sources you deem reliable or unreliable. I think, again, and a persistent criticism that is made to this page of which you've likely become the largest contributor, one should systematise the sources and the way they're presented, and hence why I believe each reference should be given a different column. Otherwise we're simply building the Frankenstein.Ppteles (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: btw, your value for the Empire of Japan seems rather off too - it seems to be covering sea areas. Other sources used on wiki give a much smaller value for the Empire of Japan. I would be inclined to use the much smaller value used on that wiki page.--Ppteles (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the reason for the large discrepancy between the values on the Empire of Japan article and this one is more likely to be that the Empire of Japan expanded a lot between 1938 and 1942. TompaDompa (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking at a map of the Japanese Empire at its maximum extent, it seems rather obvious that it was never that big. Is the figure you provide reproducible in any other work? Ppteles (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Plz,put on the list saffarid,ziyarid ,safavid ,Afsharid, Zand, Qajar, Pahlavi and Islamic Republic of iran Sasan Hero (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Dutch empire

This list of largest empires does not contain information about Dutch empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.103.12 (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source stating what the maximum extent of the Dutch Empire was, and when it occurred? There's the problem. FOARP (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Sikh Empire

The Sikh empire was 0.49 million km 2. It should be placed between the Western Satraps and New Hittite Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uni Grad (talk • contribs) 10:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018

Chola Dynasty The Chola dynasty was one of the longest-ruling dynasties in history. The earliest datable references to this Tamil dynasty are in inscriptions from the 3rd century BCE left by Ashoka, of the Maurya Empire (Ashoka Major Rock Edict No.13). As one of the Three Crowned Kings of Tamilakam, the dynasty continued to govern over varying territory until the 13th century CE.

The heartland of the Cholas was the fertile valley of the Kaveri River, but they ruled a significantly larger area at the height of their power from the later half of the 9th century till the beginning of the 13th century. The whole country south of the Tungabhadra was united and held as one state for a period of two centuries and more.[4] Under Rajaraja Chola I and his successors Rajendra Chola I, Rajadhiraja Chola, Virarajendra Chola and Kulothunga Chola I the dynasty became a military, economic and cultural power in South Asia and South-East Asia.[5] The power of the new empire was proclaimed to the eastern world by the expedition to the Ganges which Rajendra Chola I undertook and by the naval raids on cities of the maritime empire of Srivijaya, as well as by the repeated embassies to China.[6] The Chola fleet represented the zenith of ancient Indian sea power. ANANDHASUDHAN8953 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done It is not clear what you want to change. Please use the format "change X to Y" ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 09:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

@FOARP: Thanks for your above answer, However, i would draw your attention on the fact that you say that Brezinski and Taagepera are both reliable but only Brezinski's figure is listed in the article, this is why numerous editors consider this list as unbalanced. Also, Brezinski's book is not mainly focused on historical Empires, it's a piece of work about 20th century, how can this kind of book be reliable for the size of ancient Empires ? Brezinski's book contains a passing mention about the size of empires while Taagepera's work is focused about this topic, therefore, Taagepera's figures should be given here. Please let me know if you think that i'm mistaken. Thanks again.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this has to do with your grasp of the English language but the problem with this article being unbalanced is not to fo with using Brzezinski but Taagepera. So your argument is not solid. Finally stop the disruptive editing - it has been shown to you countless times that introducing an arbitrary threshold is OR. Ppteles (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

"Perhaps this has to do with your grasp of the English language" : Don't know what you're talking about, although not a native speaker, my English is enough advanced to make me understand and discuss this matter. You seem to be just out of argumments.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Running out of arguments? What you're saying is not factual. This article is criticized for excessive use of Taagepera as a source, hence why I have used Brzezinski. Ppteles (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

it has been shown to you countless times that introducing an arbitrary threshold is OR. No, it hasn't. You have asserted that it is. TompaDompa (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Of course it is, can you show me any RS that provides a threshold? But in dougt, just read the extensive list of people who have called out your attention to this. An arbitrary value for the threshold is clearly WP:OR. But I will not start an edit war with you on this one, will just patiently wait for someone to show you that, since you seem to disregard my proposals. Ppteles (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I call out the attention to the opinions stated on this page, which should be taken into account in improving this article. Especially the comments by Simomn223, FOARP, and Iridescent. --Ppteles (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not what WP:Original research is. Also: yes, I can – Turchin et al., which is cited on the page. TompaDompa (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, that is the choice of the author, and unless you are using the author as a source from the beginning you cannot have it included for the entire article, which is clearly not just WP:OR, but also WP:SYNTH as has been pointed out to you also on more than one occasion. Ppteles (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hold on, what do you think I'm arguing? Of course that's the choice of the author – you asked me for a source which uses a threshold, and I gave you one. Now it just seems like you're moving the goalposts. TompaDompa (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course not, but that is different. It would be ok if you said Turchin et al, who listed a series of Empires whose extent was larger than 1 million km2^. This is different from establishing an arbitrary threshold for the article, because that threshold in itself is not only WP:OR, but also WP:SYNTH, especially if you use the above reason that you mention. The two things are separate.Ppteles (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say. What is different from what? Which two things are separate? TompaDompa (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

You are trying to use the fact that a source used a threshold in his work to justify the use of a threshold in this wikipedia page. One thing does not translate to the other. This is an encyclopedia, therefore the articles should not contain arbitrary decisions such as those used by that author. It would be ok to cite the source saying that the author chose to use that arbitrary threshold. It is not ok to justify a threshold based on that because, again, that consists of WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH.Ppteles (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to justify the use of a threshold by citing Turchin et al.'s use of one. All along, my argument has been that a threshold should be used for practical reasons. You keep moving the goalposts, however. You said you disagreed unless the threshold was explicitly stated. Then it was changed (back) to being explicitly stated. Then you said that it was WP:OR and challenged me to provide a WP:RELIABLE source that used a threshold. I did. Then you said that a WP:RS using a threshold does not justify using a threshold here. TompaDompa (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason to have a cut-off. There just isn't. There is no point at which a list "contains too much information" on Wikipedia. One single source using such a cut-off doesn't justify using one here - it's just the cut off that that specific source uses. Wikipedia has many ways of tackling lists that are too long, including breaking them up into separate pages, hiding the tail of the list etc. There is no reason to believe, even, that this list will be too long. If we were to list every empire currently on List of empires then we would not have a list that is too long or unmanageable. "Completeness" is also not a valid reason for a cut-off - there is no requirement that lists be complete. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, i disagree, i think we should include a threshold and mention it in the lead of the article in order to make it clear. This would be better than an incomplete list or a very long list. I would suggest a RfC for this, since editors disagree. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

But what, exactly, is the basis for the 2% cut-off again? That one author used it? Whilst other authors used other cut-offs (e.g., top ten in the case of Brzezinski)? Do we really need an RfC for that? There is no limit per se to how long a list can be on Wiki, so the argument that we have to have one because otherwise it would be too long lacks basis. Indeed, we have a List of empires that we could add to this list, all of which can be ranked in size so long as there is sufficient data to do that. That list does not appear too long - roughly 200 items, not all of which would be included as not all of them will have size information. Feel free to open an RfC but I honestly can't see what the controversy is here. FOARP (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with FOARP strongly here. As it stands, the 2% cut-off seems like WP:SYNTH writ large and I would like to see it purged unless multiple reliable sources demonstrate it to have some verifiable basis as a relevant thing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Having added the smaller empires for which there is data, I think we can see that the concerns were misplaced. There is neither too much information nor does the information appear to be poorly source. Instead the article appears to be more informative. FOARP (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@FOARP: Agreed, my bad. You were right and i was wrong. Thank you for the good job here. Take care, until we meet again.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mr wikaviani,please put on the list the correct Achaemenid territorial extent that scientist brezinski has told ,correct is 8 million square killometers not 5.5 million... Sasan Hero (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani Sasan Hero (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Sassanian Empire

Sassanian Empire is 6 600 000 km² in Italian Wikipedia http://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sasanidi Amir El Mander (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amir El Mander: Hi, as you probably know, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, thus, we cannot use any Wikipedia article as a source for another. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: But that makes sense. The Empire reached it's greatest extent in 620, and it's lager than 3.5

https://www.ancient.eu/img/r/p/500x600/1190.gif?v=1485680411 I suggest you to find a reliable source for 620ad, which is mentioned in English Wikipedia too. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sasanian_Empire Thank you Amir El Mander (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the Iberian Union Needs to be Added

Hi , I think the Iberian Union should be added with a total of : 26,919,016 km² ( ‪10,393,490 mi²)

I have found a very interesting discussion were they were discussing if the Iberian Union was the Larger than the British Empire (Which is not) they also come into the conclusion making a calculation ... https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/42528/was-the-british-empire-bigger-than-the-combined-empires-of-the-iberian-union-in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4pedro42224 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyone wants to discuss this ? I think this is very important to be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4pedro42224 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The total land is wrong for the Iberian Union it is 26,919,016 km²

@TompaDompa:

For future reference, pinging doesn't work unless you sign your edit. Anyway, that figure is exaggerated by a lot. Both the Spanish and Portuguese Empire grew significantly after 1640. The majority of South America was not controlled by Europeans during the time of the Iberian Union, for instance (though most of the coast was). TompaDompa (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think there is an error in the extension of the Spanish Empire.

The maximum extension of the Spanish Empire was around 20 million Km2, not 13.7 million Km2.

Look at the image of the Abbasid Caliphate that has 11.1 million Km2 (only 2.6 million Km2 smaller than the Spanish Empire) and compares it with the Image of the extension of the Spanish Empire:

https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Spanish_Empire_Anachronous_en.svg

https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Abbasids850.png

The Spanish Empire is considerably larger than the Abbasid Caliphate, however, the article states that the difference is only 2.6 million Km2.

In addition, the maximum extension of the Spanish Empire occurred in the eighteenth century (In the article of the Spanish Empire is affirmed and with source), not in the nineteenth century.

The maximum extension of the Empire took place between 1750 and 1790, and it covered 20 million Km2.

JamesOredan (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

And the Spanish Empire was larger than the Qing Dynasty. Only Hispanoamerica is already bigger than China + Mongolia.

In addition, the article of the Spanish Empire states that there was no Empire greater than the Spanish during the eighteenth century, which contradicts that the Qing Dynasty was larger than the Spanish Empire in 1790. JamesOredan (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The source is reliable, in fact it is officially recognized and protected by the central government of Spain. JamesOredan (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The Spanish map is anachronous, so you can't really make that comparison. Maps on Wikipedia are also not WP:Reliable sources. Furthermore, the source you cite doesn't say that the Spanish Empire was the largest empire at during the eighteenth century, but that it was the largest colonial empire – the Qing dynasty was not colonial, nor was the Russian Empire (which was at all times larger than the Spanish Empire). There's also the issue of WP:RSCONTEXT – the source you removed is a scholarly article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities with notes on methodology and so on, whereas the one you added is a book on a topic only tangentially related to the one at hand which also briefly mentions a few areas. TompaDompa (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

1. The map of the Spanish Empire is impossible to be only 2.6 million km2 larger than the Abbasid Caliphate. If you look closely you can see that the Spanish Empire is considerably larger. That's why the numbers do not count. And the map of the Spanish Empire is reliable because it was prepared by an administrator and reviewed by a multitude of administrators. And the same with the Abbasid Caliphate.

2. The map of the Spanish Empire is not anaconic, if you go to the section of the seventeenth century and the Bourbons you will see the map of the Spanish Empire in one of its great extension dated 1790.

3. In agreement, it referred to Colonials, but only Hispanoamerica has an extension of 11.5 million Km2, to that add up the territories of the USA (It occupied about 60% more or less), the South of Italy, the Francocondado of France , the Duchy of Milan, Belgium, Spain, Holland, Western Sahara and other parts of Africa, the Philippines and other colonies scattered around the world, and without counting the Portuguese territories during the Iberian Union. All that accumulates more than 14.7Km2 which is the extension of the Qing Dynasty. Only Hispanoamerica is more extensive than China with Mongolia, you can check it if you wish.

4. That a scientific study be done on the extension of an Empire does not mean that it will always be correct. If you do accounts and compare them JamesOredan (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

2- Anachronistic*. Eighteen century JamesOredan (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"It occupied about 60% more or less), the South of Italy, the Francocondado of France , the Duchy of Milan, Belgium, Spain, Holland"

Only up to the Eighty Years' War (1568-1648), with the Dutch Republic declaring its independence in 1581. Dimadick (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Compare the extent of the Empires:

-Spanish Empire (Anachronic): File:Spanish Empire Anachronous en.svg -Spanish Empire (1790) File:SpanishEmpire1790.svg

-Abbasid Caliphate (850, its greatest extension): File:Abbasids850.png -Abbasid Capliphate (891-892) File:Abbasid Caliphate 891-892.png

-Qing Dinasty (Aappears its Greatest extension): File:Qing Empire circa 1820 EN.svg

It is impossible to claim that the Abbasid Caliphate was only 2.6 million km2 smaller than the Spanish Empire, and that the Qing Dynasty is 1Km2 larger than the Spanish Empire when only HispanAmerica is greater than China and Mongolia combined. JamesOredan (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but HispanAmerica and the majority of the USA remained and were later than the Eighty Years' War. And you are wrong, the Duchy of Milan and the South of Italy also remained after the war.

But really those territories were "small" and do not matter in this subject. The conclusion is that in the eighteenth century the Spanish Empire was greater than the Quing Dynasty and much larger than the Abbasid Caliphate of the year 850. JamesOredan (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Both the images to compare the empires in their apogee extension and the current source are quite conclusive. JamesOredan (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"And you are wrong, the Duchy of Milan and the South of Italy also remained after the war."

I was only referring to "Holland". Southern Italy in this context corresponds to the Kingdom of Sicily and the Kingdom of Naples.

• Sicily (which was in turns under the direct control or political influence of the Crown of Aragon since the 1280s) was in crown union with Spain from c. 1479 to to 1713.
• Naples (which was disputed between Aragon and Franse since the 15th century) was in crown union with Spain from 1504 to to 1647, and again from 1648 to 1713.

It may be out of subject, but the entire House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (which controlled the two kingdoms on-and-off from 1735 to 1861) is a cadet house of the Spanish royal family. Dimadick (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. I am not Spanish, but the history of Spain seems curious to me and I like it, I see that I am not the only one who is interested. JamesOredan (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"the history of Spain seems curious to me and I like it, I see that I am not the only one who is interested"

I worked on several of the Sicily and Naples-related articles several years ago, the War of the Sicilian Vespers (1282-1302, placing an alliance of Aragon, Sicily, and the Byzantine Empire against the alliance of France, Naples, and Majorca) is a major turning point in Mediterranean history, and I have created categories for Aragonese, Castilian, and Spanish monarchs by century.

To a lesser point, the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714) is one of the major conflicts of the 18th century, and signifies territorial losses for the Spanish Empire, instability and decline for both the Holy Roman Empire and the Dutch Republic, a threat to the dominance of the Kingdom of France in Europe, and the Kingdom of Great Britain emerging as the new leading maritime power and claiming a position as a Great power. It is kind of hard to miss the impact of Spanish history on the world at large. Dimadick (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

After the War of Spanish Succession I find it fascinating how Spain despite having lost power in Europe made great expansive progress in the New World, and how the Bourbons made a series of general reforms that revived the battered Spanish Navy after the war and legally unified the country. This allowed him to continue fighting against the United Kingdom and defending his American colonies with some skill and preventing the United Kingdom from consolidating itself as the main power.

However, in the nineteenth century the independence of the American colonies and the Napoleonic wars was a very great weakening for Spain, and also for France. The United Kingdom consolidates itself as the most powerful power of the rest of the 19th century, and will only see its weakening and fall of its Empire after the arrival of the First World War, and the Second World War poster.

It is curious that each Empire had its golden moment. In the case of Spain was the sixteenth century and part of the seventeenth and the United Kingdom in the nineteenth century and part of the twentieth. About France less, but surely he had enormous power with Louis XIV in the second half of the seventeenth century. JamesOredan (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's get back on topic. You can't use the maps, because WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Even if you could, you're using an 850 map for the Abbasid Caliphate and comparing it with a 750 figure (and for the Qing dynasty it's an 1820 map and a 1790 figure). The Qing dynasty was also not limited to China and Mongolia. It's also interesting that you assume that the figures for the other empires are correct in order to further your claim that the figure for the Spanish Empire is incorrect. Really, you seem to pick and choose which sources, figures, and maps to believe and disbelieve based on the assumption that the Spanish Empire was larger than the figure provided by the original source. Your argument is based on a whole lot of WP:Original research. Finally, while it is true that scientific articles are not necessarily correct, they are always preferable to non-scientific books in these matters. The proper course of action would be to locate a source of equal or greater quality than the one you seek to replace. TompaDompa (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The map has been created under the consensus of administrators and users, sincerely I trust them, that what I base next to the given source.

I did not say that the Qing Dynasty is only China and Mongolia, calm down. I have said that only Hispanoamerica is bigger than China and Mongolia, which is basically almost all the territory of the Qing Dynasty (It had a small part of Russia, etc ...). Because of that, it is impossible for it to be bigger than the Spanish Empire in its heyday.

And it is quite obvious that if you look at the Abbasid Caliphate it is smaller than 2.6Km2 with respect to the Spanish Empire.

A scientific study ceases to be credible when reality contradicts it, and of course I do not assume that the other Empires have their extension well, I only know that the Spanish Empire does not make sense. JamesOredan (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

In addition, the source contributed by me is accepted by the Cervantes Institute, and its author María Elvira Roca Barea has worked for the Superior Council of Scientific Research and has taught at Harvard University.

It is not a lower source as you claim. JamesOredan (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

JamesOredan (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"basically almost all the territory of the Qing Dynasty"

Quick question. Does the size of the Qing Dynasty include only areas directly controlled by it, or does it include tributary states as well? Per List of tributaries of China, the Qing counted among their tributary states:

• Tibet under Qing rule.
• Khalkha Mongols.
• Annam (province)
• Dzungar Khanate
• Kingdom of Great Britain and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
• Khanate of Kokand
• Kyrgyz people
• Joseon

=Lanfang Republic

• Lan Xang (and possibly its successors)
• Dutch Republic
• Kingdom of Nepal
• Kingdom of Portugal
• Ryukyu Kingdom
• Thailand
• Kingdom of Sikkim
• Sultanate of Sulu
• Turpan Dimadick (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"Does the size of the Qing Dynasty include only areas directly controlled by it, or does it include tributary states as well?"

Directly controlled by it. JamesOredan (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

China and Mongolia sum up to far less than 14.7 million square kilometers (not even 11.2). Your argument that says Hispanoamerica is bigger than China and Mongolia, which is basically almost all the territory of the Qing Dynasty (It had a small part of Russia, etc ...). Because of that, it is impossible for it to be bigger than the Spanish Empire in its heyday. is not consistent with your argument that 13.7 must be too low because it is lower than 14.7 – you have to decide whether to believe the figure of 14.7 for the Qing dynasty or not, and right now you're trying to have it both ways. I'd also like to point out that the 13.7 figure is for area controlled, not area claimed. The former is usually quite a bit lower than the latter. TompaDompa (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you're not understanding the point well.

The Spanish Empire had the territories of present-day Hispanoamerica which is almost the entire Qing Dynasty. (The Qing Dynasty had a small part of Russia, etc.)

Add the vast territories of the Spanish Empire in the current US, and also the Philippines, Spain itself, Western Sahara, etc ... It is quite obvious that far exceeds 13.7 km2 if we consider that only Hispanoamerica occupied 11.5Km2. And obviously it means an extension of more than 14.7km2 and it is extremely evident that it is much larger than the Abbasid Caliphate.

And I know perfectly well that what counts is occupied and controlled territory.

Your source, despite having a scientific appearance, has proved to be very inaccurate in this aspect and does not coincide with the maps or with what we know today with respect to the extension of the former colonies. While the new source in addition to being reliable agrees with both the maps and the easily deductible extension of the colonies. Therefore it is a superior source with respect to the previous one. JamesOredan (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at the numbers. I'll first go by your estimates.

• Hispanic America: 11.467 million square kilometers
• Western Sahara: 0.266 million square kilometers
• The Philippines: 0.300 million square kilometers
• 60% of the Contiguous United States (7.663 million square kilometers): 4.598 million square kilometers
• Spain: 0.506 million square kilometers

Total: 17.137 million square kilometers. In order to reach 20 million square kilometers, we would have to include almost the entirety of the contiguous US. Consequently, 20 million square kilometers is demonstrably overestimating the extent.
Now I'll go by what Großer historischer Weltatlas. T. 3, Neuzeit by Engel shows on pages 30–31 (which is the source used by Taagepera, and the basis for the estimate of 13.7 million square kilometers).

• Hispanic America less the southernmost parts of Argentina and Chile (an area roughly equal to half of Argentina): 10.077 million square kilometers
• The Philippines: 0.300 million square kilometers
• The US states of California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Montana, and Florida: 4.708 million square kilometers
• Spain: 0.506 million square kilometers

Total: 15.591 million square kilometers. Seeing as the discrepancy between this and the figure of 13.7 million square kilometers is roughly the size of the Louisiana Purchase (2.140 million square kilometers), my best guess is that Taagepera did not include Louisiana (New Spain) (whether intentionally or by oversight). This would also explain why Taagepera gives 1810 as the year of maximum extent.
It's important to recognize that what I've done above is WP:Original research. It can at best be used to ascertain the credibility of the figures provided by the sources. However, this clearly demonstrates that the figure of 20 million square kilometers is an overestimation. It also shows that the figure of 13.7 million square kilometers probably underestimates the extent, depending on how strictly "control" is defined. At any rate, 13.7 million square kilometers is not a less credible estimate than 20 million square kilometers, nor is Taagepera a less WP:RELIABLE source than Imperiofobia, per WP:RSCONTEXT – if anything, it is the other way around. TompaDompa (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's see, I'll go in parts.

1- It is important to keep in mind that my source does not claim that they are 20 million exact, but an approximation or rounding of the figures. It is very likely that they are less than 20 million km2, but that happens with any source, all are approximations, either for the rise or for the low.

2- Hispanic America without Patagonia (What you call southern Argentina and Chile) is 10,457 million km2, not 10,077 million km2.

3- In the source of "Großer historischer Weltatlas, T. 3, Neuzeit by Engel" neither Western Sahara nor other parts of Africa such as the north of present-day Morocco or Equatorial Guinea appear. And it does not even include the multitude of small colonies scattered all over the world (even in Patagonia there were) that although they were small, they were many.

4- This is probably the most important point, the sum of the states that you have offered are fine, but the extension of those states corresponds to the contemporary territorial division that the United States made to its States, the Spanish Empire not only controlled the states that you have mentioned, but also parts of very irregular extension of other States of the USA, in fact there were also small parts of the Spanish Empire that constitute Canada, to the north of Nevada. This is easy to see, because if the Spanish Empire had strictly controlled only the states that you mentioned its territory would have very straight borders because the contemporary division of the USA is based on very straight and square states.

I said that Spain controlled 60% of the US, but I meant that it controlled the majority of the US, it was just an example, so it could perfectly have controlled 70-75% of the contiguous US territory, and if you look at the map does not seem any nonsense to affirm the latter.

Look at the territory in red of the contiguous territory of the USA: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/English_Empire#/media/File:English_Empire_Anachronous_en.svg

5- Louisiana Purchase was clearly a territory controlled by the Spanish Empire, there should be no doubt about it.

6- Your source is less reliable than the current one because it does not fit with the maps. Suppose that the extension offered by the Spanish Empire is good, still has no meaning with respect to the Abbasid Caliphate, the Abbasid Caliphate is extremely smaller than the Spanish Empire and yet it is claimed to have 11.1 million km2 (only 2.6 million km2 less). And the same goes for the Qing Dynasty, it is not credible that it is bigger than the Spanish Empire when only Hispanic America is bigger than almost all of its territory. So, either the extension of the Spanish Empire must be greater or the extension of the Qing Dynasty and the smaller Abbasid Caliphate, which says little of the quality of the source. JamesOredan (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

1. This is just applying different standards to different sources. Why is it acceptable with a source that demonstrably overestimates the extent but not with one that probably underestimates it? Would not including a range of estimates be far more reasonable than solely presenting an estimate we know to be exaggerated?
2. The area not included in the map doesn't exactly correspond to Patagonia, but fine, I may have slightly overestimated the size of the excluded area.
3. No, they don't appear. That is correct. They are not acknowledged by this WP:RELIABLE source as Spanish possessions at that time.
4. I know. The Spanish Empire didn't control all of Wyoming, Montana, or North Dakota. And they controlled smaller parts of other regions. I eyeballed that those areas cancelled out. I reckon that 60% is a fairly good estimate (when including Louisiana (New Spain)) – I arrived at a similar figure.
5. I'm not arguing that it wasn't. I offered a potential explanation as to why the figure I arrived at and the figure Taagepera arrived at differed. The actual reason may be different. I'd also like to point out that your source doesn't include Louisiana (New Spain) since it says the maximum extent was around 1750 and France didn't cede the territory to Spain until 1762.
6. It does fit with the maps. Specifically, it fits with the map on page 30 and 31 of Großer historischer Weltatlas. T. 3, Neuzeit. Your source however, doesn't. It does not even cite any source whatsoever for the figure of 20 million square kilometers (it cites three sources for the list of empires—one of which is by Taagepera by the way—but the Spanish Empire is not mentioned in any of them, nor is the British Empire, the Japanese Empire, or any other colonial empire for that matter). Taagepera on the other hand cites sources and explains methodology. One of these is a rigorous approach.
   You keep claiming that the other empires were clearly smaller without backing that up – you say that Hispanic America is bigger than most of the area controlled by the Qing dynasty while writing off possessions outside of China and Mongolia (in Manchuria, Korea, Burma, Nepal, Eastern Turkestan, Vietnam...) as "a small part of Russia, etc" (you also take an extremely inconsistent approach to this – either the figure 14.7 million square kilometers is accurate in which case there clearly were significant possessions outside of China and Mongolia, or it is inaccurate in which case the comparison between the figures is moot, but you cannot have it both ways), and your argument about the Abbasid Caliphate basically boils down to "look at it". This is not to mention that comparative sizes are irrelevant, because the argument rests upon the assumption that the figures for the other empires are correct whereas the figure for the Spanish Empire is incorrect (maybe they were all smaller than the figures suggest? Maybe they were all larger than the figures suggest?). You are fitting your assumptions to your conclusion.

TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

1- My source may overestimate, but still fits more real size, while the previous source is less reliable because it does not fit with the maps and underestimates the extent too much, in fact not even Louisiana Purchase.

2- Its Patagonia. And as I said, even in Patagonia there were territories controlled by the Spanish Empire.

3- They do not appear when they were territories controlled by the Spanish Empire, interesting. Less and less reliable

4- No, it is not. 60% is just an example that I put, if you look at the map it is evident that it is quite bigger. I already explained it to you before.

5- You yourself have answered. It is spoken of around 1750, not necessarily in 1750 but around. It is also even more illogical to say 1810 as your source affirms. There is no where to believe that date.

6- No, no matter how much you insist, it does not coincide with the maps, and the rigidity of your source is quite in between, not only by me. That a source publishes its methodology does not make it true, and likewise if its methodology does not appear it does not mean that it is incorrect. Your source adapts to Weltatlas but it does not agree with the other maps, it is evident if it is compared with other empires.

No matter how hard you try to become blind, Hispan America is bigger than China and Mongolia, these two territories were not the only ones of the Qing Dynasty, I never said that, it had parts of present-day Russia. And I see that you insist on forgetting that my source is accepted by the Cervantes Institute and that its author teaches at Harvard University, stops trying to show my source as if it were a minor source. It has already been proven that no.

As much as you try to become blind to defend the lack of coherence of your source, Hispan America is greater than China and Mongolia, these two territories were not the only ones of the Qing Dynasty, I have never said that, had parts of the current Russia as the Northeast part of Manchuria, but the almost totality of the territory of the Dynasty was the present China and Mongolia. Korea, Burma and Vietnam do not belong to the Qing Dynasty. From Nepal and the eastern part of Turkestan only a very small part. With regard to the Abbasid Caliphate, I do not need to repeat again how ridiculous it is that it is only 2.6 million km2 less than the Spanish Empire. It is an evidence that your source is wrong or only with the extension of the Spanish Empire, either with the Abbasid Caliphate and the Qing Dynasty or both.

By the way, it is quite curious that despite making an interval of 13.7-20.0Km2 you still put the Spanish Empire below the Qing Dynasty that supposedly only has 14.7Km2. It is certainly curious. JamesOredan (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll be blunt: you're blatantly applying a double standard, and it's making it kind of difficult to WP:Assume good faith in this discussion. You consistently afford your source maximum benefit of the doubt while refusing to extend any to the other source.

• My source may overestimate, but still fits more real size, while the previous source is less reliable because it does not fit with the maps and underestimates the extent too much You say that it fits better. I say that it demonstrably overestimates the extent. You say that the other source doesn't fit with the maps. I believe I've demonstrated above that the value it gives for the year 1810 fits with the map on page 30 and 31 of Großer historischer Weltatlas. T. 3, Neuzeit (since that would exclude Louisiana (New Spain)). I also have to say that I find it a bit odd that you would admit that your source overestimates the extent and oppose presenting a range of estimates.
• And as I said, even in Patagonia there were territories controlled by the Spanish Empire. That's right, you said that. But we don't go by what you say, we go by what WP:RELIABLE sources such as Großer historischer Weltatlas say.
• The Spanish Empire did not control present-day Western Sahara in the 1700s. Not according to Großer historischer Weltatlas, and not according to any other WP:RELIABLE source I've seen either. Feel free to present me with one that says otherwise.
• 60% is just an example that I put, if you look at the map it is evident that it is quite bigger. I already explained it to you before. You say it's "evident". I disagree. You have to back up your assertions beyond "it is evident".
• It makes no sense to say "around 1750" if the intention is to include Louisiana (New Spain) (1762–1802). This is a prime example of you affording a lot of benefit of the doubt to your source.
• and the rigidity of your source is quite in between, not only by me. I have to admit that I am unable to parse this. What is it you're trying to say?
• you insist on forgetting that my source is accepted by the Cervantes Institute and that its author teaches at Harvard University, stops trying to show my source as if it were a minor source. Firstly, I'm not "forgetting" that – it just happens to be irrelevant to my point about WP:RSCONTEXT, i.e. that Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. (this is pretty much a textbook example of that). Secondly, I'm not trying to show your source as a "minor source", but I am pointing out that WP:RSCONTEXT specifically says not to use sources like this. It's not the source itself that is the problem, but the way you're trying to use it.
• Korea, Burma and Vietnam do not belong to the Qing Dynasty. So say you. But again, we go by what WP:RELIABLE sources say.
• With regard to the Abbasid Caliphate, I do not need to repeat again how ridiculous it is that it is only 2.6 million km2 less than the Spanish Empire. No, you don't. You need to back it up beyond just asserting it. And you need to back up how that supports your assertion about the actual extent (not just the extent relative to the Abbasid Caliphate) of the Spanish Empire.
• And finally: despite making an interval of 13.7-20.0Km2 you still put the Spanish Empire below the Qing Dynasty that supposedly only has 14.7Km2. I'll refer you to the following text which can be found directly above the table: "Where estimates vary, entries are sorted by the lowest estimate." 13.7 is less than 14.7.

The only reason to prefer your source to the exclusion of the other one is if one considers an overestimation preferable to an underestimation, which I fundamentally disagree with as it invites all kinds of WP:POV-pushing. TompaDompa (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Hello everyone. Here is a map that I have made to see how the result varies by changing the criteria. In this case, I use this general criteria: explored and claimed territories are counted (including the seas following the mare clausum doctrine), as suggested by some authors, instead of effective occupation (in which case we would also have to subtract territories from Canada or Australia in the British Empire). Effective occupation was a criterion imposed by Protestant nations precisely to circumvent the territorial allocation of lands and seas that the Pope had granted to Spain and Portugal:

Nagihuin (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The concept of this article should be reworked

The concept of this article should be reworked. I suggest making a couple of changes:

• The term Empire has a huge amount of interpretations. The article should be named as List of the largest states in history. That is a lot better. We can defently say what state is. A state is a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a certain geographical territory.
  
• The second change that I propose is, since our article will include states, to include in the article states that no longer exist, but which occupied large territories. For example, the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany (if they will meet other criteria for a list). We must not include in the articles states that occupy large territories, but exist today. For example, the Russian Federation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusTraianus (talk • contribs) 09:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2018

The Russian Empire owned Alaska until 1867 and reached its peak that same year, so their greatest extent was not 1895, but 1867. 174.27.25.236 (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Swedish Empire

Alright - where is the Swedish Empire? Should be on the list but it's not. Amend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.253.57 (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I would add it if I had a WP:Reliably sourced figure for its greatest extent. Would you happen to know where to find such a figure? TompaDompa (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Unbalanced?

Agent 86 added this template, arguing that it applies to this article because it bases its definition of "empire" on a single scholar's academic opinion. Unclear why this isn't based on a consensus of the meaning or a plain dictionary meaning of the word. It's clearly inconsistent with the wiki article "empire". I can't say I see how this makes the article unbalanced towards certain viewpoints per WP:NPOV – which viewpoints are favoured and which are neglected?

The current definition used is any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign, whereas a plain dictionary definition would be an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state (this particular one is from the Oxford Dictionary of English). A strong reason to use a broad definition like these is to avert issues with editors applying WP:Original research to determine whether any particular entry counts as an empire. TompaDompa (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2019

Uncorrect sorting by million km^2. Sorts alphabetically instead of numerically, e.g. British Empire (35.5 km^2, largest in the list) is below the Mughal Empire (4.0 km^2) and below the others > 4.0. It's maybe caused by range values (Italian Empire, 3.798–4.25) represetned as string. Solution for these could be represent first as number (3.798) and rest as string (–4.25). These values can be sorted as float numbers. Robom11 (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see an issue here. Mine sorts correctly. You can still re-sort the list by clicking on the sort icon at the top of each column. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Khazar Khanate is not listed... why??

it is listed on the world empires page. It's own page lists a size of @3.0 million square km... KuzeOri (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It actually is on the list. However, since the list sorts by the lowest estimate of peak size, it is listed at 1.0 million square km. TompaDompa (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Maximum linear extent map

This map shows the linear extent of empires following Durántez Prados' approach:

Size of empires and large countries: maximum linear extent of contiguous and continuous territory, as defined by F. A. Durántez

You're free to use it if needed.

Nagihuin (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• The metric in question was obviously concieved to yield the highest score to the Spanish Empire — it is transparently biased and hardly warrants discussion. Tuvalkin (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Indus Valley civilization

I do not think we know whether this civilization was ever united into a single empire.--Maxaxax (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The author of the paper added a note for this and some other entities that "indicates cultural areas of questionable political cohesion". Still, they decided to include it. TompaDompa (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Abbasid and Umayyad Caliphates

The Abbasid and the Umayyad Caliphates are both listed with 11.1 million square km, but the Abbasids never took control of Muslim Iberia from the Umayyads, which ruled it until the fall of the Caliphate of Cordoba in 1031. So the Abbasid Caliphate was smaller than the Umayyad Caliphate. Patriotadoseculo (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

USSR

@User:TompaDompa I don't think there is strong academic consensus about whether the USSR is an empire. If is is to be considered an empire in this context, the US should be considered so too. -- Viva Nicolás (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It is considered an empire by the source used for the timeline (which uses a fairly broad definition). So is the US, but since it was never the largest one that's purely academic. TompaDompa (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The source says "Areas of the world's three largest empires or states". This would seem to preclude the use here, since there is no consensus on the USSR as an empire. -- Work permit (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Table 2 is called "Areas of the World's Three Largest Empires Throughout History (in Mm²)", and the relevant column is labelled "Largest empire". That's plenty explicit, methinks. TompaDompa (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

Portuguese Empire was should be in the 10th spot at about 4 million square miles 2606:A000:120A:87A2:E880:B3DC:D0A1:1EA2 (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TompaDompa (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Roman empire

Your page shows the size of Roman emire way too less. It was probably not less than 6.5 million square kilometres. The Roman empire and ancient Rome wiki pages give the exact size of the empire. Proudlysaffron (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, we go by what WP:Reliable sources say, and the current figure is supported by two academic research papers, so you'd need to provide something similar to back up your claim. TompaDompa (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Can this be a reliable source for the area of Roman Empire? "Penguin historical atlas of ancient Rome" by Chris Scarre? The "Ancient Rome" wikipedia page gives an account of 6.5 million square kilometres based on this. You can check out by yourself on that page. Proudlysaffron (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I did check it out. That figure is not in that source, as far as I can tell. The figure was added back in December 2005 by an IP editor who only ever made that one edit to all of Wikipedia. By the way, I moved your comment to this section and removed the new one, and also fixed the indentation. TompaDompa (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Upper and lower Egypt

I think we should not have upper and lower Egypt on the largest empire in 3000bc. This is because, upper and lower Egypt are 2 separate kingdoms with different kings (pharaohs), cities, styles of government, etc. and this period of Egypt is very poorly attested as writing would not even be invented until around 2000bc, only being attested in later writing, which themselves are very muddled in fact and fiction. In conclusion, to make a rough estimate of the area of upper and lower Egypt would be misguided and foolish. Trajan anntonnius (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Correction-I was mistaken with the upper and lower Egypt part. My apologies. Trajan anntonnius (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you for real?

How is the brazillian empire bigger than the portuguese empire?It's basic math,Brazil left in 1822.But until then Portugal had an empire that spanned from Brazil to Macau and if you summed it up it would have given you an higher land mass than the one of Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiztea (talk • contribs) 02:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This has been brought up before. This is what the source used in the article has to say about Brazil (i.e. both the Empire of Brazil and the modern-day country of Brazil, which are considered to be a single continuous entity, much like the source treats the Russian Empire, the USSR, and modern-day Russia as a single continuous entity):

Brazil

Date	Area	Source	Notes
1822	5.0?	LK	Independence from Portugal; about one half of the present area effectively controlled by settlers
1900	8.51		Full control of present territory

On Portugal, the same source says that the area was 5.5 Mm² in 1820, with the explanatory note "Effective control over coastal half of Brazil and coastal quarter of Angola and Mozambique". So the explanation would be that not all of Brazil was effectively controlled by the Portuguese at the time of Brazilian independence, according to the source. TompaDompa (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Portugal had varying degrees of control over its internationally recognized domains just like any other empire on this list. The source is seriously mistaken. Why Spain doesn't get the same treatment? Its peak year is listed as 1810, just before Portugal reached its largest extent, with the annexation of Uruguay and the French Guiana.Edmundo Soares (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2019

Mongol empire reached 33million km2 land area in 1279. Please change the number. Thx Jack0078 (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TompaDompa (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Russian empire land

Why is the Russian empire's area shown as it was in specifically 1895 and not a year like 1855. When, it just annexed Turkmenistan and still had Alaska? Trajan anntonnius (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Per one of the sources cited:

Date	Area	Source	Notes
1825	18.4	M	Finland, E. Poland, Transcaucasia
1840	19.4	C	Kazakstan, Alaska
1870	20.5	C,M	Amur, Sakhalin seized; Alaska sold
1895	22.8	C,M	Central Asia; peak size
1906	22.5	EB	S. Sakhalin lost to Japan

Going by this, it would seem the answer is expansion in Asia after the sale of Alaska. TompaDompa (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

References

I think a more appropriate date might be 1900 when they held manchuria and port Arthur Trajan anntonnius (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

A single map

For an April fools joke, why don't we post a map overlapping all the empires at their greatest extent Trajan anntonnius (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Mongolian Empire

I don't believe that British Empire was the largest one. It seems like author tried to separate Mongol empire. Mongol Empire was included at least:

1. Yuan dynasty
2. Golden Horde Khanate
3. Timurid Empire
4. Mughal Empire
5. Ilkhanate
6. Chagatai Khanate

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bataak (talk • contribs) 06:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

See Division of the Mongol Empire. The Mongol Empire fractured into four parts: the Yuan dynasty, the Chagatai Khanate, the Ilkhanate, and the Golden Horde. Those four together covered the same area as the Mongol Empire. If you add the Timurid Empire, you end up counting the same areas twice. The Mughal Empire covered areas never controlled by the Mongol Empire. TompaDompa (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Our scientists consider Mughal Empire was originally from Mongol Empire. https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/mm.htm, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mughal-Mongol_genealogy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bataak (talk • contribs) 23:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The two were distinct political entities separated by more than 200 years. TompaDompa (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think it'll take some time to be accepted. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bataak (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

What exactly are we supposed to accept here? TompaDompa's statement above is correct and there is nothing in that linked Wikipedia article that contradicts it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this is not enough to discuss between several people (professional and non professional), we should research deeply, correctly and fairly. Until now, most of scientists already accept that Mughal was the part of Mongolian Empire, thus we have to decide based on professional resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bataak (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Saying the Mughal Empire was part of the Mongol Empire because the rulers of the former were descended from the rulers of the latter is like saying that the First French colonial empire was part of the Carolingian Empire because the Capetian dynasty could trace its ancestry to Charlemagne, or like saying the German Empire was part of the British Empire because Kaiser Wilhelm II was Queen Victoria's grandson. This is not a list of lineages or dynasties, but a list of political entities. TompaDompa (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Notes

New article and Mughal India

User:TompaDompa and others. Hello. 1) I'd like to create a new article but need help or if you can help will be really helpful. Not sure how to title it. An article that mentions about the list of top conquerors that conquered (not owned or received from his predecessors i.e. kings and rulers of the British and Mongols or Islamic empires) alone vast amount of territories and later established as an empires....i.e. conquest and empires of (ranking in terms of land size)

• Genghis Khan
• Alexander
• Timur Tamerlane
• Attila......

But not sure how to title the article. Sources we can add as obvious. Please help

2) Here, the Mughal Empire is above the Mauryian Empire, while in the article of List of largest empires in India the mauriyan is above. Yes we are aware that there are debates on whether the Mauriyan empire under Ashoka was really that big, but both article should have the same info since this is too confusing. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingorey (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

How about something like biggest territorial conquests by single individuals/military leaders. You can start with a draft. Conn Iggulden's works are reliable.--Nerocesareaugusto (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Isn't Conn Iggulden a writer of historical fiction? TompaDompa (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

FIRST MEXICAN EMPIRE

You forget the First Mexican Empire of 4.9 million sq. km. And there is an article in Wikipedia http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/First_Mexican_Empire

--213.60.225.183 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks, i will make it. Please help. Largest territorial conquests by single individuals and will also add the mexican empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingorey (talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I moved it to Draft:Largest territorial conquests by single individuals per the suggestion above that it start out as a draft and my own assessment that it's not ready for mainspace yet. TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It hasn't been forgotten, it's a matter of no WP:Reliable source for the extent having been located (yet). TompaDompa (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2019

Portuguese Empire is missing from this list. It should be the 10th one with 10.4 million km^2 EloctPT (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done It is already on the list, with the figure 5.5 million km² sourced to a scholarly source specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. Do you have an at least equally high-quality source for the 10.4 million km² figure? TompaDompa (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Please check your sources. It blows my mind the amount of errors in this wikipedia page. It is undeniable that the Portuguese Empire controlled and even created Brazil's borders almost identical as they are now. That alone is enough to prove this is wrong. Brazil is ranked 11th on the list, Portugal owned half of south america and much more, but it is ranked 21st.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EloctPT (talk • contribs) 13:09, November 26, 2019 (UTC)

EloctPT, we make changes such as you request based on what is said in reliable sources. When factual information is cited to such a source, then we need to see other sources that substantiate the change you want made. If this is as undeniable a fact as you say, you can bring those sources here and they will be considered against the original. The best way to do this is to start a separate discussion here on the talk page laying the old information, the new information, and why you think one source is more reliable than another. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Habsburg

The sources for the extent of Habsburg Monarchy ([3] and [4]) are both from publishers listed at Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business (Trafford Publishing and lulu.com, respectively – the latter is also listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as blacklisted and generally unreliable). I have tried to look up the respective authors (Rocky M. Mirza and Francesco Rocco Ruggeri) to see if either is an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications which would make the use of those sources acceptable per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources, but I can find nothing to support that. Hence, I have removed the sources and the entry (which would otherwise be completely unsourced). TompaDompa (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Portuguese empire

The Portuguese empire's largest extent was right before the independence of Brazil in 1822. This was the size of the empire at the time

https://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/0/0b/Portuguese_empire_1800.png

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Portuguese_Empire#The_wealth_of_Brazil_.281640-1822.29

It encompassed a territory the size of the empire of brazil(which in the list is ranked at 11th) + territories in africa and asia such as goa,macau,timor leste,etc.

In total it was about 4.02 million square miles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygglow (talk • contribs) 11:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been brought up before. This is what the source used in the article has to say about the Portuguese Empire:

Portugal

Date	Area	Source	Notes
1820	5.5	LK,E	Effective control over coastal half of Brazil and coastal quarter of Angola and Mozambique
1822	.5		Brazil independent

So the explanation would be that not all of Brazil was effectively controlled by the Portuguese at the time, according to the source. TompaDompa (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's a map of the iberian empires in the american continent in 1790.https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_the_Portuguese_Empire#/media/File%3AImperios_Espa%C3%B1ol_y_Portugu%C3%A9s_1790.svg

That was the portuguese territory claimed and recognized by spain and other european nations.If you're gonna use the argument of Portugal not actually owning those places then you have to apply the same judgement for the british and spanish empire. That region was part of thr portuguese empire,the reason those borders were even marked was because thr portuguese bandeirantes had reached that zone,a treaty between portugal and spain was signed to form those borders.

I don't know who removed portugal from the top 10 spot because that's where it was a year or two years ago but the editor used a pretty weird source from non-contemporary non-portuguese source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygglow (talk • contribs) 09:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the one making that argument, the source is. And it does indeed make the case that the other empires did not have effective control over all the territory they claimed in the early 1800s – the note for Argentina's area in 1816 reads "Independence from Spain; about one half of the present area effectively controlled by settlers", for instance. As for using non-contemporary, non-Portuguese sources: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such relies primarily on WP:SECONDARY sources. This is in contrast to academics, who mostly use WP:PRIMARY sources (at least when possible). TompaDompa (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You have removed something that was deemed as being actually a good source here:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=List_of_largest_empires&oldid=902036753 It was deemed as a good source here: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_largest_empires&oldid=861208463 "This is a silly argument. Brzezinski is clearly an expert on international relations, a field entirely germane when it comes to the subject of empires. That his figures do not agree with those of Taagepera does not make one right and the other wrong, it just means their estimates are different - so cite both. There is no mystery as to how Bzezinski arrived at his figure (he included Brazil as a whole) so we do not need to ask how it was arrived at. FOARP (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)" @FOARP You did so unilaterally, and as such I believe it could be deemed as vandalism. You should reconsider this and reinstate the page accordingly. Ricardo S1978 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I stand by the point I have made previously: One of the sources is a scholarly source specifically about the territorial extents of historical empires, whereas the other is a book about 21st century geopolitics. See WP:RSCONTEXT: Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. In cases like this, we use the WP:BESTSOURCES in order to avoid giving WP:FALSEBALANCE. TompaDompa (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

However there was consensus, you were alone in your perspective and the source was deemed usable. Still, you waited a few months to unilaterally remove it. Please put it back as it was. @FOARP: @Wikaviani: what do you think about this, was TompaDompa correct in making this edit? Ricardo S1978 (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I suppose your not replying means that you know what you did was wrong. The reference was deemed a good one by more than one person. If i receive no reply from you I will proceed to inserting it back again. --Ricardo S1978 (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The reason I didn't reply was that you asked two other editors to reply, and they hadn't (and still haven't). Where you see WP:CONSENSUS, I don't. More than one editor thought it was an acceptable source to use, and more than one editor thought it wasn't a good source (Wikaviani and Work permit made the same argument as I did here). TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The revert was made which means that there was indeed consensus. Wikaviani later agreed that the source was a good one. In the end you accepted the change too which means that effectively there was consensus. Again, please change it. Finally why did you wait MONTHS to change it back, unilaterally without asking others if this was ok? Ricardo S1978 (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you and I have very different ideas about what WP:CONSENSUS looks like. Looking at the archives I also don't see where you got the idea that @Wikaviani: later agreed that the source was a good one, but I'll let them speak for themself about their opinion on the matter. The reason I waited to make the change was that I didn't want to be involved in an WP:EDITWAR (which one of the involved editors got repeatedly blocked for at the time, mind you), and the reason it took several months until I finally did was that it took a while for the edit warring to subside and then it slipped my mind. I didn't ask for permission to make the change because I saw no need to; I made a WP:BOLD edit to improve the page, fully prepared to discuss it further if my edit were to be reverted (which it wasn't).
Really, the bottom line is this: of the two sources discussed, one is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities which outlines its sources and methodology, whereas the other is a book about 21st century geopolitics that also happens to have a table of historical empires' greatest extents, while citing no sources and providing no information about how the figures were arrived at. The table is about a completely different subject than the rest of the book and as far as I have been able to tell, the table isn't commented on in the text and the subject of historical polities' territorial extents is not mentioned anywhere else in the book. That is about as clear as it gets with regards to WP:RSCONTEXT, which says Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. If one is unable to tell from that that the former source is by far more WP:RELIABLE for the subject of the territorial extents of historical polities, I don't know what to say. The difference in reliability is so great that citing both becomes a WP:NPOV issue by creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. TompaDompa (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Difference between empires and nations

What seperates an empire like the Roman empire and a country like Russia which could easily surpass these ancient empire? And city states in Mesopotamia like Legash should be removed as they didn't declare themselves an empire and didn't even have a considerable area or influence for an empire. Trajan anntonnius (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That is a good question that has been asked before (see here, for instance) but hasn't really been answered definitively. In practice, we seem to go by something like "an empire is a political entity that is called an empire by reliable sources", though it is not entirely consistent. A consequence of this is that because one of our main sources defines "empire" extremely broadly (that would be Rein Taagepera – two of his papers use any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign, and one omits the word "relatively") and goes on to list a large number of political entities that meet that definition (by his reckoning, and I suppose also by the ones who peer-reviewed those particular articles) including several even fairly small ones like the aforementioned Lagash, we end up including basically anything we have a good source for the area of. TompaDompa (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Revert edit that removed a reliable source from Portuguese empire

I am asking @FOARP: @Wikaviani: specifically to make this change, since TompaDompa unilaterally removed this when it had been previously considered a reliable source. Given that @Eggishorn: has chipped in I also ask for his help after he reads about what happened (the source was unilaterally removed by TompaDompa after it was deemed a good source by other people. --Ricardo S1978 (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

||Second Portuguese Empire
|5.5–10.4
|2.12–4.02
|3.69%–6.98%
|1820 or 1815

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I believe that the Brzezinski source may be conflating what it calls the "Portuguese Empire" with that of the Second and Third Portuguese Empires and possibly even the Iberian Union, which are numbers 19, 65 and 11 on our list, respectively. Our list makes those distinctions; Brzezinski's does not. I also don't believe Brzezinski to be an "expert" on the matter, or those distinctions would not have been lost on him. In any event, consensus for this change should come before the request for a change is made.  Spintendo  14:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of James343e edits

James343e, I have a lot of sympathy with TompaDompa's first reversion. This is a very hard article to maintain in a full encyclopedic standard as the terms/definitions are so complex and broad. While there are many sources online about this topic, there are fewer high-quality academic sources (surprisingly, imho).

I don't want this article to end up like another one of the various random "lists of largest empires" on the internet that are broadly right for the top 10, but useless thereafter. Therefore, we need to maintain a very high bar regarding the mixing of apples and oranges on definitions and sources. The debate here should be focused on discussions over various notable academic works on the topic. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

There are several issues at play here. Firstly, the source cited for the area does not say 22.4 million km², it says 20 million km². Secondly, it says that the peak was around 1750. Thirdly, the source cited for the year does not say that the Spanish Empire reached its maximum extent in the year 1600. Fourthly, neither source passes WP:RSCONTEXT, which says Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. This edit cites two sources that are not WP:RELIABLE for the material they are meant to support, misrepresents both, and combines them improperly. Undoing it should not be controversial. TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)