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  <1 345
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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 Topic: Hyperpowers of history.
    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
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
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
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 19:28
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
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
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 22:56
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
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
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 08:15
i gotta go for USA on this one
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345

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 0.117 seconds.