Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Remove Portuguese Empire from list

Since WP:CheckUser blocked, see block log. TompaDompa (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The Portuguese empire never called itself an empire, it was a multi-continental state, so it should not be referred to as an empire, if the Portuguese constitution of the Monarchy until the Republic said that Portugal was a multi-continental state, it cannot be included in that list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluricontinentalism, No exist any book between the 14th and 20th centuries, which says that Portugal was an empire, but a pluricontinental state, from the reign of the year 1777, nobody knows everything about the countries so I thought this kind of attitude was normal, but this is English wikipedia, but from what I see neither the British books that study countries over time, especially Portugal, which was its oldest ally, there is a lot information available, but I didn't see any of that mentioned in this list, but it would be very useful for this list even for the confidence of the readers who read an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8a0:fe8f:8b00:502d:f181:64ce:28a7 (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC) Whether the political entity called itself an empire is not the criterion we use for determining whether it should be included. The definition given in the WP:LEAD is any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign. Moreover, WP:Reliable sources refer to it as an empire. The case in favour of removing the entry is groundless. TompaDompa (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC) Ok, I understood what you told me, in fact this is true and I verified that there is, I have a doubt, however, if you can clarify, I understand that the measures in the list are per year, the results of which vary greatly according to the years, this is the criterion of the list, but is there a reliable author who measures the complete empires? or any list already created that makes a complete measurement? 2001:8a0:fe8f:8b00:502d:f181:64ce:28a7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:FE8F:8B00:38CE:A016:E0F7:77E7 (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Kanem empire

Hi, just wanted to know if theres any reason to why the Kanem Empire isnt included here — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcibFel (talk • contribs) 02:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Just a heads-up: by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment, it is automatically signed with your name and the time you added it, which makes it a lot easier to follow the conversations on the talk pages.

Anyway, about the list: all entries need a WP:RELIABLE source which provides both the area of the empire and the year the empire reached that area. The source cited for the Kanem Empire only provides the area, not the year. I added it to the #Empires with sourced areas but without dates section of this talk page. I did add the Bornu Empire to the article itself, however, as that source provided both area and year (the year the book was published, as it speaks of the Bornu Empire in the present tense).

Happy editing! TompaDompa (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2021

2A01:E0A:45A:F530:6D1B:F261:5F8F:BE79 (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Je demande a modifier cette page a l ecole on ma dit que l empire francas possedait 13/ du monde pour l empire britannique c est juste Le 1er empire possedait 13/ du monde je veut dire

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. additionally, this wikipedia is in english, you may try to check out the french wikipedia though (below text is translated through google)

Pas fini: veuillez fournir des sources fiables qui soutiennent le changement que vous souhaitez apporter. de plus, ce wikipedia est en anglais, vous pouvez essayer de consulter le wikipedia français cependant (traduit avec google)   melecie   t 12:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese Empire - Again

There's alot of maps of Brazil before independence , some of the maps are contemporary and some are from the 19th century (made in the 19th century but about the size of the portuguese empire in that region before independence) that showcases the size of the land owned by the portuguese in that region. This lands added to the other portuguese territories would clearly give the Portuguese Empire at the time a size of more than 5.5 million km2, more than 8 million km2 and maybe more than 9 million km2.

https://collections.leventhalmap.org/search/commonwealth:6t053s188 https://archive.org/stream/recenseamento1920intro/RecenGeraldoBrasil1920_v1_Introduccao#page/n429/mode/1up https://en.calameo.com/read/00289932775e3ad6157fc?authid=Y02chZI68oDw (pag 139) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mapa_Geografico_de_America_Meridional_(1790).jpg (Mapa Geografico de America Meridional, dispuesto y gravado por D. Juan de la Cruz Cano y Olmedilla, Geogfo. Pensdo. de S.M. Individuo de la R. Academia de Sn. Fernando, y da la Sociedad Bascongada de los Amigos del Pais, teniendo presentes Varios Mapas y noticias originales con arreglo a Observaciones astronómicas ( Año 1775.) Londres, Publicado por William Faden, Geografo del Rey, y del Principe de Gales, Enero 1 de 1799.) - Made by William Faden (contemporary cartographer). Ygglow (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Wikipedia policies on original research? We can't study documents and come to our own conclusions on facts. We must (see WP:42), summarise conclusions from quality third party independent sources. Posting source maps here is unfortunately of no use to this article. Britishfinance (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

All I see here is an article being based around the work of one person, so one source, WP:1R. Multiple authors define empires and its land sizes in different ways, the main editor is using Rein's definition because it "allows" him to make a list since he is using a secondary source and it's related to the subject, however, I still consider it insufficient and more sources on every single empire's land size should be used, until then we should refrain from making this article as it is not notable enough. WP:GNG - It has not received significant coverage. Ygglow (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to dispute anything I said here, TompaDompa or Britishfinance? Ygglow (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The idea that this topic is not WP:Notable is certainly a novel one, and to my eye so obviously incorrect (just based on the sources on the article itself as well as the talk page) that I'm rather surprised that anyone would make that argument. If that's the conclusion you've come to based on your assessment of the existence of sources per WP:BEFORE, however, the proper venue to make that argument is WP:AfD. Notability has not really been discussed in-depth in any of the previous AfD discussions, so it's not like it would be relitigating something that has already been settled. That is to say that I don't think a WP:DELREASON#8 nomination could be considered vexatious, but I do think it would be misguided. It is of course ultimately up to you whether you decide to nominate the article for deletion on these grounds or not. TompaDompa (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This is all beautiful and all however the article bases itself on one source base and the main editor of this article does not make an active effort to acknowledge other inputs and does not contribute with sources other than Rein's and because of that, the whole article's narrative is based on Rein's interpretation of what an empire should be classified as and how should its territories be quantifiable. Ygglow (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Folks, the idea that only about half of the Portuguese empire should be counted is profoundly silly. For starters, I can't help but wonder how on Earth can that specific number for 1820 be arrived at. Secondly, many of the empires here absolutely did not have anywhere near the effective control of their territory as listed (did the Mongols or Russia have effective control of the entire tundra?), yet here they are at their fullness, but only the Portuguese one gets contested. Thirdly, the maps of Brazil shown above aren't just vain unilateral claims drawn on paper - they were not only agreed upon at a diplomatical level with foreign powers who might contest it, namely Spain, but were heavily fortified as well in order to enforce those claims. There are maps on the web that display the military occupation of the deep Brazillian hinterland by the Portuguese, undertaken to prevent anybody else from claiming the same territory. I do mean fortresses built in the middle of the Amazon jungle. Therefore, let us find a source that details how much territory was recognized as belonging to the King of Portugal in 1822, list it in the correct place, and be done with it please. Wareno (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll refer you to this comment I made slightly less than a year ago (it can also be seen at Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 10#The portuguese empire size). In short, a source that details how much territory was recognized as belonging to the King of Portugal in 1822 would not be of any use to us, because this list isn't based on territorial claims or international recognition, but rather on effective control. What to count as effective control is always debatable, which is why we leave it to the sources (doing it ourselves would be WP:Original research). TompaDompa (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Some of the empires here are clearly not listed according to just how much land they "effectively" controlled (how on earth do you even determine how much territory the Xiognu or the ancient Achaemenid empire effectively controlled? And is it realistic to assume those ancient polities had effective control over the entire territory they claimed, I mean really?), and seems like only the Portuguese one is actually being subject to that distinction. Furthemore, the source says the Portuguese had "Effective control over coastal half of Brazil"; so it had no control at all over the inland half, even though they fortified the area? Unless simple logic is considered "original research", that source is flawed, and the number that comes with it not legitimate. Wareno (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The source in question is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities—just about the highest-quality, most WP:RELIABLE source we can get for this. If you want to know how the figures were arrived at, I can recommend reading these papers by Rein Taagepera (the principal source for this article), where he outlines the methods and definitions he uses. In particular, I'd draw your attention to this passage from the latter: the color patches in historical atlases indicate a widespread belief that some territories can be assigned to some political entities, from 3000 BC on, and this notion has been extended to the populations of these areas in atlases of population history (e.g., McEvedy and Jones, 1978). There is fair agreement among the atlases on the identity and extent of the attributions, reflecting some consensus among the historians more generally. An imperfect but operational definition for the present purposes might be that polities are indicated by the different colored patches in historical atlases. This is less flippant than it may sound. We often have a consensus on recognizing features (e.g., human faces) that we cannot easily define. TompaDompa (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the premise upon which they are based upon is flawed. If you wish to quote the part where they speak about the Portuguese case specifically, go right ahead, but evidently the Portuguese had greater control of the territory than what they are simply given credit for, peer-reviewed or not. The only thing left is to find a source that actually attempts to analyze the issue with some level of seriousness. If I come across one before anyone else, I'll go ahead and change it. Wareno (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. That's about as WP:RELIABLE as it gets. The source does not become less reliable because you disagree with the criteria it uses. If we want to change what the entry says, we have to find a source of at least equal quality, and that is quite a tall order. TompaDompa (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You'll find that a "peer-reviewed scientific article" that bases its argument on a premise that is verifiably false is very much not reliable, even if you think that's just me disagreeing with the criteria. Wareno (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said before, it's quite a leap (and indeed, WP:OR) to assume that all the territory between the cities and forts was effectively controlled. [...] This of course demonstrates that the Amazon basin was not entirely unexplored, but it does not prove that the Portuguese had effective control over the entirety of modern-day Brazil. Control is not a simple binary where there is either no control (e.g. unexplored territory) or full control over the area – it's possible to have some control over an area without being fully in control of it (e.g. having a military presence but no power to collect taxes or being able to extract natural resources but not enforce the law). Ultimately, it's not up to us Wikipedia editors to decide where to draw the line – we leave that to the sources. TompaDompa (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, we should definitely leave it to the sources... I think the level of reliability of the current ones have already been made quite evident to all, thank you. Wareno (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course we leave it to the sources; WP:No original research is a WP:Core content policy. Sources may decide to include or exclude territories at their discretion based on whichever set of criteria they choose to apply, and it is not for us to say that they ought to have decided otherwise. If we disagree with the way a source arrived at a figure for the maximum extent of a particular empire, we should focus on locating a higher-quality source which provides a different estimate rather than arguing about what the "right" way to treat that particular empire's extent is. In this case, "higher-quality" basically means a WP:RELIABLE source that explicitly states that the academic consensus is at odds with Taagepera's perspective. TompaDompa (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely!! All that's left to do now is find them and correct the numbers, thank you. Wareno (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Since WP:CheckUser blocked, see block log. TompaDompa (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: Sorry but only historians understand history, Rein Taagepera is not a Historian is a Estonian politician who studied in Morocco, totally unreasonable, even more unwise to make a list almost entirely with his sources, with so much historian and scientist out there, nobody will believe this list because it denies the story itself. What does a politician understand about history? nothing. I advise you find serious and reliable sources of history for this article to avoid future problems, and if the article is called "list of largest empires", when they have empires with 0.6, it is absurd, i advise to insert only the biggest empires and not all empires, because otherwise it would not have the names "list of largest empires", about the Portuguese empire an easy search is enough to know that there is no other source with this measure, this is the only source with this measure of the Portuguese empire, if you want a more famous scientist and politician, I know others more famous than Rein Taagepera and who did studies on empires, even Rein Taagepera himself doubted that measure he put in ???. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:FE8F:8B00:8C64:32E1:EDF2:57D1 (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC) If you have better quality sources on the consistent ranking of largest empires, please list them here for consideration. Britishfinance (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC) @Britishfinance: Yes I know 2 good books from the University of Oxford, which has the measure and extension of empires by date, it is a general study of empires, and it talks about each empire, is undoubtedly very complete. They explain each empire by Territory, Population and Distribution, and the book have lists of the greatest empires and their dates. Volume 1 and Volume 2. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-world-history-of-empire-9780197533970?lang=en&cc=en;for this list, I think that the information from volume 1, arrives well.(2001:8A0:FE8F:8B00:F0:6B8E:6974:7F52 (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)) The Oxford World History of Empire: Volume One: The Imperial Experience uses Taagepera as its source for the area though, as seen here. TompaDompa (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC) I see this a lot with this article, when a decent RS is produced, Taagepra is really its source? However, TompaDompa, should we incorporate such RS into into the article, and how they use Taagepra as their source? Britishfinance (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC) I don't know, did you have any particular way of doing so in mind? TompaDompa (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Maybe have a separate intro section on the sourcing of this (not just the lede), expanding out the other sources that really use Taagepra's work? A while back I looked for non-Taagepra sources that did an apples-to-apples ranking of empires, and could not find any? The ones I thought were seperate, actually came from Taagepra? Britishfinance (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply That could work, but we would have to be careful not to create a WP:COATRACK. I'll have to think about it before I decide whether I think it's a good idea. TompaDompa (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC) @Britishfinance::@TompaDompa: They use Taagepera source, in addition they use other sources also, but you want a source that does not include Taagepera, is that it? Several authors use the Taagepera source, to rectify the source as Taagepera are not sure about the areas of some empires, just as Taagepera himself uses sources from other authors in his study, each author has their own opinion, it's just a matter of believing or not in the study, what do you have in mind to rectify some areas of some empires ?, in my opinion it would be advantageous to put other sources to complete some empires, it can become a more relaxed article in terms of discussion, which would cause less editing and disputes on the part of general users.(2001:8A0:FE8F:8B00:F0:6B8E:6974:7F52 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)) Having taken a closer look, I see that some modifications drawn from more recent scholarship have been made (see page 91). Specifically, they come from "Cioffi-Revilla, Rogers, Wilcox and Alterman 2011, 103, table 1" (i.e. this source) and "Etemad 2007, 134–187" (i.e. this source). These are both somewhat dubious for the purposes of this list as the former does not provide the year (singular, not plural) for which the respective area estimates apply and the latter doesn't attempt to find the maximum extents for the empires but rather compares different empires at a few specified years such as 1760, 1830, and 1880. At any rate, I have added the estimates that differ from the ones already on the list. However, I'm not convinced that The Oxford World History of Empire should be considered an equal-quality source to Taagepera and Turchin (et al.), since it is a WP:TERTIARY source with some dubious ways of synthesizing the area figures whereas the others are peer-reviewed scientific WP:SECONDARY articles about the areas. TompaDompa (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Another Empire ...!

Hi, or maybe not. Just wondering about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Norway_(872%E2%80%931397), which at least the Danish WP claims was the largest in Europe (at the time, I guess, probably not largest ever, and also measured by area, not population). Most sources are in some Scandi language,though; finding good refs may be hard. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

United States, Russia, China

The states of the United States of America are sovereign, and thus the US does not fit the author's defintion of "empire." Three of the largest empires of all time, the Russian Federation, the Soviet Union, and the People's Republic of China do fit the author's definition, yet they are not included in the list. This looks like political hate speech to me. This article is clearly not technically rigorous or original in any way, which suggests that the person who wrote it has an ulterior motive, so who wrote it and why? It's not unlikely that the person who wrote this article is working for the Russian or communist Chinese government, who are always looking for new ways to slander the US because they are a led by insecure megalomaniacs. Citizen127 (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Whether the US should be included has been discussed as far back as 2006, and has been discussed many, many, many, many, many, many times since (non-exhaustive list of previous discussions). For what it is worth, the chief source for this article and the author of the any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign definition—Estonian political scientist Rein Taagepera—considers the United States to be (or at least have been) an empire by that definition.

The Russian Federation, the Soviet Union, and the People's Republic of China are actually already all mentioned on the list, albeit in footnotes as successors to the Russian Empire and Qing dynasty or their successors in turn.

This article is the product of years of collaboration between editors, so there is no single person who wrote it. At any rate, I suggest you read WP:AGF. TompaDompa (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with your point Citizen127, it seems that every time the USA is removed from the page someone re-adds, which leads me to believe someone, not everyone wants it to be on this page. The Soviet Union should totally be on here, Russia as well, it is made up of small republics and autonomous oblasts, so why is it any different. I agree the US should be removed and the Soviet Union, Russia and possibly China (I haven't researched their situation enough). Odam Maloof (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Why the United States really shouldn't be added, and why New Zealand should.

Hi, I don't want anyone to think that I'm being racist or anything but here's a good reason to not add the United States (or technically remove it). The realm of New Zealand, by the definition being used here is therefore an empire. It is relatively large, at 718,218 km² it is not the smallest on this list. It is arguable whether some of the islands they control are in fact sovereign, the point stands. I think that if you are keeping the US you need to add not only Russia, China and NZ, but also the current United Kingdom, France (current) and the Netherlands, while they are significantly smaller than they used to be they still govern overseas territories as if they were. Thanks for your time. Also, the Soviet Union is listed in the largest empires at the time section, but not the list of largest empires by land area. Odam Maloof (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It's dubious if New Zealand is "relatively large" by today's standards, even if it is bigger than e.g. the Aztec Empire was. The area figure you suggest is also way too large—Antarctic claims aren't included for any other empire (e.g. the British Empire) and for good reason, seeing as no empire has ever had undisputed military and taxation prerogatives (the definition for area outlined in the WP:LEAD) over any portion of Antarctica (and the percentages we calculate do not include Antarctica in the world's total land area). I don't understand your focus on overseas territories, that seems completely irrelevant. I think it's a bit odd to argue that the US should be removed but New Zealand should be added—are you suggesting that US states are sovereign but the Cook Islands are not? Also, the Soviet Union is already in List of largest empires#Largest empires by land area, in a footnote at the Russian Empire's entry as its successor. TompaDompa (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

References

soviet union listed as an empire

soviet union being a successor state of the russian empire, doesnt mean it is also an empire. the inclusion of soviet union to the list seems politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guccirajappan (talk • contribs) 06:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2021

Lalitaditya Muktapida’s empire should be added to the list of largest empires sources are https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UmnUFZoNYi8 and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lalitaditya_Muktapida. Ekdothinchaar (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 Note: We need a specific source that states the following:

-the maximum land area, in square kilometers, occupied by Muktapida.

-the year(s) that Muktapida occupied this land via his empire.

Please provide that information with a reliable source. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 18:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Mauryan Empire listing is wrong

Both in the list by population and area , Mauryan Empire listing is incorrect. For the all the Empires thier peak period has been considered. At 250 BC , mauryan empre had around 5 Million Km square area. Trueroad7 (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It's on the list with two different estimates for its peak area – a lower estimate of 3.4 million km² and a higher one of 5.0 million km². Both sources are WP:RELIABLE (if anything, the source for the lower estimate is a higher-quality source), and therefore we provide both estimates as a range. TompaDompa (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

mauryan empire full size

mauryan empire s full size should be shown which is roughly 5 million sq kilometres — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It's on the list with two different estimates for its peak area – a lower estimate of 3.4 million km² and a higher one of 5.0 million km². Both sources are WP:RELIABLE (if anything, the source for the lower estimate is a higher-quality source), and therefore we provide both estimates as a range. TompaDompa (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

mauryan empire and gupta empire

there is no lower estimate of mauryan empire

both the geographical extents belong to different time periods for example roman empire even roman empire has different time periods but only the largest extent is mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire

here are the sources the article mentions that in 250 bce- mauryan empire s total area was 3.4 million sq km and in 261 bce it reached around 5 million sq km please update it http://jwsr.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/jwsr/article/view/369/381

urchin, Peter; Adams, Jonathan M.; Hall, Thomas D (December 2006). "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires". Journal of World-Systems Research. 12 (2): 223. ISSN 1076-156X. Archived from the original on 20 May 2019. Retrieved 16 September 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.41.67.133 (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You're mistaken – 3.4 million km² is an estimate of the peak size. See the cited source, in particular Table 4 on page 132 and Figure 1 on page 118. TompaDompa (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Not true Not for gupta empire at least Gupta s empire s maximum is clearly stated to be 3.5 There's are no lower estimations Only different times Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We cite two different sources:

• Turchin, Peter; Adams, Jonathan M.; Hall, Thomas D. (2006). "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires and Modern States" (PDF). Journal of World-Systems Research: 219–229. doi:10.5195/jwsr.2006.369. ISSN 1076-156X.
• Taagepera, Rein (1979). "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D." Social Science History. 3 (3/4): 115–138. doi:10.2307/1170959. ISSN 0145-5532.

The former gives higher estimates (3.5 for Gupta, 5.0 for Maurya), and the latter gives lower estimates (1.7 for Gupta, 3.4 for Maurya). We present both, since both sources are WP:RELIABLE. TompaDompa (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

About the reliability of the list

Blocked WP:SOCK, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesOredan/Archive#21 August 2021. TompaDompa (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The Lead itself already suggests admitting that the List is not exhaustive and that is why there are no rankings. I just want to add that's also because almost literally the entire article comes from single author measurements, which are not particularly modern by the way. Although the author is supposedly "rigorous", the article lacks too many other authors and studies to be reliable. Nor is land area a "perfect" measure, because it completely ignores the dominance of empires over the seas and other portions of water, which were in some empires very important domain areas. Nevertheless, I agree with the current measure (land area), but it is far from accurate as suggested, to be honest. Itagnol (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC) We use the WP:BESTSOURCES. This means that where possible, we use peer-reviewed scientific articles specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, though such sources are naturally in short supply. I don't think it is self-evident that using more disparate sources would ipso facto improve the "reliability" of the list. The main reason we give no rankings is the inherent uncertainty in the area estimates, which is mentioned in the WP:LEAD—that the list is not exhaustive does not really play a significant role in this regard near the top of the list. TompaDompa (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2021

My request is to add the United States of America. With 4,788,930 square miles in 1943.

From the youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j-q-9Lkp5s Oofalladeez343 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done That's not a WP:Reliable source. The United States is already included in a footnote as one of the former colonies of the British Empire, with its greatest extent being 9.67 million km² in 1899. Those figures are from this source (page 501), which is reliable. TompaDompa (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Data Issues in the Main Source?

According to the Rein Taagepera source, the Ottoman Empire's stated size reaches 5.2 million km² in 1683, 1820, and again in 1850. He primarily cites the 1961 edition of Muir's Atlas of Ancient and Classical History for his Ottoman statistics. This glaringly exceeds Taagepera's 5.0 million km² statistic for the Roman Empire, which by most accounts was much larger than the Ottoman Empire. I'd speculate that Muir's data includes areas not truly controlled by the Ottomans, like the vast majority of the Arabian Peninsula, the size of which could heavily shift the Ottoman Empire's size if included.

I'm not sure what to make of this discrepancy in Taagepera's data, as the atlases he cites are not uploaded to the internet, though I could get my hands on a physical copy of an edition of Muir's atlas with a bit of effort. Maybe a critical review should be done of Taagepera's statistics, given that they make up the backbone of this article. Could there be another compilation of the sort elsewhere that reflects more contemporary understandings of empires and how their sizes are determined?

After writing the above, I noticed that there has already been a discussion on the validity of Taagepera and by extension this entire article. Consider this a further contribution to that discussion, if you will.

Ryan Khaldun (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Any such appraisal would need to come from WP:Reliable sources. The main thing I've seen suggested (e.g. on Sean Manning's blog and in Methods in World History: A Critical Approach) is that using more modern atlases would probably result in smaller areas for the earliest entries (i.e. BCE ones). The ideal solution would of course be locating a more recent peer-reviewed scientific article on the subject of the territorial extents of historical polities. TompaDompa (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

One source template

Hey TompaDompa, I see no contradction between my edits and WP:SYNTH. I quote, from WP:SYNTH "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.", please note that i never said we should combine the results of two sources to imply a result that is not explicitly stated by one of the sources, rather, i meant to have a table with possibly several figures as follows (for example) : 17.0[source 1] - 40.0[source 2], then each figure would be explicitly supported by a source. Until then, the one source template sounds legit. Please let me know if you think that i missed something. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

That's fine for the main table, but the table in question is a timeline. That needs to be based on a single, consistent methodology or the entire concept is invalidated. We need to be sure that the figures are comparable to each other, having been arrived at in the same way. TompaDompa (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no reason to provide the methodology and results of a single source. Presenting possible other figures with other sources and other calculation methods might be useful for our readers too and fits better with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we can't construct a timeline ourselves based on sources with different methodologies. That wouldn't be a proper timeline, it would be a WP:SYNTH mess. TompaDompa (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe WP:SYNTH would be legit for the table with the timeline, but we can add the one source template to the section that lists empires by share of world population without any breach of WP:SYNTH as i explained above.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it a problem that the List of largest empires#Largest empires by share of world population section relies on a single source? If it's not a problem, the template serves no purpose. If it is a problem and we don't expect to be able to fix it (i.e. we don't expect to find another source of at least equal quality we can add to the section without causing other problems), then the template also doesn't really serve a purpose and what should be done is instead to remove the section altogether. I personally don't think it's a problem we need to add a maintenance template for. TompaDompa (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is not a good practice to rely on a single source, here and also elsewhere, especially when that source, while being quite authoritative, relies itself on 1978 datas, thus, finding better and more recent sources should be possible, but i'm far from being an expert here. That's why the template sounds legit in my opinion. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Having multiple sources is of course ideal, but not always possible. I'm looking at this from a "when will we remove the template?" perspective, because I think it's likely that we won't find additional high-quality sources that independently corroborate the information. There's no point in adding a template that will just remain on the page in perpetuity. It's either okay to have this be based on a single source, in which case we shouldn't add the template, or it's not okay, in which case we should remove the section altogether and not add it back unless we locate additional sources. I'm of the former opinion. TompaDompa (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Neither you nor I have a crystal ball to know what will happen in the future, we cannot be sure that no high quality source will be found by an editor. I think that using an old source to support an entire section is not relevant, so if you don't want to add a template in order to improve that section's sourcing, then we should simply remove it, as per WP:CANTFIX. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Wait, which section are you talking about now? TompaDompa (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The one about the share of world population, it is sourced with source number 34, that source relies on some old datas from 1978 and is the only one cited in that section.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Right. Since the timeline we discussed earlier cites a source published in 1978, I wanted to make sure we weren't talking about different sections. I think it's worth noting that Walter Scheidel in The Oxford World History of Empire does make "conservative corrections for the persistent underestimating of ancient population number (from 200 BCE to 600 CE) in McEvedy and Jones 1978", so it's not purely based on those 1978 figures. Scheidel does however note that McEvedy and Jones "remains the only comprehensive set of population totals for all the different parts of the world at regular intervals from 400 BCE to 1950" (page 101). Likewise, Janken Myrdal says that McEvedy and Jones "are the only authors who provide a total dataset for all regions". It seems unlikely, therefore, that we would find additional sources that do not rely at least primarily on McEvedy and Jones' 1978 work—if nobody has constructed an updated data set in the last forty years, I wouldn't expect anybody to do so within the next few years either. That of course raises the question of why nobody has done so. It would seem a reasonable assumption that it's because the incentives aren't that strong since it would require a lot of work and scholars for the most part seem to find McEvedy and Jones' figures serviceable. At any rate, I have added another source to the prose of this section (the table remains entirely sourced to Scheidel) which looks at McEvedy and Jones' data set and makes some observations. I don't think there is a problem here which would justify either removing the section or tagging it as being in some way deficient indefinitely. Perhaps we should wait for others to weigh in. TompaDompa (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, the section sounds a bit better now, however, we still have that table with mainly old datas (even if some corrections have been made since). The fact that we cannot improve that table significantly, because of the scarcity of sources, as you said above, is a legit reason for complete removal of that content, as per WP:CANTFIX. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it needs fixing, though. If it ain't broken... TompaDompa (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

When i said remove per WP:CANTFIX, i did not mean to fix something that is broken, i meant that since we will not be able to improve the table's sourcing (as you said above, which i agree with now), that table should be removed.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2021

Brazil was part of the 10.4 million km² Portuguese empire but somehow ends up being bigger than the empire that it once belong to, if this information is wrong I suggest doing a full review of the page for fear of misinforming more light-minded people 89.154.150.130 (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See also the explanatory footnote which says: The reason the Empire of Brazil is listed as having a larger area in 1889 than the Portuguese Empire had in 1820, despite Brazil having been a Portuguese colony, is that the Portuguese settlers only had effective control over approximately half of Brazil at the time of Brazilian independence in 1822. TompaDompa (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Several empires in world history have been contenders for the largest of all time

It seems to me that many on this list were not even the largest at the time of their existence, so how are we defining this?09:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The main reason the first sentence is written this way is to avoid the terribly clunky phrasing "This is a list of [...]". I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get at, can you perhaps elaborate? TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

If this is a list of "contenders for the largest of all time" it would seem to be they would at least have to have been the largest empire at the time of their existence, and if they were not they are not one "contenders for the largest of all time".Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand what you mean now. This is not a list of largest empires in the sense of "list of empires that might be considered the one that was the largest of them all" or "list of each empire that was once the largest of them all", but in the sense of "list of large empires starting with the largest of them all". The first sentence of the article is not meant to imply the former, nor do I think it does. TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Then why does it say "contenders for the largest of all time" if it does not mean that as it does mean just that, it means that they are considered "once the largest of them all".Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

In effect this is just a list of empires by size, so why do we need this and List of empires. This seems to just duplicate that, just sorted differently.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, the first sentence is phrased the way it is to avoid the clunky phrasing "This is a list of [...]". I can't say I understand why you think the current phrasing implies that the list should have a different scope than it does, but if you have an alternative suggestion about what the first sentence should say, I'm all ears.

Sure, "list of empires by size" is another way of putting it, I suppose. We used to have a threshold for inclusion corresponding to 2% of the world's total land area, but it was removed in 2018 following discussion about whether requiring a minimum area to be listed was appropriate. I would be in favour of reintroducing that threshold. Merging the contents of this article with List of empires has been suggested before. I think it's a bad idea for a number of reasons, not least of which is that that article is terrible in terms of quality. TompaDompa (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request. 2021 - 11- 29 . Achaemenid Empire population does not correspond to most estimates.

It seems after a backlash against Guinness World Records' potentially hyperbolic estimates of the Achaemenid empire's population, the population estimate has been reduced to a figure which is not in keeping with most sources.

If we look at the wiki page for the Achaemenid empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire) we find a source for a population of 17 million to 35 million at 500 BC (https://archive.org/details/dynamicsanciente00sche).

If we look at the historical population wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population#Historical_population) we find an estimated population of somewhere between 100 and 150 million around 500 BC. Cited for these figures are Atlas of World Population History by Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones and a paper called "The HYDE 3.1 spatially explicit database of human-induced global land-use change over the past 12,000 years" (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00587.x)

The lowest possible estimate one could derive from these figures is that the Achaemenid empire contained about 12 percent of the world's population. In fact, The Oxford World History of Empire (https://books.google.ca/books?id=9mkLEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA103&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false), which is cited in this very "List of Largest Empires" wiki page, lists the Achaemenid empire's share of world population as 12 percent.

Clearly something is wrong here. The sources cited for the Achaemenid empire don't even give population estimates.

I would also like to point out that posting exact percentage figures for these estimates is highly arbitrary. In the case of the Achaemenids, their share of population percent could range anywhere from about 12% to about 35% given the range of population estimates available for 500 BC and the Achaemenid empire. This applies to many of the empires on this list.

Overall, the quality of this article in it's current form is fairly low. A lot of work needs to be done here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurpierce (talk • contribs) 23:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Abbasid Vs Umayyad in terms of empire size

Hello, this is my first time requesting a Wikipedia edit, so apologies if I don't show the proper respect or customs, that being said, I've recently been writing a college essay on the early Muslim conquest and settlement of Iberia, and I encountered the very interesting fact that around three years prior (747) to the completion of the Abbasid revolt (750), the ruling governor of Cordoba (Yusuf ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Fihri) had effectively stopped recognizing the authority of the Umayyad Dynasty, and ruled independently for the rest of his reign, until the famed conquest of Cordoba by Abd Ar Rahman. This information gives me the impression that he never recognized the political authority of the conquering Abbasid Dynasty, and I cannot find any reliable source that states otherwise. On the contrary, I've found many references that state the opposite.

So, ultimately, my point is that the Abbasids and Umayyads should be swapped, as we have no reason to believe the Abbasids ever had any form of political authority over Hispania.

If this information is in some way wrong, or misinformed, please correct me. Thank you in advance.

My specific sources for this claim are the works are as follows. "Muslim Spain and Portugal a political history of Al-Andalus" by Hugh Kennedy, page 28, in which Yusuf is cited as having conflicts with the Abbasids, and ruling independently and "Early Medieval Spain:Unity in Diversity, 400-1000" by Roger Collins, page 169, which states Yusuf refused to step down as governor in 747, thus ceasing to recognize Umayyad Authority — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatGuyYouknow52 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Areas of historical polities are often contentious, and we require our sources to do the working out for us, so to speak. In other words, the sources have to come up with the figures, we can't derive them ourselves (that would be WP:Original research, which is not allowed). Since different sources often come up with (at least slightly) different figures, we use the WP:BESTSOURCES we can. In this instance, the source we use for both the Abbasid Caliphate and Umayyad Caliphate is a peer-reviewed scientific article on the subject of the territorial extents of historical polities, which is about as close to an ideal source as we're likely to ever get. The source we use includes Córdoba until 756, giving the Abbasids and the Umayyads the same area. You can see it here. The reason we list them in the order we do is that we put entries with the same area in alphabetical order (which I've just clarified in the article). TompaDompa (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The list's legitimacy rests solely on one source.

The list rests on the interpretation of an empire as "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" according to Rein Taagepera. There are multiple interpretations of what represents an empire. There are multiple interpretations of how to measure the area of an empire. There are multiple empires attributed with different area sizes depending on the source you provide; this article provides on main one (Rein's), then has some sporadic references to Peter Turchin and Adam Jared Blanford, John Thornton, etc. There are empires on the article that do not use Rein's sources, but of others; however, when you try to point out that some empires area sizes covered by Rein also have other sources that point to other values, the articles main contributor does not allow others to at least make it so it is perceptible that the list is not actually a "list of the largest empires", it is a "list of the largest empires according to Rein Taagepera and the rest of the other couple of fellas". There are various legitimate secondary sources that point out that for example, the second portuguese empire area size is bigger than attributed by Rein's work; this has been discussed ad nauseam.

Requesting the List to be more expansive and point out alternate values.

Ygglow (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Ygglow

We don't have any special preference for Taagepera, but we do have a preference for using the WP:BESTSOURCES. Since Taagepera's articles are peer-reviewed scientific articles specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, finding any kind of higher-quality source is extremely difficult. We do however find some sources of equal quality, such as that by Turchin et al. As Taagepera's articles are both very high-quality sources and rather extensive ones, a large proportion of entries will use them as a source. That's neither a bug nor special treatment, that's a consequence of what sources are available to us. In some instances we do actually use other sources alongside Taagepera to provide a range of estimates, but that's only when the alternative source is of the same high quality—examples include the Maurya Empire where the other estimate is almost 50% higher than Taagepera's, the Khwarazmian Empire where Taagepera's estimate is more than 50% higher than the other one, and the Gupta Empire where the other estimate is more than twice as high as Taagepera's. The reason we don't provide a range of estimates for e.g. the Portuguese Empire is that the alternative sources that have been suggested thus far are of lesser quality. TompaDompa (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to get into trouble again, but I believe that old sources which can be easy dismissed with many other more recent sources of similar topics shouldn't be the ones to be used even if these old sources are peer reviewed. Roqui15 (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2

Why no empires of chalukya Rashtrakutas are not included Though they are equally larger to harsha dynasty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.45.126.120 (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas not incude??

Though they are equally larger kingdom to harsha dynasty 157.45.126.120 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Mauryan Empire ranking

{{subst:trim|1=

Please, recheck & reconsider the rank of "Mauryan Empire" on the list of Largest Empires by land area. The list of Largest Empires interms of land mass are listed according to the peak time of their expansion for example Roman Empire. But, Mauryan Empire is listed way below even, when it's own solo dedicated page has confirmed the peak landmass is way bigger than what is shown on the list. Is there some sort of problem with the it?? I think facts should be the one widely expected & recognised not, the fade & conspired one. And, someone has wrongly edited the dedicated page too

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@User:TompaDompa,Can't this be taken on the mean period, for example, (3.4+5.0)/2= 4.2 i.e. right down to Timurid Empire. I am saying this because the Mauryas ruled over 5 million square kilometres is what supported by most of the evidence to consider them as the largest empire in the subcontinent. Even if you don't support it, I think taking the average mean is the wise decision here.Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Different sources give different estimates for the peak size. Both are WP:RELIABLE (if anything, the one with the lower estimate is more reliable). When something like that happens, what we're supposed to do per WP:NPOV is present both estimates (as we currently do). What you're suggesting would create an entirely novel figure that is not supported by any source, which is contrary to our policy on WP:Original research. TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks tompadompa for the new info. Let me check out some more sources. Anyway I understood this rule of taking zero risk here to avoid error.Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

References

ranking

It would be better to rank disputed empires by their largest estimated area since the article is talking about empires at their greatest extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGSGSG1123445 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

No, that's a bad idea. It would invite WP:POV-pushing in the form of editors cherry-picking sources and adding overestimates in order to get their favourite empires to higher spots on the list. The current status quo has worked well for several years and we would need a good reason to change it. There is no reason to assume that larger estimates are generally more accurate, and for a list like this applying the maximum amount of scrutiny is much more appropriate than the reverse. TompaDompa (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

we should only allow numbers from peer edited journals and studies so cherrypicking wont happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGSGSG1123445 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You say it won't, but you yourself added a source that copied its contents from Wikipedia and misrepresented what it says. That amply demonstrates that we need to apply maximum scrutiny rather than just uncritically accepting what the sources supposedly say. There is no good reason to change the long-standing status quo of sorting entries by the lowest estimate, and you have inadvertently shown us why it would be a bad idea to implement your suggestion. TompaDompa (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Why just empires?

I think this list would be much more informative if it included every kind of sovereign state, not just empires, which don't have a clear definition in the first place. Why would anyone want to read a list of the most powerful countries in history, but excluding republics and other political systems? Mexicochina (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mexicochina In fact I think the list does include numerous non-empires, which just makes it a mess... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Rename to list of largest states as numerous non-empires are included

While inclusion of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth is interesting from comparative reasons, it's not commonly described in the historiography as an "empire". I am likewise concerned that many other entries here are, well, not empires. Rather than gut this list to entities that are officially or commonly described as an empire, renaming this the the "list of largest states" might be better. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed a couple of times in the past without ever really being resolved. The underlying issue is of course that "empire" does not have a generally agreed-upon definition. The article errs on the side of including questionable entries rather than excluding them, because as I've said before [i]n practice, we seem to go by something like "an empire is a political entity that is called an empire by reliable sources". Since one of the main sources we use defines it as "any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign" (the definition cited in the WP:LEAD) and goes on to list a large number of political entities that meet that definition, we end up including basically anything we have a good source for the area of. A big problem I see with the possible title list of largest states is that the readers would likely expect an article with that title to be about the current sizes of extant states (i.e. something like list of countries and dependencies by area), rather than the maximum size of historical ones. TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Archaemenid Persia?

The Persian Empire around the time of the Greco-Persian wars and before the conquests of Alexander is theorised to have had over 50% of the world’s population but isn’t mentioned 2001:8004:C83:20B7:3C3D:89AC:FFA1:F442 (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

More credible sources put the figure way lower, so that's why. TompaDompa (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Central African Empire

the CAE belongs to this list since it's bigger than Austria-Hungary even if it was shot lived — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:78A1:47BA:C24:1928:72E6:144B (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Consistency with other wikipages

I would like to note that each empire has a population listed on the wikipedia page for that empire. This is usually the greatest population for that empire and usually comes with a date. Note wikipedia also has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population. I might be nice to compare the quoted numbers to ones calculated from the empire page and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.109.253 (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Abbasid Caliphate bigger than Umayyad Caliphate?

The Umayyad Caliphate is understood to be the biggest Islamic empire by area to date, stretching from Central and South Asia to Spain/Portugal. I doubt it had the exact same area and population figure as the Abbasid Caliphate, and the latter should definitely not be above the former. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 07:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Per the cited source, the area covered in 750 at the time of the Abbasid takeover was the same as in 720 (Córdoba didn't secede until 756). The Abbasid Caliphate is listed above the Umayyad Caliphate simply because entries with equal areas are listed in alphabetical order. TompaDompa (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Where is Soviet Union is top list?

Where is the soviet union in the first list? 203.17.201.1 (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was not an empire, instead it succeed the Russian Empire, which is on the list. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 21:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Tibetan Empire as largest in the world at 850-950 and 1150?

Timeline of largest empires at the time tells the Tibetan Empire is the largest in the world at 850-950 and 1150, but that doesn't make sense since it only existed as an unified state from 618 to 842. After that was the Tibetan Era of Fragmentation, with the small states clearly not counting as an empire. 2804:D51:5032:C600:A9A8:1070:483A:8123 (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this a case where scholarship has moved on or there is disagreement in the field? If so, we could perhaps add an explanatory footnote similar to the one we have for the Median Empire. Otherwise, I'll note that the source simply says "Tibet" (perhaps referring to the largest of the fragments?) and we could do likewise. TompaDompa (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Not really disagreement in the field, rather a casual observation I had when reading the article, in regards to it previously citing the Tibetan Empire as largest at a time when it had ceased to exist. The page now matches the source thanks to your edit, so it's all good now. 2804:D51:5032:C600:C495:7994:8E8:77BE (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Year zero Error

The source in footnote 10 uses negative years instead of BC. Therefore all the BC years from this source are off by one, including the "year 0" given for the greatest extent of the Parthian Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:19E1:C850:A13E:741D:880:B287 (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The error is the source using a year zero in the first place. The maximum extent of the empire of Alexander the Great is given the date "-323", which corresponds to Alexander's death in 323 BCE. Similarly, the maximum extent of the Seleucid Empire is given the date "-301", corresponding to the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BCE. TompaDompa (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Second Portuguese Empire size...

So I see there is a very long debate regarding the Second Portuguese Empire size. The source supporting the 5.5 km² just states that Portugal didn't had a de facto control over half of the modern Brazil, but that doesn't mean that this supposedly uncontrolled area wasn't de jure part of the Portuguese Empire. There is an overwhelming amount of information that Portuguese Brazil included much of the interior, perhaps excepting only the State of Acre.

Here are all the links I could find, just in a short research, that contradict Portuguese Brazil being merely a coastal colony:

1. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/empires.htm
2. https://www.statista.com/chart/20342/peak-land-area-of-the-largest-empires/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceEconomist192 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
3. https://archive.org/details/recenseamento1920intro/page/n429/mode/1up?view=theater
4. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41166908?read-now=1&seq=10
5. https://www.cambridge.org/pt/academic/subjects/history/regional-history-after-1500/colonial-brazil?format=PB&isbn=9780521349253
6. https://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra-visor/tratado-firmado-en-madrid-a-13-de-enero-de-1750-para-determinar-los-limites-de-los-estados-pertenecientes-a-las-coronas-de-espana-y-portugal-en-asia-y-america--0/html/ff8d40ae-82b1-11df-acc7-002185ce6064_2.html#I_1_
7. https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=792126078082085082064077070106005022052064034046037088095083090078115031027105072121021054120036117058055081115098119078099085047070090046036104078106002007126092079028035022067076105121117076001091082082109091027095110098120126075084073071002078065115&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE

SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 14:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Whether it was de jure part of the Portuguese Empire is entirely irrelevant, since that's not what this list is about. As the article itself says, the area that an entity claimed and the one it in practice controlled may differ significantly (and we go by the latter). This all comes down to sourcing, and right now what we have is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities—just about the WP:BESTSOURCE we could possibly get for this article—saying that the area of the Portuguese Empire peaked at 5.5 million km². TompaDompa (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, you are misunderstanding Rein Taagepera's paper, he merely states that at the time of the independence of Brazil, Portugal only had control of half of Brazil territories, but this doesn't impede Portugal from having de facto occupied those territories in the past. Not to mention, there is a source that is used in this article that puts the size of the Portuguese Empire at 8.5.

As I linked above, the Treaty of Madrid cedes most of modern day Brazil to Portugal, see this link, [1]. Are we just gonna ignore the overwhelming amount of information supporting Portugal presence in Brazil inland? Also, don't forget that a massive part of Brazil pertains to the Amazon Rainforest, which is very dense and of difficult access. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 17:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@TombaDomba It does say, see page 93... Edit: were you talking about the date? SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 18:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

If you look at Taagepera's graphs, not just the tables, it is very clear that 5.5 million km² is the peak area. The Oxford World History of Empire is not a bad source, but it does not reach the level of a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities (and even if it did, the proper course of action would be to cite both sources, not to replace the existing one). Taagepera remains the WP:BESTSOURCE here. Citing sources of unequal quality creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is why we should only cite Taagepera.

Are we just gonna ignore the overwhelming amount of information supporting Portugal presence in Brazil inland? Yes. We do not draw our own conclusions from the evidence, we defer to WP:Reliable sources to evaluate the evidence and report what the WP:BESTSOURCES say. That's what our WP:Core content policies are all about. I would also refer you to a comment I made some time ago as to why Portugal presence in Brazil inland does not necessarily translate to effective control over the entirety of modern-day Brazil . TompaDompa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

As you say, reliable sources draw their conclusions from evidence and I already linked a sheer amount of research papers (and I still have more) that contradicted yours. Taagapera is alone here, all other sources clearly indicate a Portuguese occupation of Brazil interior. Its worth noting that not being peer reviewed ≠ unreliable and these articles can be more than used as sources, even superseding peer reviewed ones, especially since the 5.5 value is only supported by one source and is thus completely outnumbered.

What I also don't understand is why the criteria is only religiously held against Portugal, just like you stated, 1800 Europe and its possessions, including former colonies, claimed title to about 55 percent of the earth's land surface: Europe, North and South America, most of India, and small sections along the coast of Africa. But much of this was merely claimed; effective control existed over a little less than 35 percent, most of which consisted of Europe itself. I'm pretty positive that if we scrutinized other European colonial empires we would find that they also didn't had a de facto occupation of all the territories that are counting towards their size. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, but Roqui15's argument of forts being build in the interior of Brazil is very convincing and discredits Taagepera paper. Aditionally, the Portuguese military hegemony of the region fulfills the definition of a de facto occupation. And as you pointed it's not a leap, since the forts were throughout the northwest and north of the Amazon basin. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 20:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The number of sources is only relevant if they are all of roughly equal quality. That is categorically not the case here. We have one source that is way superior to the others in terms of reliability on account of being a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. When that happens, we use the WP:BESTSOURCE per policy.

reliable sources draw their conclusions from evidence and I already linked a sheer amount of research papers (and I still have more) that contradicted yours. What are you talking about? The sources you linked to are mostly not research papers and the ones that are do not contradict the 5.5 million km² figure. For instance, you linked to the text of the Treaty of Madrid. What's that supposed to do? That's a WP:PRIMARY source and it doesn't say anything about the area of the Portuguese Empire. Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. In other words, WP:PRIMARY sources are not the ideal sources to use for Wikipedia, WP:SECONDARY sources are. Moreover, All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. What you're arguing here is, in essence, that Wikipedia should be a WP:SECONDARY source. But Wikipedia is not a secondary source, nor is it meant to be – it is a WP:TERTIARY source. To quote WP:PRIMARY, Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. In this case, it means we do not make our own assessments of what the area was based on maps or other sources, but rather the figure itself must be explicitly stated by the source.

I'm pretty positive that if we scrutinized other European colonial empires we would find that they also didn't had a de facto occupation of all the territories that are counting towards their size. As I've said before: it's pretty clear from reading what Taagepera wrote about Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, Britain, and France that control came gradually over time. It's therefore not surprising that the area controlled by the French and British in the 1900s would more closely resemble the area they claimed (and modern-day borders) than in the case of Portugal in the early 1800s. And at any rate, we are not supposed to scrutinize the empires, the sources are. TompaDompa (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The number of sources is only relevant if they are all of roughly equal quality. No it's not irrelevant, just because is peer reviewed doesn't mean it withstands all non-peer reviewed ones, especially if it's the only one defending a particular position.

The sources you linked to are mostly not research papers and the ones that are do not contradict the 5.5 million km2 figure. They do, they assert that there was a presence on the interior of Brazil by the Portugueses, thus contradicting Taagepera paper.

...not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. And that's what I am doing, the secondary and primary sources I provided, directly state that parts of the Brazil inland were once part of the Portuguese Empire, there's no analyzing, evaluating nor nothing similar, there's just an observation of very clearly assertions of those sources. There is been a misunderstanding, I'm not arguing for those sources to be used for the size of the Second Portuguese Empire, since they don't even mention it, instead I'm using them to proof that there has been a mishap in Taagapera's paper.

And at any rate, we are not supposed to scrutinize the empires, the sources are. Stop strawmanning, obviously by scrutinize I meant doing research to find those sources, someone needs to look for them, they don't come here by themselves.

There has been a considerable amount of sources presented multiple times by both myself, Roqui15 and other people in previous discussions that support the claim of Portugueses being present in the interior of Brazil, nonetheless, Taagepera's paper still stands, even if in actuality the 5.5 number was taken from other sources. Making Taagepera's paper a WP:TERTIARY source in regards to the size of the empires. Not to mention that the supposed sources he cites are not even referenced in the article, failing WP:VERIFIABILITY, clause Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and Original research. Additionally, the paper has its main focus on Russia, not as TompaDomba says in the the extension of historical polities, the purpose of the other empires is to just create a growth model. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 22:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Being peer-reviewed makes it a higher-quality source than a source that is not peer-reviewed, ceteris paribus. Being specifically focused on the territorial extents of historical polities makes it more reliable than a source which is not specifically focused thereon (again, ceteris paribus), because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Your assertion that the paper has its main focus on Russia is patently incorrect, which simply reading the article (or even just the abstract, really) would reveal. It becomes even more obvious when one realizes that it is part of a series of articles on the topic, the other ones being Size and Duration of Empires: Systematics of Size, Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 3000 to 600 B.C., and Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D..

they assert that there was a presence on the interior of Brazil by the Portugueses, thus contradicting Taagepera paper That's not a contradiction; presence and control are not synonymous. To quote myself: Control is not a simple binary where there is either no control (e.g. unexplored territory) or full control over the area – it's possible to have some control over an area without being fully in control of it (e.g. having a military presence but no power to collect taxes or being able to extract natural resources but not enforce the law). Ultimately, it's not up to us Wikipedia editors to decide where to draw the line – we leave that to the sources.

not arguing for those sources to be used for the size of the Second Portuguese Empire, since they don't even mention it, instead I'm using them to proof that there has been a mishap in Taagapera's paper. It's a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. Your assessment that there must have been a mistake (because your interpretation of other sources is that there was Portuguese presence in more of Brazil than you think Taagepera includes) is really not sufficient grounds for dismissing a a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, especially considering the issue of presence (what you're focused on) and effective control (what the source focuses on) not being the same thing. I see no reason to doubt the internal validity of Taagepera's article. Sources may decide to include or exclude territories at their discretion based on whichever set of criteria they choose to apply, and it is not for us to say that they ought to have decided otherwise. If you disagree with the source on these grounds, you should focus on locating a higher-quality source which provides a different estimate. In this case, "higher-quality" basically means a WP:RELIABLE source that explicitly states that the academic consensus is at odds with Taagepera's perspective.

Not to mention that the supposed sources he cites are not even referenced in the article, failing WP:VERIFIABILITY, clause Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and Original research. What are you trying to say here? It's very difficult to parse, bordering on nonsensical.

The bottom line is this: the figure of 5.5 million km² is sourced to a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. If you think we should use some other figure, you need to find sources of equal or higher quality than that. Arguing about why you disagree with Taagepera is not going to get us anywhere. TompaDompa (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Being peer-reviewed makes it a higher-quality source than a source that is not peer-reviewed, ceteris paribus. Precisely because we are not doing a ceteris paribus that one must take into account the amount of sources that conflict with Taagepera's paper.

our assertion that the paper has its main focus on Russia is patently incorrect. No its not, if you keysearch for the word Russia it gives you back 47 mentions, way more than any other polities. The name of the paper is Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia. If you do actually read the entirety of the article you would realise that its main focus is to provide answers regarding the future of Russia after the colapse of the Soviet Union, it is not on the size of the Portuguese Empire. And it only uses other empires to create a mathematical model of growth in order to try to answer those questions. It does not evaluate the size of the empires, it merely uses values from other sources. So as I previously said this research paper is a tertiary source in regards to the sizes of the empires and is just as good as Brzezinski's paper.

That's not a contradiction; presence and control are not synonymous. Oh, so having multiple forts throughout the Amazon basin is not a sign of control? Besides who gets to choose what is the definition of an empire, you? There are multiple sources around, so why would Taagapera's definition be considered the correct one?

What are you trying to say here? It's very difficult to parse, bordering on nonsensical Its really not that difficult to understand. The assertation of the Second Portuguese Empire's size fails WP:VERIFIABILITY clause, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, because there is only one source listed for this much controversial and contested claim. And that it also fails the clause, Original research, since the claim in Taagapera's paper in regards to the size of the empire is unreferenced.

In this case, "higher-quality" basically means a WP:RELIABLE source that explicitly states that the academic consensus is at odds with Taagepera's perspective Yeah yeah, you know very well that this is an impossible task, there's not much research on the size of empires, and must certainly there isn't a paper explicitly stating that Taagepera is wrong. Thus what I was trying to get across is that, there is various papers asserting a presence and control of the Amazon basin. That is the only plausible way for Taagepera to be substituted. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 01:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll be blunt: You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

The number of lower-quality sources is completely irrelevant (it's WP:BESTSOURCES, not WP:MOSTSOURCES). Most sources that include figures on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities are not reliable for that information.

Taagepera's article is primarily about the territorial extents of historical polities and how they change over time (as are the other three articles in the same series that I noted above), with Russia used as a device explaining why this might be an interesting thing to look at.

It does not evaluate the size of the empires, it merely uses values from other sources. This is completely wrong—Taagepera uses a variety of sources to evaluate the sizes of empires. The figures come from Taagepera, not from Taagepera's sources. Taagepera explains this.

The source by Brzezinski (Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power) is not a paper at all, it's a book. It 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. It's not a reliable source for the areas of historical polities because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS—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..

Oh, so having multiple forts throughout the Amazon basin is not a sign of control? As I've said earlier: it does not prove that the entire Amazon basin was effectively controlled – it's quite a leap (and indeed, WP:OR) to assume that all the territory between the forts was effectively controlled. Control is not a simple binary where there is either no control (e.g. unexplored territory) or full control over the area – it's possible to have some control over an area without being fully in control of it (e.g. having a military presence but no power to collect taxes or being able to extract natural resources but not enforce the law). Ultimately, it's not up to us Wikipedia editors to decide where to draw the line – we leave that to the sources.

Besides who gets to choose what is the definition of an empire, you? No, and neither do you. We defer to the sources on that. We do the same thing with how to define the area—we leave it to the sources, even if we might disagree on the criteria they use. The article by Taagepera is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, which is why we use that one.

That's not an exceptional claim, at least not in the sense that WP:EXCEPTIONAL is about.

it also fails the clause, Original research, since the claim in Taagapera's paper in regards to the size of the empire is unreferenced What are you talking about? WP:Original research applies to the content of Wikipedia's articles, not our sources. You can't assert that a source fails original research, that's a complete misunderstanding of what original research even is.

there is various papers asserting a presence and control of the Amazon basin. That is the only plausible way for Taagepera to be substituted Yeah, no. We're not going to replace a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities because you've looked at other sources and reckon that it should have counted a larger area as being under control than it does. We defer to the most reliable sources in matters like these. In this case, that's the peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. The source does not become less reliable because you disagree with the criteria it uses. TompaDompa (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The number of lower-quality sources is completely irrelevant (it's WP:BESTSOURCES, not WP:MOSTSOURCES). Most sources that include figures on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities are not reliable for that information. Obviously that matters, WP:BESTSOURCES is not going to prevail when all other independent, reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy contradict the only source that backs the 5.5 value, which is the Taagapera's paper.

It's not a reliable source for the areas of historical polities because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS Since it doesn't fit your normative norms you label it as not reliable and do a misinterpretation of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, play close attention to the modal verb may. A book by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a highly regarded scholar, is more than reliable.

it does not prove that the entire Amazon basin was effectively controlled – it's quite a leap (and indeed, WP:OR) to assume that all the territory between the forts was effectively controlled. They constructed a cartography of the whole Amazon basin. They had Jesuit missions throughout the region. They built forts near the Amazon river and its affluents. There was an economy in the region. Every source points for the Portuguese having a presence and control of the Brazil interior. We cannot simply ignore this because of one mere paper and because its supposedly the WP:BESTSOURCE.

No, and neither do you. This argument is ineffective since I never asserted nothing regarding what the definition should be. You're the one who seems to have a WP:OWNERSHIP problem and we must all succumb to the definition you choose. Especially because in this case there are surely multiple of other definitions of empire, provided by other peer reviewed papers, but since you idolize Taagapera or his definition fits more whatever bias you might have, his paper must prevail.

That's not an exceptional claim, at least not in the sense that WP:EXCEPTIONAL is about. This is an exceptional claim. It fails the first clause, Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources, there's only one source supporting the 5.5 value and the forth clause, Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions..., since all other sources point to a much higher number.

because you've looked at other sources and reckon that it should have counted a larger area as being under control than it does. You are purposely strawmanning my arguments. It's not what I reckon, its what those sources say, the Brazilian interior was part of the Portuguese Empire. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 13:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's settle this once for all. The most fair outcome that comprimisses both sides, that are equally valid, is to cite both Taagapera and Brzezinski. We would remove the 8.5 value since its redundant to include. What do you say? SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 13:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

No source of comparable quality points to a much higher number. The source for 8.5 million km² is a decent source for that kind of content but doesn't compare to a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, and the sources for 10.4 million km² are all way inferior.

since you idolize Taagapera or his definition fits more whatever bias you might have, his paper must prevail Knock it off with the WP:Personal attacks. Taagepera gets no special treatment, it just happens to be one of the best sources there are for an article like this. Other sources of comparable quality for this type of information do actually exist. For example: this is also a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, but it unfortunately doesn't say anything about the Portuguese Empire specifically.

Brzezinski's work 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 Taagepera's work—a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities which outlines its sources and methodology—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) 14:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

becomes a WP:NPOV issue by creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Not citing other sources besides Taagepera is what would create a WP:NPOV. WP:FALSEBALANCE is clearly not referring to this type of situations, claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. The policy serves to restrict this types of falses balances, and none of the formers are even remotely comparable to what is going on here. Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. The 5.5 value is the one that is a minority view, all other sources independently if they are the WP:BESTSOURCE, cite much higher numbers, Taagepera's number is clearly not mainstream. With being said, there's no WP:NPOV created by a WP:FALSEBALANCE. If the problem was WP:CONTEXTMATTERS then, it has already been fixed, by citing a scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 16:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Citing sources of different reliability as if they were of equal reliability creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE even if it isn't as extreme as one source promoting WP:FRINGE views. The 5.5 value is the one that is a minority view, all other sources independently if they are the WP:BESTSOURCE, cite much higher numbers, Taagepera's number is clearly not mainstream. Taagepera's research is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. It is very much mainstream. If you believe his figure to be a minority view among scholars assessing the territorial extents of historical polities, you need to back that up with those kinds of sources—peer-reviewed scientific articles specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities.

As for Quantitative Dynamics of Human Empires, it doesn't say that the Portuguese Empire ever had a territorial extent of 13.4 million km². The "saturation" is a mathematical construct which extrapolates from the data points that exist to a theoretical maximum based on the growth rate, not a data point in itself. In other words, the Portuguese Empire was on the trajectory to reach 13.4 million square kilometers in area, but – as the source says – failed prematurely. It's also worth noting that this source gets its data from Taagepera. TompaDompa (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

We're talking about a single article (Taagepera's) based in a bunch of atlas and general bibliography, not in actual history research. And the field of study is International Relations, not History. It's an article about a different subject that only mentions Portugal in a superficial way, actually, only in a table and graphics. And those figures have zero specific historic bibliographic references to support them, which would be normal because that's not the subject of the article at all, except the article actually has no history bibliographic references for anything in specific. So I ask: "peer reviewed"? By whom? Certainly not historians. Must have been some "International Studies" authorities, but we don't even know which. I'm sorry but the article was never meant to be a source for historic data and using it that way is an insult to the merit the author may have in his own field of study.

So, based on this single "peer reviewed" article in the field of "International Studies" and with no specific bibliography for anything let alone the Portuguese Empire (which is not its subject), the conclusion is that there was hardly a Portuguese Empire ever.

But the most interesting thing here is that the Portuguese Empire is the only one where Wikipedia, relying on an awesome single "peer reviewed" article went to measure inch by inch what was actually physically occupied and what was not. This is so weird that if I wasn't assuming good faith I might think it really looks like a blunt case of lusophobia. 2001:818:D821:4F00:6560:E848:43ED:6947 (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The subject of Taagepera's series of articles is the territorial extents of historical polities, and it is probably the most comprehensive research on that topic ever published. The Portuguese Empire is treated the same way as all the other empires. TompaDompa (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

TompaDompa, your commitment to minimizing the extent and importance of the Portuguese Empire is indeed impressive. Too bad it has no reach at all since this is just a list for kids. 2001:818:D821:4F00:6560:E848:43ED:6947 (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

So much for WP:Assuming good faith. TompaDompa (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are we letting TompaDompa get the only and final say on this???. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ Made some perfectly valid points and all Tompa does is whine about how good his one and only source from someone named Taagepera is. Wikipedia actually discourages using a single source, and SpaceEconomist192 put fourth some perfectly credible sources. Wiki articles are meant to be run by a community not one guy named TompaDompa. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

It is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities—just about the WP:BESTSOURCE we could possibly get for this article. None of the other sources even come close to that level of quality. TompaDompa (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

"probably the most comprehensive research on that topic ever published." This is called weasel words. Just because you think it's the most credible source doesn't mean everyone does. You do no run Wikipedia. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to take my word for it. The Oxford World History of Empire says Attempts to measure the amount of land claimed by imperial powers have a long pedigree: the most comprehensive set of estimates, produced by Rein Taagepera [...] TompaDompa (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I have been looking into this issue for some time, there is a lack of secondary sources exclaiming exactly what was the size of the Portuguese Empire right before the independence of Brazil. From the First_Treaty_of_San_Ildefonso we can clearly see the territory of Portuguese Brazil and the de jure control of Portugal over those territories. There are secondary sources that point at the existence of this map. What we lack is a number cited by a secondary source and a user has decided that he should be the one to control the way this wiki page should be run. All the validity of this page is based on Rein Taagepera's work since the user TompaDompa has (apparently) decided to use Rein's definition of what an empire is, there are other secondary sources that actually conflict with Rein's information in some of the other entries on the list, as far as the portuguese one goes, from what I have been searching for, there is a lack of other secondary sources that mention a number of the size of the Portuguese empire, but I am still looking for. What I propose (and what I will do in the future) is add information in the list in regards to the Second Portuguese Empire entry, first of all, the Second Portuguese Empire entry should have a footnote mentioning that The Second Portuguese Empire is actually bigger than the Brazilian Empire but due to lack of secondary sources, the exact number cannot be calculated". The entry itself, on the columns of million km2, million sq mi and % of world there should be a text saying "possibly bigger" also referring to the previous footnote. From first notice, you might think all this discussion is brigading, what we are endlessly trying to explain to the user TompaDompa is that from the application of basic logic and basic visual reference alone, we can say with absolute certainity that the second portuguese empire is AT LEAST, bigger than the brazilian empire, but due to the esoteric pertinence of the user in question he has decided to present factual information in misrepresented way. I will wait for the user TompaDompa's response. This issue has to be resolved. Ygglow (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Your suggestion that The Second Portuguese Empire is actually bigger than the Brazilian Empire but due to lack of secondary sources, the exact number cannot be calculated be added to the article is a flagrant breach of our policy against WP:Original research. I'm sure you understand that. TompaDompa (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

US on the list

The additional information for the British empire should not be included because it is not relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimand299 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The footnote is an attempt to resolve the longstanding issue of whether or not to include the US in the list, a compromise of sorts. This way of doing it is unobtrusive and puts the information in its proper context. TompaDompa (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Debatable but reasons for inclusion:

Operates like an empire. Having off land territories like Puerto Rico, Hawaii & Alaska etc. plus all of its vast military bases globally (only country to have its own wiki page for global military coverage). Besides the US are only 4 other countries which were also the head of notable empires: Turkey (Ottoman Empire) the United Kingdom (British empire), Russia (Russian empire) and France (French Empire)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

IceCuba (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree the United States is an empire. It meets virtually every conceivable definition. Even the lower 48 could increasingly be seen as imperial in nature, with fewer and fewer citizens consenting to the rule of the central power (DC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grassfedjoe (talk • contribs) 15:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2022

The Achaemenid Empire had the biggest population the world had ever seen in around 480 b.c. with 44% not the shown 12% in the year 450 b.c. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-empire-by-percentage-of-world-population 145.14.193.128 (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Guinness is not a WP:Reliable source for this information. The source that is currently cited (this one) is the WP:BESTSOURCE we have for this, and it says 12%. TompaDompa (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The 44% number is apparently calculated as follows:

World population is taken from Atlas of World Population History by Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones, published in 1978. The actual estimates he provides are 50 million in 1000 BC, and 150 million in 200 BC, from which they interpolate around 112 million in 500 BC.

The population of Persia is taken from the book Geschichte des Altertums (Ancient History) Volume IV by E. Meyer, published in 1954. It says the population of Persia during the reign of Darius was around 50 million.

If you do the math, it comes to around 44.6% of the world's population. I cannot find a link right now but if naming the source isn't enough i'll find a link. JustABordedGuy (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Per Guinness themselves, the figures they used were 49.4 million of the world's 112.4 million people in around 480 BC. Those are of course rather suspiciously precise figures which one would do well to be skeptical of. At any rate, this is outside of their accepted areas of expertise, so Guinness is not a WP:Reliable source in this instance. Sean Manning, who from what I can gather is a scholar whose main area of research is the Achaemenid Empire, outlined some issues with this estimate on his blog. TompaDompa (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Rather suspicious? I'm fine with that. But it's impossible that the macedonian empire had a bigger percentage of population then the achaemenid in the year 480. Also considering flourishing civilizations like egypt, mesopotamia, indus valley, medians, assyrians etc where conquered and the population of america and europe was much smaller than compared to today. The only big populations at the time were india and china but before(!) their expotential growth occured. With that being considered 12% is quite low. Plus the height of the achaemenids was in ~480 b.c. and while 44% might seem big it was in a rather early decade compared to other empires so a higher number is more likely since most early civilizations started in the middle east+indus valley, wich where all conquered as i said earlier. 12% is definitley not the height of the Achaemenids. A rough estimate of 40% is highely suggested as a precise number cannot be stated for 480b.c. let me know what you think. The world population estimate is trustworthy since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population suggests the same and also uses McEvedy and Jones as source. The Achaemenid population is taken by https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/whp-origins/era-3-cities-societies-and-empires-6000-bce-to-700-c-e/36-the-growth-of-empires-betaa/a/read-the-persian-empire-beta#:~:text=At%20its%20height%20in%20500,between%20100%20and%20160%20million. JustABordedGuy (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

McEvedy and Jones' 1978 estimates, while comprehensive, are nowadays generally held to have significantly underestimated ancient populations, and modern estimates for the population of the Achaemenid Empire range from 17 million to 35 million. Using Guinness' world population estimate of 112.4 million gives a range of 15% to 31% for the population share the Achaemenid Empire had. Using a 150 million figure for the world population gives a range of 11% to 23%. Even using the low-end 100 million estimate gives a range of 17% to 35%. So going by that, 44% is a blatant overestimate. But none of this matters, because that's all WP:Original research by way of WP:Synthesis. All that matters for our purposes is what we can put in the article while abiding by Wikipedia's policies such as WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Neutral point of view. That means the estimate for the share of the world population has to come from a single source that explicitly states the percentage (rather than calculating it ourselves), if there are multiple competing estimates we have to go by the WP:BESTSOURCES, and we can't treat any entry differently from the rest. TompaDompa (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Weird since McEvedy and Jones is used as a source in the world population on wikipedia and i also send the khanacademy source. Is that unreliable for you too? And still the year 450 bc is not the heigt of the population so why is it chosen? JustABordedGuy (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if those sources are reliable or not (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS notwithstanding). The population share estimates need to be explicitly made by the sources, we can't calculate them ourselves without violating WP:SYNTH. The WP:BESTSOURCE we have that does that says 12%. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Understood but this does source does not violate these rules https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/whp-origins/era-3-cities-societies-and-empires-6000-bce-to-700-c-e/36-the-growth-of-empires-betaa/a/read-the-persian-empire-beta#:~:text=At%20its%20height%20in%20500,between%20100%20and%20160%20million also khanacademy is a reliable source as far as i know. Given that there a a lot of sources claiming 20-44% and the source taken right now is from 450b.c. even tho their height was from ~500-480b.c. reverting the edit and giving them the 20-44% they had earlier is way more reasonable. When it comes to 500b.c. all sources can only take guesses and since most guess around 20-44% it should also be listed as such on wikipedia. JustABordedGuy (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

That source doesn't provide an explicit population share percentage estimate and isn't a better source than the currently cited one (quite the opposite), so no. The number of sources giving a higher estimate is irrelevant—it's WP:BESTSOURCES, not WP:MOSTSOURCES. TompaDompa (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The source i linked provides world and Achaemenid population. Also it's strange that all sources are non reliable or outdated except the current source. Seems rather suspicious that this is the best source. It's genuinely believed that the Achaemenids around 20-44% and as i said the current source is ridicilous. For example the Macedonian empire was smaller and had more population?but since i am the one requesting the edit and not you it was my job to convince you. JustABordedGuy (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Chola Empire AD 1030 to be included

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_dynasty 2402:4000:1382:7771:A5DF:3CE6:8380:48F7 (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources would be needed for that. TompaDompa (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Achaemenid Persian Empire - 480 BCE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Around the year 480 BCE, the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was popullated by approximately 49.4 million of the world’s 112.4 million people, which is about 44%. 50.35.64.84 (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Someone please correct this. the Achaemenid empire was the largest empire in history based on population:

https://homepages.uc.edu/~torresrs/fwd/finalproject/piwebsite/achaemenid_empire.html

https://www.bookandsword.com/2014/11/08/the-population-of-the-achemenid-empire/#:~:text=By%20share%20of%20population%2C%20the,BC%20%E2%80%93%20an%20astonishing%2044%25. MarkParker1221 (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2022

Dear Team, Why Maurya Empire ranking is 47th? A total of 5,500,000 km2 was under the control of the Mauryan empire in the year 250 BCE. So as per data Mauryan empire ranking should be next to Roman Empire!!

As per data Roman empire was in control 25 BC[4] 2,750,000 km2 (1,060,000 sq mi) AD 117[4][5] 5,000,000 km2 (1,900,000 sq mi) AD 390[4] 3,400,000 km2 (1,300,000 sq mi)

and Mauryan Empire was in control of 261 BCE[19] 3,400,000 km2 (1,300,000 sq mi) 250 BCE[20] 5,500,000 km2 (2,100,000 sq mi)

So in the case of the Roman empire, you have selected the highest land occupied by the empire i.e. AD 117[4][5] 5,000,000 km2 (1,900,000 sq mi) So why is it not the same for Mauryan Empire? why the Indian empire is being treated differently? This is not right all countries should be treated equally and your policy should be also biased-free? Saketindra (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The explanation is that the estimates for the Roman Empire from different sources agree on the peak area (the other values are not estimates of the peak area), whereas the estimates for the Maurya Empire from different sources disagree on the peak area (and the year of maximum extent). The different years for the Roman Empire are estimates at different points in time by a single source, of which of course only one can be the peak area. The different years for the Maurya Empire, on the other hand, represent scholarly disagreement about which year the peak area was reached. That's why they may appear to be treated differently, even though they aren't. I'll also note that the 5.5 million km² value for the Maurya Empire does not appear in that source (which says 5.0 million km²) but is a deliberate misrepresentation added to the Maurya Empire article some time ago. I have corrected it. TompaDompa (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

why is the achaemenid empire not listed as number one? It is generally believed by most scholars that the Achaemenid empire had a population of approx 50 million and accounted for 44% of the worlds population at the time (approx 480BC). MarkParker1221 (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's keep all the discussion about the population share of the Achaemenid Empire in one place: #Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2022. TompaDompa (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2022

The abbasid caliphate should be 19,947,497km² I got this from Wikipedia it self but I don't know why it's wrong on this page 78.179.180.142 (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that figure was unsourced on the article Abbasid Caliphate. I removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2022

I want to make the "Hun" a link Yeopeo0 (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

To where? Huns is wrong, and there doesn't seem to be any good match at Hun (disambiguation). If it's any help, the source that gives the figure of 0.8 million km² in the year 287 says "Unification of Hun 19 tribes in Shansi". TompaDompa (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Marking as  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aidan9382 _(talk) 16:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

United States

If we widen our definition of empire to any nation or state that dominates other nation or states on a regular basis, then the United States should, in some way, should be included in these estimations. 70.65.107.230 (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Vikramaditya Empire

Hi, I was wondering why the Vikramaditya Empire isn't on this list, or at least mentioned in Top 5. Vikramaditya Empire spanned from Korea to Saudi Arabia, from the border of Russia to Indonesia. I have reliable sources to back these claims up which is given below but I highly highly suggest a revision of the Vikramaditya Empire and its land size.

Ptolemy P. & McCrindle J. W. (1974). Ancient india as described by ptolemy (Rev.). Today & Tomorrow's Printers &.

Jones W. J. (1807). The Works of Sir William Jones, Volume 4. John Stockdale and John Walker.

Malcolm J. (1824). A Memoir Of Central India Vol I. S.And R.

Larson, P. (2010). Esoteric Buddhism. In: Leeming, D.A., Madden, K., Marlan, S. (eds) Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71802-6_213ParthNaik1605 (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Population

In 1950, the Soviet Union with its East European satellites (=Soviet Empire) reached 11.5% of the world population (288.5 million out of 2.5 billion).--Maxaxa (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The source cited in the relevant section says the USSR peaked at 9% in 1940. The source does not have an entry for a "Soviet Empire" that includes the USSR-aligned states in Eastern Europe at all. TompaDompa (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

Spanish biggest territorial expansion was between 1760 and 1800 when they owned Luisiana and claimed the Nutka territory. Just check Spanish Empire entries, both in English and Spanish. Christian Ramírez Ferro (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

World largest empire

Listen 106.216.70.252 (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

To what, you you have a source you want us to hear? 16:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Ashanti Empire

Hello, TompaDompa, John Iliffe states over 250,000 Square kilometers/100,000 Square miles by 1820. There are many sources agreeing with the figure of 100,000 Square miles but it is only John who states the date as 1820. This is the source; https://books.google.com/books?id=dlHE51ScKTUC&dq=Ashanti+Empire+250,000+square+kilometers&pg=PA143&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Ashanti%20Empire%20250%2C000%20square%20kilometers&f=false Kwesi Yema (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Great find! I added it. TompaDompa (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Add Chola Empire

This topic doesn't have one of the largest empire. Please add it. Chola Empire. 1.23.142.136 (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add more things

Vijaynagar empire(1520),Gajpati empire(1463),karkota dynasty(760),pala Empire and rastrakuta empire(9th century AD),yadava dynasty(12th century CE),Chauhan dynasty(1291),bahmani saltunate (early 15th century),bijapur saltunate(1650 CE). 157.42.197.106 (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Vikramaditya Empire

Sometimes I heard about "Vikramaditya Empire rules all Asia and half of Europe and Roma. Vikramaditya Empire is an Indian Empire who make India a Golden Bird and biggest Empire of the world" this is real or fake? 103.240.98.56 (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Biggest fake empire ever no it doesn't exist.if it exist provide source Obiwana (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Search Option

Please add search option because I cant find my favorite empire. 103.240.98.178 (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Chola Empire

Add Chola Empire. Chola Empire is one of the biggest empire in history! 103.240.98.178 (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Chalukya Empire

Add Chalukya Empire. Chalukya Empire is one of the biggest empire in history. 103.240.98.178 (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Vijayanagar Empire

Add Vijayanagar Empire. Vijayanagar empire is one of the biggest empire in history. 103.240.98.178 (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Pala Empire

Add Pala Empire. Pala Empire is one of the biggest empire in history. 103.240.98.178 (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

To save time I will only reply here. Please provide an wp:rs that any of these were even unusually large empires. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Largest Empires by Population Needs To Be Deleted

This article has been of poor quality from the start. It's currently just a copy paste of a chart from one book, without any detailed methadology, where the author themselves admits how rough and unreliable the data is.

What's more, estimating historical populations is the furthest thing from an exact science and opinions on this subject vary wildly. Any serious figures would be presented as ranges and even those estimated ranges would differ greatly depending on who you ask. Since it's all theory, there is no right answer.

This article provides none of that context and instead presents one man's guess (which he admits is inherently limited in its accuracy) as a definite fact.

This is exactly the kind of article that gives Wikipedia a bad name and it's time to delete it and move on. A single person's guess on a highly controversial and completely unknowable subject should NEVER be presented as fact. 99.228.186.204 (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Kazakh Khanate

Please consider adding the Kazakh Khanate, it had an area of aprox 2.5milion km. sq. at it’s height KzWikiMaster (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We need a source saying it was the largest empire of its time. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It was NOT the LARGEST empire of its time, but it was large, here is an information from the wiki page of Kazakh Khanate (there are no numbers tho):

“From 16th to 17th century, the Kazakh Khanate ruled and expanded its territories to eastern Cumania (modern-day West Kazakhstan), to most of Uzbekistan, Karakalpakstan and the Syr Darya river with military confrontation as far as Astrakhan and Khorasan Province, which are now in Russia and Iran, respectively.”

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_Khanate

In a Russian wiki page, which is more accurate than the English version because a lot of people in Kazakhstan speak Kazakh and Russian but not English, it is stated that the land area of Kazakh Khanate was more or less around 2.5 million km.sq.

Link: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%85%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE

If we measure the size of the Kazakh Khanate just like the British Empire was measured, meaning all the territories that it had control over at certain periods of times in history, then the size reaches over 3.3million km.sq. KzWikiMaster (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023

Add "American Empire" as the No.1 largest empire. Shqiptarcymry (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Kazakh Khanate

At it’s height of territorial expansion it had an area of 3.2 million km. sq. (During the reign of Tauke Khan) It had territories stretching over/bordering Nogai Khanate, Bukhara Khanate, Safavid Empire, Russian Empire, Dzhungar Khanate, Qing Empire

I can only provide the source with the size of Kazakh Khanate in Kazakh language, couldn’t find any source stating the size of Kazakh Khanate in numbers in English, only have some sources where they describe the area which it occupied.

Kazakh Khanate Wiki Eng describes the area it occupied (You can open Kazakh version of the page to see that the area is stated as 3.2 million km. sq.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_Khanate KzWikiMaster (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

It does? Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Portuguese empire size

Change portuguese empire listed size to it's actual size (about 10.4 million square km2). 168.182.165.85 (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

https://mo.tnu.tj/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/strategic_vision__america_and_the_crisis_of_global_power.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.182.165.85 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a source on 21st century geopolitics. TompaDompa (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

According to this most reliable source, the Portuguese empire had a dimension of around 13.4 million square km. https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/empires_booklet.pdf (page 33) And of course, there is something called "library", where you can find things called books, where there is a lot of information on the subject, like this book, in Portuguese, among many others, that you can find on the net, https://www.academia.edu/31117562/Longas_Guerras_longos_sonhos_africanos._Da_tomada_de_Ceuta_ao_fim_do_Imp%C3%A9rio or these, that you will have to go to such libraries to read them.

Davies, Kenneth Gordon (1974). The North Atlantic World in the Seventeenth Century

. [S.l.]: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-0713-3

Davis, David Brion (2006). Inhuman Bondage: The Rise And Fall of Slavery in the New World

. [S.l.]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195140736

Diffie, Bailey W.; Winius, George D. (1977). Foundations of the Portuguese Empire, 1415–1580

. [S.l.]: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-0782-2

Disney, A.R. (2009a). History of Portugal and the Portuguese Empire Volume 1, Portugal: From Beginnings to 1807. [S.l.]: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521843188

Disney, A.R. (2009b). History of Portugal and the Portuguese Empire Volume 2, Portugal: From Beginnings to 1807. [S.l.]: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521738224

Dodge, Ernest Stanley (1976). Islands and Empires: Western Impact on the Pacific and East Asia

. [S.l.]: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0816607884

Gallagher, Tom (1982). Portugal: A Twentieth Century Interpretation

. [s.l.]: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 9780719008764

In reality, the "British world" tends not to talk about the Portuguese Empire, because it is jealous of it, one must not forget that it was the Portuguese who started "the discoveries" and they were the ones who founded the first Global Empire, and the last ones to ended it.

Hope I had help. Zorglub (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/empires_booklet.pdf doesn't say that the Portuguese Empire ever had a territorial extent of 13.4 million km². The "saturation" is a mathematical construct which extrapolates from the data points that exist to a theoretical maximum based on the growth rate, not a data point in itself. In other words, the Portuguese Empire was on the trajectory to reach 13.4 million square kilometers in area, but – as the source says – failed prematurely. It's also worth noting that this source gets its data from Taagepera, the source we currently use. The source that is currently cited, which gives the area as 5.5 million km², is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities—just about the highest-quality, most WP:RELIABLE source we can get for this. TompaDompa (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023

i need to add biggest empire pls give me permission FullRealityEdit (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Or you can tell us what it is, and we might add it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Ethiopian Empire

At its height, the Ethiopian Empire basically controlled present-day Ethiopia and Eritrea. As present-day Ethiopia is 1,104,300 km2 in area and Eritrea is 117,600 km2, it can be concluded that the Ethiopian Empire had an approximate area of ​​1,221,900 km2. Furthermore, in the "List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area in excess of 1,000,000 square kilometers" ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_and_geographic_subdivisions_by_total_area_in_excess_of_1,000,000_square_kilometers ) , the Ethiopian Empire appears with precisely this area. 177.91.168.2 (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Was it the largest empire at the time? Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Vikramaditya Empire

World's largest and powerful emipre 💪🏻

Chakraborty samrat Vikramaditya ruled over 2/3 of world 🌎 1.39.250.71 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Source? 16:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Vikramaditya Empire

There was Vikramaditya Empire Size was 8 Million Square Kilometres+ 223.190.32.76 (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

see above. Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent additions

I have removed some recently-added material that isn't strictly speaking relevant to the topic of this article. There were also massive WP:Close paraphrasing issues. The material I removed consisted of a sentence in the middle of the lead paragraph and a separate paragraph that had been added to the WP:LEAD:

• In cases where it's not clear which level has sovereignty, "the more durable level is given preference". is something of a non sequitur in the context where it appears, which is immediately following the definition of "empire". This is Taagepera outlining how feudalism is handled within his research, which is perhaps important to define to ensure that the approach is self-consistent (which political entity is to be tracked?), but it has very little to do with this article. It is not helpful to include here and if anything, it raises more questions than it answers.
• The added paragraph is all about comparing patterns of individual polities' growth and decline, which is important to Taagepera's research but isn't really pertinent to the topic of this article.

TompaDompa (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)