Who was the most powerful world power at precisely 1700?
I know it's one of the big 7, but neither Ottomans nor France could solo their arch rivals, HRE and England respectively.
I kinda agree. England was enjoying a winning streak in the late 1600's and early 1700's. However, England won because they chose the right alliances, and France fought wars either alone or with a single ally or two.
I'd consider France, without alliances, to be the greatest power; I don't think any nation would win 1 vs 1 at this moment and that will be true for many, many years ahead.
England is rising at a really fast rate, but it is far from superpower status (England is the quickest grower by far in this period however).
Meanwhile, in the year 1700, Charles II, one of the worst King to ever rule Spain (mentally retarded and infertile), finally dies after a grueling reign of 35 years (most expected him to die in at least 5 years). The Empire of Spain was losing things left and right, and the bureaucracy and military significantly decayed during this period. Spain in the 1700's will enjoy a devastating succession war and inner tensions thanks to the legacy of Charles II.
Ottoman Empire is not yet the "Sick man of Europe" but it will be in 50 years. For now, it is still a superpower in sheer size and manpower; it still beats Austria and slavic nations (including Russia) in a fairly solid fashion.
Austria up to this point enjoyed a good amount of victories as it chose the right alliances and diplomats. However, it will be shown that by the early 1700's, Austria's military is decaying and waning as it lost wars that Austria fought alone or with only a few allies. It seems like it can't hold itself up. The Ottomans still beat Austria when her allies are not available.
Kingdom of Spain
Kingdom of France/French Republic/French Empire
United States of America
It's clearly France after Rocroi.
>solo their arch rivals
England never even attempted to fight a war without a gazillion allies by then. Not to mention the French didn't even consider it their main rival, their main historical rival was Austria, although by then it had been defeated.
>it still beats Austria and slavic nations (including Russia) in a fairly solid fashion.
no, since 1700 Austria and Russia are gaining superiority.
Austria enjoys a lot of good victories, only problem of Austria is being stuck between two hostile powers France and Ottomans and having to fight on two fronts.
But I agree with France and England. Eternal Ango just played continental powers against each other just like always.
It just had fought a five front war against every other relevant power in europe for ten years and came out pretty much undefeated (though economically bankrupt)
you have no idea how close the ottoman was in destroying europe
At Europe, France is still the leading power but its not as undisputed as it was just after defeating Spain.
And is far from a global dominance, even the weakened Spain remained more influential at the global stage by the seer size of her overseas Empire. The Dutch age is gonna end once William III inherits the British Throne.
Only Europe (and the Ottomans) were into intercontinental stuff.
compare gdp, qty of currency, economic diversity, qty of written records. china until c. 1760 was more comparable to all of europe than to any one country. in 1700 the dutch had superior navy and financial sophistication, but that's it.
>1700 was definitely not such a time. Qing China had already far fallen behind the european powers.
1700's was the golden age of the Qing. It was the last point in time where China and Europe stood equals
Not to mention it was the period responsible for creating the current sitting-chicken shape of China
>tfw probably won't live to see the golden age
Soviets were never more powerful than the US.
In conventional war, WP would easily destroy any NATO opposition on continent you can imagine, and I'm not talking about 40's-60's, I'm talking about 1945-1991. However they couldn't get any further. Navy was capable of dominating Baltic Sea(which was important part of their strategy in continental Europe), but after 1983 Soviet navy started doubting it themselves as, citing one of their admiral "we can throw all our naval arsenal on Iowas and it's unlikely that we'll sink them, on the other hand they will slowly corner and wreck us" because the fact that Battleships have fallen out of grace is more of a coincidence rather than some real issue related to the class(carriers were also "to be phased out").
So the best they could count of was taking continental Euroasia, part of it, as India was not really like "we gun engage dem in poo battle" and China was unlikely to pick any side since 60's.
Then US Navy and Air-force along with RAF and RN would blockade, bomb, support partisans until they economical dominance they could count on(in these conditions) would give them an upper hand.
Economically USSR was still nowhere close the US, even at its prime(1950's).
Of course in terms of nuclear war both sides would lose, so the question is whether Soviets would be able to hide huge enough amount of troops and civilians in shelters to conquer what remained from the war or whether Americans would be able to take down key ICBM launch sites and minimise the casualties so they could conquer the world(in turn).
If technology was the sole judge we would be listing Italian city states and Flanders as the most powerful.
By 1700, China had recovered from the collapse of the Ming and was under good leadership and Europeans were part of the imperial court for a while. China was doing good all things considered.
No, Soviet power was always overblown by American Cold War fears and both American and Soviet propaganda. Sure shit was scary, they had nukes soon after the US and after the war a lot of countries were turning communist in quick succession. But there was no point at which the US (or its satellites) wasn't far ahead in manufacturing output, GDP, or military capacity (especially force projection of which the Russians never really had any).
I'd say Ottoman-French alliance was the NATO of its time.
Ottoman field army was numbering in the 800,000, while French had England-tier navy to support blockades, and a sizeable 200,000 man army.
Second most probably HRE and Austria with around 500,000 men including the personal armies of the german princes.
Prussia and Russia were still shit tier in 1700 in terms of endurance. England was solely a naval power who was shit scared of a land invasion.
England didn't become the Eternal Anglo well into the 1800s.
>Mid-Late 1500s, Early 1600s
1600s post 30 yrs War
1700s post 7 yrs War
Post WWI/Interwar Period
>UK+USA co powers
Post WWII/Cold War
post Cold War
Questions for the future:
>Can China assemble an "eastern coalition to counter NATO? Will Europe unify and rival America and China or will it stagnate with social disorder and shitty socialist policies?
In 1700, it was China.
Technologically, they were not the best, but they had much larger numbers than the others and their technology was still decent.
In Europe, the Ottoman Empire? I mean, in 1683 they were trying to conquer Vienna. Was the Siege of Vienna that bad for them?
China was never, ever the strongest single nation, at any given time, Chang.
It was a bloated land of bureaucracy and feudal remnants and factional regression of centralization.
Even the weakest European power could conquer them without a sweat with military tradition and the singlemindedness of Christian divine right.
1250-~1300 Mongol Empire
~1300-1420 Timurid Empire
1420-~1500 Ottoman Empire
~1500-1680 Spanish Crown and Empire
1680-1750 French Empire
1750-1770 Russian Empire
1770-1890 British Empire
1890-1915 German Reich
1915-1938 British Empire
1938-1941 German Third Reich
1941-1944 British Empire
1944-present United States, territories, NATO and Pacific affiliates, allies and nominal puppets
Stop right there, revisionist scum. The Ming Empire is a misnomer based on the limited observation of the Catholics who gave first hand accounts to English sensationalists upon whose worldly illiterate writings we base our understanding of the Chinese at that time.
>China was never, ever the strongest single nation, at any given time, Chang.
Maybe in the early 15th century when they were able to dominate the Indian Ocean's politics. At that point there was no other state on Earth that could compare in influence (the Timurids were declining at this point). But usually they didn't really bother with much outside of their own borders, except maybe setting up a few protectorates around the Silk Road now and again.
That said, China itself is so huge and heavily populated that they don't necessarily need to expand outside their own borders to be considered the most powerful state on Earth, since their influence over their own population could outweigh the influence of entire empires. For example, during the late Tang when the Abbasid and Frankish empires had fallen apart, China could well be considered the most powerful state on Earth (even though it was declining at the time). The same might be said of the Northern Song, the Yuan, and the early Ming.
In terms of immediate gains in those time periods and the level of power projection possible and real during the same. The Russian Empire at that time outnumbered in total and in literate citizens the British, and was the total center of gravity in eastern, northern Europe and the entirety of north Asia.
The Second Reich outdid in science any other power in the world (despite the understanding of a total domination being, basically, a meme) and was the center of gravity for all diplomatic purposes. It also outnumbered and educated any power during that time.
During WWII, until the atom bomb and the crushing totality of American naval dominance, in real terms, it was still outnumbered and outdone by the British. It was not until it established its controlling stake in the former Axis, Nato, the globalizing market, and the collapse of the Raj did it overtake in real terms.
Or maybe the style of that time adjusted the color palate to overall darker shades to bring a deeper saturation effect.
Or consult a racist: "It would have not been a good picture if it were just all yellow."
Imagine living in a world where Nigeria was a superpower
This. All those powers had competition in or outside Europe, but they were the first power without discussion (in those dates). Even Spain, the weakest of all those (since it was the first) was more influential than the Ottomans or the French, even when it wasn't able to decisively defeat them. The same can be said about France later and also Britain and the USA who had to face rivals but not equals. The USRR was never stronger than the USA, the russian empire completely defeating the british one is unimaginable.
The map you posted could very well be called something like "The world in the times of the Sun King". The awnser to your question is France and, while it didn't reach the high point of it's power in 1700, it already surpased it's rival Spain/Habsburg Family in 1648 and specially 1659. This dominion would be confirmed in 1715 with the end of the spanish war of succession (although this war also shows well that Britain was growing as a new first rank contender).
>wait for WW3 to happen
>block Strait of Malacca
>charge entry fee
dumb. the chinese were consistently the most influential world empire. they singlehandedly fueled arabic expansion by being the only supplier of goods that the arabs could trade, invented almost all preindustrial technology before europe, had the single longest, most stable and advanced bureaucracy, volume of trade, etc. just because they didn't run around like niggers fucking south american jungle people doesn't mean they weren't influential. nothing productive ever came from any fucking colony. the colonial period is overrated
which brings us toooo
the consensus opinion. at the time france was pushing enlightenment ideals and advanced bureaucracy, which would revitalize and transform their military machine, lead to national cohesion, nationalism, and before france even invaded other countries, french ideologies would cause chaos and destabilization in the monarchies and economies abroad.
the 1700s belong to france.
btw the enlightenment was a mistake. influence doesn't have to be positive
They also more or less were behind all the actions of the spanish monarchy (and you can see in the map how this was influential) and basically created the USA.
They also meddled in India and Burma although they were eventually supplantated by the Brits in both scenarios later.
Not in the 1700s. Even the famous invasion of 1683 is ridiculous compared to the threat that supposed Suleiman the Great in the early 1500s.
Though luck for those who got conquered in those early years, but after Lepanto the Ottomans were not a significant menace for those that managed to stay independent. Viena is too far from Constantinople and the supply train was just too long.
>China was never, ever the strongest single nation, at any given time, Chang.
>It was a bloated land of bureaucracy and feudal remnants and factional regression of centralization.
>Even the weakest European power could conquer them without a sweat with military tradition and the singlemindedness of Christian divine right.
I can't tell if this is a troll or a retard.
China was probably the strongest single nation in the world for most of the world's history.
Phillip II of France was powerful in Western Europe. He destroyed the Plantagenet Empire.
He had 15,000 men in the Battle of Bouvines.
Frederick II, could muster more or less this amount of troops for a battle.
This is pretty much nothing compared to the numbers the Chinese had in their armies.
>they singlehandedly fueled arabic expansion by being the only supplier of goods that the arabs could trade
wut. the silk road was only profitable for small amounts of expensive luxuries, you could not transport 1000s of tons of grain, iron and timber through it, also the arabs were very productive in their own right with access to many resources in their own lands
Considering that everyone in the East except Pakistan fucking hates China, I doubt it. You're more likely to see some kind of anti-China alliance coming together between Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia.
You mean in the 17th and 18th centuries? In every possible way. Everyone else imitated French absolutism and methods of government, French military tactics, French art and architecture, French manners, French fashion... Everybody who was educated spoke French, everybody read French authors and discussed French Enlightenment ideas, and Paris was the cultural capital of the world. It was like America today, except even more so. And when the French Revolution happened it sent the whole world into a new age.
It's pretty pointless comparing the power of countries that had no contact with each other.
Talking about dominant power or hegemony only makes sense within a common space. You can only make that sort of judgement on a global scale starting in the 16th century, before that such spaces are only regional.
>It's pretty pointless comparing the power of countries that had no contact with each other.
China and Philip II's Spain encountered each other here.
Funnily enough they were best of budds.
>Spain had shitloads of Silver.
>China had shitloads of products and only accept Silver from foreign trade.
That said, Spanish Authorities were dead scared when the Ming Dynasty fell and their admirals went Rogue and started planning to conquer Islands in the Pacific.
>That said, Spanish Authorities were dead scared when the Ming Dynasty fell and their admirals went Rogue and started planning to conquer Islands in the Pacific.
That's more because spanish power projection in the Pacific was very weak due to the limitations of the time, rather than the fact that the admirals were chinese or whatever. They were still superior in these aspect compared to the chinese, of course, since it wasn't the chinese the ones to establish their hegemony in some atlantic archipelago.
Europe was were Spain was strongest, only memers with no knowledge of history believe otherwise. The same can't probably be said about the dutch, but that's because they relied on the navy for pretty much everything. Anyways the french defated both powers countless times during the reign of Louis XIV, often alone or with little help while Spain or Holland had allies.
well, around 1700 China was bigger, richer, more populous, arguably more technologically advanced and more influential than any other empire on earth.
But then again, as the trolls have rightly pointed out, they aren't European, so of course we have to go with the Third Reich
>well, around 1700 China was bigger
Spanish and Russian empire kicked ching chong
>richer, more populous
Arguable, it was India
>arguably more technologically advanced and more influential than any other empire on earth
European Scientific Revolution since 17th century.
So all you said are pretty much bias, Tao Chen
>china until c. 1760 was more comparable to all of europe than to any one country
Because it had a bigger population than all of Europe...? Compare GDP per capita instead, especially of the Netherlands, Italy and the UK, and see China sink fast.
>They were still superior in these aspect compared to the chinese, of course
Not really. European navies in the region were btfo by Chinese ones in the three naval battles between European/Chinese powers in the area. And this were Portuguese/Dutch navies who were better than Spic ones at the time.
Its also worth noting that of the three East Azns, only the Chinese mastered naval artillery. The Koreans had to to a certain extent, while Cannon use on ships was rare for the Japanese to the point of nonexistence. Chinese also used copies of European artillery too.
Two of the battles were pretty even, while the Dutch defeat in formosa was a curbstomp by superior Chinese numbers.
Some semi-rogue explorers and merchants being BTFO'd by an actual navy of an imperial power isn't big deal, specially when the chinese were fighting at home. I'll like to see what would happen if the chinese tried to threaten the Azores or even Malacca.
>the fact that Battleships have fallen out of grace is more of a coincidence rather than some real issue related to the class
This, I would vote for Qing China in 1700s. They had the biggest economy, you might argue that the dutch and English had it during the 18th century. But remember all the money that European powers accumilated was used to buy Chinese products. FFS, the taxation on the peasants in Qing China during Kangxi was 0% because the surplus from trade was just to good damn high.
Also, to not forget they had the biggest army, which were not to far behind European land units.
>Just goes to show there was no "superpower" back then
Very true. But I think that it was implied from second zero that in this thread we were not using the strict definition of superpower. Otherwise the whole thread is just pointless.