Who was stronger at their height? If you take out the differences

File: db4ac3b7a47439a82d5e8d42a4a203cf.png (15KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 420x420px

>If you take out the differences in military technology, and just look at their strength.

If you take out differences in technological advancement, how are you gauging strength? number?

I guess the British Empire, since it probably had the largest population of them all.

File: 1486606311809.jpg (97KB, 415x454px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 415x454px

>>2937486
only beta males care about hierarchies

>>2937512
>>2937514
I think OP means dominance within their time period

>>2937516
Then British again, unless you consider the places America supervised post WWII to be its dominions, then them.

Rome's strength and position as the greatest Empire is mainly due to the fact that it was so large for so long. It wasn't the largest, but it lasted for so long and influenced so many.

>>2937515
So why do normies love top 10 lists?

Length, reach, influence.

British/US have longer reach, but have nothing on the length and influence of rome. Comparatively British/American power is like a blink in time, we'll see how long the anglo domination continues, theyve got about a thousand years to go put together to touch Rome.

>>2937546
Because it gives them 10 talking points to talk to normies about.

>10 best Films of all time, Finally I can seem smart when someone asks me what's my favorite film!

>>2937550
If that's the criteria, then I don't see how Rome takes cake easily.
Rome not only lasted so long as it's own, but most of Europe speaks some kind of Latin derivative, and nearly everyone uses a Roman based civilization. That's not even counting Byzantium, who totally counts, and the countless WEWUZes who even include the fucking Ottomans.

The Mongols edge them out in land, although who wins if you include the Roman's sea territory, but their length and influence are dwarfed by Rome. Hell, most Mongol influence boils down to, "This place was ruled by the Mongols at one point, they collected Taxes every third year."

>>2937486
Spain was infinitely stronger at height than usa today

>>2937584
Lol

>>2937486
US
Mongol
Roman
USSR
Power gap
British empire
Comparing a paper tiger that couldn't project any power putside of shitholes like India to the US or the Mongol empire is retarded

>>2937523
>Then British again
Britain relied on France to project power on real countries. Comparing the US to Britain is just a joke

>>2937760
>Britain relied on France to project power on real countries
The US relied on France to even become a country.

>>2937584
how so?

>>2937486
The USA.

The Romans and Mongols aren't comparable, since the limits of tech at their time limited their ability to really exert influence. That leaves the USSR and the British. The USSR are an obvious no; they consistently were a bug compared to the USA in every relevant matrix, and for the last ten years of their existence weren't even bigger than Japan economically.

So, the British. Britain was the only other candidate on this list that was unquestionably the largest economy in the world and could project power anywhere. But Britain's superpower status was always pretty much a meme; they were the most powerful economic and industrial power, but they weren't nearly as dominant as the USA is now. They were more of a first-among-equals than anything, as WW1 and the Great Game decisively proved. Sure, they technically controlled more land and people than the USA, but the net effect of this wasn't as big as it could be because all their colonies were mismanaged into total poverty. The USA's informal empire of allies and trade partners is far, far more useful than Britain's overseas empire ever was. Japan alone is relatively more powerful both economically and militarily than the entire British Raj was.

>>2937764
Rome needed some wolves to become a country, don't get snippy.