So what does “relatively” pertain to? Relative to what, you ask?
Country size - the smaller the land surface area, the more points it gets
Economic importance - the less economically important or weak, the more points it gets
Population - the less dense the population, the more points it gets
General resources (e.g. oil, gas, coal etc.) - the less resources the country has, the more points it gets
The “points” are awarded to countries for whom organisational (e.g. government, other ruling parties or senior management) tactics have resulted in great success in a specific arena. The (suggested) different arenas are:
Military
International Sports
National Economy
National Health Services
International Business
So for example, let’s say hypothetically, I nominate Scotland. Why? Small country, unimportant economy, small populus etc. but they won the World Cup, have the most reliable healthcare in the world and conquered England twice, all the while setting up the most efficient banking system (I hope you realise most of the above is not true).
So who would you nominate and why?
(Please take into account the nations historical perspective. Also remember it does not necessarily have to fit exactly into the five “arenas” mentioned above. For example it could be a country that has done tactically brilliantly in matters of the military, however it has fumbled in international sports. Remember, it’s your nomination.)
It’s an interesting set of standards you have there. Does a country like Switzerland gain or lose points because of its neutrality?
From a military standpoint, for their size, you’d have to give the Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta high points. In the modern era, Japan from roughly 1935-1943.
From an economic standpoint, I’d guess the Dutch during the 17th century. Or the Swiss since then.
For sports it would have to be a Communist country during the second half of the 20th Century. Romania or North Korea, perhaps.
Id say Israel or England. England because it was a major player in virtually every major event in the world (religious revolutions, technolgocial revolutions, scientific revolutions, major wars, etc). Israel because it still is in survival after 6 wars.
I don’t see why the hell sports is involved in this O_o
Historically, England. Small country with a huge empire and economic control, relatively progressive politics with a relatively stable (read: not France in 1791) progression, long lasting, etc etc. Second runners-up are Rome and Greece… MAYBE Russia. I admit that this is largely Western in nature. China and India are too big, someone like the Zulus I frankly don’t know enough about… Incas or Mayans I don’t know about their economy. One could argue for Manchuria, I suppose. The Persians. Hard to compare different time periods and locations.
Modern times? Probably Israel, just because it still exists and remains relatively advanced (though a good chunk of that is due to America’s backing, so I don’t know if that disqualifies Israel). I would also give Japan some consideration, for their technological advancements and work with resources. I’m trying to think of other small countries that are doing well enough for themselves.
The questions are somewhat contradictory, though. A more advanced nation is generally more economically important and has a higher population density than a more “backwards” nation. This would weigh the results towards a country like, say, Cuba, that is small, has a stable government, high health care, low population density and economic importance, etc.
In the present day, I’d nominate The Vatican. It’s small, yet has worldwide influence through religion. Other than that, it’s a toss-up between the UK and the US, despite all the OP’s restrictions.
The OP, if I understand the premise correctly, is asking for outsized accomplishments from meager resources. Of course, there is potential contradiction there; if a country has accomplished something in the area of “National Economy” they are not likely to remain low in “Economic Importance.”
Still, it’s an interesting question. My votes:
1) Japan 1945-1980 — National Economy and International Business.
In the immediate aftermath of WWII, the country was absolutely devastated. The land mass is small (smaller than California), the density (at that time) was relatively low, very very low natural resources, no international business (Having just been bombed into submission), and no military. What they hace accomplished since then (The Marshall Plan had a lot do do with their early progress) is breathtaking. The wealth they have created and the influence they’ve had in the area of business is highly disproprtionate based on most measurements.
2) Kenya 1970-2004 — International Sports
The best long distance runners in the world despite having little of the advanced training resources that other countries take for granted.
Religious revolutions like the ones intiated by the german Luther and the french Calvin, you mean? Or rather the splitting between the shias and the sunnis? Major wars like the wars launched by/against the Ottoman empire or the wars in Italy? Or perhaps its heroic fight against Tamerlane or Gengis Khan? Events like the sharing of Poland or the opening of trade routes to the far east?
I grant you its major role in the industrial revolution, in the XIX° century, though.
I strongly suspect that, because you’re much more familiar with the history of the UK (and more specificaly its recent history), you’re vastly overestimating its historical importance (which is a quite common mistake on american boards, by the way). Not that it has always been an irrelevant country, but contrarily to what you seem to think, it didn’t, by a long shot, always play a central role in european history, let alone in world history.
From a french point of view, England and then the UK was certainly relevant, but from the hundred years war to the XIX° century, certainly much less important than Spain or Austria. The king of Poland/Lithuania could probably have remembered the name of the current english king when he wasn’t too busy dealing with the turks, the russian princes, etc…The Ommeyad caliphs probably never knew that England existed.
If you’re talking about anything after 1600, you’re usually talking about England somewhere in it. Other empires may have larger land mass, but never stretched as far across the globe. England was the first global superpower, in an age where every other European nation was collapsing or in rebellion. Combinging England’s expansive empire that included but wasn’t limited to North America, India, parts of China, Australia, and South Africa, dominant position in international economics, progressive politics, technological innovation, and other factors, given a relatively tiny landmass and population, they are hard to dismiss, trying to be non-Eurocentric or not.
And to this you hold up a series of short-lived dictatorships and despotisms that had little to no economic power, fleeting military victories, constant rebellion and warfare, religious division, and little lasting impact on modern international politics?
Please. France was always a joke and an unstable country, Germany wasn’t even united until the 1890s, and promptly initiated and lost two World Wars, the Ottoman Empire was a defunct tyrrany that was dying for hundreds of years, Italy… well, combine France’s ineptitude with Germany’s history, and you get some pathetic mishmash.
Continental Europe isn’t all that it is cracked up to be. Centuries of religious and international conflict and political instability don’t make for a strong set of nations.
For being such a long-lasting, influential, economic and scientifically dominating empire, you don’t get much that competes with Britain in the modern era.
But your implication was Continental Europe.
Spain? Collapsed. Their empire is now a collection of 3rd world countries.
France? Hah, please. Their legacy is fucking Africa up beyond recognition.
Germany? Afraid of butterknives after a century of clusterfucks.
Netherlands? They almost made it. Almost.
Italy? There is a reason why everything of interest in Italy is 2000 years old.
Ottoman/Persian Empires? Please. All that is left of the is a bunch of people who hate each other.
Russia? Well, they get some points, but far too unstable and not quite prosperous enough given their huge amount of resources.
If you want to talk Middle Ages, then you have a more interesting story. Looking at this era, you would be talking non-European nations. Byzantines, later the Ottomans, Chinese, and other countries had much better times than the Europeans. In fact, this is the more glorious era of the Slavs, in their valiant struggle against the Turks, though they never united or followed up on their fight. One could even make a stretch and go to South America and glorify the Incas and Aztecs.
Any further back than that, you get into the Classical civilizations, and that gets really hard to compare to modern powers becasue of their limited knowledge of the world. A good number of civilizations controlled the “known world,” from the better known Greeks and Romans to the empires of Central and Western Asia like the Parthians, Seleucids, and Scythians… then you get back into early history and have the Egyptians and the like.
Notice that at no time do I include “empires” that last less than 100 years. The true achievement is not getting power - it is keeping power. The Mongols may have kicked ass under Ghengis, but after he died their empire was a pathetic farce. It wasn’t an empire - it was an expansionist despotism that became large because no one within a few thousand miles of it happened to be united or solid. The military tactics may have been sound, but that is about it.
Was that analysis too Anglo-American for you? I’m sorry, but only so many empires have lasted 400 years with a solid government and maintained such large levels of economic, political, and scientific aptitude, much less had spinoff nations attain similar power. Or did you want to debate the power and history of the Scythians?
Though I’m sure France is still glad that they can exert some imperial control in Burkina Faso and Germany got a lot of people killed, they aren’t exactly frontrunners in this instance.
On the other hand, we could accept conspiracy theory. In that case, Israel wins by default - they run the NWO and all governments are subserviant to them. :-p
Now that I’ve done this entire thing, I have an overwhelming desire to go play Civilization 3. Thanks a lot.
So, you’re already restricting it to “after 1600”. That’s a good point. For some reason, I assumed that history didn’t begin in 1600, though.
Well…after 1600…So, the UK, for instance took a major part in the thirty-years war (arguably the most important european war during this century,1618-1648)? In the war of Polish succession (1733-1738)? The turkish wars (1661-1664, 1683-1699, with the famous siege of Vienna, 1716-1718)? The Northern war ( 1700-1717)? Are or these wars just irrelevant in eurpean history because the UK wasn’t involved? The UK being involved in a war didn’t neessarily mean that it was one of the major players in a given conflict, by the way. The british kings were generally more likely to send subsidies to the parties in conflict than to commit significant number of troops.
So, in the 1600’s , “England” was in control of north america, India, China, Australia and south-Africa? That’s new to me. For how long was the UK in control of north-america? For less than 20 years, from the end of the seven years war to the american revolution. When was Australia even discovered? When was China part of the british empire (never, of course, and even when it was influential inChina, it’s not like it was the only european power exerting its influence there)? When was Africa colonized?
Once again, I believe that when you think about the Uk, you’re only thinking about its recent history, mostly the XIX° century (though you’re adding to the mix territories under british control around 1770 as well as around 1900. Doesn’t seem to bother you much).
So, Britain was the first global superpower. This one might be true, since there was never anything like a “global superpower” before, once again, the late XIX° century. And even then, the UK wasn’t a “superpower* in the way the US is currently, I mean a country which outrank by far any other country.
Now, can you tell me exactly when " every other european nation was collapsing or in rebellion”? When did this hapen, exactly? I just can’t remember any moment in european history when this was true. Let alone it being true since 1600 or so.
Given the factors you’re listing, you’re still refering to the UK in the XIX° century. So, what you’re saying essentially fall down to the UK having its “times of glory”, at some point of its history, during a brief period like the Ottoman empire or Spain had in former eras.
Which dictatorships? As far as I remember, dictatorships apeared quite recently in history. Coutries tended to be monarchies. Short-lived like the chinese Empire? No economical power like Spain in the 1500’s? Constant rebellions like france under Louis XIV? As for warfare, I believed you thought that the UK was involved in every one of them, which would make for an awful lot of warfare. Finally you’re going to tell me that there never was such a thing as religious divisions in England? That’s a joke or what?
Sure; Contrarily to England until the end of Cromwell rule, for instance, which was extremely stable as everybody knows. Coudl you tell me exactly when and why france was a joke, apart from you feeling that way? That would apply to Louis XIV reign, when it was the european dominant power? To the revolution/napoleonic era, when all of Europe semed to be concerned by what was hapening in this joke of a country? To the 1900’s, when the french colonial empire was second only to the british one?
Except that the Holy Roman Emperor was a powerful monarch during the middle ages, except that Prussia what a major european power during the XVIII° century, except that that the second reich under Bismarck wasn’t exactly irrelevant and an industrial powerhouse. Except that the two world wars weren’t exactly “jokes”. And of course, you seem to forget, since we’re talking about the empire, that there was this small little irrelevant country called the Austro-Hungarian empire somewhere in Europe. But it was long away from the only country which matters, the UK, so who cares?
When was it a dying defunct tyranny? Precisely at the only moment you’re interested in, the moment when the UK happened to be at the height of its power? The Ottoman empire has been incredibly powerful for centuries, and a major threat for most european countries : Spain, Austria, Poland, Russia… Of course, since England wasn’t involved, who cares?
Apart from your cheap shot at France, indeed Italy didn’t existed as a country until the late XIX° century. I’m going to forget about the most important trade center in the middle-ages, Venice, and ask you : what about Spain (which controled a large part of Italy for most of its history)?
What you’re doing is merely picking and choosing. You’re systematicaly comparing other countries when they were at their worst with the UK when it was at its height. Why don’t you rather compare England, say, during its civil wars to Spain under Carlos I, the Netherlands when they were the european leader in international trade, germany under Bismarck, etc…? Because it would contradict your preconceived idea that England or the UK always has been an exceedingly important and powerful country, providing enlightment to these poor backward continentals?
Yes. like there never was such a thing as religious strife, international conflict or political instability in this peaceful land of milk and honey that England has always been.
How long is “long-lasting”? When was england “influential”, exactly? Are you under the impression that most of european history’s major scientist and thinkers were british? When was the UK economically dominant apart during a brief period (mostly the second half of the XIX° century, once again).
Like most the countries which used to be part of the british empire. Or perhaps are you going to tell me that , say, Zimbabwe fared way better than, for instance, Chile?
Spain was vastly more powerful than England at some point of its history. Spain is now a modern, vibrant, rich, country. But for some reason, the only part of its history you’re willing to take into account is the part when it was declining. Why, if not because you want the UK, to have been the lighthouse of nations since the dawn of times?
Yes. contrarily to the former UK colonies in Africa, which are stable, democratic and wealthy countries.
Let me know when you’ll be tired of using variious expletives about countries you happen to despise. Apart blatantly displaying your prejudices, you’re achieving no result.
You mean than despite being one of the smallest countries in Europe, they managed to be the major european trade center, successfully gained or retained their independance when facing couries way more powerful like Spain or France, had the most powerful european navy at the end of the XVII° century, were the place where dozens of philosophers would gather, “not mainstream” religious people would, coming as well from “joke” countries like France or “enlightened” countries as your beloved England would seek refuge , where books forbidden in other countries would be printed, from where ships would leave to essentially every imaginable corner of the world, etc…
That’s almost? I would have thought it was rather impressive.
Yes. Like the renaissance artwork for instance. Like Galileo, Da vinvi and Dante. Like Venice and Florence.
So, all that count is the current situation and what is left now of former empires? Then, why is it relevant that UK had colonies, then?
I’m going to ignore these new prejudices of yours concerning the middle-east people.
And of course, the UK didn’t play any role in the current situation in the middle-east. It’s so perfect a country that of course, its policies never could have had a bad result. That’s despite their enlightened (and absolutely never self-serving) policies in Egyptia, modern Irak, etc…that issues arose.
I’m wondering why you spare this country. Because it has been a super-power during the XX° century?
Definitely. Then, if you agree, why did you rather pick England?
Depending on what “slavs” you’re talking about, their struggle has involved valiantly being part of the Turkish empire, valiantly paying tribute to the Golden horde, etc…The Poles held them at bay, though.
Weren’t the turkish invasions “valiant” too, by the way?
For what exactly? The way they conquered all their neighbors for a brief time before being conquered themselves? Or were they on par with England, as enlightened, with an equivalent influence in modern times, scientifically, technically, politically, economically, militarily and sexually dominating the world?
At least one point where we’re going to agree…
Except the british empire, of course…
Which of the mongol empireS following Gengis Khan are you refering to?
Indeed. And since the british empire didn’t last for 400 years, I suppose this country should be excluded from the list. We’re going to agree, apparently. Oh no! I forgot…the british actually dominated Australia, northern America, China and Africa for 400 years, according to you. From 1600 to 2000, or somesuch…
:rolleyes:
Believe it or not, the world is not limited to European wars.
When did I say that their empire controlled all of that in 1600? I said that since 1600, their empire has controlled major parts of the world.
1812? 1832? 1849?
You’re seriously comparing British imperialism to Spanish imperialism?
Well, obviously, if you cherrypick each of the statements, you’ll find something that doesn’t apply to a state. First of all, you never mentioned the Chinese until just now - in fact, your entire point is that England was not important because it was not involved in the various wars in Europe. Second of all, Spain’s empire was a joke, and that falls under the short-lived category. Constant rebellions in France? Are you joking? Third of all, where did I say diddly squat that England was involved in all of the European squabbles? Fourth of all, why, in order for a country to be a powerful nation, do they have to involve themselves with fighting other country’s wars? Finally, I’m not going to say that there was never religious divisions in England. I don’t think I ever did say that.
Yep, one rebellion in several hundred years. Sounds pretty stable to me.
Please. Between France’s constant rebellions, horrible monarchy, and international blunders, it is a joke. The fact that the Revolution/Napoleonic era required other nations to have to step in and solve France’s problems is something to brag about? As for France’s epic empire? In the 1900s? Are you kidding me? Would this be the same empire that they started crying and promising England not to get involved in it again, or the one in Africa that obviously made France a powerhouse?
Where did I say that England was the only country that matters?
Pissing centuries away with border disputes while every other country is involved in colonizing other continents does not make for being a powerful empire.
Once again, you seem to equate being “important” with “taking part in European wars.”
What about Spain? I would consider Spain a better power than France, for the purposes of this thread.
Where did I say that? I merely said that the Continental nations were, in general, a collection of unstable governments that were constantly warring with each other. England had the blessing of being an island, where it was not forced into a good number of these conflicts. I still don’t see how your point, “England wasn’t involved in some of the European wars” has anything to do with England being a successful country or not.
You have a sadly, sadly Euro-centric view of the world, which is ironic, since you were the one starting this over me having an Anglo-centric view.
I never said that most of “European” history’s major scientists and thinkers were British. England may not have been the most “influential” power in Europe for some periods of time (I mean, unless you like to ignore little things like their wars with France and Spain), but that does not make it a nominal power in the world.
Nope. In general, there are more former English colonies that reached success than there are Spanish colonies, though. Or are you going to deny that?
Would that be before or after England beat the crap out of its fleet, and before or after Spain got riches from raping natives?
I have no interest in the short-lived Spanish glory. It is no more impressive than the Mongol empire.
And you accuse me of cherrypicking? Quaint.
Who said anything about despising anyone?
Yes, that is almost.
Yep, because the Middle East is full of puppy love, sunshine, and sunflowers.
When did I say anything about that?
Not really. I’m thinking more in the purposes of this thread, which you seem to conveniently forget. Russia started off as a tiny nation with very few resources, but maintained a rather large empire for hundreds of years, and you’ll like this - even took part in a few dozen European wars, which you seem to get off on.
Re-read the OP.
sigh I was mocking your “Or perhaps its heroic fight against Tamerlane or Gengis Khan?” line. Sad when I need to point that out to you, isn’t it?
You seem rather dismissive of eastern Europe. Did they not fight in enough European wars for you?
Brief time?
You are nuts.
I seem to recall the Brits having an empire lasting more than 100 years.
GK’s Mongol empire continued long after GK’s death. It didn’t suddenly evaporate - though infighting between his sons prevented it from establishing itself further. In any case, the “empire” was a false one, not lasting or being able to last long enough to really matter.
I don’t recall saying that the British dominated China for 400 years. I do seem to recall saying that for 400 years their empire was powerful, which you seem to deny, but to each his own.
