Which Asian empire was/could have been the greatest/strongest?

Which Asian empire was/could have been the greatest/strongest?

  • Babylon/Assyria

    Votes: 2 2.3%
  • Carthage

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • Persia

    Votes: 2 2.3%
  • Macedonia

    Votes: 2 2.3%
  • Maurya

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Xiongnu/Hun/Rouran/Avar

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Han/Tang

    Votes: 12 13.6%
  • Goguryeo/Balhae

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • Roman/Byzantine

    Votes: 4 4.5%
  • Umayyad/Abbasid

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • Srivijaya/Majapahit

    Votes: 2 2.3%
  • Khmer

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Mongol

    Votes: 28 31.8%
  • Ottoman

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • Mughal

    Votes: 6 6.8%
  • Qing

    Votes: 2 2.3%
  • Russia

    Votes: 6 6.8%
  • Japan

    Votes: 6 6.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 2.3%

  • Total voters
    88
I feel that this area of history has been greatly ignored, so I'm just trying to draw some attention to it.

There's quite a few obvious ones, such as the Han/Tang, the Roman Empire, and the Mongols, but you never know . . .

What do you think?
 
I voted Mongol, just since they were the largest land empire in history.

I do like the idea of Japanese Empire inthe Pacific though.

Also, isn't Russia uselly thought of as being European?
 
So does Macedonia... Even though it had most of its areas in Asia (Mesopotamia, partly India and everything on the way through), it started out as a European Empire, so it doesn't qualify, as well es Carthage (Phoenicia would count) and Russia (same case as Macedonia, only different places and a hellofalot later).

PS: Oh, and the Roman Empire does of course not count, too.
 
I included Carthage because it was founded by Dido, who was a Phoenician princess, but not Phoenicia because it wasn't really an empire.

Macedonia is in because although it started out in Europe, it quickly grew to cover Persia, and most of the succeeding kingdoms were located in Asia.

The Roman Empire had Asia Minor, Mespotamia, and Israel, which were all significant parts of Asia, as most of the early civilizations and empires grew up around the area. Besides, the Byzantines covered much less Asian territory than the Romans, because Turkey was considered both as an European and Asian country.

Although Russia consisted mostly of Europeans, most of its territory was located in Asia, and most of its interactions were with Central Asia, China, and Japan.

Just in case you haven't noticed, the empires are in chronological order.
 
I included Carthage because it was founded by Dido, who was a Phoenician princess, but not Phoenicia because it wasn't really an empire.

Macedonia is in because although it started out in Europe, it quickly grew to cover Persia, and most of the succeeding kingdoms were located in Asia.

The Roman Empire had Asia Minor, Mespotamia, and Israel, which were all significant parts of Asia, as most of the early civilizations and empires grew up around the area. Besides, the Byzantines covered much less Asian territory than the Romans, because Turkey was considered both as an European and Asian country.

Although Russia consisted mostly of Europeans, most of its territory was located in Asia, and most of its interactions were with Central Asia, China, and Japan.

Just in case you haven't noticed, the empires are in chronological order.

So if a nation has any territory in Asia that makes it an Asian empire? I didn't realize the UK, France, Spain, and the Netherlands were Asian. :confused:
 
I voted Mongols as the empire that WAS the strongest.

I somehow think that the Sung Empire could have been the strongest, if thy managed to grap the whole of China.
 
I'm gonna go with the Mongols. They had one of the greatest empires of history, and probably had one of the strongest empires too. :cool:

-Korporal Nooij
 
So if a nation has any territory in Asia that makes it an Asian empire? I didn't realize the UK, France, Spain, and the Netherlands were Asian. :confused:

Well to be fair, the entire British Empire was essentially a construct to protect Britain's status as Asia's dominant superpower, so I suppose in that respect, you could consider Britain to be one of the greatest of the Asian Empires.
 
So if a nation has any territory in Asia that makes it an Asian empire? I didn't realize the UK, France, Spain, and the Netherlands were Asian. :confused:

Well, let's look at it this way:

I think that there are nine conditions that should be considered. In order for an empire to be considered Asian, it must fulfill at least five of them.

1) It was founded in Asia.
2) It was founded by an Asian ruling class.
3) Most of its population was Asian.
4) Most of its successor states were located somewhere in Asia.
5) Most of its territory was in Asia.
6) Most of its number of languages spoken was Asian.
7) At least one of its rulers had Asian heritage.
8) At least one of its rulers was fluent in an Asian language.
9) It had territory that was considered culturally Asian.

Now let's look at the questionable, yet viable, candidates in turn.

Carthage fulfills requirements 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.
Macedonia fulfills requirements 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9.
The Roman Empire fulfills requirements 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Russia fulfills requirements 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9.

Now for the non-Asian empires.

Britain only fulfills requirements 3, 6, and 9.
France only fulfills requirement 9.
Spain only fulfills requirement 9.
The Netherlands only fulfill requirement 9.

What about the Ming Dynasty?

Well, I feel that even though they did attempt to expand their cultural borders by engaging in maritime exploration, they were too ethnocentric to maintain this influence. Along with the fact that Zheng He was Muslim, I highly doubt that the Ming would have been able to become more powerful.

Also, as a note to all, I feel that in order for an empire to be great/strong, it does not necessarily have to be large. I think that it should be influential, meaning that the empire culturally expanded its borders for centuries, and possibly millennia, after its decline.

In this regard, the Mongol Empire should not be considered as great/strong.

Additionally, I think that some people are misinterpreting the title. When I meant was/could have, I meant that if the empire could have been stronger, then that should be considered first, but if it could not have been any more powerful, then the other alternative should be considered.
 
Han, Tang, and Qing, but no Ming or Song?

China, right up until about 1800, was the wealthiest, greatest power in the world. If any one of the empires from that list had it, it'd be one of the Chinese ones.
 
Han, Tang, and Qing, but no Ming or Song?

China, right up until about 1800, was the wealthiest, greatest power in the world. If any one of the empires from that list had it, it'd be one of the Chinese ones.

I already explained why the Ming wasn't on there, and I feel that the Song wasn't that powerful because it only united China for 167 years. Although it held on to most of the productive land until about 1240, or about a total of 280 years, it suffered constant raids from nomadic tribes such as the Jin and the Mongols, so it was unable to maintain military superiority.

Also, China was only powerful until the 1400's, during the Ming, or a total of about 800-900 years. Remember, the Qing, along with the Mongols/Yuan, aren't really Chinese dynasties.
 
Yet these foreigners, especially the Qing, adopted the Chinese Imperial system and over time basically became Chinese, so much so that the Manchus lost their language. The Yuan didn't adopt the Chinese system and were kicked out by a peasant rebellion which then became the Ming. As for the Ming, I wouldn't consider them one of the greatest Chinese dynasties, but they kept the ball rolling from the 14th to the 17th centuries.

I think its wrong to consider that each of the Chinese dynasties separated from each other in the manner you arrange it in, but rather as simply a part of the cycle that represents Chinese civilization as a whole.

Therefore, to answer your question, the Asian Empire that has been by far the most successful has been China, plain and simple. I could go on to say, 'they were the first to introduce this... they were the first to explore that...' etc, but they managed to create a political system that lasted for thousands of years. When one dynasty fell, another would rise to take its place, adopting the foundation of previous dynasties.

Could China have been stronger? Of course. We could argue that Zheng He could have gone further, reached Europe and made the Pope and all the European monarchs of the 15th century the Chinese Emperor's bitch. The reason why the voyages didn't continue is like what happened with NASA, domestic concerns and more immediate foreign policy concerns (like the Mongols) took priority and the funds dried up. As for the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, they certainly could have gone better for China. And of course there were nomadic invasions like the Mongols and the various phases of disunity that always seemed to plague China every couple hundred years.

As for other Empires, I think the Ottoman Empire could have survived had there been reform sooner or even with a better outcome in WWI, and thus we wouldn't have the Sadaams, Ahmadenejads and Osamas of OTL, there wouldn't be Wahabbism or other extreme fundamentalist ideals (that's not to say there won't be other problems but I can only speculate).

Potentially, had Japan not retreated into isolationism during the Tokugawa but rather continued trade and technological development, they could have become like Asia's Great Britain, with a powerful navy that could police a sizable colonial empire. Still, considering that in the 19th century they could have become a colony they did alright, save for WWII of course...
 
I already explained why the Ming wasn't on there, and I feel that the Song wasn't that powerful because it only united China for 167 years. Although it held on to most of the productive land until about 1240, or about a total of 280 years, it suffered constant raids from nomadic tribes such as the Jin and the Mongols, so it was unable to maintain military superiority.

Also, China was only powerful until the 1400's, during the Ming, or a total of about 800-900 years. Remember, the Qing, along with the Mongols/Yuan, aren't really Chinese dynasties.

The Song dynasty was an early peak in Chinese civilization. The fragile political situation had more to do with society continually out-pacing evolution in the political system, rather than some inherent weakness of the Song era civilization. The Ming were a recovery from the absolute disaster of the Yuan years, and eventually reached and surpassed the Song height.

Seriously, you can't just read a wiki history page to assess the efficacy of one of the Chinese dynasties. Plus, China didn't peak in the 1400's, they peaked in the late 1700's.

If you're going to include the Han, Tang, and Qing dynasties, there's literally no reason not to include the Song and Ming. The Ming are probably the best candidate behind the Qing for 'strongest' Asian empire.
 
Yet these foreigners, especially the Qing, adopted the Chinese Imperial system and over time basically became Chinese, so much so that the Manchus lost their language. The Yuan didn't adopt the Chinese system and were kicked out by a peasant rebellion which then became the Ming. As for the Ming, I wouldn't consider them one of the greatest Chinese dynasties, but they kept the ball rolling from the 14th to the 17th centuries.

I think its wrong to consider that each of the Chinese dynasties separated from each other in the manner you arrange it in, but rather as simply a part of the cycle that represents Chinese civilization as a whole.

Therefore, to answer your question, the Asian Empire that has been by far the most successful has been China, plain and simple. I could go on to say, 'they were the first to introduce this... they were the first to explore that...' etc, but they managed to create a political system that lasted for thousands of years. When one dynasty fell, another would rise to take its place, adopting the foundation of previous dynasties.

Could China have been stronger? Of course. We could argue that Zheng He could have gone further, reached Europe and made the Pope and all the European monarchs of the 15th century the Chinese Emperor's bitch. The reason why the voyages didn't continue is like what happened with NASA, domestic concerns and more immediate foreign policy concerns (like the Mongols) took priority and the funds dried up. As for the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, they certainly could have gone better for China. And of course there were nomadic invasions like the Mongols and the various phases of disunity that always seemed to plague China every couple hundred years.

As for other Empires, I think the Ottoman Empire could have survived had there been reform sooner or even with a better outcome in WWI, and thus we wouldn't have the Sadaams, Ahmadenejads and Osamas of OTL, there wouldn't be Wahabbism or other extreme fundamentalist ideals (that's not to say there won't be other problems but I can only speculate).

Potentially, had Japan not retreated into isolationism during the Tokugawa but rather continued trade and technological development, they could have become like Asia's Great Britain, with a powerful navy that could police a sizable colonial empire. Still, considering that in the 19th century they could have become a colony they did alright, save for WWII of course...

Well, if you want to be technical, let's do that list again, with modifications.

1) It was founded in China.
2) It was founded by a Chinese ruling class.
3) Most of its population was Chinese.
4) Most of its successor states were located somewhere in China.
5) Most of its territory was in China.
6) Most of its number of languages spoken was Chinese.
7) At least one of its rulers had Chinese heritage.
8) At least one of its rulers was fluent in a Chinese language.
9) It had territory that was considered culturally Chinese.

The Mongols only fulfill requirements 3 and 9.
The Qing only fulfills requirements 3, 4, 5, and 9.

So neither were Chinese dynasties, meaning that China remained strong until the 1400's. Besides, the Manchu were never truly integrated into China until the 1800's, which meant that they remained independent for about 2000 years. In fact, there was no substantial population in Manchuria until about that time.

I'm not saying that China wasn't the strongest country in the world, although you could easily make arguments against it. For example, I highly doubt that the Chinese could have been any stronger. The Ming simply would not have been able to travel to Europe, because they were mired in ethnocentrism, which meant that they had absolutely nothing to learn from 'barbarian' civilzations, so it would be a complete waste of time to travel around the world trying to establish colonies. Remember, the Chinese had no interest whatsoever in trying to 'civilize' the 'barbarians,' like the Europeans did.

As for the Ottomans, I doubt that they could have been any more stronger. By 1700-1800, there were various ethnic groups clamoring for independence, most of which succeeded. Eventually, by the end of the 1800's, it was referred to as the "Sick Man of Europe" for good reason. It would be almost impossible to hold Eastern Europe together because of the legacy of the Byzantine Empire, and the Arab world, because the Ottomans were Turkish, not Arab.

Japan couldn't have become that much powerful prior to the late 1800's. They weren't even an empire in the 1500's, when they invaded Korea, and the fact that they were simply unable to defeat a lone general (Yi Sun-shin) with extremely insufficient resources just goes to show you how weak thee Japanese were. I really don't think that the Japanese could have industrialized any faster in the late 1800's, unless you could managed to do so in less than three years, which is simply ASB and just ridiculous.

Now let's add Goguryeo/Balhae to the mix. Both civilizations, especially the first one, managed to take advantage of China's weakness and fragmentation, and managed to dominate a significant part of Manchuria. If they had tried any harder by setting their sights on North and South China, then they would have probably been capable of uniting China and managing to establish a firm and stable presence in the Korean Peninsula, Japan, Manchuria, and China. Look at my timeline for more details.

The Song dynasty was an early peak in Chinese civilization. The fragile political situation had more to do with society continually out-pacing evolution in the political system, rather than some inherent weakness of the Song era civilization. The Ming were a recovery from the absolute disaster of the Yuan years, and eventually reached and surpassed the Song height.

Seriously, you can't just read a wiki history page to assess the efficacy of one of the Chinese dynasties. Plus, China didn't peak in the 1400's, they peaked in the late 1700's.

If you're going to include the Han, Tang, and Qing dynasties, there's literally no reason not to include the Song and Ming. The Ming are probably the best candidate behind the Qing for 'strongest' Asian empire.

Look at my list in response to your statements that the Qing was a Chinese dynasty.

I'm not saying that neither the Song and the Ming were strong; in fact, I agree wholeheartedly that both managed to restore Chinese glory after tumultuous eras, and that they were strong as they were in OTL, but both couldn't have been any more greater/stronger because of nomadic invasion and ethnocentrism, which forced them to turn inward.

In terms of cultural accomplishments, look at how modern-day Chinese refer to themselves. Most call themselves people of the Han and Tang, but I've yet to encounter someone who calls him/herself of the Song or the Ming. In fact, we call Chinese the Han Chinese, further demonstrating the influence it still retains after hundreds of years.
 
Last edited:
As for the Ottomans, I doubt that they could have been any more stronger. By 1700-1800, there were various ethnic groups clamoring for independence, most of which succeeded. Eventually, by the end of the 1800's, it was referred to as the "Sick Man of Europe" for good reason. It would be almost impossible to hold Eastern Europe together because of the legacy of the Byzantine Empire, and the Arab world, because the Ottomans were Turkish, not Arab.
You should really try reading some of Abdul Hadi Pashas posts, he pretty much blows the "Sick man of Europe" image out of the water.
And its obvious that the Mongols were the most awesome Asian empire in history (and probebly the most kick-ass empire in all of world history). Yeh, they killed millions of people from Baghdad to Kaifeng, but the largest contiguous empire still kinda proves they were the strongest empire.
 
You should really try reading some of Abdul Hadi Pashas posts, he pretty much blows the "Sick man of Europe" image out of the water.
And its obvious that the Mongols were the most awesome Asian empire in history (and probebly the most kick-ass empire in all of world history). Yeh, they killed millions of people from Baghdad to Kaifeng, but the largest contiguous empire still kinda proves they were the strongest empire.

Well, maybe they could have avoided becoming the "Sick Man of Europe," but I highly doubt that they could have become much stronger, due to ethnic and internal strife.

Just because the Mongols were the biggest contiguous empire doesn't necessarily prove that they were the strongest. By your definition, Japan should be weak today just because of its small size, but I'm pretty sure that everyone knows that that's not true. Rather, as I stated several times before, an empire should have exerted influence over neighboring kingdoms/empires long after its downfall, like the Chinese. On the other hand, although the Mongols did manage to expand its territory to cover most of Eurasia, it still failed miserably when it came to holding the empire together, and after fragmenting, it quickly dissolved and never made another grand appearance on the world stage again. Rather, it was greatly influenced by China and Russia, and its population density is the lowest of any independent country in the world.

As a result, I'm surprised that a significant number of people voted for the Mongols, although not as much because the votes have been hovering around 30 and 40 percent.
 
So here's my personal ranking of the aforementioned empires.

Could have been
1) Goguryeo/Balhae
2) Han/Tang
3) Roman/Byzantine
4) Umayyad/Abbasid
5) Carthage
6) Ottoman
7) Macedonia
8) Maurya
9) Mughal
10) Persia
11) Russia
12) Qing
13) Japan
14) Babylon/Assyria
15) Khmer
16) Srivijaya/Majapahit
17) Mongol
18) Xiongnu/Hun/Rouran/Avar

Was
1) Han/Tang
2) Roman/Byzantine
3) Umayyad/Abbasid
4) Ottoman
5) Macedonia
6) Persia
7) Goguryeo/Balhae
8) Maurya
9) Mughal
10) Russia
11) Qing
12) Japan
13) Carthage
14) Babylon/Assyria
15) Khmer
16) Srivijaya/Majapahit
17) Mongol
18) Xiongnu/Hun/Rouran/Avar

Overall
1) Han/Tang (1.5)
2) Roman/Byzantine (2.5)
3) Umayyad/Abbasid (3.5)
4) Goguryeo/Balhae (4)
5) Ottoman (5)
6) Macedonia (6)
7) Maurya (8) (Tie)
7) Persia (8) (Tie)
9) Carthage (9) (Tie)
9) Mughal (9) (Tie)
11) Russia (10.5)
12) Qing (11.5)
13) Japan (12.5)
14) Babylon/Assyria (14)
15) Khmer (15)
16) Srivijaya/Majapahit (16)
17) Mongol (17)
18) Xiongnu/Hun/Rouran/Avar (18)

Sidenote: Due to the lack of interest, I will be suspending this poll temporarily. Questions, comments, and criticism will still be welcome, but keep in mind that I will not respond to them until at least several months have passed.
 
Top