see my comment above. Maybe it's not counted because it was also known as the Eastern Roman Empire. On the other hand, it might also be smaller than the Dutch Empire. The Roman Empire in its entirety was only 5 million sq km and the Dutch Empire is listed at 4.
I think it's not included because it wasn't quite big enough. I tried Byzantium, Byzantine, and Eastern Roman as well. However, wikipedia has it listed at only 2.8 million sq km. Many parts of the eastern empire weren't roman during the maximal extent of the Roman empire in 117.
That comment seems to have gone missing now... I probably also said something about "similar cultural groups" being arbitrary, and the only reason for us to think of the Romans and Italians as separate is because we learn more about them in Western history classes. If we learned as much about different Indian and Chinese dynasties and Persian empires etc we could separate many of them out, too. We only think of them all as being monolithic because of our selective ignorance.
I think a pretty good example of what Kal is talking about is the Mughal Empire. The dynasty was founded by Central Asian Turks (Babur was from Uzbekistan), who are very much distinct from Indians. It's true that they intermarried with Indians later on and included plenty of Indians in the administration, but I'd still say the royal family itself was not Indian. Ditto for China's Qing Dynasty, which was ruled by Manchus.
I won't really argue this point because to a large extent both the Mughals and the Qing continued governing over the same areas in the much the same ways as the empires that came before them. It's just worth pointing that treating two groups as the same just because of geography is somewhat silly.
Australia? Really? How it that? You're not confusing it with the Austro-Hungarian empire are you? (I was surprised not to see it there.) Still... cracking good quiz!
i don't think "arab" should be accepted. it should be "arab caliphate," if you really know what the name is then you don't need to cheat by just typing in arab. its reasonable for france, spain, italy, etc., but not for an empire without a modern country. it wasn't the arab empire it was the arab caliphate
Why would there be a special exception for the Arab Empire? None of these other empires except one actually used the English word "empire," but we don't require you to know Reich, империя, Imperio, or whatever the happened to be called in their own language- just the adjective that goes before it.
yea, weird that according to you you could omit "empire" but not "caliphate" Isnt meaning the correct thing good enough? Empire is a word well know by non english speakers, caliphate however isnt. So I think it is atleast as fair if not more, to accept that one without caliphate is you accept the others without empire.
And "without a modern country" is an even more weird argument to me. I would think the other way around. That the ones that are a country now should sooner require the suffix empire, as not to confuse it with its current state
Iran for Persian Empire I think is fine - Iran has been used as a name for that area since at least the time of the Sassanid Empire (where it is attested in the Avestas), but the Behistun Inscription of Darius the Great (importantly, of the Achaemenid Dynasty) refers to the Iranian people, implying the name Iran was already in use by then.
On the other hand, accepting Saudi Arabia for Arab Caliphate would be quite absurd - the former is not a direct successor to the latter in any meaningful sense. The Umayyads didn't even have their capitals in the territory of modern Saudi Arabia, with Damascus in Syria being the most significant.
Brazil was actually an Empire once. It covered all of its current size plus Uruguay. The sizes are rounded so it wouldn't even move, but I think it would be accurate to correct the name.
It wasn't bigger than nowadays because they didn't have a part of amazonia which was then part of peru bolivia, they also had some land that belonged to paraguay.
In addition to the fact that answers don't have to be empires, empires do not have to have an emperor. For example, the British, French, and Spanish empires did not have an emperor. The French empire did not even have a king.
The empires weren't notably big. I believe it had something to do with a lack of transport (no horses or other large animals until the Europeans arrived). The Incas used a system of runners to relay information but they just didn't have same advantages as the Old World.
Canada has an empire? Australia and Brazil too? . . pennicilin, diabetic insulin, golf, tarmac, adhesive postage stamps, pneumatic tyres, flushing toilet, television, the Bank of England, the U.S Navy, electric toaster, most of AC/DC, all of The Proclaimers, Peter Pan, bicycles, the BBC, the A.T.M, cordite, the first Bible in English, Dolly the sheep, tossing the Caber, and deep fried Mars bars affect the whole world, so everyone lives in the Scottish Empire . . .
Lots of settlements, independent from the motherland, don't make an empire. Also, they settled in Greenland, Iceland, Russia and Canada but only tiny parts of those. It's also debatable wether Swedes, Danes and Norsemen should be grouped together.
got all but Spain... I feel really stupid now, especially because I got every country on this list in somewhat close proximity to Spain and even tried the Moors, but missed the empire that conquered the country I live in.
Good quiz, though inevitably given the imprecise nature of such things there's going to be potential quibbles. Makes sense not to include, for example the Seleucid Empire or the Byzantines, as they are direct successors to Alexander's Empire and Rome respectively. I do think, however, that the Mauryan Empire, Mughal Empire and modern India should all be treated separately though, on the same grounds as the Roman Empire and Italy.
Did it again today but didn't get Umayyad Caliphate, although I did the last time I tried. What did I type in? Because I'm sure I didn't type 'Umayyad' last time xD
Brazil was a part of it and after the indepence it hardy grew!!! so if Brazil alone is 8.5 the Portuguese empire should obviously be bigger that 8.5, besides Brazil, Angola and Mozambique where also part of the empire, correct your math.
Greenland is pretty small in the grand scheme of things (unless for some unknown reason you're still using a Mercator projection in this modern day and age)
I wasn't. Tibet is a relatively large land area with a long history and previous autonomy. I think it was the 2nd or 3rd to last one I got out of the 23. ...
One of the things I did was try to guess every significant culture I could think of and when I ran out of those I guessed large regions or peoples, etc. ...
It was pretty interesting how many famous empires did not make the list. Aztec, Inca, Maya, Carthaginian, Khmer.
I am surprised it took so long in the comments to see someone make this point. First thing I thought when it said it is current Australia....'wait a minute'....LOL.
Dutch empire with 4 mil sqkm???? In 1940? What belonged to the Netherlands at that time besides Indonesia, Surinam, the Dutch West Indies and NL itself? Altogether barely 2 mil sqkm?
Why was America at its greatest extent in 1934? I know that America would've been larger in the past due to imperial expansion in the early 1900s, but I thought that mostly happened in the first decade or two of the century. Was there something annexed by America in 1934 that allowed it to reach its greatest extent?
Good question. I would have guessed around 1898 when the US acquired Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. This may be based on an interpretation of the Howard-Wheeler Act (a/k/a Indian Reorganization Act of 1934) that restored at least some Native American sovereignty over reservations. If you remove that territory from the calculation, the area of the US becomes smaller in 1934.
Timurid empire is missing. I checked it, because I could not believe that and it listed in the source given in description as well (at 4.4 mil. of sq kilometres). It is definitely not related to the Ottoman, nor the Mongol. Please check it out!
I'm guessing they're counting it as a offshoot of the Mongolian Empire, and not counting it because it was not as large. But you're right... see what I said above about the differences between the Italian and Roman Empires.
Great quiz I agree, but how tf is Mughal Empire and Mauryan Empire the same and even India is accepted for both.
I humbly request you to change Mauryan Empire to Mughal Empire because both are completely two different Empires with nothing in common except for the land they once ruled.
It's utterly nonsensical to accept Mughal for Mauryan.
Mughal Empire was bigger than Mauryan Empire and so Mauryan Empire shouldn't be accepted even if you accept India for Mughal Empire.
Or give us the source which says the Mughal Empire is the same as the Mauryan Empire. It's such a. Disappointment to see such silly mistakes in this website ;-;
Looking at it on wikipedia, I would guess it's that they are considered by a lot of scholars to have been the cultural ancestors of the huns, and therefore are disqualified by the "same culture group" clause
The United States has shrunk since the independence of the Philippines and other less notable possessions, though I’m not entirely sure about the specific choice of 1934.
I don't know why they deny it when we know the truth. I'm not American though, so, I cannot say much.
I won't really argue this point because to a large extent both the Mughals and the Qing continued governing over the same areas in the much the same ways as the empires that came before them. It's just worth pointing that treating two groups as the same just because of geography is somewhat silly.
Also, Indiavoyager, it says that there are current countries here as well, not only empires from the past.
And "without a modern country" is an even more weird argument to me. I would think the other way around. That the ones that are a country now should sooner require the suffix empire, as not to confuse it with its current state
iran for Persian Empire
saudi arabia for Arab Caliphate
On the other hand, accepting Saudi Arabia for Arab Caliphate would be quite absurd - the former is not a direct successor to the latter in any meaningful sense. The Umayyads didn't even have their capitals in the territory of modern Saudi Arabia, with Damascus in Syria being the most significant.
Where as, Tibetan Empire is about 4 times as big as the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China. In fact, it included areas beyond the Tibetan plateau.
Brazil was a part of it and after the indepence it hardy grew!!! so if Brazil alone is 8.5 the Portuguese empire should obviously be bigger that 8.5, besides Brazil, Angola and Mozambique where also part of the empire, correct your math.
Turkic khaganate: 6 million square km
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_Khaganate#
Seljuk empire: 3.9 million square km
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seljuk_Empire
One of the things I did was try to guess every significant culture I could think of and when I ran out of those I guessed large regions or peoples, etc. ...
It was pretty interesting how many famous empires did not make the list. Aztec, Inca, Maya, Carthaginian, Khmer.
It is different from the Russian Empire.
I humbly request you to change Mauryan Empire to Mughal Empire because both are completely two different Empires with nothing in common except for the land they once ruled.
It's utterly nonsensical to accept Mughal for Mauryan.
Mughal Empire was bigger than Mauryan Empire and so Mauryan Empire shouldn't be accepted even if you accept India for Mughal Empire.
Or give us the source which says the Mughal Empire is the same as the Mauryan Empire. It's such a. Disappointment to see such silly mistakes in this website ;-;
Mughal Empire Wikipedia
Mauryan Empire Wikipedia