[@Willy Vereb]

I'm sorry to report in but your claims on territorial size claims is off. Your claiming yourself to be four-times larger than you really are, roughly. The benefit of tossing in longitudinal lines is that they give me a spring board to work off of. The math roughly coming down to:

If the distance between 67 degrees north and 10 degrees north is 3929 miles, then breaking it down to eight handy square chunks of 241,081 miles square. Making a square that size, I could run comparisons of each constituent area, scaling things, and otherwise eyeballing it. The conclusion is that if we really need to open Pandorra's box of autism then the final result is roughly 441,981 miles square or 711,299.47 kilometers square. Recognizing of course landmasses that aren't totally square can always be a mess to calculate, I highly doubt in the end your total land area is 2,162,492 square kilometers. 

Per total population density to run that loose comparison, you're only slightly less dense than 14th century England, which is odd given how far north you are, and the sort of land that is that far north. You would be well within an area comparable to the Taiga Belt ([url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Distribution_Taiga.png]Comparable in weather and soil condition to the green[/url]). And soil in the taiga isn't really that richest thing in the world, which leads me to being cynical over the stated population density on the revised total area and makes me ask: no matter what is your history, how does an Empire even form from a region where people would be subsisting by the very tips of their fingers? You're probably not going to be feeding a large population to be used to subdue other distant peoples from the north-western squiggle island.

Then there is to also add: I said sometime back that I want people signing up after the old interest check was left to drown to come in as smaller states. Something as spread out may not work.