Does anybody have a timeline of the worlds single dominant power...

>it only worked for a few decades.

That's a funny way of saying that it prevented a major war in Europe for 99 years...

The credit for that does not belong primarily to the Congress of Vienna. I would argue its influence had already waned by the Crimean war.

Yes that is fucking stupid.

I mean, look at that idiot replying "Rome." What is Rome to Imperial China and its hegemony? Or to Mauryan/Gupta India and its Hegemony? The Iranic cunts? Bastards showed the limits of Roman power.

So no, nobody "dominated" alone in centuries prior Superpowers

Immediately after WWII, I don't think it would be a stretch to consider China and the USSR one power until their relationship deteriorated, China alone effectively beat the US in Korea without USSR military support. As the USSR collapsed, and relations between the USSR and China fell apart, I don't think there is any real contest, the USA is clearly at the top. Before WWII I would be skeptical of claiming any country was the single dominant power.

Yes, but the USSR collapsed relatively late into the 20th century.

This is an interesting point, before modern technology you could only be a regional power.

>How accurate is this statement?

Precisely.

It sounds like that hack Niall Ferguson but the USA is the sole superpower at the moment.

How does France fit into this? Were they similar to Britain as global empires with industrial might (UK more so) with France the stronger army and Britain navies?

The Mongols conquered most of the world, would you really consider them a regional power?

I think you're confusing single dominant power with most dominant power, but that would still be as contested

Mamluk Egypt and Whoever the fuck was hegemon in 1200s Europe says hi.

When did they get to America?

16th century: Spain

Spain was more a dominant power in the 16th than in the 17th.

Yes but it was also the most dominant in the 17th

In the West:

486 - 843: France (Francia for autists)
843 - 1077: Germany (HRE)
1077 - 1214: the Papacy
1214 - 1356: France
1356 - 1497: no real dominant power
1497 - 1643: Spain (the Habsburg Empire)
1643 - 1815: France
1815 - 1942: Britain
1942 - present: USA

The last 500 years are pretty obvious, since each period was the product of a treaty which reorganised Europe and made one of the powers the clear top dog.

>843 - 1077: Germany (HRE)
>1077 - 1214: the Papacy
>1214 - 1356: France
What events caused these changes?

843: Treaty of Verdun, separation of Charlemagne's empire into three parts, the Eastern part of which soon becomes the most powerful (although mostly later under Otto the Great, in the 10th century, in fact the separation of 843 isn't final but close enough).

1077: The Investitures Controversy, a political conflict between the German Emperor and the Pope, which ended with a victory of the Papacy. It only formally ended in 1122, but really the Papacy had the upper hand since 1077, which is when Emperor Henry IV walked barefoot to Canossa to beg the Pope for forgiveness.

1214: Battle of Bouvines. That's when Philip Augustus defeated the Angevin king of England and the German Empire, and took effective control over most of France. He had also effectively made himself absolute king, and from that point on France and the House of France became the major power of Europe.

1356: Battle of Poitiers. Major Valois defeat in the Hundred Years War, capture of the French king by the Angevin, and France descends into chaos with the betrayal of Burgundy and a revolt in Paris. France continues to be in a state of civil war for a century, not to mention the Black Plague just arrived and all that.

Could England be considered the superpower after 1356 and France after the war is over?

Also is it debatable Germany replaced Britain as world power after unification?

>1815 - 1942: Britain
>Dominant in the west
It had the Biggest Projection power due to its Navy and Indian Local Rulers being morons but it didn't dominate shit in the west

>Could England be considered the superpower after 1356 and France after the war is over?
Nah not really. There were several periods in the war (the Valois had the upper hand again from 1360 to 1415, then the Angevins until 1429, then the Valois again), but overall the Valois and Angevins had more than enough to do fighting each other and can't be considered dominant powers outside of France and England at that time. You can tell the weakening of French influence by how the new centres of cultural change moved elsewhere in the 1400s, with the Renaissance happening in Italy and the Reformation in Germany.

>Also is it debatable Germany replaced Britain as world power after unification?
It might have come close, iirc it was a bigger manufacturing power, and more important in science. But it was still heavily restricted in its power, especially worldwide. For example it lost the Agadir crisis when it tried to take over Morocco but Britain came to France's aid, and it became French instead. Britain still seems like the power in charge. Taking that position was Germany's main motivation for WW1.

16th century to mid 17th century = Spain
Mid 17th century to 1815 = France
1815 to 1866 = Britain
1866 to 1918 = Germany
1918 to 1940 = Britain
1945 to Nowdays = USA

>British Empire
>Dominating
I think that Spain or FRanc were way more dominating at their prime that Britain ever was.

It spent the whole century being raped by France.

>1497 - 1643: Spain (the Habsburg Empire)
>1643 - 1815: France

I know that choosing specific dates is always tricky, but why the battle of Rocroi and not the Peace of Westphalia or the Treaty of the Pyrenees? Symbolism?

You are right indeed
Britain wasnt even the strongest country of its continent when at its prime

It had a fair amount of power in the Mediterranean. It was also influential in continental affairs, albeit often it didn't exercise this influence due to ilationist tendencies.

>France's prime was before Napoleon

Britain's type of dominance was different to those two because of the way the world was. So it's apples and oranges really. Britain's superiority was economic, whereas Spain' and France' were more military.

I'll say that the first world war, among a lot of other things (of course), could be considered a war to prevent Germany from becoming the "world" power.

The battle of Rocroi was regarded at the time as the fall from grace of Spain and the triumph of France. It was a huge trauma for Spain to the point where they ended up hiring the general who led the French troops during it to command the Spanish armies and teach them French war methods.

The following treaties were just the consequence of France becoming the new dominant power following Rocroi.

Well to Germany it was a war to become the world power, and to its enemies it was one to prevent it. Either way you look at it, that means they weren't quite there yet.

I'll say France's prime was indeed before Napoleon, but not during the french revolution but under Louis XIV reign. Having a lot of land should not be the only factor to be taken into account.

The fact that Germany mostly had to pull the Central powers weight by itself against all the Allied powers is why I consider Germany the world power at this time.

WW1 happened at a time when many Britons knew they weren't top dog anymore. Military spending was relatively low, read War of the Worlds.

Britain was the first global super power you idiot and completely controlled the seas and trades

Britain has never been dominant militarily.
Even at their prime during the 19th century, their military might was inferior to those of the big european countries
WW1 merely put that in light

Yes, my comment wasn't trying to contradict but to add a conclusion. I should say that I skimed the last sentence on that post, so my post wasn't meant to be so redundant.

It indeed controlled a vast amount of backward shitholes all over the globe, but it was an era when Europe was insanely more relevant than the rest of the world combined
And given that Britain had little to no influence in continental europe...

Military strenght cannot be the only element to be taken into account, at least not when this military strenght was not useful to exercise influence and the will of the german state.

But you can't really say 'world' without it controlling said world. It was the top continental power and would have become the true world power (shitty colonies don't count) if only it could have established naval dominance.

During history classes, we are still told our nation was THE global world power for some time during our golden age.

I believe it went like:
Spain
Netherlands
England
US

I honestly don't know what to think anymore about it.

There was nobody in Europe that could threaten the UK until Germany started to build their navy. Even France sucked British balls when they sent troops to fight the crimean war and opium wars for the UK's interest

Replace the Netherlands by France and you have it right

See
It's crazy how people from irrelevant countries (Netherlands, Portugal, Canada...etc) can be self-important sometimes...

id rate it
>Spain
>France
>England
>France under napoleon
>England
>tie between USSR and USA
>USA

Yes. That's true. Britain thrifted it's way past most of its wars. But to say that WW1 was the prime is something I have to disagree with. Yes, it was richer than it had ever been before but power is relative, and it was more powerful at other times relative to the other empires.

>There was nobody in Europe that could threaten the UK

That's not enough to make the UK a dominant power
No one could do shit to you, but you couldnt do shit in Europe
A dominant powers isnt threatned by anyone but can threaten (kinda like the US now)

>1643
>france

More like Sweden

The Netherlands were pretty important especially proportional to size, and you could even argue that culturally they were the most important for a time. But in terms of power, after the fall of Spain it was very clearly France (and culturally too at least from Louis XIV on).

Sounds like bullshit. I've heard the swedes claim the same here. The defeat of Spain and the Habsburgs indeed marked the start of a golden age for both countries, but the main actors of that defeat were the french. And it was the french who defeated all their enemies and exercised the greatest influence in the following decades.

lol, what's with all these small countries trying to replace France

This.

Fuck that attitude man. That's totally not what I said.

And 'irrelevant' is harsh on a 'mostly harmless' level

The Dutch Golden Age is a meme
Sure it was a Golden Age compared to the rest of Dutch history, but it definitly wasnt relevant to the history of the world

The Netherlands at their prime managed to become something like the 5th European power (after France, Spain, England and Austria).
That's quite impressive for such a small country, but that's far from being a global superpower

France usually gets erased from history, so to modern eyes the period of French hegemony looks like a period with no dominant power, prompting everyone to put their foot forward.

>you couldnt do shit in Europe

UK btfo Napoleon along with British financed Prussia, Britain already took care of business and nobody could do shit

Sweden was France's lapdog. The astounding campaign of Gustaf Adolf was funded and planned by Richelieu. Sweden was not even his plan A.

Huh, thanks for the clarification.

I guess its similar to the entire
>first ever multinational
>sell our good grain to england, import cheap shit from poland = profit
>neutral --> more money
meme of merchantpeople

I don't think that Britain needed to fight in Europe to defeat Europeans. Diplomacy could often be effective, eg Treaty of London 1839, which stood for a long time.

Sweden from the 30 years war all the way up to Narva dominated

Don't worry, I'm from Spain and it gets even crazier.

Dominated what? The baltic?

t. Battlefield 1

Militarily they dominated Europe which was proved when they ended a seemingly never ending religious squabble where even Spain and France couldn't do shit

So from 1648 to 1700?
Don't think so Tim
But don't worry, I'm sure you dominated Scandinavia :^)

>Spanish succession
>nine years war

You're not helping yourself

>Nine Years War
France conquers Alsace (and Freiburg but has to give it back in the peace negociations) and keep it until 1871

>Spanish Succession
France manages to ensure King Phillip gets the Spanish throne despite all Europe opposing it

Looks like victories to me

16th century: Muslims
15th century: Muslims
14th century: Muslims
13th century: Muslims
12th century: Muslims
11th century: Muslims
10th century: Muslims
9th century: Muslims
8th century: Muslims
2nd half of the 7th century: Muslims

You forgot the 21st Century.

Muslims are currently in their dark ages.

oh, this is a shitpost. my bad.

>when they ended a seemingly never ending religious squabble where even Spain and France couldn't do shit

I really hope you don't mean the 30 years war. If so, end yourself. Sweden was assraped by Spain in the first Nördlingen and France had to enter and win the war themselves defeating the spaniards in Rocroi.

>9 years war
France loses more territory than it gains

>spanish succession
King Philip only becomes king because the other pretender randomly dies, then loses territory along with France and the Spanish government is forced to centralize. French soldiers were even btfo by an Englishman of all people

Back to the mosque Ahmed

>France loses more territory than it gains

But that's false, you autist
Read France conquers Alsace + two German cities even further, then they give back the two German cuities in the negociations but keep Alsace
And in addition to that, they get back Pondichery and Acadia, and Spain recognize their claim on Saint-Domingue

2nd century BC - Rome
1st century BC - Rome
1st century AD - Rome
2nd century AD - Rome
3rd century AD - Rome
4th century AD - Rome
5th century AD - Rome for the first little bit, Eastern Empire is still probably top dog for another 150-200 years.

Back to the McDonalds Michael

>Blenheim

Nice irrelevant victory
Too bad all it caused was erased when the most decisive Battle of Denain ended the war on a French victory a decade later

What's interesting is that Rome's opposition was so poor compared to other Empires'. That's not to belittle their achievement though.

>antiquity
Mesopotamia
Macedonia
Han
Rome
In that order

>early medi
Abbasaids
Francia

>medi
Seljuks
HRE
Mongols
Ottomans

>early modern
Song
France
England

>napoleonic
France
Great Britain

>victorian
Great Britain
Austria-Hungary
Germany

>modern
Germany
United States

>Austria-Hungary

Russia, France and even the US were more relevant than that shithole during the victorian era

>single dominant power
>picks Austria-Hungary

>forgeting persia

They where probably the only nation that could keep the ottomans in line for the longest time, as hungary. As austria, and austria hungary. Their existance alone led to the decline of turkish political clout

More like 1550-1648 Spain
1648-1815 France
1815-1920 UK
1920-Present USA

That's great, but I think we're talking about world hegemony, not regional.

Are you dumb?

> Britain was the first global superpower

Read a book, teafag

I think i got most of it right then, except somehow forgetting persia.

Fair enough. I agree with most of that.

You also forgot Spain and confused Song with (probably) Ming.