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
I'm seeing several sources (including Guinness) that state the Achaemenids were #1 for percentage of world population ruled.

Achaemenids and the Second British Empire are both tied for the empires which contained The highest percentage of the world population, 25% each.

My vote is for the Achaemenids. All their contemporaries were nowhere close to them. China was still developing its identity, Egypt would've been a good contender had it not been conquered and that is the whole list of their contemporaries. They had no real equal.
 
Achaemenids and the Second British Empire are both tied for the empires which contained The highest percentage of the world population, 25% each.

My vote is for the Achaemenids. All their contemporaries were nowhere close to them. China was still developing its identity, Egypt would've been a good contender had it not been conquered and that is the whole list of their contemporaries. They had no real equal.
According to who exactly? I'm fairly sure that half a dozen Chinese dynasties would have peaked at around that level or even more.
 
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.

Correct. This is the only accurate answer. The US of the immediate postwar era was the only point in all of history where one government had an absolute numerical advantage over the rest of the world put together.

Show me one empire that came close to such a disparity.
 
According to who exactly? I'm fairly sure that half a dozen Chinese dynasties would have peaked at around that level or even more.

Eh no... China never actually control 25% of world's population as far as i know. Han dynasty for example, control as much people as Rome, while its impressive its not even 20%.

Idk but for me this easily go to the mongols.... Like everything you can say about rome is also true about china, and while umayyads are undoubtedly powerful, they still have the Byzantines as rivals.
 
Eh no... China never actually control 25% of world's population as far as i know. Han dynasty for example, control as much people as Rome, while its impressive its not even 20%.

Idk but for me this easily go to the mongols.... Like everything you can say about rome is also true about china, and while umayyads are undoubtedly powerful, they still have the Byzantines as rivals.
That's a ridiculous idea, during the Song-Jin period, Chinese population peaked at maybe 100-120 million(seems a tad high but still), during the Qing dynasty the population in 1800 was 300 million, and those are quite or a bit above 25%. On top of that the Ming, Tang and Han shouldn't be too far from those % either, not sure what estimations you are using that give you less than 20% of the world's population for both China and Rome at their peak, where exactly is this remaining 60% outside China and Rome?
 
That's a ridiculous idea, during the Song-Jin period, Chinese population peaked at maybe 100-120 million(seems a tad high but still), during the Qing dynasty the population in 1800 was 300 million, and those are quite or a bit above 25%. On top of that the Ming, Tang and Han shouldn't be too far from those % either, not sure what estimations you are using that give you less than 20% of the world's population for both China and Rome at their peak, where exactly is this remaining 60% outside China and Rome?

Actually yeah i just checked. Both the roman empire and han dynasty on its peak has 70 million person, using the 300 milion estimate then its around 23%.
 
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.

The Umayyad were defeated by the Tang dynasty at several engagements and by the Karluk allies of the Tang. Umayyad incursions in the region were effective, but the Umayyad had yet to vault if you will the greatest test in the region, the Tang and Tibetans. In Bactria, the Umayyad had outmanned and defeated the Tibetans in Kabul and subjugated the Shahi states, but the Umayyad had failed to consolodate the region. In Zabul, the Umayyad were defeated twice by the Zabul people in the hill country of modern southern Afghanistan and once, the invasion the Umayyad sent (ordered by Hajjaj ibn Yusf, the governor of Iraq and during the period of Caliph al-Walid) to capture Zabul, the famous 'Peacock Army', came under Khawarij leadership and rebelled and would attack the Umayyad. Furthermore, the area of Ferghana-Sogdia remained mildly outside Umayyad domains, while Kwarezm had more or less been subjugated by the Umayyad. In short, the Umayyad had not fully acquired the hegemony in the east, that the Abbasids would gain after defeating the Tang at Talas and thereafter, subjugating its internal foes in the east along with the conquest of Zabul and the incursions into Hindustan.

The Umayyad had also not successfully dealt with the Khazars to an adequate level, the Khazars had dealt deadly wounds to the Umayyad while the Umayyad could in turn inflict superficial blows as the Khazar avoided direct engagement in the Umayyad invasion of Khazaria in retaliation for the Khazar invasion of Iraq. So, the Umayyad was surely a great power for its period, but to say that it was greater than say the Roman Empire in terms of comparisons to its nearby counterparts, is to me lacking. Though, you are right in the statement that the Umayyad were a powerful force, the Umayyad especially should be remembered for their effective usage of decentralized frontier wars that allowed for the command structure of the Islamic world to expand in such far distances and produced the phenomena that you mention of warring against an expansionist Tang while also battling the Franks in Gaul. The reason is, the two armies at separate ends of dar al-Islam (abode of Islam) were not really in connection in the sense of modern armies, but were individual actors of the same political leader, who gave them free reign to do as they pleased. The Umayyad caliphal period itself was most focused on its war at sea and the war with Byzantium, it was unable to defeat Byzantium fully due mostly to luck, poor military recruitment choices by the Umayyad (they used conscripts, most of whom refused to fight, the standard in Islamic history is to use only those who are truly willing to fight, not use those who have questionable statuses) and Greek fire as it is called. However, Umayyad adventurism at sea was truly novel and much of the Umayyad success in this period against Byzantine and Latin interests can be owed to its skill at sea, which was unthinkable to the earlier Arabs. It is interesting how this naval forays lessen with the Abbasid period, no doubt this is due to the Abbasids by their outlook and positioning, having an eastern and inland perception of geopolitics from Baghdad, while the Syrian Umayyads had a taste for the Mediterranean.
 
Perhaps the neo-Assyrian empire?

Out of all the empires listed, the Neo-Assyrian empire is perhaps the most fragile. When you compare their period to most other assumed great empires, you note the brief and erratic ebb to their rule and how unstable it was. It seems every decade, each region was in revolt and every year Babylon was in some sort of scheme with one enemy or another of Ninevah. Their rule was predicated on this sort of brute force punishment of rebellion and retribution without actually destroying the real internal threat, which was Babylon, it seems ridiculous when you think of it from a strategic viewpoint. Leaving this rebellious city and powerbase of Babylon to freely scheme with Elam and Urartu. Surely, we may say that the Neo-Assyrians were fearsome at war and fearsome enough to frighten most foes, yet they are certainly not worth the title conferred to by you in this post.
 
I would submit Mongols, then Achaemenids, which aren't on the list for some reason. I believe that they had the highest percentage of the world population under their control that any nation has ever had.
 
I'm curious about those who voted for the British Empire in 1900. It looks cool on a map but how strong was it actually from a military perspective? In that year the British were struggling to defeat a small army (the Boers), after being defeated by them 20 years earlier. 14 years later they would go to war 50 km away from their home country and, fighting alongside the French Empire, were in a stalemate against Germany for years, while being defeated by the Ottomans at Gallipoli...
 
I would submit Mongols, then Achaemenids, which aren't on the list for some reason. I believe that they had the highest percentage of the world population under their control that any nation has ever had.
It's unclear if they had, no real evidence exists of that and you need to have specific skewed estimations to reach that conclusion.
 
I'm curious about those who voted for the British Empire in 1900. It looks cool on a map but how strong was it actually from a military perspective? In that year the British were struggling to defeat a small army (the Boers), after being defeated by them 20 years earlier. 14 years later they would go to war 50 km away from their home country and, fighting alongside the French Empire, were in a stalemate against Germany for years, while being defeated by the Ottomans at Gallipoli...

Britain was the world's greatest naval power. It did not have a large land army because Britain is an island nation and has always sought its fortunes at sea.

Mocking Britain's land army is a bit like criticising a cheetah (light weight but fast) for not being as strong as a lion. Yes, it is true that a cheetah could not win in a fight with a lion. But then it was never built nor intended for that purpose. Put the cheetah and the lion in a race, and you will see the cheetah is the world's fastest land animal. The lion will be left behind, unable to keep up.

Defeat at Gallipoli was the result of determined and skilful Ottoman resistance first and foremost, and secondly by the nature of the terrain, which was used effectively by the defenders, and made life very hard for the attackers; and thirdly by poor planning, sub-standard maps and overconfidence on part of the British.
 
It should be noted that the Mongol ‘Empire’ in 1270 is just a mere formality.The Khanates were all strong,but any submission to the Great Khan’s just mere formality.
 
Why is the Spanish Empire listed as peaking in 1600? That's well after the Dutch Revolt had begun, well after the Ottomans had rolled back Spain's progress in North Africa, the Tercio was starting its long slog towards obsolescence, and within a decade the Iberian monopoly on the New World would be overturned.

In contrast, Spain under Charles V had circumnavigated the Earth, conquered the Aztecs and the Incas, still had a firm grasp on the wealthy low countries, were all but militarily unrivalled in the west, and was seemingly poised to make good on its ambition to carry the Reconquista to North Africa. Not to mention that Spain + HRE looks more impressive on a map than Spain + Portugal :p
 
Last edited:
Top