Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Hyperpowers of history.
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Hyperpowers of history.
    Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 08:15
i gotta go for USA on this one
Back to Top
Mumbloid View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jun-2007
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97 		  Quote Mumbloid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 04:09
Originally posted by Joe Boxer

[QUOTE=Mumbloid]
 
 
Okay. If we are looking solely at cultural imperialism; India and China defeat Rome. Buy a plane ticket, fly to Indonesia, and ask the locales why they named their cities Jakarta and Surabaya. Hindu names.
 
Its one thing to be ignorant; its a totally different affair to be stubbornly arrogant and brazen. To say Rome was the only hyperpower in world history is a joke. It did plenty for white people though, ill give you that.
 


I think you misunderstod my post, please reread otherwise ask questions.

have a good day.
The future keeps the past alive.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457 		  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 22:56
I agree Constantine, warfare based on taking and holding fixed land positions had become a numbers game and Napoleon had to lose out eventually. 
elenos
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711 		  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 22:19
Originally posted by kurt

If the battle of Waterloo hadn't come to pass i would also suggest France during the reign of Napoleon.


If Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo, he would have just been defeated by the million combined troops of Austria and Russia who were in Germany. Napoleon's days were pretty much numbered from Liepzig onwards.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457 		  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 22:04
Napoleon couldn't come to terms with the necessary process of becoming statesman. He was a leader of soldiers and acted that way all his life. Setting up kingdoms for his very dull relatives to reign over was ridiculous.
elenos
Back to Top
Tancrde View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Tancrde Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 19:28
Originally posted by kurt


If the battle of Waterloo hadn't come to pass i would also suggest France during the reign of Napoleon.


Yes and also during the reign of Louis XIV, the great century( 17th century)
Back to Top
Tancrde View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Tancrde Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 19:26
edit-

Edited by Tancrde - 01-Jul-2007 at 19:26
Back to Top
Tancrde View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Tancrde Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 19:25
Originally posted by Roughneck

Originally posted by coolstorm

the british couldn't defeat the russia and france combined, and neither can the united states.


Yes we could. Russia it would be a bloody fight if nukes are taken out of consideration, we could do it. We simply have superior equipment and better training. One thing that has come out is how empty the Soviet threat was and the fact that it was promlugated by the military industrial complex. The most famous one was the supposed missile gap.France, sorry, but we would beat them handily one on one. That's not the usual anti-French crap that comes out of America, but it wouldn't be a fair fight. We have a much larger air force and a much larger navy, one which could reach all of France. We could beat both France and Russia at the same time. France in the 1800s is not today's France. Sorry if I offend French posters, but that's the truth.



Sorry if i offend you but France is a nuclear power so no country in the world can defeat it( including USA).
Back to Top
greattang View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 29-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote greattang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 00:26
Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by greattang

The other candidates all fail in this respect. Rome might compare favorably to the Han in three quandrants, but is not as strong economically.


True, but it was still extraordinarily powerful, economically, and dominant in that part of the world in a way not seen until Britain industrialized. It doesn't have to exceed the Han to excel.

However, neither Rome nor the Han had the capability to extend force to all the quadrants of the world, even if you limit the definition of "the world" to the world they knew. Both Rome and the Han built walls (Great Wall, Hadrians Wall) to defend borders they could not extend. Rome could cross the Rhine under extraordinary circumstances, but couldn't make any lasting penetration. The Han certainly knew of Japan, and the Romans certainly knew of Ireland, but neither had the capacity to invade.
 
I thought we are comparing globally, not regionally. By quadrant, Adshead was not talking about power projection. The term he created was unicentric hegemon. A unicentric hegemon does not need to be politically preponderant, they are two different things. A unicentric hegemon only means preeminence in everything; political, economical, social, and intellecual. Only two states in history has established world institutions which acquired a preeminence in all these 4 quadrants, they are Tang China and the United States. Political preponderance combined with unicentric hegemon is even rarer, and only the US achieved that status in history. However American political preponderance over the world is alot less powerful than many other empires' dominance over their neighbors in history,
Back to Top
Joe Boxer View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote Joe Boxer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 17:52
Originally posted by Mumbloid

 
excuse me, but must of the western civilitation are based on rome, from it istitution, to law system, to culture, alphabet, numerics...now if you are somehow biased against Rome that's your problem not mine. But Rome has all the paper in order to be a hyperpower...like it or not.
 
 
Okay. If we are looking solely at cultural imperialism; India and China defeat Rome. Buy a plane ticket, fly to Indonesia, and ask the locales why they named their cities Jakarta and Surabaya. Hindu names.
 
Its one thing to be ignorant; its a totally different affair to be stubbornly arrogant and brazen. To say Rome was the only hyperpower in world history is a joke. It did plenty for white people though, ill give you that.
 
Another empire that has spread its wings from Indonesia to France and Morocco: Islamic Empire. From the five daily prayers, to the arab language, to the dress code and eating habits. Now thats some powerful sh*t.
Mughal-e-Azam
Back to Top
Joe Boxer View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote Joe Boxer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 17:36
1. You guys are a bit too Eurocentric. Rome a hyperpower?
 
What about:
Han Empire?
Mauryan Empire?
Carthaginian Empire?
Gupta Empire?
 
How about the fear of Europe and the Destroyers of the Roman-Byzantium empire?
 
Ottoman Empire. They were around for 600+ years, never conquered from outside, revolution from inside. "The scourge of God because of your sins" wrote one Christian intellectual when Byzantine fell.
 
2. By the way the Parthian Empire and the Sassanid Empire were constantly in a state of challenge with Rome. Also, i wouldnt call Alexander an empire builder; rather a conquerer. His "empire" was as long as he stayed alive. Rather the Greek culture diffused widely from North Africa to India.
 
3. Also, it is a peculiar thing that these "Hyperpowers" remained Hyper for a small amount of time. For example when the Sassanid Empire defeated Heracles the Byzantine king, they gained about 40% of Byzantine's territory; but only held it for 9 years.
 
In another sense, the Empire of the United States only reached hyper status after 1989. But for how long? Until 2009? {China}.
 
4. Also, people cant decide how strong Russia is in comparison to the US; and some of you are discussing military capabilties. Lets just remember that this is a very dynamic affair. There is more than one way to destroy a nation/enemy. China could just as easily sell off all of its US Dollar assets right now, plunging the nation into a selling frenzy. There goes the neighborhood.
 
China might not be on par with the military technology; but it does have the manpower. They can afford to lose 300,000,000 people on the battle field - the size of America.
 
Look at it this way. A bunch of tribal cave dwellers are running around with bazooka's slung over their backs. They are challenging the American Empire. And America is having trouble keeping them contained/finishing them off.
 
Just to show you how economically/technologically insignificant; but determined an enemy has to be to give you trouble.
 
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394 		  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 00:06
Originally posted by greattang

The other candidates all fail in this respect. Rome might compare favorably to the Han in three quandrants, but is not as strong economically.


True, but it was still extraordinarily powerful, economically, and dominant in that part of the world in a way not seen until Britain industrialized. It doesn't have to exceed the Han to excel.

However, neither Rome nor the Han had the capability to extend force to all the quadrants of the world, even if you limit the definition of "the world" to the world they knew. Both Rome and the Han built walls (Great Wall, Hadrians Wall) to defend borders they could not extend. Rome could cross the Rhine under extraordinary circumstances, but couldn't make any lasting penetration. The Han certainly knew of Japan, and the Romans certainly knew of Ireland, but neither had the capacity to invade.
Back to Top
greattang View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 29-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote greattang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 21:44
Has anyone read S.A.M. Adshead's book called Tang China?
 
Basically, he divides the development of a state into four quadrants. The political, the economical, the intellectual, and the social. He indicates that there is only two state in history which excelled in all four quadrants at once. One is Tang China, the other is the United States.
 
The other candidates all fail in this respect. Rome might compare favorably to the Han in three quandrants, but is not as strong economically. The British Empire might have political and economic preponderance, but social progress lies in France and intellectual preponerance lies in Germany.
 
Back to Top
dick View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 21-Mar-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 23 		  Quote dick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 21:05
"no. At the time of it's peak there was no major power that could rival with her. Not even Persia."
 
 
No at its height, the Han dynasty surpassed it in territorial extent and population.
 
 
"no, I am using the entire western civilitation to affirm that Rome was a hyperpower."
 
No you can't, today's event has no relevance to the past. In your logic, if in the future, evernone starts speaking Korean, does that mean north Korea is the strongest country in the world today? No. You have to use the military, territory, population, and organization to compare. And Rome is easily outmatched by the Han in these areas.


Edited by dick - 29-Jun-2007 at 21:12
Back to Top
dick View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 21-Mar-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 23 		  Quote dick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 21:03
"The height of the Mongols power came under Kubilai, when Song China had been defeated, and places as far away as Java were vassals to Mongol dominance."
Under Kublai the Mongol empire isn't even a single empire anymore, it was fragmented into 5 khanates.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457 		  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 09:30
Perhaps the differences between nations is of advantage in preventing the rise of a hyperpower. 
elenos
Back to Top
Illirac View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Jun-2007
Location: Ma vlast
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 526 		  Quote Illirac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 08:52
so ,there was not and never will be a hyperpower, hopefully
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.
Back to Top
Larus View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: Bosnia Hercegovina
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 54 		  Quote Larus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 08:40
Originally posted by elenos

Oh my goodness, some of you guys are really being unkind to the British Empire. Perhaps more than a scoop of bias here! Havent you all heard the slogan God is in his heaven, the Queen is on her throne, so therefore alls right with the world? then we have the old saying God is an Englishman.. The only Empire on which the sun never sets. Im sure you are all suitably impressed.

 Land of hope and glory, mother of the free
How shall we extol who are born of thee?

Perhaps it would be better if I said Land of little hope and fading glories!! But how can any American say they are stronger when the British pound is worth two American dollars, two dollar bills are needed!

To be more serious, an old saying from the Wisdom of Elenos says Every nation has had or will get their chance to rule the world. The world turns and so do the fortunes of nations. They came and they go, so you never know what will happen next.  



I can say that British Empire was one of the greatest Empires (maybe even the greatest) the world has ever known, but still not strong enough to be THE hyperpower according to the standards defined at the beginning of this thread.
Hopefully no nation will ever get it's chance to rule the world, for everyone's sake because those who attempted always failed and usually pay the huge price causing pain and suffering upon themselves and others in the process.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457 		  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 01:43

Oh my goodness, some of you guys are really being unkind to the British Empire. Perhaps more than a scoop of bias here! Havent you all heard the slogan God is in his heaven, the Queen is on her throne, so therefore alls right with the world? then we have the old saying God is an Englishman.. The only Empire on which the sun never sets. Im sure you are all suitably impressed.

 Land of hope and glory, mother of the free
How shall we extol who are born of thee?

Perhaps it would be better if I said Land of little hope and fading glories!! But how can any American say they are stronger when the British pound is worth two American dollars, two dollar bills are needed!

To be more serious, an old saying from the Wisdom of Elenos says Every nation has had or will get their chance to rule the world. The world turns and so do the fortunes of nations. They came and they go, so you never know what will happen next.  
elenos
Back to Top
Donasin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 13-Dec-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 108 		  Quote Donasin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 00:33
I don't think there ever was or will be a hyperpower until say the EU and US or China and Russia join in a union which will never happen.

Rome and Han were superpowers, and as stated before, were not able to conquer let alone fight each other. A hyperpower needs to go to the four corners of the world and be able to extend its grip to all those corners. The US while a major influence can not yet make its will law.


Edited by Donasin - 25-Jun-2007 at 00:36
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.