Whats your fav. empire/nation

[Skittles!]

It's kind of weird that Christianity didn't establish a Christian Empire. Well, a said Empire.

Would The Holy Roman Empire in the Germanic states qualify?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

Still not as big as either the Buddhist Mongols or the Islam Empire.

But I guess that could do.

The funny thing is, the way they formed their Empires is by having their leader with them. If the Roman Catholicism wanted to create an Empire, would you really think they would send the Pope? I don't think so, it'll endanger His Holiness' Life!

[golilox]

It's kind of weird that Christianity didn't establish a Christian Empire. Well, a said Empire.

I dont think Christ's objective in life was to conquer the world by means of war. And if you really think about it he has many "Empires", theres probably one just down the road from you! And are still spreading all over the world.

[btownmeggy]

It's kind of weird that Christianity didn't establish a Christian Empire. Well, a said Empire.

I dont think Christ's objective in life was to conquer the world by means of war.

Unlike the Buddha...?

[Guiscard]

It's kind of weird that Christianity didn't establish a Christian Empire. Well, a said Empire.

I dont think Christ's objective in life was to conquer the world by means of war. And if you really think about it he has many "Empires", theres probably one just down the road from you! And are still spreading all over the world.[/quote

If we're going with rampant imperialism Christianity certainly doesn't get off scot free my any means! The Crusades are perhaps the best example of trying to impose European-Christian culture on unbelievers.

[DAZMCFC]

romans, shit em. they could take the Scots and the Picts. they were shit scared off them.

on a serious note i would say mongols and British.

[jako]

id have to go with the romans and greeks. both were technologically and knowledgically superior to the other clans/tribes/nations around that area at the time. the greeks made massive strides in knowledge and the romans were so dam technological with the idea of roads, aquaducts, bathhouses(none of the other empires before their time had bathhouses, dam dirty bastards they were).

its no wonder people love the roman empire and the slighty weaker greek empire. both are great and equally deserving of having their own place in history and as a choice for favourite empire.

[Guiscard]

id have to go with the romans and greeks. both were technologically and knowledgically superior to the other clans/tribes/nations around that area at the time. the greeks made massive strides in knowledge and the romans were so dam technological with the idea of roads, aquaducts, bathhouses(none of the other empires before their time had bathhouses, dam dirty bastards they were).

its no wonder people love the roman empire and the slighty weaker greek empire. both are great and equally deserving of having their own place in history and as a choice for favourite empire.

Ahh but can you define the Greeks as having an empire? The word 'empire' is fairly ambiguous, but in this context we seem to just be adding Empire as a tag to 'successful culture'. I wouldn't describe the Greeks at any point as holding an Empire in any form other than perhaps a proto-maritime empire in their early Mediterranean colonisation. The peninsula was certainly never united other than under outside powers (Macedon, for example).

[Arbustos]

id have to go with the romans and greeks. both were technologically and knowledgically superior to the other clans/tribes/nations around that area at the time. the greeks made massive strides in knowledge and the romans were so dam technological with the idea of roads, aquaducts, bathhouses(none of the other empires before their time had bathhouses, dam dirty bastards they were).

its no wonder people love the roman empire and the slighty weaker greek empire. both are great and equally deserving of having their own place in history and as a choice for favourite empire.

Ahh but can you define the Greeks as having an empire? The word 'empire' is fairly ambiguous, but in this context we seem to just be adding Empire as a tag to 'successful culture'. I wouldn't describe the Greeks at any point as holding an Empire in any form other than perhaps a proto-maritime empire in their early Mediterranean colonisation. The peninsula was certainly never united other than under outside powers (Macedon, for example).

This.

[muy_thaiguy]

id have to go with the romans and greeks. both were technologically and knowledgically superior to the other clans/tribes/nations around that area at the time. the greeks made massive strides in knowledge and the romans were so dam technological with the idea of roads, aquaducts, bathhouses(none of the other empires before their time had bathhouses, dam dirty bastards they were).

its no wonder people love the roman empire and the slighty weaker greek empire. both are great and equally deserving of having their own place in history and as a choice for favourite empire.

Ahh but can you define the Greeks as having an empire? The word 'empire' is fairly ambiguous, but in this context we seem to just be adding Empire as a tag to 'successful culture'. I wouldn't describe the Greeks at any point as holding an Empire in any form other than perhaps a proto-maritime empire in their early Mediterranean colonisation. The peninsula was certainly never united other than under outside powers (Macedon, for example).

Macedonians were considered to be Greek (they were allowed to participate in the Olympics, which only Greeks could) and that also brings up Alexander's Empire (Being that his father was Philip II and his mother was of another Greek origin), and even after his death, the Seleucids, if not among the Greeks, then at least among the Hellenes had the greater part of Alexander's Asian Empire. Oh, and the Mongols, I believe, were Pagans.

[Guiscard]

Macedonians were considered to be Greek (they were allowed to participate in the Olympics, which only Greeks could) and that also brings up Alexander's Empire (Being that his father was Philip II and his mother was of another Greek origin), and even after his death, the Seleucids, if not among the Greeks, then at least among the Hellenes. Oh, and the Mongols, I believe, were Pagans.

I am well aware that we can consider the Macedonians Greek at least to some extent, but when we're discussing them in this concept they're obviously a different 'group'. The original poster was discussing 'strides in knowledge' - quite obviously something associated with the pre-Macedonian Greek city state culture. We don't call the British Empire the European Empire, even though we could define the British as European just as easily.

And the Mongols (Genghis specifically) were certainly pagan when they began their assent but they adopted Buddhism from Tibet in the time of Khubilai Kahn, the time when they were at their pinnacle.

[muy_thaiguy]

Macedonians were considered to be Greek (they were allowed to participate in the Olympics, which only Greeks could) and that also brings up Alexander's Empire (Being that his father was Philip II and his mother was of another Greek origin), and even after his death, the Seleucids, if not among the Greeks, then at least among the Hellenes. Oh, and the Mongols, I believe, were Pagans.

I am well aware that we can consider the Macedonians Greek at least to some extent, but when we're discussing them in this concept they're obviously a different 'group'. The original poster was discussing 'strides in knowledge' - quite obviously something associated with the pre-Macedonian Greek city state culture. We don't call the British Empire the European Empire, even though we could define the British as European just as easily.

And the Mongols (Genghis specifically) were certainly pagan when they began their assent but they adopted Buddhism from Tibet in the time of Khubilai Kahn, the time when they were at their pinnacle.

However, Alexander had nearly the entire Greek peninsula under his control, except for, and correct me if I am wrong, Sparta. So, wouldn't that still make it a Greek Empire?

[Guiscard]

Macedonians were considered to be Greek (they were allowed to participate in the Olympics, which only Greeks could) and that also brings up Alexander's Empire (Being that his father was Philip II and his mother was of another Greek origin), and even after his death, the Seleucids, if not among the Greeks, then at least among the Hellenes. Oh, and the Mongols, I believe, were Pagans.

I am well aware that we can consider the Macedonians Greek at least to some extent, but when we're discussing them in this concept they're obviously a different 'group'. The original poster was discussing 'strides in knowledge' - quite obviously something associated with the pre-Macedonian Greek city state culture. We don't call the British Empire the European Empire, even though we could define the British as European just as easily.

And the Mongols (Genghis specifically) were certainly pagan when they began their assent but they adopted Buddhism from Tibet in the time of Khubilai Kahn, the time when they were at their pinnacle.

However, Alexander had nearly the entire Greek peninsula under his control, except for, and correct me if I am wrong, Sparta. So, wouldn't that still make it a Greek Empire?

Why would it? It was just an area conquered like any other really. His Empire stretched from the Balkans to the borders of India. Why would it take the name of anything other than its central homeland, Macedon? The territories of southern and eastern China were much more important politically and economically than inner Mongolia, as were the lands in the near east, but the Mongol Empire isn't named for either of those areas is it? Its named after the original homeland. Alexander may have been Hellenistic, but again we can apply the European analogy. 'Greece' was never unified. It was a collection of city states and proto-states sharing something of the same culture and religion, much like states within a greater Europe on larger scale. They warred with eachother, allied at times and various states/cities were dominant for periods. We wouldn't define the British empire specifically as the European Empire just because it falls under that definition in a wide sense and Macedon is no different.

Anyway, this really is simply academic because when people say Greek in this context they more often than not are referring to any Hollywood-ised combination of Athens and Sparta, combined with a bit of dramatised Homer.

[muy_thaiguy]

Macedonians were considered to be Greek (they were allowed to participate in the Olympics, which only Greeks could) and that also brings up Alexander's Empire (Being that his father was Philip II and his mother was of another Greek origin), and even after his death, the Seleucids, if not among the Greeks, then at least among the Hellenes. Oh, and the Mongols, I believe, were Pagans.

I am well aware that we can consider the Macedonians Greek at least to some extent, but when we're discussing them in this concept they're obviously a different 'group'. The original poster was discussing 'strides in knowledge' - quite obviously something associated with the pre-Macedonian Greek city state culture. We don't call the British Empire the European Empire, even though we could define the British as European just as easily.

And the Mongols (Genghis specifically) were certainly pagan when they began their assent but they adopted Buddhism from Tibet in the time of Khubilai Kahn, the time when they were at their pinnacle.

However, Alexander had nearly the entire Greek peninsula under his control, except for, and correct me if I am wrong, Sparta. So, wouldn't that still make it a Greek Empire?

Why would it? It was just an area conquered like any other really. His Empire stretched from the Balkans to the borders of India. Why would it take the name of anything other than its central homeland, Macedon? The territories of southern and eastern China were much more important politically and economically than inner Mongolia, as were the lands in the near east, but the Mongol Empire isn't named for either of those areas is it? Its named after the original homeland. Alexander may have been Hellenistic, but again we can apply the European analogy. 'Greece' was never unified. It was a collection of city states and proto-states sharing something of the same culture and religion, much like states within a greater Europe on larger scale. They warred with eachother, allied at times and various states/cities were dominant for periods. We wouldn't define the British empire specifically as the European Empire just because it falls under that definition in a wide sense and Macedon is no different.

Anyway, this really is simply academic because when people say Greek in this context they more often than not are referring to any Hollywood-ised combination of Athens and Sparta, combined with a bit of dramatised Homer.

What my point is, Alexander had reconquered all of of Greece after some had rebeled (not sure if more then Thebes did, but Thebes was the main one) and Britain had not conquered all of Europe, only the British Isles, and spreading around the world from there. Thus earning the name the British empire, like Alexander and his Greek Empire. He even managed to take back the city-states that had been dominated by the Persians for years. Britain had an empire that started when the English conquered the rest of the British Isles, the same basic thing happened with Alexander and the Greek peninsula.

[Titanic]

Macedonians were considered to be Greek (they were allowed to participate in the Olympics, which only Greeks could) and that also brings up Alexander's Empire (Being that his father was Philip II and his mother was of another Greek origin), and even after his death, the Seleucids, if not among the Greeks, then at least among the Hellenes. Oh, and the Mongols, I believe, were Pagans.

I am well aware that we can consider the Macedonians Greek at least to some extent, but when we're discussing them in this concept they're obviously a different 'group'. The original poster was discussing 'strides in knowledge' - quite obviously something associated with the pre-Macedonian Greek city state culture. We don't call the British Empire the European Empire, even though we could define the British as European just as easily.

And the Mongols (Genghis specifically) were certainly pagan when they began their assent but they adopted Buddhism from Tibet in the time of Khubilai Kahn, the time when they were at their pinnacle.

However, Alexander had nearly the entire Greek peninsula under his control, except for, and correct me if I am wrong, Sparta. So, wouldn't that still make it a Greek Empire?

Why would it? It was just an area conquered like any other really. His Empire stretched from the Balkans to the borders of India. Why would it take the name of anything other than its central homeland, Macedon? The territories of southern and eastern China were much more important politically and economically than inner Mongolia, as were the lands in the near east, but the Mongol Empire isn't named for either of those areas is it? Its named after the original homeland. Alexander may have been Hellenistic, but again we can apply the European analogy. 'Greece' was never unified. It was a collection of city states and proto-states sharing something of the same culture and religion, much like states within a greater Europe on larger scale. They warred with eachother, allied at times and various states/cities were dominant for periods. We wouldn't define the British empire specifically as the European Empire just because it falls under that definition in a wide sense and Macedon is no different.

Anyway, this really is simply academic because when people say Greek in this context they more often than not are referring to any Hollywood-ised combination of Athens and Sparta, combined with a bit of dramatised Homer.

What my point is, Alexander had reconquered all of of Greece after some had rebeled (not sure if more then Thebes did, but Thebes was the main one) and Britain had not conquered all of Europe, only the British Isles, and spreading around the world from there. Thus earning the name the British empire, like Alexander and his Greek Empire. He even managed to take back the city-states that had been dominated by the Persians for years. Britain had an empire that started when the English conquered the rest of the British Isles, the same basic thing happened with Alexander and the Greek peninsula.

I dont agree with you there. England did not "conquer" the British Isles, it was unified the the treaties in 1707 and 1800. The original homeland of the British Empire was Great Britain, not England. Similarly, the original homeland of Alexander and Genghis Khan was Macedonia and Mongolia, hich is why their empires were named after those, if Alex's conquests can be classified as an empire.

[muy_thaiguy]

Macedonians were considered to be Greek (they were allowed to participate in the Olympics, which only Greeks could) and that also brings up Alexander's Empire (Being that his father was Philip II and his mother was of another Greek origin), and even after his death, the Seleucids, if not among the Greeks, then at least among the Hellenes. Oh, and the Mongols, I believe, were Pagans.

I am well aware that we can consider the Macedonians Greek at least to some extent, but when we're discussing them in this concept they're obviously a different 'group'. The original poster was discussing 'strides in knowledge' - quite obviously something associated with the pre-Macedonian Greek city state culture. We don't call the British Empire the European Empire, even though we could define the British as European just as easily.

And the Mongols (Genghis specifically) were certainly pagan when they began their assent but they adopted Buddhism from Tibet in the time of Khubilai Kahn, the time when they were at their pinnacle.

However, Alexander had nearly the entire Greek peninsula under his control, except for, and correct me if I am wrong, Sparta. So, wouldn't that still make it a Greek Empire?

Why would it? It was just an area conquered like any other really. His Empire stretched from the Balkans to the borders of India. Why would it take the name of anything other than its central homeland, Macedon? The territories of southern and eastern China were much more important politically and economically than inner Mongolia, as were the lands in the near east, but the Mongol Empire isn't named for either of those areas is it? Its named after the original homeland. Alexander may have been Hellenistic, but again we can apply the European analogy. 'Greece' was never unified. It was a collection of city states and proto-states sharing something of the same culture and religion, much like states within a greater Europe on larger scale. They warred with eachother, allied at times and various states/cities were dominant for periods. We wouldn't define the British empire specifically as the European Empire just because it falls under that definition in a wide sense and Macedon is no different.

Anyway, this really is simply academic because when people say Greek in this context they more often than not are referring to any Hollywood-ised combination of Athens and Sparta, combined with a bit of dramatised Homer.

What my point is, Alexander had reconquered all of of Greece after some had rebeled (not sure if more then Thebes did, but Thebes was the main one) and Britain had not conquered all of Europe, only the British Isles, and spreading around the world from there. Thus earning the name the British empire, like Alexander and his Greek Empire. He even managed to take back the city-states that had been dominated by the Persians for years. Britain had an empire that started when the English conquered the rest of the British Isles, the same basic thing happened with Alexander and the Greek peninsula.

I dont agree with you there. England did not "conquer" the British Isles, it was unified the the treaties in 1707 and 1800. The original homeland of the British Empire was Great Britain, not England. Similarly, the original homeland of Alexander and Genghis Khan was Macedonia and Mongolia, hich is why their empires were named after those, if Alex's conquests can be classified as an empire.

England, being the largest and most powerful Kingdom of the British Isles, attacked and took over the other major and the minor countries of the Isles. They made the next in line of the English crown, the Prince of Wales (after eliminating the actual one), invaded and took over Scotland, and soon did the same with Ireland. None of those others agreed to it unless beaten so soundly they had no choice in the matter. Which is similar, if not the same as what Alexander and his father, Phillip II did with the smaller and weaker Greek city-states. Also, by the previously mentioned dates, Wales and Scotland were already under the English crown, except for a few who still fought for seperation of their home and the English crown (unless I'm jumping ahead of myself on the just mentioned part).And, if I'm not mistaken, Ireland never agreed to become part of it.

[Titanic]

Macedonians were considered to be Greek (they were allowed to participate in the Olympics, which only Greeks could) and that also brings up Alexander's Empire (Being that his father was Philip II and his mother was of another Greek origin), and even after his death, the Seleucids, if not among the Greeks, then at least among the Hellenes. Oh, and the Mongols, I believe, were Pagans.

I am well aware that we can consider the Macedonians Greek at least to some extent, but when we're discussing them in this concept they're obviously a different 'group'. The original poster was discussing 'strides in knowledge' - quite obviously something associated with the pre-Macedonian Greek city state culture. We don't call the British Empire the European Empire, even though we could define the British as European just as easily.

And the Mongols (Genghis specifically) were certainly pagan when they began their assent but they adopted Buddhism from Tibet in the time of Khubilai Kahn, the time when they were at their pinnacle.

However, Alexander had nearly the entire Greek peninsula under his control, except for, and correct me if I am wrong, Sparta. So, wouldn't that still make it a Greek Empire?

Why would it? It was just an area conquered like any other really. His Empire stretched from the Balkans to the borders of India. Why would it take the name of anything other than its central homeland, Macedon? The territories of southern and eastern China were much more important politically and economically than inner Mongolia, as were the lands in the near east, but the Mongol Empire isn't named for either of those areas is it? Its named after the original homeland. Alexander may have been Hellenistic, but again we can apply the European analogy. 'Greece' was never unified. It was a collection of city states and proto-states sharing something of the same culture and religion, much like states within a greater Europe on larger scale. They warred with eachother, allied at times and various states/cities were dominant for periods. We wouldn't define the British empire specifically as the European Empire just because it falls under that definition in a wide sense and Macedon is no different.

Anyway, this really is simply academic because when people say Greek in this context they more often than not are referring to any Hollywood-ised combination of Athens and Sparta, combined with a bit of dramatised Homer.

What my point is, Alexander had reconquered all of of Greece after some had rebeled (not sure if more then Thebes did, but Thebes was the main one) and Britain had not conquered all of Europe, only the British Isles, and spreading around the world from there. Thus earning the name the British empire, like Alexander and his Greek Empire. He even managed to take back the city-states that had been dominated by the Persians for years. Britain had an empire that started when the English conquered the rest of the British Isles, the same basic thing happened with Alexander and the Greek peninsula.

I dont agree with you there. England did not "conquer" the British Isles, it was unified the the treaties in 1707 and 1800. The original homeland of the British Empire was Great Britain, not England. Similarly, the original homeland of Alexander and Genghis Khan was Macedonia and Mongolia, hich is why their empires were named after those, if Alex's conquests can be classified as an empire.

England, being the largest and most powerful Kingdom of the British Isles, attacked and took over the other major and the minor countries of the Isles. They made the next in line of the English crown, the Prince of Wales (after eliminating the actual one), invaded and took over Scotland, and soon did the same with Ireland. None of those others agreed to it unless beaten so soundly they had no choice in the matter. Which is similar, if not the same as what Alexander and his father, Phillip II did with the smaller and weaker Greek city-states. Also, by the previously mentioned dates, Wales and Scotland were already under the English crown, except for a few who still fought for seperation of their home and the English crown (unless I'm jumping ahead of myself on the just mentioned part).And, if I'm not mistaken, Ireland never agreed to become part of it.

Are you kidding me? Ireland joined in the treaty of 1800, and it wasn just some small cities which signed the 1707 treaty, is was the whole of Scotland. Wales was the only region which was taken by force, but that was by William the Conquerer in around 1070, 600 years before the beggining of the empire.

[muy_thaiguy]

Macedonians were considered to be Greek (they were allowed to participate in the Olympics, which only Greeks could) and that also brings up Alexander's Empire (Being that his father was Philip II and his mother was of another Greek origin), and even after his death, the Seleucids, if not among the Greeks, then at least among the Hellenes. Oh, and the Mongols, I believe, were Pagans.

I am well aware that we can consider the Macedonians Greek at least to some extent, but when we're discussing them in this concept they're obviously a different 'group'. The original poster was discussing 'strides in knowledge' - quite obviously something associated with the pre-Macedonian Greek city state culture. We don't call the British Empire the European Empire, even though we could define the British as European just as easily.

And the Mongols (Genghis specifically) were certainly pagan when they began their assent but they adopted Buddhism from Tibet in the time of Khubilai Kahn, the time when they were at their pinnacle.

However, Alexander had nearly the entire Greek peninsula under his control, except for, and correct me if I am wrong, Sparta. So, wouldn't that still make it a Greek Empire?

Why would it? It was just an area conquered like any other really. His Empire stretched from the Balkans to the borders of India. Why would it take the name of anything other than its central homeland, Macedon? The territories of southern and eastern China were much more important politically and economically than inner Mongolia, as were the lands in the near east, but the Mongol Empire isn't named for either of those areas is it? Its named after the original homeland. Alexander may have been Hellenistic, but again we can apply the European analogy. 'Greece' was never unified. It was a collection of city states and proto-states sharing something of the same culture and religion, much like states within a greater Europe on larger scale. They warred with eachother, allied at times and various states/cities were dominant for periods. We wouldn't define the British empire specifically as the European Empire just because it falls under that definition in a wide sense and Macedon is no different.

Anyway, this really is simply academic because when people say Greek in this context they more often than not are referring to any Hollywood-ised combination of Athens and Sparta, combined with a bit of dramatised Homer.

What my point is, Alexander had reconquered all of of Greece after some had rebeled (not sure if more then Thebes did, but Thebes was the main one) and Britain had not conquered all of Europe, only the British Isles, and spreading around the world from there. Thus earning the name the British empire, like Alexander and his Greek Empire. He even managed to take back the city-states that had been dominated by the Persians for years. Britain had an empire that started when the English conquered the rest of the British Isles, the same basic thing happened with Alexander and the Greek peninsula.

I dont agree with you there. England did not "conquer" the British Isles, it was unified the the treaties in 1707 and 1800. The original homeland of the British Empire was Great Britain, not England. Similarly, the original homeland of Alexander and Genghis Khan was Macedonia and Mongolia, hich is why their empires were named after those, if Alex's conquests can be classified as an empire.

England, being the largest and most powerful Kingdom of the British Isles, attacked and took over the other major and the minor countries of the Isles. They made the next in line of the English crown, the Prince of Wales (after eliminating the actual one), invaded and took over Scotland, and soon did the same with Ireland. None of those others agreed to it unless beaten so soundly they had no choice in the matter. Which is similar, if not the same as what Alexander and his father, Phillip II did with the smaller and weaker Greek city-states. Also, by the previously mentioned dates, Wales and Scotland were already under the English crown, except for a few who still fought for seperation of their home and the English crown (unless I'm jumping ahead of myself on the just mentioned part).And, if I'm not mistaken, Ireland never agreed to become part of it.

Are you kidding me? Ireland joined in the treaty of 1800, and it wasn just some small cities which signed the 1707 treaty, is was the whole of Scotland. Wales was the only region which was taken by force, but that was by William the Conquerer in around 1070, 600 years before the beggining of the empire.

So Scotland and Ireland were never taken by force? William Wallace is only made up? (since he and thousands of others fought to gain freedom from the English centuries BEFORE the compact was ever signed), Ireland, a land that was under British/English rule for centuries, had many uprisings until they were finally let out of it? Doesn't sound like they had much choice in joining the Compact. And Guiscard, what is the difference between calling the British Empire British because the Queen/King were English, but lived on the British Isles, and calling Alexander's Empire Greek because he came from the same region as the rest of the Greeks?

[Som General]

watch braveheart you fools

and the ottomons were the savist empire

[Titanic]

watch braveheart you fools

and the ottomons were the savist empire

Yer, because Braveheart is 100% historically accurate...

William Wallace was about 400 years before the English-Scottish treaty, so what he did does not affect the union at all. Irelands rebellions all began after they signed the treaty, most of them happening in the 20th century, over 100 years after they joined the union.

Ireland and Scotland were both independent nations and chose to sign the treaty themselves, they were never forced to under force.

[flashleg8]

watch braveheart you fools

and the ottomons were the savist empire

Yer, because Braveheart is 100% historically accurate...

William Wallace was about 400 years before the English-Scottish treaty, so what he did does not affect the union at all. Irelands rebellions all began after they signed the treaty, most of them happening in the 20th century, over 100 years after they joined the union.

Ireland and Scotland were both independent nations and chose to sign the treaty themselves, they were never forced to under force.

Well said. Although there was a certain section of the Scottish people against the act of Union - it must be remembered that many of the population supported the decision and looked to profit from the Union. The finances of the Scottish government were in ruins at this time due to the disastrous colonial attempt in Darien.
It must also be remembered that Scotland and England had the same monarch at this time (indeed it had been a Scottish king, James VI or James the 1st of England that first united the thrones).

[Guiscard]

England, being the largest and most powerful Kingdom of the British Isles, attacked and took over the other major and the minor countries of the Isles. They made the next in line of the English crown, the Prince of Wales (after eliminating the actual one), invaded and took over Scotland, and soon did the same with Ireland. None of those others agreed to it unless beaten so soundly they had no choice in the matter. Which is similar, if not the same as what Alexander and his father, Phillip II did with the smaller and weaker Greek city-states. Also, by the previously mentioned dates, Wales and Scotland were already under the English crown, except for a few who still fought for seperation of their home and the English crown (unless I'm jumping ahead of myself on the just mentioned part).And, if I'm not mistaken, Ireland never agreed to become part of it.

Apart from this being mostly clap, you've also failed to deal with the second example of the Mongol Empire.

The point I would make in response, however, is that 'Greece' never WAS a unified state. The area was never more than a group of city states either with one or other as hegemon or a loose balance of power. The Macedonians didn't retake the 'Greece' we are discussing, they conquered it.

Anyway, this argument is getting entirely ridiculous. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that you would never get away with talking about a Greek empire re. Macedon even as a first year undergrad. You can talk about Hellenistic culture and Hellenisation, but no serious academic source I can recall has ever used the term. Its simply not something up for debate and not something with any kind of factual or contextual backing.