Funny thing about English... sometimes a correct definition isn't really the correct term. Take, for example, Black's Law Dictionary. This is the definitive tool for how words are used in a court of Law in the US. Many terms that have more than one meaning only have one very specific meaning in the courtroom and is defined in this text. We really should push to fix this as it just makes English harder to understand.
Ok, I'll step off my soapbox now.

Ysh wrote:MagicManICT wrote:It doesn't necessarily need to be taken by force.
Other people in thread are disagree to this one it seem. Who is correct?
When I posted that, I was referring more to military might, but as GK pointed out, yeah, economic, cultural, and other forms can be just as effective at merging two different groups together into a single state or even an empire. In some cases, yeah, I suppose you could wield economic might to bankrupt a country and effectively take it over. We're just used to seeing military conquest as the form of imperial expansion, be it forming the empire by conquering or ceding territories because of aggression put down (Puerto Rico via Spanish-American War if I recall right).
dageir wrote:I do not think there is a formal definition of "empire".
For instance the "Holy" "Roman" "Empire" was neither holy, Roman or and empire, but was
by name.
Well, it was given this name because it was given the power, albeit shortly, to elect the popes so they'd have political power over the Roman Empire, who at that point had as much political power as the Caesars. They were an Empire as they had an elected Emperor voted for by the member nation's monarchy if I recall right.
The wikipedia states: [....]
What about Russia today? Is she an empire or a country? Is there a British empire today? Is the USA an empire?
There is no clear cut definition of empire. The word is used in propaganda either to project greatness or hostility.
Lots of people call Russia and US imperial expansionists. I don't disagree. The US controls about a dozen territories that could legally become states but either are blocked by congress or choose not to (namely Puerto Rico). The US more or less economical controls a large part of the western hemisphere (and for the most part, is the only reason China is an economic power... along with Western Europe, too). I shouldn't fail to mention that the US has gained all their land via conquest over indigent peoples and other nations--not counting that which was already colonized by the British, French, and Dutch.
Oh, and there's a good one for "economic" conquest... the Louisiana Purchase. France (Napoleon) sold it to the US to raise war funds.
I think there comes a point where a conquered people become a part of the conquering state culturally and economically. Does anyone outside of Germany think of the member kingdoms anymore as different cultures? What about the UK? Spain?
Opinions expressed in this statement are the authors alone and in no way reflect on the game development values of the actual developers.