Does anybody have a timeline of the worlds single dominant power? I'm assuming from my knowledge something on the lines of:
17th century: Spain
18th century: France
19th century: Britain
20th century: United States
>>1293060
>single dominant power?
>18th Century
pick precisely one.
The whole point of the Congress of Vienna was to establish five powers, none of which was meant to be strong enough to dominate the others.
>>1293060
Looking for single dominant world powers before the age of superpowers is fuck stupid. Only the US was able to pull that off and very recently.
>>1293079
That's the 19th century. And it only worked for a few decades. And Britain was still the clear "winner" of the 19th century.
>>1293092
>Clear
Yeah, France and Russia had no colonial empires and it totally wasnt bitched by US capitalists or dwarfed by Germa. Industrialists
>>1293060
I think the 20th century had too many micro eras to mark the USA as the single dominant power.
>>1293089
>Rome
>Mongolia
>British Empire
There wasn't one every century but some nations have clearly dominated before.
>>1293099
Elaborate. I can see Germany/UK but was the USSR clearly superior to the US in any decade?
>>1293099
USA is the single world power ever since the USSR collapsed.
>>1293092
>it only worked for a few decades.
That's a funny way of saying that it prevented a major war in Europe for 99 years...
>>1293113
The credit for that does not belong primarily to the Congress of Vienna. I would argue its influence had already waned by the Crimean war.
>>1293102
Yes that is fucking stupid.
I mean, look at that idiot replying "Rome." What is Rome to Imperial China and its hegemony? Or to Mauryan/Gupta India and its Hegemony? The Iranic cunts? Bastards showed the limits of Roman power.
So no, nobody "dominated" alone in centuries prior Superpowers
>>1293108
>>1293113
Immediately after WWII, I don't think it would be a stretch to consider China and the USSR one power until their relationship deteriorated, China alone effectively beat the US in Korea without USSR military support. As the USSR collapsed, and relations between the USSR and China fell apart, I don't think there is any real contest, the USA is clearly at the top. Before WWII I would be skeptical of claiming any country was the single dominant power.
>>1293112
Yes, but the USSR collapsed relatively late into the 20th century.
>>1293125
This is an interesting point, before modern technology you could only be a regional power.
>How accurate is this statement?
>>1293139
Precisely.
It sounds like that hack Niall Ferguson but the USA is the sole superpower at the moment.
>>1293079
How does France fit into this? Were they similar to Britain as global empires with industrial might (UK more so) with France the stronger army and Britain navies?
>>1293145
The Mongols conquered most of the world, would you really consider them a regional power?
>>1293060
I think you're confusing single dominant power with most dominant power, but that would still be as contested
>>1293161
Mamluk Egypt and Whoever the fuck was hegemon in 1200s Europe says hi.
>>1293161
When did they get to America?
>>1293060
16th century: Spain
>>1293060
Spain was more a dominant power in the 16th than in the 17th.
>>1295092
Yes but it was also the most dominant in the 17th
In the West:
486 - 843: France (Francia for autists)
843 - 1077: Germany (HRE)
1077 - 1214: the Papacy
1214 - 1356: France
1356 - 1497: no real dominant power
1497 - 1643: Spain (the Habsburg Empire)
1643 - 1815: France
1815 - 1942: Britain
1942 - present: USA
The last 500 years are pretty obvious, since each period was the product of a treaty which reorganised Europe and made one of the powers the clear top dog.
>>1295187
>843 - 1077: Germany (HRE)
>1077 - 1214: the Papacy
>1214 - 1356: France
What events caused these changes?
>>1295282
843: Treaty of Verdun, separation of Charlemagne's empire into three parts, the Eastern part of which soon becomes the most powerful (although mostly later under Otto the Great, in the 10th century, in fact the separation of 843 isn't final but close enough).
1077: The Investitures Controversy, a political conflict between the German Emperor and the Pope, which ended with a victory of the Papacy. It only formally ended in 1122, but really the Papacy had the upper hand since 1077, which is when Emperor Henry IV walked barefoot to Canossa to beg the Pope for forgiveness.
1214: Battle of Bouvines. That's when Philip Augustus defeated the Angevin king of England and the German Empire, and took effective control over most of France. He had also effectively made himself absolute king, and from that point on France and the House of France became the major power of Europe.
1356: Battle of Poitiers. Major Valois defeat in the Hundred Years War, capture of the French king by the Angevin, and France descends into chaos with the betrayal of Burgundy and a revolt in Paris. France continues to be in a state of civil war for a century, not to mention the Black Plague just arrived and all that.
>>1295381
Could England be considered the superpower after 1356 and France after the war is over?
Also is it debatable Germany replaced Britain as world power after unification?
>>1295187
>1815 - 1942: Britain
>Dominant in the west
It had the Biggest Projection power due to its Navy and Indian Local Rulers being morons but it didn't dominate shit in the west
>>1295409
>Could England be considered the superpower after 1356 and France after the war is over?
Nah not really. There were several periods in the war (the Valois had the upper hand again from 1360 to 1415, then the Angevins until 1429, then the Valois again), but overall the Valois and Angevins had more than enough to do fighting each other and can't be considered dominant powers outside of France and England at that time. You can tell the weakening of French influence by how the new centres of cultural change moved elsewhere in the 1400s, with the Renaissance happening in Italy and the Reformation in Germany.
>Also is it debatable Germany replaced Britain as world power after unification?
It might have come close, iirc it was a bigger manufacturing power, and more important in science. But it was still heavily restricted in its power, especially worldwide. For example it lost the Agadir crisis when it tried to take over Morocco but Britain came to France's aid, and it became French instead. Britain still seems like the power in charge. Taking that position was Germany's main motivation for WW1.
>>1293060
16th century to mid 17th century = Spain
Mid 17th century to 1815 = France
1815 to 1866 = Britain
1866 to 1918 = Germany
1918 to 1940 = Britain
1945 to Nowdays = USA
>>1293100
>British Empire
>Dominating
I think that Spain or FRanc were way more dominating at their prime that Britain ever was.
>>1295125
It spent the whole century being raped by France.
>>1295187
>1497 - 1643: Spain (the Habsburg Empire)
>1643 - 1815: France
I know that choosing specific dates is always tricky, but why the battle of Rocroi and not the Peace of Westphalia or the Treaty of the Pyrenees? Symbolism?
>>1295487
You are right indeed
Britain wasnt even the strongest country of its continent when at its prime
>>1295457
It had a fair amount of power in the Mediterranean. It was also influential in continental affairs, albeit often it didn't exercise this influence due to ilationist tendencies.
>>1295527
>France's prime was before Napoleon
>>1295487
Britain's type of dominance was different to those two because of the way the world was. So it's apples and oranges really. Britain's superiority was economic, whereas Spain' and France' were more military.
>>1295522
The battle of Rocroi was regarded at the time as the fall from grace of Spain and the triumph of France. It was a huge trauma for Spain to the point where they ended up hiring the general who led the French troops during it to command the Spanish armies and teach them French war methods.
The following treaties were just the consequence of France becoming the new dominant power following Rocroi.
>>1295544
Well to Germany it was a war to become the world power, and to its enemies it was one to prevent it. Either way you look at it, that means they weren't quite there yet.
>>1295539
I'll say France's prime was indeed before Napoleon, but not during the french revolution but under Louis XIV reign. Having a lot of land should not be the only factor to be taken into account.
>>1295544
The fact that Germany mostly had to pull the Central powers weight by itself against all the Allied powers is why I consider Germany the world power at this time.
>>1295527
WW1 happened at a time when many Britons knew they weren't top dog anymore. Military spending was relatively low, read War of the Worlds.
>>1295487
Britain was the first global super power you idiot and completely controlled the seas and trades
>>1295559
Britain has never been dominant militarily.
Even at their prime during the 19th century, their military might was inferior to those of the big european countries
WW1 merely put that in light
>>1295565
It indeed controlled a vast amount of backward shitholes all over the globe, but it was an era when Europe was insanely more relevant than the rest of the world combined
And given that Britain had little to no influence in continental europe...
>>1295557
Military strenght cannot be the only element to be taken into account, at least not when this military strenght was not useful to exercise influence and the will of the german state.
>>1295557
But you can't really say 'world' without it controlling said world. It was the top continental power and would have become the true world power (shitty colonies don't count) if only it could have established naval dominance.
During history classes, we are still told our nation was THE global world power for some time during our golden age.
I believe it went like:
Spain
Netherlands
England
US
I honestly don't know what to think anymore about it.
>>1295572
There was nobody in Europe that could threaten the UK until Germany started to build their navy. Even France sucked British balls when they sent troops to fight the crimean war and opium wars for the UK's interest
>>1295590
id rate it
>Spain
>France
>England
>France under napoleon
>England
>tie between USSR and USA
>USA
>>1295566
Yes. That's true. Britain thrifted it's way past most of its wars. But to say that WW1 was the prime is something I have to disagree with. Yes, it was richer than it had ever been before but power is relative, and it was more powerful at other times relative to the other empires.
>>1295592
>There was nobody in Europe that could threaten the UK
That's not enough to make the UK a dominant power
No one could do shit to you, but you couldnt do shit in Europe
A dominant powers isnt threatned by anyone but can threaten (kinda like the US now)
>>1295187
>1643
>france
More like Sweden
>>1295590
The Netherlands were pretty important especially proportional to size, and you could even argue that culturally they were the most important for a time. But in terms of power, after the fall of Spain it was very clearly France (and culturally too at least from Louis XIV on).
>>1295590
Sounds like bullshit. I've heard the swedes claim the same here. The defeat of Spain and the Habsburgs indeed marked the start of a golden age for both countries, but the main actors of that defeat were the french. And it was the french who defeated all their enemies and exercised the greatest influence in the following decades.
>>1295592
This.
>>1295590
The Dutch Golden Age is a meme
Sure it was a Golden Age compared to the rest of Dutch history, but it definitly wasnt relevant to the history of the world
The Netherlands at their prime managed to become something like the 5th European power (after France, Spain, England and Austria).
That's quite impressive for such a small country, but that's far from being a global superpower
>>1295612
France usually gets erased from history, so to modern eyes the period of French hegemony looks like a period with no dominant power, prompting everyone to put their foot forward.
>>1295604
>you couldnt do shit in Europe
UK btfo Napoleon along with British financed Prussia, Britain already took care of business and nobody could do shit
>>1295606
Sweden was France's lapdog. The astounding campaign of Gustaf Adolf was funded and planned by Richelieu. Sweden was not even his plan A.
>>1295604
I don't think that Britain needed to fight in Europe to defeat Europeans. Diplomacy could often be effective, eg Treaty of London 1839, which stood for a long time.
>>1295628
Don't worry, I'm from Spain and it gets even crazier.
>>1295632
Dominated what? The baltic?
>>1295618
t. Battlefield 1
>>1295638
Militarily they dominated Europe which was proved when they ended a seemingly never ending religious squabble where even Spain and France couldn't do shit
>>1295632
So from 1648 to 1700?
Don't think so Tim
But don't worry, I'm sure you dominated Scandinavia :^)
>>1295651
>Spanish succession
>nine years war
You're not helping yourself
>>1295663
>Nine Years War
France conquers Alsace (and Freiburg but has to give it back in the peace negociations) and keep it until 1871
>Spanish Succession
France manages to ensure King Phillip gets the Spanish throne despite all Europe opposing it
Looks like victories to me
>>1293060
16th century: Muslims
15th century: Muslims
14th century: Muslims
13th century: Muslims
12th century: Muslims
11th century: Muslims
10th century: Muslims
9th century: Muslims
8th century: Muslims
2nd half of the 7th century: Muslims
>>1295680
You forgot the 21st Century.
>>1295690
Muslims are currently in their dark ages.
oh, this is a shitpost. my bad.
>>1295650
>when they ended a seemingly never ending religious squabble where even Spain and France couldn't do shit
I really hope you don't mean the 30 years war. If so, end yourself. Sweden was assraped by Spain in the first Nördlingen and France had to enter and win the war themselves defeating the spaniards in Rocroi.
>>1295678
>9 years war
France loses more territory than it gains
>spanish succession
King Philip only becomes king because the other pretender randomly dies, then loses territory along with France and the Spanish government is forced to centralize. French soldiers were even btfo by an Englishman of all people
>>1295680
Back to the mosque Ahmed
>>1295708
>France loses more territory than it gains
But that's false, you autist
Read >>1295663
France conquers Alsace + two German cities even further, then they give back the two German cuities in the negociations but keep Alsace
And in addition to that, they get back Pondichery and Acadia, and Spain recognize their claim on Saint-Domingue
2nd century BC - Rome
1st century BC - Rome
1st century AD - Rome
2nd century AD - Rome
3rd century AD - Rome
4th century AD - Rome
5th century AD - Rome for the first little bit, Eastern Empire is still probably top dog for another 150-200 years.
>>1295711
Back to the McDonalds Michael
>>1295708
>Blenheim
Nice irrelevant victory
Too bad all it caused was erased when the most decisive Battle of Denain ended the war on a French victory a decade later
>>1295734
What's interesting is that Rome's opposition was so poor compared to other Empires'. That's not to belittle their achievement though.
>>1293060
>antiquity
Mesopotamia
Macedonia
Han
Rome
In that order
>early medi
Abbasaids
Francia
>medi
Seljuks
HRE
Mongols
Ottomans
>early modern
Song
France
England
>napoleonic
France
Great Britain
>victorian
Great Britain
Austria-Hungary
Germany
>modern
Germany
United States
>>1295772
>Austria-Hungary
Russia, France and even the US were more relevant than that shithole during the victorian era
>>1295772
>single dominant power
>picks Austria-Hungary
>>1295772
>forgeting persia
>>1295788
They where probably the only nation that could keep the ottomans in line for the longest time, as hungary. As austria, and austria hungary. Their existance alone led to the decline of turkish political clout
>>1293060
More like 1550-1648 Spain
1648-1815 France
1815-1920 UK
1920-Present USA
>>1295799
That's great, but I think we're talking about world hegemony, not regional.
>>1293079
Are you dumb?
>>1295565
> Britain was the first global superpower
Read a book, teafag
>>1295828
I think i got most of it right then, except somehow forgetting persia.
>>1295843
Fair enough. I agree with most of that.
>>1295843
You also forgot Spain and confused Song with (probably) Ming.
>>1295600
>Spain
>>France
>>France under napoleon
>>Britain
>>tie between USSR and USA
>>USA
Fixed it
>>1295590
Seriously?
Nah, I think Netherlands was only a trade power, like Portugal, but nothing more.
>>1295606
Sweden world power?
MY FUCKING SIDES, hahahahahah
Thats enough for today...
>>1295590
Well we we're the dominant naval power for a small while, and economically and culturally far ahead of the rest. But France is just bigger man. They've got way more men, and when you're not protected by the sea like the British, and France dislikes you, you're screwed.
And that's exactly what happened.
>>1293134
I won't defend Vietnam, but Korea certainly wasn't lost by the U.S.
Korea was the definition of a draw
MacArthur pushed all the way into North Korea just short of the bay and China got pussy. China's the only country we actually backed away from(also knowing USSR will hop in with China) to avoid another serious war.
It seems that US is the only super power. Things may change but not soon. Say... in a few decades. Especially if Hillary will be elected.
I have to say...
U-S-A
U-S-A
U-S-A
U-S-A
USA, e.g. Rome 3.0
>>1293060
China was the economic superpower until it's decline between the 18th and 19th century.
>>1295680
We will rise again
>>1295982
A draw against a backwater third world country reeling from civil war against a major superpower that ended the Nazi regime is effectively a win for China.
>>1295680
>>1296349
this
>>1296349
>China was the economic superpower
Of East Asia
>>1295907
The Dutch Republic had the largest fleet for most of the XVII. Thing is, their position wasn't sustainable in the long run because they were just too small of a country to defend against French expansionism or protect their maritime trade advantageous position from the appetites of England.
>>1295640
It's quite common in fact.
The example I was thinking of here is the Dune universe. In it they have a very simplified vision of past history, where they believe that there has been one continuous empire which has been the same from Alexander the Great all the way to the galactic empire of Dune, just with moving capitals. It's quite interesting, and similar to the way the Chinese rewrote their history.
Except as almost expected, the capital jumps directly from Madrid to London, skipping over the period of French domination entirely. Which, the way things are going, might really be how future mankind ends up viewing history.
>>1298051
Honestly, if you're an American and don't realize the period of french domination of European affairs, then you don't know your own history.
>>1295799
>They where probably the only nation that could keep the ottomans in line for the longest time, as hungary. As austria, and austria hungary. Their existance alone led to the decline of turkish political clout
>implying it's not Russia beaten roach asses in 19th century
>>1295505
Lmao no. Spain was the most powerful power between 16th and mid-17th century. After that we lose too many wars, but not just eith France, because we literally were fighting the rest of the world.
>>1298280
No, I mean in the 17th century in general (and in the 16th century too), but especially in the first half of the century.
>>1293060
The first two posts ought to have ended this thread.
Surprising lack of Ottoman Empire itt.
>>1298393
fuck off roach
i'd say
14-15th century: Ottoman empire
16th century : France and habsburg Spain
17-18th century : France
19th :Britain
>>1298455
>t. Ottoman rape babbies
the ottoman conquest and domination still happened no matter how much you cry about it
>>1298511
But turks are arabs
>people saying 18th century - france
There was no clear dominant power during that period. France at the beginning of the 18th century had already lost its status of greatest european power due to the inconclusive nine years' war which was a blunder from Louis XIV as he tried to assert his influence and power on the Holy Roman Empire, specially the right bank of the rhine
The War of Spanish Sucession was yet another blunder to France as the main goal of possibly uniting the crowns of Spain and France under a single monarch wasn't achieved, to not mention it indebted and ravaged further the country
The War of Austrian Sucession was a positive for france but it any gains in Flanders were returned to Austria, and still the UK and Austria rivalled France in terms of military just as much
The only time France really came close to be a hegemon in the european continent during the 18th century was in the revolutionary wars towards the end of the century, Austria Prussia and Russia still were more powerful but they fucked up major/France made use of its fullest potential to defeat enemies with more power.
The whole century was a clusterfuck of wars that paved the way for the rise of the balance of powers of the next century: the rise of Great Britain, Prussia and subsquentially Germany and Russia and the twilight of French hegemony over europe twice: during the last years of Louis XIV and finally under The Republic/Napoleon
After Napoleon there ceased to be a single most dominant power in europe until the world war 2
>>1297989
Nigger the chinks outproduced the whole of europe up till the industrial revolution. Go search up on chinese history its fucking interesting and amazing how they cucked themselves into oblivion with their isolationism.
>>1298542
>The only time France really came close to be a hegemon in the european continent during the 18th century was in the revolutionary wars towards the end of the century
More like when France closed to conquer the entire fucking continent
During the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars, France was stronger than all of the other countries combined, but that's not necessary to be an "hegemon" in the sense of what Spain was in the 16th century or Britain in the 19th century
You just have to be the strongest to a small margin, aka what France was for the entire 18th century
Your problem is that you're comparing France's soft hegemony all along the 18th century to its hard full blown hegemony at the end of it (which indeed makes the former seem mediocre)
Instead, you should compare it to other soft hegemonies like Spain's before and Britain's after
>>1298558
That's not true. France only conquered the entire continent right in the XIX century, before 1800 france was fighting a mostly defensive war
And France was definitively not the strongest state during all the 18th century. Prussia by the end of the War of Austrian Sucession was much more military stronger than France, as proved by the french fuck up at the Seven years' war. Even before then France wasn't the strongest by a small margin, France had always been in check by Austria/UK who could put France in its place fairly well
There's no soft hegemony, there's simply hegemony which means you're the top dog of your era and it's a pain in the ass to take you down, which simply wasn't the case of france before 1789. There was no hegemon in europe during that period
>>1298602
France was pretty ridiculous during Louis XIV, or at least in his early wars. They would often take on nearly every country in Europe and win and acquire territory.
Problem is that the Sun King got a little bit overzealous and never knew when to give up.
>>1298615
Not really, he achieved success against the weakened Spain and the Netherlands, when he fought the Grand Alliance of England, Spain, HRE, Netherlands and Sweden he almost shat himself, even though he got to kept some he won territory he also had to give in roughly the same amount of territory he had conquered
And that's during the end of the XVII century
>Problem is that the Sun King got a little bit overzealous and never knew when to give up.
And that's what fucked him and France for the rest of the XVIII century until the Revolution.
>>1298542
>>1298602
lol you got it all backwards, since the War of Austrian Succession was the only one that was a mistake for France, since it strengthened Prussia which eventually became the only country to rival French power on the continent. But that doesn't change that throughout that period France would regularly take on whole alliances on its own and win, expanding its borders in the process. Germany was a French protectorate ever since the Thirty Years War. And France's power was reflected by its enormous cultural influence, with French being spoken by every noble and educated person in Europe, and France being imitated in every field from philosophy and architecture to fashion and table manners.
BTW dominant power =/= hegemonic power.
>>1298602
>Prussia by the end of the War of Austrian Sucession was much more military stronger than France
This is simply ridiculous.
>>1298636
It wasn't a mistake because France was the natural rival of Austria and France had pretensions to the Austrian Netherlands since ever, just the richest territory on Europe. Which France took from Austria. But that absolute retard of a king called Louis XV just gave it back to them as if it was just another county on europe for no reason.
>But that doesn't change that throughout that period France would regularly take on whole alliances on its own and win, expanding its borders in the process
This didn't happen because france expanded its borders only after the revolution after the incorporation of Lorraine and the right bank of the Rhine
>Germany was a French protectorate ever since the Thirty Years War
This is simply not true. the HRE challenged and broke french power multiple times through the XVII and XVIII centuries, I don't know what are you talking about
>And France's power was reflected by its enormous cultural influence, with French being spoken by every noble and educated person in Europe, and France being imitated in every field from philosophy and architecture to fashion and table manners.
This is irrelevant as we are not talking about cultural influence
And france still wasn't the dominant power as I have argued before
>>1298650
No, your statement is the ridiculous one
There was no contendant for the Prussian Army after the War of Austrian Sucession, this is simply a fact. You had no other army and officer corps in europe at the time like the Prussian one. The French Army after Maurice de Saxe's death was abolute bonkers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rossbach
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Minden
>>1298602
>There's no soft hegemony, there's simply hegemony which means you're the top dog of your era and it's a pain in the ass to take you down
By that logic, Germany was the hegemon of early 20th century rather than Britain, look at WW1
>which simply wasn't the case of france before 1789
These wars seems to say otherwise >>1295651
>>1298667
>France was the natural rival of Austria
lol, that's literally the justification the anti-Austrians in France used at the time. We've always fought Austria, why should we stop now?
Because by then Austria was a mid tier power, it had abandoned its dreams of world domination, and it was no longer a threat to France or in any position to rival France in Germany. Prussia on the other hand, well we all know how that turned out.
>This didn't happen
Dude, pic related.
>the HRE challenged and broke french power multiple times through the XVII and XVIII centuries
lol what are you talking about, the HRE barely even existed anymore, and France would raid Germany and take over pieces for itself all the time. And Germany was literally a French protectorate, as in the treaty of Westphalia stated that the independence of German kingdoms was under French protection.
>we are not talking about cultural influence
Where do you think cultural influence comes from, dumb-dumb?
>And france still wasn't the dominant power as I have argued before
Then who was? Austria? Are you serious?
>>1298676
Bitch please, having good tactics isn't the same as being the main military power, you're like that guy who claims Sweden was the superpower of the 17th century.
>>1298676
Your statement is retarded because it simply forgets about the numbers. France was the more populated state in Europe, had the biggest army of all power. The battle of Rossbach barely proves anything, it was a battle far away from France, in a war that France didn't pay too much attention to begin with. The truth is that Prussia had no way of defeating France without any allies. They tried during the first coalition, in which the french army was reorganizing itself, failed at Valmy, and were lated invaded in 3 weeks by Napoleon. No Prussia couldn't beat a country like France.
>>1298685
>you're the top dog of your era
Which was Britain in an economic, territorial and naval sense. But not in terms of army. You can't really talk about an hegemon in pre WW1 20th century europe
>These wars seems to say otherwise
The first two are during the xvii century and even then the second one doesn't show all the territorial changes
I don't know what you're clinging at the third one as supposedly the Bourbons had to give away possetions to the habsburgs( the WSS was one big feud between habsburgs and bourbons)Netherlands and Great Britain, territories which would be in France's best interest if they remained Spanish, to not mention Philip V and his successors were taken out of the french crown succession line
>>1298709
>I don't know what you're clinging at the third one
All Europe teaming up for an entire decade against a lone country is exactly what you previously described as an hegemon ("you're the top dog of your era and it's a pain in the ass to take you down")
>>1295604
I'm not personally saying Britain was the #1 power of the 19th century, but you could argue that being able to use finance / diplomacy and "soft power" do meet your goals is just as good if not better than just outright bullying people with military might. The fact that Britain wasn't singlehandedly taking people on and instead enlisting others to do it for them doesn't mean they weren't pretty consistently meeting or even exceeding their geopolitical goals.
>>1298706
Having good tactics makes you the main military power because you prove your might through battles, and guess what, to win them you need good tactics.
Sweden wasn't the superpower of the 17th century but it could slap anyone's shit for sure.
>>1298707
France's power was virtual. Your statement is the retarded on because numbers alone count for nothing. The french army was still shit and not used to its fullest
>The battle of Rossbach barely proves anything, it was a battle far away from France, in a war that France didn't pay too much attention to begin with
But it does. It proves the french army wasn't capable. There's only one way to prove which armies are the best and it's through battles
Also, I showed you the battle of minden (not far away from france) which was also a major fuck up but you didn't bother with that for some reason
> The truth is that Prussia had no way of defeating France without any allies. They tried during the first coalition, in which the french army was reorganizing itself, failed at Valmy, and were lated invaded in 3 weeks by Napoleon. No Prussia couldn't beat a country like France.
Are you comparing Frederick's the Great military to late 18th century's prussia military? Enough said here. Prussian army didn't evolve meanwhile french army did. That's why Prussia got its shit fucked by france during the revolutin/napoleon. Frederick the great and his crew could curbstomp any mid 18th century french army.
>lol, that's literally the justification the anti-Austrians in France used at the time. We've always fought Austria, why should we stop now?
Because you didn't adress my point that explained how france had territorial ambitions and the habsburgs were in its way?
>Because by then Austria was a mid tier power, etc etc
People can't see the future. At the time of the WAS prussia was seen as a german state rebelling against the emperor's authority which was positive for France as it undermined Austria's power. cont
>>1298728
>Having good tactics makes you the main military power because you prove your might through battles
So if Luxembourg produces a genius general, it will suddenly become the greatest military power in the world.
Confirmed for complete dumbass.
>>1298676
>>1298707
>>1298728
I don't even know what you guys are trying to discuss, whether Prussia was or not a dominant power during the 18th century?
The answer is obviously nope
Before the Seven Years, Prussia was not dominant at all
During the Seven Years War, they fared pretty well thank to Frederick's military genius and managed to hold against France and Austria, but they exhausted themselves in that war which is why Prussia fell back behind both France and Austria as soon as the war was over
>>1298728
>There's only one way to prove which armies are the best and it's through battles
It's retarded, because it simply forgets on which conditions the two armies are fighting. During the 7 years war, the prussian army was defending itself. Are you going to say the USA are not the hegemonic power because they lost in Vietnam ?
The french only fought one big battle against the prussians. They basically sent an expedition that got defeated. And Minden is far from France, are you stupid ? Do you have any idea how hard it is for an army far way from its supply lines ? The same reason Prussia failed against France in the first coalition.
S U N K I N G
>>1298735
Quit with the Hyperboles
No, it's not only about the general, it's about the whole organisation of the prussian army. the french army wasn't more powerful than the prussian. To execute tactics you don't only need generals, everything needs to be syncronised from the top generals to the sergeant commanding a platoon on the field, or even the soldier shooting more than average volleys per minute. And this is where the prussians excelled. They had to be good because they were few
>>1298739
Prussian military only really started declining when Frederick William II became king and less funds and care were diverted to the army. It's not really possible to say which army was the best because between the Seven years' war and the Revolution there was no major war in europe
>>1298743
What an awful comparison. First, the USA was not just fighting a conventional war against the NVA, it also had to deal with the Vietcong guerilla warfare
Second, if it was France was attacking or not is irrelevant. most warfare consists of someone attacking and other defending. What matters is France thought it could take on more powerful nations on their own ground and lost.
>The french only fought one big battle against the prussians. They basically sent an expedition that got defeated
You know how? Because they fell for the old trick used long ago at Hastings. That's how bad the officers commanding the trioops were
I don't know what are you going about because the French surely didn't lose minden because of logistics
>>1299276
By the way, the trick was feign retreat. Seydliz sees the french and the germans pursuing the prussians and completely mauls the french army with his cavalry
