I do posts on Mesoamerican history and archeology, so i want to give some background on what was going on there during the periods you cover, and what possible empires might have been there,, since there's definitely some contenders you miss. Mesoamerican Precolumbian chronology is generally split into 6 periods: The Paleo-Indian/Lithic and Archaic are prehistorical periods which cover initial human habitation to the development of agriculture, sedentarism, Neolithic style tools, etc. The Preclassic, or Formative period, which usually is considered to start around 2000BC, is when you see "civilization": the rise of urbanism, monumental architecture, writing, class systems, etc. San Lorenzo is widely considered as the first city or something approaching that in the region, developing into a complex center around 1400BC. It's an Olmec site, the Olmec in turn being widely considered to be Mesoamerica's first major civilization and a "mother culture" later ones developed out of, but the view has been increasingly challenged as of late. Admittedly, the granular specifics in the shift in consensus escape me a bit, but as I understand it, a lot what was previously considered to be signs of Olmec conquest or direct political influence over sites across Mesoamerica such as in Central Mexico and Oaxaca are now considered to not actually be signs of direct political influence, but rather the spread and exchange of Olmec style goods as an art style, due to it being in-vogue among Mesoamerican elites. In turn, stuff like city building and kingship was likely simultaneous developing, it's just the Olmec culture (whose direct spread as a culture was likely limited to the "Olmec Heartland" around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in what's now southern Veracruz and Tabasco, though certainly trade and potentially diplomacy meant they had contact and indirect influences elsewhere, as I mentioned with Olmec style art found farther out) had some of the most notable and earlier sites and their style is what became popular. I think there's some especially recent research suggesting some of what we consider to be "Olmec" was also being driven by Mayas, and Aguada Fenix is an example of a Maya site with a giant ceremonial compound during the Olmec period, but I can't really clarify on that much. Were the Olmec an "Empire"? Well, as you say, defining that can be difficult, and Mesoamerica especially is a challenge here because directly managed, unified imperial states where a capital city actually directly adminsteres and controls all of the cities and towns it has dominion over are just rare in general: Even the Aztec Empire which controlled something like 1/5th to 1/4th of all of Mesoamerica and had ~500 subject or vassal states didn't really do that much. I don't think there's really any sort of consensus as far as if sites like San Lorenzo or La Venta had influence over all the surronding Olmec centers, or if there were competing city-states or kingdoms, but even if there was a a singular primate city in the Olmec Heartland all the others toed the line to, it'd guess it's unlikely they directly governed all the other cities and towns or even appointed governors... but if you define "Empire" that strictly, then Mesoamerica will have NO empires aside from 1-2 examples. There's also the matter of if the Olmec or Maya etc sites in this 1400-800BC period even were "states", or just chiefdoms. There's a paper called "Primary State Formation in Mesoamerica" which argues that, by the definition it uses for what counts as a bureaucratic state with 4 tiers of administrative complexity, those early Olmec and Maya centers don't make the cut, and the first state in Mesoamerica would have been at Monte Alban, a major Zapotec city in Oaxaca, which achieves that status around 500BC, right around your date cutoff. Monte Alban also, as far as I know, IS largerly considered to have centered most of Zapotec politics around itself: It was actually THE major Zapotec political center for over 1000 years, only declining around 600-700AD. Was Monte Alban Is it a "Zapotec Empire"? Again, hard to say. I know that there's evidence it did actually meddle in the demographic and economic activity of other Zapotec cities and towns it had influence over and may have appointed officials or founded colonies (Oaxaca isn't my area and i'm typing this up off the top of my head, so forgive the ambiguity), unlike say the Aztec who mostly just collected taxes and did political marriages but otherwise left subjects alone to self manage almost entirely, so I do think you could argue it meets the definition, though I'd wager that many states and cities it had influence over still retained their own political identity and has some indepedence, and there were probably some other city-states it was enemies with and didn't have control over in the area. I don't think there's any notable contenders in West Mexico at the time: The Capacha culture was an Olmec contemprary that did create an influential ceramic style, but we don't really see West Mexico develop big urban states till well into the Classic or arguably even Postclassic period, but West Mexico is also super understudied so who knows. Central Mexico probably had some cities and certainly many towns and villages, some of which probably met the "state" definition I mention, but the main contender I can think of, Cuicuilco which was a city in the Valley of Mexico (later the home of Teotihuacan, the Aztec Political core, etc), really only got sizable AFAIK right after the end of your date cutoff, and it would have only had control over maybe a dozen other population centers: Is that an empire?. The Maya probably had stuff comparable to Monte Alban as of 500BC: El Mirador was a big Maya city and would have had influence over maya others between 300-100BC, and recent research has shown that pretty large/complex centers were a thing even earlier in the Preclassic period, as I alluded to before, but off the top of my head I can't name any specific sites, and while there were written scripts in Mesoamerica from 900BC to 500BC, with Olmec, Zapotec, and Maya writing, the Olmec and Zapotec examples are undeciphered, and I think we just know Maya writing existed around then, but actual surviving writing samples/inscriptions only come up a few centuries later, and are mostly just dates rather then large political records like we see in the Classic period. So yeah: I'd have mentioned the Olmec here as potential contender like the Maya (and I'd have clarified more on what the Maya were doing), and i'd have outright proposed Monte Alban as a probable "Empire", at least within your loose definition. Moving away from Mesoamerica, while it's not my area of expertise, to speak about the Andes: It's my understanding that while monumental centers in the Andes date back to as early as ~3000BC with Caral etc, that those were more ceremonial sites then cities: They didn't have a large permanent population, but a small amount of resident priests and then were visited at certain times of year by other groups. Apparently this changes at 500BC when Chavin de Huantar, one such ceremonial site belonging to the Chavin culture, picks up a permanent group of class specialists and it kicks off Andean urbanism proper. But apparently, large scale empires and kingdoms still aren't a thing till the early/mid 1st millenium AD, where you have Moche sites which were city-states or something close to it, and the kingdom of Tiwanku or and the Wari/Huari Empire (which is repeatedly stressed as an EMPIRE, in the strict imperial sense). Lastly Poverty Point would have been a thing in the Southeast US, but it's definitely not an Empire, though later Moundbuilder cultures should probably at least be mentioned in future videos even if their qualifications as full states rather then chiefdoms is debated. Again, though, not my area!
Some additional stuff I wanted to edit in my comment here but can't since it got "Liked" (Thank you, by the way!): I mentioned there being 6 periods, but I meant to say 5 (Palo-Indian/Lithic, Archaic, Preclassic/Formative, Classic, and Postclassic), and I didn't really explain Classic or Postclassic since they come after the 500BC date cutoff the video discusses, but the Classic period starts around 100AD, and is when cities, writing, statehood, etc had become widespread and the norm (aside from some of West Mexico), while the Postclassic (starting around 900AD, though there's a lot of minor variation in the exact cutoff) is less defined by any sort of "advancing" in complexity so much as a key political centers declining and being replaced and a shift to some political models. Also, to be clear, while Monte Alban would have achieved state level complexity by 500BC (and probably other cities even earlier, depending your definition), i'm not sure if it fully reached a position of primacy across Zapotec culture that early. My assumption is that it *probably* did to a degree since it's still talked about as the most major site in the area during the period, but that could be researchers retroactively focusing on it earlier on, even if maybe it only became super dominant later on? I'm honestly not sure. So, again, if it should count as an "empire" is debatable.. if not here, though, it really probably should have been mentioned in the next video (which I only realized is already out after I made my initial comment above!) Lastly, when I say the Aztec Empire had roughly 500 subject and vassal states, that means states, not cities/towns: Each state would have been anywhere from a few to a many dozen population centers; and when I say directly governed empires are "rare in general", I meant in Mesoamerica: The lack of draft animals and the terrain mostly being jungles/swamps or highland mountain ranges and valleys meant that long distance administration and military force was logistically costly.
You're spot on on the Andean civilization! I think religious sites that also served as pilgrimage locations were the first development in the Andes, since Caral (maybe there are older sites, but it's still uncertain) and during the first period of Chavín (900-500 BC) it was one of such sites. Even having the same U shaped layout. But something happened around 500BC (as you mention) that makes Chavín very prominent and prestigious, so much that it influenced and marked the path for most subsequent cultures. But pilgrimage sites that were occupied by few priests, and "cities" that were built and undone overnight during said pilgrimages were still a thing, such as Pachacamac... And even today they are, such as during El Cristo Morado, which is a continuation of that same Pachacamac pilgrimage, only Christian nowadays.
1:30 For those who want to know, that pharaoh was Pepi II, who ruled from 2278 BC to 2184 BC, meaning, if it is true, he ruled 94 years, making him the longest reigning monarch in all of history!
@@mightyx5441not regent as in not a regency? Because if it includes child kings theres stuff like Jean I of France ruled 5 days. In fact when it comes to how long a monarch has been king relative to the entire life of the monarch, he is a natural first place because he also lived for a grand total of 5 days, yes born as king died as king 100% of his life he was king.
@@mightyx5441 I've searched it up, and it seems that Vira Bahu I of Polonnaruwa had the shortest reign. He was crowned at night-time and was assassinated by dawn. Though we don't know the exact day he ruled, it was in the year 1196.
The Crown Prince Luis Filipe of Portugal was technically King of Portugal (Dom Luis III) for approximately 20 minutes on 1 February 1908. His father was shot dead in the streets of Lisbon, Portugal and the Crown Prince was mortally wounded at the same time. This is from Guinness World Records
I was thinking a dive into medieval empires would be cool - as far as I know, it isn't something explored very much on your channel, so I'd certainly be interested to see you cover that time era. Great vid as always :)
From what I know most everyone ignores this history. Not just this channel. Most talks of the Medieval period (from what I've seen) center around a Holy Roman Empire which sruvives, and the Reconquista.
French history: like maybe 5 revolts and maybe like a few hundred thousand dead in total Smallest Chinese revolt: Xiao who was the youngest 12th cousin of Emperor Jing Wei after being insulted by only 300 barrels of wheat being presented for his birthday instead of the traditional 400 he would then revolt, killing over 5,000,000 in the ensuing conflict and the infamous mass cannibalization of citizens of 2 minor regional prefectures
I especially love how you used the ± symbol before the dates instead of the tilda ~, which means approximately instead of literally "plus or minus 550BC" for instance. I mean, that includes the roman kingdom, republic, and the start of the empire. That's impressive.
@@DarkIsToNight Yeah without any hints or notions of nationalism I will respectfully disagree and say that Norway would be more interesting (again, definitely no nationalism involved)
@@Niklas46364No need to take a look, just look up a video about Sweden 1610-1708 and it would pretty much be the same thing(no nationalism involved). Just don't look at 1709 and afterwards.
What happened to the Cholas and Pandya empires from south India? They are among the longest lasting empires in the world with recorded history of 1500+ years. They were a crucial part of the maritime silk trade.
@@mist383 It is Chola Empire, not puny kingdoms. When it comes to India, 5 greatest empires shaped India's history. 1. Maurya Empire 2. Gupta Empire 3. Chola Empire 4. Delhi Sultanate 5. Maratha Empire These pre-European and pre-Islamic empires played pivotal roles in shaping India’s History.
@@2kcreations721 Delhi Sultanate is pre-islamic? Where are the Nandas, whose fear halted Alexander's invasion of India? Where are Kushans who spread Buddhism throughout Asia? Where are Gurjara Pratiharas? Where are Pushyabhutis? All of them played more significant role in Indian history than Cholas. Cholas built an empire only around 9th-10th century, before that, for the 99% of the time if their reign, they were a very small kingdom.
I think the heat map would be better if you did time under controll of an empire rather then amount of empires. Many Roman territories for example now looks to be just as long lived/importand as some of the nomadic empires who only lasted a few decades.
China is a country consisting of dozens of different races. There are many Mongolian and Turkish tribes among them. They assimilated over time. But Turkish, Mongolian and Chinese may be from similar lineages. Turks gave great importance to their people. They first introduced the concept of social state in 800 BC and brought it to this day. The Turkish Land Forces was established in 209 BC during the reign of METE HAN.
Unfortunately, the Possible History did not involve in all of the empires, one i would mention is Urartu/Kingdom of Van and the Artaxiad Dynasty which ruled over the Parthians for 17years and then got conquered by the romans, after which fought many rebelions, some of them lead to victory. And probably they were some empires which i dont know about which were left out.
Love this history recap! I think it would help to provide population stats, as the dominant empires had robust populations. For instance, those Chinese empires sit on very fertile river systems, with arable land covering a lot of area, more so than important river valleys of the arid Western empires. Korea held a robust population because the peninsula is quite bountiful, and surrounded by bountiful seas. The Chinese empires had their share of arid landscapes (meaning sparsely populated with scattered cities), but the West is comparatively less populated compared to China because of drier climate. India also occupies fertile river systems with huge tracts of arable land, and therefore a huge population compared to the Western states. The lovely graphics can almost can almost make it seem like disappearing borders/empires means the population went with it. Of course, that is never the case, and huge populations around the fertile coastlines and fresh water, and along the Ganges, Yangtze, Yellow, Nile, Indus, Euphrates and other great rivers kept growing into modern times. But the immense amount of arable land in India and China have continually supported huge populations compared to all others.
They're not at all complicated, they're just spread over 4000 years. They sound complicated to you bc they kept extensive records of it and there were no 'foreign' invaders that tried to wipe their history unlike with Older Arabian, Persian, Elam, tengri, berber, indian, hurriam, edom, etc civilizations (there are like 200). Other civilization flourished too but their existence is made to disappear. India lost most of their western areas to Islamic invaders but were key to preserving ancient Chinese culture.
Small nitpick but 11:58 the Zhou didnt reallu introduced those three philosophies. It was during the Spring Autumn period when those philosophies became invented.
As a pakistani, in my mother language pashto, we have always reffered to china as qin or chin. I dont know if that pronunciation stuck around from that long ago or if it reverted back to qin from some other pronunciation of it. But really cool.
20:24 So let me Explain, The last Emperor of Mauryan Empire was Brihidatha Maurya. Before we need to get to the 3rd Emperor or Chandragupta’s Grandson Ashoka. Ashoka was one of the ~100 princes of his father. Out of the all, he was the most cruelest one. Whenever there were rebellions in other provinces of the empire, Ashoka used to crush them in the most brutal and bloody way. That’s how he took throne overthrowing and killing all of his brothers. If you could see there is a Kingdom called Kalinga on the east coast which was the only Kingdom which didn’t fall under Mauryan Empire, Ashoka went to war with them for few reasons and Ashoka was broken with amount of Violence and lives which were taken in the war. So he became Non-Violent and made his Empire peaceful and preached Buddhism outside India for the first time. This is where things go bad. See, India’s greatest empire was built on the foundations of Chanakya’s Principles. Chanakya was one of the ~2000 Aacharyas (Professors) of the oldest university known to man-kind Takshashila University (Greek: Taxila). He was widely known as author of Arthashastra which is a combined text of different subjects like (Geo)-Politics, Warcraft, Economics, Administration, Civic Rules, Philosophy, History etc. One day, the Corrupt and lazy Nanda King insulted Chanakya and Chanakya in return vowed to annihilate his dynasty and replace him with a better Person. In Pataliputra (capital of Magadh) Chanakya found the child Chandragupta Maurya who was role playing as a King in a game with his friends and Chanakya observed it and was impressed so he took the child with him to Takshashila for training. The entire Mauryan Empire was made on Chanakya’s Principles and Ashoka broke this principles by adopting peaceful policies. Kshatriya Dharma (King’s duties) says that one King should rule the Kingdom with one of his hands and other hand should hold his weapon. The Peaceful policies led to Rebellions of the Empire’s Provinces soon after Ashoka died. And a new threat was emerging - The Yavanas. The Yavanas were Indo-Greeks who settled in North-West region near Punjab. By the time of the last Emperor Brihidatha Maurya, Magadh was surrounded by enemies in all sides. Yavanas to the West and Satavahanas in the South. Yavanas, one day launched invasion against the Magadh Empire and captured few parts of Ganga region including Mathura (which was a cultural hub then). This was the first time when Magadh Kingdom under occupation by enemies (leaving Chandragupta) and the Yavanas wanted to fulfill their King Alexander’s dream to conquer India (Magadh was the Central point). So, all the fate of the Empire lied on the hands of Army of the Magadh Empire. Pushyamitra Shunga was the General of the Army and he rebuilt the army which was weakened and became indisciplined by Ashoka’s Peaceful Policies. Mauryan Empire was ~300,000 strong army with 10,000s of Chariots and Elephant and 1,000,000 (Million) forces in reserve under Chandragupta Maurya, but now the Army has just few 10,000s soldiers. Senapati (General) Pushyamitra Shunga started taking action against the invasion and beheaded few 100s Greeks and Buddhist Monks who were helping the Greeks. This angered the Mauryan Emperor who was just as peaceful as Ashoka. Now, this frustrated everyone including the Council, People and the Army. Pushyamitra Shunga was actually loyal to the King but the people feared the capturing of Pataliputra (the capital) very soon, so everyone made a plan and killed the last the Mauryan Emperor Brihidatha. Thus, Pushyamitra Shunga became the King of Magadh with no resistance and full support from all sides. He went on to crush the invasion and reoccupy back many territories. Few people say Pushyamitra Shunga was a Brahmin so he went on against Buddhist Mauryan King and killed Buddhist people which is utterly false and proven as false by Historians (including leftists). Shunga did actually kill few highly influential Buddhist Monks who supported the enemies of Magadh Empire, because the Monks were unhappy with the Mauryan King. In fact, there are sources which tell Shunga built few Buddhist stupas and continued the tradition of funding Buddhism. The text which quotes this incident is Ashokavadana which was written by some foreign Monk, few 100 years after Shunga Dynasty. Many Historians quote this text as historically false, this text also quotes that Ashoka killed many Jains which again as no evidence. P.S:- Even I used to believe Pushyamitra Shunga was actually a traitor who finished the Greatest Empire of India. But, I read by myself and understood Mauryans were responsible for their own decline. The Mauryan Empire was built on the Principles of Chanakya and declined when they left out their Founding Guru’s Principles and teachings. And also, the Yavanas (Indo-Greeks) were very much Greek at that time, it took them at least ~300 years to completely mix with the Indian Culture. So, they were very much foreign during the invasion. Edit:- There is a story of Chanakya that when he was born, he had teeth and the Astrologer said that if his teeth remains he would become a big King but if it’s removed he would become a Great Guru. His parents of course removed his teeth and he went to become a Great Guru who is still influential in India. Even his Warcraft and Philosophy is taught in the U.S Army and there is a video of that in TH-cam.
I absolutely love how much is unlabeled and how hard it can be to follow! Keep up the great unkempt work! Now, who the heck was the huge green empire expanding at 7:51? It was a lighter green before, but that was also masterfully unlabeled!
A very interesting and informative video, I quickly grasp information without tons of Wikipedia. More and more interesting is what we will see in history 2 :)
I enjoyed this video immensely!! I wish this video could be remade with more details, it would be hourd long, but that would be incredible. Regardless, excellent run down!
Already knew about the Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek and Roman empires. The Egyptians while being around even after the Greeks and Romans invaded them, they still were around during Occupation until the final years of Cleopatra where Egypt civilization ended after the queen's tragic death.
Can you make your original video on ancient empires available on the channel? I know you probably aren't proud of it, and that's okay. You don't have to keep it public. Maybe it could be accessed via a playlist. I would just like to compare and contrast your original video to your current video to see where improvements were made.
I’m not a history expert so take this with a grain of salt, but if Charlesmagne didnt split the empire I believe it would end up falling into civil war and we will end up with a much weaker East, Middle, and West Francia making them susceptible to foreign invasion
Something to consider is that in this period the haudenosaunee (sometimes referred to as the Iroquois) were a powerful union of Native Americans around the Great Lakes that had great influence across North America. The Iroquois are the closest thing to an empire in ancient North America thanks to their developments in irrigation around the Great Lakes allowing ancient society. Are the Iroquois an empire, that’s up to debate but I would say they take in the role as the first North American empire. Another fun jitbit is that the Haudenosaunee lasted up till their reserve was given to the Americans by the Brit’s after the American revolution and again after they returned all gained territory, including ones gained by generals like Tecumseh back after 1812.
What if Prussia didn't take Alsace-Lorraine after defeating France in the Franco-Prussian war, essentially trating them like Austria, as Bismarck proposed.
This video goes to show that if Ancient India had been united for most of its history, then we would've had a very different HISTORY all together. India had everything it needed to become a world conquering Empire, hence why you can see there being many many Empires established within India many times, but they lacked one CRUCIAl thing; unity. They kept fighting and bickering amongst themselves, even during outside invasions and thus could never realize their full power. Though the times they did RARELY have unity, we saw what they could do. Maratha Empire for example, Maurya Empire, Vinayagar Empire amongst a few others. But alas even they did not last long enough because a lack of unity coupled by multiple outside invasions led to India being what it is today. Though again, had India been a united front for most of its history rather then un united, then India would've surely not only repelled the outside invasions at all times (which they still did sooo many times even outnumbered 10-1, even when they weren't united, for example India is the reason Alexander The Great did not press forwards towards India and his own men were on the verge of MUTINY because they did not want to fight another Indian army again) but also conquered the whole world.
One of crucial aspects of the Empire is control over several nations. That distinguish strong nation states, from actual Empires. Take a note that Empires usually evolve in three ways: 1) Fall apart, when centralized rule weaken and all nations separate. Look Rome. Or go through what I call... 2) Post-Empire State. Where due to forming strong bounds with the subjugated nations, they start supporting central rule as protector of own interests. Even if Empire stop conquering and sometimes even become democratic. Good example here is United States if America. A lot of people do not know that US actually do not have official language. Entire West was French and California and Florida Spanish. Or... 3) Empire by name. So country calling itself a Empire, what is not a Empire anymore. Like Oman or Morocco.
Not sure why there is confusion on a definition of an empire: An empire is a political unit made up of several territories, military outposts, and peoples, "usually created by conquest, and divided between a dominant center and subordinate peripheries". The center of the empire (sometimes referred to as the metropole) exercises political control over the peripheries. That has been the standard one used by anthropologists now for decades now.
We do inow the old Kingdom Egyptians could power project well into the Sahara, they had long trade routes, outposts and fortifications throughout the western desert. This makes significantly more sense considering the much less arid climate in the Sahara at the time.
Thank you for referring to it the right way as Macedonian Empire and not greek. ❤️ We are still kicking and not letting the name be erased from the map.
Wonder how man empires may be lost in time. Like the egyptians had entire lists of kindoms which we cannot identify, people from Oceania and Indochina are trying to get their "pyramids" accepted and america was populated since 15.000 years at least.
I go with the definition that empires control multiple different populations/nations/countries. This may disqualify larger, homogeneous kingdoms and allow smaller empires with different countries within them.
The seleucids did not start off that big. Originally they just controlled persia and iraq, with the antigonids (whom really should have been considered an empire) controlling anatolia, syria and palestine, but the antigonid emperors died and the seleucids got the spoils.
That's... an unusual take on what is an empire. Usually empires are defined by centralization and subjugation, mostly through violence, of other political entities. I feel like your definition makes it kinda subjective.
Can you make another Tierzoo video, but about America? 13 Colonies, Revolutionary Army, US (1783s), US (1812), Union and Confederacy, US (1914), US (1936), and US modern to see how the build evolved?
2:45 Don't do Denethor dirty like that! He was an amazing Steward of Gondor up until he started dabbling with the Palantir. The man even resisted Sauron's corrupting powers. Though he was becoming a dick around that time anyway.
It's so strange how people cling to the idea of unchanging borders in modern times. Borders have always evolved as situations change and they always will.
Sad that you didn't touch upon the Urartian empire, possibly the most overlooked part of ancient history and the only real time when the Caucasus had its very own, indigenous superstate.
Proofs Mentions about vikramaditya: In Sayar ul okul thr writer mention that Vikramaditya was the first Foreign ruler who ruled over arab and this book is still in Turkey. In bhavishyat puran. In skand puran written that he ruled over 2/4 of the world. Proofs : Vikramaditya coins in Rome proves that he ruled Roman Empire, Vikramaditya statue in ujjain, as he was the ruler of ujjain, ancient temple in Egypt proves that he ruled Egypt, Ancient statues of God Shiva and Vishnu in Russia and North Asia .Hindu gods and Japanese God's are Similar to Look proves he ruled Japan and Influenced Japan. Many ancient temples in Europe. A big ancient statue of God Hanuman in Usa. Proves that He had an influence in Usa. Gayatri mantra isHe had an influence in Usa. spoken in many countries of south America proves that he had influenced South America. Inscription in kaaba. On a goldish, many ancient temples in cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam, Sanskrit Shlok Written in indonesian navy flag. Thailand's king name is Rama. He made a calender named Vikram samvat that is the major hindu calender in India, the tales name Vikramaditya, Vikram betal, Vikram - batisi are written on Vikramaditya's life. These are the proofs
I think it would be very interesting if someone decided to conquer that entire area of land which makes up all ancient empires. And then call it something like the ancietan empire.
Random facts: European Hunnic Empire is the succsessor of the Xiong-nu thats why they are EUROPEAN Hunnic Empire. Xiong-nu is also known as Asian Hunnic Empire. Also, we have strong proofs that Kushan Empire is Turkic, just like Hunnic's.
Kushans were Yuezhi...Yuezhi were mostlikely not Turkic but shared some similarities. Yuezhi, Wusun were most likely Tocharians (an distinct branch of Indo-Iranian) or Indo-Europeans altogether.
the thing is alexander’s conquered territories cannot be considered an empire solely because it never had an emperor! alexander never got to truly coronate and rule and his lands was immediately shattered to smaller empires, most importantly Seleucids, which were basically the achaemenid empire with a greek dinasty.
I do posts on Mesoamerican history and archeology, so i want to give some background on what was going on there during the periods you cover, and what possible empires might have been there,, since there's definitely some contenders you miss. Mesoamerican Precolumbian chronology is generally split into 6 periods: The Paleo-Indian/Lithic and Archaic are prehistorical periods which cover initial human habitation to the development of agriculture, sedentarism, Neolithic style tools, etc. The Preclassic, or Formative period, which usually is considered to start around 2000BC, is when you see "civilization": the rise of urbanism, monumental architecture, writing, class systems, etc.
San Lorenzo is widely considered as the first city or something approaching that in the region, developing into a complex center around 1400BC. It's an Olmec site, the Olmec in turn being widely considered to be Mesoamerica's first major civilization and a "mother culture" later ones developed out of, but the view has been increasingly challenged as of late. Admittedly, the granular specifics in the shift in consensus escape me a bit, but as I understand it, a lot what was previously considered to be signs of Olmec conquest or direct political influence over sites across Mesoamerica such as in Central Mexico and Oaxaca are now considered to not actually be signs of direct political influence, but rather the spread and exchange of Olmec style goods as an art style, due to it being in-vogue among Mesoamerican elites.
In turn, stuff like city building and kingship was likely simultaneous developing, it's just the Olmec culture (whose direct spread as a culture was likely limited to the "Olmec Heartland" around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in what's now southern Veracruz and Tabasco, though certainly trade and potentially diplomacy meant they had contact and indirect influences elsewhere, as I mentioned with Olmec style art found farther out) had some of the most notable and earlier sites and their style is what became popular. I think there's some especially recent research suggesting some of what we consider to be "Olmec" was also being driven by Mayas, and Aguada Fenix is an example of a Maya site with a giant ceremonial compound during the Olmec period, but I can't really clarify on that much.
Were the Olmec an "Empire"? Well, as you say, defining that can be difficult, and Mesoamerica especially is a challenge here because directly managed, unified imperial states where a capital city actually directly adminsteres and controls all of the cities and towns it has dominion over are just rare in general: Even the Aztec Empire which controlled something like 1/5th to 1/4th of all of Mesoamerica and had ~500 subject or vassal states didn't really do that much. I don't think there's really any sort of consensus as far as if sites like San Lorenzo or La Venta had influence over all the surronding Olmec centers, or if there were competing city-states or kingdoms, but even if there was a a singular primate city in the Olmec Heartland all the others toed the line to, it'd guess it's unlikely they directly governed all the other cities and towns or even appointed governors... but if you define "Empire" that strictly, then Mesoamerica will have NO empires aside from 1-2 examples.
There's also the matter of if the Olmec or Maya etc sites in this 1400-800BC period even were "states", or just chiefdoms. There's a paper called "Primary State Formation in Mesoamerica" which argues that, by the definition it uses for what counts as a bureaucratic state with 4 tiers of administrative complexity, those early Olmec and Maya centers don't make the cut, and the first state in Mesoamerica would have been at Monte Alban, a major Zapotec city in Oaxaca, which achieves that status around 500BC, right around your date cutoff. Monte Alban also, as far as I know, IS largerly considered to have centered most of Zapotec politics around itself: It was actually THE major Zapotec political center for over 1000 years, only declining around 600-700AD.
Was Monte Alban Is it a "Zapotec Empire"? Again, hard to say. I know that there's evidence it did actually meddle in the demographic and economic activity of other Zapotec cities and towns it had influence over and may have appointed officials or founded colonies (Oaxaca isn't my area and i'm typing this up off the top of my head, so forgive the ambiguity), unlike say the Aztec who mostly just collected taxes and did political marriages but otherwise left subjects alone to self manage almost entirely, so I do think you could argue it meets the definition, though I'd wager that many states and cities it had influence over still retained their own political identity and has some indepedence, and there were probably some other city-states it was enemies with and didn't have control over in the area.
I don't think there's any notable contenders in West Mexico at the time: The Capacha culture was an Olmec contemprary that did create an influential ceramic style, but we don't really see West Mexico develop big urban states till well into the Classic or arguably even Postclassic period, but West Mexico is also super understudied so who knows. Central Mexico probably had some cities and certainly many towns and villages, some of which probably met the "state" definition I mention, but the main contender I can think of, Cuicuilco which was a city in the Valley of Mexico (later the home of Teotihuacan, the Aztec Political core, etc), really only got sizable AFAIK right after the end of your date cutoff, and it would have only had control over maybe a dozen other population centers: Is that an empire?.
The Maya probably had stuff comparable to Monte Alban as of 500BC: El Mirador was a big Maya city and would have had influence over maya others between 300-100BC, and recent research has shown that pretty large/complex centers were a thing even earlier in the Preclassic period, as I alluded to before, but off the top of my head I can't name any specific sites, and while there were written scripts in Mesoamerica from 900BC to 500BC, with Olmec, Zapotec, and Maya writing, the Olmec and Zapotec examples are undeciphered, and I think we just know Maya writing existed around then, but actual surviving writing samples/inscriptions only come up a few centuries later, and are mostly just dates rather then large political records like we see in the Classic period.
So yeah: I'd have mentioned the Olmec here as potential contender like the Maya (and I'd have clarified more on what the Maya were doing), and i'd have outright proposed Monte Alban as a probable "Empire", at least within your loose definition.
Moving away from Mesoamerica, while it's not my area of expertise, to speak about the Andes: It's my understanding that while monumental centers in the Andes date back to as early as ~3000BC with Caral etc, that those were more ceremonial sites then cities: They didn't have a large permanent population, but a small amount of resident priests and then were visited at certain times of year by other groups. Apparently this changes at 500BC when Chavin de Huantar, one such ceremonial site belonging to the Chavin culture, picks up a permanent group of class specialists and it kicks off Andean urbanism proper. But apparently, large scale empires and kingdoms still aren't a thing till the early/mid 1st millenium AD, where you have Moche sites which were city-states or something close to it, and the kingdom of Tiwanku or and the Wari/Huari Empire (which is repeatedly stressed as an EMPIRE, in the strict imperial sense).
Lastly Poverty Point would have been a thing in the Southeast US, but it's definitely not an Empire, though later Moundbuilder cultures should probably at least be mentioned in future videos even if their qualifications as full states rather then chiefdoms is debated. Again, though, not my area!
Some additional stuff I wanted to edit in my comment here but can't since it got "Liked" (Thank you, by the way!): I mentioned there being 6 periods, but I meant to say 5 (Palo-Indian/Lithic, Archaic, Preclassic/Formative, Classic, and Postclassic), and I didn't really explain Classic or Postclassic since they come after the 500BC date cutoff the video discusses, but the Classic period starts around 100AD, and is when cities, writing, statehood, etc had become widespread and the norm (aside from some of West Mexico), while the Postclassic (starting around 900AD, though there's a lot of minor variation in the exact cutoff) is less defined by any sort of "advancing" in complexity so much as a key political centers declining and being replaced and a shift to some political models.
Also, to be clear, while Monte Alban would have achieved state level complexity by 500BC (and probably other cities even earlier, depending your definition), i'm not sure if it fully reached a position of primacy across Zapotec culture that early. My assumption is that it *probably* did to a degree since it's still talked about as the most major site in the area during the period, but that could be researchers retroactively focusing on it earlier on, even if maybe it only became super dominant later on? I'm honestly not sure. So, again, if it should count as an "empire" is debatable.. if not here, though, it really probably should have been mentioned in the next video (which I only realized is already out after I made my initial comment above!)
Lastly, when I say the Aztec Empire had roughly 500 subject and vassal states, that means states, not cities/towns: Each state would have been anywhere from a few to a many dozen population centers; and when I say directly governed empires are "rare in general", I meant in Mesoamerica: The lack of draft animals and the terrain mostly being jungles/swamps or highland mountain ranges and valleys meant that long distance administration and military force was logistically costly.
Thats sick bro
@@MajoraZthanks
finally someone acknowledges west mexican ancient history
You're spot on on the Andean civilization!
I think religious sites that also served as pilgrimage locations were the first development in the Andes, since Caral (maybe there are older sites, but it's still uncertain) and during the first period of Chavín (900-500 BC) it was one of such sites. Even having the same U shaped layout.
But something happened around 500BC (as you mention) that makes Chavín very prominent and prestigious, so much that it influenced and marked the path for most subsequent cultures.
But pilgrimage sites that were occupied by few priests, and "cities" that were built and undone overnight during said pilgrimages were still a thing, such as Pachacamac... And even today they are, such as during El Cristo Morado, which is a continuation of that same Pachacamac pilgrimage, only Christian nowadays.
1:30 For those who want to know, that pharaoh was Pepi II, who ruled from 2278 BC to 2184 BC, meaning, if it is true, he ruled 94 years, making him the longest reigning monarch in all of history!
whos the smallist time ruled as monarch like what if someone was a official monarch, not regent, and ruled for like 30 seconds then died
@@mightyx5441not regent as in not a regency?
Because if it includes child kings theres stuff like Jean I of France ruled 5 days.
In fact when it comes to how long a monarch has been king relative to the entire life of the monarch, he is a natural first place because he also lived for a grand total of 5 days, yes born as king died as king 100% of his life he was king.
@@mightyx5441lady jane grey - she ruled england officially as queen for only 9 days before her execution
@@mightyx5441 I've searched it up, and it seems that Vira Bahu I of Polonnaruwa had the shortest reign. He was crowned at night-time and was assassinated by dawn. Though we don't know the exact day he ruled, it was in the year 1196.
The Crown Prince Luis Filipe of Portugal was technically King of Portugal (Dom Luis III) for approximately 20 minutes on 1 February 1908. His father was shot dead in the streets of Lisbon, Portugal and the Crown Prince was mortally wounded at the same time. This is from Guinness World Records
Only true Possible History fans know this is a repost
What happened to the original?
Yes
I was so confused when I saw 9 mins ago
Yes
No, I think this one is a bit different. The editing and maps are changed.
I was thinking a dive into medieval empires would be cool - as far as I know, it isn't something explored very much on your channel, so I'd certainly be interested to see you cover that time era.
Great vid as always :)
From what I know most everyone ignores this history. Not just this channel. Most talks of the Medieval period (from what I've seen) center around a Holy Roman Empire which sruvives, and the Reconquista.
He just posted a video about that 👍🏻
Scenario Idea: What if the Bohemians won the battle of Marchfeld?
Please please please PLEASE 🇨🇿
"France has to many revolution"
China : "sure, sure, I agree, just don't look at me"
The biggest difference is that France changes their government each time, while China just changes whoever’s in charge
French history: like maybe 5 revolts and maybe like a few hundred thousand dead in total
Smallest Chinese revolt: Xiao who was the youngest 12th cousin of Emperor Jing Wei after being insulted by only 300 barrels of wheat being presented for his birthday instead of the traditional 400 he would then revolt, killing over 5,000,000 in the ensuing conflict and the infamous mass cannibalization of citizens of 2 minor regional prefectures
Suiiiiiii
@@VloodAdeuqsomSo random
I especially love how you used the ± symbol before the dates instead of the tilda ~, which means approximately instead of literally "plus or minus 550BC" for instance. I mean, that includes the roman kingdom, republic, and the start of the empire. That's impressive.
i cant tell if this is a critisism or not
+-3500 ah yes, Edgerunner empire
Scenario Idea: What if the Treaty of Perpetual Peace between the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanian Empire was kept?
Then world would be peaceful and turban civilization would've stayed in desert.
@@parsarustami774 🤡🤡🤡 humans will always fight
@@parsarustami774 ok mister "we eat the flesh and drink the blood of our savior"
@@ravenouself4181 ok mister "our prophet married a 9 year old"
I love this thread
TH-cam is sure to be a fan of the Mauryan symbol. It definitely won't get the video demonetized.
I like the mauryan symbol, but it's just too complicated. Maybe straighten out the hooks on the cross, and rotate it a bit?
@@ChatGPT_ChatbotTest remove the dots to clear it up too
@@viveka2994 true
@@viveka2994 this yellow and red is weird, it's better to leave the symbol black and leave a white circle behind it to create a contrast
@@joaogabrielimperial7777don't forget a dash of red on outsides of that white circle
Would love to see a What if everything went perfect for Norway scenario (please)
@@DarkIsToNight Yeah without any hints or notions of nationalism I will respectfully disagree and say that Norway would be more interesting (again, definitely no nationalism involved)
@@Niklas46364No need to take a look, just look up a video about Sweden 1610-1708 and it would pretty much be the same thing(no nationalism involved). Just don't look at 1709 and afterwards.
Thank you for this new version! Amazing job!
What happened to the Cholas and Pandya empires from south India? They are among the longest lasting empires in the world with recorded history of 1500+ years. They were a crucial part of the maritime silk trade.
Longest but not largest
True bro and it was not about largest if you go with largest than why including early Egyptian
They were not empires, they were puny kingdoms. Cholas created an empire around 10th century CE and it only lasted for about a century.
@@mist383 It is Chola Empire, not puny kingdoms. When it comes to India, 5 greatest empires shaped India's history.
1. Maurya Empire
2. Gupta Empire
3. Chola Empire
4. Delhi Sultanate
5. Maratha Empire
These pre-European and pre-Islamic empires played pivotal roles in shaping India’s History.
@@2kcreations721 Delhi Sultanate is pre-islamic? Where are the Nandas, whose fear halted Alexander's invasion of India? Where are Kushans who spread Buddhism throughout Asia? Where are Gurjara Pratiharas? Where are Pushyabhutis? All of them played more significant role in Indian history than Cholas. Cholas built an empire only around 9th-10th century, before that, for the 99% of the time if their reign, they were a very small kingdom.
Bro literally put china x20
They were all different countries
They were all dynasties that rose and fell
Bro literally put middle east x20
I think the heat map would be better if you did time under controll of an empire rather then amount of empires. Many Roman territories for example now looks to be just as long lived/importand as some of the nomadic empires who only lasted a few decades.
This was so good really looking forward to the followups thank you bye bye
China is a country consisting of dozens of different races. There are many Mongolian and Turkish tribes among them. They assimilated over time. But Turkish, Mongolian and Chinese may be from similar lineages. Turks gave great importance to their people. They first introduced the concept of social state in 800 BC and brought it to this day. The Turkish Land Forces was established in 209 BC during the reign of METE HAN.
汉族父系基因非常单一，不存在你说的这种情况。无论元朝还是清朝都没有发生过和汉族大规模通婚的情况。至于你说的土耳其人，很抱歉，中国历史不存在什么土耳其人。
@@Marvin-bz5qrmore cope, like how the Ottomans claimed to be the Romans
Great repost it's better than the original video man
Wow, this is a really epic video idea
Unfortunately, the Possible History did not involve in all of the empires, one i would mention is Urartu/Kingdom of Van and the Artaxiad Dynasty which ruled over the Parthians for 17years and then got conquered by the romans, after which fought many rebelions, some of them lead to victory. And probably they were some empires which i dont know about which were left out.
Love this history recap!
I think it would help to provide population stats, as the dominant empires had robust populations. For instance, those Chinese empires sit on very fertile river systems, with arable land covering a lot of area, more so than important river valleys of the arid Western empires. Korea held a robust population because the peninsula is quite bountiful, and surrounded by bountiful seas. The Chinese empires had their share of arid landscapes (meaning sparsely populated with scattered cities), but the West is comparatively less populated compared to China because of drier climate. India also occupies fertile river systems with huge tracts of arable land, and therefore a huge population compared to the Western states.
The lovely graphics can almost can almost make it seem like disappearing borders/empires means the population went with it. Of course, that is never the case, and huge populations around the fertile coastlines and fresh water, and along the Ganges, Yangtze, Yellow, Nile, Indus, Euphrates and other great rivers kept growing into modern times. But the immense amount of arable land in India and China have continually supported huge populations compared to all others.
Man Chinese empires are so complicated lol perfect music while explaining it
They're not at all complicated, they're just spread over 4000 years. They sound complicated to you bc they kept extensive records of it and there were no 'foreign' invaders that tried to wipe their history unlike with Older Arabian, Persian, Elam, tengri, berber, indian, hurriam, edom, etc civilizations (there are like 200).
Other civilization flourished too but their existence is made to disappear. India lost most of their western areas to Islamic invaders but were key to preserving ancient Chinese culture.
@@cyberhawk7274 p@jeet ….that means they are complicated
8:15 alright! I'll do it! But only because ur very nice and ur voice is kind to my ears uwu
Small nitpick but 11:58 the Zhou didnt reallu introduced those three philosophies. It was during the Spring Autumn period when those philosophies became invented.
I think Spring and Autumn period is also counted as part of Eastern Zhou 東周
@@aftokratoryyeah but the eastern zhou didn’t have much power at that point, so saying Zhou introduced them isn’t really accurate
As a pakistani, in my mother language pashto, we have always reffered to china as qin or chin. I dont know if that pronunciation stuck around from that long ago or if it reverted back to qin from some other pronunciation of it. But really cool.
20:24 So let me Explain,
The last Emperor of Mauryan Empire was Brihidatha Maurya. Before we need to get to the 3rd Emperor or Chandragupta’s Grandson Ashoka.
Ashoka was one of the ~100 princes of his father. Out of the all, he was the most cruelest one. Whenever there were rebellions in other provinces of the empire, Ashoka used to crush them in the most brutal and bloody way. That’s how he took throne overthrowing and killing all of his brothers. If you could see there is a Kingdom called Kalinga on the east coast which was the only Kingdom which didn’t fall under Mauryan Empire, Ashoka went to war with them for few reasons and Ashoka was broken with amount of Violence and lives which were taken in the war. So he became Non-Violent and made his Empire peaceful and preached Buddhism outside India for the first time.
This is where things go bad. See, India’s greatest empire was built on the foundations of Chanakya’s Principles. Chanakya was one of the ~2000 Aacharyas (Professors) of the oldest university known to man-kind Takshashila University (Greek: Taxila). He was widely known as author of Arthashastra which is a combined text of different subjects like (Geo)-Politics, Warcraft, Economics, Administration, Civic Rules, Philosophy, History etc. One day, the Corrupt and lazy Nanda King insulted Chanakya and Chanakya in return vowed to annihilate his dynasty and replace him with a better Person. In Pataliputra (capital of Magadh) Chanakya found the child Chandragupta Maurya who was role playing as a King in a game with his friends and Chanakya observed it and was impressed so he took the child with him to Takshashila for training.
The entire Mauryan Empire was made on Chanakya’s Principles and Ashoka broke this principles by adopting peaceful policies. Kshatriya Dharma (King’s duties) says that one King should rule the Kingdom with one of his hands and other hand should hold his weapon. The Peaceful policies led to Rebellions of the Empire’s Provinces soon after Ashoka died. And a new threat was emerging - The Yavanas.
The Yavanas were Indo-Greeks who settled in North-West region near Punjab. By the time of the last Emperor Brihidatha Maurya, Magadh was surrounded by enemies in all sides. Yavanas to the West and Satavahanas in the South. Yavanas, one day launched invasion against the Magadh Empire and captured few parts of Ganga region including Mathura (which was a cultural hub then). This was the first time when Magadh Kingdom under occupation by enemies (leaving Chandragupta) and the Yavanas wanted to fulfill their King Alexander’s dream to conquer India (Magadh was the Central point).
So, all the fate of the Empire lied on the hands of Army of the Magadh Empire. Pushyamitra Shunga was the General of the Army and he rebuilt the army which was weakened and became indisciplined by Ashoka’s Peaceful Policies. Mauryan Empire was ~300,000 strong army with 10,000s of Chariots and Elephant and 1,000,000 (Million) forces in reserve under Chandragupta Maurya, but now the Army has just few 10,000s soldiers.
Senapati (General) Pushyamitra Shunga started taking action against the invasion and beheaded few 100s Greeks and Buddhist Monks who were helping the Greeks. This angered the Mauryan Emperor who was just as peaceful as Ashoka. Now, this frustrated everyone including the Council, People and the Army. Pushyamitra Shunga was actually loyal to the King but the people feared the capturing of Pataliputra (the capital) very soon, so everyone made a plan and killed the last the Mauryan Emperor Brihidatha. Thus, Pushyamitra Shunga became the King of Magadh with no resistance and full support from all sides. He went on to crush the invasion and reoccupy back many territories.
Few people say Pushyamitra Shunga was a Brahmin so he went on against Buddhist Mauryan King and killed Buddhist people which is utterly false and proven as false by Historians (including leftists). Shunga did actually kill few highly influential Buddhist Monks who supported the enemies of Magadh Empire, because the Monks were unhappy with the Mauryan King. In fact, there are sources which tell Shunga built few Buddhist stupas and continued the tradition of funding Buddhism. The text which quotes this incident is Ashokavadana which was written by some foreign Monk, few 100 years after Shunga Dynasty. Many Historians quote this text as historically false, this text also quotes that Ashoka killed many Jains which again as no evidence.
P.S:- Even I used to believe Pushyamitra Shunga was actually a traitor who finished the Greatest Empire of India. But, I read by myself and understood Mauryans were responsible for their own decline. The Mauryan Empire was built on the Principles of Chanakya and declined when they left out their Founding Guru’s Principles and teachings.
And also, the Yavanas (Indo-Greeks) were very much Greek at that time, it took them at least ~300 years to completely mix with the Indian Culture. So, they were very much foreign during the invasion.
Edit:- There is a story of Chanakya that when he was born, he had teeth and the Astrologer said that if his teeth remains he would become a big King but if it’s removed he would become a Great Guru. His parents of course removed his teeth and he went to become a Great Guru who is still influential in India. Even his Warcraft and Philosophy is taught in the U.S Army and there is a video of that in TH-cam.
Stop believing everything you read on internet kid 😂
@@anshulsharma1721 So, why don’t you tell us Mr. Expert?
Stop barking about ur Fairy tale story.
@@thewarlock108 It's all there in historical records. Kindly educate yourself.
@@xlr8_bs514 indian dog detected
Opinion rejected
I absolutely love how much is unlabeled and how hard it can be to follow!
Keep up the great unkempt work!
Now, who the heck was the huge green empire expanding at 7:51? It was a lighter green before, but that was also masterfully unlabeled!
you require labels
@@busterhikney6936 right? Who cares about accessibility!?
@@ChristopherRucinski
People in wheelchairs ♿
Outstanding! Subscribed.
The largest ancient Achaemenid Empire
24:50 "WHAT ABOUT ME? POMPEY!"
*Julius Caesar proceeds to kick his ass*
Then some dude in Egypt cuts his head off
this looks like a nice video, cant wait to watch it while eating
A very interesting and informative video, I quickly grasp information without tons of Wikipedia. More and more interesting is what we will see in history 2 :)
I enjoyed this video immensely!!
I wish this video could be remade with more details, it would be hourd long, but that would be incredible.
Regardless, excellent run down!
Already knew about the Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek and Roman empires.
The Egyptians while being around even after the Greeks and Romans invaded them, they still were around during Occupation until the final years of Cleopatra where Egypt civilization ended after the queen's tragic death.
Can you make your original video on ancient empires available on the channel? I know you probably aren't proud of it, and that's okay. You don't have to keep it public. Maybe it could be accessed via a playlist. I would just like to compare and contrast your original video to your current video to see where improvements were made.
Just because demonization
My timeline while watching: Great video idea, informative, wow that's a lot of empires... CHINA.
please do '' what if every thing went perfect for Romania''
Great video who ever put this together
Scenario Idea : What if the Frankish Empire survived?
I’m not a history expert so take this with a grain of salt, but if Charlesmagne didnt split the empire I believe it would end up falling into civil war and we will end up with a much weaker East, Middle, and West Francia making them susceptible to foreign invasion
YAAAAY PB IS NOW 100K SUBS!!!
Only OGs remember the original vid
2:45 threw me off that man doesn’t look Egyptian at all
This is gonna be great! Love your work 🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤
Thank you for your work impressive work
I was freaking out because there wasn't a new video
Pd: Is this a repost?
Nice video indeed, greetings from Native Khmer people (Cambodian race) in Mekong delta Vietnam.
Nice redo i love this
the magadhas started from taxilla not sindh 20:02 but good video tbh
Something to consider is that in this period the haudenosaunee (sometimes referred to as the Iroquois) were a powerful union of Native Americans around the Great Lakes that had great influence across North America. The Iroquois are the closest thing to an empire in ancient North America thanks to their developments in irrigation around the Great Lakes allowing ancient society.
Are the Iroquois an empire, that’s up to debate but I would say they take in the role as the first North American empire.
Another fun jitbit is that the Haudenosaunee lasted up till their reserve was given to the Americans by the Brit’s after the American revolution and again after they returned all gained territory, including ones gained by generals like Tecumseh back after 1812.
A fair argument against the Haudenosaunee, is their decentralized nature since they did not have a central government.
Oh shit, I laughed way harder than I rightly should have seeing that short blurb under legalism. Ah, so on point.
5:59 missed the joke of "sea men".
Good job mang!!!
Sea peoples:
Arrive
Destroy a bunch of civilizations.
Refuses to elaborate (or leave much evidence about who they even are.)
Leaves.
Hittites were no joke..the new Egyptian kingdom was dope too.
This video is really good, keep it up. ❤
9:33 the Solomonic dynasty existed in 1000BC as the kingdom of Damat.
No, it started in the 14th century AD
Video idea: What if Denmark won the Swedish war of libetation?
What if Prussia didn't take Alsace-Lorraine after defeating France in the Franco-Prussian war, essentially trating them like Austria, as Bismarck proposed.
This video goes to show that if Ancient India had been united for most of its history, then we would've had a very different HISTORY all together. India had everything it needed to become a world conquering Empire, hence why you can see there being many many Empires established within India many times, but they lacked one CRUCIAl thing; unity. They kept fighting and bickering amongst themselves, even during outside invasions and thus could never realize their full power. Though the times they did RARELY have unity, we saw what they could do. Maratha Empire for example, Maurya Empire, Vinayagar Empire amongst a few others. But alas even they did not last long enough because a lack of unity coupled by multiple outside invasions led to India being what it is today.
Though again, had India been a united front for most of its history rather then un united, then India would've surely not only repelled the outside invasions at all times (which they still did sooo many times even outnumbered 10-1, even when they weren't united, for example India is the reason Alexander The Great did not press forwards towards India and his own men were on the verge of MUTINY because they did not want to fight another Indian army again) but also conquered the whole world.
The Indian problem is its culture and the value canon, which wasn’t adaptable for other regions. Still today it’s only spiritually accepted
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all in it 27:46
You forgot about the Scythia and their empire coving the entire Steppes from Mongolia to the Carpathians until the Sarmatia took over
China in a nutshell: Dynasty and Warlord Periods with some unification moments
keep broke and united until next time grow bigger😮why？dont they disappear？
keep broke and united until next time grow bigger😮why？dont they disappear？
16:17
Mom, i want Finland!
Sweety, we have Finland at home.
Finland at home:
Do "If everything went perfect for Napoleon Bonapart"it would be cool.
That's easy, The First French Empire would still be there
@hailcaesar372 unless napoleon ii suddenly became super competent the french empire collapses 10 years after bonaparte's death
@@apollo1694 welp womp womp
One of crucial aspects of the Empire is control over several nations. That distinguish strong nation states, from actual Empires. Take a note that Empires usually evolve in three ways:
1) Fall apart, when centralized rule weaken and all nations separate. Look Rome. Or go through what I call...
2) Post-Empire State. Where due to forming strong bounds with the subjugated nations, they start supporting central rule as protector of own interests. Even if Empire stop conquering and sometimes even become democratic. Good example here is United States if America. A lot of people do not know that US actually do not have official language. Entire West was French and California and Florida Spanish. Or...
3) Empire by name. So country calling itself a Empire, what is not a Empire anymore. Like Oman or Morocco.
Scenario Idea: What if Napoleon died during the charge at the battle of Arcola?
Love your videos!🩶
Oh hell ya new series im here for it
Nice work
Not sure why there is confusion on a definition of an empire:
An empire is a political unit made up of several territories, military outposts, and peoples, "usually created by conquest, and divided between a dominant center and subordinate peripheries". The center of the empire (sometimes referred to as the metropole) exercises political control over the peripheries.
That has been the standard one used by anthropologists now for decades now.
We do inow the old Kingdom Egyptians could power project well into the Sahara, they had long trade routes, outposts and fortifications throughout the western desert. This makes significantly more sense considering the much less arid climate in the Sahara at the time.
Great as always
Thank you for referring to it the right way as Macedonian Empire and not greek. ❤️ We are still kicking and not letting the name be erased from the map.
This is the perfect video to watch before you start a run at Crusader Kings
25:55 note that by this time, the Roman empire had lost mesopotamia.
Loved the king boomie ref avatar 👏 👌
Wonder how man empires may be lost in time.
Like the egyptians had entire lists of kindoms which we cannot identify, people from Oceania and Indochina are trying to get their "pyramids" accepted and america was populated since 15.000 years at least.
Certainly a lot.
I go with the definition that empires control multiple different populations/nations/countries. This may disqualify larger, homogeneous kingdoms and allow smaller empires with different countries within them.
I wonder how many of these early empire's borders are exaggerated and their grandure overstated by the sources we know them from
The seleucids did not start off that big. Originally they just controlled persia and iraq, with the antigonids (whom really should have been considered an empire) controlling anatolia, syria and palestine, but the antigonid emperors died and the seleucids got the spoils.
I also wanted to mention Greco Bactria kingdom and yanavana kingdom ( the first ones that really invaded India.)
not to mention he didnt mention Palmyrene and Lydian empire for middle east as well
Good luck with the algorithm
Please continue it
Pls continue this series
That's... an unusual take on what is an empire. Usually empires are defined by centralization and subjugation, mostly through violence, of other political entities. I feel like your definition makes it kinda subjective.
Can you make another Tierzoo video, but about America?
13 Colonies, Revolutionary Army, US (1783s), US (1812), Union and Confederacy, US (1914), US (1936), and US modern to see how the build evolved?
I heard that the Maurya’s have a really good relationship with some Germans from the first half of the 1940’s.
Danke!
2:45 Don't do Denethor dirty like that! He was an amazing Steward of Gondor up until he started dabbling with the Palantir. The man even resisted Sauron's corrupting powers. Though he was becoming a dick around that time anyway.
It's so strange how people cling to the idea of unchanging borders in modern times.
Borders have always evolved as situations change and they always will.
Sad that you didn't touch upon the Urartian empire, possibly the most overlooked part of ancient history and the only real time when the Caucasus had its very own, indigenous superstate.
Whens the ww1 fan vote map
Small correction- The PILLARMEN controlled the Americas and were a huge empire.
When are you doing your new history special?
Map of kingdoms would be fun to see.
Proofs Mentions about vikramaditya: In Sayar ul okul thr writer mention that Vikramaditya was the first Foreign ruler who ruled over arab and this book is still in Turkey. In bhavishyat puran. In skand puran written that he ruled over 2/4 of the world. Proofs : Vikramaditya coins in Rome proves that he ruled Roman Empire, Vikramaditya statue in ujjain, as he was the ruler of ujjain, ancient temple in Egypt proves that he ruled Egypt, Ancient statues of God Shiva and Vishnu in Russia and North Asia .Hindu gods and Japanese God's are Similar to Look proves he ruled Japan and Influenced Japan. Many ancient temples in Europe. A big ancient statue of God Hanuman in Usa. Proves that He had an influence in Usa. Gayatri mantra isHe had an influence in Usa. spoken in many countries of south America proves that he had influenced South America. Inscription in kaaba. On a goldish, many ancient temples in cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam, Sanskrit Shlok Written in indonesian navy flag. Thailand's king name is Rama. He made a calender named Vikram samvat that is the major hindu calender in India, the tales name Vikramaditya, Vikram betal, Vikram - batisi are written on Vikramaditya's life. These are the proofs
he made a short debunking that, you should post it there
I think it would be very interesting if someone decided to conquer that entire area of land which makes up all ancient empires. And then call it something like the ancietan empire.
I think the Video should‘ve shown that the Sassanids briefly controlled Egypt and parts of Anatolia.
I love how he said Roman Empire as some Unimportant Empire
Random facts: European Hunnic Empire is the succsessor of the Xiong-nu thats why they are EUROPEAN Hunnic Empire. Xiong-nu is also known as Asian Hunnic Empire. Also, we have strong proofs that Kushan Empire is Turkic, just like Hunnic's.
Kushans were Yuezhi...Yuezhi were mostlikely not Turkic but shared some similarities.
Yuezhi, Wusun were most likely Tocharians (an distinct branch of Indo-Iranian) or Indo-Europeans altogether.
the thing is alexander’s conquered territories cannot be considered an empire solely because it never had an emperor! alexander never got to truly coronate and rule and his lands was immediately shattered to smaller empires, most importantly Seleucids, which were basically the achaemenid empire with a greek dinasty.
Urartian kingdom nor mention of the Armenian kingdom. I think you missed some in the Moddle East.
Weren't important enough to be empires
@americanmapping832 Well, they beat the assyrian Empire