- 11 Mar 2009 22:25
#1830901
The Byzantine, Chinese and Ottoman Empires were successful in terms of longevity. In terms of size, influence and the speed in which the empire was established Britain, Spain and France were pretty good. We can't comment on America yet because history is still unfolding.
I would still argue that the Turks are legitimate contenders for the title of most victorious nation ever because of its martial traditions and performances on the battlefields of Eurasia and Africa. You have to consider the terror inspired by the Huns in Europe and China and the Turks of the Abbasid army, the Seljuks, the Ottomans etc...
Anyway, we need to determine a set of criteria.
Yeah probably. The defeats in the early 20th century (prior to the Great War) were the most humiliating because the Empire was defeated by a bunch of disrespectful, Slavic, upstarts.
I don't entirely disagree but the 'curse of empire' plagues all former great powers. UK, France, Germany etc. have decent armies, enjoy great living standards and wield some influence but, really, no one cares that much (America, Russia and China are more important). Turkey has an army and some influence and that' it. Sweden... great living standards but overwhelmingly mediocre and irrelevant. Among the traditional empire only China and Russia maintain strong armies and have significant influence.
As an advocate of Sparta, I demand the Peloponnesian League to be put on that list. Lakedemonians are the proper hegemons of Greece and don't you forget it (Athens and Thebes sucks).
I would still argue that the Turks are legitimate contenders for the title of most victorious nation ever because of its martial traditions and performances on the battlefields of Eurasia and Africa. You have to consider the terror inspired by the Huns in Europe and China and the Turks of the Abbasid army, the Seljuks, the Ottomans etc...
Anyway, we need to determine a set of criteria.
The initial victories of the Turk were compensated with all the losses he suffered when poor sod became sick.
Yeah probably. The defeats in the early 20th century (prior to the Great War) were the most humiliating because the Empire was defeated by a bunch of disrespectful, Slavic, upstarts.
I wouldn't say Mongolia or Turkey are contenders at all unless you're speaking strictly in terms of number of military victories. Look at them today, they've both had quite a fall from glory. They're just two insignificant blobs on the map with nothing to be happy about these days. This could hardly be the result of being the most victorious nations ever.
I don't entirely disagree but the 'curse of empire' plagues all former great powers. UK, France, Germany etc. have decent armies, enjoy great living standards and wield some influence but, really, no one cares that much (America, Russia and China are more important). Turkey has an army and some influence and that' it. Sweden... great living standards but overwhelmingly mediocre and irrelevant. Among the traditional empire only China and Russia maintain strong armies and have significant influence.
Also be specific, which one of the States I mentioned above, Mycene, the Ionian confederation under Pericles(aka Athenian empire), Alexander's empire, Heraclius empire and Basil's Empire, was not a Greek nation?
As an advocate of Sparta, I demand the Peloponnesian League to be put on that list. Lakedemonians are the proper hegemons of Greece and don't you forget it (Athens and Thebes sucks).
"It is a dangerous thing to be a Machiavelli. It is a disastrous thing to be a Machiavelli without virtū."
- Hans J. Morgenthau
- Hans J. Morgenthau