Strongest empire/country relative to contemporaries

Which is the strongest relative to the rest of the world?

  • Roman Empire, 117 AD

    Votes: 16 14.4%
  • Ummayad Caliphate, 750 AD

    Votes: 10 9.0%
  • Song Dynasty of China, 1140 AD

    Votes: 2 1.8%
  • Mongol Empire, 1270 AD

    Votes: 31 27.9%
  • Ming Dynasty of China, 1400 AD

    Votes: 4 3.6%
  • Spanish Empire, 1600 AD

    Votes: 2 1.8%
  • Ottoman Empire, 1680 AD

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • British Empire, 1900 AD

    Votes: 12 10.8%
  • United States, 2018 AD

    Votes: 20 18.0%
  • Other (Please state)

    Votes: 14 12.6%

  • Total voters
    111
Comparing various wealthy and powerful empires across history, which empire is the strongest in comparison with contemporaries.

So we would compare an empire with it’s contemporary rivals, and the strongest empire vs the rest of the world.

This means the United States doesn’t take first place just because they have nukes.

I want to see which empire was the “strongest” vs the rest of the world at the time, and was closest to “world domination”

The strongest empire would presumably be unrivaled, but i’m pretty sure most of the countries I listed here have rivals.
 
Last edited:

Jasen777

Donor
U.S relative peak was 1945-1948, nuclear monopoly and around half (percentage debatable as well as measure selection) of the world's economic output.

As for the question, depends what you are going for.
 
Last edited:
Comparing various wealthy and powerful empires across history, which empire is the strongest in comparison with contemporaries.

So we would compare an empire with it’s contemporary rivals, and the strongest empire vs the rest of the world.

This means the United States doesn’t take first place just because they have nukes.

I want to see which empire was the “strongest” vs the rest of the world at the time, and was closest to “world domination”

The strongest empire would presumably be unrivaled, but i’m pretty sure most of the countries I listed here have rivals.

Easily the Umayyad Caliphate. No other empire has even come close in terms of size, long-term impact on the areas ruled, and total unrivalled dominance. They even defeated the Chinese in battle, while at the other end of the world their armies were active in northern France. This is simply incredible and even more impressive considering the technology of the time.
 
Definitely Mongols. No power ANYWHERE in the world even came close to rivaling it at its height and could have conquered all of Europe and Middle East had their succession system been more stable.
 
I'm here to say the akkadian empire, it came into existence at a time when the rest of the world was city states while the empire in comparison is ruling over multiple cities and peoples. another one could be the achaemenid persian empire which at one point ruled over half the worlds population
 
Last edited:
I disagree with the poll results. The Roman Empire is overrated. It wasn't even dominant in its own backyard - the Sassanid Persian empire was its equal.

The Romans only seem dominant from a eurocentric perspective. And even then, cultural historians will tell you Greek society was more dynamic, creative and innovative.
 
I'm here to say the akkadian empire, it came into existence at a time when the rest of the world was city states while the empire in comparison is ruling over multiple cities and peoples. another one could be the achaemenid persian empire which at one point ruled over half the worlds population
Didn't the Old Kingdom of Egypt exist by then?
 
Leaning towards the Mongols at first glance. They're so overpowered that if someone wrote a timeline here about them people would yell "ASB!"
 
I feel like the Achaemenids at their height were much more powerful than any state they were contemporary with. No other power came close. No other state listed was as ridiculously more powerful than any other nation that existed at the same time.
 
I disagree with the poll results. The Roman Empire is overrated. It wasn't even dominant in its own backyard - the Sassanid Persian empire was its equal.

The Romans only seem dominant from a eurocentric perspective. And even then, cultural historians will tell you Greek society was more dynamic, creative and innovative.

I mean, at the time of the poll its the Parthians in Persia, who were definitely weaker than the Sassanids. Still, though, Rome had stronger rivals than the Umayyads et al.

What's impressive about Rome is its longevity and the fact that the decline of the Roman empire lasted longer than other states entire imperial periods

Edit: another good contender would be tawantinsuyu circa 20 years before the spanish arrived
 
Mongol or Rome, the Ummayyads were clearly challenged by the Byzantines by 750(+Berber rebellion and losses in France and Asturias), while Rome just defeated the Dacians and Parthians and Mongols were pretty dominant too(outside losses like Ain Jalut) before their attempted invasions of Japan and Vietnam(2nd and third anyway).
 
Last edited:
Edit: another good contender would be tawantinsuyu circa 20 years before the spanish arrived
OP is asking about how they stack up against the rest of the world, not just their local environs/hemisphere. So Spain, the Ottomans, Vijayanagara, the Ming, ect... would still be competition.
 
I feel like the Achaemenids at their height were much more powerful than any state they were contemporary with. No other power came close. No other state listed was as ridiculously more powerful than any other nation that existed at the same time.
I'm seeing several sources (including Guinness) that state the Achaemenids were #1 for percentage of world population ruled.
 
Top