If you could make a timeline of "most powerful european country/ies"

[Israelite9191]

Yes I agree with that. But really, you would think Germany would have moved on after 60 years. This is also true of military/defence research, where Germany still takes more of a back seat, and yet once had one of the most active research programmes in the world.

Germany has only been united for approximately a decade and a half (I believe 15 years, but I won't risk making a definate statement), which is a very small amount of time to get back on their feet. The Germans have the economy, man-power, and political power to come to the front in Europe, and many of them realize that. The only reasons Germany hasn't totally dominated European politics are: 1) the power of Britain and France, and 2) the anti-European integration setiment that persists in Germany. If Germany asserted themselves, they could easily become totally dominant in Europe. They could also become real players on the world stage if they just found something to unite around and show force on. Germany could easily be given the title of the most powerful nation in Europe, the real question is who uses that power.

 

[Hey Joni]

The problem for Germany after the unification is that Britain and France were also great colonial powers. Post-Bismark it was indeed the most powerful state in Europe, if we leave colonies out. Germany had none cause they were too lately unified to grab any. On the other hand, be it a little late, Germany had the power and desire to support colonies. So naturally, Germany found its rivals exactly in the great colonial powers, this competition finally resulting in World War I.

 

[fing0lfin]

What about Serbian, Montegroan, Greek alliance in first Balkan war. Ottomans couldn't defend against joint forces of "small Antanta" and lost all of their posessions in Europe except todays european Turkey near Carigrad (Istanbul/Constantinople)?

You forgot one of the main components of this alliance- Bulgaria. If you want, you can search iin this forum, and you will find a few good topics about the balkan wars But i don't think that this alliance was the most significant power in those times..

 

[Orthodox Warior]

You forgot one of the main components of this alliance- Bulgaria. If you want, you can search iin this forum, and you will find a few good topics about the balkan wars But i don't think that this alliance was the most significant power in those times..

My mistake for missing Bulgaria... I think alliance was significant in liberation Balkans from Ottoman influence, not wider.

 

[fing0lfin]

My mistake for missing Bulgaria... I think alliance was significant in liberation Balkans from Ottoman influence, not wider.

I absolutely agree. Not only the Balkans, but Europe itself.

 

[Israelite9191]

The problem for Germany after the unification is that Britain and France were also great colonial powers. Post-Bismark it was indeed the most powerful state in Europe, if we leave colonies out. Germany had none cause they were too lately unified to grab any. On the other hand, be it a little late, Germany had the power and desire to support colonies. So naturally, Germany found its rivals exactly in the great colonial powers, this competition finally resulting in World War I.

All very true. Since we are talking about power in Europe itself (or at least that is the impression I have recieved) and not European countries on the world stage, then Germany easily becomes the most powerful at several points post-Bismark.

 

[willemvanoranje]

I think that before opening another thread like this we should set some clear criteria on which we define the most powerful nation/country/kingdom/empire in a certain era.

 

[simonnomis]

In my opinion 'Power' is all the resources, armies, economics, navies, influence, etc etc, that can be brought to bear by each European nation. The fact that some of those armies or navies (for instance) are in another part of the world is irrelevant. The fact that they are under the control of that European country is what is important, and what defines their 'power' relative to every other country in the world or, indeed, Europe.

 

[Israelite9191]

But look at it this way. It may be true that, say, India cares more about Britain than Germany, but it is also true that, say, Denmark cares more about Germany than Britain. In world affairs Britain is able to exert more force than Germany, but in European affairs Germany is able to exert more force than Britain. So, which are we discussing here? The power of European nations on the world stage or the power of nations on the European stage? And yes, I do realize that the borders are extremely blurry, but they still exist and are quite important to thsi discussion.

 

[Hey Joni]

I think that the key word when determining the power of a state, or power in general, is "influence". Influence as the ability to affect and create historical events. Influence is also the ability to make and apply important decisions, that concern a lot of people.

Territory, resources and armies are all secondary factors for power. In the most common case, these relate to influence but it is not obligatory. For example, the Vatican has so little material power and yet, so much influence on European and world history. The opposite is also possible: after gaining their independance, the United States had vast territories, rich in resources. However, for a long time they were unable to exercise the corresponding influence on other countries as they can and do now.

 

[Israelite9191]

Wonderfully put Joni! This is part of what I was trying to get at. While on the world stage the British have much more influence, Germany could be said to have more on the European stage. This is why we need to decide if this timeline should be of the most powerful European nations of the world stage or the most powerful nations on the European stage.

 

[willemvanoranje]

So let's put forward some people that spoke about hegemonic cycle theories for example..a to my opinion pretty complete thingy was made by Modelski (it is about the most powerful in the world though):

1494-1580 Portugal
1580-1688 the Netherlands
1688-1789 Great Britain
1789-1815 France
1815-1914 Great Britain
1914- ? United States (with decline starting 1973)

 

[Oruc]

Nope!

 

[Orthodox Warior]

Wouldnt the USSR be in their somewhere?

Absolutely. In 1945. Red Army was the most powerfull force that ever existed on this planet.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Well, it ain't all about armies..

 

[Oruc]

Nope!

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

What about Poland you both forgot Poland.

You read my mind, Poland was a major player for quite a while. Ever hear of John Sobieski (III)?

You cannot forget the Prussians either, they were fairly big, and from looking at this map, they were predominantly Polish. While I'm not trying to say Poland, Prussia and Lithuania were all Polish, you must admit that they were very similar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.prussiamap2.gif

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Absolutely. In 1945. Red Army was the most powerfull force that ever existed on this planet.

Most powerful in numbers and perhaps in tank quality, but in commanders, I believe the West was the victor.

I know there were good generals for them (i.e. Zhukov, Malinovsky, Koniev, and perhaps Timoshenko).

But I believe had the Western Allies and Germany aligned against the USSR in the beginning and had launched a cooperative assault, they would have toppled them.

 

[Oruc]

Nope!

 

[Nobody]

Wasnt the dutch the best for a little while?