Key to Victory!

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by CzarAleks
Israel has not defeated the Arabs in a single war then, it was America all along, going by your logic.

It's so nice to state an innacurrate analogy rather than explain how the reasoning is false, eh?

Or are you stating that Britain did not provide enormous subsidies that made 1813 possible? That, had Napoleon conquered England adn the British Empire, Napoleon would've been global hegemon?

 

[unmerged(21298)]

Originally posted by Faeelin
It's so nice to state an innacurrate analogy rather than explain how the reasoning is false, eh?

Or are you stating that Britain did not provide enormous subsidies that made 1813 possible? That, had Napoleon conquered England adn the British Empire, Napoleon would've been global hegemon?

No i am not dening that Britain provided enormous subsidies that helped Russia, but so did the US provide the money and weapons for Israel to defeat the Arabs. So shlould the US or Israel get credit for 1948, 1956, 1967, 1976?

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by CzarAleks
No i am not dening that Britain provided enormous subsidies that helped Russia, but so did the US provide the money and weapons for Israel to defeat the Arabs. So shlould the US or Israel get credit for 1948, 1956, 1967, 1976?

Clearly Israel.

Now, had america been providing air support and deployed a highly effective army, wouldn't you say america?

 

[Sol Invictus]

I have a hangover so I will be short in ending this Army vs Navy argument; it all depends. I'm so brilliant!

 

[Stingray]

I think the importance of a navy accually decreased somewhat in the 19th century, sure, you wouldn't be able to produce power worldwide without one, but with the railroads, it was easier to send goods across land than across water, and all goods could theoretically be imported through a land route.

 

[unmerged(19173)]

The importance of the navy depends on the country and its dependency on sea imports. E.g. naval blockade in Victorian time will do no damage to Russia, will do a minor damage to Germany, but will suffocate Britain.

The Royal Navy played a role in the Crimean war just by existing and showing in front of St. Petersburg. This forced the Russians to keep 2/6 of their army to defend the capital. Another 3/6 was on the A-H border, because A-H partialy mobilised and put troops on the Russian border and only 1/6 fought in Sevastopol.

The comparative speed of the navy to project power at great distances gave advantage to an army with a navy over the walking armies. The development of the railways the land armies caught up in speed and the relative advantage of the navy deminished.

 

[Zagys]

Did I hear someone claim that the Russian Empire and German Empire were not empires? :rofl:

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Originally posted by CzarAleks
When is the last time the Brits defeated anybody on land

You never mentioned anything about being alone.

Britain didn't have a very large army, largely because they did not need one. The 'wooden wall' kept them safe, so few troops were needed to protect the Isles. The navy also allowed them to project power anywhere in the world, something that no other nation could do, until the early 20th century.

Steele

 

[unmerged(18269)]

The navy also allowed them to project power anywhere in the world, something that no other nation could do, until the early 20th century.

Except of course into Europe.

 

[HJ Tulp]

Originally posted by CzarAleks

As for the colonial wars with Netherlans, Spain, France, Germany, anybody else, Britain is dominant, no one can deny this, but colonial is very different from Europe.

I will
Maybe overall in the end England was able to defeat the Netherlands but the Dutch Republic had it's fair share of won wars. We kicked the Brits out of the East Indias, not the other way around.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Originally posted by AlexanderG
Except of course into Europe.

The Black Sea and St. Petersburg, during the Crimean War, Gibraltar and Malta, the Suez.

Britain could surround Europe, and blockade every port of any nation.

If you don't think that is the ability to project power, than what is?

Steele

 

[Yank]

Originally posted by Steele
The Black Sea and St. Petersburg, during the Crimean War, Gibraltar and Malta, the Suez.

Britain could surround Europe, and blockade every port of any nation.

If you don't think that is the ability to project power, than what is?

Steele

Exactly right. I believe the example of WWI Germany was used by the proponets of the flip side of this argument. I just read a very interesting history of WWI focusing on the German-Austrian perspective (Herwig - The First World War). If you don't understand what kind of impact the Royal Navy's "Hunger Blockade" had on the German-Austrian war effort, you're missing one of the big reasons the Allies won the war and both monarchies were ruined. The effects were nothing short of catastrophic.

 

[unmerged(18269)]

If you don't think that is the ability to project power, than what is?

Marching into Berlin.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Ok...

Britain vs. Germany, 1900. Which is more powerful in the following areas...

Berlin: Germany
The rest of Continental Europe: Britain
Africa: Britain
Asia: Britain
Antarctica: Britain
The Mediterranean Sea: Britain
The Atlantic: Britain
The Pacific: Britain
The Indian Ocean: Britain
North America: Britain
South America: Britain
German colonies anywhere: Britain (If Britain wanted to close off the German colonies, they could do so with ease)

I could go on, but...
11 for Britain, 1 for Germany. That is projecting power.

Steele

 

[Icecold]

I don't beleve people are even discussing that GB wasn't the most dominant power in the world for most of this period. And for a lot of that time she was at war at least somewhere in the world - and in many cases in multiple war locations.....and GB still won. or had at the very least a draw.

Cheres, Ice

 

[Inostra]

A. T. Mahan (Captain, US) have written a very interesting book on the subject. I think its called "The Influence of Sea Power upon History", not sure as my copy is in Swedish and printed 1899

 

[Old Joe]

Originally posted by Icecold
I don't beleve people are even discussing that GB wasn't the most dominant power in the world for most of this period. And for a lot of that time she was at war at least somewhere in the world - and in many cases in multiple war locations.....and GB still won. or had at the very least a draw.

Cheres, Ice

funny this is, if theres will be same war exhoustion rule like in eu2 , after 14may beta fcourse,.. or at least some similar thing for those anglosaxons predators to break their exploiters empire apart

 

[unmerged(21298)]

Originally posted by Steele
Ok...

Britain vs. Germany, 1900. Which is more powerful in the following areas...

Berlin: Germany
The rest of Continental Europe: Britain
Africa: Britain
Asia: Britain
Antarctica: Britain
The Mediterranean Sea: Britain
The Atlantic: Britain
The Pacific: Britain
The Indian Ocean: Britain
North America: Britain
South America: Britain
German colonies anywhere: Britain (If Britain wanted to close off the German colonies, they could do so with ease)

I could go on, but...
11 for Britain, 1 for Germany. That is projecting power.

Steele

Really, how is it that Britain was more powerful than Germany in continental Europe?
Africa, GB didn't dominate it, but had to share it with, France, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Spain, and Germany,
Asia, same situation only add Russia, Holland, US, and Japan.
The Indina Ocean...woopty doo
The Pacific...GB didn't dominate the Pacific, the US and Japan did.
North America and South America, how many times did Britain do something millitary in here after the Monroe Doctorine, except in 1982 with okay from Washington?
As for German colonies, well woopty doo again!

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Originally posted by CzarAleks
Really, how is it that Britain was more powerful than Germany in continental Europe?
Africa, GB didn't dominate it, but had to share it with, France, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Spain, and Germany,
Asia, same situation only add Russia, Holland, US, and Japan.
The Indina Ocean...woopty doo
The Pacific...GB didn't dominate the Pacific, the US and Japan did.
North America and South America, how many times did Britain do something millitary in here after the Monroe Doctorine, except in 1982 with okay from Washington?
As for German colonies, well woopty doo again!

If you actually read what I said, you'll notice I was comparing Britain to Germany, and their ability to project power into the following areas.

Germany was hugely powerful within her own borders, but what about the south? France? The East? The North? Britain's ability to project power made her more powerful than Germany in those regions.
Britain did dominate Africa. Look at a map. And Britain was certainly more powerful there than Germany.
Asia, same situation, except Britain didn't really dominate as much.
Woopty doo to you too.
Britain did not dominate the Pacific, correct, but she was certainly much more powerful there than Germany.
Don't forget about Canada...
The Germans cared about their colonies.

The point was that Germany would have been more powerful than Britain as far as the Germans could reach the British, but the Brits had the ability to project their forces anywhere they damn well wanted, and they could do so because of the fleet. The Germans had a fine army, but it could only go as far as it could march, and its really friggin hard to march from Europe to Africa, or whatever.

Inostra: You have the correct title.

Steele

 

[unmerged(20138)]

Habsburgs...um pretty sure Spain had a navy.

So do you consider any nation an empire? What is your definition of empire?

Mine is ability to assert influence over the world, aka more then your neighboors.

Now you could name a bunch of medieval/pre new world empires (holy roman). But im gonna stick to 1845 period.

Lets name empires:
Britian-ok pretyy obvious, huge navy.

Russia-ok ill give it too you, this period ill agree and say they were (though i still doubt it, they are a huge great power, but not an "empire"). They still had a plenty big navy.

Germany-Ill give you this too, no effective navy, got beaten in WWI....

France-Had a decent navy if you dont compare it to britian..ok.. got beaten in WWI (before allies arived), but managed to keep there economy up and fight.

USA-nice big navy, allowed them to get into Cuba ect...

Spain-avg/small navy, also alot of internal termoil, but were beaten by US in cuba and such...

Austria-Hungary-Ok,they maintained ill give yout hat, but in WWI they were also choked too death by a blockade..fell apart.

Sweden- ill just throw them in, decent navy..stayed together.

Italy-?? are they an empire? honestly dont know much..

Ottomans- are they still an empire? i say no..but they managed to hold off a poor invasion...but they arn't an empire... but I guess not much of an navy didn't really hurt em...

So what I see is:
USA/France/Britian..nice naval powers..prospered.
Germany/A-H/...no navy...floundered.
Spain..weak navy..floundered.
Sweden..decent navy..stood pat.