The largest possible extent of some of the biggest empires

Holding it for long periods of time and controlling it for some time are'nt the same thing. ;)

So for instance the United States could have annexed Japan and its part of Germany (assuming some batshit insane peope were in charge), but it would'nt hold them very long.

Well, I've been assuming to a greater or lesser extent that we're talking about "could control after the rearguard of the invading army has left the area."

That is, Napoleon's dominance of Europe is not a realistic measure of what France could have as its "maximum possible extent".

Not sure what this has to do with how well or badly the ERE's ability to control territory compares to the Ottomans, though.

Well in the Ottomans case (they're a dark Forest Green btw), they have the benefit the French did, that is they could control alot of territory that essentialy was'nt overly problematic, since you only need to control Al Jazair and a military out post in the South to control the vast mostly empty desert between.

Is that an Ottoman-specific thing, or something the ERE in the same region would be able to do just as much since the desert is just as empty?
 
Well, I've been assuming to a greater or lesser extent that we're talking about "could control after the rearguard of the invading army has left the area."

Not sure what this has to do with how well or badly the ERE's ability to control territory compares to the Ottomans, though.

I was just sort fo saying in general since the OP did'nt really clarify.

But yes, I've been going on what could be held without a permanent occupation force as well.


Is that an Ottoman-specific thing, or something the ERE in the same region would be able to do just as much since the desert is just as empty?

Most deserts really, and anyone with the ability to project the power.
 
I'd say the outer limits of the ERE/Byzantium coincide with where Orthodoxy was in a majority. When they held Coptic regions they persecuted them for heresy which makes it hard to hold these areas. Being Christians they cannot leave them alone the way the Muslims did, they feel compelled to being them into line.
 
All the ancient empires had a problem with communication, the greater distance from the centre the more likely it was to have broken away under the rulership of the empires appointed governor (or what ever they were called). So whilst new territories could have been conquered it will be very unlikely they will remain in the empire for any lenght of time.

The Spanish Empire was built on gold and other precious metals, the downfall of it was that all the wealth seemed to go to the Spanish Netherlands rather than Spain itself. To extend the Empire would mean the money getting to Madrid and being used to pay for more troops and ships rather than paying for the merchants of Bruge to eat well! If this happened I can see the Spanish spreading into the Med, so Italy and North Africa definatly, with probably the Holy Land being a target as well.

The Brits were happy with a land link from Capetown to Cairo and one from Cairo to Calcutta, but they had started to use "soft colonisation" in South America (presumably to get around the Monroe Doctorine) were they just invested huge amounts of money in a country. They owned a large percentage of the GDP of Brazil and Argentina as well as the USA itself. If they expanded using "hard colonisation" my guess would be that China would be the number one target (all that TEA!).

The American Empire has grown with "soft colonisation" using companies rather than soldiers to expand. I am not sure they would go north however in Canada as it would really annoy the Brits, but south is a definate propability, first Central America then into Brazil and beyond. They would only expand out of the Americas in response to the USSR.

The USSR would expand into central Europe, subsuming the Iron Curtain countries, but would also add Iran / Iraq for the oil and warm water ports. Their main goal however would be China, so I could see a war in central Asia, USSR vs China and NATO. I suspect however this would go nuclear very quickly.

Mexico has never really struck me as an Empire builder, but it would have to go south, as I can't see the USA allowing northward movement. I can see it taking all the old Spanish colonies, but would have problems with Brazil.
 
On the Spanish Empire, while I'm not an expert, I'd say Philip II and Mary I having a child is useful so that England keeps in the Hapsburg sphere peacefully. Thus it's likely that the Dutch Revolt will fail as they're essentially alone. Another good divergence would be to keep the Iberian Union going, probabaly with Philip III of Spain being competent like his father towards the Portuguese and allowing for an assimilation of the Portuguese into Spain.
 
Top