-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Originally posted by Frankie
Well, you have to admit, the potential is there...
True, though in 1836, outside of its army, Prussia has a lot of work ahead of it if it wants to play with the big boys.
In 1835 France should be a lot lower, it seems some of you forgot about the revolutions which had recently happened in that country and the fact they had no friends in all the world. Austria was ten times better than Prussia in 1935 as well. I stated it earlier in this thread, but Austria held sway over most of Italy and Germany while still holding a much larger empire than that of Prussia. Until those army reforms in the 1860s Prussia was in no position to take on Austria, and they knew it. Even Bismarck was uneasy about Austria at first, and that is why he had them help against the Danish. Russia was at a pinnacle of her 19th century power, and looked to the rest of the world as a colossus. She had just recently defeated Turkey, and would ruthlessly repress rebellions all over Europe for the next couple decades.
1. United Kingdom
2. Russia
3. France
4. Austria
5. Prussia
6. United States
7. Belgium
8. Sweden
9. Ottoman Empire
10. Spain
11. Netherlands
12. Sardinia
13. Brazil (although past 11 it's academic)
I'm not sure where the Netherlands fits in. With the alliance with the UK, Belgium is considerably more secure.
And in the matter of Austria and Prussia, the latter did defeat the Austrians both before and after 1835, although I appreciate the fact that Austria was more efficiently using its size and manpower in that year than it was in the eighteenth century. It also had Metternich, and as it was a diplomatic rout that secured the defeat of Austria in 1866, I think that Austria steps ahead of Prussia in 1835.
2. Russia
3. France
4. Austria
5. Prussia
6. United States
7. Belgium
8. Sweden
9. Ottoman Empire
10. Spain
11. Netherlands
12. Sardinia
13. Brazil (although past 11 it's academic)
I'm not sure where the Netherlands fits in. With the alliance with the UK, Belgium is considerably more secure.
And in the matter of Austria and Prussia, the latter did defeat the Austrians both before and after 1835, although I appreciate the fact that Austria was more efficiently using its size and manpower in that year than it was in the eighteenth century. It also had Metternich, and as it was a diplomatic rout that secured the defeat of Austria in 1866, I think that Austria steps ahead of Prussia in 1835.
What if we define Power by a number of set factor's and compare these with the other country's to determine what the top ten should roughly be.
There are plenty of history buff's here ,could we find figure's for: (for ex.)
Manpower of top 10 pretenders in 1835
GNP of those country's in 1835 (reflect's roughly industrial strenth)
Country size of those country's in 1835
Social and political stabilety of those country's in 1835
Technological evolution of those country's in 1835
Millitary strenth of those country's in 1835
We make a scoring system ,then use historical data to compare and compute the top 10.
There are plenty of history buff's here ,could we find figure's for: (for ex.)
Manpower of top 10 pretenders in 1835
GNP of those country's in 1835 (reflect's roughly industrial strenth)
Country size of those country's in 1835
Social and political stabilety of those country's in 1835
Technological evolution of those country's in 1835
Millitary strenth of those country's in 1835
We make a scoring system ,then use historical data to compare and compute the top 10.
Keep this up and I'm sure the thread is headed for the OT. Stop it with the anti-American discussion already.
Sorry, but... Belgium?
Why include Blegium in the Great Powers? AFAIK, in 1835 had just become independent of Holland (in 1830, if I am not wrong).
Japan? Until 1868 wasn't a player on international diplomacy.
(By the way, in 1835 Spain still got Cuba, Puerto Rico, Filipines Island, Guam, and so on... pity we spent those years fighting each other)
Why include Blegium in the Great Powers? AFAIK, in 1835 had just become independent of Holland (in 1830, if I am not wrong).
Japan? Until 1868 wasn't a player on international diplomacy.
(By the way, in 1835 Spain still got Cuba, Puerto Rico, Filipines Island, Guam, and so on... pity we spent those years fighting each other)
Re: Sorry, but... Belgium?
For the fact that it was the only industrialized nation on the continent. It also had a rather curious degree of military security since it was under an umbrella of British military protection. It also had a fair amount of manpower, IIRC, beating both Sweden and the Netherlands, along with a high standard of living.
Admittedly, it wasn't much militarily, but it had a great deal of economic potential and didn't have much internal problems to deal with.
I think Spain is underappreciated in 1835. Admittedly, it has a few civil wars in the period, but it manages to transcend them during the 1870s. Indeed, as a testament to its stability, it survives the horrible blow of 1898 intact. It also has a fair amount of manpower. That's why I want to play it first. It should be an interesting game.
CANOVAS!
For the fact that it was the only industrialized nation on the continent. It also had a rather curious degree of military security since it was under an umbrella of British military protection. It also had a fair amount of manpower, IIRC, beating both Sweden and the Netherlands, along with a high standard of living.
Admittedly, it wasn't much militarily, but it had a great deal of economic potential and didn't have much internal problems to deal with.
I think Spain is underappreciated in 1835. Admittedly, it has a few civil wars in the period, but it manages to transcend them during the 1870s. Indeed, as a testament to its stability, it survives the horrible blow of 1898 intact. It also has a fair amount of manpower. That's why I want to play it first. It should be an interesting game.
CANOVAS!
Um the US had basically no economic interest or power abroad until around 1880 or so, most business was done inside our borders. In order to be a world power you must project power and we didn't do that very much...at least not in 1835. By the turn of the century we were replacing Britain as the big dog in Latin America. France and Russia were world powers because of their military strength. They had a role to play in the Middle East and Africa and Far East...as of yet the United States did not. Being a rich country, China was rich after all but not a world power, is not all there is to it you must have economic interest and power abroad as well.
Originally posted by Fermor
Revisionism
Basic historical fact
I like these one statement discussions. No need to come up with long or persuasive arguements.
So you really think that without the massive help from France the US would have won this war?Originally posted by John Poole
Basic historical fact
I like these one statement discussions. No need to come up with long or persuasive arguements.
Yes obviously! Everybody know that before the arrival of French, Patriots, with their huge navy, their so-professional army and their enormous reserve of rifles and artillery, were defeating the English army.
I studied the diplomatic history of the US last semester. It wasn't till after the depression of the 1890's, the opening of the Panama Canal so they could access foreign markets since Europe was shutting us out with its colonies that the US finally became a great power. Access to Asia was very important since we had the industrial output, however we had such a huge surplus of goods that supply exceeded demand, hence the depression and the sudden shift in mindset to "imprealism" most noted in the Spainish-American war and the Venzuela crisis.
only stepping in to remind people of 1 thing.
in a game planned to last near 100 years, you dont put the countries most likely to fall a lot over time up there, you put those most likely to rise to the top, or with the potential to be great influencial powers. its not about who can beat who in 1835, its about who can beat who with them played by humans for 10-15 years
in a game planned to last near 100 years, you dont put the countries most likely to fall a lot over time up there, you put those most likely to rise to the top, or with the potential to be great influencial powers. its not about who can beat who in 1835, its about who can beat who with them played by humans for 10-15 years
Oh please, don't be a twink.
Edit: The United States was not very powerful in 1835. The country was still largely rural and much of the land was still wild and mostly territories. Essentially after the end of the Civil War in 1865 did the United States start to become more of a 'world power', at least economically. By the end of the 1800's the industrial revolution had now been in full swing, yet still the United States wasn't considered a world power by many other countries likely because of the isolationist doctrine adopted at the time. The United States even in World War One AND World War Two didn't want to get involved because 'it wasn't our problem' had a lot to do with it. The potential was there, but it wasn't exercised. As the one post previously had mentioned about the depression and the enourmous surpluses and the trade embargo's in Europe, that certainly kept the U.S. down from being recognized until after the Spanish-American war. (Soundly pounding the spanish into the ground). But the United States we know and love today certainly didn't exist until after WW2
No more Isolationist Doctrine for us anymore.
Last edited:
I do think it is funny that beating up a country plagued by civil war, and declining economically for the past 200 years always makes the United States so proud of it's self. At least when the English beat them up they had help and where still considered a Power if not a Superpower.
Spain's economy had been declining since the reign of Philip II in the 17th century (actualy some have said signs of decline where present before his time on the throne), and she had spent most of the 19th century in civil war after civil war. Is it any wonder we beat them?
Everyone, play nice. Remember the board rules - no bashing of countries and respect other people's opinions. No inflammatory remarks. If someone thinks a country was a Great Power in 1836 or one country outranked another is - unless coupled with bashful remarks - an opinion, no more, no less.
I think very few informed observers thought that the American victory over Spain was suprising - the US would have had to have performed ridiculously incompetently not to win, what with vastly greater economic strength, her home soil 90 miles from Cuba, yadda yadda . What it did do was serve as a kind of announcement that the US was a player in international affairs - afterwards you saw the US included in key international discussions such as the Agadir incident in 1905, and generally treated as a power - although a removed one. And shifting gears, my top 8 - in no particular order -
1) Britain
2) Russia
3) Austria-Hungary
4) Prussia
5) France
6) Ottoman Empire
7) Spain
8) Belgium/USA/China, although the latters claim is shaky in light of what happens in a few years
. What it did do was serve as a kind of announcement that the US was a player in international affairs - afterwards you saw the US included in key international discussions such as the Agadir incident in 1905, and generally treated as a power - although a removed one. And shifting gears, my top 8 - in no particular order - 1) Britain
2) Russia
3) Austria-Hungary
4) Prussia
5) France
6) Ottoman Empire
7) Spain
8) Belgium/USA/China, although the latters claim is shaky in light of what happens in a few years