Is America the Greatest Superpower in History?

[Lord de Lyonesse]

Britain had the biggest Empire as im sure most Americans know (i hope) It could do all the things America can do technology depending. It too had foriegn bases in independant countries and controlled it with a relatively low standing army. Which to me is more impressive than anything America can do (not to say it isnt nice).

China is something to watch though, perhaps world conquest lies in their hands now?

[diegis]

China and Russia's technology is far inferior to Americas at the moment and thus I would see them being beaten albeit being a tougher task than say Iraq...in the future however who knows

Well, if we consider that the definition of a superpower can be applied just to period after WW II, to countries who can have due to technology, a possibility to reach and influence any part of the planet, then yes, is betwen USA and USSR, and USA win. But if we took all the known history, and see who was/is the most greatest and influential power of the planet in her times, as an overall, the title go to Rome for sure, who was in her time more stronger and influent than was US at least until now, we dont know what will be after 300 years for ex., maybe US will disapear, or will really become the greatest or become just a regional power and others will take the first place, dont know. With all respect for UK, even if they had the biggest empire, it was made by conquering "softer" "targets" and avoiding "stronger" ones, so they was just a world power betwen the others, they doesnt had a big word to say in Europe, USA comes out from there influence area too, and in Asia was as well Japan who was a competitor. And, as population, Rome had at a point a third part of globe population inside her borders from what i read somewhere, more then any other superpower.
So, as military power :
1 - Rome, she defeat any significant enemy, and was virtualy imposible to be defeated. Germans was beated too, but wasnt conquered because wasnt of any significant value for empire, and they become a danger just when Rome was destroyed from inside by endless internal strugle for power, civil wars and fall of economy. Parthian dinasty fall after they was defeated by Romans, and Sassanids was conquered by arabs precisely because they was too weak and "wounded" after fights with Romans.
US in the mean time is still treathned by russian WMD arsenal (not sure about others as China for ex., but not at that extend i think), in Romans times nobody was able to treath them with total anihilation. US as well, even if agree that its the strongest today, mainly due to technology, it doesnt have as well the "guts" to go military against some too dangerous enemies (because fear of human lifes losses, and other view of life then how peoples in ancient times see that for ex.), and prefer other ways of action (politic, economic, and just as last resort military, but against some smaller powers). They defeat Irak and ocupy Afghanistan, but had problems in Korea and Vietnam, and even NATO (so not just US alone) avoid a ground fight in Kosovo, precisly because the terrain, wheather and a better trained enemy make the technological advance to not be too big, and a lot of losses for them very possible. We may say that the only strong enemy who US defeat pretty much alone (some 90-95 %, and the final blow) was Japan.
2- Cultural- Rome for sure, latin alphabet is the most used today, even english language have around 70 % ovf vocabulary from latin origin, and was considered at a point a contact language betwen latin and germanic ones, latin language as developed durring time is still speak in several variants in Europe and South America, and the christian faith is the biggest religion of the world, and become like that just after was considered by roman emperors as the oficial religion of the Roman empire.
US influence was to impose english language as international language for mainly economic things, due to globalisation and use of american dollar as prime money in the world.
3 -Economy- Rome controled the world economy of her time at least as USA control today the world economy, but i think Rome was even better (less "adversaries")
4- Science- well, this is a close one, Rome used the most advanced stuff in shes times, US do the same now, even if none of them two was the only ones in their times who used the most advanced stuff, let say is a equal match at this.

[Pious Agnost]

1 - Rome, she defeat any significant enemy, and was virtualy imposible to be defeated. Germans was beated too, but wasnt conquered because wasnt of any significant value for empire, and they become a danger just when Rome was destroyed from inside by endless internal strugle for power, civil wars and fall of economy. Parthian dinasty fall after they was defeated by Romans, and Sassanids was conquered by arabs precisely because they was too weak and "wounded" after fights with Romans.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is King. Not to say Rome wasn't formidable, but after Carthage there really weren't any consolidated elements to oppose them

US in the mean time is still treathned by russian WMD arsenal (not sure about others as China for ex., but not at that extend i think), in Romans times nobody was able to treath them with total anihilation.

Hardly, the US and Russia may not be too friendly, but they're certainly not threatened by each other

US as well, even if agree that its the strongest today, mainly due to technology, it doesnt have as well the "guts" to go military against some too dangerous enemies (because fear of human lifes losses, and other view of life then how peoples in ancient times see that for ex.), and prefer other ways of action (politic, economic, and just as last resort military, but against some smaller powers). They defeat Irak and ocupy Afghanistan, but had problems in Korea and Vietnam, and even NATO (so not just US alone) avoid a ground fight in Kosovo, precisly because the terrain, wheather and a better trained enemy make the technological advance to not be too big, and a lot of losses for them very possible. We may say that the only strong enemy who US defeat pretty much alone (some 90-95 %, and the final blow) was Japan.

The Serbians were not better trained, at all. The reason a ground combat was avoided is because, they didn't need to, they could do everything they wanted from the air, and there was nothing to be done about it. Saves lives, takes enemies lives, sweet deal, as a caveat, the United States did not take Japan alone, Japan had masses of troops occupying and protecting what they had taken from China.

2- Cultural- Rome for sure, latin alphabet is the most used today, even english language have around 70 % ovf vocabulary from latin origin, and was considered at a point a contact language betwen latin and germanic ones, latin language as developed durring time is still speak in several variants in Europe and South America, and the christian faith is the biggest religion of the world, and become like that just after was considered by roman emperors as the oficial religion of the Roman empire.
US influence was to impose english language as international language for mainly economic things, due to globalisation and use of american dollar as prime money in the world.

Someone who speaks Chinese, can pick up records from the Han dynasty (Same time as Rome) and still read them. Culturally, Rome certainly has a close competitor. Another caveat, the United States was not alone in spreading the English language

3 -Economy- Rome controled the world economy of her time at least as USA control today the world economy, but i think Rome was even better (less "adversaries")

The GDP estimates for Gupta (Mauryan?) India and Han China, are larger than that of Rome, those are two states of the same time that likely had a more powerful economy.

4- Science- well, this is a close one, Rome used the most advanced stuff in shes times, US do the same now, even if none of them two was the only ones in their times who used the most advanced stuff, let say is a equal match at this.

India and China were just as advanced.

Just as how even now, Japan and Europe are just as advanced as the United States

[Ataraxie]

No. Victorian Britain had similair status and they had a massive colonial empire as well.

...also carte blanche to crack heads whenever the need arose.
America can't actually do that, despite all the bluster, simply because modern society & western media-dominated does not allow it.
For example - if the year was 18-something, and a country such as Korea had been running their mouth at Britain, they'd have gotten a gunboat, and then vicious glaring, and finally an army and their capital city burned/viceroy installed.

These days, no-one can get away with that sort of behaviour, and so the notion of America as anything like greater [in terms of influence and actual power rather than mere potential] than any of the previous great powers ignores reality. (Iraq doesn't count for the purposes of this description - excuses other than "they looked at us funny" were invented. There's quite a few British, French, even German colonial spats that really were just that infantile in origin).

You can have all the aircraft-carriers and ICBMs and Marine sergeants called Max Fightmaster you could possibly want, the fact that you can't use most of them is the more important point.

[Pious Agnost]

A fair point that would throw Britain back into the running, methinks

[diegis]

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is King. Not to say Rome wasn't formidable, but after Carthage there really weren't any consolidated elements to oppose them
Hardly, the US and Russia may not be too friendly, but they're certainly not threatened by each other
The Serbians were not better trained, at all. The reason a ground combat was avoided is because, they didn't need to, they could do everything they wanted from the air, and there was nothing to be done about it. Saves lives, takes enemies lives, sweet deal, as a caveat, the United States did not take Japan alone, Japan had masses of troops occupying and protecting what they had taken from China.

Someone who speaks Chinese, can pick up records from the Han dynasty (Same time as Rome) and still read them. Culturally, Rome certainly has a close competitor. Another caveat, the United States was not alone in spreading the English language

The GDP estimates for Gupta (Mauryan?) India and Han China, are larger than that of Rome, those are two states of the same time that likely had a more powerful economy.

India and China were just as advanced.

Just as how even now, Japan and Europe are just as advanced as the United States

Are you kidding? After Carthage was Macedonia, Seleucid kingdom, helenistic Egypt, Dacia and Parthia, to name just organized kingdoms significant back then.
About the war in Kosovo, thats your opinion, mine is the one i writed previously. I even read somewhere some words of an american officer who said something like "we dont fight in mountains and jungles".
About culture, yes, let say chinese was a competitor, but beside peoples from China and around, who others use their alphabet and their language ? Or religion ? Latin language just evolved more, combined with local dialects, and give spanish, french, portugal, italian and romanian.
About economy, i said Rome vs USA (the dominants over all), we dont know for sure the GDP of Rome, Han and Gupta (which i consider anyway weaker military then Rome), and USA have in EU and Japan (combined with several other asiatic countries) the same economic adversaries.

[Batavian]

Anyone who used guns, tanks and modern things to win their land.

Used them against people who ALSO had guns, tanks and modern things to keep their land...

Congrats...1000th post!

[Slobadog Melosivec]

Are you kidding? After Carthage was Macedonia, Seleucid kingdom, helenistic Egypt, Dacia and Parthia, to name just organized kingdoms significant back then.

And some of those kingdoms (Seleucia in particular comes to mind.) had much declined by the time they started fighting it out with Rome.

It is in fact common in history for countries to become great largely through exploiting the decline of previously great neighboring countries.

About the war in Kosovo, thats your opinion, mine is the one i writed previously. I even read somewhere some words of an american officer who said something like "we dont fight in mountains and jungles".

The question is: could the USA have accomplished its goals in the Kosovo war more effectively and more efficiently and with less cost if it used ground forces in conjuction with air forces? Was it really necessary for us Americans to "fight in mountains and jungles" in this particular war? You must remember that the Kosovo war was not meant to be a "straightforward crush the evil empire before it takes over the world" type conflict. Our strategy would be understandably different.

About culture, yes, let say chinese was a competitor, but beside peoples from China and around, who others use their alphabet and their language ? Or religion ? Latin language just evolved more, combined with local dialects, and give spanish, french, portugal, italian and romanian.

On a cultural note: Much of the influance of Rome's culture happened after Rome ceased to be a "power".

[Andurath]

That is one of the worst posts i have seen in my entire life. You are laying all the blame of Germany beating you guys on the USA? That doesnt surprise me. You have gone throughout the entire VV posting posts like these that make no sense, are full of nationalism, bash the USA, oh and did i mention, they make no sense?

While it is not possible for me to collaborate his entire post. It's a fact that Standard oil supplied 50% of Hitler's oil until 1945. There is much wrong that American companies do in thier boardrooms at night. One naturally wonders what politicians had to be made deaf in order for things like this to continue so long.

If there is no conspiracy it's hard to explain away such facts. Be my guest and please explain.

[diegis]

And some of those kingdoms (Seleucia in particular comes to mind.) had much declined by the time they started fighting it out with Rome.

It is in fact common in history for countries to become great largely through exploiting the decline of previously great neighboring countries.

The question is: could the USA have accomplished its goals in the Kosovo war more effectively and more efficiently and with less cost if it used ground forces in conjuction with air forces? Was it really necessary for us Americans to "fight in mountains and jungles" in this particular war? You must remember that the Kosovo war was not meant to be a "straightforward crush the evil empire before it takes over the world" type conflict. Our strategy would be understandably different.

On a cultural note: Much of the influance of Rome's culture happened after Rome ceased to be a "power".

Yes, some of them was not in their prime, but Rome wasnt either during Punic wars for ex.

About NATO/USA vs Serbia, first i didnt say that serbians was necessary better trained then some NATO forces, but compared with iraqians or afghans. But they still was able to treath the NATO troops on the gtound, and the situation in the area is not at all resolved, theoreticaly Kosovo still belong to Serbia, and is a delayed bomb there, so NATO intervention wasnt as decisive on long time, and not as decisive as a Roman one in ancient time in such situations.

And on culture stuff, either way, it is a Rome influence, and precisely because was so influential in her time.

[Pious Agnost]

While it is not possible for me to collaborate his entire post. It's a fact that Standard oil supplied 50% of Hitler's oil until 1945. There is much wrong that American companies do in thier boardrooms at night. One naturally wonders what politicians had to be made deaf in order for things like this to continue so long.

If there is no conspiracy it's hard to explain away such facts. Be my guest and please explain.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Either that, or the Americans are evil

[Caelius]

These days, no-one can get away with that sort of behaviour, and so the notion of America as anything like greater [in terms of influence and actual power rather than mere potential] than any of the previous great powers ignores reality. (Iraq doesn't count for the purposes of this description - excuses other than "they looked at us funny" were invented. There's quite a few British, French, even German colonial spats that really were just that infantile in origin).

You can have all the aircraft-carriers and ICBMs and Marine sergeants called Max Fightmaster you could possibly want, the fact that you can't use most of them is the more important point.

America got away with it six years ago.

Russia, one year ago.

[Slobadog Melosivec]

Yes, some of them was not in their prime, but Rome wasnt either during Punic wars for ex.

Rome however was not fighting the Seleucids during the Punic wars were they? My point is just that not every opponent of Rome was a great power when they fought Rome. Just like not every opponent of America was great when the USA fought them (Spain comes to mind.). My point is nothing more.

About NATO/USA vs Serbia, first i didnt say that serbians was necessary better trained then some NATO forces, but compared with iraqians or afghans. But they still was able to treath the NATO troops on the gtound, and the situation in the area is not at all resolved, theoreticaly Kosovo still belong to Serbia, and is a delayed bomb there, so NATO intervention wasnt as decisive on long time, and not as decisive as a Roman one in ancient time in such situations.

I'm not aware of the Romans engaging in peacekeeping missions in such situations. The Kosovo war was technically a peacekeeping mission. Peacekeeping missions naturally tend to produce less decisive results than outright conquest missons.


Peacekeeping decisivness < conquest decisivness. You will recieve no disagreement from me on that point.


It would however be unfair to compare American peacekeeping missions to Roman conquest missions.

And on culture stuff, either way, it is a Rome influence, and precisely because was so influential in her time.

However much of the spread of Rome's culture was carried on by other countries who could reach areas that Rome could not reach or influance or live long enough to influance. I'm just saying that Rome cannot take full credit for the wide ranging spread of its culture. Other countries get some credit. Even the USA gets some credit.



I'm also just saying that Rome received no power from the spread of their culture that occurred after Rome died. "Power" is important since "power" is in this threads title.

[Andurath]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Either that, or the Americans are evil

Many people have died for that idea. Evil? Name a single country or person that does not have a portion of it in them. It's the obvious motivation for standard oils actions but hardly a good explanation.

[Pious Agnost]

Many people have died for that idea. Evil? Name a single country or person that does not have a portion of it in them. It's the obvious motivation for standard oils actions but hardly a good explanation.

That last part was a joke, of course Americans aren't evil.

Standard Oil did it for the profit, end of story

[Andurath]

That last part was a joke, of course Americans aren't evil.

Standard Oil did it for the profit, end of story

Well that is for sure. Point taken. The fact it went on for so long is tempting fare for conspiracy theorists. That fact alone has me asking questons.