Hey Veeky Forums, quick question

>UK was weak lol look at these two wars they won, that proves how weak they were!
>G*rmany was a true superpower, that's why it lost two wars in a row!

>HURR
>The term was first applied post World War II to the British Empire, the United States and the Soviet Union. However, after the end of World War II and the Suez Crisis in 1956, the United Kingdom's status as a superpower was greatly diminished, leaving just the United States and Soviet Union as superpowers.

Are you retarded?
How do you justify the fact that this "uncontested superpower" had to allies with two other great powers to barely beat a lone nation in these wars?
Britain was just a regular great power, and far from the strongest of them

>Hey Brazil won WW2
>I guess it means Brazil was a superpower during WW2

Nice logics

we're not here to do your homework for you, fuckboy

>15th
>16th
>17th
>18th

France all of them

I finished school a while ago, just curious.

>15th France, Burgundians, Habsburgs, Spain, Milan, Ottomans
>16th France, Habsburgs, Ottomans, Switzerland
>17th France, Habsburgs, Ottomans
>18th France, Prussia, Austria, England

15th- Ottomans, France, Castile, HRE
16th- Spain (or habsburgs), Ottomans
17th-France, Ottomans, Spain, Sweden.
18th - UK, Austria, France, Spain, Russia, Prussia.
There is no any particular order.

Ming, France
Ming, France, Ottomans
Ming, France, Ottomans
Qing, France, Great Britain

france or spain
spain
france
france

>18th century
>Britain over Austria

Its hard to say about global super-power before mid-16th.
1580-1640 Spain.
1640-1789 France.
1789-1945 Britain.

>post WWI
>Britain

they were a great power, but they were completely a paper tiger at that point

like the Mughal empire, they were more fit to be a prize than an adversary

>1789-1945 Britain.
>1789

Does Britain look like a dominant superpower on that pic?
It's 1815 at earliest for Britain
And it ends when Germany rises (circa 1900)

You kidding? 1/3 of Earth, total diplomatic domination through League of Nations.
Britain was second world power during 1702-1789. French-Briitish rivalry is main theme of 18 century.
Ofc, accurate point of switching of world hegemon was between 1789 and 1815. But I consider French revolution was bad enough by itself to provide British domination.

Are you retarded to the point of implying France's power peak under Napoleon was still less powerful than Britain in the 1800's ?

they were so powerful that they couldn't even stop germany when they combined their army with france's

Old France was strong enough to inspire rebellion in British colonies. New France could not create stable coalition.
Napoleon and other idiots were just spending accumulated resources of French kingdom and brought France to shameful 19 century.
I heard Germany was cucked and Britain won in WWI.

>You kidding? 1/3 of Earth, total diplomatic domination through League of Nations.
They were already exceeded economically by America, which also rivalled them in terms of fleet size. The other user was right. They were a prize for the taking, which is exactly what happened a couple decades later when the US cucked them out of naval bases around the world

By your logic does that mean America wasn't a super power during the 20th century because it lost Nam despite all the help it got from every developed South East Asian/Pacific country.

France
Spain
France
France

Old France was struggling against Spain and the HRE
New France utterly annihilated them both +Russia and Prussia at the same time

And don't forget that they ousted the British army from the continent Dunkirk style
Four times

Shameful ? Despite the Mexican and Prussian failures, France fared pretty damn well in this century, becoming the second world power until the rise of Germany and being the role model for armies all around the world as well as a cultural monster

>Shameful ? Despite the Mexican and Prussian failures, France fared pretty damn well in this century

Well, France was god-tier before 1815
When you pass from pic related to being average like Brits, it sure looks shameful from a self-centered perspective
But when you look at it objectively, they just became what Brits had always been and still were: meh-tier

Interesting "annihilation" with Russian-Prussian armies in capital.
Exactly. Brits forced most of Europeans to fight, but avoided destruction of own country.
I think Napoleon was even inspired by Britain to finish France after massive kills of noblemen and politicans by idiotic wars like Egypt or Russia.

>15th
France
>16th
France
>17th
France
>18th
France

After roughly 15 years of being annihilated, I wouldn't call it an achievement.

>15th
France and Ottomans
>16th
France, Ottomans, Habsburgs
>17th
France
>18th
UK

...

>1866-1945 = Prussia/Germany
Having the dominant army isn't enough to make you the dominant super power if said army isn't enough to over come the diplomatic, financial and naval resources of other nations. Germany was a big dog among even the Great Powers, but it wasn't THE dominant power

Austria-17th century and then France and the Britain

The Habsburgs

Crimean War wasn't us at our height though, it was what woke us up to modern logistical requirements - break of the 20th Century was our height.

China

>our

Nigga you weren't there, shut the fuck up.

>West
>South Korea

There wasn't really a clear superpower until Britain in the 19th century.

Before that the main powers were Britain, France, Austria, Spain, and Russia, and Netherlands briefly in the 17th century.

Interesting, but not really accurate. Comparing the size of a single large Ottoman army to the on paper strength of all soldiers in Ming China?

All true with the exception of Prussia/Germany.

Britain stayed the top dog until 1945.

>a lone superpower
>forgets AH and the Ottomans
>WW1 was "barely lost"

Wehraboos everyone.

>Britain the global superpower before Napoleon's defeat

I don't think so.

In terms of what exactly? There were no "super powers" in those century. Do you mean in terms of global power projection? Raw military might?

For the former:
Ming China
Hapsburg Empire
Spanish Empire
British Empire

For the latter:
Timurid Empire
Ming China
still Ming China
France

you know how I know you're german?

What power did Ming exercise/was able to outside it's neighbourhood?

>15th century. Portugal with Spain rocketing to the top. Ottomans dominant in the east.
>16th century. Habsburg Spain all the way. Portugal becomes irrelevant largely.
>17th century. Spain's power was greatly diminished in power by 1648 and was an irrelevance by 1714. England was growing in power throughout this century but wouldn't be a real contender until the Glorious Revolution and the adoption of Holland's stock-system. France was also growing in might parallel to the English. In central Europe, the Hapsburgs were calling the shots and they had managed to push the Ottomans into the role of a bystander by the end of the century. Oh, and as I said earlier, the Netherlands was relevant in the second half of the 17th century due to maritime trade monopolies and money-lending innovations. But Britain copied them and it didn't last.
>18th century. Britain and France both became juggernauts and would continue to clash throughout the century eventually leading to British dominance in the 19th century. Prussia had also risen to contest to dominance of the Hapsburgs. The Russian Empire also formed in the east but they were mostly interested in fucking around with Sweden and taking over the steppes.

This. France after Richelieu was simply a monstruous beast, increasingly unstoppable and able to face coalitions formed by basically every other power. While the revolutionaries and Napoleon were able to ravage all Europe, in the long scheme of things they were shamefully miss-managing the work of Richelieu and Mazarino. Napoleon's grand strategy with the continental blockade was simply retarded.

There were no superpowers (defined by the ability and reason to project their power anywhere on the globe) until the British Empire

Here's the great powers from each century

>15th: Ottoman Empire, Poland Lithuania, China, France
>16th: Ottoman Empire, Poland Lithuania,Venice, Spain, France, Portugal,
>17th: Venice, Britain, France, Poland Lithuania, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Ottoman Empire
>18th: Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Ottoman Empire
>19th: Britain, France, Russia, Prussia/Germany, Austria, Ottoman Empire
>20th: WW1: Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Austria Hungary, Italy, US, Ottoman Empire (they did a pretty good job keeping the British tied up), Japan
WW2: Britain, France, Soviet Union, US, Germany, Italy, China, Japan
Present Day: Britain, France, Russia, US, Germany, Japan, China, Italy (maybe), India (maybe), Saudi Arabia (maybe), Israel (maybe)

The maybes for modern day I'm not sure

Britain's naval power is what made them the top dog till the 1950s, they didn't need the best land army when their navy could destroy any opposing navy and starve the country into submission. That's primarily how they beat Napoleon and why Germany never got much of anything going in WW1 because their navy despite being 2nd was still leagues behind the British navy.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_voyages

>1866-1945 = Prussia/Germany
Ja ja Hans, you tell em!

Could this UK "uncontested superpower" btfo the German Empire, the French Empire, the Russian Empire, or the Merricans back then?

I mean 1v1 no as a part of 300 vs 1 ofc.

No?

Then into the trash it goes.

>AH
Basically lost its army in 1914
>Ottomans
Were supplied militarily by the Germans. It is a wonder that they hold out as long as they did
>Bulgaria
Actually really helpful
>WW1 was "barely lost"
Yes

>Wrong
>The UK at its height was weak paper tiger garbage as proven by the Crimean War and WW1
>To think an "uncontested superpower" would struggle for 4 years against a lone European nation despite being helped by powerful allies like France and Russia is laughable
>Only a fool would believe that Britain was mightier than Germanu in WW1

This is what germanboos actually believe

Not really. Napoleon failed because he had no allies and all the main powers allied against him. He was a diplomatic and strategic retard. Should have listened to Talleyrand and formed a sort of partnership with either Austria or Russia. That way the French Empire wouldn't have collapsed (it would have collapsed eventually by means of nationalism/revolutions, but not militarilly the way it did in just a few years, it was almost anecdotical)

But he, like the french he was, was too stupid and pompous to accept compromise.

Austria-Hungary only lost their army in mid to late 1916 with the Brusilov Offensive, before that they were fighting on three fronts just fine.

If Germany wants to complain about the Ottomans maybe they should haver have allied them in the first place? It should also be said that things only started getting bad for them in the later years of the war, a common theme for all the central powers. Still they lasted longer than the Russians.

WW1 was over for Germany once the Schlieffen Plan failed. Only germboos deny this, I would argue they lost the war the moment they relied on a miracle plan like it in the first place, magical thinking is common for Germans however.

>B-But m-muh Spring Offensive!
More magical thinking from the Germans. Very embarrassing desu.

>No Russia,
into the trash it goes

Russia was a major power in 18th-21st centuries yet no one mentions it. I wonder, why?

>1866-1945 = Prussia/Germany
>he actually believes this

Yeah, I guess you can replace Britain with Russia from 1815 to the Crimean War

>That's primarily how they beat Napoleon

Pretty sure the Russian winter is what beat Napoleon

>Austria
>ever

Super powers didn't exist as things till the British Empire. A super Power has global hegemony.
Only 3 States have held said status:
The British Empire (1815-1956)
The USA (1945-Present)
The USSR (1949-1991)

All other powers mentioned in posts like are either world, great, or regional powers.
Though some states may be perceived as more powerful (Germany prior to 1914 was a more industrious nation than UK and had greater power within Europe) they lack other prerequisites that are necessary for Superpower status such as global influence in both soft power (such as the informal empire which could bend non empire countries to Britain will as it was so economically influential) aspects as well as power projection to enforce hard power (Such as the Royal Navy that could transport troops anywhere in the world unmolested compered to the German Navy).

TL:DR No such thing as superpowers till the 19th century.

>A super Power has global hegemony.

Then it didnt exist till America
Britain was never an hegemon, as proven by the Crimean War and WW1

>beat a lone nation

Britain won both of those wars.

Barely and with many powerful allies (who, for some of them, contributed more than Britain to the victory)
These wars showed that Britain was far from the military dominant nation of the era

It's neighbourhood was all of east Asia. France's sphere of influence was tiny in comparison

>our
>clearly identifying as a briton and not a person from the 19th century
nice one you fucking retard

France's sphere of influence comprised Spain, Portugal and England, who themselves were spread all over the world

The trained AH army was done, while the German troops were doing fine (in WW1 terms) and had completely halted the Russian advance while destroying one of their armies. The Gorlice-Tarnow offensive gave the AH some breathing time, but not enough for the Brussilov Offensive. The French and British high commands bled their population dry, resulting in French mutinies that could only be quelled by Petáins awareness. AH could not even conquer Serbia alone. The alliance with the Ottomans threatened both British Egypt and India (in theory) and the Ottomans had to defend themselves against the natural Russian desire for Constantinople, couldn't allow them to acquire more power, after the British abandoned them. The Italian 12.Attack on the Isonzo was doomed to fail, but it was the German supported counterattack that turned it into a rout. The Schlieffen plan almost worked and left the west on the backfoot until 1918. The 1914-15 success of the German troops can be seen as on of the primary reasons didn't end inconclusively at that point, since the Entente came to the realization that the German Reichs industrial power, along with its prussian militarism, couldn't be left in its current state.

>Crimean war
I will refer you to my point about Germany as a regional power:

>"Germany prior to 1914 was a more industrious nation than UK and had greater power within Europe"

The same applies to Russia in the Crimean war which the UK still won despite being next to/ in Russian territory

>WW1
I will refer you to my point about Germany as a regional power:

>>"Germany prior to 1914 was a more industrious nation than UK and had greater power within Europe"

The same applies to Germany in WW- oh wait never mind.

In all seriousness though in regards to Germany could never have defeated the UK (See WW1 and 2 where Germany couldn't even get over the channel or support its colonies due to lack of power projection)

Just because Germany had more influence on its own and surrounding territory doesn't negate the fact that the UK had global hegemonic power.
You'll find that in these wars between super powers and regional powers, the conflict takes place closer to the latter than the former such as the Crimean war as regional powers lack power projection.

There are only 3 super powers in history: UK, USA, and USSR.
U r wrong.

This might be the most accurate here. I would say that the economic parity between the UK and the German Nation were not equal till ~1890's

Except it wasn't Europe dominated more than half the world, and France dominated Europe.

Until they lost all their first empire to the British.

>There are only 3 super powers in history: UK, USA, and USSR

Wrong, there were only two
America and the Soviet Union
Britain was a mere great power, and not even a strongest of them

Not going to argue it wasn't a bad defeat, it was, but they didn't even lose the really important part of the empire. While the vast expenses of New France did bring lumber, and furs, they were expensive and difficult to maintain and defend. And the hold on their territory in India was tenuous at best. However, the colonies that France did keep in the New World, especially Saint-Domingue, Martinique and Guadeloupe were bringing in tons of cash to the crown and were comparatively much easier to defend. IIRC Saint-Domingue alone was at some point where 1/3 of the world's sugar was produced.

But it's true that it's their defeat in the Seven Years War that prevented France from becoming THE world superpower later, even if they kept their relative domination over Europe until at least 1815. It's interesting to think about how different the world would be if the French had won.

>Saint-Domingue alone was at some point where 1/3 of the world's sugar was produced
I'm not sure about the world, but the colony made 40% of Europe's sugar and 60% of its coffee, making it extremely profitable.

Eh, there were no dominant superpowers until post WW2, really. As far as great/world powers go, I'd say, in no particular order:

15th century: Ming, Ottoman Empire, France
16th: Ming, France, Ottomans, Spain/Habsburgs realms, arguably Portugal, England
17th: France, Spain, England, Mughals, Qing, arguably still the Ottomans, the Netherlands
18th: France, Great Britain, Russia, Qing
19th: France, Great Britain, Russia, Germany,
20th: France, Great Britain, Russia/USSR, Germany, US, arguably Japan, China.
21st: US, China, France, Great Britain, Germany, arguably Russia.

Partially, but look up the blockade hurt him a ton too.

Roman Empire was as well for the known world of the time.

I'll just assume it's about superpowers in European perpective
>15th century
HRE, Ottomans
>16th century
Same as above, plus Spain
>17th century
PLC, Sweden, France
>18th century
UK, Prussia, Russia

In European persperctive, Britain wasnt more powerful than France, Austria or even Spain during the 18th century