When was the apex of [American] power?

[WWTVICTOR]

American GA: From the WWII―the end of Iraqi War
British GA: Industrial Revolution―the Independence of India
French GA: First French Empire period
Spainish GA: Hapsburg at her greatest extent―the end of Isabella and Ferdinand
German GA: The unification of the German Empire―WWI
Roman GA: The conquest of Julius Caesar―the end of the Five Good Emperor's Reign
Turkish GA: The Siege of Constantinople―the death of Suleiman the Magnificent
Soviet GA: The WWII―the launch of Apollo 11
Chinese GA: The reign of Taizong of Tang―the Anshi Revolution (Future: 2030~)

The Golden Age Eras are the high ages of that empire, though expansions are started/continued after this short period (eg. the Ottomans were still expanding after Suleiman I his Imperial Majesty has died).

 

[arya126]

First, we are not looking for golden ages, nor expansion periods, nor any of that. The topic of this thread is the peak of these countries' relative power and influence over other countries nof its time. That does not mean a golden age.

Secondly, it is my opinion that those periods, more specifically those of modern times, are far too open ended, such as Britain's and UK. Dont even try and tell me the USA has been in a 'golden age' as you put it since WW2. Just not true. If your going to end it because of the Iraqi Invasion, then you might as well end it when we lost the Vietnam war.

 

[Tee Kay]

If you want my personal opinion, "golden ages" are just nationalist porn.

 

[WWTVICTOR]

First, we are not looking for golden ages, nor expansion periods, nor any of that. The topic of this thread is the peak of these countries' relative power and influence over other countries nof its time. That does not mean a golden age.

Secondly, it is my opinion that those periods, more specifically those of modern times, are far too open ended, such as Britain's and UK. Dont even try and tell me the USA has been in a 'golden age' as you put it since WW2. Just not true. If your going to end it because of the Iraqi Invasion, then you might as well end it when we lost the Vietnam war.

I am sorry about misunderstanding or going so far, perhaps I was fanastically interested when seeing some keywords (simply no).

Anyway, the period that I have listed are the periods that empires have reached their climax, being superpowers/hyperpowers that gaining influence all over the globe. The topic is discussing about finding the apex of the United States and other empires throughout the history, and the previous reply only reflecting about my opinion. Perhaps the word 'golden age' is inappropriate, but finding out the apex is the main point, isn't it? Let's sit down and talk...

The Vietnam War...well depends on which perspective, but as I know, there is no power that can challenge the dominance of the USA all over the world, not even the Soviet Union during Brezhnev's rule. The US became the only superpower of the world after the disintegration of the USSR in 1991, no one can deny her sway on the world's topic...well, my personal opinion only...

 

[Camikaze]

People who put the apex of American power to the period after Cold War are mistaken. USA in 1991 was *not* more powerful relatively speaking than it was in 1945. It was just an illusion created by the collapse of its arch-enemy.

I don't agree with this (although I understand where you're coming from if you're going with the idea of the Soviets being a highly overrated threat through the entire period (although I'd argue that if the US perceived the Soviets as a threat, that means their relative power was lower, even if that perception was not reality)). If you were able to convert 'influence' into a percentage of the world's total, it may have been lower for the US in 1991 than in 1945, but the world in 1991 was much more multipolar. So relative to any other singular rival, the US in 1991 was quite far and away the world's leading power. A global hegemon. It could not claim that status in 1945.

 

[say1988]

The Vietnam War...well depends on which perspective, but as I know, there is no power that can challenge the dominance of the USA all over the world, not even the Soviet Union during Brezhnev's rule. The US became the only superpower of the world after the disintegration of the USSR in 1991, no one can deny her sway on the world's topic...well, my personal opinion only...

Then why end in 2003? The US is still the sole super-power unchallenged by anyone else.

 

[WWTVICTOR]

Influence will remained expanding while in a slower pace, after the apex, downfall will not be significant or in instant. The US is still the unquestionable, undefeatable and undestructable solid remained superpower.

The US's major problem is having too much expenses on military operations, in the year of 2002 and after, the USA have deployed overwhelming forces on the Afghanistan frontlines since the overthrown of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 2001. In 2003, the US declared war on Iraq and captured Saddam Hussein, and the consequences are burning money, protests on the international stage and demonstrations held by the people, while downgrading the US's image on other international topics. They still can't find evidences that can stand very firmly on charging Saddam Hussein having 'alleged weapons of mass destruction' and it is easy to become a matter of laughter among the crowds (unfortunately). The US proposed the Axis of Evil to attack other sovereign states...It is a turning point for me, I think.

The above is only my stance on the year of 2003, and I am not discussing Iraqi Wars and others Please feel free to share your views

 

[HistoryFan]

I've seen a lot of people say China's peak will be in the future... Really? China's greatest period had to be the Han Dynasty...

 

[Theige]

I've seen a lot of people say China's peak will be in the future... Really? China's greatest period had to be the Han Dynasty...

Well they never really projected much power worldwide... they sent some expeditions into the Indian ocean, but in the modern world, they'll be projecting much more global influence because of the globalized world economy.

That said, they'll never become as powerful as many of the others on this list are/were.

 

[aronnax]

Well they never really projected much power worldwide... they sent some expeditions into the Indian ocean, but in the modern world, they'll be projecting much more global influence because of the globalized world economy.

That said, they'll never become as powerful as many of the others on this list are/were.

I assume you are refering to China as a whole rather than the Han Dynasty.

If so, I would say that the most influential China probably ever was, was during the Tang Dynasty. Although it wasn't absolute control, Tang China had a large degree of control and influence in Central Asia and her cultural influence, trade and diplomatic missions stretched further than ever before.
Unless you consider the Yuan Dynasty China...

For the Ottoman Empire, if I had to be very specific, the 5 most powerful years were probably in (Prevesa) 1538 to 1543. Suleiman II had subdued Safavid Persia, conquered Hungary and consolidated Turkish control of the Eastern half of the Mediterranean.

I would think that France's 'apex of power' was during the 1680s. I know some would argue Napoleon's reign but in my head. While Napoleon had controlled half of Europe, it was systematically opposed by the rest of Europe to such an extent that they thought of nothing but his downfall and then proceeded to topple him.

With Louis XIV, even though so many countries had tried to pummel France, as shown by the 9 years War, France was just too much of a behemoth to fall. It could be defeated, but it couldn't be occupied and deposed. And outside of war, France was able to influence European politics in a long-term set up as oppose to Napoleon's 18 year stunt.

For Russia, no one seemed to have brought up Post-Napoleonic Era, Pre-Crimean War Russia. I would imagine that the armies that defeated Napoleon, that crushed foreign revolutions was very influential.

 

[RedRalph]

For Russia, no one seemed to have brought up Post-Napoleonic Era, Pre-Crimean War Russia. I would imagine that the armies that defeated Napoleon, that crushed foreign revolutions was very influential.

Definitely, they were extremely powerful then, but think of the USSR controlling (or heavily influencing) events as far away as Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, etc. Imperial Russia was never in that league at all.

 

[Lord Baal]

The problem really is what constitutes power. Is it how far a nation can reach outside of itself to influence or is it the ability to hold a man's very being in the palm of one's hand, to control his thoughts, to command his soul how firmly one can control the nations it does reach, even if those nations are not so distant? Post-Napoleonic Imperial Russia absolutely dominated all of its neighbours, even Prussia and Austria, to an extent that even the USSR's Warsaw Pact did not enable - as evidenced by the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia - but had absolutely no influence beyond Eurasia, where they were already the number two power behind Britain. It's an interesting question.

 

[Flying Pig]

Definitely, they were extremely powerful then, but think of the USSR controlling (or heavily influencing) events as far away as Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, etc. Imperial Russia was never in that league at all.

That's probably more a comment on the technology of the times than the country's power, though.

 

[RedRalph]

That's probably more a comment on the technology of the times than the country's power, though.

Not really, the Brits and French were able to project huge power thousands of miles away well before the 1800s. Of course technology helped, and I agree Russia was really, really powerful after the Napoleonic wars (possibly the most powerful), but they weren't in the USSR's league.

 

[Lord Baal]

Not really, the Brits and French were able to project huge power thousands of miles away well before the 1800s. Of course technology helped, and I agree Russia was really, really powerful after the Napoleonic wars (possibly the most powerful), but they weren't in the USSR's league.

The British and French were only really capable of projecting power in most of their colonies through their influence on local elites though. That's a far cry from the modern ability to bomb the crap out of a nation on the other side of the planet when they won't buy your fruit.

 

[Flying Pig]

The British and French were only really capable of projecting power in most of their colonies through their influence on local elites though. That's a far cry from the modern ability to bomb the crap out of a nation on the other side of the planet when they won't buy your fruit.

...is that a historical incident? I can't decide.

 

[Lord Baal]

...is that a historical incident? I can't decide.

I conflated several instances (fruit in Guatemala, refusal to buy stuff in Japan, bombing countries on the other side of the planet on several occasions) in my head for amusement's sake.

Besides, it wouldn't be the dumbest reason a nation got bombed someone during the Cold War.

 

[Luckymoose]

Spainish GA: Hapsburg at her greatest extent―the end of Isabella and Ferdinand

What?

 

[Arakhor]

I believe that it was Joan the Mad, Isabella's daughter, who married Philip von Habsburg. Joan was the last of the de Trastamaras.

 

[Dachs]

Not really, the Brits and French were able to project huge power thousands of miles away well before the 1800s.

Well, I wouldn't say "huge", and I'd probably limit that to the Brits, but yeah.

By the way, taillesskangaru is right.