Most powerful Country in Europe in History

posted on May 4th, 2011, 6:43 pm

Countries now seen as russian have bean the most powerful hands down. After Russia it would be the UK, Germany, France, Spain/Rome and then maybe Turkey.

This is how I seen it.

Why is Austria in the ratting? If the AU need to be put with outer countries it would be Asia seeing its closest to them and the populations is becoming more and more Asin.

posted on May 4th, 2011, 7:35 pm

I could bore you all with details about The Age of Sail, The Industrial Revolution and the rivalry between Cunard and White Star Line. However, I won't.

Just as an aside curiosity....have you played that game series at all?

http://search.ign.com/product?query=age+of+sail

posted on May 4th, 2011, 7:35 pm

I agree that Germany was for a short while hugely powerful, but since the question was about the total of history, it has to be the UK. After all, Germany has not had a globe spanning empire at any time in the last few centuries as far as I'm aware. Of course it did have colonies, but then so did Belgium, France, Italy and the USA, all at the same time that Britain was a superpower.

Also remember that it's not correct to refer to "England" as an independent country unless you mean before the Acts of Union in 1707. Prior to this, England itself wasn't a prominent world power. Even after Elizabeth defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588, England was still less powerful than the Spanish, French and the Dutch for at least another century. I know that it's common for people in the US and continental Europe to use England and the UK as interchangeable words for one another, but the UK (or acceptably Britain) is a unitary sovereign state consisting of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

If it helps understanding, look at the next United Nations meeting and see if you can find a seat for England. You'll only find the United Kingdom. Likewise, it is not English troops fighting in Afghanistan but British troops (think of the Scottish regiments which form part of the British armed forces, for example).

posted on May 4th, 2011, 8:06 pm

Well, the fact that Germany was able to control almost all of Europe (except for the UK) which historically was the world's power center should count for something.  And they were militarily powerful even before they were Germany (Prussia beat Napoleon).

Technically, England is a country.  It's just part of the greater United Kingdom.  It certainly is more pertinent to refer to the UK in this circumstance, though.

A country is a geographical region considered to be the physical territory of a sovereign state, or of a smaller, or former, political division within a geographical region. Usually, but not always, a country coincides with a sovereign territory and is associated with a state, nation or government. Commonly, the term is used in the sense of both nations and states, with definitions varying. In some cases it is used to refer both to states and to other political entities, while in some occasions it refers only to states. It is not uncommon for general information or statistical publications to adopt the wider definition for purposes such as illustration and comparison.

Some cohesive geographical entities, which were formerly sovereign states, are commonly regarded and referred to still as countries; such as England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales – in the United Kingdom. Historically, the countries of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were others. Former states such as Bavaria (now part of Germany) and Piedmont (now part of Italy) would not normally be referred to as "countries" in contemporary English.

(Wikipedia)

[Dr. Lazarus]

posted on May 4th, 2011, 8:18 pm

Last edited by Dr. Lazarus on May 4th, 2011, 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Technically, England is a country.  It's just part of the greater United Kingdom.  It certainly is more pertinent to refer to the UK in this circumstance, though.

It's definitely possible to define England as a "country", but as you say, that's inappropriate here. The way I see it, there are two possible contexts:

1) Cultural, historical, etc.

2) Economic, geopolitics.

I think it's crystal clear which one this thread is referring to - a country as a sovereign state which can (potentially) go on military adventures across the world - and of course, England can do no such thing because it doesn't have an independent military of its own.

I would go further and mischeiveously suggest that the vast majority of the time, most people mean number 2). When Barack Obama referred to David Cameron as the Prime Minister of England, he made a mistake (unless you reckon it's appropriate for Cameron to refer to Barack Obama as the president of California). Remember that the individual "countries" (or whatever) of the UK have less power than states in the USA do (even after devolution). That's the nature of a Unitary state.

So if you want like-for-like comparison, the geopolitical equivalent of France or the USA is not England, but the UK.

posted on May 4th, 2011, 8:55 pm

What about Russia? Hitler was not even to conquer it. Only 2 countries came close Fences Napoleon and Germany Hitler.

Russia Has the most reassures, People, land, and Military in Erupt.

Well, the fact that Germany was able to control almost all of Europe (except for the UK) which historically was the world's power center should count for something.  And they were militarily powerful even before they were Germany (Prussia beat Napoleon).

Technically, England is a country.  It's just part of the greater United Kingdom.  It certainly is more pertinent to refer to the UK in this circumstance, though.

(Wikipedia)

posted on May 4th, 2011, 8:59 pm

I'm no expert, but I heard Russian weather and Nazi idiocy (attacking while not being equipt for the area) had as much to do with their failure as the Russians themselves.

posted on May 4th, 2011, 9:05 pm

yeah hitler overstretched, bit off more than he could chew. blitzkrieg worked well in western europe with predictable environments, but the strategy had weaknesses, the slightest delay changed the environment and blitzkrieg stopped being so fabulous. the russians were defending on their home soil, its always easier to defend, and the russians had propaganda too, they werent gonna surrender, and they delayed hitler just long enough for blitzkrieg to falter. whether they strategically did this expecting hitler's forces to fail without the advantage of blitzkrieg or it just happened is unknown, but their only other choices were surrender or being destroyed, so a hobson's choice really.

posted on May 4th, 2011, 9:05 pm

Russia has been impressively powerful, but it never had an empire like the Brits did, even at the height of the USSR. And many Russians would strongly object to being lumped in with Europe (technically only the part of Russia West of the Ural mountains is in Europe).  :sweatdrop:

posted on May 4th, 2011, 9:07 pm

you mean the russian empire that was the third largest population in the world in 1897? 

nah they never had an empire

posted on May 6th, 2011, 4:15 am

Just a reminder, France has the most victorious history in Europe (possibly the world.)
"There have been 53 major wars in Europe
France had been a belligerent in 49 of them; UK 43.
In 185 battles that France had fought over the past 800 years, their armies had won 132 times, lost 43 times and drawn only 10.
Giving the French military the best record of any country in Europe"

from official sources
there is also

"You have heard, gentlemen, what Koch recounts. It is a new proof of the thesis I've always supported; namely, that French are still, after us, the best soldiers in Europe. France will always have the possibility, even with its current birthrate, to raise a hundred divisions. We will definitely, after this war, have to set up a coalition able to militarily control a country capable of such impressive military feats.”
ADOLF HITLER, after Bir Hakeim

and

- "France is the most civilized country in the world and doesn't care who knows it".
John Gunther

I'm just saying these quotes should be taken into account if you want to. The "France surrenders" thing started when France refused to go to war with Irak, they were damn brave In WW2, WW1, all the previous wars (Surrendering in WW2 was a pretty smart move)

posted on May 6th, 2011, 6:35 am

I think their bravest part was to NOT invade Iraq . It was also the best choice of the Schröder government(they didn't make many, though).
Nevertheless, it's an interesting list you made there. In Germany many have the impression, that France lost most of its wars, which is obviously not true. They only lost against Hitler.
Concerning Hitlers quote: I'm not sure if that can be taken as a serious source, it just shows the racist ideology of that idiot, he regarded the French to be of the same "Arian" race as the Germans, so he thought they'd be great warriors.
Concerning Prussia: Prussia lost against Napoleon in the first place, the Russian winter and people of Moscow killed the grande armee.
Concerning Austria: It belonged to the Top 5 of europe in the 18th/19th century, but not before and not afterwards.
Concerning ISrael: In my eyes Israel has nothing to do with Europe. If you say there are cultural connections, one should also consider the USA to be Europe  . A member of the jewish community in Germany said some time ago: we were prosecuted and suppressed in Europe for thousands of years, how could we have ever developped a culture together?

posted on May 6th, 2011, 10:31 am

israel does have something to do with europe, there is no debate about it, they take part in eurovision, therefore they have something do do with europe by definition of the phrase.

whether they should or shouldnt be allowed in eurovision is a different matter, one i dont really have an opinion on.

posted on May 7th, 2011, 1:58 pm

hmmm ok culturally the uk is the most powerfull in europe just for the fact that its influance spanned the entire globe ...from america which was a colony all the way around the globe to india and on even further to austrailia.

fyi the brithish army is more than capable of holding its own anywhere on the planet and if say for example the uk split back into 3 countries (england,scotland and wales)england would have the majority of it armed forces left.

and one other tiny point America wouldnt be how it is today if it wasnt for the brits 

posted on May 7th, 2011, 2:34 pm

hmmm ok culturally the uk is the most powerfull in europe just for the fact that its influance spanned the entire globe ...from america which was a colony all the way around the globe to india and on even further to austrailia.

fyi the brithish army is more than capable of holding its own anywhere on the planet and if say for example the uk split back into 3 countries (england,scotland and wales)england would have the majority of it armed forces left.

and one other tiny point America wouldnt be how it is today if it wasnt for the brits 

From GlobalFirepower.com it does have; but concerning nukes, training(not talking about Special forces or MI6) France and Germany's better. the Official CIA ranking is this
1=USA                                 
2=China
3(tie)=Russia
4(tie)=France
5=Germany
6=India
7=UK
8=Israel
9=Japan
10=Canada(not sure)

My ranks

1=USA
2=China
3=Russia
4(tie)=Germany
5(tie)=France
6(tie with India)=UK
7(tie with UK)=India
8=Japan
9=Israel
10=Brasil