Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
How do you determine if a "military power" is a hegemonic power if its reach is not global or is transitory?
For example, you proposed a Han dynasty versus Roman empire scenario. This scenario is not viable as the two states existed in mutually isolated spheres of influence.
fuser wrote:Its not impossible as both these empires had relations with Parthia and shared border with it.
fuser wrote:Parthia paid tribute to Hans and latter send many emissaries too Parthia while maintaining many border garrisons alongside the Parthian border which were only a few days march from the Parthian capital Ctesiphon.
In fact during Trajan's campaign, Roman army was within 2-3 days march from Chinese garrison.
Thunderhawk wrote:The reason I brought up Rome under Hadrian and France under Napoleon III was about their respective positions relative to other powers of their time, and how that compares to later periods. It strikes me that France under Napoleon III was further from the top spot then Rome during Hadrian, yet I think France would be considered more powerful than Rome (military hardware aside) due to France's direct political and trade power world wide, as well as it's soft power.
Groves wrote:The disparity between Britain and France in the 19th century is somewhat misleading, Starman. France was certainly the leading contender to challenge British economic and military power, not to mention cultural influence, especially in the period after 1856 and before 1871.
Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]
@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]
There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]