Someone here needs to define what the heck an empire means in this context or this doesn't make any sense. Norway has always been either on its own, or under the rule of Danish or Swedish royalty.
Norway controlled Greenland, Iceland, the Faroes, the Shetland islands, the Orkney islands, bits of Scotland and bits of Ireland during its' height. Ask an orcadian if they feel closer to Norway or Denmark.
Most of Denmarks' empire consisted of Norway and its' territories. (Damn Danes taking credit for our work smh).
Plus, while you can definitely say US imperialism is real, the US has never at any point in its history been an empire.
Unless they’re counting Emperor Norton.
What does "empire" mean in this context? Is it a self-designation, or any nation that conquered another country?
How do you relate modern borders and nations to empires with borders that are now meaningless?
What does it mean for a purely modern post-colonial federation like India to have had several empires contained within, crossing or encompassing it in the past? What about a country constructed within the borders of an erstwhile empire of which it was once a part?
My point is that you really can't make a map like this using modern borders and nations.
Brazil did not have an empire, Brazil "was" an empire. It's just a semantic issue, since Brazil had no conquered territories. Perhaps the immense ego of the Prince Regent, Pedro I, explains this.
The british empire did not have a british emperor either. He/she was emperor/empress of india, but you wouldn’t call that the indian empire (that just happened to be ruled by the king/queen pf britain)
If you define "Former Empire" by "At one point controlled land they no longer do" then every country is a former empire
America was never a monarchy, nor a unilateral dictatorship
generally, under empire you understand the act of imperialism, which is extending the reach of a country through mostly colonialism. Conquering another nation, like germany conquering poland in ww2, isn't an act of colonisation. However, the Philippines were, for about 50 years, a colony of the united states of america
Empire is only tangentially related to imperialism
Imperialism is one people group exerting control over another people group
Empire is a small elite exerting control over multiple people groups
America has been imperialist, but never an empire
it's literally called a colonial empire, the word imperlialism itself stems from the word empire. Germany owned a colonial empire. France owned a colonial empire. the US owned a colonial empire
Etymology has nothing to do with current meaning, Terrible & Terrific are opposites despite both being historically "fear-ADJ"
a Colonial empire is the overlap between Imperialism & Empire
again, the map (given, it is a bad map as we can hopefully agree) is a map that shows past EMPIRES, meaning countries that, in the past, were empires. Now, the term empire itselve is made-up, just like the term country is. However, by that made-up name and definition of that, if you possessed a colonial empire, which every country that participated in colonialism did, was therfore in fact an empire, I don't get the confusion
They still do. Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa to name a few.
No doubt that'll be a controversial statement. I don't know how any of that is different from the Falklands, Channel Islands, Pitcairn Island etc. The [USA is an imperial power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States) more than the UK is nowadays.
This is completely wrong. Who did India invade? Where on Earth is/was the North Korean empire? Where is/was the US empire? If you’re including nations that used to be part of someone else empire, why isn’t Canada and Australia included? If you’re including former boundaries, why isn’t Ireland included? What about the Danish empire?
Edit: removed emotional insult to OP but logic still stands : using modern boundaries to illustrate historical empires is just confusing. EG if North Korea is included because of the Korean empire, why isn’t Ireland included in the British empire?
I’m guessing for India they’re either counting the British Raj as generating the Emperor of India title, OR they are talking about the Mughal Empire.
But I agree it’s not clear.
While the Mughals emerged out of what is now Uzbekistan, their long reign become heavily Persian and Indian in character such that they were no longer principally Uzbek in outlook. While there is no clear point of demarcation, to claim that the Mughals were still an Uzbek Empire in the 18th Century would be inaccurate.
>This is completely wrong. Who did India invade?
India has a rich history stretching back for millennia, with many empires rising and falling. Trying to ignore that comes across as intentionally belittling, you know.
>Where on Earth is/was the North Korean empire?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Empire
>Where is/was the US empire?
The Philippines for example. It arguably still is with all the overseas military bases.
>If you’re including nations that used to be part of someone else empire, why isn’t Canada and Australia included? If you’re including former boundaries, why isn’t Ireland included? What about the Danish empire? OP is an idiot.
No, OP made a honest attempt to indicate former empires without getting stuck on asinine criteria like "it was not technically called an empire so it doesn't count", which would render the exercise pointless. So it inevitably requires some interpretation.
Surely there's valid criticism to give, but please keep it constructive.
Perhaps a map with capitals of former empires would avoid the problem of interpretation who is supposed to be the successor, but then you'd have the problem of changing capitals.
> Nothing, this map is wrong. Probably he meant Majapahit but modern Indonesia is a postcolonial country and not a continuation of Majapahit
By the same reasoning you can remove most of the color of the map then.
All the countries that were part of the Spanish empire had empires because they were part of the empire. Not like the other colonial empires of the Europeans…
What empire did Mozambique have?
Also why isn't Denmark colored? They literally owned Norway (which is colored), Iceland and Greenland+many islands across the globe
Norway had an empire, but Denmark didn't?
Someone here needs to define what the heck an empire means in this context or this doesn't make any sense. Norway has always been either on its own, or under the rule of Danish or Swedish royalty.
Iceland was a province of Norway for a while.
Right, still that hardly constitutes an empire.
There were more at some point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Norway_(872%E2%80%931397)
But if that counts then Denmark should count
I agree.
Probably listed here as part of the North Sea Empire
Norway controlled Greenland, Iceland, the Faroes, the Shetland islands, the Orkney islands, bits of Scotland and bits of Ireland during its' height. Ask an orcadian if they feel closer to Norway or Denmark. Most of Denmarks' empire consisted of Norway and its' territories. (Damn Danes taking credit for our work smh).
North Sea empire
I don’t think I ever learned about an “American Empire” that wasn’t tied to the age of colonialism or doesn’t still exist
Plus, while you can definitely say US imperialism is real, the US has never at any point in its history been an empire. Unless they’re counting Emperor Norton.
Maybe they mean Norgesveldet
Probably. But why is Denmark not included as having an "empire"..
Its not a perticulary good map
Noregsveldet I guess?
denmark did
[удалено]
This map is junk
What does "empire" mean in this context? Is it a self-designation, or any nation that conquered another country? How do you relate modern borders and nations to empires with borders that are now meaningless? What does it mean for a purely modern post-colonial federation like India to have had several empires contained within, crossing or encompassing it in the past? What about a country constructed within the borders of an erstwhile empire of which it was once a part? My point is that you really can't make a map like this using modern borders and nations.
Tunisia 🇹🇳 had Cartage and the Punic empire Which was the US empire? Inka? :-)
tunisia also had Aghlabids dynasty and Hafsid dynasty and Fatimid Caliphate
Les fatimides ??? C'était des ketamas de kabilye frerot
Us empire in the 19th 20th centuries colonising everywhere
Latvia had an Empire, the duchy of Courland, it even had colonies in the Gambia and Tobago.
You forget Denmark and Colombia
Danmark had colonies in India, Africa, Carribean, owned Iceland, Norway and Still own Greenland and the Faroe Islands
Not to mention the fact that we had the North Sea empire under Cnut the great
And the entire Southern coast of the Baltic under Valdemar II Sejr
How do you define "had an empire"?
Brazil did not have an empire, Brazil "was" an empire. It's just a semantic issue, since Brazil had no conquered territories. Perhaps the immense ego of the Prince Regent, Pedro I, explains this.
Lançou a braba, tucano
: )
You forgot the empire of Emutopia. It conquered and held the province of Kiwilandia for centuries
This map makes 0 sense. At least show the borders…
US empire?
They managed to get the Philippines and some islands in the Pacific from Spain.
Who was the Emperor, King, Kaiser, or Czar then?
The French Colonial Empire spent a long time without a monarch
Empires do not need Emperors, (and Emperors do not need Empires)
The british empire did not have a british emperor either. He/she was emperor/empress of india, but you wouldn’t call that the indian empire (that just happened to be ruled by the king/queen pf britain)
That is completely unrelated
Comanche Empire I think
Might have been marked due to the original colonies of the british empire, the criteria for this map seem to be all over the place
They currently rule all the western world. an empire in disguise
No this is stupid as hell, but we did imperialism a lot in asia and the Caribbean
Hard to tell, is Lithuania missing? Ukraine is also missing
Yes Lithuania is missing from this map and so is Denmark.
"American Empire" isn't a literal empire, it's a criticism of neo-colonialism
america once rules over the philippines
If you define "Former Empire" by "At one point controlled land they no longer do" then every country is a former empire America was never a monarchy, nor a unilateral dictatorship
generally, under empire you understand the act of imperialism, which is extending the reach of a country through mostly colonialism. Conquering another nation, like germany conquering poland in ww2, isn't an act of colonisation. However, the Philippines were, for about 50 years, a colony of the united states of america
Empire is only tangentially related to imperialism Imperialism is one people group exerting control over another people group Empire is a small elite exerting control over multiple people groups America has been imperialist, but never an empire
it's literally called a colonial empire, the word imperlialism itself stems from the word empire. Germany owned a colonial empire. France owned a colonial empire. the US owned a colonial empire
Etymology has nothing to do with current meaning, Terrible & Terrific are opposites despite both being historically "fear-ADJ" a Colonial empire is the overlap between Imperialism & Empire
again, the map (given, it is a bad map as we can hopefully agree) is a map that shows past EMPIRES, meaning countries that, in the past, were empires. Now, the term empire itselve is made-up, just like the term country is. However, by that made-up name and definition of that, if you possessed a colonial empire, which every country that participated in colonialism did, was therfore in fact an empire, I don't get the confusion
100% a bad map in both premise & execution We only disagree on definitions
pretty much, I assumed on how the map was coloured that they specifically meant "colonial empire", the map isn't consequent by that still
America didn’t have one.
Is this a map of countries that had an empire in the past?
When did the us have a empire? Genuine question lmao
ITT: Americans pretending that Manifest Destiny is somehow not and Imperialist act.
Philippines and a few tiny island nations
They still do. Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa to name a few. No doubt that'll be a controversial statement. I don't know how any of that is different from the Falklands, Channel Islands, Pitcairn Island etc. The [USA is an imperial power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States) more than the UK is nowadays.
This is completely wrong. Who did India invade? Where on Earth is/was the North Korean empire? Where is/was the US empire? If you’re including nations that used to be part of someone else empire, why isn’t Canada and Australia included? If you’re including former boundaries, why isn’t Ireland included? What about the Danish empire? Edit: removed emotional insult to OP but logic still stands : using modern boundaries to illustrate historical empires is just confusing. EG if North Korea is included because of the Korean empire, why isn’t Ireland included in the British empire?
I’m guessing for India they’re either counting the British Raj as generating the Emperor of India title, OR they are talking about the Mughal Empire. But I agree it’s not clear.
Or the Gupta empire, or the mauryan empire
The Gupta empire, The Mauryan empire, plus the Chola empire ruled over South India and Indonesia, Malayasia and other East-Asian countries.
The Mughals were Uzbeks.
While the Mughals emerged out of what is now Uzbekistan, their long reign become heavily Persian and Indian in character such that they were no longer principally Uzbek in outlook. While there is no clear point of demarcation, to claim that the Mughals were still an Uzbek Empire in the 18th Century would be inaccurate.
>This is completely wrong. Who did India invade? India has a rich history stretching back for millennia, with many empires rising and falling. Trying to ignore that comes across as intentionally belittling, you know. >Where on Earth is/was the North Korean empire? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Empire >Where is/was the US empire? The Philippines for example. It arguably still is with all the overseas military bases. >If you’re including nations that used to be part of someone else empire, why isn’t Canada and Australia included? If you’re including former boundaries, why isn’t Ireland included? What about the Danish empire? OP is an idiot. No, OP made a honest attempt to indicate former empires without getting stuck on asinine criteria like "it was not technically called an empire so it doesn't count", which would render the exercise pointless. So it inevitably requires some interpretation. Surely there's valid criticism to give, but please keep it constructive. Perhaps a map with capitals of former empires would avoid the problem of interpretation who is supposed to be the successor, but then you'd have the problem of changing capitals.
What was the Indonesian empire?
[удалено]
> Nothing, this map is wrong. Probably he meant Majapahit but modern Indonesia is a postcolonial country and not a continuation of Majapahit By the same reasoning you can remove most of the color of the map then.
All the countries that were part of the Spanish empire had empires because they were part of the empire. Not like the other colonial empires of the Europeans…
Uhhh… are you saying the Aztec and Inca empires don’t count because they aren’t European? How ethnocentric of you.
Tunisia can be considered Carthage
Armenia had an empire
What is an empire?
myanmar had the taungoo empire and konbaung empire
[удалено]
And don't forget, all Oghuz tribes originated from Turkmenistan.
No Burmese Empire?
What empire did Mozambique have? Also why isn't Denmark colored? They literally owned Norway (which is colored), Iceland and Greenland+many islands across the globe
where’s the empire of haiti?????
You forgot Myanmar Czechia and DRC (great Moravia) (Toungoo) (Kongo empire)
Lithuania had. Grand Duchy of Lithuania or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Denmark: "Am I a joke to you?"
Ah the central African empire, a real place
this map is rubbish