Who are the 8 Great Powers?

[gotwins]

If I was paradox, I'd change the list based on which country it was sold in, but that's just me.

Also I don't really think its relevent who was more powerfull in 1835, its which country will have the most interesting gameplay to the most people. Thus Belgium may have been more powerfull than the US, Prussia or Japan in 1835 but the US, Prussia or Japan should beat it out.

 

[unmerged(2567)]

Originally posted by rollothepirate
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

You have to admit, though, that most observers were surprised by how poorly the Spanish did. The Americans did their share of bumbling - the landing in Cuba was a mess, though the Spanish were even worse. The war is absurdist.

And their economy was looking up in the 1890s. Spain had been putting itself back together since 1873, and indeed, the fact that Spain survived 1898 intact - without a civil war - is a testament to what Spain had achieved during Alfonso XII's reign.

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by Fermor
So you really think that without the massive help from France the US would have won this war?

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.

Ah I thought you were coming at me from the other side. Yes I know I meant 'little' help to be ironical. I know we got massive help from Britain's many enemies. It was piling on in a big way .

 

[unmerged(5098)]

I would think the USA ought to deserve to be listed as one of the starting choices simply because it has a very interesting history over this period and would probably be one of the more fun campaigns to play. Similarly, I would have like to see Japan listed to see if you can't build that nation up(or maybe 1861 would be better for having Japan listed)

 

[Gobi]

Well I'm going to agree with the people who think the U.S. should not be on the top 8. During the American Civil War many war collages refused to study the American Cilvil War battles calling the armies little more then organized mobs. I would not even think about putting the U.S. in the top 10 untill they beat the Spanish in 1898. Also on a side note before WW1 or WW2 I don't remember which one the U.S. army was ranked after Holland in power....:rofl:

 

[unmerged(21338)]

Had to be World War One. World War Two made the Soviet Union and the United States superpowers. Also weather or not Europe recognized it openly they obviously did respect the United States power because the only violation of the Monroe Doctrine in its entire existence was during the American Civil War when the United States did not have the time to back up their threats. Also when the United States blatantly told Britain they could win a war with her during the Venezuela Crises I do not remember Britain laughing in their faces. In fact I remember Britain allowing the United States to settle that dispute

 

[Sol Invictus]

Gobi, what you say is true, but it is very interesting to know,as you might already, that Heinz Guderian studied Shermans march through Georgia and stated that it had a large impact on his formulation of mobile warfare strategy. I also think that only a perfect genius or a complete idiot could fail to learn something of military value from the study of Jackson's Valley Campaign. I think the European military establishment was a bit arrogant on this point; especially considering some of the "classic" military moves they pulled off in this era, Prussia excluded of course.

 

[unmerged(21298)]

you guys make me laugh... saying that Belgium was EVER more powerful than USof A. Are you trying to say that Belgium could defeat Britain, like the US did?
:rofl:

 

[Pokka]

Originally posted by CzarAleks
you guys make me laugh... saying that Belgium was EVER more powerful than USof A. Are you trying to say that Belgium could defeat Britain, like the US did?
:rofl:

Take a look on the situation in 1836 + screenshots before making a conclusion which is solely based on the thinking of American Invincibility.

 

[Emre Yigit]

industrMy own tuppenyworth

Originally posted by TheFlemishDuck
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 countries in 1835 (reflect's roughly 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.

OK. Here goes. (The source is Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers). Obviously cannot give you the exact figures for 1800, but will try to come close.

POPULATION

1800

UK 16.0 million
France 28.0
Habsburgs 28.0
Prussia 9.5
Russia 37.0
Spain 11.0
Sweden 2.3
Holland 2.0
US 4.0


GNP as a concept is very 20th century. Some studies exist to backdate this, but the data are unreliable. So take the following with a pinch of salt.

1830 - Relative shares of world manufacturing output

UK 9.5%
France 5.2
Habsburgs 3.2
"Germany" 3.5
Russia 5.6
US 2.4
China 29.8
India 17.6
Japan 2.8

1830 - Per capita levels of industrialisation relative to UK 1900 = 100

UK 25
France 12
Habsburgs 8
Prussia 9
Russia 7
US 14
China 6
India 6
Japan 7
"Third World" 6

1840 - GNP of the European Powers in 1960 US dollars and prices; in billions

UK 10.4
France 10.3
Habsburgs 8.3
"Germany" 8.3
Russia 11.2
"Italy" 5.9


MILITARY STRENGTH

1830

UK 140,000
France 259,000
Habsburgs 273,000
"Germany" 130,000
Russia 826,000
US 11,000

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Since 1835 represents the start of the industrial age for most countries, the economic and military differences between Europe/US and the rest of the world are one of degree only. However, obviously, the foundation for advancement was there in Europe / US and precious little elsewhere.


"MY" GREAT POWER LIST

Using the above, and some guesswork, I think my list would be, in order:

Great Powers

Russia
UK
France

Major Powers

China
Austria-Hungary
Prussia
Spain
Ottoman Empire

Moderate Powers

US
Japan
Sweden
Netherlands

In 1835, I can see only 3 great powers: the vast, populous Russian Empire, which was still riding high a century after Peter the Great's reforms and had yet to start to fall behind in per capita terms; the industrialising power of the UK, with its dominance of the seas (equal in size to the next three combined); and France which though beaten was unbowed.

On a one-on-one basis, I cannot see any other country at that time take on one of these 3 behemoths and hope to win.

What I classify as "major powers" are those that might give a creditable account against the "Big Three" while the "moderate powers" are those that, while likely to be creamed, are still in some fashion powerful.

China is top of the "moderate power" list because its situation in 1835 is similar to its situation today. Hugely populous, with a huge economy, but backward in per capita terms (less so in 1835 than today) and in quality. Moreover, the country led the world in terms of industrial output (including second in steel!) Had China been capable of projecting its power, the end-19th century maps would be quite different. I beg you all to stop taking a Eurocentric view of things!

The US of course does not make it into the great or major power list. Beating up technologically backward native tribes does not compare with attacking an established power. Some might bring up the Monroe Doctrine, but frankly, I don't recall the Europeans having evacuated the Americas, nor an instance when the US decided to establish a colony in the Old World! Moreover, the US was weak militarily.

The Ottomans as a major power is of course open to discussion, based on my criterion of giving a creditable account against the "Big Three", and I have just made a qualitative decision there.

And, if I many say, the concept of Belgium as a Great Power is mind-boggling - Belgium would have had a hard time indeed mano a mano against any of the countries in the first two categories. The best evidence for this is the lack of Belgian aggression against any of the countries in all three lists. Had Belgium been a Great Power, would it not have decided that it deserved its share of the continent as opposed to (admittedly huge) territories in Africa? Ditto for the Netherlands. Sweden and Denmark showed some pluck, but were essentially sidelined by the 19th century.

 

[unmerged(21338)]

Monroe Doctrine never said they would stop all ready established European colonies from being under imperial rule, and it did not say the United States reserved the right to set up colonies in the Old World. It said it would not allow any European nation to set up new colonies in the Western Hemisphere or Spain or any other nation to attempt to reasert/assert power in Latin America. The only two violations of this was Spain in the Dominican Republic and France in Mexico (both where during the American Civil War), and after the Civil War both nations gave up their newly established footholds in the Western Hemisphere due to pressure from the United States. Other than that I agree with you.

 

[Emre Yigit]

The situation in the 1860s

Now, in the event of an 1860s scenario, the situation is greatly changed, and probably more to the liking of our American friends on the board (though still not for the Belgians, I'm afraid.)

In terms of population probably the most significant development is that the US now numbers over 30 million!

GNP

1860 - Relative shares of world manufacturing output

UK 19.9%
France 7.9
Habsburgs 4.2
"Germany" 4.9
Russia 7.0
US 7.2
China 19.7
India 8.6
Japan 2.6

1860 - Per capita levels of industrialisation relative to UK 1900 = 100

UK 64
France 20
Habsburgs 11
Prussia 15
Russia 8
US 21
China 4
India 4
Japan 7
"Third World" 3

Note the de-industrialisation of China, India and most of the Third World

1860 - GNP of the European Powers in 1960 US dollars and prices; in billions

UK 16.0
France 13.3
Habsburgs 9.9
"Germany" 12.7
Russia 14.4
"Italy" 7.4


MILITARY STRENGTH

1860

UK 347,000
France 608,000
Habsburgs 306,000
"Germany" 201,000
Russia 862,000
US 25,000 still


"MY" GREAT POWER LIST - 1860 SCENARIO

Based on the above, and again with some guesswork, I think my list would be, in order:

Great Powers

UK
France
Russia

Major Powers

Austria-Hungary
Prussia
Spain
US

Moderate Powers

China
Japan
Ottoman Empire


The 3 great powers remain the same, but Russia has slipped dramatically because it has failed to industrialise. The UK is probably at the peak of her power, and France is enjoying the gilded autumn of the 3rd Empire.

However, on a one-on-one basis, I still cannot see any other country at that time take on one of these 3 behemoths and hope to win.

I was not too sure about the respective rankings of Austria-Hungary and Prussia, but I would still put Prussia below the Habsburgs. Spain is still there, though for no real reason other than the fact that it was no pushover.

China has fallen dramatically, as have the Ottomans, whose situation begs the question of whether they were a "power" any longer. Even more than Russia, they have failed to industrialise, indeed have de-industrialised in the face of competition.

The US - despite its abysmally low spending on its military - is now definitely a major power, due to its hugely increased industrial strength and manpower.

 

[unmerged(11457)]

Wow, US looks very vulnerable in 1860!

 

[Emre Yigit]

Originally posted by Vendere Sacerdo
Monroe Doctrine never said they would stop all ready established European colonies from being under imperial rule, and it did not say the United States reserved the right to set up colonies in the Old World....

I know. What I meant to say was that it was a negative expression of power, rather than a positive one. As such, much less to be vaunted.

Originally posted by Ding Chavez
Wow, US looks very vulnerable in 1860!

I agree, but its population and industrial strength were such that it could very quickly come to a stage where it could not be defeated in its sphere of influence. If it had wanted, it was probably capable of projecting imperial power.

Actually, I think the UK looks vulnerable. A huge empire and total military personnel of 347,000?!

 

[unmerged(21338)]

It will look that way this entire game We would never keep a large army in times of peace. We would just conscript like crazy when a war broke out. That is one of the reason we where able to keep up fairly well economically before the huge influx of immigrants was that we had all most no military cost compared to the rest of Western Society. Think about it, Lincoln had to call for 30,000 volunteers at the start of the Civil War. If we all ready had a powerful standing army why would he have to do that?

Also I think with the large army reforms and the fact that Prussia was now using rifles while Austria was still using muskets would put them ahead in power.

 

[unmerged(2567)]

Originally posted by Emre Yigit
Actually, I think the UK looks vulnerable. A huge empire and total military personnel of 347,000?!

Curiously, it's only 700,000 that she could mobilize in 1913. That's a fifth of what Germany could.

Even in 1879, she could mobilize half of what france could.

The British Empire was, of course, vulnerable only if its navy could be defeated. Thus, one finds perhaps history's greatest example for maritime dominance.

 

[Ernst]

Re: The situation in the 1860s

Originally posted by Emre Yigit
The UK is probably at the peak of her power, and France is enjoying the gilded autumn of the 3rd Empire.

Thanks for your two posts, I think they'll prevent this thread from going nowhere (even if they're a lot less funny than a few new & quite surprising looks upon History I've discovered ).

Just one - how futile - thing : it's the Second Empire, and Napoléon the Third. Purist stuff, you know

 

[unmerged(19081)]

To speak about Belgium, I think it is one of the interesting powers of 1830-1850.

4.000.000 inhabitants in 1831 and the most industrialized country of western europe (after the UK). One of the first country to have railroad (2.000 km in 1861), a very powerfull economy (coal, iron industry, a very old tradition of textile) and a good stability (in almost all of his short history). Well, UK and France helped Belgian governement to stay independant in the early years (the nine years war with Netherlands), but I think it's one of the great power of this part of history (with probably about 10-15 other nations). Who is before who ? It's perhaps easy for Austria, UK and some other. But for Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, and others, it is not easy to have enough impartiality.

Now to speak about military power, no Belgium was not a great military power. But the power of a country is not only a question of who can beat who. It's also a question of economy, diplomacy, etc...

Just to put my "grain de sel" in your conversations.

 

[unmerged(21298)]

Originally posted by Pokka
Take a look on the situation in 1836 + screenshots before making a conclusion which is solely based on the thinking of American Invincibility.

Take a look at a history book before making a conclusion based on Un-American animosity.
War of 1812 was a US defeat of GB, when is the last time Belgium defeated Britain, for that matter when is the last time Belgium defeated anybody, other than some "uncivilizeda"*by Vicky standards* africans.
please don't give me the bulls*** about, "Well belgium won WWII and such.

Now I am not saying that the US was the most powerful nation in the world in 1836, Russia and England were pretty tough. But as for potential...well look at the world situation today...enough said.

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by CzarAleks
you guys make me laugh... saying that Belgium was EVER more powerful than USof A. Are you trying to say that Belgium could defeat Britain, like the US did?
:rofl:

If Belgium had help from France, Spain, and the Netherlands? Possibly...