U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-29-2015, 10:37 AM
 
3,871 posts, read 2,131,522 times
Reputation: 5397

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete View Post
Being at the height of nationalism, and remembering the events of WWI, I don't really see how this could have been possible.
I agree. The trend in the late-1800's was nation states based on ethnic identity: France for the French, (one) Germany for the Germans, etc. That's why Austria had to become Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire lost control of the Balkans.

Also, European states in the late 1800's were always seeking alliances to balance perceived threats from each other. A system where two or three could rule the continent would have been countered by an alliance between the other powers to prevent it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-29-2015, 11:38 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,420 posts, read 10,632,410 times
Reputation: 6972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aztecgoddess View Post
The big four I'd say, Russia -for all its faults- has been a major European player for quite some time now. After it was Russia, along with Prussia, Austro-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire that did indeed made a good repartition of Central/Southern/Eastern/Northern Europe throughout the past centuries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davy-040 View Post
If there was a big 4 then why did Russia not have any overseas colonies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aztecgoddess View Post
^^^^

Germany didn't have significant colonies either, yet according to you is one of the big 3.
I was wondering the same thing, Where is Russia???

Russia did have oversea colonies in North America until the mid 1800s. All or parts of Alaska, British Columbia, Washington State, Oregon, California and even parts of Hawaii.

Of course the main part of the Russian Empire was the entire northern part of Eurasia!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2015, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands
10,459 posts, read 13,359,521 times
Reputation: 4964
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
I was wondering the same thing, Where is Russia???

Russia did have oversea colonies in North America until the mid 1800s. All or parts of Alaska, British Columbia, Washington State, Oregon, California and even parts of Hawaii.

Of course the main part of the Russian Empire was the entire northern part of Eurasia!
Russia wasn't invited at the Berlin Conference in 1884.
England, France and Germany (The Big 3) felt Russia was inferior to them.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2015, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands
10,459 posts, read 13,359,521 times
Reputation: 4964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan View Post
Also, European states in the late 1800's were always seeking alliances to balance perceived threats from each other. A system where two or three could rule the continent would have been countered by an alliance between the other powers to prevent it.
Alliance of Austria-Hungary, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro could beat the UK, France and Germany?

the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden-Nowary, Denmark and Switzerland were neutrals.

Russia was fighting the Ottoman Empire and expanding in Asia so i guess they would not have enough troops to defend small European countries in the West.

Russia probably would let the UK, France and Germany do their thing in Europe as long as they stayed outside Russia.

Last edited by Davy-040; 12-29-2015 at 01:41 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2015, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
5,246 posts, read 2,335,966 times
Reputation: 8435
Great Britain had the navy, had Scotland, Wales and part of Ireland. After the 100 years war they found it more lucrative to run around the world and build the empire the sun never sets on, with it's very profitable centers in North America, India, Hong Kong, South Africa etc.

France took the different approach, as it had perhaps the best military at the time. Their weakness was their economy. Their colonies and conquests were not as profitable as Spain's/Englands. While they could have taken on any country individually, they could not fight through the alliances and the damage to their overseas colonies would have made it not worthwhile.

Austria, Prussia/Germany and Russia were divvying up Poland/Lithuania and fighting back the Ottoman Empire. Russia beat the Swedes out of Poland. Conditions there were so bad that 4 million Poles fled to the US during that timeframe. Russia was very expansionary, but they went east as well as west. A terrible infrastructure basically kept them from growing further/more effectively. Too big to conquer, but also too big to be conquered.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2015, 06:07 PM
 
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands
10,459 posts, read 13,359,521 times
Reputation: 4964

Last edited by Davy-040; 12-29-2015 at 06:51 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2015, 07:46 PM
 
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands
10,459 posts, read 13,359,521 times
Reputation: 4964
I feel France got the best part of the deal U.K. is the smallest but the most stable and united.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2015, 12:24 PM
Status: "It's time to put George Orwell back on the "fiction" shelf." (set 13 days ago)
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
13,741 posts, read 8,467,787 times
Reputation: 17833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan View Post
I agree. The trend in the late-1800's was nation states based on ethnic identity: France for the French, (one) Germany for the Germans, etc. That's why Austria had to become Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire lost control of the Balkans.

Also, European states in the late 1800's were always seeking alliances to balance perceived threats from each other. A system where two or three could rule the continent would have been countered by an alliance between the other powers to prevent it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete View Post
Being at the height of nationalism, and remembering the events of WWI, I don't really see how this could have been possible.
I think we have some fascinating subject matter here, but the original post barely scratches the surface.

By 1750, the movement for further advancement toward parliamentary democracy was strengthening on both sides of the English Channel, but western and central Europe remained mostly under the grip of five royal families -- Bourbon(France), Hapsburg(Austria), Hohenzollern(Prussia), Romanov (Russia) and Windsor, formerly Saxe-Coburg (Great Britain). After 75 years and much bloodshed, those families, with help from Metternich, tried to stabilize what they had left via the Treaty of Paris, but they were only able to secure a century of relative peace before the whole thing collapsed at Sarajevo.

Germany, with Prussia dominating, would require another half-century for complete unification, as would Italy. Spain and Italy never really evolved as major players. Russia was semi-land-locked, isolated, and backward. The Austro-Hungarian coalition remained unstable, and Marxism and other forms of unrest developed in Germany, culminating in the failed uprisings of 1848. That left only Britain and France as major players in the colonial arena, with the Dutch as, perhaps, the first and foremost in the field of "financial diplomacy". The Swiss and Scandinavians also pretty much kept to themselves -- and prospered. But the competition for markets, centered in a newly-unified and militarized Germany, and fed by the false belief in mercantilism and captive foreign markets, would fuel another huge, very bloody two-act war.

We've now enjoyed 70 years of peace in Europe, and the threat of institutionalized totalitarianism seems to have diminished, strongmen like Putin (who inherited the Soviet failure at a fraction of its former strength) notwithstanding. The false belief that "trade follows the flag" seems dead and buried. The Muslims, who are so diverse as to be hard to characterize, are making lots of noise and may be intent on breeding their way to a majority, but they have yet to encounter any serious opposition from within the European power structure, and the effects of "secularization" and the benefits of shared development, and the prosperity that follows, have yet to be felt.

What Churchill called "the great game" will continue, and as this writer sees it, the threat of total, "hot" war is a lot less; so long as one madman (and I don't think Putin is anything close to that) doesn't get his finger on the triggers of a major nuclear arsenal.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; 12-30-2015 at 12:35 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2015, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
5,246 posts, read 2,335,966 times
Reputation: 8435
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
I think we have some fascinating subject matter here, but the original post barely scratches the surface.

We've now enjoyed 70 years of peace in Europe, and the threat of institutionalized totalitarianism seems to have diminished, strongmen like Putin (who inherited the Soviet failure at a fraction of its former strength) notwithstanding. The false belief that "trade follows the flag" seems dead and buried. The Muslims, who are so diverse as to be hard to characterize, are making lots of noise and may be intent on breeding their way to a majority, but they have yet to encounter any serious opposition from within the European power structure, and the effects of "secularization" and the benefits of shared development, and the prosperity that follows, have yet to be felt.

What Churchill called "the great game" will continue, and as this writer sees it, the threat of total, "hot" war is a lot less; so long as one madman (and I don't think Putin is anything close to that) doesn't get his finger on the triggers of a major nuclear arsenal.
I agree on the historical part. I think the great game's best player right now is in a different field. China's pressures in SE Asia are certainly increasing temperature around there. Putin alone is isolated, but there's been friendly movements between Russia and China as of late. Putin wants to control the Soviet era sphere, while China's been itching for Taiwan for a long time, but that's really the front for the old game. China's continued acquisition of natural resources and farmland in foreign continues in a conquest style they're quite familiar with. Communist countries can play a longer game than 4/8 years at a shot. They just need to keep the west's eyes shut a little bit longer...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2015, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
2,852 posts, read 1,848,740 times
Reputation: 4532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davy-040 View Post
If there was a big 4 then why did Russia not have any overseas colonies?
Because they had huge overland colonies. Note the map below doesn't show the full extend of the Russian Empire, only up to 1800. They kept gulping up the lands in the West and in the Asia until the last quarter of XIX century.



This one is more complete but harder to read. Look at all the lands conquered in the XIX century alone (darker yellow).



They also had Alaska, but with all this enormous land mass they conquered in 300 years, they had little time or resources for any overseas colonies. No pressing need, either.

The only geopolitical goal they had that they were unable to meet was to have the control of Dardanelles and to re-conquer Constantinople from Turks and make it a Greek Orthodox Christian city again. Every time they'd come close to this goal, the rest of European powers would unite against them, the Crimean war was a perfect example of this. The Brits were afraid of the Russians getting closer to India, and the French were afraid that getting Dardanelles would open the Russian fleet a free access to the Mediterranean Sea, and that would seriously compromise the security of France proper.

Otherwise, they were just as much a colonial empire as any other country. Although they mostly treated their non-Russian population as subjects of the Empire, and not as colonials.

Last edited by Ummagumma; 12-31-2015 at 05:36 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top