This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

British Empire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country Geography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I figured I'd make a section for empires where sources have been found for the maximum extent but with no year specified (meaning they can't be included in the list). My hope is that this will be helpful when people try to locate sources. Feel free to add entries of your own to the list below. TompaDompa (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ashanti Empire: 100,000 square miles^[1] – since added using this source which provides the corresponding figure of 250,000 km² and the year 1820.^[2] TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Balhae: 438,000 km^2[3]
• Đại Cồ Việt: 110,000 km^2[4]
• Durrani Empire: 780,000 square miles/2,000,000 km^2[5]
• Dzungar Khanate: 3,600,000 km^2[3] – since added using this source which provides the same figure and the year 1650.^[6] TompaDompa (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Kanem Empire: 300,000 square miles^[7]
• Nguyễn dynasty: 370,000 km^2[8]
• Southern Qi: 2,147,000 km^2[3]
• Phoenicia: 250,000 square miles^[9]
• Vijayanagara Empire: 360,000 km^2[10]
• Wari Empire: 320,000 km^2[11]
• Wuhuan: 400,000 km^2[3]
• Xianbei state: 4,500,000 km^2[3] – since added using this source which provides the same figure and the year 200.^[6] TompaDompa (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Grand Duchy of Lithuania: 930,000 km^2[12] (TTioCrocEzatu)

I think we can add those empires in the list, I would only noted in the time cell "unknown". Janos Neman (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about largest empires, as such they might not have been at the time they existed. Slatersteven (talk)

Given that this page is a continual process of having countries proposed for adding, or people challenging inclusion, I propose the following FAQ:

What do you think? FOARP (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to having some kind of FAQ. I am unsure about this particular one. I might include (1) something about all entries needing both an area estimate and a year from the same source for WP:SYNTH reasons, and (2) something about specific entries that have been discussed over and over again (the main one being the Portuguese Empire). For the latter, the {{Round in circles}} template could be another option. TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These look fine to me. I've included them in this Talk:List of largest empires/FAQ. We should add the round in circles template in any event. FOARP (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

THere was no consensus for the FAQ you added. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything in particular in the FAQ you disagree with or is your objection purely procedural? TompaDompa (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

purely procedural, there does seem to be an objection below, just not mine. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you are referring to this comment by Tercer (You just wrote that FAQ yourself, please don't pretend there is consensus behind it.)? I would ask the same question there: is there anything in particular in the FAQ you disagree with or is the objection purely procedural? TompaDompa (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the definition of empire. This article should use the mainstream definitions discussed in empire. Taagepera's definition is decidedly fringe, it matches neither the popular understanding of the word nor the scholarly usage. It surprises me that it is even mentioned in empire. And I won't be the tiniest bit surprised if it turns out that it was TompaDompa who even added it there. Tercer (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added both Rein Taagepera's[1] and Michael W. Doyle's[2] definitions there, yes. Anyway, the definition in the FAQ is the same one as has been on the article itself since 2016 (also added by me, for the record). Whether that should be the definition used could be debated, but the FAQ nevertheless describes the current state of affairs correctly. TompaDompa (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that FOARP tried to used the FAQ to change the status quo is a nice illustration that it does not represent the status quo. The lead of the article mentions Taagepera's definition, that's true, but the relevant point is that the list doesn't use it; I don't see any country there that doesn't respect the mainstream definition of empire. Tercer (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

France was a republic at the date given in the list (1920), as was Nazi Germany (1941). I don't believe this article has ever been limited to imperial monarchies only (strictly speaking, kingdoms are also not necessarily "empires" if this is the definition used), and Taagepera's definition clearly does not exclude republics.

Tercer repeatedly refers to the "mainstream definition of empire", but doesn't state what they think this is, still less provide a source. We can see that the dictionary definition of an Empire is "a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority" (Merriam-Webster) or "a large group of states ruled over by a single monarch or ruling authority" (Oxford Paperback English Dictionary). The mainstream definition of "empire" is also one that doesn't require the state to be an imperial monarchy. FOARP (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

France had colonies in 1920, there's really no controversy that it was an empire. Nazi Germany was a classical empire with their wars of conquest and dependent territories.

Monarchy is not relevant for the mainstream definition, which is given in the beginning of the lead of empire: An empire is a realm controlled by an emperor or an empress and divided between a dominant center and subordinate peripheries. The center of the empire (sometimes referred to as the metropole) has political control over the peripheries. Within an empire, different populations may have different sets of rights and may be governed differently. Later on the article clarifies that the ruler doesn't need to literally have the title "emperor", that would be silly. The relevant part is this division between a dominant centre and a subordinate periphery, which is repeated over and over again in the Definition section. The only one that disagrees is, of course, Taagepera, showing how fringe he is. Tercer (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to the (academically, rather niche) subject of quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities, Taagepera is the opposite of fringe: he is the single most central scholar. Whether you think Taagepera's definition of "empire" in that context is fringe when considering other topics or contexts is really immaterial: inasmuch as it serves as the basis for what gets an entry in a list like this, Taagepera's operational definition for that purpose is not fringe. TompaDompa (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, particularly not an article which has a “multiple issues” tag on it. If you want to point to a “mainstream” definition of what an empire is (that neither dictionaries nor academic sources agree with…) you need to find it off Wikipedia. FOARP (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That article cites plenty of reliable sources giving definitions of empire. Do you really want to me copy-paste the precise quotations and references to establish the blinding obvious? Tercer (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like you to actually cite sources when the academic experts in this specific field, and the plain old dictionary sources, actually say you are wrong. FOARP (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. One does need a minimum of goodwill to get anything done in Wikipedia. This sort of blanket denial is not productive. But let's take a look at the very first source in empire then, "Howe, Stephen (2002). Empire: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press". Oxford University Press is a reputable publisher, and Stephen Howe is a professor in history and cultures of colonialism at Bristol University. Quite the reliable source, isn't it? I've got the book, and it says A kind of basic, consensus definition would be that an empire is a large political body which rules over territories outside its original borders. It has a central power or core territory – whose inhabitants usually continue to form the dominant ethnic or national group in the entire system – and an extensive periphery of dominated areas. In most cases, the periphery has been acquired by conquest. Happy now? Or do you want me to waste my time looking for more references reafirming the blinding obvious? Or perhaps, if you seriously think this is not the mainstream definition, it is your turn to look for sources? Tercer (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And in what possible way does this exclude republics in the way you seem to want it to? FOARP (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. Why do you think I want to exclude republics? There's plenty of examples of empires which were republics. Tercer (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you appear to be arguing that the Brazilian Empire was an Empire, but that Brazil in 1900-1903 was not. FOARP (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil is (and was) indeed not an empire, but not because it is a republic, but because it lacks (and lacked) the periphery of dominated areas. Tercer (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's your own WP:OR interpretation, which, if followed, would mean that Brazil had never been an empire, even when it was a monarchy (since the nature of Brazil's rule in the Amazon did not change from 1889 to 1903). Taagepera & Nemcok says otherwise. FOARP (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply applying the definition. And no, it wouldn't make the Brazilian Empire stop being one, because it did the typical imperial conquest and subjugation in the Cisplatine and Paraguay.

If you are so keen on claiming that Brazil is currently an empire, maybe you could find a source for that? In the case of the US you managed to find a non-Taagepera source, Harmsworth, because the US was indeed an empire.

I'm feeling fooled, since I wasted my time looking for a source for you, and you haven't extended the same courtesy to me. Tercer (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"If you are so keen on claiming that Brazil is currently an empire" - I'm not making that specific claim. It only needs to be one at the date given in our article according to a reliable source. I don't see why Taagepera is wrong to identify Brazil as having been so in 1900. But if he is there are also other sources that described Brazil at the times of the Acre War as having been imperialist. FOARP (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't find any source describing it as an empire, got it. Tercer (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We just discussed Taagepera which does, and yeah, the source I just gave you does as well. FOARP (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being disingenuous is not productive either. The entire discussion is about whether there is a source besides Taagepera. And if your source does state that Brazil is (or was) an empire, please give the exact quotation and page number. Tercer (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It states that Brazil was "imperialist" in its conquest of Acre. But If you don't like this:

• "Brazil is a study in superlatives. Largest of the Latin American nations and almost as large as the United States (including Alaska), Brazil, with an area of 3,287,842 square miles, occupies almost half of South America. It stretches some 2,700 miles from the Guiana highlands in the north to the plains of Paraguay and Uruguay; and it measures another 2,700 miles from the eastern hump across to the yungas and montana of Bolivia and Peru. Brazil is an empire in which the homeland and the colonies are housed under one geographic roof."
• "Two conflicting views exist as to the manner of achieving the effective occupation which neither the Empire nor the Republic managed to bring about. The first, which guided the government prior to Getulio Vargas and which has strong defenders in the ranks of politicians and theoreticians, advocates stimulus to immigration, subsidies for pioneer areas, and consolidation of the East — the center of Brazilian life — as the basis for a slow but steady expansion to the west and northwest. Brazil is an empire within whose confines are to be found areas which are metropolitan in their development and areas in a state of colonial dependency."
• "Brazilians live in a small slice of Brazil. Most of their empire is untamed jungle. The 45 million Brazilians have plenty of room"

None of this requires saying that Brazil is an empire now, only that it has been called one in reliable sources at points in the past, even after 1889. Descriptions of the "March to the West" under Getulio Vargas as "colonialism" abound. FOARP (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you had to dredge up obscure books from the 40s and 60s is a good demonstration that Brazil is not and was not an empire. If it were it would be easy to demonstrate. But the only author who lists Brazil alongside actual empires is Taagepera, who draws no distinction between empires and nation states. Tercer (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. That definition seems like it would include modern-day countries like Denmark (Greenland, Faroe Islands), Sweden (Scania, Norrland), and the United Kingdom (Scotland, Northern Ireland...), depending on where the line for "large" and "extensive" is drawn. For larger countries, both the United States and China would also seem to fit. Russia might fit if it is considered continuous with the Russian Empire (and not, say, a country that gained independence from the Soviet Union) as the successor state of its successor state. TompaDompa (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. It gets kinda blurry when you look at historical political entities. Many of the entries on this list from China are all considered different political entities, just because there was a dynasty change. Lots of historical nations changed dynsties all the time, but they are not always considered distinct entities. Of course we should just do what the most reliable source of Rein says, as it's the best we've got.

As far as my own research goes, Francia and Carolingian Empire are considered two distinct political entities, because a change in dynasty and social norms/policy. However, lots of other European nations had more or less the same changes, but aren't considered distinct at all. I also got confused when the user tried to change it to modern day Brazil instead of the Empire of Brazil, they are both considered two different entities, right?

So we have:

Russian Federation

Russian Empire

Tsardom of Russia

Grand Principality of Moscow

All of them are considered different political entities by some and the same political entities by others.

Then we also have the case of Nazi Germany and Empire of Japan. Apparently Japan can have all it's occupied territory included in it's entry here, but Nazi Germany not? Germany was way way bigger, if we use the same criteria as is done for Japan during WW2.

Now we also have USA as an entry here, which is fine and all, but it isn't really the greatest extent. USA fully controlled all of Greenland during WW2 and all of Japan and Korea at the end of the war too. So USA should in theory be millions of km2 larger here. But this is the case with sources, we simply use the reliable ones and then write down the size that the sources say, so even though USA factually were larger, if the source we use don't say so, then we can't add it.

However adding USA also leads to confusion for the average reader, as they will stop and think to themselves... USA? but where is Soviet Union? Soviet Union was probably even more an Empire than many other entries on this list, as they hard occupied several nations.

I fully get why some people get confused by this whole topic, as it seems to be rather random from source to source, exactly because as you said, it's such a niche. I don't think any of us in this discussion are to blame for any confusion here, as it's simply so so random and inconsistent overall, from researcher to researcher. Btw, I really like your article idea of a list of largest political entities. I also think Rein is our best source and his definition of empire seem to be the best, but this is of course a consensus thing. Speun (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, nobody is fringe in the context of their own work. You don't get to invent a one-man field to pretend that Taagepera's definition is not fringe. The relevant context is scholars that have given definitions of empire. In any case, what you propose would be a list of largest countries. We already have that article, we shouldn't duplicate it. And we definitely shouldn't duplicate it with an easter egg title. Tercer (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "one-man field". Even Taagepera's latest book was co-written with another author, but more broadly a number of academics use Taagepera's work. FOARP (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities is a niche subject, though not a "one-man field", and Taagepera is the central scholar within that niche. Taagepera's work is a highly-regarded and widely-cited piece of scholarly work. There's really no getting around these facts. What the scope of the article is should be determined by the sources, not by what the title (which is chosen by Wikipedia editors) is. And when we follow the sources, we inevitably end up with Taagepera. That being said: if you think "empire" is a misnomer and think that list of largest historical political entities (or something along those lines) would be a better title, you can start a WP:RM. List of countries and dependencies by area (the actual title of the article; list of largest countries is a redirect) is a list of extant polities at their current extent—quite different from historical (whether extant or not) polities at their maximum extents. TompaDompa (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taagepera's paper has 259 citations. That's actually a very low number. And it makes sense, since it's such a poor piece of scholarship.

In any case, Wikipedians are free to decide what they want to make a list of. And the clear decision up to this day was to make it a list of empires, not of historical polities. We are definitely not forced to change the scope of the article because one source uses a fringe definition of the word "empire". If you want to convince me that it's not fringe praising Taagepera won't work. I already know you have an inexplicable obsession with this source. What you need to do is to find other authors using Taagepera's definition. Tercer (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, everything is relative. It's twice the number of citations Turchin et al. (2006) has (131), for instance. It's much more than Scheidel's 7 citations or the entire Oxford World History of Empire's 45 citations. I might also note for the record that Taagepera's other three articles in the series have 235, 144, and 217 citations, respectively.

Wikipedians are free to decide what they want to make a list of. No, that's just it. If Wikipedia has an article on a topic, it must be because that topic is covered by sources. And then we, inevitably, end up back at looking at Taagepera's work. Now you don't have to like Taagepera's work, and evidently you don't, but that does not change its standing in academia: it is the most central work on the (rather niche) subject of quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities. That's not my opinion—that's how other scholars treat it.

All this being said: I'm not attached to any particular inclusion criteria. What I do care about is that, as I've said before, whatever approach we use (for the US as well as other debatable entries), it needs to be internally consistent and be able to be applied by different people with the same or extremely similar results (i.e. at worst minimally subjective/up for interpretation). TompaDompa (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And Howe's book has 593 citations, despite being more recent. Should we use its definition of empire then? Tercer (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does it deal with quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities? That's a genuine question. TompaDompa (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It deals with the definition of empire, which is the matter at hand. Have you given up finding any scholars that use Taagepera's definition? Tercer (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of this list, what matters is how sources that deal with the topic of this list treat it. You're working backwards by looking at the definition of "empire" to construct the list instead of looking at sources that deal with the topic. Going too far in that direction (which, to be clear, I don't think we are in any danger of doing here) results in WP:Synthesizing an entirely new scope that does not match the sources. TompaDompa (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course one starts with the definition of empire if you want to write a list of largest empires. Then you find sources that compute the area of the empires.

It seems that you have realized that Taagepera's definition is fringe and are desperately trying to change the subject. I take it nobody uses his definition, then, not even other people listing empire sizes? Tercer (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can call it "trying to change the subject". I would call it ignoring a red herring. Your line of argument presupposes that the same definition of "empire" should be applied in different contexts. I do not hold this to be self-evident (it would not exactly be the first time scholars approaching different aspects of the same topic adopt different definitions based on what is most suitable for their particular purposes—I mean, we even have separate Wikipedia articles for nut (fruit) and nut (food) for precisely this kind of reason), so I look at how the term is used in the context where it matters for the purposes of this article. That leads us to Taagepera (who, for the record, says By "empire" I mean any large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign, irrespective of this entity's internal structure or official designation. in the original 1978 article "Size and Duration of Empires: Systematics of Size"). The other major source used here, Turchin et al. (2006), does not provide any definition of "empire" whatsoever; it's probably worth noting that this source uses Taagepera's work as its basis (albeit limited in some regards: we compiled a list of all large historical empires with peak territories exceeding 1 Mm² (= 1,000,000 km²) and For historical empires, we used states that peaked before 1900. We excluded the maritime empires of the European Great Powers, because these empires were not contiguous (widely distributed collections of territories).). TompaDompa (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming that nobody uses Taagepera's definition. And yes, I do think it's self-evident that we have to use the mainstream scholar definition of empire. Tercer (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna lie, fore the differences between that definition and Taagaera's definition seem to be mostly grammatical ~2025-43179-46 (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just have "RS call it an empire"? As its not down to us to decide its down to RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That has historically been more-or-less how it has been done in practice. TompaDompa (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So that's what the FAQ should say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

q=What is the definition of "empire" used on this page?

a=The definition of empire used here is do RS call it an empire.

Is my suggestion. Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to that, though I would like to specify that reliable sources should do so in the context of listing empires by size (otherwise we get in to a situation where any mention anywhere in what is an RS of something being an "empire" is sufficient to list them here, even if it is simply figuratively).

That said you should be aware that Taagepera & Nemčok, p.76 refers to the following modern-era polities as empires: the PRC, the USSR, Brazil, Australia, Canada, Argentina, India, Kazakhstan. FOARP (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have, following this discussion, changed the text of A1 from The definition of empire used here is Rein Taagepera's definition of an empire as "any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign". to For the purposes of this list, a political entity is considered an "empire" if it is designated as such by reliable sources in the context of listing empires by size. and the text of A4 from Because Taagepera's definition of "empire" is broader than this, taking in non-monarchies. to Because the definition of "empire" is broader than this, also encompassing non-monarchies. This aligns with how reliable sources that list empires by size treat non-monarchies.. Ping @FOARP, Tercer, and Slatersteven: what do you think? 16:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I disagree. The relevant context for the definition of empire are scholars studying empires, not the ridiculously niche activity of listing empires by size, which hardly any serious scholar will waste their time with. Tercer (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a list of empires, but the largest empires. So yes the size is relevant. Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to care about listing empires by size in order to be able to define what "empire" is. In this way you are excluding almost all scholars, that have extensively argued about what empires are. Tercer (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No but we do need to make sure WE do not use our "judgement" to decide that something not explicitly called an empre was because it met some set of criteria from 1 book. There are many definitions of what an empire is, we do not get to choose the one we want. Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is quite explicit that we have to use the mainstream scholar definition, and this is what I'm arguing for. I do agree with you that applying the definition ourselves is fraught with danger, but the solution for that is to ask for scholarly sources describing the empire in question as an empire. Not ignoring almost all of the scholarship in favour of Taagepera. Tercer (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In practical terms, then, what do you think should be done when entries are disputed and different (and presumably all well-meaning and good-faith) editors disagree in their individual assessments (as has repeatedly been the case for many political entities, especially the US and USSR)? TompaDompa (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the solution for that is to ask for scholarly sources describing the empire in question as an empire. Tercer (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taagepera *is* a scholarly source. FOARP (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tercer: Why is that the fallback option rather than the first step? Starting with editor assessments and not consulting sources until there is disagreement seems like it would just invite a bunch of WP:Original research. TompaDompa (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What a loaded question. When did I say that we should start with editor assessments and not consult sources until there is disagreement? Tercer (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been quite insistent that we should use what you refer to as the mainstream definition of "empire" (e.g. Wikipedia is quite explicit that we have to use the mainstream scholar definition, and this is what I'm arguing for.). I took this to mean that you think we should evaluate whether entries meet this definition—after all, if we do not evaluate whether the definition is met, which definition we use is entirely moot. If what you meant all along is that we should refrain from attempting to assess whether the definition is met and instead defer entirely to the judgment of reliable sources, I apologize for misunderstanding. TompaDompa (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell Tercer's position is:

1. Don't use Taagepera, they're too scholarly.
2. Use a "mainstream definition" which doesn't differ from Taagepera's in any major regard.
3. Use scholarly sources, but not Taagepera.

I'm done playing logic-prezels here. FOARP (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're misrepresenting my position. Where did I say that Taagepera is "too scholarly"? I repeatedly said we shouldn't use his definition because it is fringe, it conflicts with the mainstream one and is not used by anybody else. And if you don't understand why Taagepera's definition conflicts with the mainstream one, you can just ask instead of insulting me. According to Taagepera pretty much any relative large country is an empire, they don't need to do anything imperialistic. It ignores the core part of the mainstream definition, the existence of subjugated territories.

If an empire grants independence to its subjugated territories, or incorporates them into the metropole in equal terms, it ceases to be an empire, according to the mainstream definition. But according to Taagepera it doesn't make any difference. Tercer (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to how this would work in practice: in your preferred scenario, how would inclusion on this list be determined? Would editors check entries against that definition? Or would we defer to whether sources call something an "empire"? Or something else entirely? TompaDompa (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I really follow. Are you of the opinion that this article should not exist in the first place? Otherwise it would seem to me that it follows that our article on what is academically a ridiculously niche activity should follow the approach used in that academic niche. TompaDompa (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this change. FOARP (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. lets see what the scholarly consensus is, produce three scholarly sources (by different authors) that define what an empire is. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literally the first three references in empire:

Howe, Stephen (2002). Empire: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press:

A kind of basic, consensus definition would be that an empire is a large political body which rules over territories outside its original borders. It has a central power or core territory – whose inhabitants usually continue to form the dominant ethnic or national group in the entire system – and an extensive periphery of dominated areas. In most cases, the periphery has been acquired by conquest.

Reus-Smit, Christian (2013). Individual Rights and the Making of the International System. Cambridge University Press:

Empires are hierarchies in which a metropole exercises political control over peripheral polities

Burbank, Jane; Cooper, Frederick (2010). Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press:

What, then, is an empire, and how do we distinguish empire from other political entities? Empires are large political units, expansionist or with a memory of power extended over space, polities that maintain distinction and hierarchy as they incorporate new people. The nation-state, in contrast, is based on the idea of a single people in a single territory constituting itself as a unique political community. The nation-state proclaims the commonality of its people - even if the reality is more complicated - while the empire-state declares the non-equivalence of multiple populations. Both kinds of states are incorporative - they insist that people be ruled by their institutions - but the nation-state tends to homogenize those inside its borders and exclude those who do not belong, while the empire reaches outward and draws, usually coercively, peoples whose difference is made explicit under its rule. The concept of empire presumes that different peoples within the polity will be governed differently. Tercer (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think this should be approached in practice—that is, in your preferred scenario, how would inclusion on this list be determined? Would editors check entries against one of these definitions? Or would we defer to whether sources call something an "empire"? Or something else entirely? TompaDompa (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose the addition of a FAQ in general, its not needed and seems to just be part of the spiraling of the toilet many here are engaged in. Note that someone had actually added the FAQ to the top despite it clearly not having consensus, that is highly inapropraite but I will assume that it was done accidentally. It has been removed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the RSN discussion we've taken a bit of a tangent into what form this page should take. Some object to its stand alone existence at all preferring deletion or a redirect (with or without merge) to List of empires. It has also been suggested that we could convert it into a non-list article at Largest empires which could provide more information than we can jam into a list and render most of the conflicts we seem to have moot because we can just explain the different positions in detail on the page. Note that the last time it went to AfD it was kept without prejudice to merging so I don't think it would be productive to explore deletion again. Personally I think that moving it to Largest empires where we can have both the lists and an extended explanation of the topic is an elegant solution but I'm interested in what everyone else thinks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the conflicts will be rendered moot. As long as there is a list nationalists will fight to get their empire higher and argue about inclusion. But I think de-emphasising the list and including more text would be a massive improvement. In particular I think it would be valuable to discuss why measuring area is a fool's errand, as the article currently states the exact opposite. Tercer (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would also provide context for what this sort of information is useful for, including the caveats of those who use it. People really might quibble less if they knew how large the margins of error were here and what is actually being compared. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a title-change to Largest empires based simply on WP:CONCISE, but I don't see the need for content changes. FOARP (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tercer is right that this will likely continue to be a magnet for WP:Nationalist editing as long as there is a list. I have added something about the difficulty of defining imperial boundaries, cited to Scheidel; this could in all likelihood be improved further. I'm not necessarily opposed to removing the list altogether, but it is not the option I would favour, and I think it would be a mistake to do so without establishing wider consensus about what to do about areas for empires and former countries in their own articles (e.g. Roman Empire) first. TompaDompa (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not a fan of removing the list entirely. There seem to be a lot of interest from readers and editors in this list, which of course can be noth good and bad.

I also agree with Tercer, that it's a problem with biased nationalistic editing, but that's not a reason to delete an article or a part of an article, no? There are thousands, hell, tens of thousands of articles on wikipedia that gets nationalistic editors and vandalism all the time. All from articles about sports clubs, singers, actors, military articles, countries, politics etc. It's a massive problem, yes, but it's a problem countless articles have and always will have. Maybe we could get the article fully protected? Speun (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to clarify that my argument for deleting the list is the lack of high-quality sources, not the nationalistic editing. That is a nuisance, but of course it is no reason to delete anything. Nevertheless, it is specially bad here because we lack high-quality sources to settle disputes. Tercer (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, my bad! I misunderstood some of your messages, I apologise. it does seem to be extra bad on this article, with the nationalistic editing, indeed.

It has been brought up a few times before, to instead create a more broad list, including all historical polities. Whether this would bring more or less nationalistic editing, is up for debate, but it would solve the: what countries are empires? What is an empire? question that causes a lot of vandalism and takes up a lot of time on this talk page.

Currently we have List of largest empires and List of countries and dependencies by area, but we have many historical states where they don't fit into either of those two lists. Some examples can be: Kalmar Union, Soviet Union, North Sea Empire, Gallic Empire, Angevin Empire. So despite their names, we seem to not be able to agree if they were empires or not. This of course also depends on if we have RS to go with it. This could be something we can consider as well? Speun (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there would be any interest in a list of largest historical polities, as opposed to a list of largest empires. I mean, it's a redlink, feel free to create it. It just wouldn't solve any of the problems with the current article. Tercer (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only problem it would solve would be, what is and what is not an empire. The main problem with this article, is if the current sources used are RS and the lack of sources overall on this area, yes. Speun (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm claiming we would still have this problem, because list of largest empires would still exist. And I think the problem of deciding what is an empire is minor; list of empires has it but it is very peaceful compared to this article. Tercer (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misunderstanding, the sources treat empire to include almost all relevant historical polities, for example the number for the "Russian empire" is from 1945. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article currently only uses Taagepera's view of what is an empire and what is not. Many entries with sources have been deleted on this list, because they apparently don't fit the criteria.

I am in agreement that most historical polities fit the criteria and therefore should be included, but they get deleted because they don't fit Taagepera's view of what an empire is. That's I think there should be a proper consensus on what an empire is, using several sources to back it up, instead of one. If no consensus on what an empire is created, then a list of largest historical polities would make sense, because we have so many polities that should be empires on the same ground as the ones already one the list. Speun (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Taagepera seems to have a pretty inclusive view of what an empire is... But yes, no standard is going to make everyone happy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes his reasoning is sound and all, but if you look at the archives here on the talk page and the edit history of the main article, then many entries have been deleted when users or IP's have added them, despite adding sources to it. Often with the reasonings that they aren't an empire or Taagepera doesn't specifically mention this or that political entitiy, therefore it is not an empire. That's where some the confusion comes from with this article I think. Speun (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm yes the archives do seem to be full of that, and its on repeat... The Portuguese empire must have been discussed 40 odd times... I would hope that as a non-list article there would be space to include those sources and their arguments even if a polity did end up being excluded from the list. For example we should have a whole section devoted to the arguments over how you count water, which seems to be the single largest sticking issue among the academics who attempt to estimate a solid size. Taagepera for instance is very forward that his metrics are for comparing traditional continental empires to each other not for comparing a continental empire with an archipelagic one or a thalassocracy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: When you say the number for the "Russian empire" is from 1945, could you clarify which number you are referring to? TompaDompa (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note B states: "Its successor state the USSR and its successor in turn, the Russian Federation, reached maximum extents of 22.3 million km2 (8.6 million sq mi) in 1945 and 17.1 million km2 (6.6 million sq mi) in 1991, respectively." sourced to Taagepera 1997. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So the 1945 figure is not for the Russian Empire but for the USSR. TompaDompa (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone else said, I do not see this as fixing the issue, as the issue is people want THEIR! Empire is either higher on the list or on it in the first place. The fact we have empires on this list smaller than some modern cities demonstrates that. We (if anything) need to tighten up inclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which means being clear to people what the inclusion criteria are, which is why I think HEB's removal of the FAQ is unfortunate and ill-considered: better to state what the actual objection is rather than simply demanding a particular process be followed. FOARP (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except (as I also pointed out) there was no consensus, as such it might give an impression that there was. The first thing we need to do is not have a FAQ or a discussion about a FAQ. What we need is an RFC about scope. Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors worked on it, on a page where there's only three-four editors contributing regularly, that's enough.

Again, what's the actual opposition? WP is WP:NOTBURO. FOARP (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That we do not need a move or rename, what we need to a clear idea of what the page is about. A move or rename will not change these kinds of disputes. A merge might. But it can also be fixed with a simple rule, "do RS say it was one of the largest empires". Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what the FAQ said, so what is your objection since three of the four editors who regularly edit this page seem to be in agreement on that. FOARP (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No editor's opinion has more weight than any other based on how much they edit the page, this argument is in violation of WP:OWN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might have taken it as a comment on the expected amount of input on this talk page rather on the relative weight of different editors' opinions. TompaDompa (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what was meant. FOARP (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies then, I respect the work a small number of editors have put in here but posting a FAQ without consensus is backwards no matter what was intended by any of it. Hopefully any changes we make will vastly simplify what we have to include in a FAQ. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe also getting rid of the specific date of when the greatest extent was achieved? Since some sources can agree on the size, but not when that size of the empire was reached. Considering there are many empires in different sources, with detailed sizes in numbers, but no actual date in time of when that size was reached for the political entity. I think there will be less disputes, the more simple we keep the page and the possible list. Speun (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bad idea, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I don't think a source that does not give a year for its area estimate is credible. Secondly, I don't think an area estimate without a year attached is helpful to readers. If sources agree on the area but disagree about the year, we can present both estimates side-by-side. TompaDompa (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not ideal. However there are some entities where year simply doesn't exist, but the area does. I just think if there is a list, it should be as simple as possible. Adding two areas is of course the thing to do, if sources can't agree on year. Speun (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things proposed at WP:RSN (copied above for context and convenience) was to have a much abbreviated list of only the largest ones instead of a list of effectively all empires by size. For the record, there used to be threshold corresponding to 2% of the total land area of the world, introduced by me back in 2016. See Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 7#Threshold for inclusion, Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 7#The United States, Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 7#Suggest you need substantial restructuring of this article, and Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 8#Reliability of sources for the discussion leading to that threshold being removed in 2018. We could go back to 2%, or we could pick some other value such as 3% or 4% or even an absolute area value such as 5.0 million km². Whatever threshold is decided upon, we would need to establish a new consensus to supersede the previous one (WP:Consensus can change). Doing so might require a WP:Request for comment to get sufficient input, and in that case it would need to be thought through properly ahead of time. Two obvious things that need to be worked out in advance is what the threshold should be and what to to about entries where some estimates fall below the threshold and others above it. TompaDompa (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that we should go by "do RS say it was the largest empire of its time". Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would more-or-less correspond to the table at List of largest empires#Timeline of largest empires at the time rather than the main table at List of largest empires#Empires at their greatest extent, no? TompaDompa (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would at least make sense. If there is no cutoff this article is not a list of largest empires, but a list of empires, and it makes no sense to duplicate it. That is a WP:CONTENTFORK, which is against Wikipedia policy. Tercer (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historically merging this article into list of empires by adding a "maximum extent" column to that list was suggested and would not be a content fork. Personally I could see adding size in both population and area to as columns... But I think that a stand alone page about measuring historical empires would still be valuable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get back to whether there should be a minimum size for inclusion (and if so, what the threshold should be and how to handle entries where low-end estimates fall below the threshold and high-end estimates above it). I might note that the sources that I have come across that include a threshold—Turchin et al. (2006) and Scheidel (2020)—use 1 million km². @Tercer: You proposed drawing the line below the Mughal Empire, which is listed at 4.0 million km². How do you think we should handle entries where some estimates fall below the threshold and others above it? And for the rest of the editors here: what do you think? TompaDompa (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with this article is that a list of the largest empires might be possible to source from somewhere that is RS, but it would not reflect the consensus of modern historians. A modern academic historian would tell you that the Roman Empire did not have defined borders and that therefore any attempt to quantify it is impossible. Similarly, at the widest extension of the Spanish Empire, which postdates the treaty of Westphalia by quite some time, the Spanish claimed dominion over vast areas where nobody had ever met a person who recognised themselves as a subject of the king of Spain. There were also zones where the Spanish Empire was a collection of outposts that moved backwards and forwards over the decades and were often completely ignored by the local inhabitants.

Proper history does not try and sort and rank empires. It may occasionally use terms like "the biggest" or "one of the biggest", but attempting some kind of childish game of top trumps with fascinating and nuanced historical situations is just not what we need to be doing. I support changing this into a non-list article, I worry that the same problem will occur if we merge it into the list of empires.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're entirely correct, and this is the reason we'll never find high-quality sources for the areas. But I don't see how to get consensus for such a change, opposition has already been expressed in this very thread to removing the list.

I think the ideal solution would be to move to a prose largest empires, containing a bit more info about few empires that have been described by the RS as one of the largest. If a number is at all given for the area, it should be in form of a range reflecting the various estimates. Currently the article gives a single number, which gives a misleading impression of precision. Tercer (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have high-quality sources that take this angle on the overarching topic? Ideally, we should let the sources dictate the content. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High quality sources don't even get into the debate. You will get sources that discuss in great detail what happened on the frontiers of empires, and state what areas they roughly covered. You might even occasionally get a source which ventures a rough area for an empire. You don't get lists of the biggest empires, it's not what historians do.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See for example Mandala (political model) and Sphere of influence for concepts that are often contrasted with a linear interpretation of imperial borders. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest Scheidel (Oxford World History of empire) who is cited on this page, he presents a table based on Taagepera then spends two pages (94-95) pointing out how the numbers are completely unreliable and that they are best used for measuring change in the "boundaries" of one empire over time.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scheidel and indeed those exact pages are cited in the lead on this point; see this earlier comment of mine. TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me, text there makes a pretty strong case against lists like these.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, though I would personally be more inclined to take the perspective that we should contextualize the numbers. I think it is significant that even with the caveats Scheidel outlines, Scheidel still opts to include a list of empires' maximum sizes (rather than, say, just showing the charts that illustrate the trends over time). TompaDompa (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really concerned about Turchin et al's study which is used heavily on this page. It is based on the theories of Jared Diamond regarding the preferential spread of crops along latitudinal biomes, and attempts to extend this to empires. I'm disregarding for a moment the fact that Diamond's historical theories are mostly rejected by historians, as this particular aspect is actually fairly uncontroversial.

The problem is that none of the scholars who undertake this study are historians, two are biologists and one is an anthropologist. The study they undertake simply takes Taagepera's numbers and repeats them. As such, I don't feel these scholars can be considered to be reliable sources on the size of an empire during a historical period.

I would favour removing this source from the page, it is not doing anything in any case, as all its figures are from Taagepera.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While most of the figures are from Taagepera, not all of them are. There are some figures that differ from Taagepera's and some entries that Turchin et al. include that Taagepera does not. TompaDompa (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case those numbers are even less reliable, as the figures are from non-specialists.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this source is less reliable than Taagepera. Both are equally bad. Note that Taagepera is a physicist. None of them are historians or geographers, the scholars we would actually want to use as sources. But there are no good sources. Tercer (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP, Horse Eye's Back, Slatersteven, Speun, and Tercer: Thoughts on this? TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both Turchin and Taagepera are similar in that they've basically created interdisciplinary microfields of their own... Cliodynamics might be a significant point of view but like with Taagepera I think we have to be careful about over representing these microfields at the expense of more mainstream opinions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should give ranges, not rely on one source. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to bring to your attention that the Italian Empire was taken off the list and that makes absolutely no sense. Can somebody put that back in there please? ~2025-38858-98 (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Backpack manual of the High Command of the Wehrmacht - Soldiers' Atlas", published, for the love of God, in Berlin in 1941, is not a reliable source. It is listed in the "Fringe" collection at internet archive. I have removed it. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the now-unsourced figures and entries. TompaDompa (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the list it says that the area is 0.35 Mm2 in 1204, however on the Latin Empire wikipedia page it says that the area in 1204 is 0.179 Mm2. Which one of the two is correct?

Latin Empire TioCrocEzatu (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Prussia

Peak area: 348,779 km² (134,664 sq mi) in 1816.

Grand Dutchy of Lithuania

Peak area: 930,000 km² (360,000 sq mi) in 1430.

Kingdom of Kongo

Peak area: 129,400 km² (50,000 sq mi) in 1623.

Rattanakosin Kingdom

Peak area: 1,119,354 km2 (432,185 sq mi) in 1805.

Ethiopian Empire Peak area: 1,221,900 km2 (471,800 sq mi) in 1954.

Iberian Union Peak area: 7,100,000 km2 (2,741,325 sq mi) in 1640. It is mentioned in the Taagepera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TioCrocEzatu (talk • contribs) 16:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of those have area with credible citation and a date. They could all be considered expanding empires. TioCrocEzatu (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By what criteria are they among the largest? Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are larger than some on the list. Does that count? TioCrocEzatu (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think it does. Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it does ~2025-43179-46 (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian Empire is not on the list but it should be. Somebody needs to add it again please. 3.8 million square kilometers by 1940. ~2025-38858-98 (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because there were larger empires at the time. Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the reason. It was removed because the source that was cited for it is not reliable, see #Tornisterschrift-des-Oberkommandos-der-Wehrmacht-Soldaten-Atlas. TompaDompa (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but we can't find a reliable source for the Italian Empire? I'm sure there are plenty out there. ~2025-38858-98 (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have this from the main Wikipedia page of the Italian Colonial Empire. Harrison, Mark (2000). The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison. ~2025-38858-98 (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is locked so obviously I can't change it. The source I gave from the main Italian Empire page is fine. Can somebody add it back to the list please? ~2025-38858-98 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we need not to forget about this page biggest mistake and we should keep demanding this page owner (TompaDompa) that the source used regarding Portuguese empire size has an incorrect size number. ~2025-39386-90 (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a FAQ, ohh and read wp:agf? Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the United States is included then shouldn't the Soviet Union or the PRC be included as well? Is this another case of "US Defaultism"? Either way there seems to be a lot of american patriots that insist US is the only modern country that's qualified in this list and they have a lot of power in this site lol. The very old sources which the list is based on are also made by americans so it just seems very biased and not objective at all. Apart from that I know this site is filled with people very similar to Reddit mods so I doubt the people running the site will care. Davebaker09 (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do, as footnotes. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is the Mongol empire's successor States also listed? And shouldn't the US also be a footnote from on the British empire? Seems unfair and very biased. Davebaker09 (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Err, that is becasue both the Russian and Chinese ones are just the same state renamed, not new states (plural) formed out of the old. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are there multiple Chinese dynasties listed? They're all the same state after all. Stop with your excuses clearly you and many others are just biased. Davebaker09 (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)#[reply]

Stop changing the goal posts, we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol hate to break it to you big bro but this Wikipedia article is massively flawed. Davebaker09 (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the USA be considered a component of the British Empire when the British Empire's size is reckoned from its extent in 1920, when the United States was (obviously) not a part of it? ~2025-34448-62 (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a part of the British empire in 1920 but it was before 1776 and thus making it a successor state just like the Soviet Union from the Russian empire and the PRC from the Qing Dynasty but those two were just footnotes so it just seems unfair in my opinion. Davebaker09 (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "modern" United States is not on this list; look at the date: 1900. At this time the US had straightforward imperial possessions like the Philippines. Russia and China are also on the list, under the names Russian Empire and Qing dynasty, respectively. Tercer (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a separate Wikipedia article named "list of empires" The US is also listed but not the Soviet Union and the PRC. I don't know about you bro but this site is clearly full of patriotic americans acting like Reddit mods. You point out stuff like this and they make a thousand excuses why the US should be included and others not. Davebaker09 (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then complain at list of empires, not here. Tercer (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already did and both this and that articles are very much related my point is there is a lot of american bias which makes both articles very flawed. It takes out the objectivity of both lists Davebaker09 (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at this list and can't make sense of it? The xiongnu are larger than the first turkic khagante even tho the turkic khagante had all the territory that the xiongnu had and more, something here doesn't seem right... ~2025-40108-81 (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JaierRT twice removed the map in the WP:LEAD, first on the grounds that rankings should not be provided and then on the grounds that the map itself is unsourced. I think this is misguided; the map is helpful for illustration, and as such it would be much preferable to fix issues with the map (such as they may be) rather than removing it. If there are concerns about sourcing or accuracy, there is no shortage of maps that could be cited as sources (and the map edited to match, if necessary); here's an example for the Mongol Empire and here is another. These maps they tend to be slightly different from each other, which I would consider a point in favour of not getting too hung up on the exact details of the map. Ping Amitchell125 who created the map. TompaDompa (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I love maps, but on the one hand it adds very little to an article that is essentially a long list of different empires, and more importantly, the map constitutes WP:OR (original research) and lacks a verifiable source. JaierRT (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the first part (I think illustrating that the two largest empires in history were qualitatively very different is informative), and the second part seems fairly straightforward to address (though it requires map-making skills that I myself do not possess). Worst-case scenario, we can ask for help at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop using one of the maps linked above for the Mongol Empire and e.g. the map here from the BBC or here from Encyclopædia Britannica for the British Empire. TompaDompa (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it's a straightforward map to adjust, let me know what needs to be amended (I like reliable sources too) and I will be able to help. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If JaierRT doesn't have any other particular suggestions, I would suggest adjusting the Mongol Empire's borders to match this map and citing the book it's from. Then we can re-add the map. TompaDompa (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would take the WP:SILENCE after being pinged here as agreement. Amitchell125? TompaDompa (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, please go ahead without me. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that I would interpret JaierRT not weighing in further on my suggestion about adjusting the Mongol Empire's borders to match this map and citing the book it's from as agreement to do so. Amitchell125, could you edit the map to implement this? TompaDompa (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source: Harrison, Mark (2000). The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison. It's from the main Italian Empire page on Wikipedia. They obviously had colonial territories and we know what those were. I think it's odd that it was completely removed in the first place when there are plenty of sources out there. The page is locked and I currently can't edit, so is it possible for someone else to add it again please? ~2025-38858-98 (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it. I waited a couple of days to give somebody else a chance to weigh in on it, but given that nobody has replied either here or at #Why was the Italian Empire removed? since you brought up the source there over a week ago, it doesn't seem to be particularly controversial. This source was used for the same entry a few years ago, for what it's worth. TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for adding it again and for replying. ~2025-38858-98 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at #Potential move or merge, there was a suggestion to have a much abbreviated list of only the largest ones instead of a list of effectively all empires by size. For the record, there used to be threshold corresponding to 2% of the total land area of the world, introduced by me back in 2016. See Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 7#Threshold for inclusion, Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 7#The United States, Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 7#Suggest you need substantial restructuring of this article, and Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 8#Reliability of sources for the discussion leading to that threshold being removed in 2018. We could go back to 2%, or we could pick some other value such as 3% or 4% or even an absolute area value such as 5.0 million km². Whatever threshold is decided upon, we would need to establish a new consensus to supersede the previous one (WP:Consensus can change). Doing so might require a WP:Request for comment to get sufficient input, and in that case it would need to be thought through properly ahead of time. Two obvious things that need to be worked out in advance is (1) what the threshold should be and (2) what to do about entries where some estimates fall below the threshold and others above it.

As a concrete suggestion, in the interest of moving forwards toward a RfC that can settle this, I propose (1) a threshold corresponding to 3% of the total land area of the world and (2) that entries where some estimates fall below the threshold and others above it be excluded, i.e. that the lower estimate needs to be above the threshold for inclusion. Alternative suggestions are welcome.

Pinging some editors that have been active here in discussions about overarching questions on how to improve the article for their input: @Boynamedsue, FOARP, Horse Eye's Back, Slatersteven, Speun, and Tercer:. Feel free to ping additional others. TompaDompa (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My choice is "Do RS call it the largest empire". Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but I don't think that would gain consensus in a broader RfC. For one thing, several of the entries toward the top of the main list, such as the French colonial empire for instance, were never the largest empire at the time (and so don't get called "the largest empire" by reliable sources, leastways not without some kind of qualifier). For another, it would more-or-less turn the main list ("Empires at their greatest extent") into a duplicate of the "Timeline of largest empires at the time" list. Would you support a numerical threshold for the main list, even if not your preferred option? TompaDompa (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should not pander to national interest, if it is not regarded as the largest, it should not be here, as to cut-offs, No, we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that is another possible approach. I'll add it as an option to discuss. TompaDompa (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original 2% of total area back then was perfectly fine tbh. It also comes down to who decide what the meaning of large is. Some would say 500.000km² is large, others would disagree and say 1 million km²+ is large. 5 million km² is huge if compared to all political entities that ever existed. Most political entities in human history were much smaller than 1 million km². Speun (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Slatersteven, it would make more sense to remove the main list, and make the focus of the article the "Timeline of largest empires at the time". This would also solve a lot of problems the article has with spurious precision and disputes about which empires to include.

As it stands the article is a WP:CONTENTFORK of List of empires, which is not acceptable. Adopting a threshold would be an improvement, not a solution. Tercer (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested by Slatersteven. Should the main list (i.e. the table at List of largest empires#Empires at their greatest extent) be restricted to empires that are described by WP:Reliable sources as "the largest", rather than included based on size? TompaDompa (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• support as it is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, we go by what RS say, and not wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This would be similar to the approach at List of films voted the best, as a point of comparison. Personally, I'm opposed to adopting this approach here. This list is, and has to the best of my knowledge always been, effectively a List of empires by size, rather than a List of empires deemed the largest. Adopting this approach would mean excluding some larger entries (e.g. the French, Spanish, and Portuguese colonial empires, as well as the Qing dynasty) while retaining others that are smaller (e.g. the Roman Empire, the Jin dynasty (1115–1234), and the Timurid Empire) based on whether their contemporaries happened to be larger or not. It would also mean listing empires as "the largest" at times when they were not at their largest size: for instance, per the sources the Roman Empire reached its peak size at 5.0 million km² in 117, but it was not the largest empire at that time (the Han dynasty was) so we would instead list it at 4.4 million km² in 250–350. I don't personally think that makes a whole lot of sense, and I expect that more-or-less turning the main list into a duplicate of the "Timeline of largest empires at the time" list (or else removing the main list and replacing it with the "Timeline of largest empires at the time" list at the top of the body) would also not be what our readers intuitively expect nor look for from this list, so we would be serving them worse as well. TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is one of the dilemmas here. Do we go by what RS say was the largest during their time in history or do we go by the largest empires in human history? Depending on what approach we choose, it will create two fairly different lists.

  I saw a user before, asking why Sumer was on here, as it was utterly tiny compared to others during human history, and to see it on an article called 'list of largest empires' was a bit confusing. Then I realized we include empires which was largest during their time. Option one will include these small political entities, but option two will exclude these smaller states, despite them being the biggest during their time. Speun (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think having these two separate tables ("Empires at their greatest extent" and "Timeline of largest empires at the time") takes care of that dilemma quite nicely. It is similar to how list of highest-grossing films, a WP:Featured list, resolves the corresponding dilemma. All the same, I think "of all time" is the perspective that should be the main focus (as it is indeed at List of highest-grossing films). That's the angle e.g. Turchin et al. (2006) and Scheidel (2020) consider. Both of those sources use a threshold of 1 million km², for what it's worth. To address an objection raised above, I will say that I don't think this is any more of an inappropriate WP:CONTENTFORK of List of empires than e.g. List of countries by Human Development Index is of List of sovereign states. TompaDompa (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I love that approach. I see no problems with having two lists, as long as they are sourced for their areas and their timeline. I won't make myself the speaker of other readers, but I was personally thrown off by the bottom of the current list, as I thought it was an article about the largest empires of all time as you described it, so I was thinking 'what the hell are these tiny entries doing here?'. Looking at the talk page archives and edit history, it seems like readers aren't really looking for empires which were largest during their time, but largest in history, in absolute numbers. Your perspective to these other articles are very sound and I think this is the right approach. It would solve several issues currently haunting this article. I fully support the establishment of a two-list solution. Speun (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to make sure we're all on the same page: we already have an all-time list (List of largest empires#Empires at their greatest extent) and an "at the time" list (List of largest empires#Timeline of largest empires at the time) here. The former contains some comparatively small entries not because those empires were (among) the largest at the time, but because we have area estimates on them from WP:Reliable sources. The main list currently has no threshold for inclusion, either in terms of absolute size or size relative to contemporaries—if we had reliably-sourced area estimates for every single empire in history, we would by the current approach list every single one of them regardless of size. That's the status quo, and whether it should be changed the question at hand. TompaDompa (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, but this is where the confusion of the intent of the article and the headline lies. If we already have list of largest at the time below, then what are those tiny entries doing in the first list? They are there because there is currently not any minimum requirement for a political entitiy. This is why I supported your initial 2% of land area criteria, since it showed the actual largest empires in history in absolute numbers. A RS for all empires or political entities would be golden, but given the niche of the subject, it's just not possible, sadly. I guess my viewpoint in this, is that the bottom of the first list of this article, should not contain these tiny empires. However I fully support them being mentioned in the article elsewhere, but seeing the top of the list with entities being tens of millions of km² and then the bottom being incredibly tiny, just doesn't seem right to me.

  This is simply my view and opinion, so I realize that others might not share it, but i simply think these tiny entries have no place on the main list. Speun (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, I'm fairly sure we understand each other. The reason I started this particular talk page section was to figure out precisely what the question that should be posed in a future WP:Request for comment should be. Two possible questions could be "Should the main list have a minimum-size threshold for inclusion?" and "Should the main list be restricted to empires that are described by WP:Reliable sources as 'the largest', rather than included based on size?", respectively. It might even be appropriate to ask both questions at consecutive RfCs, depending on the outcome of the discussion. TompaDompa (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is fine as it is. In my opinion, there’s no need to create a second list, and there’s no need to include only the ones described as "the largest". JaierRT (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you clarify what you mean by no need to create a second list? There are already four: (1) List of largest empires#Empires at their greatest extent, (2) List of largest empires#Timeline of largest empires to date, (3) List of largest empires#Timeline of largest empires at the time, and (4) List of largest empires#Largest empires by share of world population. TompaDompa (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of those four, the only one that's genuinely meaningful and truly verifiable is the first. JaierRT (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~2026-24870-8 (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The exact size of the Ming Empire's territory is questionable; according to historical records, it was approximately 1,000 square kilometers.

Not going to be changed without a source. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Faja5232 (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

|The Ming Empire

|Approximately 1000

Xie, Xuanjun (2017). A Brief History of Chinese Shaman's Establishment of State. Lulu Press, Incorporated. p. 165. ISBN 9781387223831.</ref>

|Approximately 386

|7.42%

|In 1424, Emperor Yongle expanded the territory of the Ming Dynasty to its zenith.
Territory: East to the Pacific Ocean, south to northern Vietnam, west to Kashmir and Hami, northeast to Coastal Region.

|160,000,000 (1600) ^[1][2] </ref>

|28.80%
(1600, 160 million out of 556.2 million)^[3] |-style="background: #AFEEEE"

A self-published source will not pass wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The content on the Chinese Wikipedia page is inconsistent with the English entry; I've posted the content from the Chinese entry. Faja5232 (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should the main list at List of largest empires#Empires at their greatest extent have a minimum area threshold for inclusion? TompaDompa (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some background information: there used to be threshold corresponding to 2% of the total land area of the world, introduced by me back in 2016. See Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 7#Threshold for inclusion, Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 7#The United States, Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 7#Suggest you need substantial restructuring of this article, and Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 8#Reliability of sources for the discussion leading to that threshold being removed in 2018. Reintroducing a threshold has been suggested repeatedly since then but never really discussed in detail, let alone thoroughly enough to establish a consensus to do so.

If a threshold is to be reintroduced, two things that need to be settled are (1) what the threshold should be and (2) what to do about entries where some estimates fall below the threshold and others above it. As for (1), we could go back to 2%, or we could pick some other value such as 3% or 4% or even an absolute area value such as 5.0 million km². As for (2), the simplest options are either to (A) only include entries where the lowest estimate is above the threshold for inclusion (i.e. sources need to agree that it is above the threshold), or (B) include any entries where the highest estimate is above the threshold for inclusion (i.e. it is enough that one source says that it is above the threshold, even if others disagree); other approaches could also be considered. TompaDompa (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think it is better to have the main table be a list of the largest empires of all time instead of, effectively, a list of all empires ordered by size. In terms of specifics, I favour (1) a threshold corresponding to 3% of the total land area of the world and (2) that entries where some estimates fall below the threshold and others above it be excluded, i.e. that the lower estimate needs to be above the threshold for inclusion (option A). I would support other options as well (rather than not having a threshold for inclusion), but this would be my preferred choice. Empires that were small from an all-time perspective but nevertheless the largest at the time are already covered by a separate table at List of largest empires#Timeline of largest empires at the time, so we wouldn't lose that aspect. TompaDompa (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A, there is no number given, so its a bit open. 2, seems to me that very old empires will fail that, even though they were the superpowers of their day. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]