History's Global Superpowers
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 май 2024
- The US and Soviet Union were the famous superpowers of the Cold War, and perhaps China might become one soon. But what other nations in history could we call superpowers?
➤ Support this channel with my Patreon!: / emperortigerstar
00:00 - Introduction
01:32 - What factors make a power?
02:22 - What are levels of power?
04:13 - Ancient Powers
05:39 - Medieval Powers
06:24 - Early Modern Powers
09:07 - Modern Powers
10:10 - Contemporary Powers
Music used:
"Spring Time" by Kevin MacLeod
found at www.incompetech.com
While this video is basically my personal opinion/analysis, I did reference or look at these sources when considering what constitutes a super power:
- “China Wants to Increase Its Military Presence Abroad.” The Economist, May 7, 2022. www.economist.com/china/2022/....
- Miller, Alice L. “A Superpower? No Time Soon.” Stanford Journal of East Asian Studies, Spring 2005.
- R., Fox William T. The Super-Powers: The United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union - Their Responsibility for Peace. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1944.
Hope everyone had a good New Years!
Edit: For regional powers there were way too many for me to put them all.
I did and how about you Tigerstar?
My PC overheats so I couldnt play video games, which I am barmy about it. Other than that. Not much.
My year is better thanks to You uploading the content I want to watch and love. Love you, Emperor!
You forgot Austro-Hungary, which was a great power, altough mostly through diplomacy, rather than militarily.
Happy New Year.
I swear Djibouti must be 90% military bases at this point.
Oh, so you mentioned Djibouti? Name every single military base they gave and who they gave it to.
@@Donerci_Pikacu_Usta near any major power, still only a few percent leased to foreign countries.
@@Donerci_Pikacu_Usta without looking it up my guess is China, Britain, France the USA and maybe Russia, i think its like 9 countries in total, Djibouti rent those areas out and make quite the buck with it
@@svon1I believe Japan India Saudi Arabia and Italy also have bases there (maybe Germany??)
@@novacentorium4943 Germany and Spain have their troops stationed with other countries bases, like the German troops operate from the french base, for EU anti pirate mission
Charlemagnes empire deserves regional power status imo
I think he just forgot about it
Even Timur's empire is missing
I agree. I’d actually argue they could ALMOST be a multi regional power because of Islam’s advance into Europe being completely halted and kept in Iberia by them. Considering Islam had been spreading pretty much unopposed across much of North Africa, the Middle East and today’s Spain and Portugal since the prophet ascended, the fact that they stopped them in their tracks and shaped the course of European and world history has to be considered IMO.
Yeah give my boy some rec
As an english person I must unfortunately agree
Swedish Empire and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth should definitely be put in the list, at Regional Power tier I think
Sweden definetily should've been included
seconded
Both had some involvement in colonial/global affairs so it could be argued that they were multi regional or maybe even great power but ye
he stopped including regional powers after the ancient world, unless they were a notably case of doubt like india. if he was gonna include sweden he'd have to include every moderately powerful country from the Iroquois to kazakhstan. everyone's a regional power in their own region
poland really was not that strong at the time. yeah its big in eu4 but thats pretty much it. cant think of any time where their opinion or armies drastically changed the balance of power or influenced events so greatly that they deserve a spot at the table, outside of 1683 which really all the polish cavalry did was ensure that an already defeated force was wiped out
You forgot the Austrian Empire. Multi regional / great power (didn't extend accross the world but influenced the whole of Europe until its demise)
Just regional
@@mint8648Nah, I'd say Great Power proper. It pulled its weight through soft power and was the main bulwark opposing Russia's influence in the Balkans. A testament to its Great Power status is how they started WW1 in the first place.
IMHO Austria was a great power from 1815 to 1866 and then a multi-regional power until the end of WWI. They did start the war, but it was Germany's blank check that made it a world war
@@RuneCode @davidozab2753 That... sounds entirely regional to me.
"bulwark opposing Russia" (note: also bulwark opposing the Ottomans). Yes. Without a doubt. Now, where, geographically, did that occur? The Balkans. And only the Balkans.
They had the POLITICAL power of a Great Power, as quantified by the Concert of Europe. But it never extended in full force beyond their region. They got their butts handed to them by Napoleon.
Look at the history of Austrian Wars: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Austria
Their victories are basically *ALL* nearby (Poland, Balkans, Switzerland/N. Italy) or as part of a huge coalition... of which they were not the primary power (War of the League of Cognac,. War of the Quadruple Alliance, etc)
They had no far-reaching colonial empire.
And as a "proper empire" their victories were against Rebels, Napoleon in the 6th and 7th coalition, rebels, rebels, the Ottomans (the sick man, and they only helped, the war was won by the Brits and Russians), rebels, 1848 rebels (won w/ Russian help), Italians (First Italian War of Independence was probably the Austrian Empire's greatest military victory), rebels, and the Danes (Prussia basically won that war).
So whenever they left their region or adjacent regions (you could argue that Poland and N Italy are separate regions)... the only way they were successful was when they were helping others.
Definitely not a Great Power.
Other great/ superpowers of that time recognised Austria/ AH as fellow great power and it was arguably stronger and also longer- lasting power- both economically and population& territory- wise- than Italy which is, unlike Austria and rather suprisingly considering the rather abysmal record as great power, mentioned.
So contemporary person arguing on youtube it wasn't great power when actual great powers of that time recognised it as such and as one of their own is the peak of Internet...
I feel like the context for ancient powers should weight more rather than following strict geographical standards since the population distribution was a lot different back then. The Acheamenind Empire would hold a greater influence relative the global population back then than the weakest modern great power does today, because there just wasn't that many urban areas at the time and they held a considerable chunk of it.
It feels wrong to have Portugal above Rome just because one technical difference when Rome was greater than Portugal in every other aspect.
Its even weirder when the Ottomans are considered a great power but Rome isn't. The Ottomans never reached the extent of Rome, not even close, but somehow the Ottomans had more influence?
yeah i do think it should have been counted as the influence over the known world, rome might still lose out due to their exapnsion stopping due to military resistance as opposed to internal stability (i know it was always unstable but it lasted a thousand years it was no more unstable than any kingdom with no succession plans)
that said it should be at great power, it was stopped to the east by the persians/sasanids and to the north by increasingly displaced tribes pushed out by constant eastern hoards like the huns, their east and south were fully protected by ocean or desert.
also i'm surprised none of the axis powers were listed, noting that it was the struggle of the second world war which drained britains resources out of being a super power and the collapse left a power vacuum the soviets filled, few years before the soviets struggled to defeat finland but then suddenly had control over half of europe purely cause germany destroyed their militarys and exausted itself.
@@sonicmeerkatWhat do you mean the axis powers weren't listed? Japan, Italy and Germany are all there.
@@brutusthebear9050 I completely agree with you guys. He did say he's an amateur though
The Ottomans were able to fight portuguese in India. Rome was incredibly powerful at their borders, more so than the Ottomans. But the Ottomans were much more able to influence outside their borders than Peak Roman Empire. This however is the opposite if you compare the Ottomans with Post Punic war Rome, Rome would cow the Seleucids with just the mear threat of war with Rome.@@brutusthebear9050
Mongol Empire I'd argue was a bona fide superpower at its (brief) height. Considering the Mongols were able to invade both Germany and Java (Indonesia) on opposite sides of the world (not at the same time, to be clear) shows they had worldwide influence and the ability to project power thousands of miles away.
“All empires become arrogant. It is their nature.”
― Edward Rutherfurd
In that Case it's tied between Spain and England
Fake But Ryo
I would actually have contemporary Russia in the multi regional power tier. Mainly for their surprisingly small economic size. Much of their influence comes from their armed forces and inheriting their status as the main successor of the USSR. I might also put in India as a multi-regional power or even great power soon than later. Much like China was from the 1990s to about 2020.
Edit: Also there is a great Wikipedia list called “List of Historic Great powers” which is a comprehensive list.
True, the casualities of WW2 permanently handicapped Russia, if we make a comparison of their respective eras Russian Empire of the 19th century > modern Russia
22,000 warheads disagree
@@julianshepherd2038 22,000 warheads can only do so much, as long as its enemies are stronger they won't be able to fully achieve there goals in even small countries.
I would put india in multiregional power too
I’d say India is a regional power on the brink of multi regional not on the brink of great power
USA might be the sole Superpower, but Tajikistan is THE Ultrapower.
True, but finland is the only hyperpower, the heir to hyperborea, the victor of the hyperwar!
@@jansatamme6521Sealand is the biggest and only seapower
Poland is the godly power
😂 Timurid Empire may be restored again!
Lechina Empire
I’m so glad you put a time-period accurate Spanish empire, so many other people add their African colonies
Fatal map, includes claim to Patagonia but not Nutka, and is missing part of the African coast
@@GatoMestizo. No está tan mal ese mapa, quizás falta señalizar la zona de nootka pero no estaba tan controlada y lo que si falta son las islas marianas en el pacífico, con solo las filipinas parece que España no tenia mucho control en Asia pero en realidad los ingleses lo llamaban "spanish lake" por algo xd
@@pedritopedrito_ también se comieron parte del virreinato de la plata
@@pedritopedrito_ Sobre que esté controlada o no Nootka... fundamos las bases, ahora ciudades, de Córdova y Valdez en Alaska. El imperio británico tampoco controló las islas heladas de Canadá. Sólo se las atribuyó, porque allí no podía vivir nadie, salvo algún ballenero cada cierto tiempo
@@Gloriaimperial1Spain also claimed a lot of uninhabited land, Britain wasn’t the only place to claim a desert.
Loved this - would love to see an follow-up where you highlight along a timelime each power's rise and fall into those different positions, with maybe a different colour for each tier.
To anyone talking about x nation should've been included in the regional or multi-regional tier, consider just how many nations would fit into those tiers. Every nation I've seen mentioned would fit, but there are dozens more. I think the point of those tiers were to bring up nations that people may suggest to be great powers and then show how Tigerstar's definition puts them in a different category. All of this is to say you could go on for hours listing every regional and multi-regional power that ever existed. The more interesting question is which powers were great or super.
I agree with this, I did leave another comment tho where I feel like Rome should’ve been placed in Great Power tier at the least which is answering the question of which are great or super
I would like to say, you have successfully independently constructed power transition theory. Well done.
A video on powers in history is one of my drea.. Thanks for making this video!
It also contains geopolitics and international relations.
You should do a Part 2 on potential superpowers throughout history
there could have been a lot more countries added in the lower tiers but the list probably would have become to crowded so great job
I found this to be an interesting list! Thanks for the video!
Turks indeed had a decisive role in triggering historical major events like the Migration Period, Crusades, shaping the history of Balkans, Islamization of Northern India, Age of Discovery as well as ending the Middle Ages with the conquest of Constantinople, fall of the Roman Empire
yea, so much suffering caused by central asians.
@@FortuneZer0Racist much?
@@Donerci_Pikacu_Ustahe definitely is.
@@Donerci_Pikacu_Usta Go on. How is this statement of fact racist?
The Turks are very underrated. Their role in shaping the world is usually left unnoticed. To be honest, they have probably done more than even the Romans.
I think this is one of the most balanced and accurate vids ranking empires!
For me I would have atleast either the Tang or Early Ming in great power. I think a lot of people underestimate the relative influence and power level of China during the Middle ages as they look only at land area or military conquests. This doesn't scale too well for China in these periods especially as it was very isolationist and basically held defensive postures. A lot of people forget that the entire Asian, pacific/se asia, Middle Eastern and south Asian regions have been expressly affected by political, economic, linguistic and religious influences. Economic status alone China's wealth of resources meant that not only were they 3x wealthier than European states, this wealth flowed onto states like the Ottomans, s/e Asian states and eventually Europe through maritime and silk road trade. Definitely at its height in these periods you could argue that China had an influence on the entire Asia-pacific region, into Middle East, Africa and Europe via trade and economic / cultural influence. I think their relative power scale also puts them in great power because even in early Ming the Dutch, British and Portugese didn't want to mess with them.
Even in land area, the Han dynasty had similar size to Roman empire and was even bigger when comparing both of their peaks, the silk roads were opened through Chinese expansion into Central Asia, people often forget that China was the neighbour of Hunnic, Turkic and Mongolic empires that wreaked havoc in Europe, also Vietnam which had the reputation of defeating "superpowers" such as Mongol empire and the USA, had been ruled by China for 1000 years.
The Chinese tributary systems applied to a lot of countries which recognized Chinese suzerainty over them (including Turkic empires, even the Timurid empire) and during succession disputes, the claimants tried to get recognized by the Chinese emperor in order to legitimize their rule. So further conquests were not needed and too expensive due to harsh terrain and climate (full of deserts and moutains), the most valuable and fertile lands were already conquered.
And neighbours already were identifying themselves as China en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_China_(ideology)
@trollmcclure2659 Thank you great answers! I definitely think a lot of Eurocentric history misses just how dominant and powerful many of the Chinese dynasties were especially in ancient and medieval history. Definitely think the Han should be up there as well. I forgot to mention them.
i can think of a couple of regional powers that might be included in this list. i am not sure why japan got to be a great power rather then a multiregional power. sure during the second world war they were contesting the pacific against the US and rest of the allies, but they never even conquered all of china.
I would have to agree, their rise, as impressive as it may be, was not as culturally influential (as let's say count the amount of countries who speak Spanish or Portuguese), or as far reached as I would say even the Germans, I mean I recognise that without them the Asian colonies wouldn't have gained independence... for at least some more decades, let's be honest even without their whole shenanigans in the east the British, dutch and french wolf be too broke and mentally scarred to keep hold. maybe if the rise would have happened more than once like the Frenchs or Germany.
The Japanese were the first non European country to attack and beat back a great European power, Russia, in the 1905 Russo-Japanese war. In that War Russia lost their influence over Manchuria and Korea and ceded the Kuril Islands to Japan, this is what cemented Imperial Japan’s great power status.
However today I agree that Japan is at best a multi-regional power if not just a regional power especially since they never fully recovered their economy in the 90s and south Korea is gaining soft power influence with their k-pop and successful fill industry such as parasite and squid games. I consider S. Korea to be a regional power and Japan is pretty much on par with them these days.
Why is conquering all of China a rule by which we measure a country's power?
"a great power rather then a multiregional power" For the Same reason Germany was a Great Power. Japan controlled all of Indochina, the Philippines, Indonesia, on top of basically the entire Chinese coast (the most developed part of the country) and their de-jure territories of all of Korea and Taiwan as well as the resource rich Manchuoko. By 1942 Japan had conquered 500 million people on top of the 100 million the Japanese Empire already represented (i.e. 73 Million Japanese, 24 Million Koreans, 6 Million Taiwanese). For comparison, the total British Empire, at its height in 1938 accounted for 531 million people. Both of them controlled about 1/4 of the World population at the time.
Even before the outbreak of WW2 Japan had a population that surpassed the French Empire by the early 1930s. And likewise Japan in that period already had the capacity to strike and engage on a global scale, with other Great powers. It defeated the Great Power of Russia and sent its navy to patrol South Africa, Suez and the Mediterranean during WW1.
@@serebii666 you must have made a mistake in your recount of population, the 463 millions of population was the total of all areas occupied by Japan and Japan, it never quite reached the 500 millions you claim. When you said that it had the capacity to operate globally is also not true, as you yourself said those deployments happened during ww1, aka with the allowance, as well of request, of the British, if you look for how far reached the Japanese gave battle by their own volition it would be during ww2 at the battle of Madagascar, meaning only to the western indian Ocean, both Germany and France have them beat at that.
Great video. Spain's empire map is missing their holdings in Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Austria (under Charles V of Austria and 1st of Spain)
As many are pointing out, there are many empires worth of making it into the list (Austria, polish-lithuanian commonwealth, the Empire of the Franks...) but overall it is a great video.
Great video! It would be interesting to see a version with just contemporary states,that way you could add more countries... P.S. I would put India in the multiregional tier
Love this video! But i think i’d like to hear your opinion on some other empires; the Cholas of India, Austria/Austria-Hungary, the Umayyads, the byzantines, and the majapahit stand out as potential multiregional powers
Umayyads being missing was a disappointment, particularly considering religion was considered when deciding the great powers.
Correct he missed out many great empires even tibet ,kushan and many more
He did mention the Byzantines, he ranked them in the same spot as the Romans.
Italia city States such as Venice, Genoa plus the Kingdom of Sicily-Naples deserve the status of regional powers in my view. Especially Venice.
*Cries in Portuguese*
very true...
Oofffff that indeed hurt
Please do a video on this topic avenging us Gen. Knowledge.
Portugal should honourably be a superpower:
I) It was the first global empire ( still recognised by the Guinness World Records 😂). It was the first country to hold land in all major continents, from Newfoundland to East Timor, from Nagasaki to Mozambique, Brazil or India.
Ii) Spain's territorial gains were made againts stone aged and horseless empires. At the same time or even earlier, Portugal was defining strategies for trade with china and japan, reach and hold the spice island and expelled muslims from the Indian ocean trade, its strategic objective was to close down the Indian ocean, conquering shoke points in mallaca or aden and Ormuz, while fighting Indian armies with horses, firearms and artillery aided by Venetians and Ottomans, all with a 6 to 8 months delay from any instructions from Lisbon. At for a while, it was successful in these objectives.
Iii) it wrote the book on how to be build colonial empires for all major European empires thereafter, namely the Netherlands, France and England.
At the end of the day, the only checkbox unchecked is the hard power of Portugal in the European theatre relative to other European powers. It certainly couldn't be defeated (even Napoleonic France couldn't conquer it, but it also couldn't invade on its own other countries and succeed (it conquered Madrid in the Spanish succession war, but it wasn't fighting alone).
Nevertheless, being a superpower is not just about that. The fact is that it was the richest European country at its golden age and survived since 1139 as an independent country (even throughout the Iberian Union). Its focus was simply not in Europe, but its ability to act all over the world and impose its will against quite formidable foes, with a clear workd wide strategic state agenda (and not through a private company like the Netherlands) makes me believe Portugal should have the superpower status. It might have only barely made it while Spain or the Uk easily made it, but yet it should.
Only my opinion.
We only divided the world in half with Spain who was never able to impose her will on us... Nothing much...
Our victory was cultural and diplomatic! Portugal is spoken on all continents! Avenge us General Knowledge!
*Sniff* A Country with only a million people manages to spread its language, culture, and cuisine to 300 million other souls all over the planet, but that's not the what constitutes a superpower because we didn't cause untold wars I guess, we only protected our heritage for 500 years against all other supposed super powers by luck.
Honestly, Id say your tier list is pretty much spot on. Great Job!
Ive seen a lot of people claiming Germany as a superpower, but honestly i too believe they were more of a regional power than a truly Global power like the British.
Though i'd say they were certainly on track to becoming one until they collapsed in ww1. They certianly had the potenial no doubt, and had things gone differently in ww1 they may well have become so.
Now Nazi Germany on the other hand was definitely not a superpower, certainly with how short lived it was,
You cant really consider a country a superpower if it barely lasted long enough to leave a lasting impact.
Id say you cant really consider it anything but a regional power, certainly a very militarily powerful nation, but nothing more.
The fact that they decided to pick a fight with all the worlds superpowers at once under the delusion that their regional military prowess alone would carry them through shows that they werent a nation thay could in any way be considered a superpower.
The only lasting legacy they left behind was a lesson to the world on how terrible they were and why their idealogy and existence should never be repeated.
Now Russia on the other hand is difficult to say, cuz i mean yes, the Soviet Union was absolutely the Second most powerful nation in the world after the US in terms of military and economy.
But that being said they never really held the kind of global economic and cultural influence like the US did. I mean they closed off their entire country from the outside world and only interacted with other puppet regimes and other communist countries.
So can they really be called a Global Power? I mean militarily sure, but economically or culturally their impact on the wider world was much less than the US.
To think about it, the only countries they had any influence over were countries that they bordered or were in their own region.
You made a mistake by looking at the past from the lenses of present. All the 8 Ancient Empires you mentioned were Superpowers in their respective time-frame since they were very influential in the then Known World. A Superpower is simply the most powerful & influential state in a given time-frame with the given political conditions. You will always end up under-rating Ancient/Medieval Empires if you look at them from the lenses of Contemporary World. Now we are moving into Space Age where Superpowers are the ones with Extra-Terrestrial Exploration Capacity. Just imagine if a RUclipsr in 2100 AD rates Spanish Empire as 'Regional Power' because it had no influence on the Moon or Mars
I would argue that rome, han china, and maybe Achaemenid Persia and Alexander's empire should be considered great powers because there were practically no other nations at the time that could match their power (I agree that the Byzantine's should be considered a multi-regional power though). I would also say that the austro-hungarians should be considered a multi-regional power because of the cultural and diplomatic influence they had over the rest of Europe.
Not the macedonian empire, it fell right after alexander died
@@cristhianramirez6939I Think that's why it's referred to specifically as Alexander's empire
@@cristhianramirez6939it fell because Alexander couldn't find a suitable heir and basically said, "each on their own", it's not because the system failed or an enemy had clearly better tactics, instead it was black bad luck
@@user-yw1nl6sk7yKinda sad that he died so early. It wohld have been much more interesting too see what would have happened when he lived longer.
Tang as well
how could the ottoman empire possibly be considered a more influential and powerful empire than rome?
very interesting video. I really liked this video and I have two question :
Where would you rank EU (European Union) ?
Is time a criterion? because you can't be a superpower if you only last 5 years or less.
He said EU doesn't count because it's not really a country
Political power is just an expression of military, economic and cultural power. Not a category on its own.
Still, such categories were kinda disregarded in your tier list. I think you just looked at the map and military prowess...
For example, the cultural power of the huge Mongol empire was nearly zero, while that of the little Papal State extended intercontinentally.
Also, i think that a less confusing tier list looks like this:
- HEGEMON -> a country that is globally unchallenged -> can project itself everywhere (militarily, economically and culturally)
- SUPERPOWER -> a country that is locally unchallenged -> can project itself in many other countries
- GREAT POWER -> a country that has global influence -> can partially project itself in many other countries (like only economically)
- REGIONAL POWER -> a country that is more powerful than its neighbours -> can partially project itself in its neighbourhood
Tigerstar, you gotta do another livestream sometime (if and when you can)! It was really fun to watch you play Geoguesser & nice to be able to interact with you
I thought this was a great list!
I reacted a bit to the Ottomans being a Great Power when the Abbasids were a Regional Power. I feel like the Abbasids could be a Great Power due to their longevity, holding of Persia, the peak intellectual era of the Muslim Golden Age, the Arab agricultural revolution, and the fact that their dynasty was still traditionally respected. However, I understand that the Abbasids did not exist in the same environment of *global* trade and interaction that the Ottomans did. There's an interesting case to be made for either one to be the greater power. Thanks for getting me thinking about it!
you guys banned me from your server, i will not forget this
Honestly I dont think you can put Han China and Rome in the same tier as Alexander. It fractured the moment he bit the dust. Where as Rome and its successor ended up spreading a Global religion and changing the cultures of numerous nations significantantly.
You could also argue that the Successor states of Alexander particularly the Selucids could be considered Multiregional powers, and most definitely the Parthians, Central Asia was far more populated in that era.
Another reason why I wouldnt put the durch or portugiese empire in superpower is their weakness in structure. They were controlled by their european part, which was small and could have been invaded, destroying the entire empire. Good luck for mainland netherlands to defend against the french. Same goes for Portugal against spain. Historically portugal could hold itself against spain but ir couldve gone completely different. Spain, Britain or France were much stronger inside of europe, in terms of military, economy and land area, making the empire a lot more stable.
I would love to see a tier list that goes through history and shows the changes to powers on this list over time, similar to the history of X map videos.
Do another list with more empires and kingdoms to add 💪
China doesnt have force projection in the atlantic but every country on earth thinks about the chinese response to events so i think theyre a superpower
This lack of force projection is why they are not superpower. They are always kept in check even in their own yard. The US on the other hand can just act without initially thinking that much about other countries’ interests as they can just worry about that later even on the opposite side of the globe.
You forgot San Marino
He avoided it intentionally because he couldnt even define San Marino’s sthrength
it would be unfair to rank them among the other power, they are too strong
@@Frostenheim San Marino is like:
Let the kids play.
Thank you very much for this research and the video. I could not see some of the countries/empires that could be classified as Regional Power or Multi-Regional Power, or even as Great Power. For an example, both Prussia and Austria were considered as Great Powers in the Congress of Wien in 1815. I am really curious about your opinion of the countries' status, in the list below:
Ancient History :
The Akkadian Empire, Hittite Empire, Kingdom of the Hyksos, Kassite Kingdom, Kingdom of Babylon, K. of Elam, China (W. Zhou), China (E. Zhou), Kingdom of Kush, Urartu, Elam, Phoenicia, Chaldean (Neo-Babylonian) Emp, Emp. of the Medes, Kingdom of Saba, Carthage, Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Seleucid Kingdom, Ptolemaic Kingdom, Xiong-nu Qaghanate, Parthian Empire, Kingdom of Meroe, Kushan Emp, Satavana Emp., Gupta Empire, China (Jin)
Medieval History :
West Roman Empire, Hunnic Empire, Rouran Qaghanate, Kingdom of the Osrogoths, China (Sui), Gokturk Qaghanate, Avar Qaghanate, Umayyad Caliphate, Uyghur Qaghanate, Frankish Realm, Khazar Qaghanate, Bulgar Khanate, Umayyad Emirate of Cordoba, Karakhanid Khanate, China (Song), Ghaznavid Empire, Fatimid Caliphate, Khitan (Liao) Empire, Chola Empire, Kyivan Rus., Almoravid Empire, Ayyubid Sultanate, Jurchen (Jin) Empire, Kharzam Shahdom, Almohad Caliphate, Mongol (Yuan) Empire, Turkic State (Mameluke Sultanate), Kipchak Khanate (Golden Horde), Genoa, Timurid Empire, Venice, Circassian State (Mameluke Sultanate)
Early Modern Period :
Castille & Aragon, Persia (Safavid dynasty), Commonwealth of Poland & Lithuania, Austria, Sweden,
Late Modern Perion :
Prussia, Austria-Hungary.
Brazilian empire wasn’t a regional power?
It certainly was, and modern Brazil still is
@@pocketmarcy6990though much more weaker.
@@MenezarianDuck I have no doubt the modern Brazilian Army would win in a skirmish against an Imperial one
@@pocketmarcy6990 yea because we have tanks and airplanes while the Prussians were still using Needle guns
Brazillian history is very underrated, besides being explored by our politicians and used by orthers we are still a power
I'd argue that Rome deserves great power tier especially since we still see it's cultural and architectural influence to this day. Not to mention many different nations claimed to be the "successor" of Rome after its fall. That's just my argument. Loved the video such a great idea :)
Thats just cultural. Its not able to assert politically or militarily after its gone
Only for westerners. 60% of the world's population is asian and 15% is from sub-sahran africa, but rome has very little influence there. Also, in terms of size, rome isn't even in the top 20.
@@tangledspoons1396 it did cause a political vacuum in Europe after it was gone. Like eastern Rome and many other european states claiming themselves as heir to their Roman predecessors and title pope which has its creations during Roman Empire went on to become the figure head in medieval era
@@potato_nuggetRome did have contacts with as far as 🇮🇳 which during it’s golden era were even stable. Roman military went as far as physically possible for the era. We can’t expect more from neither them nor Han china. However while Han china was in its core territory Rome had expanded way past its home region of Italy
I agree, partialy because some of the other nations in great power dont even compare, like nazi Germany or Japan. More so putting the Italian Empire in the same tier as Rome is criminal.
Putting the ottomans one tier above rome is criminal
Nope But Ryo
Bro, I found myself shaking in agreement the entire time. I want to call Rome a superpower but based on your definition you're correct. Awesome video, I don't leave likes or comments often but I did enjoy this food for thought.
I like how by the end in the superpower tier, aside from spain, you basically end up with the allies of ww2. All the countries Germany went to war with in their bid for world domination and superpower status.
Just goes to show how foolish it was for Germany to go to war with all the world's superpowers at once. Thinking that their regional miltary prowess alone would carry them through. Not understanding that militarily victories alone, defeating your opponents in the field alone does not make you a supowerpower, capable of ruling the world by force. It takes a lot more than idealogical zealotry and an angry man with a short mustache to rule the world.
As a flag lover I really liked your choice of not using falgs for empires that didn't really had a flag. Anyway great video as always 😀👍
Sorry I usually really like your videos but this just doesn't work... Applying modern geopolitical definitions on states (not nations) of the early modern period or ancient world is at best just a bit confusing and at worst straight up ahistorical. No distinction is even made between land and overseas empires here, not to mention things like technology
Another excellent upload as usual
I don’t understand putting the Netherlands in great power tear. Sure they had some impressive colonies but so did all other European powers. Can it honestly be argued that the Netherlands, even at their height, had the same or equivalent power to the Mongols or the Ottomans at their height?
To me, two of the most important traits to define a 'superpower' in the post-WW2 world are: 1) able to conduct naval operations in all three of the main oceans in the world (Atlantic, Pacific, Indian) i.e. capable of global naval operations. 2) Able to conduct military strikes (standoff strikes) on practically location on the planet within 72-96 hours. In my opinion, the only true superpower prior to World War II was the British Empire.
I feel like the British should have their own ranking as hyper-power and the Romans should be counted as superpower
@@Boretheory 90s US was the only Hyperpower, the British had the rest of Europe to compete with in the 19th Century
I admire what the British did, but Spain had a much more powerful world empire, also spread across the 5 continents and all oceans.
Spain is the only empire that has had hegemony in Europe while being present in 100 countries on all 5 continents. The British had a world empire, but they had no land in Europe. Philip II, Philip III and Philip IV of Spain had lands in Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, at the same time as lands in the 35 countries of America (including the USA and Canada, discovery of Vancouver, Island Saint Michael, 1592). And lands on the two African coasts, North Africa, Arabia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Philippines... Spanish map of Hawaii (16th century), Spanish helmet discovered in New Zealand (17th century) and shortly after the discovery of Antarctica in 1603. Philip II was even king of England and Ireland. Nobody had more power. The great major wars of the British were WW1 and WW2. Two brief wars of 4 and 6 years, where they had as allies the island (which prevents the direct invasion of the Panzer divisions that entered Paris and Moscow) and the giants USA and the Soviet Union, plus the French empire. Spain was in continuous war for 150 years against 5 European powers: France, England, Protestant Germany, the Netherlands and the Turkish Empire (and sometimes also Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Morocco, Berbe pirates, Filipino Moors, Chinese and Japanese pirates, Cambodians , Mapuches of Chile and Apaches of the Great Plains)
We enter Rome, Paris, Cologne, Genoa, Amsterdam, Milan, Brussels, Lisbon, Florence...
After those wars, Spain imposed the Catholic religion in Belgium, France, southern Germany, Palatinate, Luxembourg, Malta and Italy.
The British were saved because they are an island, and because of the storms. Because Spain sent 3 invasion fleets to England of more than 130 ships in 1588, 1596 and 1597 (plus another in 1718), all 4 stopped by storms. And the Spanish naval blockade of England from 1779-81, capturing two British fleets of 24 and 55 ships, which sank the London stock market and allowed Spain to give the Spanish dollar to the USA. In 1589, without storms, Drake's invincible fleet was destroyed by Spain, losing 80 ships. Elisabeth condemned Drake to be a lighthouse keeper. The British destroyed the French and Dutch empires in India, Africa, New York, and Quebec. But they could only capture 1 of 400 parts of the Spanish empire and 2 Indies fleets between America and Europe, of 1200 fleets, suffering colossal defeats in Cádiz 1625 (62 ships sunk from the combined fleet of England and the Netherlands), Cartagena de Indias 1741 (50 British ships destroyed), and the defeat in Argentina and Uruguay 1806-07, with the capture of the redcoats and British generals. In addition to the 3 defeats of Nelson, he was captured at Tenerife 1797. Spain only lost 11 ships at Trafalgar (France another 13). And here we are talking about 20, 48, 50, 62 and 80 British ships lost.
With that investment and those victories, Spain made the greatest legacy in history: 480 million native speakers of Spanish (600 million in total) and 800 million Catholics (200 million in Europe and 100 million in Asia). Native English: 380 million. 40% born in parts of the USA that never belonged to the British Empire. 120 million Anglicans.
@@Gloriaimperial1*cough cough* Hannover
I would add the Empire of Brazil in the regional powers. Brazil under Dom Pedro II shaped the geopolitics of South America especially in the Platinian Wars which solidified it's position as a Regional Power, and this kinda still holds up to today
I appreciate that you ranked empires fairly based on their actual capabilities and not based on their popularity. Rome was extremely powerful for its time, but it frankly did not hold the same amount of power over the world as any of the great powers
That is just not true at all
@@Nooob3775 Ok Romaboo
I’d love to see the F tiers: countries that tried to be powers but failed miserably.
Germany in WW2 i guess?
Paraguay
@@meltedicecreamsandwichThey were, but their "president" took them to a useless war
What power level? In South America Argentina, Paraguay, Peru-Bolivia confederation and Colombia I think are examples
As a swede i feel like i have to lodge a complaint, we didint throw 200,000 pesents at the danish, russians and polish just to not even be concidered a regional power
That was a good video, and I think I would have made all the same conclusions you did, except that I'd say China is already a superpower and has been since somewhere in the late 2010s, mainly because its global influence has gotten strong enough that relations with (or reactions to) China has been a prominent topic in American politics since Trump's presidency.
What is this list
No way the Ottoman Empire or the Empire of Japan to have had greater global influence than the Achaemenid or Roman Empire. Specially Achaemenids affected all three continents unprecedentedly.
good tier list, perfectly accurate when viewing ancient empires with a modern criteria. But I feel it's more fair to hold them to their own time, and Mongol would be a superpower, Rome, han China would be similar to modern China etc
Great video
4:37 - thank you for not overhyping it and taking the matter seriously
For the contemporary section I am surprised you didn't mention Brazil, Israel, Iran, the Saudis, Turkey, or South Korea. I think that all of those countries can at least be labelled as regional powers.
Iran and Saudi seem more like regional powers rather than Israel. They both have more influence over the Middle East
He didn't mention those likely because the video was about powers across history instead of modern powers
Brazil is a power because of how populated it is and how much it spends on its military... But culturally Argentina and Mexico are far more influential in the region and the world.
Btw no hate on Brazil, I love that country, it's just my opinion.
@@SharkJ002 I 100% agree but I do not think that Mexico and Argentina are in a position right now to really be a power. They do have the largest economies in LATAM and immense cultural influence but their domestic issues are so severe that it really holds them back. Brazil has the massive economy, population, and military might but not too much cultural influence or diplomatic influence.
Only Iran might be a regional power, the others have no real power compared to there neighbours tbh
Half of italy has been under Spain longer than Under the Italian Republic, centuries. And you did not include them. Also flanders and netherlands were part of Spanish crown, and a great testament of that is how expensive was to keep for the emperor.
i feel like you could make an argument based on a technicallity for Austrlia being a regional power given it has complete control over an entire continent
Contemporary India is multi regional and considering the impact of the treasure fleet expeditions, I argue that Ming should be considered a great power, even if it only held onto that power for a few decades
Austrian empire, though considered a great power would have probably been a regional power considering they never really left Europe. Aztec, probably also regional.
If you include the Mexica, you should also include the Tarascan (Purépecha) empire and the Tlaxcaltecas
@@GatoMestizo.the Nahuatl sure do love their x’s, t’s and l’s.
It comes down to, what is a region? If subcontinents are sufficient, The Austrian empire is a multi-regional power.
@@the11382 wouldn’t really call the Balkans a subcontinent.
@@baneofbanes the italian subcontinent
I do think that alexander the greats empire and Rome should be placed into great power due having influence on all the continents except for the Americans and being generally unrivaled
LETS GO WARRIOR CATS AND HISTORY OMG I DIDNT KNOW THIS CHANNEL EXISTED
Oh boy, you are gonna love this channel!
By your logic, if humans were to create a space empire in the future, then our modern superpowers would be nothing. You should be more considerate of the technology of the time.
Not really. We'd just need a new term past Superpower, like Hyperpower.
@@EmperorTigerstar okay then, fair enough, thanks for replying.
Honestly? I as a Dutchman would have placed my own country at multiregional power.
Economic superpower? For sure, but I don’t feel like we had anywhere near enough global influence to truly qualify as a great power
I think they had a larger fleet than England or France at the time.
The economic influence and the strong Navy the dutch once had are enough to make them a great power. For some time they were rivals of France, England, Spain and Portugal.
Please make more tier lists
First class passengers on a sinking ship is a good book related to world powers
The particularity of the Spanish empire is that it was the only one that had hegemony in Europe at the same time that it was present in 100 countries on the 5 continents and in all the oceans. Napoleon's France did not have a world empire. The French empire of the late 19th and 20th centuries was global, but it was no longer a hegemonic power in Europe. The British Empire had a large global distribution, but never dominated Europe. Philip II had lands, simultaneously, in Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg, the 35 countries of America (including parts of the current USA and Canada, Vancouver Island, discovered by Juan de Fuca in 1592), the Portuguese territories in Africa, areas of North Africa, Arabia, India, China, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and archipelagos of the Pacific Ocean. There was even a map of Hawaii and a helmet from New Zealand (16th century). He was even king of England and Ireland. He is the most powerful king in history. The USA and the Soviet Union had bases all over the world, but they did not own those countries. Felipe III and Felipe IV had a power similar to Felipe II. 30 millions of km2
Can you do a version with just contemparary powers?
Usa -superpower
Russia China India Japan Brazil- great powers.
Italy Germany France Mexico Uk Iran S. Korea Australia Canada Turkey-multi regional powers
Then it’s mostly regional powers
Although it must be said that if we go by reach and diplomacy half of the multi-regional powers could be great powers or even just everyone in this list could be superpower as in the modern age as long as u have nukes u can disregard anyone else’s opinion about u.
@@Boretheory Complete doo-doo.
So of the cotemporary, I'd say india is at min, a multi-regional power as India has influence across the multi-regional domain the Indian ocean. See "Indian Military activity in Horn of Africa Region." I'd also say if the EU is counted, it is surely a superpower, but that unity of state brings it to question, Since the actuins of the Great, multi-regional and regional powers of the members of the EU bring it to that combined status. In a way the EU helps shine the dynamics between the different levels of powers when they work (or don't work) together. Beyond those, all the other great power contenders already made it on the list from being historical powers (France, UK, Japan, Germany). I'd also say Russia has devolved to a Multi-regional power, and only has that multi-regional influence because of how many regions it touches.
Outside of those, I'd also keep an eye on- Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia and Turkey as having potential to grow into great powers.
Carthage probably should have been included as either a regional or multi-regional power
Maybe as a regional power. Maybe.
I'm surprised the Empire of Alexander didn't make it. That would be a Great Power at the very least, especially with the spread of Hellenistic cultural influence.
I feel like with the very broad spread of Chinese business ties across the world should probably push it up to the superpower level. The same could be said for the historical attraction of tea, silks, and well, china for elites across Eurasia, and Zheng He's voyages could be viewed as a premodern exercise in power projection. And at least by premodern standards, the fact that Korea, Japan, and Vietnam all adopted Chinese writing, and the Khitans created their own writing system that borrowed Chinese forms, is a testament to its cultural influence. But modern China fails in that regard because of its insularity and because, well, it's just much easier to learn English, French, or Spanish.
He did mention Alexander 's empire right after the Achaemenids at 5:30.
While its short life would be an argument against it, its successor states cemented its influence, even if states like the Seleucids don't appear in the list.
I also don't think Chinese cultural influence in East Asia historically is beyond the level of the Roman Empire in Europe, with which the various Chinese dynasties share their tier. It's also noteworthy that only the places most isolated from other cultural influences adopted Chinese writing and customs to this degree. The Mongols quickly adopted other writing systems instead of the old Khitan scripts, most of South East Asia never adopted Chinese at all, as Brahmic scripts were already established and suited them better. I doubt Japanese would be written with Kanji either if they had learned a Brahmic script first.
@@Darkerplayer Japan learned Chinese character as their writing system because they lost badly to Chinese Tang dynasty in Battle of Baekgang. After the defeating in Battle of Baekgang, Japan send large group of envoys to Tang dyansty.
If Japan wants to learn Brahmic scripts, they must first suffer a defeat by India.
Wiki link about Battle of Baekgang: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baekgang
@@JingLi-pw3du Well uh, No?
The Japanese had already been writing for a long time by the time of this battle, likely learning it from the Baekje between the 4th and 6th century. So this battle stands at the end of that cultural exchange, not at the start. Moreover, we know that Japan had sent numerous missions to various Chinese dynasties before this battle happened, such as the Liu Song, Sui and Tang, most notably immediately before the battle in 659; the Yamato court had long recognized the potential in cultural exchange and political reforms modeled on China by the time it came to defend their long standing ally Baekje.
Moreover, it would be entirely irrelevant to my point whether they only learned it after losing a battle, the point is that no matter what they'd have been writing in Chinese given their complete isolation from any other writing system for centuries to come. If they wanted to keep records, they'd either have to invent their own system, or write with Chinese characters.
Other states, which had extensive contact with Brahmic scripts, adopted those over Chinese because it was much easier and better suited to their languages; in fact, the invention of Kana in Japanese is traditionally traced to the Buddhist monk Kuukai, who founded the Shingon sect of Vajrayana Buddhism. He had knowledge of the Brahmic Siddham script, and concluded that a phonetic alphabet, similar to it, would suit Japanese better.
The idea that a battle served as the catalyst for such a development is questionable anyway; cooperation and cultural exchange lead to the adoption of technology and cultural practices. Cultures that fight with each other usually don't exchange as much.
@@Darkerplayer That's like saying Western Europe would've never adopted the Latin script if they had somehow contacted China first. The cultures around China weren't inherently isolationist. China itself wasn't isolationist until well into the Ming Dynasty. The Sinosphere was simply a cultural hegemon that other entities aspired to be like, much like the various other Europeans powers that claim to be Rome.
It's not Isolationism, but just Isolation. You don't need to deliberately isolate yourself when you're geographically too far away from anyone noteworthy but a cultural powerhouse like China, through which everything comes filtered to you. The Isolationism only comes in once Europeans actually reach East Asia, which is when the cultures of the region were the most isolationist.
The comparison between European powers claiming to be Rome and states on the periphery of China also doesn't hold up, the European states (such as the Eastern Roman Empire, the Frankish Empire, the Holy Roman Empire and any number of claimed successors) are more akin to Chinese dynasties, as they all trace back a large part of their history and culture to being a part of the legendary Rome, and most of the time saw themselves as true Romans. Japan never saw itself as Chinese, at best Toyotomi's failed attempts at conquering China are akin to the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, and claiming the title of Conqueror of Rome.
Also, for your initial comparison, Western Europe might have never adopted Latin had they never been in active contact with any of the cultures using such a writing system (i.e. the Greeks, the Phoenicians, the Romans, as far as they can even be considered to not be Western European themselves, the Persians, Arabs, Indians...) until well into modern times. On the other hand though, had they been presented with the choice between any alphabet, abugida or syllabary, and Chinese characters, I think the choice is obvious. The complexity of Chinese characters and their difficulties to being adopted to another language are an important factor in limiting their spread.
None of this disputes China's status of cultural hegemon, it simply points out the issues of Chinese writing and the fact that some of the groups in the sphere were to a degree captive to China.
Regarding the caricature at 9:26 - Does anyone know who the man in the background represents?
King of Italy Victor Emanuel II
@@EmperorTigerstar But doesn't italy stand between the Germans and the British already? So are there two Italies in this picture?
it's Austria. Red and white colours and.. it's written on the plume of the elmet.
You cant put rome and the old chinese empires as regional powers. LOL
Geographically they werent too vast, but at the time, both populstion wise and known territory. They basically each owned their own "worlds"
The world wasnt as connected, and thus every continent was bssically a dofferent planet, where people didnt even know other continents existed and what they looked like.
And these 2, also persia. Absolutely dominsted their neighbours and thus they were superpowers of the time.
If Spain is considered a superpower, shouldn't the Mongols be too? considering at the time, the Mongols held most of the world's population and economy and they were larger than the Spanish empire as well. I would argue Mongolia should hold the status of first superpower.
I agree, although some points in favor of Spain are that it maintained a semi-unified empire in viceroyalties and remained relevant for 3 centuries
No, Spain could sail anywhere in the world with their ships and had bigger cultural influence, the mongols could not gallop in the ocean as far i know and they assimilated into the cultures they conquered instead. Raw size is not everything, a big chunk of mongol empire lands was unpopulated plains
@@cristhianramirez6939 However they had the largest population.
@@cristhianramirez6939 I suppose that's true, considering the Mongols failed invasion of Japan and the fact that this was the 13th century and they were quite sparsely populated and overextended. However, their size certainly held merrit stretching from Korea to Europe.
On top of that, they controlled much of China allowing them to have access to a large population and a lot of wealth, spain was a maritime power but Mongolia was a more effective military power on land by far. At the time at least, projecting power through overseas bases and colonies wasn't absolutely necessary Mongolia owned trade routes that went through Europe and Asia.
swedish empire and poland lithuania should count tbf
As what? Great power? Regional power?
Regional power at most
The swedish empire was a great power for a short time. They were able to defeat Russia, Poland-Lithuania, Denmark and many smaller German Powers. I think its pretty much comparable to Napoleonic France. On land only beaten after their army was grinded down by attrition, no real way to project power globally and short lived. With the notable difference that Sweden had a much smaller population than its adversaries and Napoleonic France had the largest population in Europe at the time. If Napolonic France is a superpower than Sweden is a great power.
You should do a vid on the 7 days war
Feels like the selection screen for Age of Empires 3.
Brazil is definitely a regional power
You forgot the Irish Empire. We are conquering the world one Irish Pub at a time!
For being called one of the great powers of Europe during ww1 I’m surprised there is no mention of Austria or Austria-Hungary
missing empires:
Charlemagne Empire (regional)
Kievan Rus (regional)
Timurid Empire (multi-regional)
Prussian Empire (arguably part of German Empire; regional)
Austro-Hungarian Empire (regional)
Aztec Empire (regional)
Majapahit Empire (regional)
I would consider China as a superpower. While their ability to navally project power is limited due to all the islands surrounding China being in the US' sphere of influence, their sheer economic power alone makes them a superpower.
Economic power that mostly a lie since it makes up its gdp growth figures and has been for 30 years and a lot of economists believe it’s gdp to be about 10 trillion no where near its claimed 20 it does trade a lot but it’s too easy to switch to other suppliers that it’s power rly isn’t to a superpower level
@@ibxjackcat2565 politically motivated bullshit
True. Alot of the provincial leaders had to make up numbers so as to keep their job and potentially their lives. And the next one comes into office and must one up the previous, as if they stuck to the real figures that would be lower, they'd lose the same things. It's a vicious cycle
@@ibxjackcat2565 I would caution against using GDP as the only measure of an economy. GDP has a fundamental flaw which is that it relies on price, which is not necessarily the same as value. China might inflate its GDP figures but there is no denying its massive international economic influence.
China is too fragile to be a superpower, if you jostled it too hard it would probably shatter into warlords. It will be interesting to see if China doesn't break up when it's current Dictator dies since the country is in awful shape. They are the Italy of superpowers, where they are not a superpower despite some people calling them one.
I think 1980s Japan was more akin to a great power than Imperial Japan. While Imperial Japan held significantly more territory, it was really mostly limited to part of China and a fraction of the Pacifics, both of which were not particularly important in the era. If you hold Italy to be the least of the great powers, then Imperial Japan was not far from it. Even though the 1980s Japan was in a massive bubble, its Economic influence could be felt throughout the world even to this day. At its peak, its economy was as big as the rest of Asia combined. While the lack of military presence cannot equate it to China today, it still should not be discounted. The same could also be said of modern-day Germany. By the same logic, modern day Britain and France should also be counted as either Great Power or very high-up multi-regional power.
" it was really mostly limited to part of China and a fraction of the Pacifics" " then Imperial Japan was not far from it." Uh no. No No No. The "Co-Prosperity Sphere" encompassed all of Indochina, the Philippines, Indonesia, on top of basically the entire Chinese coast (the most developed part of the country) and their de-jure territories of all of Korea and Taiwan as well as the resource rich Manchuoko. By 1942 Japan had conquered 500 million people on top of the 100 million the Japanese Empire already represented (i.e. 73 Million Japanese, 24 Million Koreans, 6 Million Taiwanese). For comparison, the total British Empire, at its height in 1938 accounted for 531 million people. Post-War Japan was indeed an Economic superpower rivaling America's economy, but it was not anywhere close to the expansionist (however fragile) the Japanese Empire was.
"it still should not be discounted. The same could also be said of modern-day Germany." Germany is however a Regional Power (Multi-Regional if you consider it the primary actor of the EU, which you shouldn't). South Korea is now nearing par with Japan in Economic output (not to mention former socialist bloc countries like Czechia, Estonia and Slovenia have also reached par with Japan in GDP PPP/cap and productivity metrics) and has already matched it in soft power cultural output (not to mention Germany already surpassed it). It is laughable to consider contemporary Japan as more formidable that it's imperialist ancestor. Japan in the 1980s was a country living in the future, the year 2000. Japan in 2020 is the same, it is still living in the year 2000.
The UK and France stopped being Great Powers definitively in 1957. They still have outsized influence for countries of their size, but France primarily though the EU (as it's neo-colonial relations in Africa are more tenuous by the day) and relies on synergy with Germany to create the regulatory norms others follow and the UK through its legacy connections with it's former European settler colonies. But the UK is by no means any determinant of geopolitics anymore. It cannot dictate terms and is far behind the capacity of even "peer" France, and has been suffering from low productivity and market access.
@@serebii666again you are openly contradicting the actual population of japan at it's peak, show your source to say that Japan was more than 500 millions, all I find points to around the 463.
@@cardozoluciano9479 Jon Halliday, A Political History of Japanese Capitalism
"actual population of japan at it's peak" I am obviously not counting just de jure Japan (which was as I wrote around 100 million at the time, including dependencies). The figure encompasses the population of Japan's Co-Prosperity Sphere at it's height in 1942. Just in China alone it controlled 1/3 of their population and 1/4 of it's de jure territory.
@@serebii666 "actual population" by this it just gives me the feel that it's one of those books which try to go against all the rest of the historians, again, all the sources I can get point to being 463 millions, which is still over 20%, but not the 500 you claim.
@@cardozoluciano9479 And yet you cite no sources... 🤷♂🤷♂
This back and forth is getting a bit spurious. Whether Japan controlled 50 million more or less changes nothing about the point of the argument - That Imperial Japan was incredibly ferocious, expansionist and absolutely massive, comparable only to the UK's empire at its apogee, which contradicts OP's idea of it in relation to the Bubble Japan of the 1980s, let alone today.
I would say the Ming Dynasty was a Great Power due to the treasure fleets.
The Umayyads should likely have been mentioned since they're the larger predecessors to the Abbasids.
The Kingdom of Aksum would have been good as well, since they had control of not just East Africa, but the lower Arabian Peninsula as well.
Its complicate to understand why the inca should be a multi-regional power if you are not from the andes. The inca empire built itself from commerce and conquest. They use the trade routes of the Spondylus and expanded to different places and regions across the andes. From the jungle (the Chachapoyas) to the desserts (the Atacamas). Probably their empire was short-living but seeing what they achieved (and the spanish after them), I think they should be a multiregional power
South America is still just one region, despite its modern borders.
I agree. South of the equator, Spain barely expanded their effective area of influence a little bit beyond the conquered Inca empire (the Plata/Paraná/Paraguay rivers and Concepción), but not further more. Actual control over the remaining areas was only established by the modern independent nations.
And there will be many after us
ya
Like the video and mostly agree with your takes...HOWEVER! There were 5 states you put in the Great Power status that I believe better belong in the Multi-Regional category; those being: Ottomans, Portugal, Holland, Nazi-Germany, and the Russian Federation. The Ottomans aren't a GP because their an entity primarily known for influencing Europe/MiddleEast, with their flashiest conflicts being in Europe thus Multi-Regional status. Portugal & Holland I view as early colonial powers that were certainly economically influential but had to take every regional power into account; the reason the age of exploration even took place was because of Ottoman interference in European trade routes. The problem with calling Nazi-Germany a Great Power is that by that standard Imperial Germany would have been a super power. The WWII German state was a shadow of the one that went into the Great War, yes it was THE regional power to take into account, but Germany had to depend on it's weak allies to place them on other continental fronts (Italy in Africa & Japan for Asia). Basically Nazi-Germany was a flashy belligerent, however it's predecessor state was the one that had every right to call itself a Great Power due to it's military might, economic influence, cultural influence, and equal standing with the other great powers. And then there's the Russian Federation! Like the previous example the current Moscow led state is a shadow of it's former self. In fact the current conflict could be argued is a result of the states insecurity with it's standing with the other relevant powers. Compare the USSR's placement and standing with Russia's on a global stage, the only edge you could give Russia is in it's international trade/barter prior the "Special Military Operation" and even then that was only possible after going through an insane economic shock therapy in the 90's.
I will agree with you in the end of the video.World is charging and everything can become superpowers...if want it.
wrong flag for ottoman empire
Rome not even on the same level as the ottomans feels so cursed to me it’s crazy
This list is definitely scuffed
Hello there! I would debate on ancient powers, as the factors should be compared with powers during the same period. I think Han and Tang would deserve at least a Great Power ranking. Their military was 100% the number 1. There were no other countries that could match their economical power either. (For Han, maybe Romans had similar economical impact, but as Han already was in the feudal stage, I think Han takes this W) As for cultural power, SEA and Korea, Japan would be examples. Although there isnt much example for political power, as both rather invaded those who stood in their way.