1. your country

post the real version

Attached: imperio esp.png (1348x635, 202.6K)

>Not Hasburger European territory
>Not Napoles kingdom
>Not Portugal under Felipe II
One job

monarchical personal unions don't count

That wasn't Spanish territory, its just that the King of Spain was also the King of that.

>Lose California and surroundings to USA
>They discover tons of gold there two weeks later

Attached: francebig.png (2753x1538, 419.67K)

Mexico couldn't even defend the area from Indian attacks, that's why they invited Anglo settlers to Texas.

Since when are the Habsburger Spanish? They just happened to be your kings and also that of other places.

This really annoys me for some reason.

Attached: 1584883093372.png (1200x1356, 575.03K)

I know they didn't control the area, but it was formally theirs.

>monarchical personal unions don't count

jealous germ man

Attached: 1584879225701.png (785x731, 286.26K)

brazil is currently at it's biggest

Attached: Brazil_states.gif (370x330, 28.07K)

For integral territory, when Hawaii became a state to right now.
Including overseas, right before we lost the Philippines.

I was born in that salient reaching into Swiss territory

they don't tho, monarchs viewed the states as their personal property, it wasn't a national unification of states
and fuck off with your cringeposting pls, this is a nice thread so far

The larger one is the Swiss Kanton Schaffhausen, note our exclave Büsingen am Hochrhein. It's a bit stupid, but these borders are pretty old.

Is it comfy ?

If the monarch is all that matters than really it was German territory since that's what the Habsburgs were.

Why didn't you conquer it for Baden-Wuttenberg?

Cope, you just want to feel good because of the power a German family had.

we only lived there until I was five but from what I remember yes
Sw*ss everywhere man, I slaughtered them left and right
there was just too many of them

seeth

Not comparable to spain or relevant countries, but pretty glorious nonetheless, in all actuality

Attached: 402px-Swedish_Empire_Map.svg.png (402x539, 95.76K)

imo colonial empires are worthless
what matters is connected land territory, and if it's in Europe it's automatically 10x worth more
so Sweden isn't bad at all

>his country didn't develop its imperial gains into being a primary part of his country

Attached: usa expansion.jpg (865x640, 123.98K)

Yeah but it's Finland
Imagine what could have been, if it played out otherwise and we didn't fight each other
Greenland, Iceland, Nordics, Baltics..

Attached: Kalmarunionen.png (540x238, 70.36K)

the US was on easy mode tho since the land wasn't densely populated, developed, let alone defended yet

Pretty modest compared to the other empires posted here, but i'm happy.

Attached: Structure_of_the_First_Bulgarian_Empire_during_the_IX-X_century.png (1988x1752, 829.72K)

over all pretty cringe, because we got cucked over by the minorities

Attached: Lithuanian_state_in_13-15th_centuries.png (1010x1411, 874.64K)

I suppose the same with Australia and Russia, but the difference is our land was actually valuable while theirs is desert/frozen wasteland.

It was beautiful.

Attached: 1265 Norge.jpg (505x419, 21.03K)

When does "internationally recognized" start? Does the HRE count? Frankish Empire would be too early if you ask me.

based historylet retard.

So far we have the largest

Attached: 1559400219875.jpg (600x536, 80.54K)

Internationally=all the countries relevant for you. No point on counting some irrelevant tribe or some far away chinese.

Britain is French

Attached: 1582573407327.png (192x43, 1.21K)

okay Ivan

Based retard

You're the retard Pepito

very nice
impressive
let's see great britain's map

Attached: 1518769433346.png (465x335, 298.15K)

the spanish empire is more impressive. besides england is norman SPOIL OF WAR

How's your Empire doing today, Norfbert?

There was no king of Spain. Being "also the king of that" is how Spain existed during the Habsburgs.

>inb4 Rome is not Italy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Italy
>The consolidation of Italy into a single entity occurred during the Roman expansion in the peninsula.
>The strength of the Italian confederacy was a crucial factor in the rise of Rome
>As provinces were being established throughout the Mediterranean, Italy maintained a special status which made it "not a province, but the Domina (ruler) of the provinces"
>Italy's inhabitants had Latin Rights as well as religious and financial privileges.

Attached: trajan the GOAT.png (1280x778, 355.12K)

Attached: Brasil_-_Evolucion_territòriala.png (1013x1006, 379.03K)

Italy certainly has the best claim to the Roman legacy out of any modern country but it's still autistic to claim direct descendancy, since there's not stately continuance that can be traced back there
modern Italy can be traced back to Savoy/Sardinia, like modern Germany can be traced back to Brandenburg/Prussia

Then the kingdoms of Aragon, Leon, Navarra and more shouldn't count either as they were in a personal union with the Castilian king despite being separate entities.

Attached: nagy_lajos-1360-1280px.jpg (1265x1280, 725.96K)

Charlemagne's empire was bigger

Germany started in 843 if you ask me. But yeah, Karl der Große is based. Aachen for world capital by the way.

Charlemagne's empire was neither German nor French nor Dutch yet
and Germany can be traced back to 843, yes, but the current German state cannot, it can be traced back to 1871, arguably 1867.

I know, but German culture and history started earlier. Most historians agree Germany developed over a long span of time and the partition of the Frankish Empire among Lothar, Charles the Bald and Ludwig the German is a good starting point. There is no correct answer to "When did Germany start?"

no shit, but this is about states

:)

Attached: Belgian_colonial_empire.png (1425x625, 48.36K)