Which Chinese dynasty was the "most powerful"?

Which Chinese dynasty was the "most powerful" at its height?

  • Han Dynasty (206 BC–220 AD)

    Votes: 7 6.3%
  • Tang Dynasty (618–907)

    Votes: 42 37.5%
  • Song Dynasty (960–1279)

    Votes: 10 8.9%
  • Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368)

    Votes: 8 7.1%
  • Ming Dynasty (1368–1644)

    Votes: 14 12.5%
  • Qing Dynasty (1644–1912)

    Votes: 7 6.3%
  • People's Republic of China (1949-2014)

    Votes: 24 21.4%

  • Total voters
    112
apparently people dont read the OP and voted blindly by comparing dynasties among themselves rather than its contemporary peers.

At its height, which dynasty was the most powerful when compared to its contemporary peers, relatively speaking?


comparing with its peers of its time, I say its the Yuan dynasty. Nothing matches Yuan size at its peak and power under Kublai Khan compared to its peers of the time.
 
comparing with its peers of its time, I say its the Yuan dynasty. Nothing matches Yuan size at its peak and power under Kublai Khan compared to its peers of the time.

Not even the other parts of the Mongol Empire which, as stated earlier, were not part of the Yuan Dynasty?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
I think it suggests that 1945 is pretty much a dividing line in

Even defining it on those terms suggests that China has, at best, parity with several other countries with similar capabilities. Does this mean that you don't think there was any other period in Chinese history where they didn't have multiple peers of equal strength?

I think it suggests that 1945 is pretty much a dividing line in history.

As far as the baseline question, given the relative lack of interaction between the various corners of the world before (say) 1800, it's really sort of moot, isn't it?

I mean, even Yuan China under Khan or whatever had no ability to influence events outside of eastern Asia and (at times) Central Asia, I suppose; in the same way, Hapsburg Spain was quite powerful in the 1600s, but didn't really have the capability of influencing much of the world outside of Europe, the Mediterranean littoral, and the Western Hemisphere.

Time and distance renders many things as sort of unanswerable question.

Best,
 
Ignoring India which was undergoing an age of prosperity for a good chunk of the Tang's age.

Actually during the Early Tang, the Guptas had collapsed. The most powerful state in India at this point was the Gupta's dynastic successor in Magadha, the Palas. They were definitely powerful, but not Tang powerful.

The Indian subcontinent historically like its geographic term suggests is more similar to a continental landmass home to various nations/people, then an actual unified country.

Not necessarily, the states in the subcontinent did perceive themselves of being part of a continuous "Indian" civilization and cultural sphere. You can see this in how Indian states pretty much saw everyone outside of the subcontinent as "barbarians" while regarding rival states in India as relative equals. So really they were part of the same "nation" in a cultural sense.


Also to the OP: I'd say the Tang Dynasty.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily, the states in the subcontinent did perceive themselves of being part of a continuous "Indian" civilization and cultural sphere. You can see this in how Indian states pretty much saw everyone outside of the subcontinent as "barbarians" while regarding rival states in India as relative equals. So really they were part of the same "nation" in a cultural sense.

Agreed (sort of). But its not a "national" sense like how Frenchmen or Englishmen felt but more like a "supra-national" sense like how Europeans felt about each other and themselves. Like South Asians, Europeans felt strong cultural and historic ties and definitely felt a "kinship" vis-a-vis non-Europeans. Europeans too felt connected to their shared Greco-Roman and Christian roots as well.

"Indian-ness" was therefore much more comparable to something like "European-ness" at least until the end of the Raj and the founding of the Republic of India.

So the Maurya's Empire was sort of like Europe's Roman Empire. Gupta was sort of like Europe's Carolingian Empire and the Mughals were like an Ottoman Empire that conquered much more of Europe. And then for the other times, more or less, India, like Europe was fractured and divided even while they felt strong connections to one another vis-a-vis those outside of India (same for Europeans too!)

And without the British Raj, modern India as a single state may or may not ever have been formed as opposed to becoming multiple states, perhaps tied together in some kind of EU-like union.
 
Last edited:
I agree that even a forum based on history like ours do not focus enough on Indian history. However to be fair, for the majority of Indian history, it was not a unified nation, but rather a cacophony of independent and feuding states. Furthermore unlike China, it was also dominated by a wide variety of different ethnic/religious sects, making it much harder to say what is really Indian vs what is Chinese/Japanese/British etc.

The Indian subcontinent historically like its geographic term suggests is more similar to a continental landmass home to various nations/people, then an actual unified country.

I was calling them a cultural region. China has been split many times, and I also mentioned the Euro-Middle East which has never been properly united.

I will admit I wasn't sure when India was on the rise or decline, but the way they got barely a mention when they were probably the only region that properly concerned China. They had competing influence in Indochina or along the Silk Road.
 
I was calling them a cultural region. China has been split many times, and I also mentioned the Euro-Middle East which has never been properly united.

I will admit I wasn't sure when India was on the rise or decline, but the way they got barely a mention when they were probably the only region that properly concerned China. They had competing influence in Indochina or along the Silk Road.

India as a whole was always a cultural superpower. It's not just about competing influence in indochina- for the most part the Malay world was Indian and mainland SE Asia was also part of that cultural complex. China itself was heavily influenced by Indian thought.

In terms of hard power, Indian empires don't register as much as Chinese ones do because the idea of centralised government was never really a part of Indian political science. Even the largest Indian empires tended to consist of a relatively small centrally ruled area with the rest being tributary kingdoms.

Thus India bats above average got for soft power but way below for hard power.
 
I think it suggests that 1945 is pretty much a dividing line in history.

As far as the baseline question, given the relative lack of interaction between the various corners of the world before (say) 1800, it's really sort of moot, isn't it?

I mean, even Yuan China under Khan or whatever had no ability to influence events outside of eastern Asia and (at times) Central Asia, I suppose; in the same way, Hapsburg Spain was quite powerful in the 1600s, but didn't really have the capability of influencing much of the world outside of Europe, the Mediterranean littoral, and the Western Hemisphere.

Time and distance renders many things as sort of unanswerable question.

Best,

I don't know why people think Kublai khan has no influence whatsoever outside of east Asia. He was the khakhan.

The Tang where never at the level of hyperpower as the Yuan under Kublai.

Both tang and present day otl China are just co equals with the superpowers of the time.
 
Once you understand the impact that Hinduism has had on SE Asia as Flocc and its legacy it is incredible. Look no further than Garuda for instance.
 
Tang, and probably early Ming.

Tang was the most economically advanced and technologically sophisticated country on earth at that time, even the Byzantine Empire could not match up with it.

Yuan was not a Chinese dynasty, I don't become as powerful as a wolf if the wolf devours me.

Economically and Technologically, the PRC falls behind Europe and the United States in absolute terms, and to Japan and Russia in certain areas.

Thank Haungtian Shangdi that both Russia and Japan, China's traditional enemies, are in the state of demographic decline.
 
Looks like Tang dynasty and PRC are the only contenders with Tang with a slight lead. The choice of Tang is somewhat understandable since they peaked at a time when other regions were either "down" or not yet "risen". I suppose it edges out Han since Han had a peer in the Roman Empire.

The choice of PRC is somewhat interesting. While its definitely up there, I'm not sure that it is as strong, again relatively speaking, than others like Han, Song, Yuan, and Ming.
 
Looks like Tang dynasty and PRC are the only contenders with Tang with a slight lead. The choice of Tang is somewhat understandable since they peaked at a time when other regions were either "down" or not yet "risen". I suppose it edges out Han since Han had a peer in the Roman Empire.

The choice of PRC is somewhat interesting. While its definitely up there, I'm not sure that it is as strong, again relatively speaking, than others like Han, Song, Yuan, and Ming.
A lot of folks seem to see nukes as victory. Really modern states are in theory more fragile for the existence of nukes, not stronger.
 
The Tang. At their height, every nation east of Burma was paying tribute to China, they had commanderies in Central Asia and not only in the traditional chinese area of influence of the Tarim Basin oasises, and they even received tribute from a kingdom of India and sent an army to intervene in the affairs of the indian kingdom of Magadha.
 
Unfortunately my grasp of Chinese history is, well pathetic and something I mean to improve upon (as well as Indian), however from what little I know this poll came down to only two choices: Tang and Han.

I ultimately choose the Tang, but not because the Han were contemporaries with Rome which really doesn't hold as much weight to me that others give it (I have this analogy in my head though I lack the right words to express it at this moment).
 
A lot of folks seem to see nukes as victory. Really modern states are in theory more fragile for the existence of nukes, not stronger.
Seriously. And it's not like the Chinese nuclear arsenal is big enough to reduce the world to rubble (nor is its delivery system sufficient to support even that).

I'd put the Tang, followed probably by the early Ming.

The Yuan had serious stability issues (so did the Han, but they still lasted for an extremely long time). By the time of the Qing, Europeans are already establishing powerful empires (and Spain has conquered much of the Americas). Ming also overlaps with the rise of those empires, of course, as well as the rise of the Gunpowder Empires in Western/Central Asia. And the Song weren't even the strongest dynasty in China during their own time.
 
Top