Most powerful regimes(countries) in history

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 NEXT

sharp_shooter RE:Most powerful regimes(countries) in history 1/27/2004 5:53:58 PM

1. Romans 2. The Vikings (mainly because they were one of the few who ever took British land) 3. Britain 4. Nazis 5. US This is obviously for their own times.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aus RE:Most powerful regimes(countries) in history 1/27/2004 6:19:14 PM

perhaps you better set a definition. using an open criteria means that you should be including the mongols, spanish, dutch, russians, portuguese, fench, italians, javans (for their own region), chinese etc.... this kind of question is as broad as it is long.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Most powerful regimes(countries) in history 1/27/2004 6:29:35 PM

1)British- Never will a nation dominate the field of Industry, maritime supremacy and commerce in such a manor as what Britain from the treaty of Utrecht in 1707 to the First World War in 1914 2)Romans- Similar in a sense to Britain, for instance, like Britain they never fought aggressive wars 3)Mongols- The galvanisation of a bunch of nomads, which followed and surpassed their Hunic ancestors, in conquering China and Russia is an extraordinary feet. Yet they failed to establish their culture on the other nations, like Britain and Rome did. 4)US 1942-48- The defence budget was around $900 billion, you can by an awful lot of toys with that. Also 1948 was when the Soviets developed their own atomic bomb, from stolen American plans and designs. 5)Naploeanoic France- He may have betrayed the French revolution, yet he brushed aside the great powers of continental Europe, and he would of gotten away with too had it not been for those pesky redcoats. Lopez, the Egyptians were defeated by the Hittites (900bc) and then several centuries if not a millennium later by the Romans. Therefore I wouldn?t put the Egyptians anywhere near this category.

Quote Reply

DragonReborn RE:Most powerful regimes(countries) in history Definition 1/28/2004 10:42:17 AM

OK heres my take, starting with a definition of power. In international theory, power is taken to mean the degree to which a country can influence events and behaviour, both internally (its people) and externally (other countries) and to effect the outcome of these events etc in its favour, ie the "possession of controlling influence". This power can come in many forms, from military power to economic and cultural influence. If you consider this definition of power I think that the list would have to be 1. USA 1945 - 2004 2. British Empire 3. Roman Empire 4. Mongol Empire 5. Rule of Alexander the Great 6. Soviet Union 7. Ancient Egypt 8. Ancient China 9. Nazi Germany 10.Napoleonic France

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Most powerful regimes(countries) in history Definition 1/28/2004 10:54:58 AM

?In international theory, power is taken to mean the degree to which a country can influence events and behaviour, both internally (its people) and externally (other countries) and to effect the outcome of these events etc in its favour, ie the "possession of controlling influence". So surely by this logic the British, Roman and Mongolian, Napoleonic empires should be ahead of the US by some distance, as it?s a lot easier to influence the world, as in Britain?s case, when you control a quarter of it..

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:Most powerful regimes(countries) in history Definition 1/28/2004 9:45:30 PM

Actually, the US controls a quarter of the world if we consider it economically. Today the US accounts for somewhere between 20 and 25 percent of the world economy by itself. Further, the US can at least compel every major power in the world to consider their course of action. Even further, during Great Britain's heyday there were other countries capable of projecting force worldwide that were closer to being on par with the UK. There is no country in the world today that can project power worldwide of the same order of magnitude as the US. At the height of its power the UK was not equal to the entire rest of the world. In the years from 1945 to 1955 the United States economically (and by extension militarily IF they had so desired) was equal to every other nation in the world. The US accounted for just under 50% of the world's GDP and 45 to 50 percent of the world's manufacturing capacity for that decade. When you take into account manufacturing capacity that wasn't needed for bare maintenance, the US accounted for something like 75% of the world's industrial military capacity from 1945 to 1950. The UK, as powerful as they were in the 19th centure, never matched that position. Even today the US probably accounts for something like a full third of the world's industrial military capacity. That is, if the US industry were to be fully mobilized for military purposes and bare maintenance of the civilian sector. The problem with the discussion (in another thread) of how the emerging nations like China and India are growing their economies is that even with the incredible growth they have had, the vast majority of their industry and economy is devoted merely to maintenance, and CANNOT be diverted to military needs without destroying their economy. From an international power perspective that is a surefire recipe for loss of position. If you don't think so, study the economic vs. power potential scenarios of Spain, France and Germany over the course of 1500 to 2000. Or what happened to Britain when she was forced to divert a much larger portion of her economy to the military than she had historically during the period 1910 to 1945.

Quote Reply

fall out RE:Most powerful regimes(countries) in history Definition 1/28/2004 10:05:34 PM

true, and in todays more globalised and smaller world, economic power is very big key factor in determining a nation's influence.

Quote Reply

Sikman RE:Most powerful regimes(countries) in history Definition 1/28/2004 11:18:49 PM

In a sense America does control the world outside China and a few rogue nations. In fact the military expendature of the United States TODAY equals that of the entire world combined. However in 1945 they really had the chance to officially own the world, if they were ruthless enough they could have done it. Patton wanted to go right through the Russians after the US defeated the Germans and they damn well could have since they had the monopoly on nukes. Imagine a truly democratic Russia at that time minus a few cities, Mr. Mao would have never came into power in 1949 had the Soviets been defeated prior to this date. Hell it would have been just like the federation in starship troopers world government everybody cooperating as one. Of course you would still have pesky old Islam, but the new federation would be united in combatting its evils.

Quote Reply

the British Lion RE:Most powerful regimes(countries) in history Definition 1/29/2004 9:21:46 AM

"Patton wanted to go right through the Russians after the US defeated the Germans" im sorry, i object to that termanoligy. the US did NOT defeat the Germans single handedly... but i'm sure that's not what you ment... as for the question at hand... 1: USA, post '45 2: Rome, at the true hight of it's power. 3: The British Empire after that i'm not sure... but if i had to continue the list i'd have, (in no order), Napolionic France, Mongols, Nazi Germany (1940 - 42) and ancieint china.

Quote Reply

DragonReborn RE:Most powerful regimes(countries) in history Definition 1/29/2004 9:56:54 AM

mike_golf makes my case well. Control does not have to be about just direct control. The old Empires from British to Roman, were about controlling territory and resources. The territories within the Empire were an extention of the state and its people, subjects of that Empire. Following 1945 the idea of these collonial empires (essentially mainifestations of a nations power and influence)was reversed, and over the next few decades the collonies of Western Europe either won or were given their independance. One of the key reasons for this fall of Empires was the fact that America insisted on it. Rooservelt told Churchill early on in WW2 that ultimately Britain and the rest of Europe would have to give up their Empires. My point is that once the manifestation of power was a territorial Empire. Not anymore. America rewrote the rules. If you could translate the power of the USA today, into an ability to have a territorial empire, it would out strip that of the British Empire, the largest Empire to date. Another very important point already made, is the difference in power parity between the USA and the rest of the World. Now that we are in a unipolar World with the collapse of the USSR the US is the most powerful state on earth by several magnitudes. At no time in history has one power been so clearly above all other powers. The British, Roman, Mongol, Napoleonic etc Empires have all enjoied status as the most powerful nation on earth in their time, but their competitors, though behind them in power, were always closer in power terms to the top dog, than any nation is today. The US is at no.1 in my list because never has there been such a big gap between the most powerful nation on earth and everyone else. America influences the world with its huge military, but also ist huge economic power, it has far more MNC's than any other state with which to assert economic influecne. There is also power of Hollywood and MTV and the internet etc American influence saturates almost all aspects of global life. In many ways globalisation is Americanisation. Americans Empire is much more dangerous beceause go can not see it. It is not defined by territory, but by how many other countries around the world watch its media, buy its goods and rely on its companies to invest in their economies and provide jobs for its people. And if you dont want to buy into the American dream? Well theres alway the most potent military force in all history to make sure that any rouge states tow the line.

Quote Reply

the British Lion RE:Most powerful regimes(countries) in history Definition 1/29/2004 10:09:24 AM

im sure if Britian was a person he'd be very proud of his son ;)

Quote Reply

lope RE:Most powerful regimes(countries) in history Definition 1/29/2004 11:01:19 AM

LOL @ British that is true we are just Cousins of the British empire

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Most powerful regimes 1/29/2004 1:05:54 PM

It?s a game of opinions and that?s fair enough. Although I have to disagree, the power which was projected by firstly the Romans over a number of centuries, left not only an impressive imprint on history due to their well ordered legions and the lethal Gladius, but a cultural imprint which was only lost because of the Dark ages. Although if you examine Norman architecture for instance (why you would I don?t know) you will notice many similarities with the Classical Roman design. (Other interesting Roman inventions were; the fast food restaurant equipped with the hamburger and fire engines to name but a few) However I don?t think any other nation has left such a physical imprint on the world as Britain. Look at your justice systems, parliamentary systems etc, etc. ?The UK, as powerful as they were in the 19th century, never matched that position. Even today the US probably accounts for something like a full third of the world's industrial military capacity.? Well I?m sorry Mike but this is a foolish statement. Its like comparing an F1 car from the 50?s with one from the present day. You can?t as its impossible to. If Britain had had the technology that the US has now etc, etc then of course you can compare, but as the technology, production methods were not around you can only speculate. ?Actually, the US controls a quarter of the world if we consider it economically? Yes the US has a very powerful economy, but a world wide, total global economic slowdown would greatly affect America. It helps the US to have allies who have strong economies, regardless of the peaks and troths of a capitalist set up. ?Even further, during Great Britain's heyday there were other countries capable of projecting force worldwide that were closer to being on par with the UK.? Maybe on the continent, nations could field armies that were larger. Yet lets look at history. Blenhiem 1704 when Britain took the modern day adage of becoming the ?superpower?. Britain was out numbered yet won. Napoleonic Wars, Peninsular war, 100-Day campaign. Same result. (There is no need to break down the British armies achievements). Yet, the British army wasn?t structured to fight wars all like this all the while, it could, but what it was designed to do was to provide a strong enough force into colonial hotspots, making use of greater British training, discipline and equipment. Nobody could come anywhere near the Royal Navy in terms of projection. It was twice the size of the US and French navy, combined. Insuring total naval dominance where ever it was needed. (even up the Hudson if it was needed!). To suggest that the French could project on the scale that Britain could is just incorrect. I?m not doubting that the US is strong today, that?s not my point. But what you can?t argue is that America has any form of legitimate control over anybody, unlike Britain did, Rome did, the French did, the Mongols did etc. My point being that America isn?t untouchable, much like Rome and Britain were. From 1948 to the late 80?s early 90?s, the US had a rival which could have burned the name UNITED STATES of the map. I don?t see the unassailable power there. I don?t see it now, when other nations have a nuclear deterrent which would possibly not destroy the US completely in the physical sense (I.e. every square mm being blown up) but a nuclear arsenal of the size of France for instance, would totally destroy the US (I.e. hit major cities, infrastructure etc, etc). So as for saying; ?at no time in the world has a nation been as powerful as the US as DragonReborn said, is falling into the same trap as mike. I?m under no illusions that a US naval carrier group would have routed the Royal Navy of the 19th and twentieth century. But that?s not the point. At the time, there was no other nation which could compete on the scale of Britain, industrially or economically, so if you transferred that from then to today with the modernization in between (very subjective but I think you get the gist) then Britain would be able to field a Navy. Twice the size of USN and twice the size of the Russian. Although towards the start of the First World War the US and Germany were very close to Britain. And it was the unparalleled dominance in respect to the 19th century in terms of the industry and economy, that if it was transferred to today, as I said previously up graded, then it would indeed be light years ahead as it was then. Although as I also said this is very subjective, as up until I last checked, I lacked the means to cross the space-time continuum and bring back 19th century Britain for a closer comparison. (Ah, hang on what?s that in the corner? oh never mind it?s just a chair) If you want to compare colonial projection then the only major comparison I could or would suggest would be to compare the Vietnam war with the Zulu annexation. Similar disparity in numbers, technology and distance. ?One of the key reasons for this fall of Empires was the fact that America insisted on it.? Very incorrect and na�ve. What you are referring to (I think as what you said didn?t happen, as I will explain) is self-determination, which was put forward by the extremely (and I can?t emphasise this enough) na�ve Woodrow Wilson, who wanted the small Balkan states, Slavic states to be granted self-determination, as part of his 14 point plan and later the treaty of Versailles. This also extended to European colonies. The problem with this was it created very, very weak nations like Czechoslovakia and Poland (weak in terms of the great powers in Europe), as in particular Poland didn?t exist to a German. Wilson wanted to switch the power balance in Europe off, something which Lloyd George and Clemanceau greatly sighed at. After all who was this foolish liberal medalling with matters which didn?t affect him and would only create problems for the future? This extends to the colonies of Britain and France. The British empire fell, as we simply couldn?t afford it. Don?t kid your self that India would have been independent in 1947, if Britain hadn?t fought two world wars. Don?t kid your self that Ireland would have been granted Dominion status if Britain wasn?t a war weary nation following the Great War. It costs a lot of pounds to fight two world wars. it?s a massive historical and economical what if. However it may be interesting to chart Britain?s position now, in relation to Britain not having to have fought two world wars. (of course this point to an extent is irrelevant, yet for instance, America would not have this ?Welt Politik? which has now, it would have remained an isolationist power, as would have Britain). So in my opinion and certainly the opinion of many a greater mind I might add, statements like ?At no time in history has one power been so clearly above all other powers.? are simply false. Finally (fan-bloody-tastic you cry!) statements like this which may have been tongue in cheek, do hold some relevance, ?There is also power of Hollywood and MTV and the internet etc?, however, with mine firmly in check, ask your self this lads, what?s the greatest band of all time? The Beatles? The Rolling Stones? Led Zeppelin? The Who? Yes Jimmy Hendrix was great and certainly knocks seven shades of shyte out of that crap you ship over here, but he couldn?t hold a note, with Jagger. As for Hollywood, Ridley Scott is the best director around and his a Brit! Just my opinion though.

Quote Reply

Ad Ambiguity. 1/29/2004 1:13:41 PM

Ambiguity over Ireland, what I meant is that in 1921 southern Ireland was granted Dominion status (independence followed in 1948). However there would be no such thing as partition or the Free Irish state. The IRB would have been crushed as they were almost on the brink of being and would have been banished to the same annuals of time as, the Tone Rising, the Young Ireland and Fenians.

Quote Reply

french stratege Ad you are right except two things 1/29/2004 1:22:06 PM

Ad you are right except that France was even more dominant under Louis XIV in the World in a long period than Napoleon.And don't forgot Chinese after they united two hundred century before Christ. So : Alexander the Great for a short period. Roman and antic Chinese as they conquered almost all the world at their disposal. Attila for a short period (until lost battle of Chalon (Cataulonic fields)in France against French gauls/german tribes and Romans (the greatest battle of western antic with more than 300 000 warriors) Mongols, Spain (Charles Quint), France , UK, USA in historical order

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 NEXT

	News As History - December 3, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us