Was the Russian Empire the most powerful state in the world...

Was the Russian Empire the most powerful state in the world? I mean sure the British Empire was more influential and larger but still the Russian Empire possessed more raw power(much more population in the core, powerful land army) so they were able to directly project power in mainland Europe. I also feel like the British were always in advantegous position just because of their geography which allowed them to scheme and exploit other's to achieve it's own goals.

Nice b8

bait I know but i will nibble a little...

no, russia had larger population, although not massively larger, but it had far greater difficulty in mobilizing its available resources, due to being relatively backwards in both administration and technology, particularly due to the continuing practice of serfdom.

Russia had a lower GDP as well limiting its potential on the geopolitical stage, as did its limited outlets to the atlantic and pacific. it had potential power but relatively little effective power

britain on the other hand had global reach, a very high GDP and agricultural productivity meaning that its effective power was greater

what was the British "effective power"? yes they managed to gather an impressive colonial empire but when they were clearly unable to directly confront mainland European powers(they also didn't have to as they are an island), look how were they getting absolutely raped everytime they went to actual war which wasn't shooting up some tribesmen with spears

it only took for Germany to unite to completely ruin muh Pax Britannica and erase their doubtful influence on the continent(and in consequence wipe out their colonial empire)

Russians on the other hand directly confronted both the French and the Germans - mainland powers aiming to dominate Europe and they decisively beat both of them and then took control of half of Europe

USSR was a level of domination the British Empire never achieved

britains effective power was the ability for more than 2 centuries to prevent any single power from dominating europe while at the same time taking its pick of the rest of the world.

british intervention was responsible for containing french expansionism from the 1700s to the 1870s and german expansion until the 1940s

the russian empire (as opposed to the USSR) was little able to act outside its own borders without support and subsidy

Britain had an army quite literally a sixth the size of the mainland continental powers and still managed to trash them all in terms of empire building. If you think history is about land conquest like one of your strategy games then you're a fool.

>it only took for Germany to unite to completely ruin muh Pax Britannica and erase their doubtful influence on the continent

Actually it was the United States that did that. If Britain had surrendered to the Germans in 1940 they would have been able to keep their imperial possessions and continue being a world power. Instead they bankrupted themselves continuing the fight and sold out to us to keep going.

God no. They were btfo by the nips ffs. Being less shit than the Ottomans and the Qing dynasty doesn't mean much.

>british intervention was responsible for containing french expansionism from the 1700s to the 1870s and german expansion until the 1940s
"British intervention" didn't contain anything. Brits were getting raped by Napoleon and only combined European coalitions did finally contain it after numerous failed attempts and after he overstretched. And yes the British had their great share in defeating Napoleon, and it was in best British interest to take him down, still though Russians were the ones to actually decisively beat him in field for the first time, no one else in Europe could really have an adequate manpower to do so. So you can also say the Russian commitment was responsible for containing French expansionism there.

As for "containing the German expansionism" - you have to be fucking joking.

>They were btfo by the nips ffs.
It was the Russian Empire in it's dying state desu. Afterwards Russians(USSR) beat the fuck out of the Japs.

and who was it who supplied the money and the leadership to beat the french in the spanish succession?

or the seven years war, britain, both by direct action and by funding, supporting and organizing coalitions maintained the balance of power in europe for centuries.

The British Empire was a joke, a paper tiger
The fact you use it as a reference proves how uneducated you are
Russia was kind of strong, but you have to remember that only the European part mattered

After the end of French domination in 1815, the most powerful nation in Europe (and therefore the world) was Russia until the Crimean War, and Germany/Prussia after that

>beat the french in the spanish succession

Remind me, who was crowned King of Spain after that war?
The dude backed by the coalition or the dude backed by France?

>powerful land army
kek
Is that why the Japanese and British and French and Prussians stomped the ever loving shit out of them?

Russia still retains the vast extent of it's colonial takings. This alone is virtue.

The Russian Empire was by far the most powerful nation in the world after the War of 1812. It had the largest population of any nation, the strongest and most advanced army (just starting to experiment with mechanized infantry and steam power) and the best access to rich nations like China and India through the Far East.

not due to victories on the battlefield.

the british aim was to prevent a union of the french and spanish crowns, however the emperor of austria died and his brother (the alliance choice for spanish monarch) inherited his throne, this meant that if he won the spanish throne as well the spanish and austrian thrones would again be united, almost as bad for british foreign policy as the spanish and french uniting.

subsequently the british withdrew much of their support for the coalition and began negotiations, the british came out of the negotiations with significant territorial gains, a significant reduction in french military power, and its ey geopolitical goal achieved in that the treaty by which the french candidate recieved the throne also stipulated that the two branches of the house of bourbon could and would never unite and the separateness of the french and spanish crowns was assured.

its colonial takings were largely uninhabited, or inhabited by the same people as inhabit them now, 'russia' claims them on paper but in reality its pretty much empty map

>in it's dying state
They didn't do much better in WWI or the Crimean War.

>Afterwards Russians(USSR) beat the fuck out of the Japs.
The OP was about the Empire, so this is off topic. However, the US had disposed of most of the IJN and bombed the main islands to rubble by the time the Soviets invaded Manchuria.

There was a small scale genocide, like 2 million siberians were killed in the conquest and most the survivors were taken slaves. Also the Tsarists made a good choice in sending lots of settlers to the far East, which is largely why they still retain sovereignty today

Well Tuva is some other place has a native majority.

>the best access to rich nations like China and India through the Far East.
except how many trading posts and colonies in India did Russia take, how did the russians move chinese goods across siberia

>The Russian Empire was by far the most powerful nation in the world after the War of 1812.

After Napoleon's first defeat in 1814 would be more accurate
Even after losing most of its army to the Russian winter, France still managed to field a new one and resist a coalition of Russia, Prussia, Austria and Britain for two years

After the fall of Napoleonic France, Russia was definitly number one until the Crimean War though

britsih empire was just a few boats lmao all they did was bully savages.