Merkel Is Getting Me All Hot And Bothered

[rvg]

Could they afford it Iran I mean by the time Russia could trade in 19th early 20th there industrila development was primitive at best.

Russia has traded with Persia for a lot longer than that.

Later there products were not required because until the Shah was toppled as Iran was outside there orbit. Afterwards what did they have to give them only weapons a typical obsession of a land based power.

It wasn't an issue of orbit. Shah's dollars were just as green, and Russia traded extensively.

Interesting and this proves what exactly that you can send a cartload of barrels to Poland it will still be more exspensive and awkard to trade this way. A horse needs feeding and it can only travel in daylight, while a ship can move all day an night and can carry it's crew supplies and trade goods together.

Don't sailors need to eat and sleep?

Land based trade required the train and the further east you went the less developed and integrated a rail network you had.

If the land based trade required the train, then how was it possible to conduct land based trade before railroads came to be?

I said Russia can be powerful due to it's size I did not say they would or even can be all powerful.

And I didn't accuse you of saying that. My point all along has been that neither size nor population nor coastline can account for the success of the US as a nation: Russia has far more land, China has far more people, and Britain historically had a far better maritime trade network.

[gaelic cowboy]

Russia has traded with Persia for a lot longer than that.


It wasn't an issue of orbit. Shah's dollars were just as green, and Russia traded extensively.


Don't sailors need to eat and sleep?


If the land based trade required the train, then how was it possible to conduct land based trade before railroads came to be?



And I didn't accuse you of saying that. My point all along has been that neither size nor population nor coastline can account for the success of the US as a nation: Russia has far more land, China has far more people, and Britain historically had a far better maritime trade network.

Because before real sea trade got going everyone was landbased which removed any cmopetitive adavantage they might potentially have.
A cart driver needs to stop at night and change horses to contiue the journey safely, while a boat has a crew that can eat and sleep in shifts.

As already discussed once colonialism got really going the ship massively boosted trade and the train while good back then was not nearly good enough to go from China to France.


Crucially Russia and China also have problems with both restive populations and with greater actual security threats to the core. This has encouraged expansion to give strategic depth to secure there cores. There economies are landbased and while that was fine in the 14th century it was not fine in the 16th century and as discussed already China shut itself off which negatied it's own maritime advantage.

This has all combined to give them the typical landbased mindset always looking west and east in Russias case or inwards in Chinas case.

[rvg]

Because before real sea trade got going everyone was landbased which removed any cmopetitive adavantage they might potentially have.
A cart driver needs to stop at night and change horses to contiue the journey safely, while a boat has a crew that can eat and sleep in shifts.

As already discussed once colonialism got really going the ship massively boosted trade and the train while good back then was not nearly good enough to go from China to France.


Crucially Russia and China also have problems with both restive populations and with greater actual security threats to the core. This has encouraged expansion to give strategic depth to secure there cores. There economies are landbased and while that was fine in the 14th century it was not fine in the 16th century and as discussed already China shut itself off which negatied it's own maritime advantage.

This has all combined to give them the typical landbased mindset always looking west and east in Russias case or inwards in Chinas case.

Okay, so if size and rivers and trade are so important, then how do you explain the success of Meiji Era Japan? No land to speak of, no resources to speak of, no colonies, almost completely isolated until the 1850s, and yet by 1900 Japan was a world class imperial power.

[gaelic cowboy]

Okay, so if size and rivers and trade are so important, then how do you explain the success of Meiji Era Japan? No land to speak of, no resources to speak of, no colonies, almost completely isolated until the 1850s, and yet by 1900 Japan was a world class imperial power.

Indeed and what did they do as a result they opened up of course and then traded what little they had from there ports. There small size meant the new rail networks could cover them more easily to transport goods such as they were to port.

China is really only doing that now and hey presto look at that China is gettin massively rich harvesting a competitive advantage in numbers allied with global sea trade.

[rvg]

Indeed and what did they do as a result they opened up of course and then traded what little they had from there ports. There small size meant the new rail networks could cover them more easily to transport goods such as they were to port.

Which means that the importance of size and resources has been highly overstated. Q.E.D.

[gaelic cowboy]

Which means that the importance of size and resources has been highly overstated. Q.E.D.

I did not say that size in and of itself was the key I said maritime trade was the key have you been reading the posts at all. Technically one could say that indeed it is not trade but logistics that is the key, Russia had bad logistics America did not for the reasons outlined repeatedly

On the point about size it merely gifted America with plenty resources and as continually stated they had the ability to use them effectively from early on.



Germany is also a land power but crucially it's goods can reach the sea also German logistics are better as it's river and later it's rail system was more integrated.

[rvg]

I did not say that size in and of itself was the key I said maritime trade was the key have you been reading the posts at all.

I have, and if maritime trade was the key, then Britain, not the U.S. would have been in the most advantageous position. Heck, we didn't even connect our two coasts via railroads until 1869 or so. What good is an extensive Pacific coastline when the bulk of the industry, population and wealth is on the other side of the continent?