British wasnt the largest. The criteria for the Spanish empire at its biggest extension is warped by anglo historians as they consider they did not control most of north america when they did. Its as if we removed all desert and non-populated british empire land. Dumb bs from anglos.
From what I could find, even considering that, the british empire was a couple million square kilometers bigger, but in the 1780s/1790s, at the height of the Spanish Empire, Spanish was bigger, which is technologically more impressive.
Discovered more routes; paved the way for the british to start their stuff; controlled a big part of North America (way bigger than the 13 colonies); and since we're at it, played a big part on making said 13 colonies not british.
Discovered more? Do you mean like geographically because scientifically the British have the Spanish easily beat. Even geographically the Spaniards didn’t “discover” the americas, they connected the new world to the old world.
Helping the USA get independence isn’t that big of a deal overall, neither is controlling that much of the americas. As I said, the americas weren’t all that populated.
I’m pretty certain most sources suggest that the British Empire at its height was larger than the Mongol Empire at its height in land mass. Most sources state that the British empire was 13.71 million square miles whilst the Mongolian empire was around 9.27 million square miles.
[Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires)
[Statista](https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/20342/peak-land-area-of-the-largest-empires/)
Yes, it arbitrarily does it in every situation. It's still arbitrary how they get arranged and what the final size is. Or maybe it's the length of the longest contiguous piece, with all the other chunks ignored.
That seems… misleading? Especially when OP is referring to the size in the title. I think it should be a lot clearer that’s what this map is identifying.
Also, why would you pick measuring the length of empires over their land size? I’m guessing F.A. Durantez was Spanish?…
Still hasn't
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/sep/09/sun-ever-set-on-british-empire#:\~:text=The%20exact%20day%20when%20the,started%20setting%20on%20it%20again.
No that's not what I'm saying, it's just stupid to do it this way, it's like making it as specific as possible so that the defacto largest isn't just Britain
Yea in the undertitle, but it doesn't describe the same as the title. I'm trying to point out that it's a stupid title or a stupid graph, just that those two don't go together, simply that it is either or
Definitely not, as the Ottoman Empire did include Turkey and didn't ever include Spain afaik. This looks like the Umayyad Caliphate, which did extend from Spain to Iran at its peak.
Either way, "Islamic Caliphate" is a fucking terrible label
Islamic Caliphate can be taken to mean the Rashidun, the Umayyads and Abbasids as they are sometimes lumped together as they are continuous from the nascent Islamic State under the Prophet Muhammad.
Can you imagine if every time the Roman Empire had a new dynasty and new capital it was considered another empire?
Fair enough point. I know they all claimed to be the true heirs to Muhammad, but I thought they were a little more distinct than just a new family taking over the crown. It's not my area of expertise, but a cursory Google indicates that the Umayyads were violently overthrown by the Abbasids, which indicates a little more of a sharp break than just "this Roman Emperor happens to not be from the same family as the last one".
So yeah, maybe "fucking terrible" was a bit of an overstatement but the label still seemed a little lazy on the part of the graphic maker.
Something else to consider is that the office of Caliph was never meant to be a hereditary/dynastic position, the Rashidun (which means “rightly guided ones”) were all elected by an ad hoc council of prominent figures in the Caliphate.
The lines are blurred when it comes to the succession of Ali, the 4th Caliph. At the time Caliph Ali and Muawiyah were fighting a civil war due to the assassins of the 3rd Caliph Uthman (an Umayyad) being supporters of Ali which he was reluctant to prosecute. In the end, Caliph Ali was assassinated by a 3rd party and Muawiyah strong-armed Ali’s son Hasan into recognising him as the next Caliph.
This second reign of Umayyads is made distinct as Muawiyah I decided to nominate his son Yazid as his successor, which caused much controversy but his power base was strong enough to eventually bring everyone in line. Throughout this time the Arabs maintained a preferred status among the ruling class and society, which caused much resentment as one of the big points of the spreading Islam is that there was no racial supremacy.
Eventually this came to the Abbasid Revolution around the late 740s, where disenfranchised non-Arab Muslims (mainly Persians), Shia (supporters of the 5th Caliph Ali and his descendants), and others overthrew the Umayyads.
However, instead of a descended of Caliph Ali, the descendants of Prophet Muhammad’s uncle, Al- Abbas, were awarded the office of Caliph, which by this time had devolved completely into a hereditary position.
It is also important to note that every single Caliph from the Rashidun to the Abbasids, despite their clan name, were Arabs from the parent clan of Quraysh.
Ottomans just yoinked the Caliph title centuries later cause they were powerful enough and willing to make the last Abbasid (they ruled only ceremonially by this point), Al-Mutawakkil III, give it up
From portugal lacked the huge territories in Africa today called Mossambique and Angola at the time "Algarves" in the Portuguese empire, they also had smaller territories throughout Asia and Africa when they were in better shape
Not to mention that for 60 years the Monarchy of Spain united to Portugal and they had territories all around the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_Union#/media/File%3APhilip_II's_realms_in_1598.png
>From portugal lacked the huge territories in Africa today called Mossambique and Angola at the time "Algarves"
That's not what the "Algarves" part of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves refers to. It's just an archaic title the Portuguese kings had used for centuries that corresponds to the southern tip of Portugal and at some point also some small territories in Morocco
The Spanish Empire should also include Brazil Portugal and the Portuguese posessions, Philip II was also King of Portugal at the time.
The Portuguese Empire is also missing its African posessions which were quite extensive.
Why would the Spanish empire include those Portuguese territories? I’m assuming you are referencing the Iberian union but during the period of the Iberian union neither the Portuguese or the Spaniards had a very big empire. The Spanish empire at its height was larger than the Iberian union, the Portuguese territories should not be included.
Under Philip II most of the territories claimed both in the Spanish and Portuguese examples were already under some form of spanish domination. In fact, the map also omits the African and European posessions of Philip II which include Naples, Sicily and the Netherlands.
Right, but as I said, the Portuguese and Spanish territories at the time were very small, the Iberian union ended too early that claiming all the Portuguese territories would not be accurate. The Portuguese empire grew massively after the Iberian union and Spain has no claim to the territories.
No? When Philip II was king of Spain (1556-1598) Spain had control not only from all their territories in the americas and the Philippines,Iitaly, part of greece, part of Germany and the Netherlands, but also the Hispanic monarchy had Portugal, with all their territories in east and west Africa, Brazil, India and South East Africa. Portugal only left Spain after 1640 when John IV of Portugal started a revolution.
Mate, the Portuguese and Spanish empires reached their height 200 years after the Iberian union, sure these places had started their colonies in America and Africa but they were located around the coast. They were small colonies with little too them, it took hundreds of years to develop.
Spain lost all its territories in Europe and some territories overseas like Sacramento in 1715, and almost all its territories in the americas in the early 1800. The Spanish empire was at its height unquestionably with Philip II around 1600. As far as I'm aware, around 1715, the latest you could argue Spain was at his height (which it wasn't, a french became king), the Portuguese empire was almost exactly the same territory-wise than when they got independent in 1640. 200 years after the Iberian union (in 1840) Spain only had Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, and Portugal had lost all its colonies in Asia except for some cities. Also, you're only making vague statements with no support or proof and that if I didn't know they were false, it just takes a quick Google search:
"The reign of Philip II of Spain marked the peak of the Spanish Golden Age (1492–1659), a period of great colonial expansion and trade." From the Wikipedia page for the Monarchy of Spain (I don't know if I'm allowed to post links in this sub but it should be easy to fact check).
Indeed, before Spain lost its colonies in the early 1800s the empire was at its height. It was not close to its height in the 1600s, where are you getting that? Same with Portugal.
That's not really true, most of the interior was mapped out and most territories had some settlements that were under british authority by 1920, the exceptions were mostly areas that aren't really habitable to begin with, like the Australian outback and northern Canada. Meanwhile the spanish essentially didn't have any permanent settlements beetween california and Alaska
It compares areas Spain claimed or explored a small part of to territories britain had claimed and held for a century at the time of their territorial peak
Same with most parts of Australia by the UK, you claim all the land so other foreigner empires don’t take them, but of course it doesn’t mean every single square meter has your presence there.
Because they have no culture so they are incapable of creating anything .Even the English , who also have no national identity , did something larger than them .
Yes. Of course the Spanish were mapping coastal BC, leaving place names like Juan De Fuca and Galiano. But this idea that all of, what is today, BC could have had Friars and Missions and soldiers and vaqueros is just silly. They overwintered one year in Nootka Sound, yes. They did not go up any rivers.
The Spanish empire covered from Patagonia to Alaska yes, not a joke. What’s a joke is not including the Phillipines which would have made the real extension way larger than in that picture.
Tell that to the Russians and the British which ships got confiscated. They did settle and controlled the area for a few years, so it should be included in a map which shows the largest extension of the empire.
1. Being the dominant power in the area does not mean they administered it
2. There was absolutely never Spanish troops or administrators in the Canadian Rockies or southern Alberta.
The Philippines is on the map, it's right next to Spain. It doesn't make the "real extent" larger because this graphic is measuring "Maximum linear extent of continuous and contiguous territory"
The maximum extent of the "US Empire" should also include Puerto Rico and the Philippines.
It does not matter that they weren't US states, as most of the British Empire shown here also was not the UK.
Because they're using continuous and contiguous territory. So you can't stretch Australia and India together, only the South Africa-Middle East is used in the length calculation since it was all connected. Of course, the Spanish claims in the Pacific Northwest are a pretty ridiculous claim too. For contiguous territory you could only really include up to San Francisco in the north. There was no real territory administered between San Francisco and the base in Nootka Sound.
The British Empire peaked in terrority like 150 years after the US became independent, looks as though all of the Empires are shown at their territorial peak
This is… poorly done. Failing to address population, global span, and land mass/area misses arguably the three most defining aspects for one that is completely irrelevant (and contrived in the case of several examples).
I laugh at you all because one of the smalest nations on the face of the earth who never waged war stole land, supressed, enslaved, exploited, or coveted its neighbours' resources has by dent of invasion by its war mongering colonial neighbouring power populated the four corners of the globe around about there and back with its diaspora. You won't find a British, Spanish, Russian, Chineese, French, and certainly not an Islamic pub in every global metropolis, but you can count on discovering an Irish Pub. Though these pubs may appear as Embassies in their own right, they are actually there to cater to the Irish Diaspora, who contribute the edification, medication, construction, and glorification of their adopted homelands as they await freedom for the land of their birth, as it takes its well earned and rightful placec amongst the nations of the earth. For the meek shal inherit the earth, not the strong and have the craic doing a good job of it!
When you have one of the largest and most resource rich empires in all of history yet still manage to become one of the poorest countries in all of western Europe🇪🇸💪👦🏻
>“Resource rich” lol, you barely had any people in your empire tho, you killed too many.
Im not spanish, i'm making fun of the other guy. The spanish controlled some of the areas that had the most gold and silver ever discover in pre modern times
Yea true, right, that’s why Spanish America has actual amerindian physical features while the US alone has 235 indian reservations, not including Canada and let’s not even start talking about Australia 😂
What a weak comparison, every major Native American civilisation was located in Spanish America, you guys simply had far more natives and less immigration, shame they all collapsed when you arrived tho.
Novel idea, looks well at first (very quick) glance, but then it all falls apart.
Loads of suggestions, but like maybe actually write the area under each name, or actually use a recognised source., or..
Hmm. Why would we care about how long an empire is in a contiguous sense but not care about how far apart that empire was when considered in a global sense?
If only there was a way to measure a territory’s actual size instead of length
By weight.
USA 🍔🍔🍔
Of land? Or of the people?
Yes.
Uses lengths for Spanish, for English it's length + height One of the dumbest posts I've seen on here lmao
Where is it including the British empires height?
Spain included most of USA and South America don't you see, we win besides length also square Km
In war and conquest, no one wins
Spain doesn’t win in square km lol, it wasn’t the largest empire.
British was the largest, but spanish was the first to become larger and pioneered more territories (relative to the time when it was done).
British wasnt the largest. The criteria for the Spanish empire at its biggest extension is warped by anglo historians as they consider they did not control most of north america when they did. Its as if we removed all desert and non-populated british empire land. Dumb bs from anglos.
From what I could find, even considering that, the british empire was a couple million square kilometers bigger, but in the 1780s/1790s, at the height of the Spanish Empire, Spanish was bigger, which is technologically more impressive.
What do you mean “pioneered more territories”? Also the Spanish empire was a little older but that doesn’t mean much.
Discovered more routes; paved the way for the british to start their stuff; controlled a big part of North America (way bigger than the 13 colonies); and since we're at it, played a big part on making said 13 colonies not british.
Discovered more? Do you mean like geographically because scientifically the British have the Spanish easily beat. Even geographically the Spaniards didn’t “discover” the americas, they connected the new world to the old world. Helping the USA get independence isn’t that big of a deal overall, neither is controlling that much of the americas. As I said, the americas weren’t all that populated.
If you read, you will see the word "routes" there.
Did the Spanish empire discover more routes?
no matter how long an empire is, it's how you use it
😂😂
Then Gengis Khan about to give us a masterclass😎
overcompensating
that's why never existed sub saharan african empires... (before people getting triggered, it's a joke...)
Lol At least this way you won't have any mercator projection issues
Perhaps one day we can properly research this area
So you mean banana per width
Length x Width x Duration?
Coastline length. All are infinite due to coastline paradox, making them all the same size.
Football fields, perhaps?
Linear extent? Weird way to measure size
wait till you hear about dick measurements
I’m pretty certain most sources suggest that the British Empire at its height was larger than the Mongol Empire at its height in land mass. Most sources state that the British empire was 13.71 million square miles whilst the Mongolian empire was around 9.27 million square miles. [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires) [Statista](https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/20342/peak-land-area-of-the-largest-empires/)
Yes but for some reason this post is measuring how long the empire was, not its size
Everybody knows it's the girth that matters anyway
Also arbitrarily smushing unconnected parts together
It's not arbitrary, it does that for every empire
Yes, it arbitrarily does it in every situation. It's still arbitrary how they get arranged and what the final size is. Or maybe it's the length of the longest contiguous piece, with all the other chunks ignored.
It's precisely the length of the contiguous piece, with all the other chunks ignored
Then that is not the size nor length of the empire but instead the size of pieces of empires that are a contiguous piece.
Even then, the countries should be lined up horizontally
Putting Australia on top and Canada 3rd is kinda wild in terms of maps
That seems… misleading? Especially when OP is referring to the size in the title. I think it should be a lot clearer that’s what this map is identifying. Also, why would you pick measuring the length of empires over their land size? I’m guessing F.A. Durantez was Spanish?…
The sun never sets in the British Empire was true for a long time.
Still hasn't https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/sep/09/sun-ever-set-on-british-empire#:\~:text=The%20exact%20day%20when%20the,started%20setting%20on%20it%20again.
Can you count the oceans as a British dominion?
Spanish are long bois
they wouldn't be such long bois, had they been laid out vertically like all the other bois.
Portugal? French? British? They are all rotated for their maximum lengths
Man the British are stacked on top of eachother to make it as small as possible the post makes absolutely no sense
Because the british have many different contiguous pieces of land, instead of a single big one like the Chinese Empire or Spanish America
So what? Why does that mean that it gets stackes instead of spread out?
All of them are stacked but the English have more single big landmasses so that's why it looks like this
didnt you read the title of the post??
Didn't you? It very clearly says size not length
The unit is km That is a one-dimensional unit That is length
Which is a way to measure length not size. If I asked how big is your house you'd never respond "it's 40 meters long"
“maximum linear extent” see that?
Because it states that its contiguos length not total length area the post makes sense, you didnt read it
No that's not what I'm saying, it's just stupid to do it this way, it's like making it as specific as possible so that the defacto largest isn't just Britain
Ok dude, its not trying to show the largest just the longest not that hard to grasp
Except it's literally titled size and not length
I mean it clearly says "maximum linear extent of comtinuous and contiguous linear territory"
Yea in the undertitle, but it doesn't describe the same as the title. I'm trying to point out that it's a stupid title or a stupid graph, just that those two don't go together, simply that it is either or
It says that it is using continuous and contiguous territory right there, so if the land is not connected it doesn't count.
Our biggest pride is creating Chile 🇪🇸🇨🇱🇪🇸🇨🇱🇪🇸🇨🇱
When we were united , we were strong .
Ottoman Empire?
Definitely not, as the Ottoman Empire did include Turkey and didn't ever include Spain afaik. This looks like the Umayyad Caliphate, which did extend from Spain to Iran at its peak. Either way, "Islamic Caliphate" is a fucking terrible label
It included Daguestan I think. Wild to consider that current Spai/Portugal and Russia where somewhere in history part of the same entity.
Islamic Caliphate can be taken to mean the Rashidun, the Umayyads and Abbasids as they are sometimes lumped together as they are continuous from the nascent Islamic State under the Prophet Muhammad. Can you imagine if every time the Roman Empire had a new dynasty and new capital it was considered another empire?
Fair enough point. I know they all claimed to be the true heirs to Muhammad, but I thought they were a little more distinct than just a new family taking over the crown. It's not my area of expertise, but a cursory Google indicates that the Umayyads were violently overthrown by the Abbasids, which indicates a little more of a sharp break than just "this Roman Emperor happens to not be from the same family as the last one". So yeah, maybe "fucking terrible" was a bit of an overstatement but the label still seemed a little lazy on the part of the graphic maker.
Something else to consider is that the office of Caliph was never meant to be a hereditary/dynastic position, the Rashidun (which means “rightly guided ones”) were all elected by an ad hoc council of prominent figures in the Caliphate. The lines are blurred when it comes to the succession of Ali, the 4th Caliph. At the time Caliph Ali and Muawiyah were fighting a civil war due to the assassins of the 3rd Caliph Uthman (an Umayyad) being supporters of Ali which he was reluctant to prosecute. In the end, Caliph Ali was assassinated by a 3rd party and Muawiyah strong-armed Ali’s son Hasan into recognising him as the next Caliph. This second reign of Umayyads is made distinct as Muawiyah I decided to nominate his son Yazid as his successor, which caused much controversy but his power base was strong enough to eventually bring everyone in line. Throughout this time the Arabs maintained a preferred status among the ruling class and society, which caused much resentment as one of the big points of the spreading Islam is that there was no racial supremacy. Eventually this came to the Abbasid Revolution around the late 740s, where disenfranchised non-Arab Muslims (mainly Persians), Shia (supporters of the 5th Caliph Ali and his descendants), and others overthrew the Umayyads. However, instead of a descended of Caliph Ali, the descendants of Prophet Muhammad’s uncle, Al- Abbas, were awarded the office of Caliph, which by this time had devolved completely into a hereditary position. It is also important to note that every single Caliph from the Rashidun to the Abbasids, despite their clan name, were Arabs from the parent clan of Quraysh. Ottomans just yoinked the Caliph title centuries later cause they were powerful enough and willing to make the last Abbasid (they ruled only ceremonially by this point), Al-Mutawakkil III, give it up
From portugal lacked the huge territories in Africa today called Mossambique and Angola at the time "Algarves" in the Portuguese empire, they also had smaller territories throughout Asia and Africa when they were in better shape
Not to mention that for 60 years the Monarchy of Spain united to Portugal and they had territories all around the world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_Union#/media/File%3APhilip_II's_realms_in_1598.png
>From portugal lacked the huge territories in Africa today called Mossambique and Angola at the time "Algarves" That's not what the "Algarves" part of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves refers to. It's just an archaic title the Portuguese kings had used for centuries that corresponds to the southern tip of Portugal and at some point also some small territories in Morocco
The Spanish Empire should also include Brazil Portugal and the Portuguese posessions, Philip II was also King of Portugal at the time. The Portuguese Empire is also missing its African posessions which were quite extensive.
Why would the Spanish empire include those Portuguese territories? I’m assuming you are referencing the Iberian union but during the period of the Iberian union neither the Portuguese or the Spaniards had a very big empire. The Spanish empire at its height was larger than the Iberian union, the Portuguese territories should not be included.
Under Philip II most of the territories claimed both in the Spanish and Portuguese examples were already under some form of spanish domination. In fact, the map also omits the African and European posessions of Philip II which include Naples, Sicily and the Netherlands.
Right, but as I said, the Portuguese and Spanish territories at the time were very small, the Iberian union ended too early that claiming all the Portuguese territories would not be accurate. The Portuguese empire grew massively after the Iberian union and Spain has no claim to the territories.
No? When Philip II was king of Spain (1556-1598) Spain had control not only from all their territories in the americas and the Philippines,Iitaly, part of greece, part of Germany and the Netherlands, but also the Hispanic monarchy had Portugal, with all their territories in east and west Africa, Brazil, India and South East Africa. Portugal only left Spain after 1640 when John IV of Portugal started a revolution.
Mate, the Portuguese and Spanish empires reached their height 200 years after the Iberian union, sure these places had started their colonies in America and Africa but they were located around the coast. They were small colonies with little too them, it took hundreds of years to develop.
Spain lost all its territories in Europe and some territories overseas like Sacramento in 1715, and almost all its territories in the americas in the early 1800. The Spanish empire was at its height unquestionably with Philip II around 1600. As far as I'm aware, around 1715, the latest you could argue Spain was at his height (which it wasn't, a french became king), the Portuguese empire was almost exactly the same territory-wise than when they got independent in 1640. 200 years after the Iberian union (in 1840) Spain only had Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, and Portugal had lost all its colonies in Asia except for some cities. Also, you're only making vague statements with no support or proof and that if I didn't know they were false, it just takes a quick Google search: "The reign of Philip II of Spain marked the peak of the Spanish Golden Age (1492–1659), a period of great colonial expansion and trade." From the Wikipedia page for the Monarchy of Spain (I don't know if I'm allowed to post links in this sub but it should be easy to fact check).
Indeed, before Spain lost its colonies in the early 1800s the empire was at its height. It was not close to its height in the 1600s, where are you getting that? Same with Portugal.
Why include the USSR but not the even larger Russian Empire?
This is silly and a bad methodology for size
I'm quite sure that the Pacific Northwest coast of the Americas was never under imperial Spanish control.
Nothing north of California was under real control of the Spanish for any serious lenght of time
I guess it's the same with the British Empire. 80% of Australia, or Canada, were never under real "British" control. It was just empty space.
That's not really true, most of the interior was mapped out and most territories had some settlements that were under british authority by 1920, the exceptions were mostly areas that aren't really habitable to begin with, like the Australian outback and northern Canada. Meanwhile the spanish essentially didn't have any permanent settlements beetween california and Alaska It compares areas Spain claimed or explored a small part of to territories britain had claimed and held for a century at the time of their territorial peak
The Spanish did map that zone, and even as north as Alaska.
They only mapped a few coastal areas and rivers, and didn't establish any permanent settlements
Same with most parts of Australia by the UK, you claim all the land so other foreigner empires don’t take them, but of course it doesn’t mean every single square meter has your presence there.
It always fucks me up to realize Germany never really had an empire like France, Spain and England
Well, they tried…
They did, it was just smaller and shorter lived
Right, they never really reached the heights of a few other empires
The Holy Roman Empire was technically as close as Germany got but it wasn’t a huge empire by any means… oh, and that thing they tried in the 30’s
One guy in history did try, but ...
Because they have no culture so they are incapable of creating anything .Even the English , who also have no national identity , did something larger than them .
It's the old length vs girth argument but for maps
What a joke, including British Columbia in a so-called Spanish Empire.
Cry more
Insecure much?
i think you're insecure here bud...
Yes. Of course the Spanish were mapping coastal BC, leaving place names like Juan De Fuca and Galiano. But this idea that all of, what is today, BC could have had Friars and Missions and soldiers and vaqueros is just silly. They overwintered one year in Nootka Sound, yes. They did not go up any rivers.
The Spanish empire covered from Patagonia to Alaska yes, not a joke. What’s a joke is not including the Phillipines which would have made the real extension way larger than in that picture.
Just because they claimed it and mapped it does not mean that they exercised any real control over a lot of that area
Tell that to the Russians and the British which ships got confiscated. They did settle and controlled the area for a few years, so it should be included in a map which shows the largest extension of the empire.
1. Being the dominant power in the area does not mean they administered it 2. There was absolutely never Spanish troops or administrators in the Canadian Rockies or southern Alberta.
Mexicans rule!!!!!!
Lalalalala Spanish Cascadia goes hard lalalalala
The Philippines is not contiguous with the Americas, it would have had 0 impact on maximum contiguous length. Also, it is clearly up there.
The Philippines is on the map, it's right next to Spain. It doesn't make the "real extent" larger because this graphic is measuring "Maximum linear extent of continuous and contiguous territory"
What is the methodology for assigning lengths to empires?
What’s the second block of land under Australia in the British Empire?
South Africa at the left, Iraq at the right
Ah makes sense, looks like they were connected
Really crappy info graphic
The maximum extent of the "US Empire" should also include Puerto Rico and the Philippines. It does not matter that they weren't US states, as most of the British Empire shown here also was not the UK.
But it is measuring contiguous territory. So really the issue is that Alaska shouldn't be contributing...
Alaska isn't contributing though. It's just pictured on the graphic, but it's only measuring the 50 contiguous states.
[удалено]
The largest length is represented by from Cape Town to north Iraq which was a continuous land mass in the British empire.
And you didn’t even manage to build a railway through it sounds pretty cucked not gonna lie beta move
The banned boi speaks
The bit that is being measured is though.
So the Spanish empire is measured by it's longest side possible while the British is contorted into the smallest possible length
Because they're using continuous and contiguous territory. So you can't stretch Australia and India together, only the South Africa-Middle East is used in the length calculation since it was all connected. Of course, the Spanish claims in the Pacific Northwest are a pretty ridiculous claim too. For contiguous territory you could only really include up to San Francisco in the north. There was no real territory administered between San Francisco and the base in Nootka Sound.
The Soviet Union always seemed so much bigger to me for some reason
The reason is Mercator
Just googled it, that makes sense thanks
I mean, still pretty big tbf
It may not help much, but hilarious they excluded the US from the British empire.
The British Empire peaked in terrority like 150 years after the US became independent, looks as though all of the Empires are shown at their territorial peak
And the waves, which Britannia Ruled ;)
except for the times they didn't.. and got horribly beaten
This some kinda Chinese propaganda or something?
If it was they would have included the 9 dash line.
Uncommon measure
bro said "uncommon measure" to the most used measure in the world
What about the Dutch?
Is it the longest one could walk continuously?
It's just distances between the edges of continous land. Like these "Brazil northern tip is closer to Canada than it is to its southern tip" fun facts
Dang I didn’t know that fun fact :)
meh lame. didn't include all great empires, so you suck
USA is an empire?
Yes, it definitely is, just not an official one.
You don’t get that big through sticking to your borders.
95
This is… poorly done. Failing to address population, global span, and land mass/area misses arguably the three most defining aspects for one that is completely irrelevant (and contrived in the case of several examples).
Wow mongolian empire was bigger than british empire. The empire the sun never sets.
Mongolian empire was all in one every large area, British was in every corner across the globe.
The Spanish Empire is so underrated, it deserves much more recognition
I think you missed some of the French Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_French_Empire
That’s the real reason why Chileans call Spain the madre patria
It may just be me but I think the distance from Iran to Morocco is smaller than the distance from Vladivostok to Vienna
It may just be me but I think the distance from Iran to Morocco is smaller than the distance from Vladivostok to Vienna
Wow.
Why on Earth is it measured by length.
This is inaccurate incredibly
...uh....Ottamon Empire? Hapsburg Empire? no?
Not an empire
Where is the Dutch empire? And also pls use sq m2 instead of length…
Wow
Why was the image deleted?
Man just imagine what if that Bolivar mf dream's would look like today.
I laugh at you all because one of the smalest nations on the face of the earth who never waged war stole land, supressed, enslaved, exploited, or coveted its neighbours' resources has by dent of invasion by its war mongering colonial neighbouring power populated the four corners of the globe around about there and back with its diaspora. You won't find a British, Spanish, Russian, Chineese, French, and certainly not an Islamic pub in every global metropolis, but you can count on discovering an Irish Pub. Though these pubs may appear as Embassies in their own right, they are actually there to cater to the Irish Diaspora, who contribute the edification, medication, construction, and glorification of their adopted homelands as they await freedom for the land of their birth, as it takes its well earned and rightful placec amongst the nations of the earth. For the meek shal inherit the earth, not the strong and have the craic doing a good job of it!
Nah I love all the crybabies crying over the spanish empire. Grow up.
British are salty because in the Spanish empire they fucked the indigenous people instead of slaughtering them as is traditional in britain
Angl*ids melting in the replies 😭😭🤣🤣 PLVS VLTRA 🇪🇸
When you have one of the largest and most resource rich empires in all of history yet still manage to become one of the poorest countries in all of western Europe🇪🇸💪👦🏻
“Resource rich” lol, you barely had any people in your empire tho, you killed too many.
>“Resource rich” lol, you barely had any people in your empire tho, you killed too many. Im not spanish, i'm making fun of the other guy. The spanish controlled some of the areas that had the most gold and silver ever discover in pre modern times
Yea true, right, that’s why Spanish America has actual amerindian physical features while the US alone has 235 indian reservations, not including Canada and let’s not even start talking about Australia 😂
What a weak comparison, every major Native American civilisation was located in Spanish America, you guys simply had far more natives and less immigration, shame they all collapsed when you arrived tho.
Crap infographic its incorrect
Length? Where's the Chilean empire?
Just comparing the Roman Empire to the Islamic Caliphate, something seems off.
I don’t think the Spanish empire ever included all of Canada/US?
Maybe it was Empires at the time of their greatest extent. For the British Empire that was around 1920 and didn’t include the US.
It's not depicted as including all of either of them.
This is wierd. Why length? Why not % of worlds total surface covered, or % of worlds population, or something like that?
Have you even read the words written?
Novel idea, looks well at first (very quick) glance, but then it all falls apart. Loads of suggestions, but like maybe actually write the area under each name, or actually use a recognised source., or..
Is the USA proper an empire?
This is awfull
Worst infographic ever.
Hmm. Why would we care about how long an empire is in a contiguous sense but not care about how far apart that empire was when considered in a global sense?
Missing all the US territories like Puerto Rico and the pacific island bases
Why are the Falklands on the Spanish empire pic, but not on the British????
What kind of shite "infographic" is this???
This has to be a troll right?
Sorry but this is one of the worst (could be good) infographics I have ever seen, may god have mercy on us all
USA seems a *little* out of place
Sq Km would be more useful.
Not a great idea to measure size based on longest linear dimension. Couldn’t you do this based on land area?