Russian Empire should be in top5, 1721 - 1917.
1) Great Northern War. 1700-1721
2) Russian-Turkish war, 1877-1878
3) Defeat of Napoleon.
4) WW1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...Russian_Empire

And what about Soviet Union? It should be counted as empire, and most powerful of modern era.

The Soviet Union was arguably the worst empire of the great empires.

I actually agree with most of the above post. That said I think their is a huge difference between a great empire and a superpower. The Han Chinese would not make either list as a great empire or superpower. China has great culture and is certainly a regional power for many centuries and almost all of known history but only the Mongols run showed a capability beyond their region.

The US certainly has the capability to impose it's will on any other country it chooses, but as we both posted dose not have sufficient willpower to do so. But that is a good thing. Forcing compliance on other territories is a costly business, especially with a moral code unwilling to plunder or enslave. We do live in a better world then the past.

Empire that industrialize Russian and near countries, won WW2, first(!) traveled to the space, was superpower for 80x years, for you is 'worst empire' ?
You know what you are talking about, right?

So I said it was the worst of the great empires, which means it's greater than all of the not great empires, which means I didn't say it was the 'worst empire'; unless you think that empires are by definition great, so that the worst of the great just means the worst to you.

My main motivation for saying it's the worst of the great empires is because it collapsed economically and politically so quickly (I spent summers in Belarus as a kid from 85-94, and the changes that happened by 93 were remarkable; many many more goods in the stores for example); that and it had massive self-esteem issues, like having parades with giant rockets that couldn't actually launch.

While the Soviets unquestionably made the greatest sacrifice in WW2, greatness of sacrifice isn't greatness. They started winning after the Germans slaughtered like 15% of their civilians.

I hope you know what are you talking about.
All this ''sacrifice'' of civilians was not planed as sacrifice! It was just slaughtering!
And you are not right about 15% of civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_W...e_Soviet_Union
So it's about 13% of Soviet population died in that war, about 10% of population from German side ( only germans, without allies )
Military loses:
USSR - 8.8kk
Germans - 5.2kk

All great empires collapsed because of economy, in USSR they could manage economy because of collosal resources numbers, but, pro-american government (Gorbachev, Yeltsin) destroyed everything. Thats why they gave to Gorbachev noble prize, and he lives in Swithzerland now.

I said 'like 15%', which is a guesstimate (as indicated by the word 'like'), and an adequate guesstimate for the idea that the Soviets suffered dramatic losses; whether their performance on the eastern front is indicative of a 'great empire' seems like a judgment call to me -- I don't think that enduring and eventually winning battles of attrition necessarily makes one 'great'.

I don't want to argue ideology. For good or ill, it seems to me that the collapse of the USSR was very fast, which suggests that whatever was holding it together wasn't that strong. If I think of other great empires (Romans, Greeks, British), when they fell or declined a lot of their institutions endured for a long time. I don't see many Soviet institutions enduring in the same way, but maybe you have good examples that show otherwise.

Young Napoleon was a capable military mind but i think he is clearly overrated by many compared to much more capable military minds in history.

The Romans produced at least 10 military minds alone arguably ahead of Napoleon.

Sulla
Cesar
Scipio
Pompey
Agrippa
Marius
Lucius
Constantine
Augustus
Flavius Belisarius - Actually not a Roman but a Byzantine general.

Why is he overrated?

Take out Augustus for sure. A lot of the other guys owe a large chunk of their reputations to defeating lesser opponents, or at least, non-imperial opponents (tribes, clans, lesser kingdoms). Only Marius compares to Napoleon on reforming the structure of the army, and that shouldn't be overlooked. At first glance, I'm not sure Napoleon takes a second seat to anybody on this list, but I'm open to be persuaded otherwise.

That said, everybody on that list terrifies me. I'd be most scared to be the enemy of Sulla I think.

Don't be to quick......

Augustus' reign laid the foundations of a regime that lasted for nearly fifteen hundred years through the ultimate decline of the Western Roman Empire and until the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. Napoleon's reign lasted a few years, and two of the greatest military stumbles of all were both under Napoleon's command when he Invaded Russia and of course Waterloo.

Napoleon's career mirrored Julius Cesar. But, I would put Cesar well ahead of Napoleon for many reason's beyond the scope of this post, most notable that Cesar did not have losses like Napoleon did in Russia and Waterloo.

By the year 13, Augustus boasted 21 occasions where his troops proclaimed "imperator" as his title after a successful battle. By the end of his reign, the armies of Augustus had conquered northern Hispania (modern Spain and Portugal), the Alpine regions of Raetia and Noricum (modern Switzerland, Bavaria, Austria, Slovenia), Illyricum and Pannonia (modern Albania, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia, etc.), and extended the borders of the Africa Province to the east and south.

He had his losses. A prime example of Roman loss in battle was the Battle of Teutoburg Forest in AD 9, where three entire legions led by Publius Quinctilius Varus were destroyed with few survivors by Arminius, leader of the Cherusci, an apparent Roman ally. Augustus did not lead this battle and Varus was clearly the blundering general. Augustus retaliated by dispatching Tiberius and Drusus to the Rhineland to pacify it, which had some success although the battle of AD 9 brought the end to Roman expansion into Germany.

I think Augustus's legacy was not his innovation as a military leader but his talents as a military leader of empire. The reign of Augustus initiated an era of relative peace known as the Pax Romana (The Roman Peace). Despite continuous wars or imperial expansion on the Empire's frontiers and one year-long civil war over the imperial succession, the Mediterranean world remained at peace for more than two centuries.

Augustus dramatically enlarged the Empire, annexing Egypt, Dalmatia, Pannonia, Noricum, and Raetia, expanded possessions in Africa, expanded into Germania, and completed the conquest of Hispania. Beyond the frontiers, he secured the Empire with a buffer region of client states, and made peace with the Parthian Empire through diplomacy. He reformed the Roman system of taxation, developed networks of roads with an official courier system, established a standing army, established the Praetorian Guard, created official police and fire-fighting services for Rome, and rebuild much of the City during his reign.