Jump to content

Talk:List of largest empires

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Empires with sourced areas but without dates

[edit]

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]

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)

References

  1. ^ Obeng, J. Pashington (1996). Asante Catholicism: Religious and Cultural Reproduction Among the Akan of Ghana. BRILL. p. 20. ISBN 978-90-04-10631-4. An empire of a hundred thousand square miles, occupied by about three million people from different ethnic groups, made it imperative for the Asante to evolve sophisticated statal and parastatal institutions [...]
  2. ^ Iliffe, John (1995-08-25). Africans: The History of a Continent. Cambridge University Press. p. 143. ISBN 978-0-521-48422-0. At its peak around 1820 the empire embraced over 250,000 square kilometres [...]
  3. ^ a b c d e Cioffi-Revilla, Claudio; Rogers, J. Daniel; Wilcox, Steven P.; Alterman, Jai (2008). "Computing the Steppes: Data Analysis for Agent-Based Modeling of Polities in Inner Asia" (PDF). Proceedings of the 104th Annual Meeting of the American Political Scientific Association. pp. 8–9. Retrieved 2020-07-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ Wade, Geoff (2014-10-17). Asian Expansions: The Historical Experiences of Polity Expansion in Asia. Routledge. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-135-04353-7. [T]he state of Đại Cồ Việt was established in the tenth century [...] The maximum extent of the territory at that time was around 110,000 square kilometres.
  5. ^ Bosin, Yury V. (2009), "Durrani Empire, Popular Protests, 1747–1823" (PDF), The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest, p. 1029, doi:10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp0481, ISBN 978-1-4051-9807-3, retrieved 2020-07-14{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)
  6. ^ a b Bang, Peter Fibiger; Bayly, C. A.; Scheidel, Walter (2020-12-02). The Oxford World History of Empire: Volume One: The Imperial Experience. Oxford University Press. pp. 92–94. ISBN 978-0-19-977311-4.
  7. ^ Shillington, Kevin (2013-07-04). Encyclopedia of African History 3-Volume Set. Routledge. p. 733. ISBN 978-1-135-45670-2. The limits of the empire correspond approximately with the boundaries of the Chad Basin, an area of more than 300,000 square miles.
  8. ^ Wade, Geoff (2014-10-17). Asian Expansions: The Historical Experiences of Polity Expansion in Asia. Routledge. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-135-04353-7. [W]hen Nguyễn Vietnam surrendered to France in the late nineteenth century the territory it claimed to control had more than tripled to over 370,000 square kilometres
  9. ^ Hart, Hornell (1948). "The Logistic Growth of Political Areas". Social Forces. 26 (4): 402. doi:10.2307/2571873. ISSN 0037-7732. In the Mediterranean area the earliest historic governments which extended their territory by major use of fleets were the Greek and the Phoenecian, reaching areas of approximately 250,000 square miles each
  10. ^ Morrison, Kathleen D.; Sinopoli, Carla M. (1992). "Economic Diversity and Integration in a Pre-Colonial Indian Empire". World Archaeology. 23 (3): 336. ISSN 0043-8243. At its maximal extent the Vijayanagara empire encompassed some 360,000 square kilometers
  11. ^ Alcock, Susan E.; D'Altroy, Terence N.; Morrison, Kathleen D.; Sinopoli, Carla M. (2001-08-09). Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. Cambridge University Press. p. 85. ISBN 978-0-521-77020-0. The total spatial extent of the empire, not including the north coast, I estimate to have been some 320,000 square kilometers.
  12. ^ Vaitekūnas, Stasys. "Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės gyventojai". VLE.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 19 September 2021.

Size Portugueses empire

[edit]

They could correct the size of the Portuguese empire; it doesn't make much sense for it to measure more than 5 million with the image of Brazil at 8 million in total. ~2026-20939-45 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to update comparison map to Winkel Tripel projection and refine 1279 Mongol borders

[edit]
I don't have particularly strong opinions on which map projection to use, as long as it is inconspicuous (if readers take notice of which projection is used here, something has gone wrong). I don't think distortion at higher latitudes is a strong reason to avoid the Robinson projection here, considering the relatively moderate distortion (compared to e.g. the Mercator projection) and which parts of the world are most relevant for the purpose of this map.
The reason the article currently uses File:Combined map - British and Mongol Empires a.svg is that objections were raised about File:Combined map - British and Mongol Empires.svg, and those objections had to do with sourcing. If we are to use a different map, it needs to be properly sourced. Ping Amitchell125, who made those two maps. TompaDompa (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Winkel tripel projection isn't an equal-area projection, though. If the argument is that the map should represent the area in as accurate a way as possible quantitatively, it would make more sense to use e.g. the Collignon projection. That would however be a highly conspicuous, and thus distracting, choice of projection. That's why I said the choice of projection should be inconspicuous, which is not remotely the same thing as saying that the choice is irrelevant. I could see an argument for e.g. the Mollweide projection or Equal Earth projection being good choices, being comparatively inconspicuous choices that preserve area.
The sourcing for your map is, per the description you just added, a 1923 atlas[2] and two maps[3][4] by editors on Wikimedia Commons. It is, as you say, a synthesis of sources—two of which are not exactly reliable (because they are WP:User-generated) and one of which is over a century old. Your map also combines source maps depicting different points in time ranging from the year 1237 to 1300 to ostensibly illustrate the year 1279. I am very much in favour of getting as accurate a map as possible based on academic sources (complete accuracy will of course ever remain elusive since the modern-day concept of fixed borders between states doesn't really apply to the Mongol Empire, and even if it did academics aren't entirely in agreement), but it seems to me that you are overselling the benefits of your version quite a bit. I can't recall ever seeing any professional map of the Mongol Empire that depicts it as stretching all the way to the White Sea in the northwest, for instance, so that seems suspiciously WP:FRINGE to me. By all means prove me wrong. TompaDompa (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be better off not arguing against things I never said and misquoting me while doing so. Given this and the length and overall formatting of your replies, I feel I must ask you whether you used an LLM to write your replies.
It sounds like we would both consider a map using the Equal Earth projection to be satisfactory. Considering this and that the case for using that projection is stronger than the case for Winkel tripel, let's go with Equal Earth.
Combining different sources to reach your own conclusions—what you describe as synthesizing established territorial data—is indeed WP:Synthesis, or in other words WP:Original research. It doesn't matter what seems fair and historically consistent to you or me, only what the sources actually state—if they don't denote certain territories as part of the Mongol Empire, neither can we. What I suggested you prove me wrong about was specifically maps showing the Mongol Empire as reaching all the way to the White Sea in the northwest. Given that you apparently view Taagepera's figure of 24.0 million km2 as authoritative (or reflective of established academic consensus, at any rate), the most logical basis for our map would be the ones used by Taagepera to come up with this figure: Westermanns Atlas zur Weltgeschichte (which Taagepera refers to as Westermann's Atlas der Weltgeschichte) and An Historical Atlas of China, which don't include the areas to the extreme northwest bordering on the White Sea in the territory assigned to the Mongol Empire. TompaDompa (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting was only one part of it. That you misrepresented and outright misquoted me is far more important, and a point that you have avoided addressing. Will you continue to do so?
You must not have read Taagepera particularly carefully. Taagepera explicitly says that the 24.0 million km2 figure is based on Westermanns Atlas and An Historical Atlas of China. That's on page 499. "Novgorod subjected" on page 494 is by the Kievan Rus', not the Mongols, and relates to the year 882. Taagepera's figure of 24.0 million km2 is also explicitly not for the year 1279, and the area given for the year 1280 is 22.0 million km2. You have still yet to produce any actual map that we could use as a basis for our combined map that depicts the Mongol Empire as stretching all the way to the White Sea. Why not use the same maps as Taagepera, given that you appear to think that the figures Taagepera came up with using those maps are the ones we should use? TompaDompa (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're acting as if the sources say things that they simply don't, and your attempts to back your assertions up consist of a bunch of LLM-style nonsense. The errors are numerous and obvious (does Taagepera say that the territories of the Kievan Rus' were stable from "Novgorod subjected" in 882 until the Mongol conquest? Here's a hint: not even remotely), and the inconsistencies and self-contradictions are likewise (is 1279 the peak you are attempting to depict or not?).

I'll explain to you one final time that the illustrations in Westermanns Atlas and An Historical Atlas of China do account for the 24.0 million km2 figure, because that's how Taagepera came up with that figure in the first place (Turchin got the figure from Taggepera)! The "verified area figure" comes from the maps. You call them "statistical conclusions", but they are measurements from the maps. Taagepera explains this briefly in the 1997 article we have been discussing and in a bit more detail in this 1978 article. If you don't understand this very simple fact about the area figures and the maps, productive discussion is beyond reach.

The bottom line is this: if you want the map to include the extreme northwestern territories bordering on the White Sea in the territory ascribed to the Mongol Empire, you need to base this on an appropriately citable map that does likewise. You can't just pretend that the sources agree with you when they don't. TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 'LLM-style' comment, let's stick to the peer-reviewed data rather than distractions. Taagepera (1978, Table 3) explicitly lists the Mongol Empire's peak area as 24.0 million km² in 1309. Since we are editing the 'List of largest empires,' mapping the 24.0 Mm² peak (Greatest Extent) is the only logical choice, rather than a 22.0 Mm² snapshot from 1280. You claim the 24.0 Mm² figure comes strictly from measurements of specific atlas maps. However, as Taagepera (1978, p. 111, 113) explains, these measurements involve a 10% error margin and the 'average consensus' of historical atlases. If those simplified, low-precision illustrations in Westermanns or Herrmann cannot be shown to total 24.0 Mm² when correctly projected onto a modern, area-accurate base like Equal Earth, then the author's final statistical conclusion (24.0 Mm²) must take precedence over the sketch. I am using high-precision cartography specifically to fix this discrepancy and ensure the map finally aligns with the author's published figures. Regarding Novgorod, Turchin (2006, p. 221) supports the empire's reach into the 'forest zone' via tribute, and Taagepera (1997, p. 499) notes the inclusion of 'Russia' by 1250. The Mongol Empire inherited the Rus' principalities' extent, and excluding the northern reaches to the White Sea makes it mathematically impossible to reach the 24.0 Mm² peak confirmed by both authors. This isn't a 'misreading'; it's a calibration to match the quantitative data. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's (1) a bunch of nonsense, and (2) obvious fitting of the data to reach a preconceived conclusion. You are engaging in a bunch of cartographic WP:Original research. You clearly do not understand how the figures were arrived at (Taagepera specifically states which maps were used in each instance), making productive discussion beyond reach. And you still haven't provided any appropriately citable map that supports your position.
I'll take your continued avoidance of the LLM question as a tacit admission. See WP:LLMCHAT. TompaDompa (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Labeling a request for data consistency as a "tacit admission" is a clear ad hominem distraction. My silence on the topic is simply a refusal to let you derail this academic discussion. Let’s focus on the actual evidence: Taagepera (1978, p. 126) explicitly lists the Mongol peak at 24.0 million km². This map isn't "original research"; it is a visual representation of the author's final quantitative findings. Taagepera himself acknowledges a 10% error margin in his measurements (p. 111). If using a high-precision Equal Earth projection reveals that reaching this target area requires including the northern regions—territories which Turchin (2006, p. 221) confirms were subjected to tribute—then my map is a necessary calibration to the source. I am following the author's numerical data; you are following a 50-year-old sketch that contradicts it. Stop using WP:LLMCHAT to hide from the mathematical reality of the source. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an academic discussion. It's a discussion about a Wikipedia article. On Wikipedia, it is not appropriate to create a map based on an area estimate (nor to calculate an area estimate based on a map, for that matter). That would be a form of WP:Original research. If you want to replace an illustration based on an appropriately cited map with a new illustration, you need to find an appropriately citable map that supports your position. I have repeatedly told you this. Your interpretations of what the sources say go quite a bit beyond what they actually, explicitly, say. And of course, if you actually look at the maps Taagepera cites (for crying out loud, it's not a "statistical conclusion", they are measurements from maps in atlases), which I have done, you'll find that the territories you think should be included aren't. TompaDompa (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maps on Wikipedia should illustrate the quantitative data they accompany. If the source explicitly states a 24.0 million km² conclusion, then an old, simplified atlas sketch that fails to reach that total is a technical error, not a standard to follow. Adhering to a sketch with a self-admitted 10% error margin (Taagepera 1978, p. 111) while ignoring the author’s final published figure is an intentional downscaling of the data. My map isn’t "original research"—it is a high-precision calibration to ensure the visual finally matches the verified peer-reviewed numbers. Let’s stop prioritizing 50-year-old ink over statistical facts.

HistoryHubArchive (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Still impervious to the notion that Taagepera's figures that you accept as correct are based on measurements on maps that you don't, I see. You have the causality backwards (or perhaps fail to see it altogether). Also, you do realize that the 10% error margin refers to Taagepera's figures, right? TompaDompa (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting that the published statistical conclusion should be subordinate to the low-precision sketches it was derived from. That is a total inversion of academic priority. If Taagepera finalized 24.0 million km² as the peer-reviewed peak, that figure is the primary data point we must illustrate. The 10% error margin exists precisely because those 1970s sketches were imprecise—that is exactly why high-precision cartography is required to align the visual representation with the author's final numerical data. Ignoring the figure in favor of the flawed sketch is an intentional choice to preserve inaccuracy. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that on Wikipedia, we base the area figures we present on the area figures in the sources, and we base the maps we present on the maps in the sources. We don't base the area figures we present on the maps in the sources, nor do we base the maps we present on the area figures in the sources. Doing either of the latter would be WP:Original research. Why don't you just provide an appropriately citable map that supports your position instead? TompaDompa (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa, you are suggesting that Wikipedia should intentionally present a map that contradicts its own cited area figures. An illustration exists to represent the text; if the source explicitly states 24.0 million km2, then a map failing to reach that figure is a failed illustration, not a 'neutral' one. Calibrating boundaries using a high-precision projection to match the author's own statistical data (including the 1.24 million km2 for Novgorod on p. 497) isn't 'original research'—it is basic accuracy. You are prioritizing 50-year-old ink blots over the author's peer-reviewed quantitative conclusions. I am providing a map that supports the source's data; you are clinging to a sketch that fails it. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that you apparently don't understand the sources, don't understand the relationship between the maps and the figures, don't understand WP:Original research, and lack sufficient reading comprehension for meaningful discussion on this topic to be possible. Why don't you just provide an appropriately citable map that supports your position instead? TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Labeling a request for data consistency as a "lack of reading comprehension" is a classic ad hominem fallacy. My position is simple: Wikipedia articles must be internally consistent. If the text cites 24.0 million km2, the accompanying map must illustrate that specific figure. Demanding a "citable map" from the 1970s to justify high-precision 21st-century cartography is a move to preserve outdated errors. I am not "interpreting" the source; I am ensuring the visual representation finally matches the author’s published quantitative data. Let's stop the personal attacks and address the 2.0 million km2 discrepancy. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, you provided another example of poor reading comprehension: nobody has been Demanding a "citable map" from the 1970s. That's also very much not what an ad hominem is: stating that you are wrong and that the reason for this is that you have misread the sources (and comments by other editors) is an argument about the substance of what you are saying. Why don't you just provide an appropriately citable map—from whatever time you think is most suitable—that supports your position instead? TompaDompa (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating "poor reading comprehension" as a rhetorical device is a classic ad hominem; it targets me as an editor rather than the substance of my mathematical argument. While you claim nobody is demanding a 1970s map, you are actively blocking this visualization based solely on the illustrative shading in those 50-year-old sketches which contradict the author's final data. I am providing an appropriately citable map: A high-precision GIS visualization of Taagepera's finalized consensus figure of 24 million km2. Ignoring the figure in favor of copying the process-sketches is an intentional preservation of error. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A map created by you is not an appropriately citable map, and it is absurd to suggest that it is. Anyway: how do you think Taagepera came up with that figure? TompaDompa (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Every SVG map on Wikipedia is 'created by an editor'; claiming they aren't 'citable' while they accurately illustrate cited quantitative data is a bureaucratic stalling tactic. Regarding Taagepera’s method: he derived the figure from maps he admitted had a 10% error margin (p. 111). You are obsessing over his imprecise process while ignoring his finalized, peer-reviewed conclusion of 24.0 million km2. Furthermore, your 'atlas-only' rule is hypocritical. Look at the current File:Combined map - British and Mongol Empires a.svg: it includes the Sultanate of Rum, yet both atlases you provided (Westermanns p. 73 and Herrmann p. 43) show Rum as independent. Why do you accept that map’s deviation from the atlas but block my map for doing the exact same thing to match the author’s 24 million km2 figure? Stop using selective enforcement of the rules to downscale the empire's extent. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No maps created by Wikipedia editors are citable. They are WP:User-generated, and WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This is a pretty basic facet of how Wikipedia functions.
There is no 'atlas-only' rule. If there is an appropriately citable map from some other kind of WP:Reliable source (a book on the Mongols, perhaps? Here's a map from By Steppe, Desert, and Ocean: The Birth of Eurasia by Barry Cunliffe, for instance), by all means cite that one. It is correct that the current File:Combined map - British and Mongol Empires a.svg differs from the maps in Westermanns Atlas and An Historical Atlas of China—this is because it is based on a different source, namely Historical Atlas of Empires (p. 87). If you think we should update the map to reflect Westermanns Atlas and An Historical Atlas of China instead, that's fine by me. Ideally, we should use whatever the WP:BESTSOURCE is, but the minimum requirement is that we use a WP:Reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, as an outside observer to this argument, do either of the two sources (Taagepera or Turchin) explictly come to the conclusion both that the Mongol Empire peaked at 24.0 million km2 with a territory that included the northern regions of Russia? Or does one source state explicitly that the Mongol Empire peaked at 24.0 million km2, with no mention of northern Russia, whilst another states explictly that the Mongol Empire reached into northern Russia with no mention of its greatest extent?
To phrase my question another way, is your decision to map the greatest extent of the Mongol Empire to include the nothern territories based on explict conclusions from one source, or implied through the conclusions of two sources? SamWilson989 (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neither, really. Both sources say that the Mongol Empire peaked at 24.0 million km2. Turchin says that this was in 1270, while Taagepera says that this was in 1309 (Taagepera also says that the area in 1280 was 22.0 million km2). Neither explicitly says that the Mongol Empire included the northern territories. Turchin says The regions inhabited by settled agriculturalists adjacent to the steppe were incorporated more slowly and to a lesser degree than the steppe. For example, the Russian principalities of the forest zone were not occupied by the steppe-dwellers, and were instead subjected to tribute. As a result, the Mongol Empire, based on the steppe, was much wider in the latitudinal rather than longitudinal direction. while Taagepera says "Russia" as a point of expansion in 1250. Turchin does not outline entry-by-entry sources for the area estimates, but notes that the list was based on Taagepera's work. Taagepera, on the other hand, specifies the sources for each individual area estimate: here, it's Westermanns Atlas and An Historical Atlas of China. I have checked both of those sources, and neither include the territory under discussion. TompaDompa (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey TompaDompa, your quote from Turchin actually confirms my point: the forest zone was "subjected to tribute". In historical cartography for this specific list, "tribute" equals "political inclusion"—otherwise, we would have to strip millions of $km^2$ from the British Empire's mandates and protectorates. Regarding your "atlas check": Taagepera (1978, p. 111) explicitly warns about a 10% error margin in those older measurements. If those 50-year-old sketches only show 22.0 million km2, but the author's final peer-reviewed conclusion is 24.0 million km2, then the sketch is mathematically incomplete. I am not "interpreting"; I am calibrating the map to match the author’s final 24.0 million km2 figure. Unless you can show where those "missing" 2 million km2 are located without the northern tributary zones, your objection is purely based on outdated illustrations rather than the author's statistical data. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Suffice it to say that treating "the forest zone" as synonymous with the territories you are referring to and taking "subjected to tribute" as meaning that they are included in the area figures are quite the assumptions on your part. And you apparently still don't understand that the figures are derived from the maps, despite it being repeatedly explained to you. You yourself point out that the figures have a 10% error margin and that you find 2.0 million km2 out of 24.0 million km2 to be missing. That's within the error margin for the figures, surely. Anyway calibrating the map to match the [...] figure is WP:Original research, and it is especially egregious when you can just go to the maps that the figure was based on. TompaDompa (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissing a 2.0 million km² discrepancy—an area larger than Mexico—as a mere "rounding error" within a 10% margin is a massive reach to avoid adjusting the map. If the verified figure is 24.0 and the visual only reaches 22.0, ignoring that 2 million km² gap is a failure of accuracy, not an "acceptance of margin." Furthermore, calibrating a visual aid to match cited quantitative data is not WP:OR; it is the fundamental purpose of an illustration. Ignoring the author's own 1.24 million km² figure for Novgorod (p. 497) while claiming the sketch is "sufficient" is the real assumption here. We should map the data, not the ink blots of the 1970s. figure for Novgorod (p. 497) while claiming the sketch is "sufficient" is the real assumption here. We should map the data, not the ink blots of the 1970s. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made the measurements and cannot speak as to whether there actually is a 2.0 million km2 discrepancy, but let's say for the sake of argument that there is: the way Taagepera arrived at those figures (by measuring on the maps) makes it entirely unreasonable to adjust our maps to fit Taagepera's figures. It would be more reasonable (but still an unacceptable instance of WP:Original research) to adjust the figures to fit the maps. You seem to be working under the unjustified assumption where there is a discrepancy, the quantitative data cannot possibly be in error. Why don't you just provide an appropriately citable map that supports your position instead?
Mellk explained your Novgorod area error below. Poor reading comprehension on your part seems to be a problem that has influenced the trajectory of this discussion quite a bit, and this is just one example thereof. TompaDompa (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Admitting you "haven't made the measurements" while dismissing a 2.0 million km2 discrepancy—an area larger than Mexico—is the definition of bad-faith arguing. Your suggestion that we should "adjust the figures to fit the maps" is an anti-scientific embarrassment; it prioritizes outdated ink blots over peer-reviewed quantitative data. Regarding Novgorod, using the 1478 annexation date as a "gotcha" is a pathetic attempt to ignore its physical extent. That 1.25 million km2 territory was a tributary "forest zone" (Turchin 2006) long before 1478, and its land area is a mathematical necessity to reach the 24.0 million km2 peak. Without these northern reaches, your position contradicts the author's own verified data. Stop hiding your cartographic incompetence behind insults about "reading comprehension"—your refusal to face the math is the only thing stalling this discussion. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again the unjustified assumption that the maps, rather than the figures, must be in error. And again the poor reading comprehension: do you really believe the main issue was the 1478 date rather than the 1.24 million km2 figure not referring to Novgorod but to the total size of Muscovy after it annexed Novgorod? But let's see if we can get somewhere: how do you believe Taagepera arrived at the 24.0 million km2 figure for the Mongol Empire, if not from the maps cited by Taagepera? TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I "assume" that finalized, peer-reviewed quantitative conclusions take academic precedence over imprecise 50-year-old sketches that the author himself admitted had a 10% error margin (p. 111). Suggesting we should adjust data to fit illustrative drawings is anti-scientific. Regarding Novgorod, using the 1478 date is a hwen hạ strawman to ignore the physical geography. The 1.24 million km2 land area (Taagepera 1997, p. 497) existed during the Mongol peak and was tributary. If Taagepera finalized the consensus peak figure at 24 million km2, it is mathematically impossible to reach that total without this region. Stop using "reading comprehension" as a shield to hide your refusal to engage with the actual geography. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, do you believe that Taagepera created those maps? TompaDompa (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is a blatant strawman; nobody claimed Taagepera created those sketches. He used them as raw, imprecise inputs that he admitted had a 10% error margin (p. 111). My point is that Taagepera’s finalized, peer-reviewed numerical conclusion of 24 million km2 represents his corrected data. Clinging to those flawed input sketches while ignoring his final corrected output figure is an intentional preservation of error and a failure of accuracy. It is mathematically certain that reaching the consensus 24 million km2 figure requires including the tributary area of Novgorod. Stop with the semantic diversions and address the geographical reality required by the author's own final numbers. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I parsed your sketches that the author himself [...] as "sketches that the author [of those sketches] himself [...]", which is why I asked for clarification—and now we have cleared that up. Taagepera also didn't say that the maps have a 10% error margin, but that his figures do (In our study, a 10% error on all areas reported should be expected.). Anyway, do I have it correctly that your contention is that the discrepancy that you assert exists is explained by Taagepera including Novgorod in the area figure despite the maps Taagepera cites not doing so? TompaDompa (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Novgorod's territory (or hinterland) expanded between the 13th and 15th centuries. This included for example the Kola Peninsula. See also for example the following border treaties: Treaty of Novgorod (1326) and Treaty of Nöteborg. Mellk (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Taagepera (1997, p. 499, [8]) explicitly provides both: the 24.0 million km² peak area and the inclusion of 'Russia' within that extent. Turchin (2006, p. 221-222, [9]) similarly lists the 24.0 million km² figure while explicitly identifying the northern 'forest zone' as tributary territory. My map simply follows these explicit conclusions to fix the mathematical gap between their final data and simplified atlas sketches. It is a direct calibration to their specific findings rather than a synthesis of unrelated sources. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between Novgorod and Russian principalities. Novgorod was never conquered by the Mongols, while the principalities were conquered. The principalities became vassal states and paid tribute to the khan. Novgorod also paid tribute but there was never really any Mongol dominance there. The Mongols confirmed the thrones of Russian princes and regularly carried out raids but Novgorod still had an oligarchy that chose its own leaders. There were other states that also paid tribute to the Mongols but we would not include them in the territorial extent of the Mongol Empire. Mellk (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, the distinction between "conquered" and "tributary" is a political nuance that doesn't change the spatial extent used by the cited sources. If we start "shaving" tributary zones because they weren't militarily occupied, we would have to strip millions of km² from the British Empire's 35.5 million km² figure, which includes mandates and protectorates. Consistency across this specific Wikipedia list is vital. Taagepera and Turchin’s 24.0 million km²peak calculation effectively requires these forest zones to reach that consensus figure. To exclude them for the Mongols while including them for others is a geographic double standard. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Novgorod explicitly mentioned and if there is no such distinction then we are missing a good chunk of Europe, but I doubt the sources include those areas. Mellk (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mellk, demanding an explicit mention of "Novgorod" while the sources use broader terms like "Russia" (Taagepera, [10]) and the "forest zone" (Turchin, [11]) is just a move to downscale the data. If you exclude these northern reaches, you fail to reach the authors' verified 24.0 million km² peak. Your "doubt" doesn't override the mathematical necessity of the authors' final area data. Unless you can find where the missing 2 million km² are located, the map must reflect the 24.0 million km² figure. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are making assumptions. Taagepera mentions "Russia" for the Mongol Empire but mentions that the Golden Horde lost "E. Ukraine" to Lithuania while "Belarus" and "NW Ukraine" are also mentioned for Poland–Lithuania. Turchin mentions the "forest zone" but the Grand Principality of Vladimir and the appanages that emerged were located in this forest zone (they were subjected to tribute rather than being part of the ulus of Jochi). Mellk (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating later territorial losses with the empire's Peak. Citing the 14th-century rise of Lithuania is irrelevant for a map depicting the 1270/1309 Greatest Extent. Taagepera (1997, p. 499) includes "Russia" in the peak dataset, and Turchin (2006, p. 221) confirms the forest zone was tributary. If you exclude the northern reaches of this zone, the total area mathematically fails to reach the authors' verified 24.0 million km² conclusion. You are prioritizing snapshots of decline over the consensus data for the empire's height. Stop moving the goalposts. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The point was "Russia" does not tell us whether Novgorod is included or just the Russian principalities (including the western principalities that have been referred to as "Belarus" and "Ukraine"). Turchin says: "the Russian principalities of the forest zone were not occupied by the steppe-dwellers, and were instead subjected to tribute". However, Novgorod was not a principality, per se. The literature often makes a distinction between Russian principalities and city-republics or city-states like Novgorod and Pskov. Mellk (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mellk, playing with the definitions of "principality" vs "city-republic" is a semantic distraction that ignores the author's quantitative conclusion. Taagepera (1997, p. 497) explicitly lists Novgorod as a territory of 1.24 million km² and includes "Russia" as a point of expansion for the Mongol peak. For a statistical list of largest empires, "tribute" equals "political inclusion" regardless of the internal governance of the vassal. If you exclude Novgorod's 1.24 million km², you create a mathematical gap that makes the verified 24.0 million km² peak impossible to reach. Are you suggesting we should override the author’s final 24.0 million figure based on your personal distinction between a republic and a principality? Let’s stick to the math and the data provided in the source.HistoryHubArchive (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"1.24 million km²" is the total size of Muscovy after it annexed Novgorod in 1478. Mellk (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where the 24.0 million km2 figure comes from

[edit]

For the record, these are the maps that Taagepera based the 24.0 million km2 figure for the Mongol Empire on (Turchin got the figure from Taagepera): Westermanns Atlas zur Weltgeschichte (pp. 72–73) and An Historical Atlas of China (pp. 42–43). As can be plainly seen, neither includes the territory of the Novgorod Republic extending to the White Sea in the territory assigned to the Mongol Empire. TompaDompa (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing these. Indeed, it is a real stretch to include the Mongol Empire stretching to the White Sea so the map created by HistoryHubArchive is not usable (there is a general issue with WP:NOR here). Mellk (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We go by what RS say, and only what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Final response

[edit]

I'm withdrawing this proposal. I realize the sourcing I provided (Shepherd 1923, [12], in old map File:British Empire and Mongol Empire (Combined map).svg) is problematic for this context and doesn't support the specific boundaries discussed. Given the lack of consensus on the visualization of the peak extent, I'll close this discussion and leave the article in its long-standing version. Thanks for the feedback. TompaDompa, Mellk HistoryHubArchive (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to switch comparison map to Equal Earth projection

[edit]

I’m proposing to update the comparison map from Robinson to the Equal Earth projection. Since this article focuses on "land area," using an equal-area projection is the technically superior choice for accurate visual representation.

Regarding the borders:

  • Mongol Empire: I have updated the boundaries based on The Cambridge History of the Mongol Empire (2023) (page 27), which provides a more precise administrative extent compared to the 2002 illustrative atlas currently used.
  • British Empire: Any minor technical discrepancies (such as the Sarra Triangle) will be corrected to ensure consistency with the existing version.

This update prioritizes both cartographic accuracy and modern academic scholarship. Any objections? TompaDompa HistoryHubArchive (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that page 27 means page 27 of the pdf, i.e. page 3 of the cited book. That map comes from the following source:
The original source is the one that should be cited. The author Michal Biran is not the politician Michal Biran, but the historian Michal Biran (historian) [he; ru]. I think this is a high-quality (top-tier?) source on the subject, but let's ask an editor who is knowledgable about sources on the Mongols: AirshipJungleman29. TompaDompa (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Michal Biran is a top-quality source on the Mongol Empire, being a co-editor of the Cambridge History mentioned above. Although I don’t particularly want to slog through the walls of AI-smoothened text above, I gather the discussion is about depiction of the borders of the Mongol Empire? If so, this recent paper may be relevant. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TompaDompa for formatting the citation; I will use the Biran (2021) reference for the file description. And thanks AirshipJungleman29 for confirming the source quality and sharing the Pow paper. Pow's re-evaluation of the northern frontier perfectly explains why the boundaries need this update. I will fix the British Empire's Sarra Triangle to match the previous version, and finalize the Mongol borders using Biran and Pow's findings on the Equal Earth projection. I'll upload the adjusted version shortly. HistoryHubArchive (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Suffice it to say that Pow's conception of the northern border of the Mongol Empire does not represent the consensus position among academics, and that our map should therefore not be based on it. TompaDompa (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point on the northern frontier consensus. However, the updated boundaries I'm proposing primarily follow Biran (2021), which we’ve already agreed is a top-tier academic source. Pow's paper simply provides the technical context for why modern scholarship (like Biran) moves away from the older, more generalized borders of the 2002 atlas. I will stick to the Biran (2021) depiction for the final map. Any objections to using Biran's borders? HistoryHubArchive (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since it has been a week without further objections regarding the Biran (2021) boundaries, I assume we have reached a consensus. I will proceed with updating the comparison map to the Equal Earth projection using these academic borders shortly. Thanks all for the input. TompaDompa AirshipJungleman29 HistoryHubArchive (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_largest_empires&oldid=1360931181"