I can never remember the one in India, and I'm ashamed to say I had no idea where Timbuktu is located. Maybe next time. Other than those, the rest were easy for me also.
Mesopotamia is the geographic area around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. There have been several empires in that area since the Bronze age, including Persian, Babylonian, and Assyrian.
where is french?? soviet? and can you make a quiz about slightly more obscure empires please :) athens, sparta, kwarizmian, mughal, maratha, seljuk, mali, zulu, timurid... for example
Agree with that. Besides Spain, the Britts and portugal, the French and Dutch Empires should be on the list as well. They were larger and of more worldwide influence than the Holy Roman Empire and Austria-Hungary(for example) ever were.
The title of the quiz is not "Every Famous Empire." and some of the more obscure empires you list are not really empires, though a few show up on my longest lasting empires quiz.
When I first started reading the last question, Admiral Ackbar immediately came to mind and for a split second I wondered when he switched to the Empire.
Good quiz, but how about a sequel with some slightly less well known empires to add a bit of challenge? Khmer, Majapahit, Mauryan, Seleucid, Mali, Bulgar. Perhaps some post-colonial ones - Mexican, Brazilian, Haitian or Central African?
Good idea for a quiz but would be improved if you answered as per yellow box. Currently, you can just type in the name of any empire and it puts it neatly in the box for you. Cheers
Germany called itself "Deutsches Reich" even under the Nazis. "Reich" means any large or powerful dominion, although it is most commonly translated as "empire". But even the English word empire does not necessarily refer to something ruled by a monarch, as we see in the Merriam-Webster definition: "a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority". Which applies to Nazi Germany, especially during WWII.
Mughal Empire is overrated. Mauryan Empire was way bigger than Mughal. Chola Empire controlled not only south India but the whole south east Asia. Gupta Empire, Pala Empire, Maratha Empire, Rashtrakutas, & Kushan Empire are also some prominent Empires. And you also forgot the Qing and Han Dynasties of China and Khmer Of Cambodia.
While they might be better known in the West at least partially because they came into direct conflict with the British, still, what are you talking about? The Mughal Empire lasted over 300 years. They ruled over almost all of India as well as a significant chunk of central Asia. At their capital of Agra they constructed easily the most famous landmark in all of India. Under their rule the population of India tripled, growing faster than during any other period up to that point, and they made many advances in other areas, as well. How is that less significant than what the Maratha Empire accomplished?
Taj Mahal is overrated, there's a lot better monuments in India than just that. Give India a visit not like a tourist, but like a traveller, you will realise.
Thanks very much for the misplaced condescension but your comment still reads as ignorant and/or biased. And though your link doesn't work, Mughal shows up as #2 largest on Wikipedia, so what are you trying to accomplish by posting that?
Agree with Kal. The Mughal Empire was easily on-par with (or even arguably ahead of) Europe into the early 1700s, which only really changed with the start of the Industrial Revolution. India was one of the richest and most economically productive parts of the world at that point. Additionally, they accomplished a lot in the arts and sciences. Regardless of whether you personally like or dislike the Taj Mahal, it's widely considered one of the greatest feats of architecture in history.
Shouldn't there be more ? Like the frankish empire of Charlemagne ? the French one of Napoleon ? Some muslim caliphates (abbasid, ommeyads, seldjoukides, cordoba...) ? Maybe some chinese dynasties (ming, yuan, qing...) too ?
They were completely different, and they fought each other all the time before Mali took over. Mali was much more well known so i'd say it should stay the same.
That’s an alternative spelling in English, I would say far less commonly used than Habsburg, which is also the original spelling in German. So no, Hapsburg is not ‘the correct spelling’, but it is an acceptable spelling.
The first time an empire was ruled by a tsar was the Bulgarian Empire, under Simeon I. The last was Bulgaria under Simeon II. As the question is worded, Bulgaria is absolutely a correct answer. Likewise Serbia. Maybe change tsars to Romanovs, to make it more Russia specific? Or alternatively, accept Serbia and Bulgaria as type-ins.
Second the idea of including the French Empire. But do not include Polish-Lithuanian Empire, it was never an "empire" in the strict sense, it was a Commonwealth.
Empires have been built since the dawn of civilization. It's weird how modern peoples seem to think that it's a uniquely European phenomenon simply because the Europeans were the ones left holding the bag at the end of the age of colonialism.
though your implications here I think are an oversimplification, and there were some things novel about European colonialism, there's also a bit of truth in it... which I think is to blame on the fact(s) that the historically ignorant (almost all of us) don't know much beyond whatever happened most recently, and also that racists find it much easier to have a single shade of people to blame something on when looking for villains or scapegoats. These two things go hand in hand, too, since, it's impossible to believe in the concept of race if you are not historically ignorant.
https://www.quotes.net/quote/35195
'Obscure Empires of History' or the like...
Taj Mahal is overrated, there's a lot better monuments in India than just that. Give India a visit not like a tourist, but like a traveller, you will realise.
British..