I think the combination of the rise in internal stability (AKA functional nationhood) and geography may have a big part to play in this analysis. Germany, Japan, and Italy all came to the table of internationally-oriented nationhood rather late in the game--somewhere in the mid- to late 1800s. The Russians and French, while they stablized earlier, as noted in earlier posts were not focussed on the seas as a primary means of attaining economic livelihood. Of Tom's list, only England has relatively strong internal national stability by the end of the 17th Century (despite the Wars of the Roses, Scottish issues, and Cromwellian Revolutions).Originally Posted by Steve Blair
But, I think a bigger part may be the fact that of the list that Tom started with, the two big air/sea power integrators (US and UK) both have never been on the losing side of a major international confrontation. France was wacked twice--under Louis XIV and Napoleon (and even though victors in WWI and II, they were , as Robert Doughty notes of them in his recent book on France in WWI, winners of a Pyrrhic victory). Germany also lost twice in the two World Wars. While Japan beat the Russians handily, it was humbled in its only other major modern war, WWII. The Western Europeans and Japanese did a number on Russia in the Crimean and Russo-Japanese Wars, respectively. Mongol, Polish/Ukrainian, and Napoleon's invasions set them back as well. They were their own worst enemy in their revolution. Italy did not fare well in either WWI or WWII (like France part of the WWI winning side but badly beaten up in that effort). Spain lost its imperial effort to an international consortium as a result of the 30 and 80 Years Wars as well as the Wars of the Successions (Spanish and Austrian).
And my personal favorite example (which didn't even make Tom's list)--Sweden, hammered, after a great start in the 30 Years and Great Northern Wars.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks