Greatest empires of all time

[Sonic]

Heresson, please take any historical map of PL at best time and LGD at best time and you will see LGD was bigger. I believe you seen PL biggest size, but maybe you didn't seen LGD at it's best times? It was maybe twice the size of PL. And at the time we had to fight against Moscow we were already at the downturn. Our military at the peak was good, otherwise we wouldn't be able to fight teutonic knights (battle of Þalgiris was the only one we used help) and Mongols and also we wouldn't have expanded our Duchy so much. As for books, most were printed in Prussia in XIX age because Lithuania was annexed by Russians at a time and Lithuanian language was forbidden. Also, Poland on it's own did almost nothing. It was always quite a small country when compared to LGD. Face it, maybe Poland is bigger now but it wasn't always so. As for impact to the worlds history, Lithuanian was bigger than Poland's and maybe about the size or a bit lower than Poland-Lithuania's. But LGD was much bigger than Poland Lithuania, it conquered more, so LGD is still ahead of Poland-Lithuania if everything is summed up.

[FrostyBoy]

British Empire

Everyone gets a house, everyone has a job, everyone is connected to a phone line, sewage system and a health system.

America, Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and other various countries would not be where they are now if it wasn't for the British Empire, and these places today are considered to be some of the happiest, safest and most modern places on earth.

The BE spread its power over the earth (in such a short time too), no other empire has done this, or could even afford to do this.

[Bereta_Eder]

bah it only lasted 150 years and didnt do 1/100 of what other empires have done for mankind





the only ones caring for it are its former gloomy little redcheekie subjects and these countries are not the best by any means


(damn it feels good to be back )

[Heresson]

I know exactly what was the Lithuania's largest territorial extent, and I know it was sth like 2,5 or 3x bigger than Poland of this time (counting Poland with Moldavia and Masovia though without Polish independant dduchies, and counting Lithuania with great steppes and Wierchowskie duchies. Lithuania lost a lot in the war led in the times of g.d. Alexander. But in the times of Jagiello, it was the same size, so obviously united state was bigger. Remember that
Witold was just a gouvernor, not a separate ruler.
And under Wladyslaw Waza, P-L was again as big.,
if it wasn't earlier. It missed to former Lithuanian territory just Jedysan, Wierchowskie duchies and Kursk, while it had Livonia, Prussia and Poland instead. It WAS larger than Lithuania at its peaks. And was stronger, but it's a different case. Lithuania wasn't weak, but it was no almighty empire and it had no impact on world's history. For me, You are perhaps a primary school kid and perhaps that's why You think that a bigger means stronger... It doesn't, especially that it wasn't bigger. It's a nioce thing to be proud of your country, but You should uhm be more objective, Lithuania won some battles with TK, but also lost some. Tell me, if You were so strong, why have You lost ?mud?? Why have You lost Kowno/Kaunas even? Poland was smaller than Lithuania I never said it wasn't.
Just that Lithuania had pure size, some military strenght,
not much more. Lithuanian input in world's history is only its fights with Moscowians. Poles did much better. You must be mad that You can't see it. Lithuanian input in world's history is bigger than Estonian, Latvian, Byelorussian, Finnish even, but certainly not Polish.
I say it completetly objectively. I admit if sth is stronger than Poland. Russian input in the worldn history I consider
bigger, and German, but Lithuanian? What did You do except for stretching your borders? You fought with Mongols? So did Poland and Russia. You fought with Russians? You failed (I know I know for some time even Moscow was under Lithuanian domination still
it's nothing. Lithuanian might was short and quite theoretical. You could fight succesively in Ruthenia,
but You couldn't -even with some victories- protect your
homelands against TK and at the end, You lost anyway). Conquest isn't a thing that makes country worth admiration. PL was bigger. Anyway, PL is continuation of both Poland and Lithuania, so Lithuanian conquests belong to it too.

[MarkG]

i was going to post the usual link to my favorite faq on macedonia(oh well, here it is http://history.macedonia.gr/faq.htm ) but then i read this

perhaps we can say that their culture was Greek, and the empires created by them turned out to be Greek

but they are not greek, huh?

[notyoueither]

Britain and Rome lead. Who'd a thunk it.

PS. Still fighting that Macedonian troll Mark?

[MarkG]

nye, i think that we keep geting new ones

here are some non-greek greek names of macedonian kings

ARGEAD dynasty and their mythical ancestors

* Hercules
* Illos
* Kleodaios
* Aristomachos
* Timmenos
* Kissios
* Thestios
* Merops
* Aristodamidas
* Phidon
* Karanos (Late 9th/Early 8th Cent.BC) He built the city Aeges (Vergina)
* Koinos (Mid-8th Cent.BC)
* Tyrimmas (Late 8th/Early 7th Cent.BC)
* Perdikkas I (670-652BC)
* Argaios I (652-621BC)
* Philippos I (621-588BC)
* Aeropos I (588-568BC)
* Alketas (568-540BC)
* Amyntas I (540-498BC) From this period we have the first historical records
* Alexandros I (498-454BC) Participated in the Olympics and received the title of the Philellin
* Perdikkas II (454-413BC)
* Archelaos I (413-399BC) Made Pella the capital of his kingdom
* Orestis (399-396BC)
* Aeropos II (396-393BC)
* Pausanias (393BC)
* Amyntas II the Lioras (393BC)
* Amyntas III (392-370BC)
* Alexandros II (370-368BC)
* Ptolemeos Alorites (368-365BC)
* Perdikkas III (365-359BC)
* Philippos II (359-336BC) He first managed to unify the Greek states under his hegemony
* Alexandros III the Great (336-323BC) His expedition spread the Greek culture and created a great empire
* Philippos III Arrhidaios (323-321BC) Brother of Alexander III the Great, mentally incapable
* Antipatros (321-319BC) He was appointed king until Alexander IV* would become adult
*Alexandros IV was the son of Alexander III and Roxani and they were both murdered by Kassandros in 310 BC

Immediately after Alexander's III death started the competition between his generals (Ptolemeos, Antigonos, Lysimachos, Eumenis, Leonatos, Seleukos, Dimitrios) for the throne of his empire. Very soon the empire was divided into 5-6 states that competed eachother, until the conquer by the Romans.

RIVAL KINGS: 319-301 BC

* Kassandros Son of Antipatros that built Thessaloniki
* Antigonos I Monophthalmos (319-301BC)
* Dimitrios I Poliorkitis Son of Antigonos
* Lysimachos
* Seleukos Soter
* Ptolemeos Lagos

ANTIPATRID dynasty

* Kassandros
* Philippos IV
* Antipatros
* Alexandros V

RIVAL RULERS

* Dimitrios I Poliorkitis (294-288BC)
* Pyrrhos (288-285BC)
* Lysimachos (285-281BC)
* Ptolemeos Keravnos (281-279BC) He was defeated by the Galats

ANARCHY

* Meleager (279BC)
* Antipatros Etesias (279BC)
* Sosthenis (279-277BC)

ANTIGONID dynasty

* Antigonos II Gonatas (277-239BC) He reorganized the Macedonian kingdom
* Dimitrios II (239-229BC)
* Antigonos III Doson (229-222BC)
* Philippos V (221-179BC)
* Perseus (179-168BC) He was defeated by the Romans in 168 at Pydna

[Heresson]

MarkG, they were Greek, which doesn't mean that the ancient Macedonians were.

[Heresson]

Oh, and thanks for the link.

[Heresson]

"Excluding a number of Polish and Hungarian immigrant workers as well as few Yugoslav illegal workers residing in Greece particularly during the summer months, there are no other Slavs living in Greece."

How can I treat this site serious and believe it when it says that Hungarians are Slavs?

[MarkG]

ok, so they spoke greek, their empire was greek, their kings were greek, but they werent greek....

see this page too

http://makedonia.cc.ece.ntua.gr/

[Heresson]

Now don't get me wrong. All Slavic brotherhood behind,
I don't claim that Macedonians are descendants of Macedonia and Greece is not. Was there Macedonian language or was there not, You are closer related to them than Macedonians. But Macedonia is also historical land
(though most of Macedonia is rather Dardania but on your site there was said nevermind), so if they want to call themselves Macedonians, they have the right to do it. Moreover, if Aregentine would like to call herself Macedonia,
it would have right to do it and that's no Greek buiseness.
I understand You partially, but if they want to be Macedonians, let them be them.

[MarkG]

even if you accept the theory about taking "Macedonia" as a geographical term, it isnt right as the biggest part(75-80%) of FYROM is outside of that area. even if you take the biggest area characterized as "macedonia", the one in the roman times(and i'm not discussing the conquest of Philip and Alexander cause then we'd have half of bulgaria and the entire middle east characterized as "macedonia"!), over 50% of fyrom is again outside macedonia, with the capital Skopjie(ancient name Scoupi) not being occupied by Macedonians at ALL times.

as you said, the exact area of the heart of FYROM(and their capital) was the home land of the non-greek Dardanians. we dont they take that name as they want to separate themselves from both the serbs and the bulgarians, we dont mind

[MarkG]

although looking at the issue, it seems that the albanians are claiming the dardanians as an illyrian tribe and use it in relation to kosovo, and therefore they might have issues with that name too

in greece we've always used the words "Skopia" and "Skopians" which is also a geographical term and fits perfectly

[Serb]

Re: Re: Re: Greatest empires of all time

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Size: Nope, British and Mongol were larger.

British- perhaps BUT it wasn't a continious land based Empire. The aborigens of Australia or tribes of Native Americans weren't a citizens of this country. R.E. was different, aside Brits we didn't have colonies.
Mongols?
No way. They don't have Alaska, Finland, Poland, North of Syberia and some territories of Asia wich Russians have.
Ooops, almost forget we also controled Malta for some time. I wonder if Mongols ever heard about Malta.

Strength: Nope, America was stronger

America? I don't know such Empire. It's a typical Gringos bull****os!!!
Who care about America or consider them as powerfull nation until the end of WW2?

Loyalty: Yeah, all those guys in gulags in Siberia were real happy, hmmm? America wins here, too!

Again, it's a typical Gringos bull****os!!!
1) I know nothing about an American Empire.
2) Let's count, Russia started its expantion in the middle of XVI century till nowdays we are the largest country of the World. It will be almost FIVE HUNDREDS YEARS. Yes, Brits controled a little bigger territory, BUT for much shorter period of time. And lost them becouse of anti-colonial movements, becouse population of their colonies were unhappy under their rule. So, it means that Russian population was much happier then population of British Emire. Others don't stay close, perhaps only French or Spainish.

Lifetime: Dude, China's got you beat by a landslide!

We are talking about EMPIRES here, not about CIVILIZATIONS. If the poll was about civilizations, no doubd Chinese are out of competition. BUT as EMIPRE Russia is MUCH greater.

National Hymn: Naw, Germany's and France's are better!

It's only your opinion. Look at results of poll about this. Russian national hymn is out of competition there.


Have a nice day.