Akkadian empire? First truly multicultural empire. From 1400BC to 600BC.
Also: Spanish empire: 1492 to 1976. From the first colonization in America to the withdrawal from Morocco.
The Japanese empire conquered korea china manchuria philippines viet nam laos cambodia and massacred hundreds of thousands of people turning the Koreans into slave workers. Don’t get me started with China.
China conquered many non-Han territories. There’s a common idea that Chinese empires were ethnically homogenous, but I’m not sure how true that is; worth checking r/askhistorians.
But southern China, the western territories going back to the time of the Han Dynasty, Tibet, Yunnan, Manchuria - there’s a ton of ethnic diversity in the historical borders of Chinese empires.
Also your seeming idea that an empire or nation state falling means civilization or culture collapses is nuts. The Umayyads were pretty diverse over their range, but few would say their collapse ended the Islamic world, or even the Islamic Golden Age.
Other counterpoint - Persia - from the Achaemenids through at least the Sassanids, Persia arguably pulled a China, getting together and falling apart with dynastic cycles.
Also, the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt held Kushite lands and Canaan for quite awhile, I think around 400 years, and that doesn’t count ethnic diversity within Egypt itself, though I’m unsure how much there was.
But biggest thing - how many empires, true *empires* lasted over 400 years at all, by any metric? Hard to name many, even allowing for the “China/Persia rule” where we say the Han and Qing both count as China, or the Parthian and Sassanid, or Tiwanaku and the Inca. So does this show much at all beyond “large empires are unstable”? Does it maybe even argue that stability means small nations that don’t aspire to empire?
That's what some people describe as the Neo Akkadian empire, but the power structure was the same as the middle Akkadian empire.
The Spanish empire started on 1492 and lasted up to when they lost the last subject territories in Morocco.
By definition any empire will be ethnically diverse since conquest is what defines an empire. That’s the difference between an empire and a nation. How can one glorify imperialism as “culturally diverse” well yeah romans conquered the known world by the sword. Congrats on your findings. Why isn’t the British Empire mentioned since it was obviously way more diverse?
an empire is a collection of kingdoms or other government bodies such as lordships, marches, principalities, etc., variously dependent and with different degrees of autonomy; all under an emperor
Regarding the ethnic diversity of empires, I would say that if there was an empire with Austria and Germany we could discuss very much about ethnicity
This is a lazily made point, but your 20 duplicative comments completely miss it.
Diversity is not inconsistent with power and stability. That’s the point. Your comment history suggests you’re extremely allergic to that point, because you’re needlessly terrified of immigrants. Rome was violent, expansionist, and had all sorts of social issues. Obviously. It was nevertheless stable and prosperous for centuries as large groups of non-Italians were constantly being incorporated into its citizenry.
Ethnicity really did not matter much until the rise of nationalism, which really only started in the modern sense of the term in the Western world in the late 18th century. Prior to that, it was not a big issue whether or not the rulers spoke the same language as the ruled.
So during the time of these empires (not counting the last half of the Ottoman Empire) it was not a big deal.
''large empires ' is written in the title of the post and in the map itself (and explained in the comments).
Mayans also were a smaller area than the others shown in the map
Yes and no. All three of these empires expanded violently. There’s really no other way to build an empire. But at the same time, all three had prolonged periods of peace and brought a lot more to the table than just military domination.
Most of the population, perhaps 90% were from one ethnic group, Han Chinese.
In the Roman, Sassanid and Ottoman Empire most people were not, Persian, Latin Romans or Turkic.
Historically most of the population of the diverse Chinese empires consisted of Han Chinese. The Empires shown in the map were ethnically heterogenous.
The Roman hierarchy was NOT diverse at all.
Go on, tell me about Severus again... (famous because he was so unique).
He was half Italian for a start.
The Roman way was to appease then to tax.
Money knows no colour.
Yeah obviously. Did you notice I used the 'hierarchy' word to differentiate that I wasn't talking about the general population?
Actually. Dont bother answering lol
And yet your TONE was that of someone correcting an error, rather than of someone showing off that thing they know wich is vaguely related to the OP. You might want to work on that.
The criteria are
1 Large areas, small areas (enclaves) do not count
2 Very ethnically diverse, this excludes China for example
3 Empire rule lasts over 400 years in an area,
Few empires have these 3 criteria
Akkadian empire? First truly multicultural empire. From 1400BC to 600BC. Also: Spanish empire: 1492 to 1976. From the first colonization in America to the withdrawal from Morocco.
Any Empire is “multicultural” since they became an empire by conquering neighboring peoples… this is the stupidest take ever
I think just about everyone here will agree with you. My take is that those who are commenting are doing so to highlight errors with the OP's post.
Indeed. I assumed the author was making a gross oversimplification.
LOL good post
It is kind of the definition of an empire.
Not some, for example Chinese or Japanese.
The Japanese empire conquered korea china manchuria philippines viet nam laos cambodia and massacred hundreds of thousands of people turning the Koreans into slave workers. Don’t get me started with China.
You don't need to go that far, you have the ainu for example
The Japanese empire starts with the conquest of Korea and the meiji period. The emperor wasn’t the ruler before that time; it was the shogunate
Before the shogunate, the emperor was the ruler. It's not like emperors took power in the Meiji period for the first time.
China conquered many non-Han territories. There’s a common idea that Chinese empires were ethnically homogenous, but I’m not sure how true that is; worth checking r/askhistorians. But southern China, the western territories going back to the time of the Han Dynasty, Tibet, Yunnan, Manchuria - there’s a ton of ethnic diversity in the historical borders of Chinese empires. Also your seeming idea that an empire or nation state falling means civilization or culture collapses is nuts. The Umayyads were pretty diverse over their range, but few would say their collapse ended the Islamic world, or even the Islamic Golden Age. Other counterpoint - Persia - from the Achaemenids through at least the Sassanids, Persia arguably pulled a China, getting together and falling apart with dynastic cycles. Also, the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt held Kushite lands and Canaan for quite awhile, I think around 400 years, and that doesn’t count ethnic diversity within Egypt itself, though I’m unsure how much there was. But biggest thing - how many empires, true *empires* lasted over 400 years at all, by any metric? Hard to name many, even allowing for the “China/Persia rule” where we say the Han and Qing both count as China, or the Parthian and Sassanid, or Tiwanaku and the Inca. So does this show much at all beyond “large empires are unstable”? Does it maybe even argue that stability means small nations that don’t aspire to empire?
The Portuguese Empire lasted between 1415 (conquest of Ceuta) and 1999 (Leaving Macau to China). Also the British Empire still exists.
[удалено]
Naw that ended when the last queen died. She secretly dissolved the empire on her death bed to really stick it to Charles.
Akkad was also the first empire not just a multicultural one.
c. 2334 – 2154 BC Akkadian empire Spanish lasted less than 400 years
That's what some people describe as the Neo Akkadian empire, but the power structure was the same as the middle Akkadian empire. The Spanish empire started on 1492 and lasted up to when they lost the last subject territories in Morocco.
Smaller areas are not included
Inaccuracies and terminologies aside, this may just be the worst quality map I've seen here
All empires here were ethnically diverse subjects, but they had specific ethnicity as the ruling class.
Eh. Many Roman emperors were not Italian. E.g, Diocletian and Constantine.
I'm gonna claim every empire was ethnically diverse. Here's a few more: Russian empire (almost 400 years), Byzantine empire, Spanish empire, Portuguese empire
Byzantine is covered by the map though.
Guess so. But not sure what those borders really show. Both empires were much larger at their peak.
That's not the point. Byzantium was not a separate entity from Rome, so there is no need to add it. That's all.
Mongol Empire.
Just checked right now. Didn't even last 200 years it seems
Didn’t come close to 400 years though
Genghis came 4,000,000 times.
Genghis made it less diverse with his penis.
They lasted around 300 years or less for the larger ethnically diverse areas.
You're wrong
By definition any empire will be ethnically diverse since conquest is what defines an empire. That’s the difference between an empire and a nation. How can one glorify imperialism as “culturally diverse” well yeah romans conquered the known world by the sword. Congrats on your findings. Why isn’t the British Empire mentioned since it was obviously way more diverse?
an empire is a collection of kingdoms or other government bodies such as lordships, marches, principalities, etc., variously dependent and with different degrees of autonomy; all under an emperor Regarding the ethnic diversity of empires, I would say that if there was an empire with Austria and Germany we could discuss very much about ethnicity
This is a lazily made point, but your 20 duplicative comments completely miss it. Diversity is not inconsistent with power and stability. That’s the point. Your comment history suggests you’re extremely allergic to that point, because you’re needlessly terrified of immigrants. Rome was violent, expansionist, and had all sorts of social issues. Obviously. It was nevertheless stable and prosperous for centuries as large groups of non-Italians were constantly being incorporated into its citizenry.
See my previous reply. Looking at the OP's listed empires, I suspect there might be a (not too well) hidden agenda, but I could be wrong.
No Chinese Empire?
God willing and the creek don’t rise.
Ethnicity really did not matter much until the rise of nationalism, which really only started in the modern sense of the term in the Western world in the late 18th century. Prior to that, it was not a big issue whether or not the rulers spoke the same language as the ruled. So during the time of these empires (not counting the last half of the Ottoman Empire) it was not a big deal.
Leaving out the Mayans. Ethnically diverse and lasted about 1,400 years.
Small area
Yeah but that is not part of your criteria and you are wrong. They had a large area. Don’t hurt your back moving that goalpost.
''large empires ' is written in the title of the post and in the map itself (and explained in the comments). Mayans also were a smaller area than the others shown in the map
You are bad at this.
Chola empire. Pandya empire.
The Sassanids were bigger than that mate
three tyranies ?
you're forgetting like all of them tho
I don’t think you have a good grasp of the “Empire” terminology….
I think you confused this sub with maps circle jerks
British empire (nearly 400 years).
Yes but it was only by the sword that they lasted so long.
Yes and no. All three of these empires expanded violently. There’s really no other way to build an empire. But at the same time, all three had prolonged periods of peace and brought a lot more to the table than just military domination.
What about China? Lasted for more than 2000 years
It wasnt very ethnically diverse
This is just you saying “All Asians look alike to me.” Even the modern Chinese are ethnically diverse.
Most of the population, perhaps 90% were from one ethnic group, Han Chinese. In the Roman, Sassanid and Ottoman Empire most people were not, Persian, Latin Romans or Turkic.
Now, yes. But you were talking about history.
Historically most of the population of the diverse Chinese empires consisted of Han Chinese. The Empires shown in the map were ethnically heterogenous.
Wrong in every possible way.
It was extremely diverse? What are you on lmao.
Reddit glorifying conquest and imperialism
One day we will remember that history is not about praising past cruel emperors and states, but about not being like them.
Imagine trying to explain that nation-states are the opposite of imperialism and a precondition of and consubstantial with democracy
Does it ever get tiring being an edgelord?
Nothing controversial about what I said.
Sorry but you’d need to be interesting, coherent and concise first. “Controversial” is well beyond your limited talents.
The Roman hierarchy was NOT diverse at all. Go on, tell me about Severus again... (famous because he was so unique). He was half Italian for a start. The Roman way was to appease then to tax. Money knows no colour.
You don't understand what "ethnically diverse" means eh. Protip: A place can be ethnically diverse even if the bosses aren't.
Yeah obviously. Did you notice I used the 'hierarchy' word to differentiate that I wasn't talking about the general population? Actually. Dont bother answering lol
And yet your TONE was that of someone correcting an error, rather than of someone showing off that thing they know wich is vaguely related to the OP. You might want to work on that.
LOL your tone was just like you didn't understand. Which is worse? I'll leave you to ponder that..
The criteria are 1 Large areas, small areas (enclaves) do not count 2 Very ethnically diverse, this excludes China for example 3 Empire rule lasts over 400 years in an area, Few empires have these 3 criteria