How did America go from a small bunch of agrarian freedom fighters

>>1533804
An enormous undeveloped frontier full of natural resources, right at the start of the industrial age.

>>1533814
Fpbp

Imagine most of the other players start 40 hexes away, and they're all right next to eachother on a small continent.

Now imagine you start on a huge continent that's almost empty except for some civs still in the ancient age, and you've already gotten past the medieval age. Plus you started with horses AND iron AND saltpeter right next to your main cities. AND you went republic instead of monarchy.

I mean, clearly everyone else is fucked.

>>1533814
same could be said of vodka, huehuehue or mootxico

By the Revolution, the Thirteen Colonies were of a similar size population wise to European countries. Unlike the Europeans, the Americans could expand a huge amount, and acquire massive resources. Russia has more natural resources than the US, but Russia wasn't in a position to industrialize like the US was, due to poor education, poor infrastructure and a backwards social system

In addition, the US had a lot of immigration. This boosts the population of course, but, importantly, intelligent people were coming to America from some of the most industrialized nations in Europe. Experienced industrialists do wonders at industrializing a country

I could be wrong about some of this stuff, it's just my understanding

>>1533861
those had the burden of a caste system

>>1533901
America didn't?

>>1534335
Lad Russia still had fucking serfs

>>1533804
How did Rome go from a small bunch of peasants and pederasts, to one of the most expansive and domineering empires in the known world?

File: whitedevils.jpg (101KB, 640x920px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 640x920px

>>1534424

>>1534432
Serfdom is literally worse for a country than slavery

>>1534433
How so? Not the guy you're replying to but im curious

>>1534433
I'd say serfdom is a step up, they escape the lash if not poverty.

>>1534440
Serfs are citizens of the country, where slaves are imported (at least in America, which is what we're talking about). Those citizens who are serfs have no upward social mobility, which the citizens have in countries without serfdom. Sorry if I can't write this down in a sensible manner, I'm really sleepy

>>1534444
Obviously being a serf would be preferable to being a slave. I'm talking about the effect of the two on a national scale

>>1533861
Russia has consistently been among the 3 strongest nations for the last few hundred years, with enough resources to stay on par or even outpace the US in manufacturing during WWII.

Brazil suffers from rampant corruption on every level since its inception, and have never once tried to utilize the full potential of their population and material resources to exercise power on other nations.

Mexico had half their territory taken from them, and have suffered from revolution, instability, drug addiction and related drug wars, and corruption that's arguably worse than brazil because of the drug markets.

File: hermes.jpg (118KB, 500x394px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 500x394px

>>1533901
>caste system
>burden

>>1534854
>outpace the US in manufacturing during WWII
[citation needed]

File: WWII land vehicle production.png (27KB, 1188x387px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1188x387px

>>1535121
the Soviets outproduced the Americans in Tank production, Artillery, and Mortars

>>1533804
Lots of natural resources and a high IQ population.

>>1535145
I don't think that creating more of a couple of products counts as "outpacing". The US had more industrial power than the SU overall

>>1535160
not my argument.

my original statement was that the Russians have the resources to stay on par with even the Americans, with Soviet production numbers being comparable to the US in all fields except Jeeps/utility vehicles.

the overall point is that the post I responded to claimed that Russia is a failure because it has the same advantages as the US and doesn't utilize it. My argument is that it's simply not true, and Russia is one of the strongest nations because it has a wealth of resources and industry to keep pace with the US in most cases, not that the USSR is in any way vastly superior.

>>1535145
>other vehicles
Trucks won the war Borris

>>1535175
Producing more of a couple of military goods does not mean that the USSR kept pace with the US industrially. Industry includes all goods, not just arms and supplies

Even if we only talk about military stuff, your image fails to mention airplanes, ammunition, rations, and ships

>>1535197
Did you even read his post?

File: 1469369188553.jpg (57KB, 500x512px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x512px

>>1533804

mainly right time, right place, but also the right admixture in the population

America became the land of second-sons and royal bastards, there was a healthy layer of land-owners with Merovingian ancestry and connection to European nobility

the religious freedom also attracted not just radical and/or heterodox Christians, but also esoteric ascetics and crypto-occultists

the prominent Freemasons quickly seized on the colonies with healthy occult bloodlines and formulated a great alchemic working in designing a nation that emphasized cunning and debauchery over titles and primogeniture

a country of robber barons instead of enlightened princes

an occult oligarchy masquerading as a populist democracy

there's a reason that virtually all presidents are related to each other along certain lineages

>>1535145
A few things
1. The United States produced a fuckton of Russia's fuel, trucks, food, clothing, and other utility sectors necessary for war in the form of LL. Not to mention masses of metal shipments. This allowed the Soviets to free up factories normally producing these supplemental goods to create tanks and artillery which along with the masses of arms made possible directly by American aid, the amount of arms made possible indirectly is also increased.

This leaves out the fact the US produced more ship tonnage in one year than the USSR did in the entire war and the 5 years prior to that combined.

Also ignores the fact the US produced far more aircraft than the Soviets did. This is also a misleading number because a massive chunk of these tanks and field guns were of the light variety. Not that the US didn't create light tanks and artillery, but as a % of production the US produced more medium tanks and medium and heavy guns than the USSR did.


Just wanted to make a few points. I agree that Russia has very good economic potential with its vast reserves of resources and natural layout. It's been squandered for much of its existence, serfdom is not good for industry, but over the last 70 years Russia has made great leaps and bounds over itself. It has much greater potential than is realized at this moment, however. I wonder if Russia's potential will ever be realized, their politics always seems to get in the way of this.