149 replies to this topic

[sindeee]

Here are my top 10:


1) Western Zhou
2) Achamenid Persia
3) Mauryan Empire
4) Western Han
5) Tang Empire
6) Mongol/Yuan Empire
7) Ming Empire
8) Qing Empire
9) British Empire
10) United States


Now this list might appear alittle Sino-Centric, but I believe the criteria which I used for my list is the most objective method which was possible without resorting to subjective interpretations. I used population and GDP share of the world, which although not exhaustive, is the only objective criteria that could be found. All of the polities which I listed above have at least 1/5-1/3 of the world's population and/or GDP and usually serves at the world's primary economic gravity. In addition to that, the state must also be indisputably the strongest on earth at the time, with a powerful army(usually the largest in terms of budget and most efficient) because of this I did not include states such as Roman Empire, Eastern Han, Song dynasty, Mughal Empire, Ottoman Empire, Spanish Empire, German Reichs, or the Soviet Union where there are other states which could give them a run for first place. My criteria also require the state to last at least close to a century, so I did not include short regimes like the Macedonian Empire, Qin, and Sui Empires.

Edited by sindeee, 16 June 2010 - 01:30 PM.

[Intranetusa]

Around 8th-7th century BCE and earlier, I would say that either the Western Zhou or the Neo-Assyrian Empire were the two most powerful states. Go earlier than that and it's the Assyrians, Egyptians, etc

Agree with Achamenid Persia.

For the 4th to 3rd century BCE I would say the Mauryan Empire is tied with the Seleucids, Ptlomies, and Western Han. Actually, the Seleucids were probably the most powerful at the time.

1st century BCE - Western Han is tied with the Roman Republic. Eastern Han is tied with the Roman Empire.

I agree with the Tang, Ming, and Yuan. The Byzantines were the greatest power in the western half of Eurasia, but probably not nearly as strong as the Tang or Song. Maybe Qing for an early few hundred years or so - the Qing went on a steep decline and were quickly eclipsed for the 18th to 20th century.

British Empire and the US makes sense.


Interesting list.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

For the 4th to 3rd century BCE I would say the Mauryan Empire is tied with the Seleucids, Ptlomies, and Western Han. Actually, the Seleucids were probably the most powerful at the time.

The Seleucid Empire's total population is only around 12 million for the most part, and is far inferior to the Mauryan Empire, which had close to 30 million people. The Mauryan Empire could also mobilize much larger armies than the Seleucid; whereas the former often mobilized armies in the hundreds of thousands, the later rarely mobilized armies larger than 50,000.
The Seleucid is also structurally weak, as can be seen at the ease at which the Roman republic, a much smaller polity at the time, defeated them in 190 BC and permanently displacing their power after one battle. The Roman Republic had better conscription policis and had more centralized authority. Seen as how poorly the Seleucid faired against the Roman Republic, its hard to imagine them doing any better against Warring states polities, even smaller ones such as the Yan and Han, which practiced universal conscription and had a bureaucracy even more cenralized than the Roman Republic.

1st century BCE - Western Han is tied with the Roman Republic.

The Roman Republic for the most part, had less than 1/2 the territory or population of the Western Han, and had a smaller budget and army. Its also far less centralized than the Western Han.

I agree with the Tang, Ming, and Yuan. The Byzantines were the greatest power in the western half of Eurasia, but probably not nearly as strong as the Tang or Song. Maybe Qing for an early few hundred years or so - the Qing went on a steep decline and were quickly eclipsed for the 18th to 20th century.

The Islamic empire was the greatest power of the Western half of Eurasia from the 7th century on, not the Byzantine empire.


Also, while the notion that states with greater population and GDP has their merits, it only serves as a tool, and not a direct gauge of a state's power(state budgets might actually be a better indication of power than gross GDP or population size since it also indicates the government's ability to utilize these resources and tools). Many nomadic empires are defficient in these areas, but to exclude them from the list is to unnecessarily use a sedentary centric model to explain power.

Lastly, lists like this are almost as problematic as lists such as "the top ten generals in the world." While GDP and population gauges might sound objective, they are still two of the many tools that gauges power, others being the degree of centralization of government, important resources, geo-strategic preponderance, and more, which all factors into power and are not possible to be measured quantitatively.

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 04 August 2010 - 10:35 PM.

[TiYiJian]

Actually from 1 to 4, i'd put the Xiongnu Empire as the most powerful at those time, no other state could compete with it.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

The Xiongnu might have had a strategic edge in its relationship to the Han in the first 5 decades of their existence, but it is in no way a unipolar power in the East Asian international relations of the period.

[William O'Chee]

On the criteria used, may I suggest there may be some omissions? For example, the wealth and controlled populations of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires would certainly qualify for inclusion.

Where, also, does the Mughal Empire rate?

Also, what of the Holy Roman Empire in the West after 800AD and up until perhaps 1400AD? It was not a single country, but fits the term polity, as the Emperor was able to exercise considerable military, political, end even religious influence, as demonstrated by Sigismund at the Council of Constance.

I would also suggest that there are other factors that need to be considered. What of the contribution of these empires to law and politics? Or longevity too. Perhaps some thought should be given to the importance of the Byzantine Empire in this regard. Lasting from the 4th century to the 16th century it was perhaps one of history's longest lasting empires.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

On the criteria used, may I suggest there may be some omissions? For example, the wealth and controlled populations of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires would certainly qualify for inclusion.

While the Spanish empire was truly the first empire where the sun never set, the population under its control was not all that significant. Spain's population in the late 16th century was only around 8 million, which is only a slightly above medium sized state even by European standards. Thanks to the disease it brought to the new world, the population in Spanish America has declined from a possible high figure of above 30 million to a low figure of barely 8 million by the early 17th century. ("La catastrophe démographique" (The Demographical Catastrophe"), L'Histoire n322, July-August 2007, p. 17)

In addition to a few other colonies abroad, namely the Philipines, the population of the entire Spanish empire in 1600 was probably less than 20 million. Even after it briefly occupied Portugal in the late 16th century, the total population of the Empire was probably just above that of France and the Ottoman Empire and about equal to those of contemporary Japan and far below those of Ming China and the Mughal empire.


Spain's standing army was the biggest in Europe(with the exception of the Ottoman Empire's 120,000 sized standing army), but it only numbered around 60,000-70,000, and occasionally up to 80,000 at its maximum. European armies of the time were all equipped with matchlocks and cannons like culverin, falconet and mortars. These equipments were on the whole the same in design throughout much of Eurasia. Numbers, discipline, tactics, mobility, and experience were more important than equipments throughout Eurasia during this time. In terms of military power, Philip II's standing army were dwarfed by those of Wangli's Ming army(with 900,000 standing force, of which 300,000 are still battle efficient), Hideoshi's Japan (with over 300,000 army when adding up all the Daimyo's forces), Akbar's Mughal state(a force several hundred thousand large which grew to 900,000 by Aurangzeg's time) and to a lesser extent, by the Ottoman empire.

The Spanish Navy might have had an edge over most other European states but its numbers are not all that significant either, and were quickly outpaced by the Dutch, French and English. Compared to Asian navies, while European navies had a greater projection power and more durable ships, the number of ships they had were simply outclassed by the major Asian powers. Not to mention, 16th century warfare in most instances are still decided more by the army than the navy.

Where, also, does the Mughal Empire rate?

The Mughal empire was at its strongest under the reign of Aurangzeg in the late 17th century, it had a population of around 140 million and a standing army of around 900,000, equal in scope to the Qing empire under Kangxi and higher than contemporary France and Russia under Louis XIV and Peter the Great. Although the Mughal empire is far less stable or centralized than the other three polities and unlike the later three, much of Mughal military establishments were unprofessional soldiers.

Also, what of the Holy Roman Empire in the West after 800AD and up until perhaps 1400AD? It was not a single country, but fits the term polity, as the Emperor was able to exercise considerable military, political, end even religious influence, as demonstrated by Sigismund at the Council of Constance.

Compared to other states that were around in the world during that time, such as the Song, Jin, Mongols, Delhi Sultanate, and Seljuks, it was not at all large or populous.

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 28 August 2010 - 06:22 AM.

[TiYiJian]

It's interesting to note that the Chinese Dynasties had always been the most powerful, most populous (other times being the Indian ones), the wealthiest and for most times even the most advanced in the world. Just until the rise of the British Empire in the last 2 centuries, China was unrivaled under heaven.

[mariusj]

It's interesting to note that the Chinese Dynasties had always been the most powerful, most populous (other times being the Indian ones), the wealthiest and for most times even the most advanced in the world. Just until the rise of the British Empire in the last 2 centuries, China was unrivaled under heaven.

Pretty sure it was not unrivaled at all time prior to the British Empire.

Been most powerful, most populous, wealthiest, and most advanced doesn't not suggest projection of these power and wealth. Very few entities in human history was unrivaled. I believe at certain point of Han and Tang, in a span of years, they were unrivaled. For a few decades, the mongols were probably unrivaled. For many decades, the British Empire was unrivaled. For a decade or so, US was unrivaled, perhaps.

[Tibet Libre]

Power is not an absolute, but a relative thing: You are only as powerful as the counter-pressure of your neighbours and rival allow you to be, hence the most objective criteria of a powerful polity is the power of your rivals and how you fare against it.

Military: In this respect, I wouldn't place any Chinese dynasty even among the top twenty: for almost the larger part of the 2nd millennium AD, China was partly or fully occupied by foreign powers. And India, the other giant with feet of clay, was almost habitually overrun from Muslim intruders from its north-west.

Economy: In terms of wealth, both had a GDP per capita not more than average in Asia, and below the European one most of the time.

Cultural appeal: While Buddhism was a world force, Confucian culture was unconvincing in that only people of lesser cultural standing adopted it.

It is clear that the most powerful forces in history all came from West Eurasia which traditionally had politically more dynamic, structurally more compact and militarily more resilient polities.

[mohistManiac]

Power is not an absolute, but a relative thing: You are only as powerful as the counter-pressure of your neighbours and rival allow you to be, hence the most objective criteria of a powerful polity is the power of your rivals and how you fare against it.

Military: In this respect, I wouldn't place any Chinese dynasty even among the top twenty: for almost the larger part of the 2nd millennium AD, China was partly or fully occupied by foreign powers. And India, the other giant with feet of clay, was almost habitually overrun from Muslim intruders from its north-west.

Economy: In terms of wealth, both had a GDP per capita not more than average in Asia, and below the European one most of the time.

Cultural appeal: While Buddhism was a world force, Confucian culture was unconvincing in that only people of lesser cultural standing adopted it.

It is clear that the most powerful forces in history all came from West Eurasia which traditionally had politically more dynamic, structurally more compact and militarily more resilient polities.

That is your air of bravado speaking for you. Historically China never had any rivals until the state sponsored capitalism in the west picked up starting with the exploration of the Portugal traders heavy involvement with trade directly in the area and they soon detached themselves from the overall perspective of the western front colonialism which saw China as the prize market terminus to be won over. These state sponsored capitalist programs ended fighting against each other and never got a foothold in China's economy until the British decided to capitalize on opium trade in which soon after the European powers along with Japan collectively sought after chunks of land in China. This would only entail the period of time in the later half of the Qing up until its end in the 19teens when China became progressively weaker in a downward spiral of collapse and doesn't account for the periods in earlier times when Chinese dominance in all those categories you spoken of played a major role in the story of human development. I can easily assert a different set of categories which more closely reflects the pattern of development worldwide all of which seemed to be dominated by the Chinese sphere of influence at one time or another.

Horizontal complexity and hierarchical stratification of basic civilization: China beginning in the Spring and Autumn period saw intellectual growth in seeking how to stabilize its increasingly complex society with the hundred schools of thought which the west hadn't forged until Plato's time with his Stoic scholasticism. Machiavelli's art of war was realized 2 millennium after Sun Tzu's doctrines.

Demand for utilitarian megaprojects: The Qin dynasty united China standardized writing, roads, weights and measures, and created a central bureaucracy which forecast the ever growing consumer market of its citizenry and its demand for more frictionless capitalistic developments. China was also integrated through a series of canals and though it may not have been the first to accomplish this technology its sheer inundation with utilitarian projects such as the number of canals and bridges throughout its historical development meant that its territory became proficiently viable for internal trade. Compare this to the Roman engineering feat of making aqueducts to transport water for the purposes of bathing used by less than 10 percent of the total population and you could account that at this time the Roman economy was a stillbirth scenario than when compared to the Chinese situation.

Cultural identity: Chinese intellectual and literary development, systems of bureaucracy and trade, market economy and agriculture, settlement patterns and even the sense of its grand styles of architecture became exhibited by various nations of periphery by virtue of prolonged contact without ever chasing after causes for religious conversion nor genocide while the western front of the world after the Roman empire disintegrated into their own lifestyle preferences and developments ever so losing touch with the grand perspective of earlier Hellenistic achievements.

Industrial prowess: Evidenced by the great fleet of admiral Zheng He whereby earlier technological developments culminated in the construction of sea faring vessels which overwhelmed their great European counterparts by the sheer comparison of size and features and as well by their speed and quality of construction. Note that other while other Chinese productions required less in terms of the sciences and technology such as the production of its silk, tea, ceramics, etc these products dominated the land based and maritime silk trade routes largely draining the monetary supply of the world trade system in a positive trade net balance for China.

[Tibet Libre]

Take a historical world map of high cultures and Western Eurasia is where the dots are clustered while there is only one blinking the Far East. What enemies did China have? Actually, it profited from a uniquely favourable geostrategical position which made it unassailable from three sides: In the south, its opponents were mostly only hill tribes barely into the bronze and iron age, in the west it was protected by the almost uninhabited Himalaya plateau of Tibet, and in the east for millennia no naval threat was produced at all by the Pacific rim islands which could have hurt China's soft maritime underbelly.

Leaves the north where the only enemies of note, the nomads were traditionally outnumbered by 50 to 100 to 1 by the Chinese; still they were their equals on the battlefields until the mid-18th century and even made China the last sedentary empire to be overrun from horseback. All what China needed to do was to concentrate its ressources on the northern frontier, and while it projected at times its power very far into Central Asia, it remained telling a naval pygmy which did not even manage to jump the Taiwan straits for the longest time.

The inescapable conclusion is that China was the one-eyed king among the blind, shielded from the most potent Eurasian military powers by its uniquely isolated geography, and never forced to face a two, let alone multiple front problem like all other empires (save the other perenneial military underperformer, India) had to.

[mohistManiac]

Take a historical world map of high cultures and Western Eurasia is where the dots are clustered while there is only one blinking the Far East. What enemies did China have? Actually, it profited from a uniquely favourable geostrategical position which made it unassailable from three sides: In the south, its opponents were mostly only hill tribes barely into the bronze and iron age, in the west it was protected by the almost uninhabited Himalaya plateau of Tibet, and in the east for millennia no naval threat was produced at all by the Pacific rim islands which could have hurt China's soft maritime underbelly.

Leaves the north where the only enemies of note, the nomads were traditionally outnumbered by 50 to 100 to 1 by the Chinese; still they were their equals on the battlefields until the mid-18th century and even made China the last sedentary empire to be overrun from horseback. All what China needed to do was to concentrate its ressources on the northern frontier, and while it projected at times its power very far into Central Asia, it remained telling a naval pygmy which did not even manage to jump the Taiwan straits for the longest time.

The inescapable conclusion is that China was the one-eyed king among the blind, shielded from the most potent Eurasian military powers by its uniquely isolated geography, and never forced to face a two, let alone multiple front problem like all other empires (save the other perenneial military underperformer, India) had to.

You are only leaving room for military prowess, characteristic of bravado, not even admitting the range of strategic diplomacy that becomes associated with it. China has always been on top of its vassalage game in earnestly trying to maintain peaceful relations so that it wouldn't have to take matters further. If we take your historical narrative to its natural conclusion we would be saying Hitler's regime reigned supreme because he was the sole figure mashing up successfully at first against all other great civilizations but defeated anyway. However as an even better example China during its psychotic revolutionary time was exerted against the pressure of numerous sides for prolonged periods of exploitation but still managed to exercise its territorial sovereignty with the exception of some peripheral land concessions on the basis of treaty and thus it reigned supreme in terms of diplomatic affairs. If China was a naval pygmy how in the world did it discover upon Japan and brought back record of the Wa state in the Han dynasty period? How did its forces manage to become informed of the status on Taiwan and to repel Dutch military command during the Qing dynasty? As for the inescapable conclusion metaphor what ought to be recognized was that China was a subtle garden spider who facing multiple inbound foreign organisms evolved into weaving a shiny attractive web and assimilated the incoming nutrition at the pleasure of regularly scheduled meals. The west was more like a water walking mosquito satisfied with sucking on much of everything and intent on laying eggs just about anywhere with no real plan. China faced internal and external threats simultaneously throughout its history. Consider what the Han dynasty had faced in trying to extend too much power to Korea and Vietnam and both entities fought back dramatically and paved the way for the Three Kingdoms period. Or during the Ming dynasty when there were internal rebellions but still managed to ward off the pirate infested coastline in simultaneous contention with a new Mongol threat. China was the easternly jewel perceived to be the luxurious and fertile trade terminus which ended up being connected to a bunch of other territories adding to its network of soft power projection/protection due to profit encountered through mutually beneficial trade.

Edited by mohistManiac, 22 September 2010 - 10:09 AM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Military: In this respect, I wouldn't place any Chinese dynasty even among the top twenty: for almost the larger part of the 2nd millennium AD, China was partly or fully occupied by foreign powers. And India, the other giant with feet of clay, was almost habitually overrun from Muslim intruders from its north-west.

Military power is measured by the fighting capability of the military establishment and the ability that a state could mobilize its population for war, not on the racial or national origin of the regime in question. China probably had the biggest military budget of any contemporary state throughout most of the last two and a half mellenium due to its large population resource. Its not surprising therefore, that it also had the largest standing army in the world most of the time. In addition to that, China's tight regional bureaucracy system below the provincial level and its large conscription system allowed the government to better utilize its population for war than all other large sedentary states.


Also, getting overran is not the equivalent of being ruled by a foreign country from a foreign region. China only got overran a few times in history, but these rulers established regimes within China that lasted decades to centuries after that, despite their assimilation for the most part. By your standard, most major states has been overran and ruled by rulers of foreign origin in the past mellenium. Persia, India, Britain, Russia, Germany to just name a few. Furthermore, China as a polity had more than three thousands years of history, and is not just restricted to the short 2nd mellenium.

Economy: In terms of wealth, both had a GDP per capita not more than average in Asia, and below the European one most of the time.

No. The general view among economic historians, both mainstream and revisionists is that GDP per capita in China probably led Europe(and probably all other regions of comparable size and population) from Tang to the Yuan and more or less on a par with Europe during the Ming. Furthermore GDP per capita is not an indicator of economic power since as stated countless times already, people across Eurasia were all barely above subsistence and had roughly comparable living standards, therefore total GDP is a much more important measure of economic strength, and due to the sheer size of China's population, it is indeed the major economic force for most of the past 3 mellenium, so long as its half united.

Cultural appeal: While Buddhism was a world force, Confucian culture was unconvincing in that only people of lesser cultural standing adopted it.

Cultural appeal is the weakest link among the indicators of power. But even here, the population of states outside of China which adopted Confucianism as its ideology was anything but insignificant.

Leaves the north where the only enemies of note, the nomads were traditionally outnumbered by 50 to 100 to 1 by the Chinese; still they were their equals on the battlefields until the mid-18th century and even made China the last sedentary empire to be overrun from horseback. All what China needed to do was to concentrate its ressources on the northern frontier, and while it projected at times its power very far into Central Asia, it remained telling a naval pygmy which did not even manage to jump the Taiwan straits for the longest time.

Equality is relative just like power, you don't seem to fully grasp this concept despite stating it in the opening line of your post. The nomads played a different military game than China, and hence the difficulty in subduing them. If you consider a state which refused to submit to Chinese authority as its equal, then you got a load of example from other sedentary states as well; by using this standard the Scythians were also the Persian and Alexander the Great's equal as are the Alani to the Romans. In fact the small Crimean Khanate was also Russia's equal in the 17th century and the Zungars were also Russia's equal in the 18th century, and even successfully raided and occupied Russian forts.

still they were their equals on the battlefields until the mid-18th century and even made China the last sedentary empire to be overrun from horseback.

The Manchus who overran China also happen to have the largest cannon corps in the world. Did you really naively thought that cavalry was the only reason they were able to overwhelm the other contenders?

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 11 October 2010 - 11:22 PM.

[Tibet Libre]

...and assimilated the incoming nutrition at the pleasure of regularly scheduled meals.

A rather unappetizing metaphor, but allow me to follow it up because you touched exactly one of my points: The nomadic invaders, your "incoming nutrition", who became over the centuries rather more than less successful in penetrating and occupying Chinese territory, could be comparatively easily assimilated by the Han culture because
1. they were hopelessly inferior in number (ultimately due to the constraints of their habitat, the steppe)
2. once they entered as conquerors the agricultural Chinese lands, they had to change their lifestyle from nomadic to sedentary modes of living. And there was no model but the Chinese.
3. they generally did not worship a different religion which would have set them permanently apart as a distinct ethnicity from the Confucian-Buddhist mainstream

These three reasons meant that even when the nomads won the war, they were bound to lose the peace since they were forced to assimilate into the sea of Han Chinese. This is what distinguishes China from the Indian experience where each successful invader left a permanent cultural and religious legacy in the country increasing cumulatively its disunity and hampering imperial attempts at reunification.

Edited by Tibet Libre, 22 September 2010 - 01:37 PM.