Who are the 8 Great Powers?

[Emre Yigit]

Originally posted by Boroin
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.

Merci pour le grain de sel!

But I remain confused. You said "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)" which I find a bit confusing. While nations did aid each other, no other major power required assistance to remain extant.

Moreover, a population of 4 million is really low. Doing some rough maths, assuming near-UK levels of industrialisation, in 1830, the "Belgian" share of world output is between 1 and 1.5% of the world's. Still too low for any bouts with the big boys.

I grant you though. Sweden and Holland are on the list and Belgium not. Presumably because I assumed that the country was too vulnerable immediately following its creation. Moreover, you will note that my first list is for 1830 - when Belgium did not exist.

Of course diplomacy is important. But is that diplomacy aggressive (eg British or Prussian) or defensive (eg Ottoman or Belgian)?

 

[unmerged(21298)]

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. 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.

1982 anybody

 

[Zagys]

Originally posted by CzarAleks
War of 1812 was a US defeat of GB

No it wasn't.

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by CzarAleks
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.

The War of 1812 was a US defeat of GB?! Hmmmm...how do you figure? We started the war to take Canada...and as far as I know they still have Canada.

Belgium has only been around since 1830 or so and they defeated the Netherlands to gain their independence. After that they were Neutral so they didn't go around fighting alot of people. But my arguement against them being a great power has nothing to do with who they beat. WHich I think is a pretty stupid way to measure power at any one point. Yes we beat Britain in 1781 but what the heck does that say about where we are in 1835?!

 

[unmerged(21298)]

Originally posted by John Poole
If Belgium had help from France, Spain, and the Netherlands? Possibly...

Hell no, if this was the case D-day would have come 100 years too early. But then again, we wouldn't have a pesky nihilist on the Security council of the UN now, would we!

 

[unmerged(21298)]

*stupid comment on my part

 

[Ernst]

Originally posted by CzarAleks
"MILITARY STRENGTH
Iraq-6 million
US-250,000
what happend?:rofl:

Enough !

Wrong place to talk about that.

 

[Syt]

Originally posted by CzarAleks
Iraq-6 million
US-250,000
what happend?:rofl:

This doesn't belong here.

 

[unmerged(21298)]

Originally posted by Sytass
This doesn't belong here.

o

 

[Emre Yigit]

An apology and concerning ambassadors

Originally posted by Ernst
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

Ooooops! o

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

On the subject of great powers, one thing came to mind... how the people of the time saw the issue. In these status-conscious times, the rank of ambassador was withheld from every envoy bar those sent to the great powers.

I have been able to find the following info:

Germany - 1874
Embassies: London, Paris, Vienna, St Petersburg (the most senior)

USA - 1893
Embassies: London, Paris, Berlin (Mexico City and St Petersburg in 1897, Vienna in 1902)

More will follow as I find them.

 

[MXTiger]

Please comrade Galleblære...

Originally posted by Galleblære
Hate to burst your bubble, but here they are, at least judging from this screenie:

Austria
Prussia
United Kingdom
Russia
Belgium
Mexico (!)
USA
Sardinia-Piedmon
Sweden (!!!)
France
Ottoman Empire


All fine except Mexico and Sweden. Surly there were more important nations. Yeah yeah, Paradox is Swedish, but gimme a break!


http://www.withingames.net/index.ph..._002.jpg&usr=ab1012f9687464fe70883a37222f7b8a

I know this is an old message, but I felt insulted. You know that Texas was part of Mexico, right? You know that the western side of US was part of Mexico until 1847, right? You know that armies from UK, Spain und France came to Mexico and France lost a battle against Mexican troops at Puebla in May 5 1862, but then in May 28 1864 Maximilian von Haugsburg came and became the second emperor of Mexico, but in July 19 1867 was executed en el cerro de las campanas, right?

Mexico wasn't a very powerful or even a stable country, but we could take down the french more than once and eliminated the baby brother of the austrian emperor to that date...

So, I think Mexico deserve to be in the 8 powers of Victoria, because we were more important then than we are now...

 

[unmerged(17693)]

Why doesn't anyone say something about the Netherlands?? They had a great deal of territory in the far-east, and also a little bit in central-america. They hadn't a very good military, but when I see thatpeople put some Belgium in their top-8, why shouldn't you put the Netherlands there?????

And to quote Isaac Brock from another topic:

How Belgium ranks ahead of Bavaria is beyond me.

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by markiep
I see thatpeople put some Belgium in their top-8, why shouldn't you put the Netherlands there?????

Belgium industrialized earlier, had more industrial resources and a higher population.

 

[Galleblære]

Re: Please comrade Galleblære...

Originally posted by MXTiger
I know this is an old message, but I felt insulted. You know that Texas was part of Mexico, right? You know that the western side of US was part of Mexico until 1847, right? You know that armies from UK, Spain und France came to Mexico and France lost a battle against Mexican troops at Puebla in May 5 1862, but then in May 28 1864 Maximilian von Haugsburg came and became the second emperor of Mexico, but in July 19 1867 was executed en el cerro de las campanas, right?

Mexico wasn't a very powerful or even a stable country, but we could take down the french more than once and eliminated the baby brother of the austrian emperor to that date...

So, I think Mexico deserve to be in the 8 powers of Victoria, because we were more important then than we are now...

Hey, I am just saying that from a purly "most powerful influentful nations" in the world kinda view in 1836, IMO, Mexico and Sweden don't deserve to be there. IMO, Denmark is more deserving to be there than Sweden... But this is just my personal oppinion, so dont take it too hard!

 

[Keynes]

Re: industrMy own tuppenyworth

Originally posted by Emre Yigit
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.

THis judgment is apparently used based on population figures for 1800 showing the US with 4 million inhabitants. But in 1835 US population was between 14-16 million, ie significantly higher than Spain. And US industrialization was higher than any of the countries mentioned other than the UK. Thus, in economic-industrial terms, as well as in technological development, the US was a front rank power at the time.

That leaves the "weak" military as the only viable reason for leaving the US off the major powers list (which includes much weaker economic countries like Prussia, Spain, Ottomans). The problem is the identical argument could be use to prove that the US was a minor power in 1913 or 1937, which is absurd. The fact that the US *chose* to expand without building large armies should not count against it. The relevant consideration is whether the US could quickly convert its economic strength into effective military power at short notice if needed. The Mexican War, in which the US rapidly mobilized and deployed an advanced military force which quickly annihilated a mid-ranked power with a large professional army (Mexico) proves that it could do. Add on another decade and a half, and the US manages to mobilize armies numbering in the millions led by excellent commanders and equipped with the most technologically advanced weaponry in the world.

 

[MXTiger]

Re: Re: Please comrade Galleblære...

Originally posted by Galleblære
Hey, I am just saying that from a purly "most powerful influentful nations" in the world kinda view in 1836, IMO, Mexico and Sweden don't deserve to be there. IMO, Denmark is more deserving to be there than Sweden... But this is just my personal oppinion, so dont take it too hard!

Ok Galle, no problema viejo... I just wanted to defend my poor country XD

 

[Dinsdale]

MXTiger,

You make some good points, the pre-Mexican War state had potential to be some power.

Defeating a small French expeditionary force however, is not the same as defeating France, and remember Maximillian was foisted on Mexico despite Cinco de Mayo.

The other problem is, that Mexico tends to be judged because of losing the Mexican War, though if this logic were applied to HOI then France would not be a great power in the 1936 scenario. It's not particularly fair, but such is life.

The major problem is that former colonial nations (USA included) are difficult to categorize as major powers in 1835. It's arguable that Mexico, or others, should be in the list, but I would seriously doubt the courts of Europe would consider these nations major powers due to the Eurocentric mindset.

IMHO, China should be the only non-Euro major power (counting Ottomans as European for this) regardless of relative industries, population and industry. During this period, Europe was the centre of the world, the further outside Europe a state is, the more powerful it needs to be for consideration. I submit China for it's history and sheer size. Other non-Euros would need to show significant industrial-diplomatic-military significance to be considered anything other than backwaters in the minds of the European diplomats.

 

[Registered]

judging from this screenie i'd say

Brittain
Russia
France
Ottoman Empire
U.S.A
Denmark
Netherlands (why is there a woman standing there)
and of course Sweden

http://www.withingames.net/screenshots/vicky/vicky022.jpg

BTW comparing a USvsUK war and a BelgiumvsUK war is futile, the UK is much closer to Belgium than to the US making troop transport a lot easier, besides the UK was a LOT more powerful after ther Napoleonic wars than before

Belgium more people than the Netherlands, perhaps, but not if you count the colonies, we got a lot of natural resources from there too, rubber oil(not very importand in the beginning i know, but still) and so on.

 

[MXTiger]

that's my point Dinsdale, I think more non-european countrys should be concidered, maybe not for the "grand campaign", but for one of "the bettle for the americas" for example...

 

[unmerged(21338)]

Mexico was fairly unstable most of the 19th century, and constantly taking out loans from Europe to keep up its military. In fact one of the reasons France invaded, besides trying to get back in Habsburg favor, was because Mexico owed a gigantic amount of money to France, and Napoleon thought if it was within France's sphere of influence he might be able to get it paid off. This did not work because all Maximilian did was work on his palace and a boulevard in Mexico City. She has potential as you can see by the AAR though. Also the start up screen has nothing to do with who is the most powerful nations. It has to do with ones who paradox fells would be fun to play or had a lot going on during this period.