Legit Russia is [expletive deleted] terrible

[nicechinos]

You're simply wrong. He failed to commit about 30,000 troops that would have crushed them outright. Learn some history rather than "seeming" things.

Added to ignore list. Bye.

History doesn't have "what if" clauses. There were millions of events which could turn the history on its head, especially battlewise (King of Burgundy death, Battle of Varna or Huaynaputina volcano eruption for God's sake). E.g. Prussia could be absorbed into Russia (after full occupation during seven years war) if not newly crowned Pyotr the Third the Retard. So what?
What's the point of discussing GDP (especially per capita[per serf or slave, if you don't mind]) in EU4 timeline?
I encourage you to disprove all these puny historians who consider Russian Empire to be among "great powers" by the end of EU4 timeline. And that was really the first period when this term started to make sense in a broad diplomatic context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_power#Hierarchy_of_great_powers

Not keeping the score or meaning to offend but "He failed to commit about 30,000 troops that would have crushed them outright." is "a seeming" thing (We just can not possibly know that). The history is that he was defeated. "Decisively" as Wiki puts it.

Decisive Russian victory
Destruction of French Allied Army

The Grande Armee was 685th in the beginning of campaign. Only 120th of them survived. Do you think that another 30th would seal the deal for Napoleon?

"The campaign effectively ended on 14 December 1812, not quite six months from its outset, with the last French troops leaving Russian soil.
The campaign was a turning point in the Napoleonic Wars. The reputation of Napoleon was severely shaken, and French hegemony in Europe was dramatically weakened. The Grande Armée, made up of French and allied invasion forces, was reduced to a fraction of its initial strength. These events triggered a major shift in European politics. "

It doesn't look like it was a landslide win.

 

[gaius valerius]

History doesn't have "what if" clauses. There were millions of events which could turn the history on its head, especially battlewise (King of Burgundy death, Battle of Varna or Huaynaputina volcano eruption for God's sake). E.g. Prussia could be absorbed into Russia (after full occupation during seven years war) if not newly crowned Pyotr the Third the Retard.
What's the point of discussing GDP (especially per capita[per serf or slave, if you don't mind]) in EU4 timeline?
I encourage you to disprove all these puny historians who consider Russian Empire to be among "great powers" by the end of EU4 timeline. And that was really the first period when this term started to make sense in a broad diplomatic context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_power#Hierarchy_of_great_powers

Not keeping the score or meaning to offend but "He failed to commit about 30,000 troops that would have crushed them outright." is "a seeming" thing (We just can not possibly know that). The history is that he was defeated.

Totally disagree. The power of individuals and such events is not of such prepostorous consequences at all. There are long term socio-economic evolutions that simply thrump any decision or event by individual humans. The idea of the power of agency of individuals has long since been shelved by historical research. Exciting as it may be to pounder on the what if's of history, it is infinitely more complex than the mere actions of humans, which are dictated often by movers they do not realise. Look at the death of the king of Burgundy and the ensuing creating of a gigantic Habsburg empire... it lasted only ONE lifetime, that of Charles V, truly meant for the ages... not. Varna? What good would a christian victory have done for the survival of the Balkan? Slowed Ottoman expansion by a decade perhaps? The material conditions of a young flourishing empire in full vigor far outstripped the merits of one crushing defeat by anyone's hand, and that has nothing to do with the individual merits of sultans. Individual events certainly matter in that they shape history at the moment, in a visible way, but take a step back and you'll see it isn't what moves history.

That as a derailing sidenote

 

[nicechinos]

Totally disagree. The power of individuals and such events is not of such prepostorous consequences at all. There are long term socio-economic evolutions that simply thrump any decision or event by individual humans. The idea of the power of agency of individuals has long since been shelved by historical research. Exciting as it may be to pounder on the what if's of history, it is infinitely more complex than the mere actions of humans, which are dictated often by movers they do not realise. Look at the death of the king of Burgundy and the ensuing creating of a gigantic Habsburg empire... it lasted only ONE lifetime, that of Charles V, truly meant for the ages... not. Varna? What good would a christian victory have done for the survival of the Balkan? Slowed Ottoman expansion by a decade perhaps? The material conditions of a young flourishing empire in full vigor far outstripped the merits of one crushing defeat by anyone's hand, and that has nothing to do with the individual merits of sultans. Individual events certainly matter in that they shape history at the moment, in a visible way, but take a step back and you'll see it isn't what moves history.

That as a derailing sidenote

That's what I said really. "What if" clauses are unimportant. I do not wish to discuss "What good would a christian victory have done for the survival of the Balkan?" I can honestly admit that I do not know this.

 

[Pilot00]

Mmm, into their own during the Napoleonic era like at the battle of Bordino? They *only* lost *Moscow*, and mostly because Napoleon lost his nerve instead of pressing his advantages and crushing them totally.

The Russian's biggest advantages have been the winter and having opposing, stronger armies with better leadership making strategic mistakes giving the Russians a 2nd chance without which they would have otherwise perished as a nation on multiple occasions throughout history.

[humor alert]
Russia has yet to ever have come into its own militarily *or* economically. For Pet's sake, even *Sweden* has a higher per capita GDP than Russia. Russia was a super power and yet it's still less productive per person than *Sweden*

And what do the Swedes do for their high per capita GDP? Video games with bugs in them!

This is so wrong on so many accounts that the only thing that saves it is the humor tag.

Actually it has. A super power needs a strong middle class, like the US traditionally *has* had. The reason China is not a super power is because it has a large part of its population living in sub-saharan poverty.

The only reason China is not considered a super power is because its not trying to aggressively press its agenda on a global level (so far) and restrains itself on a regional level. However if their leaders have half a mind (which by all accounts from 1980 and onwards proves they do), this will change radically and might I add, explosively in the next 3 decades

You're simply wrong. He failed to commit about 30,000 troops that would have crushed them outright. Learn some history rather than "seeming" things.

I would advice you to do the same, cause you think that an army alone can win a war, when in fact history itself proved quite the opposite. If he pushed further into the Russian wastes, chances are the Russians would have a glassier with his corpse in it as a monument.

You're simply wrong. He failed to commit about 30,000 troops that would have crushed them outright. Learn some history rather than "seeming" things.




The words [humor alert] indicated precisely that.

Per capita GDP is ultimately what won the Cold War. Aside from the US being able before and to the current day, out spend every other nation in the world *combined* on military spending, it was also a key element to the downfall of the Soviet Union due to the systems inability to create prosperity and thus a basic standard of living equal to what was considered *poor* in western countries. This in turn meant that while the US was, and still does, spend more on its military it also became the world's pre-eminent economic power as well, while the USSR further stagnated over time.

Per capita gpd is one of the key elements when combined with their population, and thus size, to a country's ability to compete militarily, economically and thus diplomatically.

And thus, yes, if the country of Luxembourg had a populations of >300,000,000 people with its current GDP [not reasonable, but since you brought it up], then you can be guaranteed it would, if it chose, easily become the world's economic and military power and have the corresponding influence that would go with that level of economic *power*.

It is economic power that ultimately won the Cold War, not military, and per capita gdp was at the very core of why the US ultimately succeeded and the USSR ultimately failed.

So as snide and rude as your comment was, it shows an incredibly amount of ignorance along side the arrogance therein.

Added to ignore list. Thanks for showing me that feature! Bye.

Good theory but no. It was Europe and its dependency that allowed the US to win the war. If Europe was not transformed into a colony after the aftermath of the WW2, all that economic power the US produced would be useless and would stagnate them, because they would have no markets. The USSR failed due to diplomacy, not economics alone. Having an army, an economy that dependent on the intervention of that army and the mandate to use it from the countries that mattered, allowed the US to 'recycle' its economy so to speak. Declare war on countries with inability to fight back, secure resources, invest on long term reconstruction, ripe the profits, rinse repeat. On the other hand the Russians were limited to a handful of poverty stricken regimens that had 0 influence on the diplomatic stage. Thats what ruined them. And ruined is a big word all things considered, cause I am seeing the Russian federation doing very well the recent years.

 

[Tacticus101]

Per capita GDP is ultimately what won the Cold War.........

are you American?

 

[Pilot00]

are you American?

Id be surprised if he is not. BTW I am from there myself.

Not keeping the score or meaning to offend but "He failed to commit about 30,000 troops that would have crushed them outright." is "a seeming" thing (We just can not possibly know that). The history is that he was defeated.

For one, we know that he couldn't commit them, not failed to do so.

 

[Darkath]

The only reason China is not considered a super power is because its not trying to aggressively press its agenda on a global level (so far) and restrains itself on a regional level. However if their leaders have half a mind (which by all accounts from 1980 and onwards proves they do), this will change radically and might I add, explosively in the next 3 decades

Anyone that doesn't consider china as a superpower is ignorant. They have 1,5 billion population, launch stuff in space, they have nuclear weapon and permanent seat at the UNSC, and have the 2nd highest GDP in the world. The only thing that prevent china from bullying everyone around them is the fact US is still stronger than them, but they start to challenge that situation in Asia now.

Also china has a strong middle class in the urban area, even if it's not the majority of the population, their middle class is probably the largest in the world. (approx 300 million people and rising)

 

[Pilot00]

Anyone that doesn't consider china as a superpower is ignorant. They have 1,5 billion population, launch stuff in space, they have nuclear weapon and permanent seat at the UNSC, and have the 2nd highest GDP in the world. The only thing that prevent china from bullying everyone around them is the fact US is still stronger than them, but they start to challenge that situation in Asia now.

Also china has a strong middle class in the urban area, even if it's not the majority of the population, their middle class is probably the largest in the world. (approx 300 million people and rising)

How is the US stronger than China? Assuming no other power intervenes?

 

[gall]

On the end of time frame Russia was great power and it is reflected in game (ideas). In first part of time period they stay outside of great politic. Yes, they attack weakened regional powers (e.g. exhausted Sweden - low population couldn't sustain such grand armies for long, manpower growth in current form doesn't show this properly), but it doesn't mean they where power itself. After beating Golden Horde, they have relatively safe border on east and south, so they wasn't in danger to fight in multiple fronts (it is also in game).

Commonwealth wasn't eager to expand in History. New land mean shift in balance between Noble fractions and cause unrest. Nobles wasn't eager fight or pay for mercenaries anyway. If sejm doesn't allow you to declare war you should have no Manpower and no regular armies BTW. Also government structure was highly sensitive to foreign influences. This facts aren't properly shown in game as features of elective Monarchy.
One last thing - it would be interesting to see Muscovy in game switching for short period of time to elective (Boyar choose the king, didn't they? Commonwealth force its candidate, which last only a while.) monarchy during particularity bloody regency .
Off T.
China military needs few decades to reach US stage. They have manpower, but military technological base is much slower to build. Sooner or later China gonna face its own internal problems. There are good (for China) signs, like case of fighting with pollution in cities. It is slow, but China gov is starting reacting properly to demands of citizen expressed in social networks etc.
China is great power. Why they are e.g. breaking rules of World Trade Organization without consequences? They ripped benefits of being member of WTO, but don't really care about fulfilling member's obligations.

 

[hitchens]

The only reason China is not considered a super power is because its not trying to aggressively press its agenda on a global level (so far) and restrains itself on a regional level. However if their leaders have half a mind (which by all accounts from 1980 and onwards proves they do), this will change radically and might I add, explosively in the next 3 decades
.

Eh no. Please learn the meaning of the term super power.

 

[hitchens]

Anyone that doesn't consider china as a superpower is ignorant.

Being ignorant of the meaning of the word, now THATS ignorant.

 

[pgroves]

How is the US stronger than China? Assuming no other power intervenes?

Depends what you mean by "stronger", the US is in a better political position worldwide (though probably less so than China in Africa and other places China has been throwing money at), and has more Aircraft Carriers and advanced MIL tech (though China is catching up), but it's likely that China's economy will soon surpass that of the US (in GDP anyway

 

[giant_sloth]

Hey, this is EU4 forum, not who's-the-superpower-now one!

 

[Pilot00]

Eh no. Please learn the meaning of the term super power.

Why dont you teach me? I guess ill rip my phd's first and sit at a bench again for ten years, but please do teach me.

Depends what you mean by "stronger", the US is in a better political position worldwide (though probably less so than China in Africa and other places China has been throwing money at), and has more Aircraft Carriers and advanced MIL tech (though China is catching up), but it's likely that China's economy will soon surpass that of the US (in GDP anyway

The funny point is that the US is in dept to China. The political part all things considered applies to Europe. I would actually call the rest of the world (excluding the Ausies) as neutral. In theory yes the US has strong Allies, but Europes reach this days doesn't reach far and wide. The whole Aircraft Carriers and thing and Mil tech as you yourself said is a temporary thing. As a citizen of the US I can confirm to you, though we wont admit it, the modernization of the Chinese army is making our high ups crap their collective pants. Especially in missile delivery systems. Further more Chinas policy is not the outdated colonial esque policies the US pursues (i.e conquer, exploit), but they are absorbing the states they have interest in. Already China is controlling a huge swatch of China outside its borders, with many countries having administrative Chinese districts, without the huge costs war inures. Do you know how many money did Iraq cost us? And we haven't even called that even after so many years. Also China is funding huge trade and industrial projects in those countries. Given the fact that Asia will be soon the Europe of the future, you can see where all this adds to.

This is not Hollywood or CNN people.

 

[hitchens]

I guess ill rip my phd's

In what...BS?

 

[olm]

Problem with PLC is same as with all powers that both rised and falled during games timeline (like Portugal, Spain, Sweden and to some extent even Ottomans). Its relatively easy to set someone up from start to rise or to fall. On other hand its really hard to make them first rise and then after that also fall without excessive railroading.

 

[yerm]

Why dont you teach me? I guess ill rip my phd's first and sit at a bench again for ten years, but please do teach me.



The funny point is that the US is in dept to China. The political part all things considered applies to Europe. I would actually call the rest of the world (excluding the Ausies) as neutral. In theory yes the US has strong Allies, but Europes reach this days doesn't reach far and wide. The whole Aircraft Carriers and thing and Mil tech as you yourself said is a temporary thing. As a citizen of the US I can confirm to you, though we wont admit it, the modernization of the Chinese army is making our high ups crap their collective pants. Especially in missile delivery systems. Further more Chinas policy is not the outdated colonial esque policies the US pursues (i.e conquer, exploit), but they are absorbing the states they have interest in. Already China is controlling a huge swatch of China outside its borders, with many countries having administrative Chinese districts, without the huge costs war inures. Do you know how many money did Iraq cost us? And we haven't even called that even after so many years. Also China is funding huge trade and industrial projects in those countries. Given the fact that Asia will be soon the Europe of the future, you can see where all this adds to.

This is not Hollywood or CNN people.

What is your PHD in? 99.9% of them have nothing to do, nothing at all, with the discussion here. Having a PHD means you applied yourself in a subject and can learn, not that you are learned in general or more intelligent than others. It says nothing about a what's going on here, unless your doctorate is somehow related. Whether it's a plumber, a babysitter, or a stupid discussion in a stupider thread about the meaning of the term super power, sometimes a PHD just doesn't even apply.

While the specific definition may change, a superpower always involved global influence and power projection. The UK, USA, and USSR were considered superpowers because they exerted their agenda all over the globe, and were unrivaled and unhindered by anything except another superpower. For the context of this derail - that the only thing keeping china from being considered a superpower is their choice to remain only a regional power - it seems like a rather fair and accurate statement.

But then I'm not a PhD.

 

[Pilot00]

In what...BS?

You are the master you would know about such things.

There are no bigger BS than trying to play the smartass by placing two sentences in a quote without even voicing an opinion about them. Just a pathetic attempt to showoff which results in you been ridiculed from the fact that you have nothing to say.

Placed on the ignore list I have no patience for trolls.

 

[Pilot00]

What is your PHD in? 99.9% of them have nothing to do, nothing at all, with the discussion here. Having a PHD means you applied yourself in a subject and can learn, not that you are learned in general or more intelligent than others. It says nothing about a what's going on here, unless your doctorate is somehow related. Whether it's a plumber, a babysitter, or a stupid discussion in a stupider thread about the meaning of the term super power, sometimes a PHD just doesn't even apply.

But then I'm not a PhD.

Butthurt much? Yes my Phd's have nothing to do with this. It is called sarcasm which in all your rush to play smart and throw slander failed to grasp.

While the specific definition may change, a superpower always involved global influence and power projection. The UK, USA, and USSR were considered superpowers because they exerted their agenda all over the globe, and were unrivaled and unhindered by anything except another superpower. For the context of this derail - that the only thing keeping china from being considered a superpower is their choice to remain only a regional power - it seems like a rather fair and accurate statement.

And whats the difference from everything I say? Although unrivaled is a bit of an overstatement.

 

[oblio-]

What does this discussion have to do with the original topic?