Favorite Empire in 1500-1600's?

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

I would say the Holy Roman Empire for me!

[Stavroforos]

Spanish or Ottoman.

[MehemtAli_Pasha]

Probably Mughal Empire, if not the Ottomans. Spain would be next.

Edit: agreed with Stavroforos.

[Darsh]

Spanish or Ottoman.

Same choice for me

[dogukan]

This is the era of Habsburgs and Osmanoğulları.

[bushbush]

what an eurocentric poll

[dogukan]

what an eurocentric poll

oh well, you are right.....nobody can compare the Chinese beacuse these empires didn't get into a conflict with them reflecting their power. So it's really hard to guess.

[intel]

PolishLithuanian Commonwealth. An empire, which in 1500-1600s was at height of it's power, dominating central-eastern Europe. An empire of democracy (electional monarchy) and great political ideas, land of religious tolerance and prosperity. Sounds like my favourite empire.

[Salem1]

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. A big state in which nobles did as they pleased, which in 1500-1648 was at height of it's power, dominating central-eastern Europe. An empire of democracy if you were a noble (electional monarchy in which the Polish-Lithuanian people, aka. serfs, had no place) and political ideas that eventually lead to the nobles crippling the country and getting it partitioned, land of religious tolerance and prosperity if you were a well-off noble. Sounds like my favourite empire.

Fixed it for you

As for my favorite, I'd have to say Crimean Khanate even if it wasn't an empire... I guess that goes under Ottomans. Why? because they pretty much rode up and torched Moscow. Even though they managed to get their asses seriously beaten one year later when a plan of full conquest of the Russian Tsardom was enacted, it takes some balls of steel and skill to just ride up and torch Moscow.

[intel]

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. A big state in which nobles did as they pleased, In 1500-1600? Hardly... which in 1500-1648 was at height of it's power, dominating central-eastern Europe. An empire of democracy if you were a noble (electional monarchy in which the Polish-Lithuanian people, aka. serfs, had no place)(well, this democracy covered 10% of society, a percentage unmatched till XIXth century... And it wasn't impossible to become a noble, it wasn't a hermetic class then, like it happened in later centuries. and political ideas that eventually lead to the nobles Russia, Austria and Prussia crippling the country and getting it partitioned, (Such as ideas of freedom of speech, pacifism, secular society and state? You present such a one sided point of view, salem...) freedom land of religious tolerance and prosperity if you were a well-off nobleYou didn't need to be noble to a)be rich b) believe in whichever religion you choose Sounds like my favourite empire.

Fixed it for you

You fixed it so badly that I had to fix it again for ya. Want to argue further?

As for my favorite, I'd have to say Crimean Khanate even if it wasn't an empire... I guess that goes under Ottomans. Why? because they pretty much rode up and torched Moscow. Even though they managed to get their asses seriously beaten one year later when a plan of full conquest of the Russian Tsardom was enacted, it takes some balls of steel and skill to just ride up and torch Moscow.

Yeah, Crimean Khanate, the Nazis of the Central Europe... Murderers, ruthless slave-hunters, which pillaged, burned and depopulated lands of Ukraine for centuries... Are you really sure that it's your favourite empire?

[Salem1]

You fixed it so badly that I had to fix it again for ya. Want to argue further?



Yeah, Crimean Khanate, the Nazis of the Central Europe... Murderers, ruthless slave-hunters, which pillaged, burned and depopulated lands of Ukraine for centuries... Are you really sure that it's your favourite empire?

Meh ... we've gotten our points across.

For the strict time period 1500-1600, sure thing. Those are trivia compared to the fact that Tatars rode up, devastated everything, torched Moscow and then just rode back, that's what really counts. How many other nations have done that to Moscow? (Napoleonic self destruction doesn't count, nor do Poles or Swedes who were both more-or-less let in) Not really sure if I get the difference between being a serf and a slave either, but oh well. You had some technical, barebone-guarantees but that was about it. I mean, do you think Livonian people were unhappy to leave rule of PLC?

Don't get me wrong, PLC had some pretty good ideas towards the end of its existance. But serfdom existed there until the end of the nation, and that's what's really important. Those good ideas were pretty much exclusive to ~10% of the population while the common man was kept in semi-slavery with few exceptions. True, this noble percentage was much higher than in other countries but that I think has a fairly reasonable explanation; nobles were different in PLC than in the rest of Europe. Namely, there were much more poor ''nobles'' in PLC than in other countries and then there were the magnates and their ilk, who corresponded to the traditional nobility of other countries. Basically, the wedge between nobility and common man was wider in exchange for having more nobles (that's a vacuum statement, I'm not making a comparison).

[D.B. Cooper]

No love for the Portuguese?

[intel]

Meh ... we've gotten our points across.

For the strict time period 1500-1600, sure thing. Those are trivia compared to the fact that Tatars rode up, devastated everything, torched Moscow and then just rode back, that's what really counts. How many other nations have done that to Moscow? (Napoleonic self destruction doesn't count, nor do Poles or Swedes who were both more-or-less let in).

Swedes in Moscow? Never heard of it. But Poles won a decisive battle against joint Muscovite and Swedish forces, completly breaking the backbone of Shuiski's party. Moscow's garrison was too small and incapable of surviving any siege, moreover, Moscow soldiers and people were unwilling to give any resistance to the now stronger polish party, which had now 20 000 strong armies. So if Moscow didn't surrender, it would be pretty much screwed anyway.
About Napoleon: he did pretty much the same as Crimean Tatars, so I don;t get your point. Tatars burned(and did many nasty things to the civilians ) Moscow, which had very poor defences at the time, Muscovite forces were currently far away from capital and was taken by surprise.

Not really sure if I get the difference between being a serf and a slave either, but oh well. You had some technical, barebone-guarantees but that was about it. I mean, do you think Livonian people were unhappy to leave rule of PLC?

Again, very one-sided view on the a) life of the serf b) Commonwealth in particular. You see it as a land of almost slaved serfs and nobility, ruthlessy ruling others. Wrong. The difference beteen serf and slave is very big: peasant (as it is more suitable word) had economical and legal rights, while slave- did not. I'm not here to teach you about reality of peasants life in the Commonwealth, but there were large numbers of so-called "free peasants" who lived on their own. At some point, there existed a class of so called "soltys", who almost equaled with middle-class nobles in their wealth. Other peasants, who did not have their own land, obliged to work for agreed amount of time on the landowner's land and in exchange was given some land to exploit on his own. This amount varied over times (and while was low in the times of the prosperity, it was raised after the Deluge) and was to some point dependant on the landowner's will, but nontheless-it was not slavery.
Btw, economical situation in PLC was quite good, but-again-it decreased after the Deluge. French peasants, for example, at some period were much poorer than PLC peasants.

Don't get me wrong, PLC had some pretty good ideas towards the end of its existance.

And at it's beginning. The problem is that the political system it developed was very innovate, and because of that it had to have defects, as every freshly implemented idea. The problem is that the improvements weren't implemented when it was time to. The country runned out of it's creativeness and cohension.

But serfdom existed there until the end of the nation, and that's what's really important. Those good ideas were pretty much exclusive to ~10% of the population while the common man was kept in semi-slavery with few exceptions.

See above.

True, this noble percentage was much higher than in other countries but that I think has a fairly reasonable explanation; nobles were different in PLC than in the rest of Europe. Namely, there were much more poor ''nobles'' in PLC than in other countries and then there were the magnates and their ilk, who corresponded to the traditional nobility of other countries. Basically, the wedge between nobility and common man was wider in exchange for having more nobles (that's a vacuum statement, I'm not making a comparison).

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your statement: nobility's economical situation varied greatly, some nobles were magnates, and the other lived almost peasant life.

But I still see no connection between Commonwealth of 1500-1600s and post-Deluge PLC, which we're talking there.

Awaiting your responce

[Babur]

Yeah, Crimean Khanate, the Nazis of the Central Europe... Murderers, ruthless slave-hunters, which pillaged, burned and depopulated lands of Ukraine for centuries... Are you really sure that it's your favourite empire?

they didn't claim to be Aryans though

[Tiberios]

The Danish. Although not a superpower it was a powerfull Northern European nation at the time. Besides that I would say Poland.

[dogukan]

meeeh, Austria is ok as HRE

[Dr. Croccer]

Dutch, clearly.

[Phalanx300]

The Dutch Republic ofcourse!

[intel]

Btw Russia an Empire in 1500-1600s?!

[megaflus]

Ottoman Empire because they kicked the romans (bysantin) asses