Its a cycle:
-> Strong Economy leads to better Military.
|
| Military leads to stronger diplomatic clout and landmass.
|
| Increased landmass leads to greater population size and more natural resources.
|
|- Greater population size and natural resources lead to a stronger economy.
That's the theory, but other things can always go wrong which ruin the whole plan. Strong regional neighbours can curb the growth of even the most powerful nations. Germany was very strong in the 20th Century but was effectively surrounded by Great Britain, France and Russia. America grew to be very strong because it had very little regional competition. Conquering land doesn't always guarentee more population or natural resources either. It could just be desolate wasteland.
The other factors mentioned are normally effects rather than causes of a nation's power. Population abilities are normally a spin off a stronger economy and can create a minature feedback loop. Civil rights are a spin off of the form of government. The form of government tends to have a bearing on the balance between the build up of economic and military strength. A nation that empowers more of its populace in governance is likely to be weaker militarily than one that keeps tight central control, but is more likely to be able to support a strong economy through the free market.
Bookmarks