Most powerful country
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: General World History
Forum Discription: All aspects of world history, especially topics that span across many regions or periods
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12434
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 12:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Most powerful country
Posted By: Mudfahedrin
Subject: Most powerful country
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 17:38
|
Here are my oppinions about the most powerfull country in the year XXXX: With the "the most powerful country in XXX" I mean, that these country was able to defeat every other country in an duel(without interference of a 3rd country) in that time:
USA 1979-?(the CCCP had economial problems and war in Afghanistan)
CCCP 1962-1979(CCCP had Nuke and rockets in Cuba)
USA 1945-1962(USA had Nuke and best economy)
CCCP 1943-1945(CCCP won the east-front and had a huge army)
Third Reich 1938-1943(2nd largest Industry, well technology and tactic)
USA 1918-1938( well economy and biggest winner of WW 1)
Germany 1912-1918(2nd largest Industry, well military and weapons)
Great Britain 1815-1912(largest economy, best fleet and a big Empire)
Frace 1588-1815(big army, Lous XIV...Napoleon)
Spain 1571-1588(biggest empire and much silber best fleet)
Ottoman 1453-1571( they had byzanz, a large army...)
Ming China 1368-1453(big population, large economy, big army...)
Mongolic Empire 1206-1368(founding to downfall)
|
Replies:
Posted By: Mudfahedrin
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 17:43
|
What do you think about it? |
Posted By: Hehe
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 17:51
They were defeated Dai Viet (modern Vietnam) 3 times in the 13th century and Java (Modern Indonesia) in 1292, therefore, that makes Dai Viet and Java two of the most powerful countries in their era according to your logic.
|
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 18:22
|
No it doesnt as Da Viet would stand no chance in invading Yuan controlled china, neither would Vietnam have a chance in invanding USA in the 70;s.
use some common sense.
 |
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 18:24
| + maybe the Qing was more powerful than Ottoman empire but great list apart from that. |
Posted By: Killabee
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 18:28
France lost the French and Indian War in the 1760's to Great Britain which cost them all the possession in North America region.
|
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 18:49
|
Between 1588 and 1740, was France ever more powerful than The Moguls? Also the Burmese and Khmeres at their peaks seem to be missing. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 19:13
|
USA 1919- 1938, The US suffered the great depression in 1929, Isolationism was at it's peak. The Army was rated 15th or 16th. Navy and air force weren't much better. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: steven
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 01:34
| I have to say that Britain during the Victorian age was the undisputed ruler of the world. No one could touch them whatsoever. |
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 04:08
|
Kmers and burmese Why>.>>> |
Posted By: Giordano
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 06:27
| Roman Empire? |
Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 06:43
|
I like the list. Some points: France wasn't powerful after 1588, her hegemony began around 1640, the most powerful christian state was Spain by that time. Is very difficult find the most powerful before 1800, so i think is more accurate to say many powers, with exceptions of course. Offer: III-I BC: Qin-Han China/Rome I-III AC: Roman Empire/Han China III-middle VII: Roman Empire/Sassanid Persia Middle VII-IX: Tang China/Caliphate X: Byzantine Empire XI-middle XIII: Song China Middle XIII-XIV: Mongol-Yuan XV: Ming China/Ottoman Empire XVI-middle XVII: Ottoman Empire/Spain/Ming China Middle XVII-XVIII: France ------------- |
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 00:30
|
I think Jin has more power than song. |
Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 05:22
Yes but i'm Song lover  and i can't resist the economic power of that China; before the jurchen invasion, without doubts.
------------- |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 14:00
| Was Germany really two times in history the most powerful state? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 17:40
|
Huh? Why wasn't Han dynasty of China up there? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2006 at 00:24
|
One word:China, throughout most of history with exceptions of periods of division.
Reason? Big population, hence large economy and a large army. This coupled with a large sophisticated bureucracy makes China the most powerful state in history up to 1800.
Read Angus Maddison's "Chinese Economic performances on the long run" and "The World Economy, A mellenium perspective". Maddison states that China's economy led the world historically. (India is not a single state)
"to become a successful hegemon, it helps to be both very rich and very big"
Economic power is a roughly indication of power either hegemonically or statistically. Some other factor are military spending, coherency of the government, and allies. Of these China have also led for most of history since the Qin.
|
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2006 at 15:35
| What about Egpyt? Wasnt Egpyt a super power in its time? |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2006 at 16:56
|
Yes it was, but he startet the list in 1206. |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 17:00
|
Was Ming China able to defeat Japan? |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 05:38
|
So the Spanish defeated England and the Netherlands?
So Blenheim was a French victory?
And it was the French, not the British that conquered India and most of the West Indies?
And Nazi Germany was never going to beat either the British Empire or the Soviet one. Not enough raw materials and resources. Or people for that matter.
Shouldn't this be in the alternative histories forum?
------------- |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 10:54
| I think that Nazi Germany was able to defeat UK, when UK didn't get US-help. |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 10:59
|
There is written Spain 1571-1588(biggest empire and much silber best fleet), and after 1588, because the Armarda was destroyed England got the first navy-power!
I think that after 1588 England and Frace were both the strongest....England had the biggest Empire and largest fleet and Frace had the most powerful army in Europe.
|
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 11:02
| By the battle of Blendheim England and Austria(which had a large army) fought against Frace and Bavaria(wich had a small army)! |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 20:41
Well then, given that critera I can sum the list up well: none. No country has ever been able to defeat every other country in a duel. The British Empire lost to Afghanistan, Napoleon was defeated by Russia, the Mongols by the Delhi Sultanate, the Mamlukes, and everywhere else their advance was checked. The Soviets by Afghanistan, the Americans by Afghanistan, the Safavids by Afghanistan, lol, you get the drift. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2006 at 08:39
Since it's a duel...touché!
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2006 at 08:47
This has been argued here before.
However, by the winter of 40/41 the western European theatre was at a standstill. Britain had recovered from its bad start, and was holding - thanks as usual of course to the Channel.
St Vincent's dictum 'I cannot say they will not come. I can only say they will not come by sea' still held. And the Battle of Britain had shown they would not come by air either.
And Britain still hadn't fully mobilised its Imperial and Commonwealth forces but it had got itself into a position to blockade Germany the way it had France in Napoleonic times.
Frankly, at that point, with no-one else intervening, it looked like a standoff in the west, which is, I suspect, why Hitler felt free to turn to Russia.
Thereafter, don't forget that Japan and the US entered the war simultaneously. Without Japan's intervention, Britain would have been able to concentrate on North Africa, before turning to the possibility of invading in the West.
Don't forget either that the British had, de facto, after Alamein, won in North Africa already beforeany US troops were involved in Europe or Africa. ------------- |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 14:29
|
germany had most of the Wehrmacht armies on the soviet border. If these armies were put to Africa andnorth-Frace, Britain never was able to defeat Germany without any US or CCCP help!
|
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 14:35
|
December 1941
germany: 212 divisions and 38 Luftwaffe-relays
uk: 54 divisions and 16 RAF-relays
Germany also was able to use the French, the Czech, the Polnish and the Benelux industry!
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 05:20
| Han dynasty of China ,I think so! it beated down Hun, the latter then moved into europe,and changed the trail of the world history |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 09:09
On the Soviet border was precisely where Hitler wanted them. The war in the West was not something Hitler wanted. Once he was satisfied the west was stagnating, he turned on the Soviet Union, his prime target.
If you want to ignore that, and assume Hitler would have still tried to occupy England (why?), then you have to face the fact that Germany lost the Battle of Britain, and did not have either air or naval supremacy in the Channel or North Sea, so all the armies in the world in northern France wouldn't get him anywhere. Much the same goes for the Mediterranean, once the British had destroyed the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir and put the Italian one effectively out of action at Matapan and elsewhere.
But, as a duel, you couldn't give Germany the French and Italian fleets anyway.
So it's a standoff, because of course the British alone probably could not have invaded the continent.
If Germany gets no help from anyone, and Britain gets no help from anyone (except the Empire/Commonwealth) then Germany is blockaded rigid (unless it goes for Soviet resources), which means in the long term Germany would probably have folded due to internal discopntent, as in 1918, but it would have been a long time coming.
PS A further thought is that if it is to be strictly a duel between the two, you can't give Western Europe to Germany, because that would put all the French, Dutch and Belgian possessions at Britain's disposal - as indeed they were in real life.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 09:27
Take a look at the relative strengths of the navies. Britain doesn't fight its wars on the ground (or on the ground alone). Also, if you're giving Europe to the Germans, that kind of stops it being a duel, and it also requires Germany to pin down forces on garrison and counter-resistance duty. and, obviously puts the French, Dutch and Belgian empires on Britain's side.
And, not unimportantly, who had the oil? And the money - or money-equivalent - to buy assistance?
And you can't let Germany start torpedoing neutral vessels, or you get the US coming in anyway as in 1917. So the Battle of the Atlantic swings Britain's way earlier than it did.
Finally, who actually ends up with the nuclear bomb? It has, on the record, to be the British-Canadians helped by European refugees, which of course would have made a massive difference to post-war geopolitics.
------------- |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 07:26
|
If Germany had in december1941 peace with all countries and kept it's teretories, they would have much recoures in east Europe.
And the British Empire never was able to defeat Germany alone in 1941.
|
Posted By: Dream208
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 12:23
|
If I my memory did not fail me, I believe China and Japanese already start the full-scale war at 1937. However, the 1941 Japanese naval assult did fuse the East-Asia and Europe theater together - hence the world of wars.
PS: From the Chinese perspective, the WWII began at 1937/7/7
|
Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 22:09
|
Germany's biggest mistakes werei nvading the soviet union, and declaring war on the USA.If they had not done either of thosse all of Africa would have fallen to the Italians and Germans. ------------- Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining. George Washington - March 15, 1783 |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 04:07
|
Germany had been beaten in the West before it attacked the Soviet Union and before it declared was on the US. The British had naval supremacy in the North Sea, the Channel and the Mediterranean, and air supremacy in the first two areas.
(That is even WITH Germany having all the territories of Western Europe north of the Pyrenees under its control.)
The eternal question is: how is the continental power going to get its troops into Britain (or in this case as well, into Africa)? Transporting the relatively small Afrika Korps is one thing: transporting more than that would have terribly vulnerable to British naval attack.
What that first paragraph suggests is that an ALLIANCE of the European countries would have beaten Britain. That is a whole different question than whether Britain or Germany would have emerged victorious in a duel.
The second paragraph overlooks the fact that Britain did defeat Germany in 1940, though admittedly it was only a defensive victory. September 15 1940 is as important a date in history as October 21 1805, for similar reasons.
That was in spite of the fact that Germany had begun war preparations long before Britain had. From that time on, Britain became gradually stronger while Germany stayed at best the same.
You also overlook my points about money and the nuclear bomb - which was always going to be the ultimately decisive factor in any war of the period.
------------- |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 08:23
|
Total agreement with all GCLE says.
Britain could not win but neither could Germany.
Also if you want to expand from the duel then you have to take; Commando raids, SOE and the growing groups of partisans and the British use of Empire.
Put it this way, we have a blockade on Germany that weakens them (remember Napoleons Continental Bloackade- sometimes all of Europe is not enough) (also remember Britians blockade of WW1).
Next think of it this way- how could Germany win in North Africa, not only did Britian nearly do it on her own before America joined but consider Hitlers preoccupation with Russia (which would have continued, even if only defensively as they were the only opponent to fear) and the British infliction of losses on Rommels shipping. Rommel got I believe less than a third of what set out. Nor was Malta or Gibralter captured. So North Africa is a British victory. And think what would have happened with all the Commonwealth troops (Indian, Springboks, ANZACS) around. Africa would essentially be British.
Next Europe. Britain could not conquer but she could be very annoying. SAS, LRDG (have to be renamed!), SOE, partisans are not much fun for the Germans. Enigma still comes our way (thanks Poles!), the Atlantic has still been won and Resistance movements would be widespread.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 09:07
|
They would not have been able to defeat Britian but they could have conquered Africa.Italy owned Libya at the time so they had a landing base there.Going into the mediterranean would have been extremply tough for them.Thats deep inside German and Italian zones.(Germany also had French North Africa to use for landings) ------------- Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining. George Washington - March 15, 1783 |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 09:23
|
Do you think that Napoleon was able to defeat Britain in an duell? I know that a duel between two states is unreal(in every war a country took other weaker countries or other countries sent supplies or troops into war).
But the Germans developped the me 262, V2 missels and Arado bombers....I think that Uk without US suplies and other US help could't win alone.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 11:36
Your now talking about a German-Italian-French alliance against Germany. In any case Britain had naval superiority in the Mediterranean throughout the war, even over the Germany-Italy-Vichy France grouping, No need to theorise. The British sank the French fleet to stop it helping the Germans, and they also shattered the Italians. After that the ONLY fleet in the Med was the British.
The Mediterranean was a 'British lake': an aim that Britain had made a focus of its strategy since it was driven out in 1797 and re-established control there in 1798.
The Royal Navy could not of course stop every ship making the crossing, but it stopped most.
Since Britain won in the Med historically, and since there were no other naval forces available for Germany to move there, there's absolutely no reason to suppose Germany would have won fighting alone. In fact, how is Germany alone even going to GET there?
As for Libya being Italian - by the time Rommel got there it wasn't. As far as I remember German shipments had to be brought in via Tunis.
But again, before Germany (unallied) can use any of these facilities, it has to occupy France and Italy. Which means French and Italian resistance and French and Italian help to Britain away from the home countries.
Nope. It's not a matter of opinion. You overlook the fact that historically he failed to do so.
The ME 262 may have been slightly faster than the Meteor but it was less reliable. They never of course came into mutual combat, though they were both introduced at the same time.
The Arado bomber led the larger jet aircraft but the versions produced carried only a single 500Kg bomb. Not a terribly threatening weapon. And while it was too fast for piston-engined planes to catch, The Meteor could match it. (It had no trouble catcing V1s.)
Germany was obviously ahead in rocketry (though it wasted some effort on manned rockets) but it didn't have anything that could hit the UK from Germany, and it's operational bases were vulnerable. The real point though was that there was no significant warhead, and they weren't aimable. So the actual destruction caused was random and minimal.
As I pointed out, the ultimate decision in a duel here would be who got the atom bomb first. Nothing else mattered very much. And Germany was nowhere in that race.
The actual first bomb was developed by an Anglo-American-Canadian cooperation in Canada and the US. Take the US out of the equation and you're still left with an impressive set of human resources. And if there were some neutrals around with more useful skills - who was in the better position to buy them?
The other key long-term factor is money. And Britain at the time was far richer than Germany. Even in a duel you have to take into account the ability to buy resources, human and otherwise.
So - basically you have a short-to-mid term standoff, with Germany running out of money first and Britain developing nuclear technology to put an end to things - if it goes that far.
And, say, Nuremberg goes into the history books instead of Hiroshima. ------------- |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 11:54
|
Germany had enough SARIN, why didn't they SARIN on a V2?
Were they afraid...or...were there other problems?
What do you say about the story of U 234?
|
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 06:23
Well they could have but Britian had poison gas too (which was prepared in case Operation Sea Lion came off). Hitler may not have wanted to kill fellow "Aryans" and the German Junker elite would probably have been against it as too barbaric.
On the African front alos consider the South African campaigns against the Italians in the rest of Africa. Then add the fact that the Italian army was basicly beaten and their territory capture before the DAK landed and that the Vichy French similarly did not last long and Africa becomes untenable to Germany unless they can force the Royal Navy out of the Med. -------------
|
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 07:19
|
So the WW2 was not really a total war.
Hitler didn't use SARIN against UK, but why not against Russia?
The Russians were nor "Germanic" like the Brits.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 09:39
|
Ignoring WMDs for the moment, Germany's perennial problem is that it can't get out to the world stage without either allying with or first defeating and occupying its neighbours. That after all is what kicked off both WWI and WWII.
So it's difficult to have a 'duel' between Britain and Germany. ------------- |
Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 20:44
|
The British Empire was coming towards it's end at the time so I still find it doubtful that Britian could have pushed both Italy and Germany out of Africa succesfuly because Britian was indeed a powerful nation but Germany was stronger and with the help of the Italians they were out of there. ------------- Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining. George Washington - March 15, 1783 |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 05:00
|
Germany had the help of the Italians in North Africa, and it was still beaten. Before the US ever got there.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Britain and Germany both of them unaided by independent powers. ------------- |
Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 13:39
|
America did get there and they drove out the Vichy French from Morroco and Algeria and then attacked Rommel in Tunsia which pinned him down. ------------- Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining. George Washington - March 15, 1783 |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 14:22
|
Rommel was done by the time America got truely involved in North Africa. The Commonwealth forces thoroughly beat him in El Alamein and had him in full retreat while the Americans were just landing or still dealing with the Vichy forces. Rommels lack of supplys, troops and armour pretty much sealed the deal for him. If anything the Americans just quickened his exit from North Africa. But not before he trashed them at Kasserine Pass.
I wouldnt toss the Italians in there as a factor. They were only good at surendering and extremely unreliable. I'm sure Rommel would of traded them for fuel or tanks any day haha. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 15:14
|
If the Italians weren't there they would have nnever made it half as far.There were more Italians there then Germans. ------------- Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining. George Washington - March 15, 1783 |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2006 at 12:04
|
It should also be mentioned that if you want to use Italians etc you have to take into account the British commonwealth- the numerous countries that fought for Britain. That gives Britian more industrial and man power than all the Axis. Then add in Resistance and Free units. I mean think of the economical giant that is Hong Kong- that was British, so were places like Canada who had the third largest navy in the world at the end of WW2. Africa was a forgone conclusion before the Americans got there.
As GCLE says if Britain had won and America hadnt come into the war we might well have had a resurgent British Empire. -------------
|
Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2006 at 13:53
|
That is an excellent point but Hong Kong was in Japanesse control before El Alamein.Canada did have an extremely large navy but I can't see even with the help of it a British victory in Africa.I understand all of your points but to put it simply it was 2 versues 1 and the British had a hard enough time just driving the Italians out of East Africa and to win in North Africa would have been very difficult.I can not see the island itself being taken over and they would have slowed down the Axis in North Africa and they could win but it would have been agansit the odds and very difficult. ------------- Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining. George Washington - March 15, 1783 |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2006 at 19:00
By February of 1941 the Itallians had lost 9 divisions 400 tanks and 1300 guns as well as 100,000 plus prisoners. British losess numbered fewer then 2000. I dont really see that as being a hard time. The Italians did improve later but only after Germany got involved. Plus Cunningham's Pond as the British refered the Mediteranean was ruled by the British Navy and RAF. This made it almost impossible to meet resupply needs. Rommel never reseived more then 1/3 of what he considered minium monthly supplies of fuel,ammo and much needed spare parts. Whoops realized you said east africa. After the Itallians took Somaliland the British reorganized and fairly easily ousted the Itallians. Again resupply a problem as the Itallian fleet there was very limited by lack of fuel and eventually sunk. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2006 at 04:29
Now you're making it Britain vs Germany + Italy + Japan. Gets tougher every day.
If Japan comes into the war, how come the US stays out? ------------- |
Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2006 at 08:34
|
Hong Kong surrenderd on December 25 1941.The United States did not start getting troops over there untill Mid to late 1942.The Soviets would have been in by that time realiving pressure but it would have been difficult like I said before. ------------- Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining. George Washington - March 15, 1783 |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2006 at 10:52
|
Maybe but this thread was supposed to be about considering two-country duels, not bringing in all sorts of other third parties.
You could I suppose assume one or other of the parties invades a third party, but then you have to assume it would take the opposite side.
So, in the Britain vs Germany situation, the main question has to be how does Germany bring its ground superiority to bear, given British dominance at sea, and the historical fact that, fighting alone, the Luftwaffe was beaten off by the RAF in 1940 (even with the Germans operating from bases in western Europe)?
Apart from military considerations, you also have to bear in mind the relative wealth of the two countries, and their access to raw materials, either because they controlled them, or because they could afford to buy them. ------------- |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2006 at 17:25
| Who thinks that the most powerful countries during the 20th century were USA USSR Germany and UK? |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 06:45
|
Don't forget Japan. ------------- |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 13:25
| What do you say about Frace and Italy? |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 08:17
|
During the 20th century Italy hardly ranked as a major power.
Up till 1939 France was a major power. Until then I'd rank it as more powerful than the US. From 1914 to 1937 or so it was more powerful than Germany, on a par with Japan, but not as all-round powerful as Britain (adding in their respective empires, of course). ------------- |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 06:44
|
The US & UK combine would win the contest anyday.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 07:24
| The US alone (With IT brains from India) would win the contest by miles. The Indian IT brains are must to write Bug Free Softwares for star war machines. |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 08:12
|
In that way of thinking,Russia and China can be unbeatable in the future.We talk about single country.
And i think USSR domination period is between 1965-1985. ------------- |
Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 08:46
|
Most powerfull country militarily is USA.(No doubt for that)
Most powerfull country Economically is USA Most powerfull country by culture is USA. At least has the dominant culture(The quality is not an issue in this thread). Most powerfull country politically Israel we all know that. ------------- Samos national guard. 260 days left. |
Posted By: EGETÜRK
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 08:49
|
i accept that their culture(food,music vs.) is dominant but it is not the best culture...
------------- The lands of the of the West may be armored with walls of steel, But I have borders guarded by the mighty chest of a believer... |
Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 08:57
|
i agree with that. Usually is commercialized. Nothing to be rembered(of course with some exceptions). ------------- Samos national guard. 260 days left. |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 09:03
If you mean present power i agree.But we all know that every superpower has its rise and fall. USA culture may be is the dominant,but i think it is one of most inferior cultures in the human history.Come on guys there is nothing valuable in american culture,they created only bul...sh*ts and spread them around the world. Economically USA is the most powerful country for almost a century.If we look at EU as one,it is the only power that can compete USA for now. There are prediction which show that China will become the most powerful economy in the next decades.For 2005 they are on forth place. ------------- |
Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 09:18
|
We are talking for the last 50 years. USA culture is commersializd a lot. Thats mean that they produce art in order to gain money. But nowdays this is the motivation for almost everyone in all sections. As i said apart from very few exceptions we have nothing to remember for that. ------------- Samos national guard. 260 days left. |
Posted By: Celestial
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 17:32
| USA is the second nation in the whole world history that has control over the every part of the world. First one is Roman empire. But the Chinese are going fast so they will be a super power in the next 50 years. |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 00:57
The Roman empire in no way controlled the east. In fact in a direct fight, it would have been nowhere near the eastern empires. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 09:40
What fact? You mean hearsay nonsense? There is no fact to say whether the Romans couldnt have anhilated or assimulated anyone and no fact saying they could. The fact is they never expanded east. Are you taking the countless failing empires or just picking a decent one in a good timeframe for this fictional direct fight? ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 10:21
In a theoritical fight India will attack to the enemies with computer viruses? And the ITs that India is producing(Indeed there is a very big production) is not due to their Brain superiority but because they are cheap. Cheap hands. This is how the world is working today. And finally these ITs are working as programmers. They execute orders. Tehy are not trained to design software- hardware or implementing pc networks etc. So even if we consider that a future war is going to be dealt with computers and electronic means and computers viruses etc India has no hope against Europeans, Japanese and americas ITs. ------------- Samos national guard. 260 days left. |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 11:50
You are so funny. USA has politicial control over the most of the world,but not the entire world.Does USA control Russia,China,India,France,Iran,Kazakhstan,Germany?NO!!! The next time try not to be so ridiculous. I'm wondering why most of americans think that they are the greatest ever power in the human history.In fact USA is the only dominant power in the world for only 16 years.Its not much. ------------- |
Posted By: tsar
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2006 at 20:27
| 917 AD - Bulgaria muahaha |
Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 05:47
You think that USA need to have political influence in one country? In Iraq and Afganistan didn't have. They just destroyed the entire country. Who you think the dominant power the last 30 years? ------------- Samos national guard. 260 days left. |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 05:08
dear friend, your statements ar contradicting each other, first you said Romans are the only ones apart from US who have control over the whole world. Now you say they did'nt even try to expand in the east. how else did they exercise control then ! If you feel the romans would have been able to beat China, Good luck to your thoughts. The romans (or their successors) could also not stand up to the Huns, the turks, the mongols. They could not take persia, arabia, middle east, India, china, russia, steppes, Japan, South Asia ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 12:36
Well, you should not forget that India was invaded by a force of westerners that was weaker than the Roman Empire: The greeks under Alexander the Great. And you should not forget Indians didn't have the slightest chance to stop them. Even when there were 1.000 Indians per Greek.
If the Roman Empire really tried hard to reach India and beyond, certainly they had a good chance to win. The problem was more a matter of logistic than anything else. If you believe the Romans were weak, forget it. It was the most organized fighting machine of its times, with the most advanced tech, at least during the period of glory.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 12:48
|
Becoming more powerful and having ability to conquer is totally two different thing.
Ottomans were more powerful(at some times) than iran, but they had no ability to conquer iran.(Logictic or not)
USA is absolutely more powerful than iraq, but he still have no ability to conquer iraq.
|
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 13:37
|
USA is not the dominant power during the last 30 years.As i said it is the most powerful country for only 16 years.If you compare military power of USA and USSR in 1989,you will see that the soviet union had much more powerful army,which in fact bring USSR to its collapse.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 15:04
|
Well,
I believe not always the more populated or rich is the one that wins.
It's very common the winner is the one that shows the greather creativity, and ability to change.
If not, how it was possible that pigmies like Athens and Sparta could defeat the Persian Empire? How come the city of Venice could fight the Turks and survive? or Portugal built an empire in four continents?
England conquered India, a country with a hundred times more population, for example. And 1.000 spaniards were enough to conquer Mexico.
And how it is possible Finland could be a leader in cell phone technology against giants like Japan, Korea, China, Germany and the U.S.?
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 01:20
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 01:23
|
BTW you compared India, I had talked about " persia, arabia, middle east, India, china, russia, steppes, Japan, South Asia" also being parts of the world which could not be controlled by Rome. Please compare Rome with these powers too. Specially China. Anxiously waiting for the statistics ! ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 01:27
Desimir is right, For half of my life I (most Indians) were brought up beliving that USSR was the strongest. The US is emerging as a monopoly only now, still emerging, more so politically, its military capability in controlling is still questionable. USSR has ceased to exist, not Russia. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 11:37
That's not the way history usually explain things. It is supposed Alexander's soldiers were so tired of conquering peoples they just decided it was enough and should stop.
They actually managed to form a kingdom in North West India, from where they influenced the future development of the subcontinent. Have you heared about the Greek-Buddist style of art, for example?
Greeks always tricked their enemies.
Romans were stopped by the Partians, not the Indians. They were stopped by the same peoples Alexander defeated so easily.
Yes, but at the times of the Romans there were not aircraft carriers!
Well, the U.S. is close to that goal. See the TV. I beat you see more MTV than Bolliwood movies.
Actually, that's easy to prove. Just take a book of Vitruvious or any of the engineers of Roman times and you will find out they were ahead of their times. A lot more advanced than any other people in the world. If you pick the astronomical and mathematical works or Aryabatha or Bashkara you will find, at once, that Greek mathematics is at the background of those guys, too.
Well, I believe you were a lucky people not being conquered by Romans. After all, even with all its technology and civilization, Romans has been one of the more cruel and inhuman peoples that ever existed. Just remember the Coliseum. Pinguin
|
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 14:08
|
I am watching MTV,but not for entartaiment but to realize how ridiculous is american culture.
In fact i havent watched MTV for more than 8 years. USA are far away from conrolling the whole world.Their power even become weaker with every year. ------------- |
Posted By: jinjia
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 14:17
| Japan is not existed in that time!!!!!!!!! |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 14:32
| Desimir, do you have a problem with usa? I dont think we should ever belittle any culture including USA. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 14:34
It is not that I love the US (actually it is the oppositive). However, as a Latin American that have suffered the U.S. invasions and intervention to these lands, I can say you, the worst mistake is to believe that country is weak.
Remember what Porfirio Diaz, the Mexican dictator, said: "Poor Mexico so far from heavens and so close to the United States".
 Now, this is just a list of the once superpowers which look down on the United States and payed the prize:
British Empire 1776
Spanish Empire 1898 (lost Cuba, Puerto Rico and Phillippines)
Germany 1945 (flattered)
Japan 1945 (flattered)
U.S.S.R. 1989 (economic breakdown after a failed arms and space race)
If you believe for winning to the U.S. you just has to increase the population and the per capita income you are death wrong. The U.S. has:
(1) The top universities in the world.
(2) The most advanced research facilities.
(3) Dominates the press, and the entertainment industry worldwide.
(4) Is the most powerful military power worldwide.
(5) Is the most advanced country in the R&D cycle.
It got the will.
Don't look down the U.S. That's the mistake that Hitler made.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 14:41
|
Noone is looking down to US.
US are looking down to anyone.
Theirs is the mistake. ------------- 
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 15:59
|
I will disagree with you pinguin.
Ok,British Empire-it wasnt so powerful at that time.They had an exausting war with France.The peak of britain was 1815-1915. Germany in WW2.You forget Britain and USSR,especially when the soviet union destroyed 3/4 of the german army. USSR - it collapsed not because of USA.It were the stupid communists who spend huge amounts of money for army.They were able to have a smaller army which would be again equal to that of US. Spanish - i dont think they were a superpower in 1898.It was very poor and weak country.Even their fleet was from wooden vessels. Japan - It was mostly naval war.Yes USA won it,but japan didnt and still dont have the pottential of a Superpower.Small country with no resources. ------------- |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 16:03
|
About top univercities.You forget Cambridge and Oxford,which are british.
All these facts that you said are true for present USA. But things are changing.May be China will be the new superpower far more greater than USA.(i dont consider that USA is even in TOP 5 of the greatest empires.) ------------- |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 16:20
Desimir, all of you posts are blatantly anti-US. Why do you hate the US? Why do you bash the US in all your posts? It is really starting to irritate me. OXford and Cambridge are great, but overall the United States universities are the worlds best. Just look at the sheer number of foriegn students studying here. Why would they come if the universities weren't great? The U.S.S.R. was not as powerful as the U.S. all of the Cold War. The Soviet army was large-yes, a force to be reckoned with-yes, but would have lost against the U.S. in a war. The U.S. had, and continues to dominate the sky. THe horde of Soviet tanks would have been taken out from the sky. Lastly, if the Soviet Union was all powerful, how come the U.S. is still around and the USSR isn't? Its because we spent them into oblivion. During the 80s Regean forced the Soviets to spend all their money on the military until they ran out and collapsed. Today the United States is miles ahead any other military, and will likely continue to be for the forseeable future. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 16:49
Britain was the same Empire that humilliated China during the Opium war, that have India under its control and that defeated Napoleon. I don't think they were weak at all.
.
Yes, but the U.S. help the U.S.S.R. with lots of things, from food to tracks, guns and airplanes. The U.S. has the tech, though, to bomb Nazi germany to the end.
.
Not quite certain. The U.S.S.R. tried every single way to surpass the U.S. in military power, but forgot the simple lesson: money buy arms. And it also forgot that to control technogy is not only necessary to invest in science and basic research, but in the competitive talent of independent investors. The computer revolution left the U.S.S.R. behind more than anything else.
Yes, sometimes you need more hackers and practical fellows, and less nuclear and rocket scientists.
At the end, the U.S.S.R. could not compite with the computarized high tech weapons and didn't have more money to continue. It was ruined, so it gave up.
.
Actually, the Spanish engineer, Monturiol had designed the more advanced submarine of his time and it was already tested in Spain.... and discarted. Nobody believed in high tech in Spain.
To succeed you need more than investors and improvements, but states that addopt those inventions fast, and that believe in progress.
.
Well, Japan defeated the Russians early in the century. It is just they believed the U.S. was a weak country. A big mistake.
Pinguin.
|
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 23:58
|
I dont hate americans.But sometimes i dont like their arrogance.
During the cold war USSR war really the most powerful country.Stop talking bulshi..ts.They have a bigger and stronger air defence and more aircrafts.According to study by CIA in 1979 ,in a possible war between USA and USSR,the US airfoces woulde be destroyed for 17 days. USSR collapsed because of its economical system.We know that it didnt work properly even in 60st,in fact it never worked.It was a matter of time for USSR to collapse. ------------- |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 00:47
|
Dear pinguin, the sorry mecedonians did not return on theoir own. His army was so terrified of th magadh empire, that it simply turned into a rebellion, where Alex had to even kill his close friends. & they couldn't even return fully by land, they had to take recourse to the sea also. That north western Kingdom you mention was overthrown by Chanakya through Chandragupta Maurya. The mecedonian king was even forced to marry his daughter to Chandragupta. And pinguin why do you fail to understand that imperialists, if they are capable will not leave any stone unturned to conquer any land they can. The fact that they didn,t simply means that they were not capable off. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 09:50
Well, that's not the way the Alexander's campaign are described in the West, anyways  .
And for the topic of imperialism, I believe the Greeks simply reacted to Persian imperialism. They took revenge, but in the process they become too much enthusiastics. There was no way they could keep a hold in India because it was too far away from Greece. But even though, they managed to found some kingdoms for a while and to influence the arts and the future of India. Not a small achievement for such a small country like Greece is.
The Greeks are still the symbol of the resistence of the West for its ability to fight in numerical inferiority, and win.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 11:40
|
USA culture is not for garbage. As far as art(cinema, music etc) although it has as a purpose to make money manytimes americans made mastrpieces. Especially in music Iron Maiden and Metalica. xexexe
Now seriously they have mass production of art and many of them are easy to forget. ------------- Samos national guard. 260 days left. |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 11:51
|
Iron Maiden are british my friend.
Even one of the members of Metallica is not american,i mean Lars Ulrich is danish. ------------- |
Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 12:13
|
Yes Ulrich is also the founder of the band. I always thought maiden Us. My mistake. ------------- Samos national guard. 260 days left. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 12:17
|
I believe the greatest achievements of U.S. culture so far has been:
(1) tech:
development of mass production, particularly cars
development of the computer and invention of the compiler (software)
development of nuclear energy.
space conquest, particularly the landings on the moon.
(2) science:
Almost any field of human achivements is been monopolized by them. Count the Nobel prizes by country.
(3) arts:
movies. Almost all the classics were done by Americans.
cartoons. Particularly walt disney industry.
music. Jazz, Blues, Rocks and other musical forms are the most influential worldwide.
theatre. Think in Broadway.
Literature: popular genres. Science Fiction. In serious literature we got geniou like E.A. Poe, Mark Twain and many others.
Omar
|
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 13:49
|
Yes but the real american culture was created in 19th and beginning of the 20th century.Now it is just a commercializm which shows one downgrading culture.
Sorry its just my personal opinion,but british rock is the greatest ever.I dont deny the achievments of american literature but it is still behind british,russian,german and french. ------------- |