>Classical empires had a lack of money and fought wars for gold and other capital.
>Rome won by turning human beings into money
>Western civilization had a lack of energy and fought wars for energy
>Britian won by turning rocks into energy
>Mesopotamian Civilization had a lack of land and fought wars for land
>Persia won by turning desert into land.
Find a flaw in my logic.
>>871086
>Wealthy empires had a lot of money
No shit Sherlock.
Learn to spell first.
>rocks into energy
What
>>871135
Coal m8.
>>871086
I get where you're going with this, and it's not terrible. Dominant superpowers emerge by rendering old conflicts moot, rather than winning at them. Add to the pile:
>Europe fights wars by trying to secure stategic positioning.
>America won by being outside of strategic positioning.
There is no such thing as "Latin America," the geographical, cultural, ethnic, etc. makeups of the countries south of the U.S. in the new world are too diverse in their particular histories and structures for this label to be accurate.
Let's take this one for example:
>Western civilization had a lack of energy and fought wars for energy
>Britian won by turning rocks into energy
You got that the wrong way around. The West wasn't fighting over energy until after the Industrial Revolution, and because of it. Britain had already won in 1815 when it took down France. Though I don't see on what basis you can single out Britain seeing as its period of dominance lasted barely more than a century, making it the shortest such period out of over a thousand years of Western history.
The agglomeration of states called the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire
