Most powerful empires of each century

Mar 2019
Completely subjective, but:

5th- Eastern Roman Empire, runner up: Sassanid Empire
6th- Sassanid Empire, runner up: Eastern Roman Empire
7th- Tang Dynasty China, runner up: The Caliphate
8th- Tang Dynasty China, rupper up: Abbasid Caliphate
9th- Eastern Roman Empire, runner up: no idea
10th- Fatimid Caliphate, runner up: Eastern Roman Empire
11th- Seljuk Empire, runner up: Song Dynasty China
12th- Ayyubid Egypt, runner up: Song Dynasty China
13th- Mongol Empire, runner up: Mamluk Sultanate
14th- Yuan Dynasty China, runner up: Timurid Empire
15th- Ottoman Empire, runner up: Ming Dynasty China
Tang is way more powerful than the Abbasid, in economy and military(numbers and equipment), you might get the Idea from China having a rival with Tibet, but you probably didn't realise that Chinese armies frequently defeated more numerous Tibetan armies. For a example, the first invasion by Tibet, 200,000 men, got their asses wiped when a border administor took 10,000 border guards + 40,000 rallied peasants armed with whatever weapon found in the local arsenal(he didn't even bother to drill them) and this 50,000 men sneaked up the Tibetan camp at night(50,000 men with torches too, camp guards were asleep for some reason), and surprised the Tibetans and killed half the Tibetan force, the Tibetans then fled China, from border guards and armed peasants. the Final invasion where they took the Chinese capital for two months was 400,000 men, then the emperor returned from his campaign in the north, and led a charge of 50,000 heavy cavalry, simply broke through the center and slayed a general, the Tibetians than ran away while getting stabbed by the pursuing imperial guards, the fields became very fertile the next year.
The Eastern Roman empire is nowhere as strong as the Liao dynasty(Mongol emporer in Northern China, also Khan of Mongolia at the same time) in the 9th Dynasty, again, Economy and military.
The Selijuk and the Ayyuibids are nowhere as strong as Song or Jin empire in China, again, in economy and military, for example, the Jin and Song had very heavy armour for their troops and they both frequently fielded way more men than the Selikuk and Ayyuibids due to lack of Iron ores in the middle east and north Africa, also their economy is soo lacking compared to those two empires.
the Mamluks are nowhere capable of comparing to the Mongolians, the Mamluks defeated a very small contingent of the Mongolian empire, the invasion force they sent to the Song dynasty was 900,000 men, I would very much like to see how long they will last against that, also the Mamluks didn't really have much
The Timurids are nowhere as strong as the Yuan empire, in economy and military.
The Ottoman empire is nowhere as powerful as the Ming, in military and economy, the Ming sent 300,000 men on ships and send them on a merry little adventure without the average Chinese peasant feeling a thing, the Ming had over one million standing men and on average, Chinese troops also had better equipment. How many can the Ottomans bring to bare? Their only advantage is that they have very big cannons, that they had to abandon in different campaigns because it sunk in the mud, and was insanely inaccurate. Their population just can't compare. They lost so many battles in Europe against much smaller states, and for some reason, they love sending elite troops against walled defenses or command them to mine the enemy walls, which often concluded in them blowing up the wall and themselves, burying themselves alive, instead of bring up more supplies and just starve them out like most people do, it's almost like they constantly try to deplete their elite troops, don't understand why. Like their first attack on Vienna, why did the Ottomans just kept on assaulting the walls? Or attempt to dig mines under the walls? They lost so many troops, all because Sultan wanted to eat breakfast in Vienna at a certain date, just bring up more supplies and the Austrians would starve to death, the rest of Europe did very little to confront the Ottomans anyways that time.
Mar 2019
4000 B.C. - Egypt
3000 B.C. - Egypt/Mesopotamia
2000 B.C.- Egypt/Mesopotamia/India
1000 B.C. - Egypt/Mesopotamia/India/China
1 A.D.- China/India
1000 A.D. - India/China
1500 A.D. China/ India
1600 A.D. - India/China
1700 A.D. - India/China
1800 A.D - China/ British Empire
1900 A.D. - British Empire/ USA
2000 A.D - USA
2100 A.D. - China/USA/India/EU

Source: Angus Maddison - Wikipedia
1000 A.D. - India/China
1500 A.D. China/ India
1600 A.D. - India/China
1700 A.D. - India/China
In those dates, India wasn't a unified nation, and where is Rome? Romans were more powerful than China at certain dates.
Mar 2019
In terms of military, administration, especially bureaucracy.

And of course, It is the longest continuous emire as well.
No, it isn't the longest continuous empire, Rome for example, lasted quite a bit longer, not even counting the Byzantines as a successor state.
It wasn't even the most powerful empire on the planet at it's peak, that would be Ming, which had 1 million men in a standing army, not like in the Ottoman empire where you need to raise most of your armies. More over, this one million men had standardized equipment, which again, no troop brought their own weapon, but was given weapons by the state, and in general, those men had better equipment than the Ottoman troops.
In economic? Ming was 30% of the entire world GDP at it's peak. In Bureaucracy? Effective rule for the first 200 years for the largest population in the world, failed later due to the "little ice age", I would say that is pretty good. More over, it chose the administrators through a test, you can be the nephew of the emperor, and yet no one will hand you any position until you passed that test.
Mar 2019
good topic. i want to share my assesment in this topic most power countries each century .

BC 20 = Egypt(12ndDynasty)
BC 19 = Egypt (13rdDynasty)
BC 18 = Assyrian(Old)
BC 17 = Babylon
BC 16 = Hittite
BC 15 = Egypt(New Kingdom)
BC 14 = Egypt(NewKingdom) , Hittite
BC 13 = Egypt(New Kingdom), Hittite
BC 12 = Egypt(New Kingdom), Assyrian(Middle)
BC 11 = Babylon, Tanis
BC 10 = Israel, Babylon
BC 9 = Assyrian(Neo), Urartu
BC 8 = Assyria(Neo), Urartu, Phrygians
BC 7 = Assyria(Neo), Egypt, Lydia
BC 6 = Persia(Achamenid), Carthage, Babylon
BC 5 = Persia(Achamenid), Carthage, Greek States
BC 4 = Persia(Achamenid), Macedonia and Alexander, Carthage
BC 3 = Seleucid, Maurya, Ptolemaic
BC 2 = Roman, Han, Hsiungnu, Part
BC 1 = Roman, Part, Han, Hsiungnu
1 = Roman, Han, Part, Kushan
2 = Roman, Han, Kushan, Hsiungnu
3 = Roman, Sasanian, Jin, Kushan
4 = Roman, Sasanian, Gupta, Jin
5 = E.Roman, Sasanian, W.Roman, Gupta, Juan Juan
6 = E.Roman, Sasanian, Hephtalite, Turkic(Göktürk), Avar
7 = Arab-Umayya, Tang, E.Roman, Avar, Tibetan
8 = Umayya-Abbasid, Tang, Byzantine, Frankish, Khazar
9 = Abbasid, Tang, Frankish-Francia, Byzantine, Gurjar
10 = Samanid, Fatimid, Khitan, Holy Roman, Buyid
Buddy, Kushan isn't ever comparable to Roman, Han and Sassanian empires.
Tibetan lost every war they had with Tang, like the first Tibetan invasion of Tang, where 50,000 border guards and armed Chinese peasants sneaked up to the Tibetan camp of 200,000 and won, lol, the Avars are too small and too limited in numbers, don't think they had much of a economy, where is the Uyghur khangnate?
AND FRANCIA?????????????? How are they even comparable to Tang, Byztanine and Abbasids? The Abbasids led a relatively small contingent into France, If they actually brought their main force in to France(which historically wasn't possible because it leaves their borders defenseless.), the French army might suffer from mass desertion due to the seeing the largest army in Europe ever since the days of Rome.
And Holy Roman empire isn't really a country, don't think they can compare to Samanid, Fatimad and Khitan, even if they were a robust political entity, don't know much about Buyid.
Mar 2019
The Ottoman Empire was never the biggest empire in the world either in land or population in any century. In the 16th it had less lands than the Spanish and Ming Empire and in the 17th century, Russia, the Qing and the Spanish were all bigger.
true, Turks should be content that they once held the entire continent of Europe in terror.
Mar 2019
I want to say the Gupta was at the height during this period.
Justinian and his conquests brought the eastern roman empire to its initial height, at least to foreign observers. Though the empire new found land was filled with rebellion and invasion such as the mauri against the exarch of africa, the lombards invasion of italia, slavic invasion of greece, or the visigoth war for their spanish lands back from rome.
As much as I want to say the Tang Dynasty. The Ummayads and then the abbasids made great conquests against old empires and redrew the map of the middle east, northern africa, iberia and central asia.
Charlemange and his western(holy) roman empire dominated europe. The Tang would be a close second up until their defeat at talas and the turmoil they had after this.
The Eastern Roman empire under the Macedonian dynasty were making great advances and retaking land for the empire. I think they got to their greatest extent during this period. even if to lose it all in less than a century and then have to request their enemies,the pope and his christian confederation, help against the Turks.
The Seljuk turks would own this period. They conquered central asia, persia, and syria and bands of independent turks ravaged the Eastern Roman Empire.
The song was using gunpowder and flamethrowers at this time. THey were a modern marvel for a civilization. Even if they lose half of their empire to the jurchens. I think they were better off than the various other empires of the time.
The Mongols, def the mongols.
Still the mongols.
Tumur was burning most of the middle east to the ground at this time and building his pyramids of skulls. I would give this century to him.
I will give this century to the ottomans. Even with the holy league united against them, they were making leaps and bounds.
the spanish conquered the incas and aztecs and were making use of almost limitless supply of gold bunion.
this period is hard to say. Many great empires. such as the qing, mughals, ottomans, and the colonial empires. I would probably give it to france as they won their world war in the war of spanish succession. And this was the period of King Loius the 14th, the sun god king.
The british and their glorious empire
while europe was beating itself into a pulp, USA rose to steal the spotlight. A once colony had used its vast resources to become a superpower.
We are yet to see who is going to be dominant in this century.
Tang fought the Goturks, Tibetians, Goguyages(Manchus) and the Korean states, when you put those three opponents together, it;s much stronger than the opponents of the Caliphate, due to population, economy and military,
Mar 2019
You're joking

In 1914 the British army (man-for-man) was the best in the world.

They were all professionals as opposed to German conscripts

Had they been ordered to, they would have fought the French rather than the Germans

Britain was never defeated in European wars

France, Russia and Germany all were

Britain can well claim to be the world's first superpower

Britain dominated the world
in 1914 Brits are better men for men, not later on.
And even if the Brits are better trained, the Germans had more and better heavy weapons, way more machine guns and way more heavy cannons, a conscript with a machine gun will still mow down hundreds of Brits, a German conscript cannon crew will still cause dozens of causalities each day.
Mar 2019
It does. In 16th century on a world scale. Ottomans and Mings were not on a world scale but also super powers of 16th century.
Ah, no, Brits were going around destroying way smaller armies than Ming and Ottomans were facing, the Ming empire once sailed around with 300,000 men, in Sir Lanka, 5000 marines disembarked and took over the local kingdom after the local king through it was a brilliant idea to shoot arrows at giant ships, with cannons on them..... He was later brought back to Beijing for a parade.
There as another Yemen King who became a tribute to the Ming, his position was usurped, and the Ming this time disembarked 2000 men, the King later returned to his throne.
The thing is the Brits had reasons to expand over seas, the reason why Chinese empires don't conquer much outside of China is best illustrated by the Ming, the court deemed it a waste of money, because China is so much richer compared to the places they seen, conquering Sir Lanka or Yemen for themselves, would cost more than the new lands can return. Each soldier dead is a waste of money on his training and equipment, and each soldier dead means Ming have to pay his family with land and coins. Where as British villages on another contient some how was seen as great prices by the British crown.
British has not much threats as they are a island, the Ming just have to put 200,000 men to man the great wall, as for the Ottomans, they are surrounded on all sides by enemies so sea ventures would be retarded.
Likes: macon

Similar History Discussions