Best Empire?

[Black Sun Dimension]

1 British
2 Roman
3 Mongol

[Osweo]

The fact that American imperialism exists doesn't necessarily mean there is an American Empire. Even if sometimes it seems so, bases on countries doesn't mean that the citizens of those countries are subjects to the American 'emperor'.

HAIL!

[BeerBaron]

The fact that American imperialism exists doesn't necessarily mean there is an American Empire. Even if sometimes it seems so, bases on countries doesn't mean that the citizens of those countries are subjects to the American 'emperor'.

No, but they are highly subject to american influence, i think its safe to say its a "soft" empire.

Based on legacy and contributions to modern society

1.Roman
2.British/American

I see the british and american empires being together and both have made huge contributions to modern society. English, specifically the american dialect, will always now be the worlds language as it is the language of commerce. But they don't beat Rome imo

[Austin]

Judging purely on institutionally-stable nations that were birthed from the above empires one has to conclude the British empire was the best. Certainly Mexico and Brazil aren't winning any awards on an institutional-stability chart.

I very much appreciate the strong hand of the Spanish Empire in the New World in respect to dealing with the savages, they and Portugal knew how to dish out justice that's for sure. Yet I do have to agree that Spain's Empire in the New World didn't end up creating modern economic or societal models of envy. Mexico is an institutional disaster and South America isn't exactly a consistent place either institutionally. Every police force is corrupt beyond belief in the Americas save for Canada and the U.S.

[Lisa]

Russia 4ever !

[Comte Arnau]

No, but they are highly subject to american influence, i think its safe to say its a "soft" empire.

Countries that exert a big influence upon others are called great powers (or even superpowers), but it's not the same as an Empire, in which territories of different ethnicities are subjects to the same ruler.

[Svipdag]

Though the Mongol Empire was the largest in area, the Achæmenid Empire was the largest in population in human history. From what I have read of its history, it was regarded for centuries after its fall as the most benevolent and best-governed of the ancient empires.

Alexander of Macedon, who conquered the Achæmenid Empire in the days of its decline greatly respected the Persian kings, especially Kurush (Cyrus) and
adopted many Persian customs and policies.

Either he did not understand the causes of the decline of the Persian Empire, or he did not realise that, by organising his empire along similar lines, he was guaranteeing its early collapse.

Both the Persians and Alexander had bitten off more than they could chew.
Even though the Persian Empire had excellent roads, communication and transportation were too slow for the central authority to keep abreast of events on the periphery of the empire.

Authority had to be delegated to kshatrapas (satraps) who soon became rivals of the king. Putting down their revolts weakened the unity of the empire and led to its collapse. Alexander's trusted satraps, Ptolemy, Antiochus, and Seleucus took advantage of his early death to declare themselves kings.

[BeerBaron]

Countries that exert a big influence upon others are called great powers (or even superpowers), but it's not the same as an Empire, in which territories of different ethnicities are subjects to the same ruler.

So, when a country is overthrown and thrown into massive debt by the US, and American Military bases are set up, american business swoops in and has huge influence in government. You don't consider that a form of an empire? I realize it doesn't fit the classical definition, but i think at some point we can say just because there isnt an "emperor" and they havent exerted as much direct control of the populace their institutions that have been put in exert disproportionate control, so we can refer to it as a soft empire, or "empire lite"

[Joe McCarthy]

The fact that American imperialism exists doesn't necessarily mean there is an American Empire. Even if sometimes it seems so, bases on countries doesn't mean that the citizens of those countries are subjects to the American 'emperor'.

The US simply is not an empire, despite what Niall Ferguson, leftists, and others say. And if it is an empire, it is the most benevolent of empires.

[Comte Arnau]

So, when a country is overthrown and thrown into massive debt by the US, and American Military bases are set up, american business swoops in and has huge influence in government. You don't consider that a form of an empire? I realize it doesn't fit the classical definition, but i think at some point we can say just because there isnt an "emperor" and they havent exerted as much direct control of the populace their institutions that have been put in exert disproportionate control, so we can refer to it as a soft empire, or "empire lite"

As you yourself point out, I sticked to the classical definitions. Otherwise I'd have to include all kind of kingdoms and countries which exerted a great influence in its time. Going by loose definitions, we'd even include the Microsoft or the Google Empires in the list.