Just wanna know from everybody what they think about the mightiest empires of europe around 1700. Make a list please:) Wanna see what everybody thinks.
Printable View
Just wanna know from everybody what they think about the mightiest empires of europe around 1700. Make a list please:) Wanna see what everybody thinks.
Here are some of the big boys, in no paticular order. (Incidentally this list closely resembles the playable factions for ETW, no suprise there.)
1. Good Old Blighty (Britain)
Britain had the biggest Empire ever. Ever. That's of all time. Quite impressive, no? (Even if much of it was uninhabited wilderness.) Basically the top power of the time, Britain ruled the waves with a hugely powerful navy. Indeed it was bigger than the next two biggest navies combined (the Rule of Two as it was known at the time).
2. Those Snooty Foreigners (France)
The strongest continental European power of the time. Ruled over a large area of land at the start of the period, and they only got stronger. Then some charismatic Corsican guy got a hold of the reigns and woah. Boy was the rest of Europe suprised (and bloody worried to.)
3. Spain
Once drew a line around the world that split it eavenly between them and Portugal. Spain was the major power in the preceeding century, and was still a force to be reckoned with in 1700. They had large amounts of land in South America, North America and a sizeable chunk of Europe. Well known for transporting vast quantities of gold on the famous 'Manilla Galleons', the treasure fleet.
4. Portugal
Portugal are much like Spain. A colonial power with huge amounts of land in South America and North America. They held less of Europe, however. On the way out in terms of power, they preceeded to get less and less important as the century wore on. Still a signficant naval force at the start of the century however.
5. Ottoman Empire
The major power in the Middle East and Northern Africa. They owned a huge amount of land around the Med. They were in danger of becoming old fashioned, but managed to revitalise enough that they held onto power long after they could have succumed to obsolescence. The Ottoman Empire were never much of a colonial power, but they were plenty powerful enough around the Med to make up for it.
6. Russia
The big guy in Eastern Europe. The really, really big guy. Russia is a vast, vast country that dwarfs any other European power for owning land all in one place. Unfortunately however most of that land is either frozen, muddy, covered in snow, or all three at the same time :laugh4: It works to their advantage however, making the Russian steppes and tundra a very, very unforgiving place to invade, especially in winter.
Rich in resources, rich in manpower, not so great for training. Russia's favourite tactic is to overwhelm the enemy with its massive numbers of poorly equipped infantry. And it works really, really well. Eventually they got a little more 'modern' however.
There's a start. There are other factions who deserve a mention, but I'm too tired to list them right now. :laugh4:
Actually, in this era, Russia's standing army was pretty decent in terms of quality. Certainly during the Great Northern War standards dropped a bit, but they tend to do that after twenty years of hard fighting, and the Swedes were in the same boat.
Peter the Great was very keen on getting his army up to snuff, and did a pretty good job of it. The Russians more or less maintained an army worthy of a great power until after the Napoleonic Wars, when they let the army stagnate. Resting on your laurels just isn't an option for great powers.
I would say that, during the height Peter the Great's era, Russia may well have been THE greatest power in the world. Unfortunately, two rather poor rulers (Peter III and Paul) mucked things up a bit, however, they also had some decent rulers who managed to put Russia in a position of power, Catherine II (also called 'the great', who was one of the better rulers of the era until she started getting senile and paranoid), Alexander (he beat Napoleon at the height of his power, what more do you want?)
As to tactics, the 'human wave of cannon fodder' is from a later era. The 18th century Russian army had Suvurov, who probably would have rivaled Napoleon if he'd lived a few more years. After that they had Kutusov, De Tolly and Tolstoy (not the writer :P).
I think it is rather unfair that history has stereotyped the Russian military in the way it has. The portrayal of the entire army as a drunken, bumbling, incompetent mess that is only saved by the Russian winter flies in the face of historical evidence which often shows Russians as almost excessively brave, if lacking in initiative and creativity. However, those who broke that mold tended to be great generals.
The primary origin for this depiction of the Russian army comes from the Soviet era (WWII) and the Crimean War, when it was generally accurate.
I strongly suggest reading up on Suvurov. He was really a remarkable man, one of the very few generals who never lost a battle and one of approximately five people in the history of the planet to win the respect of the Cossacks :tongueg:
Also, I believe that the Mongol Empire was larger than the British Empire at its height :annoyedg:
Also, on the note of the British, it should be said that they really didn't come into their own until the mid-late 19th century. Until then, while certainly a great power, they were definitely not the undisputed superpower of the world.
I just knew that you would come along and pick holes in my Russian write-up Sheo. :P
Keep your historically accurate facts to yourself sir! I prefer my Russians to be stereotypical, human wave, lemming like men off their face on vodka! :laugh4:
Actually I had a nagging feeling while I was writing it that Russia's army may have been more reliable than the stereotype. I somehow got it into my head that the mass wave tactics were what they started with and they phased them out later. Thanks for the correction :2thumbsup:
As for Suvorov, I gather you are a big fan of his. You do a great job of making him seem like a fantastic guy, so you'll be pleased to know I'm going to read up on him to find out what all the fuss is about :P :beam:
Incidentally you are right about the British blooming in the 19th century, but I was going for a simplified outlook on them (also I was both tired and lazy :P)
Just doin' my job. In my time off from being the Prince of Madness I see it as my duty to correct peoples views of Russia :P
Anyway, I do admit, the "UURAH! CHARGE AND DAMN THE MACHINE GUNS!" attitude/stereotype does have its appeal in some situations. However, it annoys me when brilliant individuals get ignored by history because nobody wants to admit they got beaten by the Ruskies :P
Good to know. Suvurov is one of the greatest forgotten generals (outside of Russia) in history. And his personality quirks were apparently right up there with MacArthur :P :gring:
I'd have to add Prussia to the list, though I'm not sure where. They didn't control much land, nor many resources, but they sure as heck could put an army together. Especially with such large neighbors around, Prussia held its own and then some. :damnmate:
While Prussia was certainly a powerful country I wouldn't really class it as an Empire, so thats why it wasn't included initially.Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnMon
When I think 'Empire' I think expansive areas of land comprising several countries. Prussia never really expanded much oputside of the German and Baltic area.
Sweden!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
Norway! :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinxit
Assuming we aren't just shouting random scandinavian countries at each other, and that you were suggesting Sweden for the list, I didn't add it for the same reason as Prussia. By global standards they were both pretty small.
Waits for someone to say "Finland!" and get lynched.Quote:
Assuming we aren't just shouting random scandinavian countries at each other
Actually in 1700 Sweden was on it’s way to Empire! They had had some overseas colonies but lost them or most of them by the time of the Great Northern War.
Everyone ganged up on them but they will still winning until the got bogged down in Southern Russia.
'Cause the Swedish king tended to take things personally :P
Now, speaking in terms of history, I believe the 'big five' pretty much stayed the same from about 1700 to the early 20th century.
In no particular order:
1. Austria
2. Russia
3. Prussia
4. France
5. The UK
Those five typically maintained a position as the strongest nations on the planet, hence they were known as the 'great powers'. While they tended to fluctuate as to two was the 'strongest', obviously, as I have said before, none of them ever really gained a supreme advantage, otherwise the others would have ceased to exist.
Even at the height of its power, controlling the worlds oceans, the UK probably could not have taken on one of the other great powers by itself with the intention of destroying that power and won.
Thus we get the 'balance of power' and similar things.
Now, if we go back another hundred years, we remove Prussia from the list because it doesn't exist and add the Ottoman Empire, who were, indeed, a major entity during that era. Of course, the mid-1600's were the start of their decline, when the Janissary corps started to gain power and corruption ran rampant, but they were still a presence even up until the 1900's.
There is also the matter of China who were, arguably, the strongest, richest, and most advanced nation on the planet up until about 1800. The trouble, of course, comes in the form of a lack of English records on the subject that aren't simply BS made up by the European powers to make themselves look good during the invasions and occupations of the late 1800's-early 1900's.
However, generally, the Qing were a state to rival any other until the series of crippling rebellions and wars, not to mention technological ignorance, pretty much screwed them and opened the door for European 'intervention'.
I would have mentioned china but the OP specifically stated 'the mightiest Empires of Europe' so I missed them out.
Your list is a good one for the majority of the era Sheo. Mine is more biased towards the start of the century (and therefore the start of the game.)
I'm fairly sure France was considered as the world superpower in the 18th c. Despite ruling over less lands than the UK, France itself was still the most populated European country, with the most modern and effective army.
The economy was sure not in a good shape, since well, the country had been at war with everyone else for decades, and because Louis XIV was mostly interested in warring and building huge stuff to show how great he was.
Things got bad after the death of the so-called Sun King, only to start to improve again at the end of the century, under Louis XVI, who somehow ended up getting his head separated from his body, even though he was by all standards a decent king. Then, against extraordinary odds, Revolutionary France achieved to fight off most of European powers, and to succesfully - that's where the fun starts - establish a continental Empire over most of Europe.
Feel free to debunk that as nationalist crap (I'm French duhu), but that's more or less what I understood from my readings (most of them being the work of anglo-saxon historians).
Serious contenders were obviously the British Empire, and the Russian Empire. Both were clearly the principal winners of the Napoleonic Wars, even though the British Empire quickly got the upper hand and became the new superpower, while Russia got stuck into an economical and social crisis that would last quite a while.
You are most certainly correct that France was the number one power in Europe. Britian however was generally much stronger overseas than any other country, France included, especially towards the end of the century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
It impossible to rank one as stronger than the other really. In continental Europe France would destroy Britain. At sea and in foreign lands however Britian tended to have the upper hand. No one power had a clear advantage, and they never fought in an all out war to destroy the other.
Who wins in a battle or war is all about situational advantages anyway. Despite all of its tremendous power and size the British Empire lost to a bunch of uppity colonists in America. Had Britain not been distracted by France at the time then things might have been a different story.
Likewise Napoleon rampaged across Europe in an incredibly succesful military campaign. Without Napoleon however France may never have conquered anyone at all.
So basically what I mean is that Empires can be classified in terms of things like area of land held, or wealth, or number of men, but power and strength are both relative and situational. The question of who was the most powerful superpower don't really have an answer (at least not one that can stand up to every argument.)
Why Russia? Assuming we are not counting the years from 1701 and beyond, Russia was backwards and, as far as I know, didnt win any significant battles at all until later on. At least not against the Swedish Empire. Russia was a huge pile of nothing in progress of being a huge pile of something. But it wasnt at the time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
Finland was (and had been for several hundred years) a part of Sweden. Consider yourself "lynched".Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
:balloon2:
However, to call Finland Scandinavic is somewhat..dubious.
While I see where you're coming from, the notions of power and strenght are not always relative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
Since the early 90's, the US have been the only superpower, and I don't think anyone can deny that. Other regional powers don't have the capacity to rival the US, either militarily or economically, and thing will probably stay that way for a few more decades.
Things were far less clear-cut in the 18th, most notably because the notion of total war wasn't entirely perceived, and because no country could realisticly have achieved total dominance over the other powers, but I still think it is assumed that France was the #1 superpower for most of the 18th, and was then replaced by Britain after Napoleon's fall (with Britain slowly being caught up by Germany - who got her ass kicked - and the US). That's how things are seen for International Relation studies purpose.
It doesn't mean that France was teh awesome for a while, while UK wasn't. But us political sciences students like to rank stuff for the sake of ranking stuff ;-)
Since the OP asked for a list, here shall be mine :
1 - France
2 - The United Kingdom (or whatever was the official name)
3 - Russia
4 - Austria
And then, it's about it. Spain and Portugal, though still Empires, were in an increasingly dire shape, Sweden almost became an Empire but ultimately failed, and Prussia despite her glorious achievements, can't be considered an Empire.
To all people who said Britian, Learn your history! Britian was little more than a fishermans community in 1700! The British Empire only really rose to power after the Napoleoinic Wars. The 19th Century, and the early 20th Century, was Britains time of might.
I would say Spain, or Portugal would have been very powerful in 1700. And the Russians as stated before.
Spain and Portugal were well past their prime and Britain was much more than a fishermans community in 1700. I think you got a bit carried away.
And you just fed the troll.
Not at all. Depends on how you define Scandinavic. There are three definitions according to Wikipedia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...efinitions.PNG
"Red: the three monarchies that compose Scandinavia according to the strictest definition; Orange: the possible extended usage; Yellow: the maximal extended usage that takes Scandinavia as synonymous to the Nordic countries." - Wikipedia
:balloon2:
This thread is quickly gaining the potential to turn into a big nationalistic argument. Lets not get to worked up over this eh? If you think a nation should be regarded as the best around then wait till Empire comes out then take it and make it so, simple as that.
Also on Finland as a Scandinavian country? Some say it is, some say it isn't, but frankly it isn't the point of this thread. :laugh4:
Like I said earlier, we will never reach a cler agreement on the most powerful factions. Not even if we argue points for years. :P
But its fun to argue points for years, and we dont need to agree. And you learn quite a lot doing so. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
True, true. Just keep it friendly like and no one will have a problem. Capiche? (This came across as much more threatening than intended, but what the heck :laugh4:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinxit
In the interest of sparking healthy debate I propose that you all acccept the obvious truth that The Duchy of Savoy was by far the mightiest Empire of the time. Discuss. :beam:
Well the Dukes became kings of Italy, and Italy clams the heritage of Rome, so yes I guess in a back handed way you could say that.:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
That was, of course, after the game's timeline. :smile:
Not counting 1701 and beyond, you'd be right. Russia was fairly backwards, although Peter did modernize it a bit during that era. Roughly between the death of Ivan IV and the rise of Peter I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinxit
However, I'm assuming the author of the thread meant the '18th century', in which case, Russia would be a prominent world power.
After the reign of the Sun King France was no longer the de facto hegemon of Europe, indeed it was brought quite quickly and brutally down to earth, and certainly after the Seven Years War its global pretensions of Hegemony had been dashed, as had everyone elses, by the United Kingdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
France was also hugely in debt, having commited itself to massivley costly yet very limited wars under The Sun King, whereas the Seven Years War waged almost half a century later was a catastrophic defeat of unimaginable scale.
Allow me to disagree Sir Beane. By 1700 Portugal was shifting the centre of its empire from its asiatic possessions, with its main centre in Goa (India) to the south american territories. The spices, silk and other asiatic goods are being substituted by sugar, coffee and gold, which helped to retake the economical power lost in the previous century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
Its also in the 18th century that, through war and treaties, Portugal and Spain start to define more objectively their bondaries in South America.
Although Portugal presence in several spots of the african continent has been a fact since the early 15th century, by 1700 it was basically centered in what is now Angola and to a lesser degree modern day Moçambique as well as a few forts, trading posts and cities along both the weterns and eastern coast. Only in the 19th century Portugal will, again, shift the centre of its empire from Brasil (independent in 1822) to its african territories, when there is some territorial expansion and colonization.
During the 1st half of the 18th century the portuguese forces were involved in plenty of overseas conflicts, with locals and other europeans, as well as european conflicts, particularly the Spanish Sucession War that ended with the Utrecht Treaty in (1713). Later in the 18th century the portuguese army suffers a profound remodelation under the command of Friedrich Wilhelm Ernst zu Schaumburg-Lippe Count of Lippe. The portuguese navy wasn't much different from other european navies, specially the spanish, french and english navies.
Around the beggining of the 19th century and due to the napoleonic invasions, the Portuguese Court moves to Brasil (1807) and the remnants of the army were incorporated in Napoleon's armies. After that, and under Wellington's leadership, the portuguese army gets reformed and fought intensively in the Peninsular War (where it constituted nearly half of Wellington's forces).
Oh and...Portugal never had any possessions in Central or North America...not oficially anyway.
https://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l...incipeReal.jpg
Sweden was very strong at the beginning of the 1700. But collapsed 1721. We lost the Great Northern War. But it was 3 enemies versus us. Poland, Denmark and Russia. At 1700, Sweden had one of the best armies in Europe.
The Danes were worthless in the GNW :P
And, it should be pointed out, the Swedes had the Ottomans (briefly) on their side. Turned out to be a bad decision, of course, but there you have it.
Really, the Russians won fair and square. It took Peter a while to get on his feet, but that makes sense. As I said, he had to secure his own throne, build an army from almost nothing, then build a navy from nothing, THEN take on Sweden.
It wasn't a dishonorable loss for the Swedes. Few countries could have gone twenty years in the sort of knock-down, drag-out, slugfest that the GNW was. But once they lost their unifying 'great leader' the Swedes just seem to have lost the will to fight, really. Peter and Charles were both great men, Charles just had the bad luck to be in front of a musketball at the wrong time.
No doubt that the Swedes flew a little too close to the sun in the GNW.:sweatdrop:
Actually they had a few African Colonies. Some of the other German States had had Colonies in the Americas but I think they were gone by the time of the game…there may have been one island they had leased from Denmark in the Caribbean…If the game went on another 20 years lots would be changed on the map…if we had Africa and the Pacific Islands but we’ve go what we’ve got.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
Sweden and Denmark and Norway also managed to grab come island colonies at some point. Sweden I think owned somewhere in the caribbean and Denmark owned many islands around the polar region.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
It's a real shame that Africa was not included in game. The french, English, German and Dutch all had colonies in Africa. It would have been interesting to fight off the other European powers whilst at the same time trying to combat the native tribes (such as the Zulu.)
I htink i'll write a revised list of factions taking into account what people have mentioned in this thread.
I agree with most what you say. Although, saying it was fair and square doesnt make sense since during both the major battles of GNW, Narva and Poltava, between the Russians and the Swedes, Sweden was outnumbered 4-1. Hardly fair and square. The Swedes didnt lose that many soldiers to Russia, more to famine and starvation. As if that was more glorious :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
What I consider fair and square is 1-1. Not 4-1.
On the other hand, it could be seen as an achievement to recruit huge amount of troops as Peter did.
And did the Ottomans really participate in the war or did they simply say "Yes we are in, lets do this!", and then quickly changed their minds to "Mjee... you do the fighting, we will sit here and act moral support"?
And yes, the Danes were worthless. I do believe they were forced out of the war due to some "accident" with their navy, even before they had an encounter with Charles XII. Charles XII being eager to face the Danes, is said to had become very disappointed.
Due to the strength of the 19th century British empire and todays anglosaxon dominance people tend to widely exaggerate the UK and the royal navy. Britain didnt catch up with the other European majors in population until 1800 or so, and the undisputed naval supremacy was a post-Napoleon thing. Until Nappy a combined Franco-Spanish fleet was a match for the Royal Navy (and won at times, such as in the US war of independence). Britains undisputed control of India only came about towards the end of the century. We also tend to overrate the usefulness of colonies, which in reality didnt contribute much. The Carribean sugar islands and various plantation colonies are cash cows, but other than that one only needed trading posts to make serious money (through African slaves or East Indian spices). The thirteen colonies and Latin America had some urban centers but these didnt generate that much revenue for the respective crowns compared to plantations. Spain also had the silver and gold mines of Mexico and Peru, but these were of less important compared to in the past. Other colonies were useless. It is quite telling that France rather gave up Canada than a single sugar producing island after the seven years war.
I agree with this list, but for the 1700s I would put them in a particular order that is bound to annoy a lot of people:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
1) France - The largest population after Russia and most of all rich, developed homelands. France failed at hegemony because the other countries would team up against her and because she had to divide her attention between continental and colonial warfare. Probably the strongest army if one considers both size and quality. Second strongest navy after Britain, but not that far behind. Decent colonial empire until 1750 or so (Canada, Louisiana, parts of India as well as the incredibly profitable Carribean sugar islands).
2) Britain - The strongest naval power and master at balance of power games, Britain's strategy was to ally with the weaker continental powers against the strongest. Britain has much smaller population than France, a relatively weak army, but the strongest navy. Well developed North American colonies and a foothold in India (that turns into dominance after the seven years war), Britain is a power on the way up that will peak in the next century.
3) Russia - the most populous European country with a large army that is decent in quality as well, Russia is France's main rival for hegemony in Europe (and competing for influence in the smaller countries in between). Russia also made moves towards building a colonial empire of sorts in central Asia/Siberia and the steppes, and is taking lands from Turkey in the Balkans. The Russian army is also of much better quality than its reputation gives it credit for, even though many commanders follow a Russian tradition of considering their soldiers an expendable resource. The army is probably slightly weaker than the French due to organisational and logistical weaknesses though. Building a navy but lacking in naval experience this is only good for fighting Swedes and Turks, cant touch the real naval powers on the sea.
4) Austria - A strong continental power that allies with either France or Russia depending on the circumstances. Decent army that is well behind those of Russia and France in size. No colonies. Austrian power probably peaked in the 1700s.
5) Prussia - An army with a country. Densely populated lands and an excellent army that is smaller than those of France and Russia (Prussia was only saved from destruction by the death of the Russian empress in the seven years war). Prussia has no strategic depth but a good position to expand it's influence in the smaller German states, the only problem is that doing so annoys Austria and France.
Other significant powers:
Spain - The third largest naval power still has a large and relatively developed colonial empire in the Americas, as well as a decent army. The only problem is that Spain is at the mercy of much stronger France (and thus choose to be a loyal ally during the 1700s for reasons of self preservation).
Turkey - A significant but somewhat underdeveloped continental power that at least can delay Russia and Austria in the Balkans. Large army that is falling behind in organisation and logistics. Decent mediterranean navy but no high seas capacity.
Holland - The dutch are past their prime but have the fourth largest navy and rich spice colonies in the East Indies (as well as slave colonies in the west Indies, but these are poorer than the French, British, and Spanish islands). Netherlands is a borderline minor though.
Minors:
Sweden: My poor native country had a small population and weak economy. The Swedish great power status was lost in 1721 and had been based on weak neighbours and a head start in building a modern state. Once Russia and Prussia got going Sweden was too weak to do much. One colony (a slave island bought by the French in 1784). The decent quality army and navy are too small to do much unless the neighbours are fighting at multiple fronts. Sweden also needs French subsidies to even afford to fight a war:p Sweden's best defense is probably that the country literally is "at the edge of the map" and not worth the bother for the sparsely populated forests.
Portugal: For all practical purposes an economic vassal of Britain. While Brazil is a huge colony and Portugal has some Indian and African possessions Portugal proper is too small and has too low a population to make any difference. Similar to the netherlands but somewhat weaker. Fifth largest navy?
Denmark: Has some slave colonies making it the second smallest European colonial power. Denmark itself is too small in size and population to do much though, and can probably be seen as a mixture between Sweden and Portugal. Sixth largest navy.
Poland: A large country in steady decline and with a very weak central state. Whenever Poland has a strong monarch that tries to centralise the kingdom the Russian's intervene and force the country to back down on reforms. Ends up partititioned three times over with game over in 1795.
I think that covers all the countries worth having as playable in ETW. There are also some German and Italian minors, but those were rather insignificant even if some were large enough to field decent armies (Bavaria, Saxony and Venice spring to mind, maybe Sicily as well).
I guess it depends on your definition of 'fair', going 1 to 1, the Russians probably would have lost, simply because Charles was a better tactician and had the luxury of veteran soldiers right from the start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinxit
I would consider it 'unfair' (in the terminology of the day) if the Russians had used assassins or poisoned Swedish wells or blockaded all of Sweden's ports or something. As it is, it was pretty much a straight up fight. Both countries just went at it and, in the eternal lesson that nobody seems to learn, Russian quantity triumphed over somebody else's quality. Really, in a twenty YEAR long war one could attribute Russia's victory simply to its population. Sweden would've run out of war bodies faster :P
And one could consider that the Danes provided more moral support to the Swedes than the Ottomans. I mean, 'professional whipping boy for the Swedish army' is probably a traditional Danish military office even to this day :P
EDIT:
On the matter of Russian numerical superiority in the 18th century, Zaleukos, France had a larger population until about 1800. The exact point where Russia passes France is debatable based on your source, since exact records of population aren't kept even TODAY and you can well imagine the issues of counting Russia's Siberian population.
Sir beane, Don't you worry aboutt hat nasty Sheogorath.
Very Subjective. As power waned greatly after Jassey.Quote:
There is also the matter of China who were, arguably, the strongest, richest, and most advanced nation on the planet up until about 1800
Advanced in some, no were near it in some. Richest, define richest? most money wasn't china. And it's power fast waned after 1600.
In the 1700's they where not much chop. And European navies constantly beat them up, and asked for trading concessions.
Russia, however........we will leave for another time my friend,
Zaleukos.
ok where do i start. Lets see, in the 1600's a smaller group of English Warships constantly had France and spain on the Back foot. In fact the real reason for this, was many fold.
1. by 1700 England, had the largest overseas territorial empire, with exception the spainish. The most people overseas, where form teh british iles. But this only happened recently, in the last 20 years.
It's trdaing reciepts, along with france and every other main european nation are freely available. England & Ireland, were beating the hell out of them.
The term is Anglo Celtic thank you. As we are all one people. Don't try to divide us.Quote:
anglosaxon
ENglish Scottish and Irish, our families built this.
Yes sometimes. just like other nations ganging up on Frnace, British had the same. But 90% of the time, a smaller, faster british ship, despatched the heavier and slowly french.Quote:
Until Nappy a combined Franco-Spanish fleet was a match for the Royal Navy (
Actually was more or less complete with Clive of Plassey's battle's. As no one could changelle them after. France casued some nuch, later on, but their power was well gone by thenQuote:
Britains undisputed control of India only came about towards the end of the century.
I have the detailed survey maps if you care to buy them? ANd copies of the treaties.
Ok you have never read a book have you?Quote:
We also tend to overrate the usefulness of colonies, which in reality didnt contribute much
1940 uk had a GDP of about $322m US
All colonies except Indian, $ 210m US.
Indian $180m US.
TOTAL BRITISH GDP = $ 712 m GDP, ( how the hell do you think the UK held the world up for the first half of the war by herself?)
( Please note, frances economy pre 1940 was 172m GDP By same comparison )
NOTE: these figires do not include balance of payments, trade and Finanical standings.
You can pretty much see the comparisons, and in the 1800's the GDP of india was more intergrated with europe, and especially Britian. And the reciepts from trade and GDP were about 24% higher.
But all these exclude the 4 main colonies that where the most successful.
Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. All products of the British Iles.
Canada changed later on as more non British arrived about 1900's onwards mianly.
Ok read the trade recipts from the virgina company. The East Indian Company. Provide as tax to the British treasury, As that provided to Frances for the Year. Admittely in mid 1800's.
But even in the 1700's, particalurly after 1757, the rental revenue off Begal was over 287,000 Pounds a year.
Now many won't realise, but even today, the UK and France measure their GDP differently. ANd have always done so. But the closest we can measure togehter, is that in 1757 British had the larger GDP.
As with today, the UK has a larger Economy than France, with a smaller population.
So if we take, what France's population 1900.
And the UK, and the little Englands as they where known. (Aus, NZ, Can ).
England
1841 17 milion
1901 30 millio
Scotland
2.6 m
3.4 m
Ireland
8.4 m
4.6 m
Australia
` 3.9 m
Canada
5.4 m
New Zealand
1.8 m
Total British (eg: over 98% of pop)
28 m for UK in 1841
49.1 million
France:
1841~ 34 million vs 28m uk only. to much work to get everyone in. missing lots.
1901 ~ 40 Million vs 49.1 million
Now this excludes alot of others, roughly about 2million British living all over the show, In 1901
And also excludes the country that today is still a majority of British Iles decsendants. the USA.
I personally worked it out at 52.3 million one time. I jsut can't find all the working i did.
And france was 40.8 Million.
Another limitation on franch population is the france liked to have wars. And nappy certainly killed off a lot of frenchies. not to mention everyone else.
Remember Half of nappies army was German.
Yes, but understandable. If you read old documents and crush numbers.Quote:
It is quite telling that France rather gave up Canada than a single sugar producing island after the seven years war.
The reason was little cost, and MAX MAX return.
Whereas, canada had lots of cost, and slow long term return. But the frernch didn't leave Quebec. Hmmm some where wise?
Quote:
France - The largest population after Russia and most of all rich, developed homelands. France failed at hegemony because the other countries would team up against her and because she had to divide her attention between continental and colonial warfare. Probably the strongest army if one considers both size and quality. Second strongest navy after Britain, but not that far behind. Decent colonial empire until 1750 or so (Canada, Louisiana, parts of India as well as the incredibly profitable Carribean sugar islands).
Germany had the Largest Population outside of Russia. That is the German Empire. By about 20 million people more, if you take the Empire as a whole, (eg: old Holy roman Empire).
France was rich. Well not the fourth estate. Which is about 90 % of the people.
Whereas the british People where rich, Relativily.
The fourth Estate in england was particularlly small. And revolts in the UK where small compared to the revolts of France for staving people.
England and scotland after 1750 Never suffered a food shortage, or stavation.
But oh yes SOME where rich.
Miles behind, the Bitish would at will, blockage france. Lots of ships for france, but a true lack of quaility.
Yes france had a colonail empire in the earlier period. But the french didn't leave to go there.
The difference was, in England, the english Choose to go. In large numbers. More land, still under protection as a engish subject. And the ENglish had fair courts, espeically when compared to teh french.
The french believed, and rightly so, that a frenchmans place was France. And good on them i say.
England allowed free trade.
Quote:
2) Britain - The strongest naval power and master at balance of power games, Britain's strategy was to ally with the weaker continental powers against the strongest. Britain has much smaller population than France, a relatively weak army, but the strongest navy. Well developed North American colonies and a foothold in India (that turns into dominance after the seven years war), Britain is a power on the way up that will peak in the next century.
Actually peaked two centuries later, or 2.5, if you are using teh Seven years war as your bench mark.
Yes britian, after 1707, had the navy, but not a large Army.
But that was because they didn't need it.
You can't blame Britian for playing france off so they didn't become a overwhleming force. I mean hell france did it all the time.
1. United Kingdoms of Great Britian and Ireland. The three Crowns.
2. France
3. Ottomans, though very shortly going down, treaty Jassey.
4. Austra Not long to last, due to prussia.
5. Sweden Russian soon to take it's place.
In order game start.
ANyway I'm bored now.
Sicnerely
fenir.
Uk Public records, Imperial Records, Balance of Payments, Trade and trading Revenue, Exchequor reciepts.
Royal Navy records office.
Royal CHarters. ANd royal Assents.
Although I agree with the lack of human resources of Portugal (it has always been like that), I fail to see where you got the idea that during the 17th Century Portugal was an economic vassal of Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaleukos
Britain had won the Imperial race by the closing of the Seven Years War, France in comparison was now doomed to nothing more than a possible role as European Hegemon, Napoleon had the absurd idea that a more direct form of control, The First Empire, was possible. He was of coarse wrong, France, without the Global Empire it once had, could no longer stand toe to toe with Russia and Britain for long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaleukos
The French Royal Fleet was it is true, still a force to centend with, however it was no even match against the Royal Navy, it never would be again. France by the close of the century was in big trouble, it lacked money and the expansionist wars of the Republic,The Consuls and later the Emperor Napoleon Ist. was bleeding it dry of men and resources. Trafalgar was a simple confirmation, the French and Spanish fleets never stood a chance against the Royal Navy, and they new it. It was the completion not a start of the RN's rise to complete dominance.
The British Army showed considerable resiliance under Churchill at the opening of the 18th century, the Redcoats and the Dutch stood steady against the most famous and fearsome regiments the world had ever seen. The French were no worse and no better by the time ETW opens in terms of their European forces. But they did lead the way in North American skirmishing, to terrible effect, this was I beleiev one of Frances major strengths, advancement of infantry tactics. As some have said, officers of the Royal Army were very interested in the weakness of the infantry line, even before Napoleon rose to dominance, general Miranda was using the attack column to great effect. He failed because he was simply too good too early and let it go to his head, he lacked the skill of a politician.
Fenir already posted inspired rebuffs to your assumptions about the Empire and its wealth production.
France may have had a larger population, yet the Crown and later the Republic and Empire seemed to have been unable to use it properly. Napoleon seems to have forgotten what it was to raise, train and temper recruits and sucked France dry within a decade. The Crown under The Sun King mobilised vast numbers of men, yet did nothing but fight very protracted and limited wars, only to lose in the end. When big gains were up for grabs in The Seven Years War France's defeat was total and disgraceful, the Globe was taken away forever, France was now doomed to be a European power only.
He still did quite a good job at nearly realizing his "absurd" idea, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Well, actually, he did not, it was a doomed enterprise from the start, France had nowhere to go, it had a very limited resource pool and there was never any possibilty that he could defeat Russia and Britain totally. The only way France could have won such a war was if it had retained the ability to exploit global markets, it lost this ability a half century before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methuselah
Moved to the Monastery. :bow:
I wonder what happaned to disamen? He managed to spark quite a lot of debate and discussion with this thread, but he never ended up posting in it aside from the OP.
:Cough:
China under the Manchu (Qing dynasty) is still on its peak, though XVIIIth century is the last period of Chinese prosperity until the last quarter of XXth century.
The others: Russia, Britain, Austria, France and Prussia, Sweden (until the death of Charles XII of Sweden)
Spain is still large but is no more a great power in the true sense of the word
The Chinese were stagnating at this point in history, by the mid century the Industrial revolution had begun in Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
The Chinese also lacked a navy, and the maritime culture now required to go at it with the Europeans, this a crucial aspect of European hegemony. China was not just a nation, it was a civilization, as such its rulers dominated their region like no European monarch had or could. Thus the Chinese were not driven like the Europeans were to seek out better opportunities and improve upon everything before someone else did.
Again I would limit the greatest nations of Europe to just three, Russia, Britain and France, by the second half of the century just Russia and Britain. Prior to the Revolution it was Catharine's Russia which scared Whitehall most.
Well, the stagnation of the Chinese economy came at the very end of XVIII century + as a military power it was formidable force + Russia also did not have a Navy but this does not make her inferior great power. Tell me another power that dominated the Eastern Asia in the way the Qing dynasty did. And we mean the greatest Empires in the world not only in Europe. China perfectly fits here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Austria was a factor in Europe under the reign of Maria Teresia that stopped all of its neigbours in the war for the Austrian heritage. Prussia is the state with greatest future.
P.S. The industrian revolution was not a fact in Europe until XIXth century so Britain is more or less an exception
It does not matter, the Industrial revolution had begun in ernest by the 18th century and was an invention of British ingenuity, it meant that all other modes of output and production were being made obsolete. Unlike the British the Chinese had no direct control over global markets, their pool of wealth was more limited, this coupled with the fact that the Chinese did not catch on to Industrialisation meant that it was going to fall behind from the get go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
The Chinese armies were nowhere near as formidable as the smaller more modern European armies which casually set about the globe, able to descend on unwitting natives with impunity. The Chinese were very limited millitarily. To be sure the Europeans could never had conquered China, but that is not what we are discussing, we are talking about power relative to the 18th not the 16th century, power was now global, the Chinese stayed firmly regional.
The Russians in contrast, straddled both Asia and Europe, had access to modern ways of thinking and modern arms. Russia was IMO the real Hegemon of Europe, it was impossoble to truly weaken it its territory was so vast and its armies so resilient. If Britain destroyed French pretensions of Global Empire, then Russia by 1812 had destroyed French plans for European Hegemony, totally. Without Russia France would have retained its massive armies to batter Austria and Prussia.
Austria does not make the cut because it was no Empire, just a glorified Kingdom, a throwback to earlier feudal times, it would have been utterly destroyed were it not for Russia and Britain. I am unsure about the Prussians.
Well, I thought we're speaking about XVIII not XIXth century. Most of what you say is true but for XIXthQuote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
In XVIII century (esp. the first half) Austrians were formidable
The Austrians could never have been counted as a global power, as a regional power yes, but even then not of the same calibre as Prussia and France.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
If we are talking about year 1700 it will be
1. France
2. Britain
3. Sweden
There were group of strong countries too but these 3 were dominating on their areas - England on sea, France into Western and Sweden into Eastern Europe. Turkey can't be count because into 1699 finished several wars and Turkey lost it. Russia too because they had big, but poor equipped army.
If we are talking about first part of XVII century, it will be rather.
1. Britain
2. Russia
3. Prussa
4. Austria
France and Sweden lost their position - France had great public debt (remaining from Louis XIV wars) and Sweden lost into Northern War.
I guess you mean the first part of the XVIII century (1700-onwards) since Louis XIV only died in 1712, he can't be responsible for debts in the early 1600'sQuote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
I mean debts that appeared due to wars of Louis XIV.
Well yes, so that would be in the early 18th century.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
If we are talking about 1700, then France beats all as no other state at that time had proven strong enough to tackle The Sun King. At this stage in history, power in Europe was still really contested within the confines of the continent. Although overseas posession were now becoming very important, it was the battle in Europe which won the war. It was Dutch, Hapsburg and Orange millitary might along the Rhine & Danube rivers which won the war, not the navies in the West & East Indies. This is why this period is so interesting, we can see a truley momentous change taking shape, from the period of the War of Spanish Succession to the Seven Years War (roughly) the dynamic of power becomes more gobal, those states which lack the means to achieve some kind of global power are confined to second rate power status.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
Thus after the Napoleonic War, Britain reigns supreme.
Ahh yes - sorry , forgot about last I into XVIII :)
Anyway problems of France started before 1700 and into 1700 they were already big. Country was tired of wars and public debt was increasing dramatically. Colbert suggested reforms but was not listened to.
King Sun became blind and locked himself into his palace.
France was hated by most neighbours.
1. Frog eatersQuote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
2. Frog eaters
3. Frog eaters
4. Tea slurpers
5. Kebab monglers
6. Tulip traders
7. Meatball makers
8. Bull fighters
9. Vodka guzzlers
10. Beer brewers
:yes:
Turkey was still strong. Also the Poles still had a say in things....Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
I would still put France after Britain, with the rest of the list the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
I'd say that France remained strong, but Sweden? No, the empire was at its true zenith in the mid to late 1600's. That's when it could be called an empire, especially after the Westphalian peace treaty of 1648. After the 1690s, Sweden had only a limited, but well trained army to fend off the other nations in the area. It's a shame that ETW didn't cover an earlier era as well, maybe beginning with the Thirty years war and English civil war.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durango
Turkey, by the timefram we are discussing, was a broken shell, its back broken by the millitary strength of the Hapsburgs and its navy was now obsolete, Russia would soon be conquering Turkish lands around the black sea.
To be honest, I cannot see how Turkey could ever recapture its claim as top dog of the Middle sea and Eatern Europe, the exchange of ideas was now in the other direction, and the flow of money was ever more being diverted to different routes.
The French, after The War of Spanish Succession, were broken, the Fench army did not regain its historical dominance until the exploits of General Miranda and his fellow Republican commanders. The Royal army performed disgracefully in The Seven Years War with the exception, of coarse, of some amazing victories in N. America.
Austria, Russia and Prussia posessed far better armies, I am always amazed at the Royal army's failure to achieve its objectives in the Seven Years War.
It seems you have greater knowledge than me in this subject... :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar