From a historical perspective, what is the single most important factor that allows nations to become great powers?
Bonus point: what is the single most important factor in their decline?
>>496303
Resource management and development
Easy (for both)
>memes
>>496303
>From a historical perspective
This is a code phrase for "I am a stupid cunt."
>the single most important factor
Not being a reductivist cunt.
>their decline?
Loaded. "Ceasing to be a great power" is unloaded.
Take your ignorant, ahistorical troll post and shove it up your arsehole.
You've asked a baited IR question, you know IR belongs on >>>/pol/ and you can fuck back off there.
>>496321
Spotted the marxist.
>>496321
>I don't know how Paul Kennedy is, and I probably don't know who anyone else is
>>496326
>how
How is Paul. Has he learnt not to publish in Random House if he wants to be taken seriously?
I'm quite willing to stand by a criticism of Kennedy's work as reductivist.
>>496303
A stable unified government
A stable unified (no not by race but in ideals) population [in my opinion this is most important]
Efficient Management of Resources
An Effective use of Diplomatic ability
>>496303
>From a historical perspective, what is the single most important factor that allows nations to become great powers?
Nearby established empires that are weakened by conflict with other empires.
>Bonus point: what is the single most important factor in their decline?
Conflict with other empires.
>>496334
Knock yourself out.
I expect a 1-2k word review article of the work published in a peer-review journal.
>>496334
Btw "single most important" doesn't imply mono-causality.
>>496344
>Nearby established empires that are weakened by conflict with other empires.
How in the fuck is this from a historical perspective. You've just given an ahistorical political universal.
>Conflict with other empires.
Again.
30%: Fail.
>>496346
When a project is sufficiently completed by a wikipedia article already…
>>496350
>Btw "single most important" doesn't imply mono-causality.
It does when you request a single most important factor and you're OP. It also indicates a literally pathetic theory of causation, in that it is a theory of causation dominated by an emotional connection to "importance."
>>496303
Just read up on the history of the Japanese Empire if you're serious.
>>496310
This, mostly control and effective use of energy (water, food, wood, coal, etc.) and manpower.
>The sour cunt in this thread
>>496303
>what is the single most important factor that allows nations to become great powers?
Good genetics and a virtuous culture.
> what is the single most important factor in their decline?
Bad genetics and a hedonistic culture. Bad genetics usually occur from falling birth rates and massive immigration (see : ancient greece, rome, the caliphate, etc.)
>>499561
>Bad genetics usually occur from falling birth rates and massive immigration
I wouldn't call that bad genetics, I'd call that decadence, in the Spenglerian sense.
>>496303
Economy
>>500164
It would be a mistake to ignore the importance of cognitive abilities in the making of civilizations. When the smart upper class stop reproducing and most of the population growth comes from unintelligent people, civilization cannot sustain itself.
>>500184
There's no significant difference in the cognitive abilities among super-Saharan people (not going to include sub-Saharans because immigration formt here has never been in large numbers and I don't want to invite /pol/ish arguing). Poor people bring down societies because they're bad at managing money and weigh it down when their numbers start exceeding the society's demand for unskilled or semi-skilled labor.
>>500199
>There's no significant difference in the cognitive abilities among super-Saharan people (
Mmmh debatable. Very debatable indeed.
>>500199
Though if you're making the argument that poor people in general don't have as good cognitive genes as the middle and upper classes, I won't be able to argue because there's no real data on this and I frankly kind of agree.
>>500211
That's a big part of my argument.
I personally think that average intelligence is very fluid. Take for instance europeans. I don't think europeans were particularly smart in roman times. However the feudal system was very "eugenic" and caused the european gene pool to greatly improve in the course of a few centuries.
Likewise, I suspect that Islam had a dysgenic effect on the average cognitive capabilities of middle eastern peoples.
>>496321
This looks like pasta desu.
Strong military.
>>500230
Comes from a good economy in all non-steppe nomad instances.
>>496321
God Marxists are so fucking stupid
>>500224
>I don't think europeans were particularly smart in roman times.
I don't think there's anyone particularly smart in this thread.
>>500333
I meant northern europeans, as in germanics.
>>496303
Geography.
>>496303
A well organized military put together with a sense of collective destiny
>>500382
T. Jared Diamond
>>496303
a big ass navy
>>500573
t. Alexander the Great
t. Genghis Khan
t. the Aztecs
t. Indian empires
t. Messopotamic empires
>>500586
but those were just continental empires
See Portugal, Spain, France, England or even the Netherlands, they went global
